Contemporary Theology: A Wide Spectrum with a Common Premise?

 

Julian, as an Anglican, and someone personally acquainted with Tom, since he was my Greek exegesis professor at Mcgill back in the 80s when he was still in Montreal, and he also preached at my wedding, I was interested in this video. It's very funny! I love Colbert, and it's cool to see Tom, who seems to have retained his sense of humour I remember well, through all the bishoping stuff which could kick the tar out of many people's senses of humour - another Lambeth coming up, don't envy him…

umm… so what was your question? not hearing anything radical here. As Tom points out, this theology is straight out of the NT.

 

These questions (resurrection of the body vs spiritual resurrection, eschatology) have been with Christianity for so long that would be quite more surprising to expect them to suddenly disappear. Imagine the fallout! Look at the current Episcopal rift that was brought about due to policy changes relative to homosexuals.

Also, I do not think that it is fair to say that this is the most sophisticated Christian theology.

I do understand your if you wish to problematicize this to spur further individual development among readers. Also, great site!

 

Thanks, I do not know what there is more to say…

 

Allow me to clarify myself: I'd like to contribute, but don't know what specifically to say.

 

Julian,

Interesting juxtaposition of perspectives!  I have an old high school friend who used to be a fan of N.T. Wright's work (he and his wife are actually now leaning more in the direction of Buddhism), so I'll be sure to ask him to check out this interview.

You asked about the need to retain the notion of God, comparing it to goblins and faeries.  One thing I think “God” stands for historically is a trans-human dimension of being – something that is well above and beyond human being, something that in some way underlies this amazing spectacle of creation.  As I've said in other conversations with you, I'm not a theist myself, but I believe something a theist might ask you is, “Is there anything in your vision of spirituality that is greater than, above, superior to human being?  Is there any One, any force, to whom or to which we can orient meaningfully as truly transcendent?  Or are we essentially the pinnacle of existence?”

Many people – I would say certainly most theists – feel a need to allow for a creative intelligence that is greater than the human mind, that is deeper and more profound than anything that appears to be allowed for in an atheistic/materialistic metaphysical cosmology.  They balk at the idea that the human mind is “it” – the highest singular intelligence ever to have existed.

I am not sure how long or convincingly I can “sustain” speaking from a hypothetical theist's perspective – hopefully a theist will respond to your blog – but I think I have framed at least one argument that a theist would probably make (for a number of reasons, psychological and philosophical).

Best wishes,

B.

 

After Balder's post, I'd like to say that it makes sense to retain the word “God” for Spirit in second person.That's already part of AQAL, as far as I understand, so I took this for granted.

 

well i think the great fear among the religious folks, and new-age folks, i've spoken to is that it reveals a kind of egocentricity and narcissism to see ourselves at the “pinnacle of existence”—-to see ourselves as the axis on which everything rotates. there's a preference to see ourselves as humble and obedient contributors to the rotation, but to assume that we ultimately have control is frightening and arrogant.

this gets very confusing because of course the notion of perfect control of the outer events of our lives (environmental factors over which we have no control) is ridiculous, but i think that's what many religious folks think a person is proposing when a more secular-humanist approach is suggested. it's a fine line, but to me, such a distinct and clear one—there seems to be not much emphasis on the idea that we, as accountable adults, take ownership of our own actions (and the perceptions which lead to those actions) and can assume that these actions will have consequences and effects, without assuming that we thereby think we can control everything. i've heard many new-age folks say, “it's so ignorant of us to think we're all that there is.” and you can actually discern where this notion comes from—many people have what feels like a transecendent sense of beauty that is in direct contrast with the squalor they see in life, and so, if one goes by that alone and doesn't trouble to search farther, it is easy to assume that heaven is “up there.” psychologically, i think that for many overwhelmed people throughout the centuries, the idea of heaven has simply been a tremendous resource. i've known plenty of people for whom the strict structure of religion provided something that allowed them to live relatively healthier lives and to make healthier choices—but again, i think it is often a fill-in for the structure they maybe did not receive developmentally. within a framework, their conscience is absolved and they can experience marginal freedom. it removes the psychological “negative introject” and allows people to enjoy themselves without fear of over-indulging (i've noticed the need for religion in many, many people who lack self-discipline and have a slightly dionysian streak.) but it is somehow terrifying for these people if it is suggested that it is they themselves who are exercising the power to abstain from harmful things, rather than the lord.

i hope i am making some sense. there's a personal reason people turn to religin which i seem to understand, but for some reason, on a larger scale, the reasons seem to elude me. i think there is a false humility which is honored in religion, something that is held up as virtue and surrender. i'm not sure where, culturally, this specific great fear that we will be narcissists if we begin to be accountable and self-aware comes in. i personally believe that such awareness leads to kindness and global concern for the wellfare of others, and away from narcissism. and i wonder if something as seemingly odd as a story (very odd, when you think about it) could spurn such collective terror of employing our own latent abilities to make decisions and think critically. i know that among many religious and new-age folk, atheists and even people who call themselves secular humanists are seen as the most cocky, arrogant, egocentric people there are. i think balder's right in that for the people i'm talking about, the assumption that we alone have the power to re-create is very scary.

 

Hi, Julian. Thanks for an enlightening and thought provoking post.

FYI, my reply is here:

http://joe-perez.com/2008/07/the-sentiment-of-belief-and-the-embodiment-of-god/

 

j—i agree with what you were saying about the irony of the idea that there is so much unseen narcissism within religion or new-age thinking. and i agree that the resource can and needs to be something altogether healthier and better. i am fascinated with the questions of why….both culturally and personally such a myth can take hold of a species so capable of rational thought. i understand we are capable of the opposite, but it surprises me that our capacity for rational thought could scare us so much, and that for many people it could threaten what they feel is their sense of wonder and beauty….but i think you addressed it well above in your response to balder, about projecting depth into non-sentient things.

and i've wondered that about green myself, and don't know whether it's sentimentality or a framework that green has adhered to that dictates “fairness” as in “live and let live.” i believe they may interpret this an attack on pre-rational people, and that even differentiation of any kind is an attack. there's a spectrum too of course—i think a lot of green is on the fence about what to really believe in a spiritual sense, but i know that an across-the-board thing seems to be to want to be “fair” to everyone. and perhaps this sort of lack-of-action thinking is fueled by an underlying fear of true acceptance of mortality…..as i write that seems to be making more sense to me.  

 

Hi Julian, not sure why anyone would think NT Wright is a good example of where Christian Theology is going, but you probably know he is one of the more conservative bishops in the worldwide communion. You want cutting edge? you'd need to look elsewhere…

 

when was the last shift in the common vernacular in reference to “religion,” or has there ever been one? i do think language is important, too. i realize how loosely i was using my own terminology above. i simple version of integralese would probably appeal to most people. i've noticed that i think one of the reasons germans find it easy to think critically is that there is often one word to represent an entire concept (i may have mentioned that before.)

 

by “most people” i mean, people interested in developing this kind of thing.

i have a feeling the word “consciousness” had a totally different connotation in the sixties than it does now….

 

yeah on the brain thing, i forget what it's called, but it's about your pre-existing structure that determines how you organize and internalize events (kalsched may have talked about it.) i know they've been able to map chemicals responsible for dissociation with mri's. i also know that traumatologists have noticed kids responding to trauma either by aggression and hypervigilance or mostly by dissociation, and i would guess the “brain type” you're referring to tends to dissociate. but i also think there's an artistic streak in there (in many people) with the obsessive/paranoid tendency.

 

Questions like: If the vast majority of the world have used and continue to use certain words (like “religion” and “god”) in specific ways, does it make sense to include these words in a contemporary, transrational Integral spirituality if we mean something entirely different by these and other words in common usage?

i don't think it does make sense no. however, sense may not be the objective of the exercise here. there are numerous possible motives for this - none of them in my opinion consistent with integrated wellness of the individual culture or nature. one may be invested psychologically in the rejection of differentiation and identification - in other words, logic. alternatively, truth may not be the primary objective of one's consideration. only rarely - say in mathematics and natural logic - is language capable of exactitude, but it is incumbent upon anyone wishing to discuss epistemological matters meaningfully, that they seek to maximise - appropriate to any particular context - the precision of their communication. definition of terms may be an infinite regress, and the cultural context within which a term is used may affects its collectively understood meaning, but this is no justification for a relativist flexicon motivated by psychological avoidance.

Might it not be more skillful to come up with more precise terminology that is not so easily confused with the ubiquitous otherworldly, mythic literalist formulations?

not just skillful, but more intellectually honest (actually, we could dispense with the word intellectual here - there is no other form of honesty or dishonesty, since only the intellect is capable of deciding to be dishonest). i would also question whether confusion (or at least vagueness of meaning) is considered undesirable by those using terms such as god: a word which can mean anything in particular can to the same extent mean nothing in particular, and usage of it thus stands to offend the smallest number of people. i see much avoidance of simple truth and honesty in the desire to protect peoples' feelings. however laudable the sentiment, such a policy inevitably worsens one's relationship to reality and prolongs suffering - in the form of resistance to what is - at best.

I wonder if this might be based in a pleasing and soothing  fallacy about all people really meaning the same thing but not realizing it - or that contained at the heart of all religions and concepts of god is actually the meaning that we would most like to interpret…

i think that this is at times the case, and considerably more often than advocates of such terms and concepts would like to admit (for the same obvious reasons of avoidance of unwanted emotions and conflict whether internal or external).

This is tricky stuff - especially if we look honestly at the bloody history of religious oppression and war, crusades, torture, terrorism, etc, etc.. I think we might still be prone to getting caught in a kind of “myth of the given” viz a vis there being a transcendent reference point for all of these varied interpretations of words like “god.”

given the preponderance of literalisation of theistic and “superagent” concepts worldwide, and the reality of whole populations overwhelmingly arrested at literal stages of consciousness and deeply uncritical metaphysical thinking through cultural transmission of inhibitory belief systems inimical to the free development of consciousness, i think it is disingenuous in the extreme for anyone seeking to promote higher and more integrated levels of consciousness to glibly use the same terms and language as literalists, in the service of some spurious kind of inclusiveness, whether methodologically pluralist or otherwise.

I wonder too if in buying into these sorts of fallacies we ignore the possibility that much of what has been called religion can be understoood as a kind of psychological defense mechanism

this would be my first swipe of the razor, and i suspect that further causes by way of explanation would not often be found wanting.

and that contemporary spirituality might be transcneding precisely that defense in the name of a more integrated and honest adult practice-based methodology.

i see little contemporary spirituality which does not merely substitute this particular flavour of epistemological rejection for another, but as a recommended general orientation, i agree wholeheartedly

For me the ideas of both “transcend and include” and “differentiate to integrate” are useful here. What are we transcending and what are we including? How do we differentiate transrational ideas from pretational ideas if we continue to us the same terminology? If sophisticated theologians, literalist believers and non-dual mystics the world over all use the same terms from different points of view might we not do better to find specific terminology for what we really mean - so as to be clear about what we don't reallly mean?

in principle i would say yes. however, again, inhibiting factors such as psychological repression and in-group inhibition might indicate that clarity of meaning is not actually the purpose, that clarity is to be considered a justifiable sacrifice against the greater “good” of a pretended commonality which in fact does not exist.

I wonder if this kind of exploration of the terms we use and what we do and don't mean might reveal that we are more sentimentally and superstitiously attached to prerational formulations of spirituality than we'd like to admit.

and afraid of conflict, disagreement, intellectual courage, and facing existential truth.

For me, contemporary transrational spirituality has to do with meditative expansion, mind-body integration, energetic initiation and dedicated development of the spiritual gifts of intellect, contemplation, intuitive creativity, embodied experience and the raw emotional honesty of our existential condition. It also has to do with applying scientific method a la the three modes of knowing and being in contact with a sense of genuine awe for the natural world and it's evolutionary process.

in other words, being deeply and truly alive to what is (?). we'll come back to the transrational thing later - for now, i think the phrase is as ill-advised as some of the terms which inspired this post, and for the same reasons - there are other agendas and contexts within which the accepted meaning of that term do not sit well with what i take to be your own understanding of it for example. (i would refer to the poll of definitions i conducted some time back).

While I know there are Integral formulations along the lines of ” god in the first, second and third person” that speak to this, I am not sure i am comfortable with that formulation given the history of the word “god” and it's definition in the minds of the vast majority of people. I also don't really find I have much use for terms that in common usage refer to a supernatural metaphysics that I find fantastical (indeed delusional)  and beside the point.

i concur completely. the term god is redundant at best in the real world. (apart from its delicious use as an expletive and an expression of ecstactic boundlessness during the sexual act ; )

This is the kind of philosophical positrion that makes the most sense to me -  Winston King on the existential nature of Buddhist ultimates…

i think a closer examination of that text would reveal some key instances of disagreement between what i understand your principles and ethos to be, and what i understand gotama buddha's to have been, especially in the area of emotional suffering and integration of disowned aspects of the self.

For me this link  returns us to what for me is the central function of spiritual practice as I allude to below…but maybe I am just too pragmatic!

as opposed to impractical? good!

Now of course this is Colbert doing his standard satirical humor, but check out Wright's ideas. Iis this the future of Christianity?

i don't see much difference between this and “serious” christianity in the actual content.

Is this contemporary mystic transrational religion? If not, how do we differentiate it from more Integral formulations?

or indeed, how do we differentiate those more integral formulations from more epistemologically accurate formulations?

For contrast, here is an intro to Ken Wilber's dialog with Brother David Steindl-Rast. This is of course much more sophisticated theology, and I don't want to donwplay the intelligence and beauty of the conversation

i don't think we should overplay the intelligence or beauty of it either, or give unqualified praise to sophistication in itself. spirit and god are glibly offered in wilber's first sentence as givens which are radically unqualifiable, and beyond any conceptions we can form of them. in line with the enquiry of this post, such unquantifiables and unidentifiables are neither necessary nor sufficient for a full, rich, and glorious apprehension of what it is to be alive, and are intellectually (and therefore morally) indefensible as far as i can see.

1) How long until a significant percentage of leading religious intellectuals - let alone ordinary believers - can think at this level?

this presupposes that this level of thinking is desirable. while i think the attainment of such a level of consciousness in itself is a tremendously admirable achievement, the content of the discourse betrays considerable weakness and pathology along critical lines of thinking.

i am reluctant to validate such thinking by suggesting that it is even a suitable waystation on wilber's suggested religious conveyor belt. in any case, i think that the monumental reframing exercise which is suggested behind the supposed commonality of non-meaning that you rightly question above, would - as you say - be strengthened considerably by the adoption of language which appears less designed to play to the gallery.

2) Even then, why is the attempt to perform all manner of mental gymnastics to somehow “reconcile” differing ideas that are all made-up make-believe stories in the first place even particularly important?

i think it is important chiefly because of the violence that it does to intellects and culture around the world. i think anyone who has even the tiniest inkling that not all rings true in such attempts at reconciliation should feel perfectly comfortable in voicing that awareness and enquiring further. this is not generally encouraged in cultures where myths are presented as givens (including the totality of the myth of the myth of the given).

Which leads to 3) Why is the concept of god any more necessary than the concept of goblins or forest spirits for the cultivation of a contemporary spirituality that includes deep contemplative practice, shadow work, and an attempt to reconcile inner and outer experience via applying rigorous scientific method to all three modes of knowing?

it is not. in fact i would say it is equally undesirable, since integration necessitates the deconstruction and removal of false conceptual defences against both feelings and facts.

(As in eye of flesh, eye of mind and eye of spirit.)

we can discuss wilber's fatally flawed application of the three strands another time ; )

How much do we need (a la Brother David) a fancy speculative story about an invisible creator that is both prior to and immanent in all of creation, or (a la Bishop Wright) a second-stage of post earthly heaven in which our bodies are resurrected any more than we need other mythic contructs about invisible worlds and immortal beings? What purpose do these serve?

about as much as we need emotional repression, relativism, and the idea that technology will solve everything for us and it'll all be alright.

as for purpose, i think you've alluded to several of the purposes above. and while pantheism may be slightly more justifiable than panentheism, both can be seen more justifiably as projections of conceptual creation - until and unless evidence confirming them and explaining evidence apparently to the contrary becomes available.

I know Brother David and Ken Wilber are trying to point at something transrational, and I am listening to the full interview and finding it to be poetic and fun - in fact even genuinely transrational in it's metaphorical passion. (In fact the more I listen while writing this, the more I realize that the interview is actually much less concerned with “god” than the introduction suggests…)

i have no idea how concerned with god the discussion is - i have no idea what they mean by it. do they? do they share the meaning? i'm dubious. in any case, there are limitless metaphorical riches to be mined in the imagination without recourse to such a transparently expedient concept as god.

But I can't help but wonder why we need to tie these kinds of intellectual/spiritual riffs to an invisible mythic  god?

we don't need to, and i wish more people would wonder about this.

Which perhaps raises the question: Is there an invisible god that is not mythic?

it's a charitable question, although the generosity required to raise it - once again - does get the old razor twitching. i'm open to evidence, and engaged in practise which should reveal as much of the invisible as is useful to my particular human endeavour. i'm not aware of any evidence to support that notion. is anyone else?

