Neville,

If it were said in that context, you'd be correct.  But within the "spiritual" context, it's worse than meaningless, it's downright misleading!  It presents the aire of intellectual discourse, thus entralling the uneducated masses, but actually means nothing in that context.

Put another way, "What does creative process have to do with spirituality?"  Other than possibly the intentional process of discovering the many ways to hoodwink the uninitiated, of course.

I've seen two distinct techiques used, to some success, in bewildering the earnest seeker: (1) The pseudo-intellectual approach.  Like the one mentioned in this thread.  To wit, couch some meaningless garbage (in the spritual context) in pseudo-intellectual double-speak to make your audience think you have really got it together and have something important to say. (2) The anti-intellectual approach.  We all have the direct experience of THAT technique.  M fulfills it to a "t."  To wit, make your audience think that the intellect is useless and will never "answer your questions."  Only direct experience will answer the questions. Only "intuition" counts, nothing else.  Thus they can appeal to their intended audience.  Both, however, have the same intention...... to get you to drag your wallet out of your back pocket (or purse) and lay the funding in their particular direction. 

Of course, we know why each "guru" chooses their preferred technique.  Either they are somewhat educated or they are uneducated.  It's obvious which is which, in this thread.  M could NEVER take the intellectual approach.  He tries, on occasion, but fails miserably at every attempt.  Cohen "sounds good," but on any kind closer inspection, he fails the "making any sense at all" test.  

I guess, in that regard, M and Cohen have alot in common..... they just don't make any sense at all!