I am not sure. It's a sticky concept. Are we Integralites

hmmm - “we integralites”… there's another word of a thousand meanings, in a phrase of uncertain providence. tread carefully young icewalker ; )

how easily we suppose ourselves to be the opposite of that which we actually are (that's a general observation btw). i appreciate you haven't got it tattooed on your forehead (well not on the outside anyway ; ) but the umbrella known as integral theory itself seems to me to be something of a coopted haven for all sorts of contradictory and vague philosophical assertions to rub shoulders without needing to see eye to eye.

priviledging certain versions of the same unprovable metaphysical speculation because we like how they sound? Perhaps more essentially - are we trying to include something that we might do better to transcend?

i would say so

Do we really need speculative metaphysical spiritual beliefs?

metaphysical speculation - absolutely (metaphysics being a branch of philosophy in which the nature of reality is studied). adoption of speculation as belief in the absence of sufficient evidence? that way lies the abyss…
 
I know I don't. They simply are not particularly interesting to me.

i suspect you're less invested in avoiding pain than most. come to think of it, i'd rather have you as god than the one we're supposed to have. and when i've got over my procrastination a little more, i'd put myself up for the job as well. couldn't do much worse…

Personally, the above theologies might simply be the kind of fantastical  thoughts to notice in meditation and then drop in the interest of being present with what is, not important theological observations to embroider upon and offer as essential and sophistcated spiritual truths.

> breathes a deep sigh of agreement, and a silent hallelujah. if god weren't an option, what would you really have to feel?

MOYERS AND THE RAPTURISTS

too silly to comment upon. not to mention the impracticability of firing a remote server up after it's been melted by a apocalyptic volcano of hellfire. there may be some metaphorical value in the story though… ; ))))))

you finally got me out of the woodwork. you cad!

 

bruce - greetings and warmest regards from across the ocean.

I believe something a theist might ask you is, “Is there anything in your vision of spirituality that is greater than, above, superior to human being?  Is there any One, any force, to whom or to which we can orient meaningfully as truly transcendent?  Or are we essentially the pinnacle of existence?”

i don't see that such a choice is necessary bruce. we are part of existence - how can we be the pinnacle of it? if we're looking at complexity of nervous system, that accolade goes to dolphins and whales. i don't see why a force - or a personified or projected force - is required to see that we are of this universe, and that this universe is so much greater than us. transcendence is all around us - the process of life is inherently a process of transcendence. i do not think it arrogant or inappropriate for us to look around and see few other organisms as developed as we, and yet we are of what is.

i would point to the well-documented habit - enshrined in history and in many societies around the world -  of using the concept of god to elevate our position above that of our fellow man - as in god's chosen ones/people/side etc, in other words to enhance our self-importance. again, if stepping outside on a starry night doesn't give one a humbling sense of perspective, then god help you!

most theists feel a need to allow for a creative intelligence that is greater than the human mind

here, i would look to numerous less grand factors as explanation for that need, mainly to do with psychology and insufficiently critical thinking, especially as related to explanations of causality. personally i find that such an “allowance” (i think that's an overly generous interpretation of how many theists actually hold their belief) is not only unnecessary in apprehending the awe of being alive and knowing it, but it actually obscures some really mindblowing “what ifs” and wonderful flights of imagination around the cosmos at all scales. in other words, i find the superbeing narrative actually too small a story to do justice to what i can see in the night sky and all around me, either directly or with the scientific tools we have made to enhance our awareness of our universe, both external and internal

that is deeper and more profound than anything that appears to be allowed for in an atheistic/materialistic metaphysical cosmology

see my previous point - depth and profundity are not the sole province of believers in a creator. (btw, i've noticed a tendency of readiness on your part to label as materialistic or materialist those who do not hold with the notion of a creator or mysticism. i do not recall seeing you dispensing so lightly such uncharitable reductionism to those who are - shall we say - of a more pluralist disposition. to be clear, absence of belief in a creator or mysticism in general is not properly equatable with absence of a rich psychospiritual life, or a rich apprehension of existence and life itself. the term atheist is also subject to the caveats raised in this post. get my drift? i want to be friends - really).

in response to the psychological and philosophical reasons you allude to for theists to hold their beliefs, as with the idea that such beliefs enhance ones appreciation of a greater “intelligence”, i would simply say:

god is in the way.

as with all psychological defence mechanisms, theistic belief systems (yes, there is a presupposition there) are not a reflection on the value of the holder as an individual. i need to expand on this important point, but essentially, in contrast to what i see as some of the excesses of methodological pluralism, the intensity with which some belief systems are adhered to, or clung on to, is not justification for including them in proper consideration of the nature of reality. in other words, people may experience pain or resistance when their beliefs are challenged, but this does not make those beliefs any more admissible as statements of truth. i'm trying to point to the non-personal nature - in fact - of my grounds for not endorsing the notion of theism or the language which commonly accompanies it.

goodnight and good luck!

 

Hi Julian –

Have you ever read anything by Episcopal bishop John Shelby Spong? I would provide a link but you could probably just google his name and find his newsletter.

He considers himself a nontheistic Christian and is referred to as an orange, rational-level believer in Wilber's Integral Spirituality.

And of course you're already familiar with Desmond Tutu. So with each of these men, you have two examples of post-conventional Christian thought.

Other post-conventional Christian thinkers / theologians:

Daniel Smith-Christopher
Joan Chittister
Megan McKenna
Richard Rohr
Beatrice Bruteau
Kathleen Norris
John O'Donohue
Cynthia Bourgeault
William Johnston
Gerald May
Raimondo Pannikar

….and there are many more!

Cheers,
Mary

 

Concerning Shelby Spong, I just received an autographed book gift in the mail from a fellow Gaian:  Jesus for the Non-Religious.  In it, Bishop Spong sort of takes a wrecking ball to mythic Christianity – no virgin birth, no birth in Bethleham (much less a star or angelic being), no literal miracles, no raising of the dead or literal resurrection, etc, etc.  He finds value in the mythic imagery and symbolism, of course – he does remain a Christian – but he topples every supernatural shred of the mythic form of the religion.

 

Quite some time ago Balder hipped me to this great little essay by Raimon Panikkar (I spelled his name wrong last time …) –

He approaches God by pointing to ways NOT to talk about God… and does so while incorporating passages from the Bible!

An example of post-rational “belief”, imo – and thinking that transcends yet includes the mythic.

 

In case you are interested, here is a passage from the book by Spong that I mentioned.  (I just typed it up when I should be preparing for classes tomorrow!  I need to turn this computer off… :-)  I typed it because I thought you might resonate with it in spirit.)

~*~
 

“The cross is not the place where the justice of God was satisfied in the suffering of the divine son.  The cross is the place where the fully alive one could give all that he is to others, and in that act make all that we mean by the word ‘God' visible.

Humanity in its fullness becomes endowed with the marks and the meaning of God.  Full humanity flows into the divine reality.  Divinity becomes and is the ultimate depth of humanity.  God is not some supernatural power over against the world or humanity.  The meaning and the reality of God are found in the experience of human wholeness flowing in life-giving ways through all that we are.  God is experienced when life is opened to transcendent otherness, when it is called beyond every barrier into an ever-expanding humanity.  The first-century experience of Jesus was quite simply that people met God in him.  “God was in Christ,” they said - and we say with them - because life, love, and being flowed through the fullness of his humanity.

Seen from that perspective, the cross is not a place of torture and death; it is the portrait of the love of God seen when one can give all that one is and all that one has away.  The cross thus becomes the symbol of a God presence that calls us to live, to love and to be.  It stands for a love that embraces the human diversity of race, tribe, nation, gender, sexual orientation, left-handedness, right-handedness and any other human variety found in life.  The call of the God experienced in Christ is simply a call to be all that each of us is - a call to offer, through the being of our humanity, the gift of God to all people by building a world in which everyone can live more fully, love more wastefully and have the courage to be all they can be.  That is how we live out the presence of God.  God is about living, about loving and about being.  The call of Jesus is thus not a call to be religious.  It is not a call to escape life's traumas, to find security, to possess peace of mind.  All of those things are invitations to a life-contracting idolatry.  The call of God through Jesus is a call to be fully human, to embrace insecurity without building protective fences, to accept the absence of peace of mind as a requirement of humanity.  It is to see that God is the experience of life, love, and being who is met at the edges of an expanded humanity” (Bishop Shelby Spong, Jesus for the Non-Religious).

 

   

The sky-God-Santa Clause-Wizard of Oz, super being fantasy God of the theistic religions seems to be headed for death. It will go the way of the medieval belief that the earth is the center of the solar system, or that the world is flat..

God has always been merely a symbol for the highest state in the developmental system of the spiritual path, to genuine mystics.

The lowest aspect of the mind of humans ( delusion) has produced the fantasy external sky-God-hero superman-Wizard of Oz - Jesus savior fantasy God of exoteric religion, which is a doomed concept because it has never, is not now, and never will be, an observable reality. No one in history has seen such a being, or is going to see such a being, on any level; therefore it is a delusion that is inevitably headed for extinction.

 “God” at best is a metaphor for the highest station-state of consciousness that any sentient being can reach, through first: the return to their lost nature [ stabilization of consciousness]  through precise well-defined metaphysical developmental practices; then reaching the higher station-states that lead to “evolutionary” completion of the  consciousness [ Divine Consciousness] through intense forms of meditation,  that is called Nirvana in Buddhism and Yoga, Kensho in Zen,  Insanul-Kamil [ Complete Person] in Sufism, and Christ Consciousness in Gnosticism and Mystic Christianity.

(There are other terms in other traditions.) Then the human is the “God”-Being, the very meaning of the metaphor, God.

So a metaphor has been turned into a fantasy superman-sky-God-Wizard of Oz figure out of the cauldron of the delusional fallen consciousness of humans.

 When this understanding is reached  by the greater lot of humanity, then and only then can we get rid of the term “God” and the fantasy, delusional meaning that many people give to it.

In my opinion

Zak

 

I was ready to respond as soon as I finished reading your text, Julian, –but then I saw there were 35 comments. I figured I better read them before I bring up something that has already been discussed.

But I can't wait any longer! I'll say a few words, post it, and then go back and read the rest of what has been discussed here.

Heiki actually mentioned this in one of the first comments I read, that “God” is a perfectly worthwhile word to use when referring to Spirit in second person. “God” is our father-mother, our common origin. This isn't really an explanation for what the word means… but just try asking a cosmologist what they might mean by “spacetime,” or “big bang,” and you'll see answers to these ultimate-type questions always come in the form of fancy metaphor. If we're lucky, our metaphors will translate into living stories that call the people who celebrate them into a more integral and compassionate future. If we're not, our metaphors will come to justify genocidal murder–whatever it takes to preserve the idealizations of the past. But I think there is more than luck involved. If we engage the issue, that being facing each other (which really means facing oneself, facing the person you are afraid everybody else already knows you are), then we might just be able to avoid suicide bombing and secret torture prisons. All of us need to talk about God, whether we are theist, atheist, or whatever “comes next.” The trick about all these “stages of development,” I think, is to recognize that no one just is an atheist or a post-rational, 2nd tier etc., etc. Each one of us must relate to reality on a theistic level in some way, even if we're “beyond” it. Maybe literalistic Christianity (belief in miracles, etc.) is “just” a psycho-spiritual crisis related to dysfunctional/authoritarian  parental relationships, but even if each of us has already successfully made it through this universally experienced rite of passage, we cannot look back at those who haven't as though we don't understand what they are facing. Now our empathy in this sense should not be an excuse to allow adults to continue acting like children, but it should be a call to feel responsible for helping to raise them, so to speak. We have an obligation to intersubject with people about God, because the point of sharing such an idea with others is to acheive a common, you could say catholic, perspective. We have no choice but to share in the common delusions of humanity, because they are not delusions, but the supporting structures of that continual movement calling itself consciousness. I think it would be rather unskillful of us to deny meaning to a word shared by the vast majority of the planet. We need to dive into it. We need to face it head on, because we are supposed to be the ones who realize the cosmos doesn't just evolve on its own. It evovles by finding more and more complex ways of relating to itself, and unless we are willing to guide the God-talk here on planet Earth as best we can, we may as well just pack up our things and build a perfect (and rather technologically inclinded) integral community on the Moon.

I'll read more comments now.

 

Does Canada count as a country other than America? LOL

Julian, I admire Desmond Tutu, but the African countries are well known within the Anglican communion right now for being the most conservative and repressive, and are agitating for schism. So…

Maryw listed a bunch of good people for you. Of course there are also the Jesus Seminar people like Crossan and Marcus Borg. While conservatives are unhappy with them, they beautifully bridge between the historical Jesus and modern thinking… There are also theologians like Douglas J Hall who has written many books showing how the challenges to the church are its best friends - and has written a three volume series on what the mainline churches in North America must do to go forward - see here for excerpts

 

Julian,

I hope the passion in my responses only serves to remind you how thought provoking your blogs here at Gaia usually are for me ; )

I think the only legitimate use for the word “God” in a trans-rational dialogue is to mean something like the 2nd person “thou.”    I'm not sure if you are familiar with the philosopher/theologian Martin Buber, but he had the very profound idea that God is found between people. In other words, “When people relate to each other authentically and humanly, God is the electricity that surges between them.” Obviously, this is not a meaning that many literalists imply by their use of the word “God,” and so in some cases it may be specious to use it as though my own highbrow definition were the universally accepted one.  I agree with you there.

By saying we necessarily share in the common delusionsof humanity, I mean that we have to deal with the rest of the human community, whatever their developmental progress, whether we like it or not. Ignoring and/or deriding them only makes matters worse (not saying you are suggesting that we do this). I think “delusion” was a word I borrowed from your original text, because while obviously there are deficiencies/dysfunctionalities that may arise in the course of human development, I think it would be more skillful of us (anyone reading/participating in this thread has almost certainly integrated the mythical structure) to treat these hangups as opportunities for growth. That is, rather than coming right out and telling a theist that their God is a fairy tale, we ought to do our best, in conversations with believers, to understand their perspective even while we try to talk them –not out of it, per-say– but through it, such that they might reach a more inclusive, more conscious center of gravity. This kind of talking may very well require that we use the word God. Obviously there are some literalist believers who will not be swayed by any talk, and other radicals who would sooner cut my head off then openly discuss the nature of the divine. We must meet each situation as it comes… I don't think there is any one formula to follow when it comes to moving the world to more integral structures of consciousness. We need to be flexible, even if that means using the G-word with those willing to listen.

About the scientific usage of the word “big bang,” I think you'll find that there is just as much divergence of opinion among cosmologists/physicists about its meaning as between atheists/religious believers and “God.” Some scientists would say it means nothing, that it is a faith-based theory in contradiction with as much observational data as it helps to explain. Others would take a more agnostic approach, saying it is the best “big picture” theory we've got going at the moment. Some are more ardent supporters of the theory. I'd say it depends upon where these scientists went to graduate school, on the perspectives and paradigms they were taught, etc., in much the same way that a lay person's understanding of “God” depends largely upon how and where they were raised. Science doesn't help us answer ultimate questions much better than religion, because ultimate questions are typically not epistemological in nature, but ontological. An interesting thing has happened to religious belief of late (maybe since Darwin). Creationists/Intelligent Designers have agreed to debate God in the same (I think fallacious) terms as materialist scientists. That is, the universe is seen by both parties as a giant machine. The creationists say God designed it, wound it up, and let it run down, while the materialists say, well, it designs and unwinds itself (the “big bang” is a rather ad hoc story, if you ask me, but so is Genesis). Each says they can provide evidence to support their version of creation. Now again, maybe this is just my highbrow way of relating to the term, but “God” seems to me to refer to Being itself (ie, existence), not to some object we might come to have knowledge of one way or another, as we do of all other beings/finite things which exist. If faith means anything, it means trusting–not only the unknown, but the unknowable. Obviously, this is not what faith means to most believers (faith comes to mean belief in some specific, literal dogma or another). But even for some supposedly secular materialists and scientists, “matter,” or “the laws of physics” come to mean something similar to a mythological God. I think ontology and metaphysics are necessary spheres of human thought and experience (hopefully our metaphysics rest on equal parts of each, logic and experience). I have encountered just as many rational/empirical types as literalist/mythological types who deny the importance of metaphysics and instead reduce everything to epistemology. Some things just cannot be known, but only related to. This is the kind of usage of the word “God” that I'd like to preserve: God is our relationship to Being/existence and to each other, to shared existence. As Buber says, only “through the Thou [can] a person become [an] I.” In other words, it is the relationship between all beings and Being that is primary, our individual selves arising from our interaction within this matrix. So God comes to mean that which is greater than you or I, though not separate from us, but “in between” us.

I am not that familiar with the cultural situation in Europe as regards religion. It is very possible that my way of thinking through these matters is in large part due to being surrounded by believers here in the States (my mother is a devout Christian who believes the Jews are the chosen people and that the end of the world is just around the corner). But it seems to me that we have two general options: 1) publicly declare such religious belief mentally dysfunctional and institutionalize a majority of the American population (which is a long shot, because these people are still very powerful politically), or 2) attempt to skillfully and compassionately untie the cognitive and/or emotional knots responsible for old world religious beliefs in each person we encounter who holds them (or in any opportunities we have to discuss such issues publicly). This latter option may sound like trying to beat back an oncoming squadron of tanks with nothing but a few down pillows. But I don't think raising an army of our own will accomplish anything more than further antagonizing the other side.

Bottom line: I think the Dawkins-esque approach to religious fundamentalism is counter productive. It is itself just another form of fundamentalism. We do need to be a bit more inclusive. Instead of dropping the God word all together, might we try to shift the public consciousness' relation to the term?

 

BTW, I myself relate deeply to the Buddhist notion that we should not worry too much about the many reasons the arrow may have been shot into our chest before we stop the bleeding. But I recall Alan Watts relating something in a lecture that he learned from Carl Jung's work: that we are Westerners first and foremost, and that trying to swap our entire cultural history for a more expedient Eastern tradition is disengenuos. We have to fully confront the psychosocial context we have inherited, dealing with its challenges on its own terms, rather than trying to substitue them with foreign ideas.  Doesn't mean we can't learn something from the East, but let's not ignore the specific shadow issues that we must face as part of a Judeo-Christian culture.

 

Julian, as an example of transrational Christianity, I thought you might be interested in Thomas Matus. He isn't a well-known public figure (so far as I know), but he has a few videos on YouTube where he discusses his faith. Check him out: http://www.youtube.com/user/thomasmatus

He has been greatly influenced by Karl Rahner's theology, which may be an example of the kind of well-known transrational theology you are after.

 

Julian –

In response to your question: “does it still make sense to call these folks Christian …”? (re: the lists and other names of folks provided above).

Yes, it does. Christians themselves will acknowledge that Christianity encompasses a wide spectrum of approaches to the faith, and many practicing Christians have some familiarity with the numerous disagreements between different branches of Christianity and even within denominations (the split happening within the Anglican Church is a good example, so also is the United Church of Christ – Obama's denomination – which includes conservative, moderate, and liberal congregations …)

And most of the people I listed in my above post make annual presentations at the Los Angeles Religious Education Congress, sponsored by the L.A. Roman Catholic Archdiocese (and no: the presenters are not required to be Catholic). Sure, there are folks who disagree or who are uncomfortable with the Christianity they profess – and we usually get picketers at that LA conference who think that some of these speakers “go too far” – but there is really nothing new about this kind of internal disagreement. These tensions can and do lead to collective spiritual development. And I do think that the fact that a major Christian institution continues to support such thinkers –actually declare them “educators!” – says a great deal. It's also evidence that Christianity itself is more multifaceted and nuanced than you seem to think that it is.

Mary

 

Julian,

Thanks for your reply to my reply. I respond here:

http://joe-perez.com/2008/07/the-sentiment-of-belief-and-the-embodiment-of-god/#comment-152

Here's most of it:

Talking about God as a “force of liberation”, etc., is not so much a “place-holder”, I think, as an accessory. An unclothed department store mannequin is a place holder. It gives no indication as to the style of fashion offered for sale. A bejeweled handbag, however, does not reveal the entire garment but suggests the sort of good that would likely be offered. Tastes in God-talk vary, and that's as it should be.

As for how I respond to anti-gay religionists, the very short answer is that I believe discourse that creates the greatest amount of inclusion possible by grounding arguments in divergent rationales. You ask:

“how shall we evaluate any of these [anti-gay, religious] statements for truth, beauty and goodness and are we refering to the same “god” in each case?”

So the statements should be challenged for veracity and goodness in a wide variety of apparently conflicting ways, depending on context, from challenges to the mode of Biblical interpretation to disputing the grounds of religious authority to denying the existence of religious authority to providing alternative geneaologies of sexuality. The chief argument of my book, Soulfully Gay, articulated an alternative theological anthropology as the basis for offering the most thoroughgoing critique of anti-gay beliefs that I know of.

You correctly infer, I think, that different opinions on homosexuality or abortion often come down to different God concepts. “Different gods” at different levels of consciousness, for example.

 

Julian,

I think I see where you are coming from a bit better now. I would completely agree with you that, among we here on Gaia discussing the future of spirituality, it would be prudent to adopt more appropriate/less loaded/less vague terminology than that used, say, in the Bible. I am only holding out for the usage of “God” as a shared reference point between subjects when engaging in discussions outside these very exclusive integral circles. When and if any of us happens to have access to the public stage, or when/if any of us speaks in a more intimate setting with believers, I think we cannot but use the word.

About sentimental attachment to prerational formulations, I think the idea that a mythical God may turn out to be true in some way is again a confusion between epistemology (science) and ontology (religion/spirituality). Now, speaking from an integral point of view, we need a kind of “ep-on bootstrap” (to borrow a phrase of Christian de Quincey), such that we realize our epistemology and our ontology necessarily co-determine each other. But outside integral circles, I think something more along the lines of Stephen J. Gould's “non-overlapping magisteria” is a good set of training wheels, so to speak. In this sense, God is not something to be proven or disproven (something true or false) as determined by science. God is an ontological presupposition that one either accepts unconditionaly or rejects out of hand. Granted, a lot of Christian's aligning themselves with the ID movement have completely forgotten the ontological aspect of their religion by adopting the epistemological framework of science, trying to prove God's existence based on “irreducible complexity,” or whatever. But as far as my own way of relating to the issue, I am perfectly comfortable talking to religious folk about “God” in an ontological sense, such that no claims to scientific knowledge about our earthly world is derived from such a God. Moral knowledge may be derived, but this is not the sense of knowledge I am talking about. Morality is more of an emotional notion than a cognitive one.

 

Hey Julian!  So much has been said in your blog and the comments that I hardly know where to start.  But as you provided a summary of questions I'll start with that.

“1) if wright's theology as expressed in his interview with colbert and in the description of his book is NOT an example of integral christianity - WHY NOT, specifically.”

I'll speak largely in ignorance as I don't know his larger viewpoint and I don't know him as a person.  From what Nicole says, he sounds like a nice guy, but that isn't the issue at hand.

That said, I'll point out two issues I'd have with his views from an integral perspective.  One, he seems to take one perspective rather than considering multiple perspectives.  Two, his theology seems to be isolated from other aspects such as the social and psychological implications. 

To be fair, he is just a guy writing about religious beliefs and not attempting to be integral if he is even aware of integral.  I don't know if its true, but I've heard someone say that even academic theologians of a conservative bent rarely reference his work.  My sense is that he is an apologist with above average intelligence.  He may be interesting to a conservative Christian, but for the most part probably of no great intererst to anyone else.

“2) if brother david's IS - what would it lose by relinquishing the amber-level terminology and using perhaps more precise and less historically loaded words that better express this vision?”

This is an important question.  I feel of two minds about it.  I think we can develop new terms all the while developing new definitions to old terms.  Basically, I don't see it as either/or.

I understand this dilemma on a personal level.  I was raised in non-traditional Christianity, and so according to that version of Christianity I am Christian.  Sometimes I think of myself as Christian, but I often think labelling myself as such is more trouble than its worth.  I realize most Christians probably wouldn't consider me Christian.  However, just because my understanding of 'God' isn't normative, does that mean I should discard it?  Its a word that is meaningful to me, but I am careful in using it in discussion as I don't assume others share my definition.

“3) if brother david's vision is so radically different than 90% of what most would associate with christianity what makes it still christian?”

Like someone else said, Christianity has always been a very wide tradition with much disagreement.  What made Martin Luther still Christian when he challenged the Catholic Church?

“4) any responses to this thought: I wonder if this might be based in a pleasing and soothing  fallacy about all people really meaning the same thing but not realizing it - or that contained at the heart of all religions and concepts of god is actually the meaning that we would most like to interpret…”

Whether its pleasing and soothing isn't the issue.  Anything (including Integralism) can be pleasing and soothing. 

Does a universal God or God experience exist?  Is it a fallacy?  I don't know, and I can't imagine how anyone can know for sure in either direction.  I'm a weak agnostic and so I just accept some things are simply unknowable.  However, I can imagine the possibility of this vision of God.  There are various universal principles of how the cosmos operates.  It doesn't seem absurd that a God might exist with universal aspects… or at least no less absurd than most other grand explanations of existence (whether rational or nonrational).

“5) how do we differentiate what we mean by the word “god” from what is meant by the rapture-ready americans described by moyers?”

I don't have much an opinion on this.  I wasn't raised with the belief in rapture and so it means nothing more to me than any other random metaphysical possibility.  The ambiguity of the word 'god' seems to bother me less than it bothers you.  I have a high tolerance for cognitive dissonance.  The term 'god' makes no rational sense and I'm fine with that.  My ability to think rationally so far seems unhindered by my acceptance of the nonrational.

“if the word means such radically different things - might we not do better with different words?”

Sure, but even so 'god' can still be meaningfully used as a general term.  The more words the better.  Lets have new words and keep the old.

“why should  god and religion be special cases in this regard?”

Special cases in what regard?

“perhaps it has something to do with development - with the spiritual line? perhaps i am committing the line/level fallacy by suggesting that the word god cannot transcend amber?”

That would be part of my interpretation.  Also, I'd say that a word is just a word.  The confusing ambiguity of the word 'god' just adds juice to the discussion.  I'd say let us confuse the matter even morewo because then those who try to use it simply will be forced to think out what they mean when using that word.  :)

“well perhaps - but when the vast majority of the world means something amber or previous by the word, why not get clear on the distinctions that orange, green and the glimpses of teal that some of us are having might imply.”

I agree with the general thrust of your argument.  Let us continue to develop further distinctions and more words to represent those further distinctions.

“for me - the spiritual development continues from orange onward but transcends so much of amber and before that using the same terminology seems unnecessarily confusing and disingenuous - i wonder if it is a uniquely american desire to include more of these mythic reference points….. perhaps that is the problem here - i did not grow up in america.”

No matter what nationality, either the mythic has meaning or it doesn't.  Of course, what is meaningful is a whole other complex question.  I've been reading about the paranormal in terms of anthropological terms such as 'liminal'.  You can check out my recent blog if you want to see more of what I'm talking about.

 

hi boddhacious

i think i see what you're getting at in some ways, but there are some points raised…

About sentimental attachment to prerational formulations, I think the idea that a mythical God may turn out to be true in some way is again a confusion between epistemology (science) and ontology (religion/spirituality).

this is itself a misrepresentation of what ontology and epistemology are. this is pertinent to this topic's subject - the use and misuse of words and supplying one's own meaning for a word irrespective of the generally accepted definition. science is specifically not excluded from ontology (far from it) and is specifically not restricted to epistemology (of the two branches). ontology as the central branch of metaphysics asks “what exists”, epistemology asks “how do we know”. both rational and irrational methods of answering those questions are available and both are widely used in various forms.

Stephen J. Gould's “non-overlapping magisteria” is a good set of training wheels

i've never agreed with this conception - it always seemed like a copout, like endorsing diplomatic immunity for irrational propositions. not one of gould's better ideas i think, and i don't see why it should be promoted. are you suggesting that beliefs without supporting evidence be left alone just because…?

God is an ontological presupposition that one either accepts unconditionaly or rejects out of hand

why? both of those options are in contradiction to the scientific principle of openness to new evidence - however implausible and unlikely - which is the only rational position to hold.

a lot of Christian's aligning themselves with the ID movement have completely forgotten the ontological aspect of their religion by adopting the epistemological framework of science, trying to prove God's existence based on “irreducible complexity,” or whatever.

see my comments on definitions of (philosophical) terms. not sure what you mean here. are you saying that creationists seem unaware that they don't have to prove their claims scientifically, since they weren't originated on a factual basis?

Moral knowledge may be derived (from such a god)

how can moral knowledge be derived from god? maybe i need to understand what you mean by ontology (not to mention god) to get this.

Morality is more of an emotional notion than a cognitive one.

because? since when are morals the province of emotions?

i need some clarification here!

best

adam

 

Hey Adam,

I see I definitely need to clarify how I am using the terms epistemology and ontology above.

science is specifically not excluded from ontology (far from it) and is specifically not restricted to epistemology (of the two branches). ontology as the central branch of metaphysics asks “what exists”, epistemology asks “how do we know”.

By describing science as a primarily epistemological endeavor, I am highlighting the degree to which the method of science itself is concerned only with objectively measuring the empirical world. What that world “is” ontologically is of no concern to methodological science; what matters is how well our measurements align with the behavior of the phenomenon observed. Science only becomes an ontological or metaphysical project when some form of materialism is attached to it, such that reality is assumed to consist only of particles exchanging energy in a purely mechanical way.

There is certainly a lot more to metaphysics and ontology than just that encompassed by the words “religion” and “spirituality.” I am just using them as examples of approaches to engaging with Being on an existential level, rather than a theoretical level (such as in the scientific methodology).

i've never agreed with this conception [Gould's NOMA]- it always seemed like a copout, like endorsing diplomatic immunity for irrational propositions. not one of gould's better ideas i think, and i don't see why it should be promoted. are you suggesting that beliefs without supporting evidence be left alone just because…?

I agree with your conception, which is why I see Gould's NOMA as “training wheels.” I am not suggesting that we blindly accept beliefs without supporting evidence just to be PC. I think NOMA is meant to point out, if only in a provisional way, that a properly ontos-centered spirituality would not confuse its task (relating human beings to the ground of being) with that of science, which is more suited to garnering instrumental knowledge about how best to interact with nature in our more practical, less transcendentally-oriened moments. Of course, this is not the final solution to the problem, as we should allow our spiritual experience and our scientific knowledge to mutually inform one another, as in the “ep-on bootstrap” that de Quincey has discussed in depth in his book ”Radical Nature.”

both of those options [God is an ontological presupposition that one either accepts unconditionaly or rejects out of hand] are in contradiction to the scientific principle of openness to new evidence - however implausible and unlikely - which is the only rational position to hold.

I am basically equating God with existence itself (and therefore, spiritual practice is being equated with developing methods to bring one into direct experiential contact with their embodied existence), and so what evidence do you require in order to prove that you exist? The question is meaningless, which is why I think talking about God in epistemological terms necessarily ends in confusion.

are you saying that creationists seem unaware that they don't have to prove their claims scientifically, since they weren't originated on a factual basis?

I am saying that Creationists have adopted the mechanistic picture of nature as surely as the scientific materialists have. They see God as outside and beyond this world (in the same way that materialists often describe “physical laws”), and attempt to provide proof of his existence based on knowledge of natural mechanisms which they claim are undeniable evidence of an intelligent designer. This, to my mind, has nothing to do with spiritualiy as I have been describing it. It is just another form of deficient rationalism (a kind of idealistic finalism) engaged in a pissing match with materialism.

how can moral knowledge be derived from god?

Jesus seems like a good enough role model.

since when are morals the province of emotions?

It just seems to me that we feel the good before we know it. We are often forced to act whether or not we know for sure what is best, so I see morality as having more to do with emotional intelligence than cognitive intelligence.

Hope this clarifies where I was trying to go in my earlier post. Thanks for your questions, Adam.

-matt

 

okay then bruce, this resident theist will check into this discussion, but first i would have to say- oh my, so many sluts and so little time!lol
i guess first off i would question what it means to be truly objective? personally i can find valid arguments from many many different camps whether they be buddhist, agnostic, atheist, or whatever. i don't tend to dismiss a relatively good argument just because i don't personally believe it! and again, i think there are good arguments coming from all the different camps and i find dismissiveness more a matter of personal bias  than anything else. and i really don't think it's beyond possibility that god exists, and i think people that demand proof of that existence are being just as infantile as religionists who say the universe is 6000 years old. in other words, i find both perspectives annoying.
as far as wilber's model goes and correct me if i'm wrong- that individual development correlates to collective development. and do we say that it would be better for a 4 year old to turn into a 20 year old over night? of course not, so why are we asking the same thing of collective development? people have a right to be wherever their at in their development, but i would agree, when a child strikes out at their fellow sibling, a fair amount of policing needs to be enacted. but i would say most people of faith just want to live a quiet live before god as they believe 'it' to be, raise their children in peace and help the less fortunate when necessary. what i'm saying is that i think it's a bit of a sophistry to paint the whole of religion as being pathological. and if you were to ask me who and what is doing severe damage to the earth- the amish or technology- i would have to say technology without spiritual sense. i think the nazis were a fair example of that. furthermore, i personally see fractional lending and an economic system that is based on exponential growth and debt enslavement as just as much of a threat to liberty, freedom and justice for all. so why just pick on the pathological aspects of 1 to10% percent of religious believers when clearly life as we know it is threatened in as many ways or more by other belief systems and world-views? now of course that 1 to 10% is a very serious problem but so is the fuckin' mafia! 
having said all that, i do agree with much that you say julian although sometimes for different reasons……………….

 

Hi Julian,

I do have some very “conservative” or “mythic” beliefs about things like the virgin birth and the resurrection. I also don't have problems with people like my friend Ben (Marmalade) who calls himself a kind of Christian or a weak agnostic -  or with Spong who delights in throwing out just about everything that we typically think of as Christian.

You see, I'm an Anglican, which is synonymous historically anyway with tolerating anything but intolerance. Of late,the African churches have tried with their large numbers and huge influence to stamp out liberalism or cause schism. Other fundamentalist Anglican forces in the world (that sounds so wrong, you have no idea, fundamentalist Anglican) like the “essentials movement” here in Canada and people in the US have asked for “episcopal oversight” of other fundamentalist bishops, often in African countries, to avoid the contamination of a gay or female bishop. It's all very, very sad.

But Anglicanism remains historically a church which can encompass almost anything. I believe in God whose Love draws in the universe in all its complexity. There are many things I will never know or understand. But I'm ok with that.

Brother David and Wilber? You know, there is a heck of a lot more diversity within Christian thought than we have been able to indicate even with all these bright minds and their wonderful drawings in of people like Rahner et al. Who is to say which is the “real” direction for the future Christianity? I believe there is tremendous health and life even in some forms of Christianity which are more conservative in belief, like the so-called Emerging church or post-modern church. What I like about the pomos is their passion to change the world - they throw themselves into sustainable development and community support in every way they can, create a multiplicity of small groups for their members to feel supported in their day to day life, and try to engage the culture as it is instead of imposing an answer to a question not being asked.  

 

I do think it would be fruitful (read as an understated imperative) to utilize historical perspective if ya'll really want to dig to deeper truths and understanding. 

I remember that KW wrote about how pre-mythic humanity was bound by blood ties and that the mythic created metaphorical ancestors necessary for intertribal cooperation. I still think that was a brilliant insight, but it still just scratches the surface of the fossilized roots, imo. 
Mythic also included included a shift from a more egalitarian/ pre(ish)structured/bottom-up society into a more heirarchial/top-down society. This was the begining of written language as well, which I think has profound implications. This was the beginning of Law, the first codification of social rules. There is a correlation between individual rule/role stage and collective mythic stage that relates to cognitive development that enable self-reflective capacity and the contemplation of mortality.

I think it is a lack of imagination and intellectual discipline (which correlates to Cook-Grueter stage descriptions in which proper historical perspective is an integral component - thanks Bruce) that leads to a lot of barking up one or two trees while in the middle of a forest. 
I suspect that the beginning of the mythic also is the root of humanity's development of more rationalistic approaches to knowledge and the contrast of truth and falsity. The roots of math, geometery and science can be seen there. 
How can one gain clarity of the transcedent if one drags preknots into the inquiry?  

 

On “why, really, why”?

hmmm… i thought i already explained why i use God. repeating the question is like asking an artist, “must you, must you paint with the color blue? there are so many other great colors, and heck dogs can't even SEE the color blue!” he he he

short answer: only use it if it's a powerful spiritual term for you. if not, don't. if you do use it, take responsibility for using it appropriately, given the problems it introduces. and if you don't wish to use it, recognize that you're not going to be “heard” by a very large portion of your audience.

<blockquote>JOE - what is up with the kundalini video you have featured?</blockquote>LOL. My bad. I thought the video was bizarre. I should have editorialized a bit with the video rather than offer it straight. the “featured vdeo” is a new thing on my blog, but i'm going to try to keep the feature straight and without commentary.  if people keep thinking i'm endorsing the youtubes, then i may need to rethink this one. :)

 

Greetings, passionate ones! Very exciting dialog here.
I have posted a response.

 

 

I like the rap that Budacious said about Burber's take on God.

Though I think what is also relative to the “God” term or understanding is this:

‘God' is the hidden or unconscious element that is guiding ALL authentic delevelopemental phenomena that deals with the return to our perfect nature.

This is not being done by any anthropomorphic supernatural sky-God, but by the unconscious “Soul” machine that is merely rectifying itself, by itself, as for example any healing process we experience in this gross world can be analogous to.   

With this in mind, the only way to get rid of the “God” concept in human dialogue is for the healing to complete.

THEN HUMANS WILL HAVE NO NEED OF GOD!

Finally, I was considering starting a new pod called

The God Pod, but I wouldn't be able, for lack of time and energy, to properly administer it, therefore I think someone else should do it, then all this rap can be put there.

 

Julian,

Clear something up for me… When you say magic causality and mythic narrative are not literally true, are you then implying that mechanistic causality is literally true?

It goes without saying that mechanical/efficient causation (that employed by science exclusively since Galileo up until possibly the discovery of quantum phenomena) is more adequate to reality, for the very simple reason that it provides us with more opportunity to manipulate reality technologically. But I have a feeling magic analogical thinking served prehistorical humans adequately; just as mythical imaginative narratives served much of medieval humanity (and a portion of the population today). In other words, the adequacy of these structures is not to reality itself, but rather to the survival of those societies that adopt them. It is often argued that, in the case of the mythical structure, much unnecessary intercultural violence resulted that moving into the rational structure prevents. But I am skeptical of this, as during the 20th century, supposedly “Enlightened” states went to war on numerous occasions killing tens of millions of people unnecessarily. This appears to be continuing into the 21st century. So it seems rationality doesn't put an end to short-sighted violence; it just makes the killing more efficient. But I am getting sidetracked…

My question is really about mechanical cause and effect as understood by the rational structure. Would you agree that this perspective on reality also must be careful not to over literalize itself? Causality is no better understood today that it was in Aristotle's time; if anything, the technological prowess offered by mechanistic thinking has overshadowed our lack of understanding of the complexities of causality, which Aristotle was well aware of (he recognized the efficient causation of mechanism, but also 3 other causes: final, formal, & material).

I'll quote Gebser on this, he can say it better than I: “It is self-evident that the natural sciences cannot do without the intellectual-quantitative approach. We have ourselves repeatedly emphasized that the acquisition of a new possibility of consciousness, the arational-integral, does not invalidate earlier forms of consciousness such as the mental-rational. On the contrary, the mental-rational consciousness that forms the basis of scientific inquiry retains its worth. What it loses is its claim of exclusivity on which it still insists.” (p. 388 Ever-Present Origin).

The notion that mental-rational causality is not the one, exclusive and correct model of reality is what I'm trying to get across here. Neither, of course, ought we to take any other structure's view of reality literally. I think the key to the integral structure is that it is capable of “seeing through” all the structures that support it, thereby making origin present, whereas for any particular structure below integral, origin was hidden or distorted in some way. I think this also implies that the integral structure become increasingly aware of the interconnection of all prior structures (ie, the sense in which each developmental movement depends entirely on all those beneath it, and not just as leverage to take the leap beyond, but as a continuing source of spiritual insight). I think the pre/trans distinction is extremely important; but even more important is the degree to which integral consciousness is no longer stuck thinking in static categories and dualities. It is crucial that we take the whole into consideration, in the sense that integrating means seeing each structure enfolded in and manifest as our being/becoming. I don't think you are necessarily suggesting anything contrary to this, Julian, but I just wanted to make sure.

In any event, that's enough philosophizing. Time to go blow stuff up!
Happy 4th, all.
-Matt

 

I've been searching around for some integral Christians, and though he died 15 years ago, I think Bede Griffiths said and did a lot that contemporary theology might learn from. Here's a video of him recounting the experience he had during a stroke: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOAlyl7u2dw&feature=related

During an interview in 1983 he said: “We're now being challenged to create a theology which would use the findings of modern science and eastern mysticism which, as you know, coincide so much, and to evolve from that a new theology which would be much more adequate.” (from his wikipedia page)

 

omigods…

here are the meanings for the word god proffered in this post alone:

- trans-human dimension of being
- Spirit in second person
- a panentheistic vision of Ultimate Reality
- the reality of God extends into the realm of our bodies and
- unconscious associations
- God is embodied within our holistic being(s)
- god is an eternally consistent force of liberation in a changing self alive in an evolving world
- reality of God is found in the experience of human wholeness flowing in life-giving ways through all that we are
- God is about living, about loving and about being
- God has always been merely a symbol for the highest state in the developmental system of the spiritual path
- “God” is a metaphor for the highest station-state of consciousness that any sentient being can reach
- “God” is our father-mother, our common origin
- god is actually the meaning that we would most like to interpret… (my 2nd personal favourite)
- god is in the way (my personal favourite - see my 2nd personal favourite)
- 2nd person “thou.”
- God is found between people
- God is the electricity that surges between them (apparently a highbrow definition)
- “God” refers to Being itself
- God is our relationship to Being/existence and to each other, to shared existence
- God is that which is greater than you or I, though not separate from us, but “in between” us
- “God” as a shared reference point between subjects when engaging in discussions outside these very exclusive integral circles
- God is an ontological presupposition (contradiction in terms but never mind)
- here's a special mention for: “The term 'god' makes no rational sense and I'm fine with that”
- and also: 'god' can still be meaningfully used as a general term
- I am equating God with existence itself
- talking about God in epistemological terms necessarily ends in confusion. (no it doesn't - i'm not confused about it!)
- God is outside and beyond this world
- God whose Love draws in the universe in all its complexity
- ‘God' is the hidden or unconscious element that is guiding ALL authentic delevelopemental phenomena that deals with the return to our perfect nature.

good to know we're all on the same page about such a profoundly meaningful concept!

this post contains a useful demonstration of what happens when linguistic and philosophical convention is completely ignored, or never grasped in the first place. when a word can mean anything, it means nothing. the primary use of language is in identying aspects of reality. the word god refers to an imagined causal agent (still) believed to exist by the vast majority of users. looking at the justifications offered for continuing to use the word, it appears that avoiding hurt feelings is considered more important than identifying the nature and constituent parts of reality.

alluding to some feeling or sense of something without identity and then calling that “god” hardly merits serious consideration. the word god as used in this post reminds me of an advert for waffles some years back: it's waffly versatile.

to quote laplace when questioned about his omitting to mention an author of the universe:

“Sir, I have no need of that hypothesis.”

i would add: we have no need of the word which refers to that unfortunate hypothesis…

next up for the most meaningless flexicon word prize is: integral

here's to independence…

 

Come on Adam…   You're post was amusing… but do you really think you're the only person who cares about or understands linguistic and philosophical conventions?  lol

I consider the word 'god' to be a general term because it is a general term.  That is no remarkable insight.  It has been used in so many different ways over thousands of years that the list you provided above doesn't even begin to cover it.  The word 'god' isn't a technical term.  I would've thought that would be obvious as this discussion demonstrates.  If you want technical terms that define god in specific ways, theology is full of them.  You mentioned one of them yourself (ie panentheism).

So, yes, 'god' as a general term is not rational as there is no way to rationally synthesize all of its implied meanings into a single definition.  Plus, most people who speak about God are primarily speaking about nonrational experiences and not rational theology.  Its just the way the world is… like it or not.  And the 'god' word isn't likely to go anywhere… so you might as well get used to it.

General terms have their place just as do precise terms.  Why do you see a conflict where none exists?  There is no conflict between general and precise terms.  The conflict is between ideologies (and the people who believe in them unquestioningly), and of course such ideologies can be atheistic too.  'God' isn't the problem even if we could agree on a single definition.

Yes, we don't need any particular hypothesis about god.  Then again, we don't need any particular hypothesis about anything.

Words like 'god' either are meaningful to you or not.  And that is all that can be rationally said about it.  All else is ideology and rhetoric.  You have your opinion on the matter and that is also fine, but your opinion isn't any more rational than what others have been saying. 

Its not an issue of rationality.  Its an issue of experience and perspective.  We all see the world through different lenses.  I'm sure that many people here are defining the word 'god' according to their own personal experience.  Maybe they've experienced something you haven't.  How can you rationally say anything about another's experience if its outside of the limits of your own experience?  And likewise I can't rationally speak about your experience.  This is the inherent limitation of intellectual discourse.  Debating can be fun.  But unless we have similar experiences, debating goes nowhere.

And if you disagree with everything I've said, then whatever.  Independence indeed.  Opinions are just opinions, and we're all free to have them.  I've enjoyed this discussion, but the actual issue seems moot to me as nobody is actually going to stop using this term.

 

Buddhacious,

I agree.
I'm against any kind of literalism…
…be it theistic or atheistic or whatever else.

I do believe Julian is aware of Joseph Campbell's take on literalism.  I consider Campbell to be a piece in the puzzle of understanding how to relate to truth claims.  Campbell's ideas don't just apply to mythology.  Or I should say they apply to all mythologies including the ones our society believes in.

 

Adam,

Just making sure you noticed my response above as regards your questions about ontology/epistemology, etc?

 

Hey Julian. Great to “see” you again, too. Meant to say so the first time around, but posted in haste (same goes for now).

Thanks for the development 101. Believe it or not, that is all old hat to me. And we agree on nearly all of those points you so carefully took the time to elaborate. Seems you didn't quite get my drift, though, and that's likely in part due to the way I presented my response.

When I speak of doing violence in the context I presented, I in no way mean avoiding confronting people on their beliefs because it might hurt their feelings (I'm here, aren't I?). I also do not mean - by stating that you seemed to be transcending and rejecting - that we should therefore include everything. What disappoints me about this type of dialog is how my real point seemed to be entirely missed.

My main point is that, for millions, perhaps billions, of people, “God” (or a variety of other names) can be experienced phenomenologically in ways that are profound, transcendant, ectatic and/or transformational. And I contend that it is that relationship - an I-Thou relationship - that encourages people to retain whatever mythology they were raised with or stumbled into. And when we fight against the “existence” of “God,” people feel that primal, fundamental relationship - which they actually feel and experience - is being mocked, denied or otherwise challenged.

When we include the use of the word God, it is in recognition of that relationship.  Despite the fact that those coming from a rational perspective deem that 1st person experience ridiculous or pre-rational, the reality is that it is precisely that felt relationship that fuels people's lives and gives them hope in a fucking crazy world. Attempting to rip that away from masses of people (by denying the truth of God, in some sense, and not replacing it with anything that helps with a transition to deeper or more true levels of understanding) is misguided, actually narcissistic, and, more importantly, does not work.

What continues to amaze and disappoint me is how many of those that are coming from rational (I contend hyper-rational) perspectives underestimate the levels of understanding and knowledge held by people who are coming from perspectives that I contend are trans-rational. I mean look at the replies by both you and Adam. Some of it would be laughable if it weren't so ridiculous.

And, for the record, the cycles of pain, suffering and growth that I have personally experienced, partly as a result of being a queer/transgender person in the U.S. and partly due to my family of origin, were paid for with blood, sweat and tears. I have experienced many a sword swipe, and I am open to them cycling through again.


Finally, though I may be coming of as defensive or hurt, I can assure you I am neither. I am simply being straight-forward and blunt without a bunch of nicey nice in between.

Off to see the fireworks…cheers!

 

In reverse order - Colin - I love you! thanks for friending me. i love the way you think. you are far from defensive. very clear, open and relaxed. while being really direct. great approach. sorry for all the pain you have gone through but the growth is evident. Kudos!

Buddhacious, excellent points. you, too, are very clear, a great thinker.

Ben, well said, about Campbell, about God.

Zakariyya, I am very amused by your suggestion about creating a God Pod. The God Pod I started on Jan 31, where Ben is one of my mods, now is already up to
322 members, 638 threads and 8475 posts.

So yes, we have been having a few discussions about God all in one place LOL! Among other things, I have cross posted this blogs and some of the responses like Colin's and Joe Perez'.

No, the God Pod is not limited to discussions about God, in fact we talk about nearly everything, but we keep coming back to God, spirituality and meaning as our heartbeat. Since it is the most active pod on Gaia, yes, it takes a lot of time to cultivate, but it is all fun for me, pure plerk, as Aley would say (play/work) :) Feel free to check it out here

Great discussion! Thanks, Julian, for giving us the opportunity to share our cool views :)


4

 

Nicole:

Peace be upon you

 

Well as they say: “There is nothing new under the sun.”

I hadn't known that such a Pod was up, but had the thought a while ago.

I of course, have to join your pod.  My groundbreaking book explaining ALL the mysteries that we debate on in Gaia will be out within two months, and want to expose as many people as possible to it. There is a chapter in the book called “The Divine Epiphany” that is about “God” or the correct way to view the Deity.

The book is tiled:

                                     The Ellipse

               The Fall and Rise of the Human Soul

                           Secrets of the Cosmos

Journey into the Soul, Apocalypse, and the Destiny of Humankind

Keep LOOKIN!

 

ok. here goes…i am sure i will offend someone, but it is my own naivete i can assure you..
first of all that picture looks like someone perverted drew it and looks to me nothing like Jacob who was holy,  wrestling with anything to do with an angel or holiness, or superior consciousness or intelligence of spirit.. it looks like two gays…
I am appalled…and i think it so intentionally disrespectful…intentionally designed to pervert…I see it as a mockery, which is disgusting..

secondly, your blog makes no sense to me whatsover…it sounds like a lot of jibberish, hidden motives and intents….rebellion from truth and morality both; rather than anything pertaining to what we know of GOD~ enlightenment or holiness..looks like a bunch of rebellious cells got together, free radicals, and they cause disease…I hope i am wrong, but i am usually pretty sensitive spiritually, got a whole lot of God in me, so i don't know…

Adam, you are the only one i understood in the mumbo jumble that sounds like mind manipulation, clever and sophisticated adulterous, deceptive, teachings and arguments. which will bring NO good to this world whatsoever….I am not quite sure but i think i understood you have some respect for GOD and good, and TRUE enlightenment..

Take a look at my blog on the god pod and please DO speak english! I am highly intelligent but don't understand specious argumentations, sophisticated, argumentation designed intentionally to deceive..

Sophistication: taking something pure and admixing it with impure…a cleverly deceptive argumentation…specious…adulterous…that is what all this blog looks like to me..
thats my two cents..
to those that truly shared LIGHT, thanks..

Thanks! for me, feels like a whole lot of rebellious confusion going on that stems from wanting to go against the grain of purity, truth, and respectful responsibility..If i am wrong I apologize.

 

hi julian, i'm in a fairly rare pissy mood this week-end so please don't take what i'm going to say too personally………….
well you've gone and done again what ricky, julian, and mr. layhe on the trailer park boys call creating a mini integral shit-storm!
the thing is though , is that i am not sure if your aware the the master integral samarai sword that you think your wielding comes across to quite a few as looking like a integral sledge-hammer instead……………………………..
if your going to continue with this type of very entertaining, provocative discourse then i hope your big and sporty enough to accept the critical feedback you get from people who have issue with your style……………….
okey dokey then, i was kind of liking that which has historically been named to express all upper left quadrant phenomenon………………..
i wonder if angels have right quadrant correlates?lol
i shall leave you with some integral math this morning: 1G+2G+3G+4G+5G+6G+7G ad infinity…………..

 

by the way if you don't know what free radicals are:

To understand the way that free radicals and antioxidants interact, you must first understand a bit about cells and molecules.  So here's a very brief refresher course in Physiology/Chemistry 101:  The human body is composed of many different types of cells. Cells are composed of many different types of molecules. Molecules consist of one or more atoms of one or more elements joined by chemical bonds.

As you probably remember from your old high school days, atoms consist of a nucleus, neutrons, protons and electrons. The number of protons (positively charged particles) in the atom's nucleus determines the number of electrons (negatively charged particles) surrounding the atom. Electrons are involved in chemical reactions and are the substance that bonds atoms together to form molecules. Electrons surround, or “orbit” an atom in one or more shells. The innermost shell is full when it has two electrons. When the first shell is full, electrons begin to fill the second shell. When the second shell has eight electrons, it is full, and so on. 

The most important structural feature of an atom for determining its chemical behavior is the number of electrons in its outer shell. A substance that has a full outer shell tends not to enter in chemical reactions (an inert substance). Because atoms seek to reach a state of maximum stability, an atom will try to fill it's outer shell by:

Gaining or losing electrons to either fill or empty its outer shell Sharing its electrons by bonding together with other atoms in order to complete its outer shell.

Normally, bonds don't split in a way that leaves a molecule with an odd, unpaired electron. But when weak bonds split, free radicals are formed. Free radicals are very unstable and react quickly with other compounds, trying to capture the needed electron to gain stability. Generally, free radicals attack the nearest stable molecule, “stealing ” its electron. I feel that you are desperately trying to 'steal' some light, but are going in the wrong direction.  When the “attacked” molecule loses its electron, it becomes a free radical itself, beginning a chain reaction. Once the process is started, it can cascade, finally resulting in the disruption of a living cell.

I sure do hope that this venue - gaia…..is not a venue for sharing that which is disruptive– is NOT disrupting any vulnerable, viable, and healthy, wholesome, God fearing, living, cells.

 

Recognition: Teasing out who might be operating from more integral perspectives is VERY difficult. And the abundance of New Agery - and swimming through all its perspectives - perhaps adds fuel to the fire that wants to consume any remnant of superstition.

Though I have balked at your presentation style in the past, Julian, I don't particularly have issues with that these days. I'm getting rather used to that in people. It's the lack of recognition that there is an I-Thou relationship - the one that is backed up by people like Wilber and Steindl-Rast - that I am trying to challenge, not the tone.

After all this dialog spurred by this post, are you any closer to understanding why such people might hold that truth and retain the word God at integral stages of awareness?

 

BTW, Nicole, thanks for the kudos. And I appreciate knowing that my writing conveys my perspective to some! One never can be sure that what makes so much sense to you actually translates to shared understanding.

 

Julian,

Overall, I don't really have much of a disagreement with you here.  The word 'God' doesn't personally bother me, but neither do I have much attachment to it either.  If I was conversing with you privately, there would be no point in using the word.  But ,with other people, I would use it… afterall, I belong to the God Pod.  Its in mixed company that this gets confusing. 

I understand your desire to want to raise the level of discussion and I can see absolutely nothing wrong with that.  As such, 'God' isn't the most useful term for an integral discussion.  If we want to speak about metaphysics in an integral context, then we would best use specific philosophical terms in order to clarify what people actually are speaking of.

I guess my problem is that I don't always know what I'm specifically speaking of.  A general term such as 'God' works as a placeholder for my general sense of ignorance/mystery.  But maybe there is a better word to represent my experience.  From now on, I will use the word 'Ignorance' with a capital 'I' to designate my sense of 'God'.  :)

 

no moral outrage here dude and you've never hurt my feelings in any past discourse! what i said was more an observation of some others that have responded to your fiery rhetoric thru the time i've been following your blog, including this one. and it is possible i am misinterpreting some of the more fiery responses that you get ,and at the same time i do wonder why some folks get so bent out of shape….perhaps you invoke some shadow elements in others at times………………….
here's some quotes from i.s.: page 183- and here they particularly made a crippling error: in correctly spotting the immaturity of the notion of a mythic god-or the mythic level of the spiritual line-they threw out not just the mythic level of spiritual intelligence but the entire line of spiritual intelligence. so upset were they with the mythic level, they tossed the baby of the spiritual line with the bathwater of it's mythic level of development. they jettisoned the amber god, and instead of finding orange god, and then green god, and turquoise god,and indigo god, they ditched god altogether, they began the repression of the sublime, the repression of their own higher levels of spiritual intelligence……………here's a guy who likes the word god in discourse! anyone care to count how many times he uses the pesky 3 letter word in this book? is this skillful means or is wilber just being obtuse?
page205- we welcome any and all faiths and spiritual paths to join us in this endeavor………..houston, i think we have a problem here! what say you julian? if ken puts out an invitation like that to people of faith then i think it goes without saying that integral is going to have to continue to use the aforementioned pesky 3 letter word! (personally, i'm more found of four letter words) but i digress. also, am i misinterpreting his conveyor belt chapter? geez, i must be dumber than i think…………
but i too share your annoyance with rabbi's, priests, pastors,imams,guru's who continue to peddle immature notions of god and spirit. good conspiracy theory fodder that one……..
like i said in my last post: i am kind of partial to that which has been historically used to describe upper left quadrant phenomenon……..god, but i like the word dog,too………..

 

allo julian!

up front… i did my best to read the posts… but frankly, i can't keep up, it gets so hyper- something: intellectual, passioned, detailed (thats not a bad thing, not at all) its just that i get lost and woozy and at times, suffocating, really! (high altitudes ;-)   it feels like a fine-toothed stunning tunneling/ excavation into… something, quite tight  <gasp>…

i don't have that much time… and may not be able to followup, so really this is a bit rude of me… and yet, i want to share, this, simple minded im sure.

BRIDGING….
is what i want to say, sing….
to me there are the pioneers (perhaps Julian, you are more like this) and there are the leaders and teachers, artists.  if you are not acting as pioneer, then isn't it best to be able to know, honor and pace your audience, students, brothers/sisters? isn't that the compassionate, caring AND effective way to lead? perhaps i am more attuned to this as i am an active mindful mother/ primary parent…

yes i love the sword, lopping off heads of delusion (etc)…. but there can be a brutality that comes with it.  there is also the LOVING EMBRACE and (temporary/ developmental) acceptance and presencing of where the other (or oneself) is. 

it feels to me that this discussion is about cutting down the culture and its participants when really… YIKES… i would put the burden of responsibility on those of us who now know better, are more conscious.  it is our place to take action and bridge to them… lend a hand, pass the baton, help them crossover/ through the rifts, cruxs, confusions, etc. 

having had a number of years in marketing, memes, viral marketing…. trying to stop the use of God…. good luck.  better yet… inoculate the population, and there are MANY ways to do so.  i encourage the use of a multi-faceted approach…. hint:  when one offers discipline or guidance to a child… there are many ways in which to do so:  distraction, laughter, redirection, teaching, authority, punishment, reward (covert and overt actions)… blah blah. and its always best not to get them on the defensive (which means not being on the offensive…. ) and we all know, it takes countless repetitions, attentiveness, patience and critical gains towards the “pop” before the leap of development occurs and can be stabilized.

so i wonder about WIZARDRY… bridging throughout the spiral, like playing an octave.  i just get such a looming sense of frustration in these dialogs…. yuk.   (the frustration or personalization) it just isn't my usual experience…. and i get challenged everyday, i live in Texas, we have a range of thought systems here, alive and kicking.

i could say more but won't (because i don't think my participation is at the level you all are playing or even on the same field… just different ;-)…  again, i do appreciate your dialogs here…. thanks! 

!maha!
 ~stacy

ps.  my views would probably be different than 90%+ would associate with christianity… and damn straight, im christian… just not in the way most mean it :-)  i practice christianity… it was my root, upbringing… which has been pruned substantially… but the nutrients have been kept and sustained, maintained, practiced!  i have since tended other seeds, harvested other blossoms… most notably buddhism, vajrayana… lotuses.  im buddhist too… however, as i say these ” i am's”… know that they are stated authentically and lightly:  you'll sense the strength and value i have for the teachings but no attachment to them… there is a cycle to every bloom, to all teachings.

 

Stacy - You spoke very well.  Thanks for sharing!

 

Gosh darn it, these dialogs just end up being so much less than satisfactory than I hope when I enter them. And why is that nearly always true only here, on this blog? Grist for the mill, I suppose.

Julian, it really doesn't seem that you get my drift nor my tone. I get the feeling that a personal dialog F2F would be so much more productive.

I'll concede that the word “rip” was a little dramatic, but to dismiss it out of hand and compare it to other experiences you have had by labeling it “green-tinged” (cuz, GOD, it's so damned BAD to be green) is predictable on your part and a misread of my intention. Integral includes compassion, too, and that's what I am expressing here: compassion for all those who use the word God, but have a mythic level understanding because of the worldspaces they inhabit, many of whom have no blood whatsoever on their hands.
I'm losing patience with this, though, so this will likely be my last comment.

I ditched the word God myself nearly 20 years ago when I was a became a staunch holder of orange/green belief systems. I have since picked it up again, because I believe it can be appropriate and advantageous to use such a term in certain contexts. For example, BRIDGING, which was outlined so well in the example by Teenie. When Wilber speaks of a conveyor belt, I think the use of the word God may be one of the most effective tools for moving people to higher understandings with more depth.

Otherwise, a system is set up which essentially says, STOP HERE - at the gates of orange - and forever give up a concept that is representative of a relationship that so many have held dear for so long. Here's where I suggest (again!) that this is retaining a deep aspect of the MEANING that people inject into the word, even if they hold mythic level belief systems which they also layer on top of that more fundamental meaning.

Finally, the question I posed (are you getting any closer to understanding why…) was certainly not meant to be condescending. You seemed to focus on “Are YOU getting any closer to UNDERSTANDING” when I meant for the focus to be on “WHY such people MIGHT” retain the use of the word God. Not whether you are well-informed about concepts, but whether you can you step into the perspectives of such people?

Regardless of the outcome of this exercise, the word God is not going away anytime soon, and integral Christians will continue to use it in attempts to reach down with a helping hand. I did not enter this conversation to fight for the word God (no need); I entered it to attempt to shine a light on WHY many people who hold or are entering 2nd tier thought structures might find it advantageous to retain such a word. I thought that was the point of the post: to have a conversation about the use of the word God. But my point seems to be entirely lost here. And, of course, that was the chance I took when I stepped into this lair. It's just a tad disappointing to have the same type of experience I've encountered in the past in which my arguments are misconstrued and and an attempt is made to paint my persective as oh-so-green.

But then again, I guess that just gives me some insight into what it might be like for your arguments to be treated in similar ways by others in conversations in which you are labelled uncaring or a rational fascist, which, BTW, I never, in all our (but few) interactions, meant to do. I simply differ from you in terms of which methods (mostly related to effective language selection) we find most advantageous for dialoging and opening the minds of others to new perspectives instead of slamming them shut and further entrenching them.

Best wishes to you as you continue your attempts to raise the levels of dialog and include more truth. I feel your passion.

 

Well you guys I tried to get what you are talking about. i looked up wilber…first time in my life, and so brother, too. For me, you guys are out in orbit, I don't personally think its a good thing. Reminds me of a hitler mentality. HE propabably would have said something like; lets wipe God out so we can put forth our agenda ( withoutout guilt, i might add.) and then that way, he would have 'indoctrinated' the world for his purposes..

To take GOD out of our vocabulary? Well we took the word God out of the schools and look what we got now. A generation that can't go to school cause you might get assasinated, beaten, raped, any number of great things to spoil your beautfiul experince of growing up with your 'class -mates?? Not to mention the word fear…
That my friend might be equivalent to detroying the words LOVE,  BREATH OR SOUL..in the same way that taking the word WIFE out of our vocabulary would END marriage as we know it today. NOT a good thing. Would render us totally UNenlightened, and even more selfish, hedonistic, narcistic, God knows, much more than that.

Some peope will not murder, rape or maim ONLY because of the word God. Now you want to destroy mankind as we know it with this 'enlightened' idea??

But you are saying that there is a higher enlightenment than GOD, how fascinatingly funny!!  WHAT the heck is Higher than GOD????????????  NOTHING! CERTAINLY NOT WILBER…HAHAH… If so, let him speak and it will be….let him recreate mankind with love, honesty, integrity, let him end the poverty and the woes and the financial crisis…what the heck is he doing?? blah blah blah..exercising his brain with Godless  'enlightenment?

Why not strive to get to GOD first, after you become enlightened to the degree that your speech is refined,  beautifully understood communication that brings people together and raises the quality of their SOULS, IE, INTEGRITY, without out four letter words, wisdom, power, love, intelligence deeds, disciplined behavior that radiates love and concern for all mankind….then you can help us all up there…Then and only then will your theories all be proven to be beneficial to all mankind…(which i sincerly do not believe they ever will) cause for me there is NOTHING higher than God…this is a sophist arugmentation, indeed….and futile..most likely…

meanwhile, it sounds to be, like mind control, sounds like some hypogenetic – is that a word?  speech that is too high for anyone to understand and not practical enough to make work…cause it lacks a soul….I find no evidence of soul here in your blog…that is scarry indeed.

 

And who can prove or who has proved that God is mythical, this too, is a sophisticated, specious argumentation… but whereas you may have a beef with religion, religion can be interpreted on any number of levels and import, just like your ideas….as for God, if God is myth then I say, Blessed be God….

I remember on the last day of class at Rutgers, after studying science the whole year with our professor, forgot his name, he tipped his hand for the first time..

he said: “And now science has proven nothing –doesn't have the answers and has to go to GOD!”
 
Bravo for truth!

 

dear yaffa, yes, i hear you… Julian has a totally different approach to life than you or me, and I know it is very upsetting for you. but that's Julian!

Colin, Stacy, Marmalade, Andrew, hear hear! Thank you!

 

 

Hey Yaffe

There are two aspects of this thread as I see it, where this discussion has merit.

Just bear with me and take into consideration these points  of view  of the thread from these perspectives:

One:

The point in getting rid of “God” is in the mystical cosmological belief that relates to the idea of the completion of the human being wherein humans no longer need religion, mysticism, or spirituality because the reason for its existence has played out.

One no longer needs medicine once the healing is done.

Or as Buddha said:

“Once over the river discard the boat”

Of course this is a long way off, save for a few “the foremost” or the vanguard of those as the Sufi jargon says:

“Those drawn nigh to God.”  Those are they who are people of understanding

Two:

Many, in fact most religions have degenerated into ethnocentric [ Only my religion is true and yours sucks] monstrosities that have made “God” an abusive noxious figure, or a sky-God Wizard of OZ fantasy being with no basis in reality, but a superhuman being who supports [ my religion over others] and allows those with this mentality [ like the Taliban, for example, and those in the west , like the evangelicals who want to impose their “morality” on others] to oppress other people who dont believe what they believe.

This is the aspect of “God”  and religion that  many humans have distorted and made a mockery of, and should be either updated, to conform to reality and peaceful co-existence, or eliminated from the standpoint that religion and “God” has become a negative.

As for mythical:

Saying something is “Mythical doesn't mean it has no basis in reality.

Myths are the way the ancient masters used to tell us the way the inner and outer universe works. The “Myth” is often a symbol, or allegory.

This is where the post-modernists like Julian and Ken Wilber are in my view, in error.

With all due respect, it is they who don't seem to understand the gist of mythology.

For example the myth of Prophet Jacob “fighting the Angel, is an allegory for the aspect of one of our inner natures struggling with one another [a higher] aspect of the inner self that is calling us to a greater understanding of ourselves.

On another level the story can have a degree of reality, but on a higher level the above meaning is as true as the lower meaning.

The struggle you have with Julian is a struggle that doesn't have to be, because you both are just dealing with reality on different levels. ALL the levels are true from the perspective of their own level.

The key to PEACE is to be:

Amongst rabbits, be a rabbit

And or

Speak to people according to their level of understanding

 

ok, thank you zaki..and all who answered…

but if you say that myth doesn't mean there is no basis in reality then I again state that this is a plausible but fallacious argumentation, a clever, deceptive, sophisticated argument… because now you have taken something that has truth and admixed it.

Questions closely related to the nature of myth are “what is truth?” and “how do we know anything?” It seems fair to say that myth is not the same as scientific fact, but what exactly does even that mean? If we look at one of the ancient Greek creation stories, the world was originally chaos. From Chaos, Order suddenly appeared, and from the conflict between the two of them, all else in the world came into existence. Did the Greeks think of this creation story as literal truth? How would they know for sure when they weren't around when it happened? Perhaps they extrapolated from their observations and powers of reasoning to construct an allegorical world view. Paul Veyne in Did the Greeks Beleive Their Myths, writes:

 “Myth is truthful, but figuratively so. It is not historical truth mixed with lies; it is a high philosophical teaching that is entirely true, on the condition that, instead of taking it literally, one sees in it an allegory.”

How different is this allegory from the Big Bang Theory with its inexplicable components? To me, the answer is, “not much.” Instead of an explosive force originating out of nowhere, but coming from within the cosmic soup, the Greeks had a kind of primeval, disorganized and chaotic soup, with the principle of Order suddenly asserting itself.

Maybe we should say that myth is like scientific – not knowledge, but – theory. That would work for some myth, like the creation of the world out of Chaos. However, it won't work when we examine the supernatural stories, which appear to defy scientific knowledge. The story of Hercules grappling with Antaeus, a chthonic creature, is a case in point. Every time Hercules hurled Antaeus to the ground, he became stronger. Clearly this is what we might politely call a tall story. But maybe there is a scientific logic behind it. What if Antaeus had some sort of magnet (you can invent the scenario) that made him stronger each time he hit the earth and weaker when held away from his power source? Or how about Cerberus, the three-headed hound guarding the Underworld? There are two-headed people. We call them Siamese or Conjoined Twins. Why not three-headed beasts? And, as far as the Underworld goes, some of the stories of the Underworld mention a cave at the western edge of the world that was thought to lead downwards. While there could be some scientific basis for this, even if there isn't, is this story any more a “lie” to be scoffed at than “Journey to the Center of the Earth”? Yet people dismiss such myths as lies created by primitive people who lack scientific knowledge – or as lies created by people who haven't found the true religion.

So what I understand is that what you are calling myth here is what i would call metaphor…for instance, the way God rules the world through the ten sefirot, the ten powers, or attributes, the energies that flow through us…that is the paradigm that I hold true about God and what God is, which any enlightened person should know.

I remember my very first day of philosophy class, The Philosphy of Love and Person at Rutgers..forgot the teachers name..He started out the first day with these words: never saw the guy in my life, and he didn't know us. We hadn't even said hello to him yet but nevertheless we started his indoctrination..:

“You all have a very immature understanding of God. God is not a big father in the sky who rewards you when you are good and punishes you when you are bad, God is truth, beauty and love.”

At that time, I was anything but God conscious to any degree. I had walked away from God and the Catholic church at about 9 years old, basically telling God to go fly a kite. So, i wasn't plugged into God on any conscious level. BUT THIS PROFESSOR MANAGED TO SHUT ME DOWN AND SCREW ME UP SO BADLY THAT I COULDN'T THINK DURING HIS WHOLE CLASS WITH THAT ONE STATEMENT.
As a matter of fact, i had all A's until that class which i flunked, only class i ever flunked in college and i had to make it up with him another semester..

I don't think that he was a very good proffesor, much less a good human being, for the simple reason that he destroyed something very delicate in my physche and created for me havoc and chaos. Instead of building a bridge, he uprooted the bridge, instead of building our trust and hopefully, honestly leading us into the light, he led me into a tunnel.
Now if you know anything about me, I am no baby. I have been through this world on just about every level there is to journey on, good, bad, ugly, and always growing, pushing trhough the hoops……so if someone can do that to someone who is strong, imagine the impact on someone who is more vulnerable and not as strong a personality. That's how cults get started, indoctrination of vulnerable folks through  sophisticated arguments that they are too naive to see through..If someone is truly enlightened he will only lead someone to higher levels of BEING and Behaving….if the influence dosen't manifest in true growth of moral fiber and character, beauty in thought and speech, refinement, more purity of thought and deed…knowing good from evil, doesn't create love and harmony, integrity and fairness, uprightness with a moral compass…that that isn't enlightenment. why can I say…I havne't seen or felt your soul here julian..but I am sure you are seeing mine.

 

 

 I said that myth DOES OR CAN have a basis in reality! But because REALITY has levels of perspectives and understanding the ancient masters created mythological allegories [That way all levels of understanding can benefit]. that VERY WELL MAY have a degree of reality.

The allegory of the Garden of Eden [the subject of my upcoming book] has truth on ALL levels.  My book is about the truth of the allegory on the highest level. I don't have to disrespect the lower levels, just put them in perspective.

You are correct  Yaffe intellectuals can tend to become arrogant.

When I was a kid I took some ups and read the entire dictionary, AND RETAINED IT!

Now I can understand the abstruse language of the post-modern philosophers, and in their language pretty easily relate to them, and often times disagree and or refute them as I have in several essays on Integral World.

But I get along with the post modern philosophers and scientific mystics [followers of Wilber] because I follow the dictum:

Speak to people according to their level of understanding

Bottom line, this thread is becoming another example of the story [parable] of the Elephant in the Dark.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_Men_and_an_Elephant

We all have a piece of the truth, or elephant, but to really learn we must realize the greater truth is that we don't have a leg, foot, body, or trunk: of an elephant

We have the whole elephant in our hands

This parable of the Elephant in the dark is a great example of what is going on here. The literal parables that have come from the story CAN BE TRUE.

It really doesn't matter, since the lesson in the story is what is important, because a myth will always have slightly different characters, and details over time but the inner transcendent truth that the myth is attempting to convey is timeless, it transcends personalities, and historical periods and facts.

 

yes, I understand you…and i understood you the first time, and that is why i disputed the idea of myth being fictitious and therefore its usage here as being sophist. You are right,

And i truthfully don't care for the airy fairy stuff in the skies of philosophical thought, is that what he are calling this discourse ?  UNLESS it is eatible, can be digested and broken down to produce a result that brings enlightenment into focus practically. It has to go from the head and ears, fill the eyes with light, past the nose so that you can smell it, into the mouth so that you can taste it, and if it tastes right and good, be able to digest it and manifest it practically into living revelation knowledge to work in your behalf towards being not a mind screwer- excuse the expression, but a power to produce beauty, harmony, and good deeds.

Kindness for instance at its most simple level,  will produce better results and needs less greatness of thought than all the high fluting “knowledge' of philosophies, and accomplish more good in the world. Therefore kindness can be better than knowledge..So, once we can eat and digest it see what it has produced;  then we can say, we were nurtured, if indeed we were and not with a bellyache.

Show me the man and his deeds, not just philosophies, his essence and his character, how many orphans and widows did he feed, and how many people did he grow up, and how he spends his money, and i will tell you who he is and what he is.,.and if his knowledge is ego or enlightenment…you know some people are willing to sleep on floors to produce good character and to correct flaws in their middot…their emotions and their attitudes, my husband was such a man…and i will not speak for myself, but i can tell you that you can read any of my blogs here and poetry to know who and what i am…and the roads i have traveled…and i am not so arrogant to say or think that i AM enlightened at all nor would my late darling husband, but certainly he was, and certainly we are striving for that and have been for the last 20 years…I have been to more bible schools, more eastern disciplines until judaism…and for me its not about my ego…its about really being a better human being and fixing my flaws, of which i have many, lolol….giving to others to produce better humans….prove me wrong, its ok with me….

.let me taste the fruit and I will know if it is good or not and if it nurturing or if, like candy, is non nutritive and therefore, deceptive. Let me see the stature of the offerer of these fruits and I will make an intelligent decision…faith even in theories and philsophies without works is dead. and i am not talking here about published works or speeches, i want to see the soul of it..like suzie would say, show me the money!

thank you.

 

Another example would be this: Integrity means that when you are alone on the road at 2 or 3 am and there are no cars around and the light is red, you stop. Integrity is revealed in darkness. That is the man whose teachings i will follow…the ones whose beleifs have formed him at the core… from the level of soul and beleive it or not, you can see, feel, touch, taste and hear it…. do you agree?

I think most of us are a bunch of spoiled brats, babies, who just want their own way, to do all and everything they please and are looking sheepishly for those who will go along with the program they have which is ultimately, lawlessness and IMmorality. I think in general, we are regressing, not progressing..and I don't think taking God out of the equation will render sweet fruit on this earth.

 

at the risk of being redundant on this blog i'd like to expand on the martial arts metaphor that i brought up earlier. ever since i was a young boy i've been fascinated with the genre and have studied tae kwon doe at different times in my life. unfortunately, i have gone thru periods of cognitive dissonance on this issue at it pertains to the nature of the paradox of the dragon and my long held beliefs in the spiritual ideals of ahimsa. at this point in time, i've come to believe that ahimsa is a idealist form of control. nevertheless, i've always admired 2 things about sensei masters:1- their wisdom in knowing when it is the time to fight, and that fight always being in self-defense of self or others, and 2- the ability of a sensei master to not only deliver efficient blows but also; and more importantly, the ability to withstand efficient blows, all the while knowing that most of the time their skill is used in training, and at the end of a good spar, the sensei's bow deeply to their opponent out of mutual respect……………..
does this make any sense?

 

yep, if you are speaking to me, sure does…

 

Well, first of all I purposely asked my friends about the picture to give you the benefit of the doubt..And first an intelligent attorney male friend was offended by the very nature of it. He said It looks like erotic imagery and artwork,  It is very suggestive, and the angel looks as though he is getting great satisfaction.  His counterpart, my girlfriend who is also highly educated, a fine arts teacher said it borders porn. hhmmm, now that i think about it, the apple doesn't fall far from the tree, was Walt Whitman gay??

 I don't think this blog has anything to do with holiness or wrestling with God whatsoever…a very clever arguement indeed. But may GOD grant you the spiritual understanding that will truly express light rather than the rebellious nature of existentialism my friend. 

As for me, judaism is the model that i have found for the highest ideals to live by, the purist of values and disciplines, and the kabbalah is my blueprint for spiritual maturity and enlightenment, I wish you all the best…

I guess I don't belong in this conversation..i don't think  this blog or these ideas come from spirit at all, at least not anything to do with holyness or purity of spirit…sorry…good luck to you all.

 

J~

What would you have it be… if it was a clean slate (starting NOW, you have access to everything that we have up to this moment)…. how would spirituality unfold through development, the spiral? 

Can you offer me the Big Picture…. the flow, languaging, support structures, etc?  Again, from a blank tabula rasa.  the Grand Design, from your perspective?

or not ;-)

green as one favorite color of mine
lush-ly
~stacy


ps.  i am sincere in this questioning, invitation…. !  and it may not be the space, time or interest to answer… no biggie.  i am curious since i could feasibly consider raising my daughters in a way to minimize the (unhealthy) entrainment of religion/ spirituality (that you passionately discuss/deconstruct in this think tank).

 

I am not sure. It's a sticky concept. Are we Integralites priviledging certain versions of the same unprovable metaphysical speculation because we like how they sound? Perhaps more essentially - are we trying to include something that we might do better to transcend? Do we really need speculative metaphysical spiritual beliefs? 

I know I don't. They simply are not particularly interesting to me. Personally, the above theologies might simply be the kind of fantastical  thoughts to notice in meditation and then drop in the interest of being present with what is, not important theological observations to embroider upon and offer as essential and sophistcated spiritual truths.

in light of the answers to your own questions julian, it seems to me that your mind is completely made up on these issues, so much so in fact, that no matter what anyone in integral says about god, including wilber, you will continue to dismiss any discussion on god in any form………….
so what's the point in even asking………..i think the overwhelming majority of answers that you've had on this blog on this issue, are at minimum sympathetic to the idea of god; but again, you have no wish to hear it………..
so imma gonna leave you on this one with your mind made up but continue the metaphor one step further- in my life i've had the occasion to witness many street fighters where anything goes to win, but i can safely say that those kinds of fighters are the least skillful, in my opinion…….

 

andrew, colin - come on back, we're only just getting started… you must be aware that after the withdrawal is the biggest opportunity for growth…?

teenie-dakini - your observations and questions are among the most relevant and important responses here - to me at least, especially because of the parental issues:

What would you have it be… if it was a clean slate (starting NOW, you have access to everything that we have up to this moment)…. how would spirituality unfold through development, the spiral? 

Can you offer me the Big Picture…. the flow, languaging, support structures, etc?  Again, from a blank tabula rasa.  the Grand Design, from your perspective?

ps.  i am sincere in this questioning, invitation…. !  and it may not be the space, time or interest to answer… no biggie.  i am curious since i could feasibly consider raising my daughters in a way to minimize the (unhealthy) entrainment of religion/ spirituality (that you passionately discuss/deconstruct in this think tank).

big questions, so the answers may be spread out, but stay tuned. julian has already written plenty elsewhere which is relevant, and i have much to say on these matters. let's see if we can't get some bridges built without dropping too many tools on people's heads…

 

Julian,

I just bought Michael Dowd's new book Thank God for Evolution. I'm looking forward to reading it, and I'll probably post a few blogs about it. He lists Wilber and many other integral thinkers in the index. I'm not sure if you caught my question about him above, but I'll ask again just in case you missed it. Do you think Dowd's approach is positive? Do you see his “evolutionary evangelism” as a step in the right direction? Or do you see it as just more childish fantasy?

I think you and I, Julian, are focusing on different fronts. Not that this move to transform our culture should be understood in terms of war; so you'll have to excuse the metaphor. But you seem to want to do battle with the dangers of mythic literalism, while I am more concerned about the threat of a similarly mythic materialism. I think the dominant worldview today (at least in the developed world), even among many who would call themselves believers, is basically consumerism. We have fetishized technology and stand in unquestioning awe of the power of science to bring us a better and more prosperous future. I think in the right hands, this might even be a myth worth believing. But at the moment, the whole thing is powered by greed. Science (ie, the method), being as it is devoid of any value system, is no match for the many industries that have made good of its inventions (military, agrobusiness, biotech, etc.). I am far more frightened by the prospects of this now global consumerist attitude (which I would argue is the result of a kind of scientism) than I am of the recent rise in Church attendance. I'm sure you are just as frustrated with consumerism as I am, but like I said, I think mechanistic materialism (which serves as the metaphysical support for our current economic system) is a far more pressing problem than the rejuvenation of religious belief. Religious extremism/Jihadism is certainly worth keeping a close eye on, but 9/11 notwithstanding, I think we face far bigger problems as a result of the social imaginary that allows (and even celebrates!), among other things, companies like Monsanto to own the patents for the genomes of 70% of the seeds sown on the planet. If a society's belief that nature belongs to God keeps companies from patenting genomes, I say lets go with the lesser of evils. There are other options, of course…

Anyways, let me know what you think of Dowd.

be well,
Matt

 

Hi Julian, sorry if I was a bit harsh, I am a straight shooter and passionate as you see, lol and I do call it like i see it. And it is possible that we live not on two different planets but in two different worlds, I like in a deeply spiritual world that is powered by faith in God, trust, even with the wrestling, learning, religious thought and observance,  and you live in the world that is powered by intellect and logic.  …..However, I could have been a bit more subtle, like asked my question of today's blog:

 I am seriously wondering how anyone can claim enlightenment while denigrating,mocking,  (by this I refer to the rendition you present of our patriarch yaacov,  which is the antithesis of anything holy as wrestling with an angel )  and then wanting to alter the conscience of the world as we know it, to exclude the highest symbol for God and Godliness in the world -that being the word God itself- and to create a new and 'higher form ' of 'enlightened' verbiage  from unproven philosophies that may or may not measure up to the highest of standards in the land now; may not have the blueprint of action needed to strive for those standards and may not even include or have any regard for such things as 'holiness,' morals, sexuality? Can someone who is upright and moral, believes in GOD and strives to be Godlike, to imitate God in his powers and energeries regarding purity of thought and holiness….

I could have simply asked you these questions…but I was too upset to think..

 

how are you doing adam? i'm so happy your back! good on you…..
Julian,julian, julian :) one of the reasons i follow your sorry ass'd blog (sorry yaffie) is because of the level of intelligence and authentic concern for the human condition that most people here have.
now even if it were within my power to censor you i wouldn't because i would make a good god!lol (sorry yaffie) and besides, i do admire again, brilliance in all it's different manifestations…………
i think we also share a great love for one of the greatest thinkers in modern times and i am humbled and privileged to be able to discuss these ideas with people that are passionate about them,too………
i think i've mentioned before that i am personally more concerned with the pragmatic side of the spiral, as it pertains to all the people who will flow into integral consciousness in the coming years. and although this primary concern of mine is just that,mine, i would hope all integrally minded people maintain a mindful sensitivity to the many many issues that amber and orange bring with them..
now i know that wasn't the topic of this blog, but at least this gives you a sense of where i am coming from……………….

 

rotflmao…this is halarious you guys…really…

all concepts of the so-called one true God, began in Abraham's head; today we'd send him to a psychiatrist and put him on meds…

every religion and belief since, including IH spirituality, was birthed from the mind of Abraham…and i am not necessarily saying that it's a 'bad thing'…if you can see beyond the limits of words and meanings that man has given the scriptures for centuries,  then the truth of what was meant in those scriptures can be seen…

having said that, i do not see how calling it something else would help anything…that has been tried before, and all that does is create more religions to be bound by…with slightly different rules…and different names…

i say call it what it is…a concept.

as far as what to teach your child, teach them to believe and honor themselves and their own awareness…teach them to be responsible for themselves…encourage that very life within them to be free of conceptual and conditioned awareness…help them learn to live in the moment, and teach them that their happiness depends on them…if you encourage a child's true nature, and you yourself are liberated, you will not have to worry about teaching it to them…a warning here, if you are not willing to do this, don't have children.

minus all the conditioned awareness, which includes everything you have been taught to believe about god or buddha or whatever religion you adhere too…is your true nature…i don't care if you call it god or jesus or buddha or whatever, it does not change it…

i agree that it is way past time to question these beliefs, but it is not going to help things to trap ourselves in yet another box…we need to get real and stop living in our heads…this life is a gift, we should live it to its fullest potential by paying attention to what is in front of us to do, and just do it…admittedly,  most times, that is a lot of work on self; lots of inner searching, and lots of emotional healing, but it can be done.

i saw some truth in the Colbert thing, i happened to have seen that episode, and here is the truth…if we want to end suffering, we can…God seems to be an excuse for us to depend on him to save us from ourselves, and the devil is the scapegoat that gets the blame for everything else…it is up to each individual to wake the hell up, and do what they need to do.  if that means pissing someone off by telling the truth, so be it…the truth will set you free…but only if you pay attention to it…physician, heal thyself…no one else can…all this other stuff is just distraction…

your very life's path is your journey of awakening…

good to see you guys, always, star…

 

 

Julian wrote:

“am more concerned with the creation of an intelligent contemporary adult spirituality that recognizes where the real work is than anything else… and yes consumerism and greed are massive problems”.

Zak:

There are many present paths in my view that fit this idea:

Versions of Sufism, Zen, Taoism, Vedanta, Kabbalah, Sri Aurobindo and Integral Yoga, Andrew Cohen's Evolutionary Enlightenment,  Wilber's Integral Spirituality,  and others unmentioned I think are examples o f intelligent contemporary spirituality.

 

Julian, its not only the picture, but a picture is worth a thousand words..don't poo poo it, i am no fuddy duddy….You know very well what the picture portrays…I didn't trust it and thought it not an honest presentation, THEREFORE, I asked others who are not on my spiritual wavelength to take a look at its portrayal and it only took a sec for either of them to know what's flying in it.

The rest was your commentary…I don't think you should make light of my words…they are sincere and I am speaking from an honest and open heart.

Star:
“all concepts of the so-called one true God, began in Abraham's head; today we'd send him to a psychiatrist and put him on meds…”

You are so right  Star:, it all came from abraham…bravo!!  You see how 'enlightened' we are? But it wasn't only Abraham's intellect, it was his SOUL that was so open – leading him out of idolatry and away from his 'idols..' polytheism…He had a gift of seeing the darker ways of reality and spirit, that is the power of the soul…  intelligence or science alone is not enough…enlightenement has everything to do with God (sorry julian -and the power of the soul…either for good or for evil…ABRAHAM (father of nations) by the way, same letters as BRAHMAN ,  Father of Nation, lol…the sons he sent away who were from hagar, tamei, spirutal impurity, East– tames, the same word -impure –all influences from abraham and the sons he let go to the EAST>…remember?? He, called Ivri, outsider, from the other side, same as Indus, etc. etc..

  Lets try just getting to the level of Abraham only 5800 years ago and lets try living on that level… That WAS my whole point..We haven't even arrived to the level of abraham – 

That is why I trust no man, and no doctrines, and certainly not psychology, science, blah blah blah.. show me the fruit..

I'll take the brilliance of Abraham and His kabbalah, his blueprint, and His supernatural leadings…we would be a whole lot better off, cause there isn't a person who will do better..
thats my two cents..BUT I am always willing to learn and grow, so, show me the 'enlightenment' in manifestation…

 

Julian, i am not homophobic…but i do love truth and want the best for humanity.
Why not just answer the questions I have posed to you? 

…i am waiting…maybe i can present the questions to dr guo for you…I am sure he would take my questions seriously, but if you cannot answer them perhaps you might go to ask the answers of wilber or Dr GUO, i am sure Dr guo can answer them…but YOU need to answer them, no??..This is your hypothosis after all..

 

Wow, this blog post and all of the comments offers a fascinating perplexity of perspectives. Great, edgy stuff! Julian, you can always be counted on for edge diving, that's for sure (he says with wonder and awe).

Thanks for the call-back, Adam. I have no fear here; just frustration with a combination of not being grokked and not being able to sufficiently explicate my position. Those, combined with insufficient time to devote to such activities, tends to encourage abandonment, or departure at least.

This is a valuable set of discussions, though, so I return.

Back to the original post and questions (though I hope to move closer to elaborating my understanding, I assume that I will not be wholely successful at that endeavor; please ask questions for clarification if necessary, but please also try to realize that this level of communication is ever challenging.)

Julian wrote:
1) How long until a significant percentage of leading religious intellectuals - let alone ordinary believers - can think at this level?

2) Even then, why is the attempt to perform all manner of mental gymnastics to somehow “reconcile” differing ideas that are all made-up make-believe stories in the first place even particularly important? 

3) Why is the concept of god any more necessary than the concept of goblins or forest spirits for the cultivation of a contemporary spirituality that includes deep contemplative practice, shadow work, and an attempt to reconcile inner and outer experience via applying rigorous scientific method to all three modes of knowing?

1) I don't think we can deliver an answer to this question, since we do not know for sure who or how many are at the cusp of 2nd tier. Wilber claims up to 10%, but I have never seen the research that substantiates that claim. Surely, though, as those who are religiously inclined, which in the U.S. translates in the vast majority of cases being Christian, ascend the spiral and leap into 2nd tier, they will bring the word God with them. As in Brother David and others pointed to by Mary.
2) Why would they want to bring the word God with them? Several reasons, I'm sure. One being that the word still works to convey a deeper meaning than any other one word can, even though the thought structures that are applied (mythologies) vary according to level of development. Second, to maintian ties to personal, family and cultural history. Third, perhaps, because Christian texts are read from different perspectives, including higher readings which view the stories as metaphors for the human struggle to meet divine ideals. Many people living now, including those at 2nd tier, still jump into the Bible and use it as a basis for challenging inquiry.
3) Comparing the word God to goblins or forest spirits doesn't seem particularly useful to me. Goblins and forest spirits are explicitly magical figures rooted in fairy tales that are not even close to the same class as the allegory found in many religious texts. Fairy tales may be allegorical -relating fantastical creatures and their behavior to human traits and behaviors - but they are generally not meant to answer the deeper existential questions of life that religious texts attempt, although they too sometimes incorporate the use of fantastical creatures (e.g. angels). One clear distinction: people do not generally direct prayer to goblins or forest spirits.

It seems to me that AQAL and Wilber are moving more towards application than strict theory. And I certainly would not limit a description of the role(s) of Integral Institute to think tank. Would a think tank get explicitly involved with culture through materials such as the ILP kit and ILP seminars? So, instead of divorcing from or rejecting the word God for the purpose of transcending the mythic interpretations, and since it is so embedded in our culture, why not continue to use such a powerful word and elevate the level of the discussion and the depth of the meaning? Again, since the simple fact is that people who are exhibiting 2nd tier thought structures are themselves using the word, it seems to me that I-I is simply allowing/encouraging discussion that honors the words and concepts that the participants find valuable and useful. Again, application instead of theory.

Finally, it occurred to me last night that, while God indeed has multiple definitions (as so clearly demonstrated by Adam) that depend on the level of development of the person, “God” also seems to convey a sense of awe and respect for whatever force creates and sustains us. People inherit or develop concepts to explain that force. At the very root of the various definitions, though, there is a relationship. (I know, I know, why do I keep coming back to that…persistence!) So, last night, the Wilber-Combs lattice appeared in my mind's eye, and I realized that what I have been trying to convey is that people experience “God” during transcendent STATES (very real phenomena), and then they attempt to explain those experiences to themselves using concepts that arise out of their STAGE. When someone from a different STAGE challenges their conceptions, they feel that their STATE experience is being challenged, and they KNOW what they FELT: “God.” With that knowledge, they can discount the challenge and fall back into their concept.

Does that make ANY sense at all?  8)

Gotta run for now…

Love!

 

colin, you surprise me…thank you….great feedback..and yes, you are right, most of us who beleive strongly have experienced in a life changing way – that supernatural equation  that is missing in this paradigm…and the gratitude that goes with it…the POWER that is God..I don't know about being able to discount or make less the idea though of God having been the impetus or manifestation..

 

One more comment I meant to include: If ~ 70% of the US self-identifies as Christian, and supposedly 25% express Amber, 50% express Orange, 25% express Green and 2% express 2nd Tier (found in one of Wilber's excerpts via this link), then we ALREADY have people at different levels of consciousness using the word God. I think Wilber and some Integralites retain the word partly to reflect this fact.

So, is AQAL just a theory, or it is also elaborating a paradigm? Real-world application.

(Another aside: forgive any misuse of terminology; I am still familiarizing myself with jargon and there's A LOT of it.)

Yaffie, thanks for your comment. Glad you are sticking around and stepping into the fire.

 

thank you colin….you might be going against the grain a bit here…:)  lol..I actually don't know any of the jargon and i hope i did not mispeak…calling it a paradigm…tongue in cheek, off the cuff…maybe it isn't a good choice of words…not sure..

 

yaffie, for all your claims to the contrary, you are still clinging to your 'blankie', while julian has replaced his 'blankie' with a 'teddy bear', but just doesn't know what to call it yet…

these things may be momentarily comforting; illusions usually are, seemingly filling that pyschological need for belonging…or deluding oneself into finding that completeness that you 'think' is outside of yourself, but they are still only distractions from the 'work that is at hand'…which is always within your own awareness…

yaffie wants to return to the desert, julian wants to build another tower of babel…

the God of the desert has never been successful in freeing minds, and every tower of babel will crumble beneath it's own conceptual legs…

sorry folks, i have to keep it simple stupid…lol

if this pisses you off…good…maybe it will cause you to question what it is exactly that you believe in…

always, star…

 

Thanks for the response, J. A few things…

i am more concerned with the creation of an intelligent contemporary adult spirituality that recognizes where the real work is than anything else… and yes consumerism and greed are massive problems.

I'm with you here. There is real work that needs attention here on earth, and our spirituality should focus more on the down and dirty than the high and mighty. I think consumerism and resource gluttony are essentially spiritual problems that can only be addressed by transforming our collective psychic altitude. 

as for dowd - i will look more into his work - but for the moment it looks pretty uninteresting to me i have to say…why should we try and reconcile one 2000 yr old  myth from the middle east with the scientific understanding that is emerging about how life evolved? why not choose an ancient greek or aztec myth and try and make that fit with evloutionary theory? silly.

Why should we ressurect a 2000 year old myth? Because at least 70% of the planet still contextualizes their life based on some version of monotheism. Multiculturalism is great for college graduates and so forth, but for avg. people, their religion/culture of birth is all they know. I agree with Dan Dennett that world religions should be taught in high school along side English and Math, but you have to admit that Aztec myths are not going to hold traction with most people. We are a Judeo-Christian world for the most part (Christianity has taken a lot of Greek mythology on board already). But regardless, I think Dowd discusses evolution in terms of human spirituality generally, though admitedly he is mostly trying to reach out to Christians. The scientific understanding of evolution, at least in the reigning materialist paradigm, is not something anyone can derive much personal meaning from (much less transpersonal meaning). I think the science (which again, ideally is just a method) is in dire need of something like what Dowd is doing.

Mythic literalism is bad news, which I think is exactly why Dowd is doing what he is doing: trying to bump people into a more transpersonal understanding of God (God as the creative force or eros behind/within the ongoing creativity of evolution, rather than the strictly transcendent sky daddy mechanic who designed it all from scratch).

-Matt

 

Starlight, I appreciate your feedback…I am going to think about it.

However, I think that I have been thinking about it over these past five years.  I will say that  since my beloved husband was killed and then all of the eye opening trials and occurences that have transpired since then, all of the 'realities' that confronted me in the greedy and selfish world, culminated and manifested into near death for me and it is a miracle I am still alive.  I was given six months a year ago this coming august to live….

.I have had many questions for and to 'GOD” and many questions about how i understand God based upon my own experiences and the teachings I have learned…and I am not sure that I have not come to a proper understanding yet. It appears to me now, that “God” has done all that he will do in our lives on a level since CREATION…and that we have free choice and dependent upon those choices we have a quality of life…however, in this respect (in that we already have the tools and the breath, the soul and therefore the power to whatever degree we are developed spiritually) we have an ability to  exercise that power of the supernal in our lives…

I went through enough self sacrifice and devotedness to 'GOD'  with integrity –all of my being –over the past twenty years to come to the place when my world fell apart with this last brush with death to delve, to pray, to 'confront' god about how all of this is possible. So I am very aware of the delusions, i am no dummy, but at the same time, my integrity allows me to wait on the answers – on the process to see what I get… I will not act in haste…I will not throw the baby out with the bathwater…there is much growth and transformation that occurs for good in people who have faith and they are not symied by logic…however, one is only as developed as his devotion to the ethics and disciplines of his teachers, along with the input and the loyalty to his own soul…

I am in the process of reevaluating the past twenty years of teachings and hoping to reach the next higher level minus any unneccessary baggage…
and

 

drown that damn baby in the bathwater, and then throw it out…and realize that the strength and courage that got you through all that you went through was not outside of you…

if you want to call it God, i don't a problem with that…but when we put restrictions, and legislate doctrine, we limit what we call God, and ourselves…and we continue to be the blind leading the blind, and we stumble around in the darkness, and fall into yet another ditch…

then we pray to that 'god' up in the sky somewhere, to please help us again, and we wait for him to push a hotdog under our door, then we get tired of waiting, and get up off our asses and go make us a hotdog, and then again, give thanx to that supernatural being outside of ourselves for it, and maybe blame the devil cause it took so long…wake up…stop worrying about why you went through what you went through, and just use your experience to your advantage…

i do not mean to sound uncompassionate, infact, it is the very opposite…we are adults here, time to put those childish toys away and see what is in that dark glass…that is where the work is j…and from what i can remember, you use to be very good at it?

all the ditches may be new and shinning ditches,  but it is still a damn ditch…a trap for the mind to be defined by…we don't fear the darkness, we fear the light…truth is, we need them both to realize what we really are…

yaffie, you would not be here if you were not searching…maybe for a new ditch; julian is building a new ditch because he really wants to help others, like you, be free of your old ditch…

i am here to tell you to both to throw those blankies and teddy bears into the ditch…and be all that you can be without having to even join the army!

glad you find it humorous j…i am having such fun…always, star…

 

star, I am praying only to the god in me…not in the sky…

 

that's good to hear since the one in the sky was probably a UFO…lol

i'm sorry, i couldn't resist; just watched a special recently concerning biblical ufo's…it was very interesting…and revealing…

hey j, you could just denouce the god of the old testament as an alien; lot's of ufoers would surely back you up!

i don't want you guys to think i do not take your intellectual and spiritual struggles seriously, well, that's not true, i don't take them seriously, but i do understand and respect that you do…

what is so apparent, at least to my own awareness, is that these are the very things that prevent one from liberation…

always, star…

 

I am not so sure about that star….not at all, when you live with appropriate boundaries, when you know how to give and take and release your energies where and when, when you have that balance, you have more freedom than without those appropriate boundaries…

I think that the torah is a beautiful blueprint for living and I don't think that someone who who hasn't a blueprint or a paradigm for expression of higher levels of thought and behavior, who doesn't know how to discipline himself, and has no boundaries or borders is at all in any better shape. The question I have is only which can take you higher and is more comprehensive for what one wants to accomplish..or, perhaps which ones are compatible, will work together so that you can make a merger to take the next staircase up higher..

 

dear j,

i am not confined by your limits or your 'new' heights…and just because you choose to label me as this or that, does not mean that i wear that label, nor am i confined by it…

i realize that when beliefs are threatened, your only option is to try and dismiss what you do not yet understand, with judgments, rest assured, i am neither offended by that, nor do i think any less of you and what you are attempting to do.

i realize that your intentions are well meant, but you are none-the-less still just trying to build, another tower of babel…instead of a ladder with steps, this one has tiers and colors…it is a distraction, and deep down, you know this.

you of all people should know by now that the way to liberation is in that very looking within that you support, or you use to…it has nothing to do with levels, which only constitute some type of separation, and only continues to separate and distract one from really dealing with what is in their looking glass…

i am neither surprised nor dismayed by your lack of anything to say, as i left you few places to go…

main reason, i have no concrete beliefs of conceptual bullshit concerning it…

supporting arguements?  i have given you the ones against what you have proposed, but let me ask you why i should need any supporting my stance, since i am not the one struggling with an angel?

dear yaffie,

if you are happy and at peace, i am happy for you…

always, star…

 

i want to pick up on a dynamic which underpins much of this discussion, which happens to be focused on the word god, but could be any one of numerous other words. the dynamic is subconscious avoidance of repressed emotional pain, enacted through the defensive holding of (often illogical) belief systems, themselves supported by relativistic language use, insufficiently critical thinking, and psychological strategies of victimhood positions or projected oppression/exclusion. i'd like to show how the word usage in question is only the tip of the iceberg, and how much of the intensity of such discussions is actually driven by shared neurosis and fixated defensiveness above the conscious desire for authenticity, truth, and intellectual honesty.

i also want to stress that none of us are immune from this, that my observations are not judgements of individuals, and that commenting on beliefs, strategies, language use, philosophy and psychology is not a comment on the person themselves, is not intended personally, and is always a reflection of dynamics i am aware of in myself. i intend no ill will towards anyone, even though i expect that not all will enjoy my attentions. pain is a part of life, and my work is intended to minimise unnecessary pain, especially through discouraging psychological avoidance.

this is not the psychologising as a form of attack frowned upon in debating, rather i see these dynamics as being at the heart of the debate, and in my opinion is largely what makes such discussions so arduous instead of collaborative, constructive, and forward-moving into badly needed change.

there is a reason that words have common definitions, and i'd like to show (after looking at some individual comments) how abandoning these definitions arbitrarily is as symptomatic of psychological repression as putting feelings above facts, group concensus above truth, and individual perspective above objective reality.

 

yes julian, there are some posts on this blog that make your point, and i hope it's obvious that some of these posts point out my concern also. if integral and the 21st century was happening on a remote island somewhere in the south pacific, then yes; theoretically i can agree with you. all the high altitude folks on that island could concentrate on integrating the body-mind in optimum ways and much like the buddhist's, dispense with all metaphysical speculations that  are so counterproductive to life here on the mainland.
but as you well know, such is not the case and the biggest threat to your vision on the mainland is the unhealthy projections of the amber and orange, and green (to a lesser degree,in my opinion) structures of consciousness. if integral doesn't dialog in healthy constructive ways with these folks, then it may be that teal and higher won't be around much longer in anyway….. allow me to make an observation on the amber structure as i've experienced it in myself and in others. i've met more than a few people who were completely non-religious who suffered from a very rigid black and white thinking process. it was all or nothing, do or die, for these folks. now as i see it, it's true that the mythic religions are the main carrier of that thinking on this earth ,but they are by no means the only carrier of that thinking process. and i think what orange does is loosen the grip somewhat on that amber structure, and green even more so. perhaps people like dawkins have not transcended the amber structure as much as they think they have, but i'm digressing again…oh wait a minute, no am not. i also wanted to make a point about being sensitive to orange. green typically just rants and raves at orange. monsanto those evil !@#$%. all this does is shut down any possibility of constructive dialog. so yes, not only does integral need to be sensitive to amber, but orange,too, but of course not in a wuzzy way. 
is it possible that wilber is also aware of these things that i'm saying? perhaps this is why he seems to be engaging all these folks in the manner that he is. and in i.s. is was very clear to put spiral dynamics in it's proper context, and was quite clear that it should not be used as a weapon or as way to pidgeonhole people. i've also run across many intelligent people on this site that share the same concern. and in saying this i am in no way diminishing the veracity of the pre/trans fallacy…………….
by the way, the martial arts metaphors were more to do with one certain pornographic picture that headed this blog. hmmm, all the many ways to fight, well, i think i made it clear which ways are the most skillful, in my experience…….
can i finish by sharing my amazing skills in semiotics? (defined loosely)
jacob represents the the earth, the manifest universe, all that we know about the physical universe, and the angel is symbolic of the transcendent, that which is beyond the human body-mind, beyond all time and space as we know it. and the final outcome of the battle is the complete unity of heaven and earth. the not two in all it's magnificent glory…….nonduality by any other name………..lol

Oh !@#$%, get me out of here!lol

 

i'd like to go through some of the posts, starting with joe, one of the first to actually address the questions, then attempt to show the common dynamics.

hi joe

Integral theory says that faith changes over time from prerational to rational and transrational perspectives.

rather that consciousness progresses through those stages. faith by definition cannot be sustained  healthily beyond the growth in the individual of rational faculties. to defend faith volitionally after this point requires an error in thinking, or strategic psychological defence, or both.

Speaking for myself, I would say that it usually matters very little to declare one’s own faith superior in rationality to that of others.

i would agree. people who profess faith do so inherently and inescapably irrationally. to do so in possession of rational faculties is pathological.

A personal faith seems to beget a certain respect for, and sometimes admiration of, the faith of others. It’s usually of no importance whatsoever to wall off “transrational” faith and set it apart from the beliefs of the lesser educated, and those whose spiritual station of life is more conventional.

it is not faith that is being differentiated in this post, but secular concepts from those of literalist mythic theism. the idea being defended by you seems to be that using the same terms for both is inconsequential. i don't think this is the case.

But let’s grant Julian that in some contexts it’s important to conceptually differentiate the pre- from the trans-.

i think it's important to differentiate things known to exist from things which are proposed to exist but for which there is no evidence. the means of differentiation is language.

Disagreements over the meaning of God will simply become disagreements over the nature of mystical experience, Nothingness, Being, Spirit, Higher Power, etc.

such disagreements have already been raging for millennia. one of the reasons is linguistic vagueness, overlaying defensiveness as outlined in the comment above. what is being proposed is greater clarity with the aim of disambiguation, and to that end, linguistic exactitude and shared definitions are instrumental.

In this debate, it’s worth observing that if the more spiritually subtle thinkers all abandoned the use of the word “God”, then they will allow the most irresponsible of thinkers to control the most powerful and enduring idea in the history of human thought. That can’t be all good.

i'm not sure where the reasoning for this assertion comes from joe. are you proposing that it would be irresponsible not to appropriate the word god and reassign it to signify non-literal things? don't irresponsible thinkers already control the idea of god?

i'd also question that the idea of god is the most powerful and enduring idea in the history of human thought. before that idea, i would suggest the following 3: “i am”. “i am hungry”. “i am horny”!

It’s obvious that emotional attachment to childhood beliefs plays a huge role in adult spirituality, and this is problematic in important ways, so I don’t have much to debate here. But the same point should be stressed about all manner of beliefs, not merely religious beliefs. Beliefs in moral principles, political affinities, gender roles, sexuality, and so forth, are all subject to evolution from lesser to more mature expressions.

i would agree. in addition, many of the false beliefs could usefully be omitted from childhood in the first place.

What strikes me is that nobody feels it’s particularly clever to argue that an adult’s attitude towards his parents is “more sentimentally and superstitiously attached to prerational formulations” of parental roles and powers “than we’d like to admit”.

although the argument has considerable validity. being an adult requires growing up.

Nobody speaks about the process of maturation as if it were possible to eliminate belief in mother and father altogether, let alone eliminate the “terminology” of mother and father, yet in discussions of religion it is often presumed otherwise.

one of the many differences being that mothers and fathers patently exist, and to attempt to persuade a child of their non-existence is a highly dubious exercise. no less dubious is the exercise of attempting to persuade a child of the existence of things for which no evidence is available - anywhere. which requires the child to undercut their chief means of survival - their own mind. by encouraging clarity in differentiation from mythical literalism (within which i include all forms of theism) the suggestion is that later elimination of redundant concepts and terminology will be rendered unnecessary. (for the avoidance of doubt, the validity of a rich mythology for children remains undisturbed by this).

perhaps the best argument for keeping alive the transrational notion of God — say, as a panentheistic vision of Ultimate Reality, as I do — is that this approach is the most meditatively expansive, most integrative of mind and body, most initiatory of energetic flow, and most valuable for developing an honest understanding of “our existential condition”. Making such an argument in full, of course, is beyond the scope of this blog post, so I don’t want to drag this discussion too far afield.

as a deliberately chosen conceptual vehicle for heightening the subjective experience of expansive connection with aspects of reality, there could be some justification for temporarily employing a panentheistic perspective. however, it is neither necessary for the outcomes you describe, nor is it without significant drawbacks.

But it strikes me as enormously intuitive that the reality of God extends far beyond our concepts of the divine and into the realm of our bodies and unconscious associations.

your own formulation of the notion of god appears no less arbitrary and unfounded than the prerational literalists from which you claim to differ in development and subtlety. does it not feel as right and true to you as it does to them? and with equal demonstrable basis in reality?

God is embodied within our holistic being(s)

this assertion again appears no different qualitatively from all literalist faith. unless of course you mean something completely different by the word god. in which case, the argument in favour of distinct terminology is again to be called upon.

For most of us, the content of belief changes as an individual matures, but the sentiment of the believer — oriented to living with hope rather than fear, trust rather than mistrust, and love rather than selfishness — remains a powerful attractor to religion. Where some understandably see this faith as sentimentalism, it can also be seen as a personal style (i.e., an existential option) alive with both emotion and reason. God, embodied within our holistic being, reveals its eternal consistency as a force of liberation in a changing self alive in an evolving world.

again, religious belief is not necessary for hope, trust, and love to be actively valued (although i concur with the sentiment of what you're saying here). especially, all the valid psychological benefits that you ascribe to faith or faith-based practises can be readily achieved without theistic belief, and there are strong reasons why the psychological effects of religious belief should be considered carefully should anyone be considering it as a spiritual choice.

i don't find the arguments here for retaining an arbitrarily redefined literalist terminology very compelling, and i think the integral spin falls far short of legitimising the exercise.

 

adam, is it not the very attachment to the idea of god, and all our psychological needs that it seems to fulfill that is the real issue?  it allows us to be controled, and prevents us from being liberated and responsible for our lives and the lives of those around us…at the very least.

it also makes it easy to dismiss tragedies as the wrath of god, or the devil, and aides us in looking the other way.

that there is this spiritual entity, that is light and love, and sent his son to save us, and is going to make everything ok if we just believe and are 'good' enough…keeps us crippled and  from experiencing the reality of our very lives…and prevents us from looking at those very things that cripple us in reality, identifying them, and correcting them…we go along our merry way congratulating ourselves on being a chosen generation, saved by grace, while inside we are boiling over.  repressed emotions eat us alive and leave us unstable, mentally, emotionally, and physically…

seems to me that this is a distraction from being responsible for ourselves and the world we live in…and suggests to me that we are a bunch of spoiled brats that think we are better than the next one because we have this god…whether we call it awareness, spirituality, jesus, god, or buddha, or consciousness…

maybe i am misunderstanding you, or barely touching the surface, but i am interested in what you have to share…

always, star.

 

Julian I know nothing about amber, green, orange, red, chartreuse, whatever…but one thing i do know…that is not an honest piece of art, it is not a classic depiction from a devout beleiver in any way shape or form…it defies the integrity of yaacov.   We know, as the Zohar explains, this wasn't a physical battle-it was a fight of consciousness between Jacob and his own ego. Yet the depiction you chose is very sexual indeed..

What was happening here, what Jacob feared the most, was beginning to happen. Jacob's ego came to him and asked, “How many people are as connected as you? How many people know as much as you?” This battle we read in the Torah is not a battle of physicality, but a battle of consciousness. It was the battle of Jacob with his own ego.

Jacob feared both the darkness and the blindness of the ego. As Jacob is finally able to defeat the angel of the ego, Jacob asks the angel, “Tell me what your name is.” The angel says to Jacob, “Why do you ask my name?” That's basically the end of the story.

Why did Jacob ask the angel's name? Kabbalists ask two questions: Why was it so important for Jacob to know the name of the angel? What difference does it make if it's Paul or John? And second, after this all night battle, why did Jacob say tell me your name? Then the angel says,”Why do you ask my name?”

The Kabbalists explain that the angel answered Jacob's questions. Jacob didn't want to know his name so he could call him. We know the person's name is a reflection of their essence. And that's why it's important to have the right name to connect us to our soul. It's the essence.

Maybe this brings up another point..and that is the names of God. Perhaps that is why its important what and who we refer to as God. Since there are 24 names (I beleive,) of God and they all express another facet of Gods essence, we need to be clear in our communication. Perahps that is a subject for this conversation..Jacob was asking of the angel, what is your essence, what is your power? He was asking the angel how do you win all the time? How do you keep the whole world blind to their ego? The answer was just live, continue on, don't look too deeply into why and how you do things. That is the essence of the negative side. This is the essence of the power of the ego. When we allow ourselves to get upset, and simply go on to the next thing, when we do not delve deeper and ask what is it that allows me to speak in this way toward people around me, to act with lack of human dignity to anybody, this is the power of the ego.

Once we begin to stop ourselves and ask these questions, we begin to take control of the ego. And the ego doesn't want us to ask questions. The ego wants us to have thoughts of jealousy or anger. The ego wants us to act with anger or jealousy, and then go on.

The gift that Jacob extracted after the all-night battle was for every one of us to learn the essence of our darkness, the essence of our blindness. Why are you asking questions? Why are you trying to uncover the depths from which these thoughts emanate?

We can uproot our ego by constantly questioning our actions.

That is the only way we can uproot and take away the hold our ego has on us: ask questions constantly. If I yell at someone, I need to stop and realize the gravity. Not of the action. The guy at work that I yelled at might have forgotten it by now. For me, it's deeper, more important than that. What is the source of that anger? What allowed me to act in such a way?

Only when we ask those questions do we have the ability to not become Esau. If you looked at, listened to, and spent time with Esau, he could seem like the most spiritual person you could meet. But he was rotten, hollow, dark from the inside. Why? Because he did not stop and ask the questions.

Every single time we act with anger, we have to stop. Not because I hurt the other person. He might have forgotten about it. But for me, I have to ask why I allowed myself to act like that. I have to ask myself, from where does that darkness emanate?

We can only uproot it if we take this gift Jacob gave to us, revealing the one tool our ego used to keep us dark, even when we think we are Light. That is the power of the negative side: Don't ask questions, don't stop, just continue on.

What is our only hope of not becoming like Esau?

If we truly understand the fear Jacob had, and hopefully every one of us now has, we can begin to battle our own ego. Even as we look at ourselves, we cannot truly see the truth, what is happening deep inside. What is the only hope we have to truly become unblind to our ego, to not be like Esau, who was Light outside but not inside? To stop ourselves every single time we act with anger, with lack of human dignity toward another person. To stop ourselves every time we aren't sharing. We have to take the time to think about it.

From what darkness within me does it come out? Not because I care about the other person, but because I care deeply about myself. If I allow myself to do the actions of ego, and don't stop and delve inside and find their source, and thereby remove them, there is no way we will not become like Esau.

Again, Esau did everything right. He made all the connections, studied all the wisdom. But because he didn't stop himself, he became hollow from the inside.

The gift Jacob gives us is to tell us we cannot continue not stopping ourselves. If I react, I have to stop and think about it and change it.

Again, we stop ourselves not because of hurting the other person, but because of something deeper. I know if I allowed myself to act with lack of human dignity, with anger, with anything that is not respect toward another person, if there is anything within me that I react to, I have to stop and think about it and change it.

 

hey j,

adam and i seem to have been posting at the same time…lol…i posted after i read his first post…

and btw, i thought the pic was beautiful and saw nothing offensive in it…

where we going?

and hey, anything that gets your attention and brings you back to the discussion…lol

but seriously, what exactly would you like for me to offer proof of?

 

Thank you Andrew for being honest. that is five people julian that i know of who said the same thing and I asked 4 of them. I think if 5 people tell you you look like a horse, you better grab a saddle.. :))

 

i believe you might be referring to me about the aforementioned piece of art that might offend all neo-conservatives everywhere…..and of course, i was being completely facetious!lol
of course not julian, come up with as many names to describe the new 21st century spirituality as you like. and of course again, the more precise the better, right adam?
all i ever will continue to suggest is skillful means…….but i do realize that that means different things to different people…….
now come on adam, by now you should realize that reason is a cheap ho!lol

 

okay! okay! julian, your a very naughty boy for posting such a pornographic picture!lol
sometimes i think the greatest living being ever is homer simpson-DOH!
oh wait a minute, he's not real………OR IS HE…………………..

 

andrew - you are such an irrational slut… it's high time i gave yr disintegral theory the pasting it deserves hehe. that'll shut you up. not!

j - thnx. i've invited joe to comment. btw - it was andrew not myself who seconded the porno motion… although don't get me wrong, i'm no angel myself hehe

more later…

 

MY bigotry of what??? lol…

 

To answer your question Julian,

The world and its people do not need a new spiritual language, or an integrally illuminated reconstruction of human beliefs.

The world needs less complexity, not more.

Whether god worshipping, transcendentalist, or atheist…. there is only one word that we all need… LOVE.

As always Julian, I admire your brilliance and passion as an integralist.  I do hope one day I will come across one of  your blogs that speaks from unconditional love and unity for all, rather than deconstructing the 'silly' beliefs of others.  We've had centuries of that already, we don't need to continue it.

 

I agree totally Dave…you are right. We don't need more boxes, red, orange, green, whatever, this is depersonalizing, deprecating, and not at all adequate to allow for human brilliance, or creativity of being, how silly…

aside from that, it seems to me that without the beauty of the soul, and how do we truly know what is beautiful if not for the beautiful portraits of thought ffrom our patriarach and the most highly enlightened folks that do beleive in God and the ways of God – the leadings of God…which are all the supernal and supernatural? so,f we choose lets say to be an atheist and who beleive in God as we know God according to the ten powers and energies, how then is that the whole picture? I don't think that it is the whole picture and will surely stunt our potential in in every way. If you tell me you beleive in god but want to eliminate the word god, that in itself is very ungracious, demeaning, and suspicious. I think maybe i think if anything needs to be eliminated why not the 4 letter words that demean the human anatomy?? That's a good thing to think about. But no, we would never do that because that is where part of the lowest level of thought lives…but conversely we think would like to wipe out the word God, how funny is that?? how telling is that about our
'brilliance???' You all surprise me…I thought this was an intelligent conversation…an 'englightened conversation, julian you are complaining about me and my lack ?? lolol….this is a joke..!! 

No one who is brilliant will leave God out of the equation because brilliance indicates that we see the whole picture as it is for the GOOD of mankind..with its beauty and its unknowable depths…

.but no, lets keep the 4 letter demeaning, nasty,low level, crude, dis-respectful words in lieu of….. and get rid of God, then we will become as great as our words!!  balance, gratitude and recognition are part of brilliance, if one doesn't know that there is a higher intelligence, that his very breath is a gift of God, and wants to deny in any way, or deviate from that truth, or go around it, avoid admitting it, that is not brilliance, that is plain ole meglomania, that is what happened with so many 'great' thinkers….they wind up in the toilet with their stinkin egos…because they will not defer to God…and it comes back to bite them at some point… that altho we are IN God  because obviously we are not THE CREATOR<>we did not create us…we only reproduced us…science discovers, doesn't create..if we don't know that our very breath is from God and our very soul is a breath of God then we are pretty dumb indeed…this defies logic and we need to be big enough to get that.

 

I tried to say if we choose to be an atheist , don't beleive in God or what is right in front of our noses the paradigm of  primordial man and the ten powers, the energies and emotions that flow through us, how is that the whole picture?

 

mr. j,

one thing you might want to seriously look at; why,  when anyone disagrees with you, or challenges your beliefs, you belittle them personally, instead of addressing the points of their posts intelligently?

if a better way of communication is your goal, that is not the way to obtain it…

always, star…

 

yes star, it is true, he said that i didn't even pose a question to him that he could deciper…i only asked you a hundred questions, julian…how about just one…??
 
how about the one that asks  how anyone can claim enlightenment while avoiding the higher ideals of human existence, that being purity of thought and mind, holiness, while attempting to  alter the conscience of the world as we know it, to exclude the highest symbol for God and Godliness in the world -that being the word God itself- and to create a new and 'higher form ' of 'enlightened' verbage  from unproven philosophies that may or may not measure up to the highest of standards in the land now; may not have the blueprint of action needed to strive for those standards and may not even include or have any regard for such things as 'holiness, with regards to morals, sexuality?

How can someone who is upright and moral, believes in GOD and strives to be Godlike, to imitate God in his powers and energeries regarding purity of thought and holiness….remove, go around, or change the definition of God as we know it ; claim that is a better –higher –?? level, form of communication?? yet is willing to sink to the depths of thought and description to use words and ideas that promote the baser and more cruder elements of communication??

It just doesn't make sense to me –Nor do I ever hear people speak like this and joke like this that are truly refined or enlightened because their speech reflects the highest form of understanding and communication.. (are you going to tell me the dalai lama or the buddah spoke like you and your cronies??) and  because they choose to live in parameters that only foster the highest levels of thought and action, thus remains within the borders that only allow for purity of thought and consciousness…a true enlightened individual will sink to that place of impoverished thought…has magnanimous awe of creation and its creator, and that is the difference between the holy and the profane…

 Perhaps what you are calling enlightement is intelligence without the highest of moral standards with regards to refinement of ideas, hence, speech…How will avoiding the term God be constructive and beautiful in the face of the use of the more beggarly elements of communication that most unrefined and unenlightened people use as common everyday means of  thought and expression… – those being the words that demean and degrade  the human anatomy and  the expressions of our beautiful sexuality? come on julian, the question begs answers..you know you don't live there~

A man who is refined in his thinking, who is not so high maybe as you in brilliance, julian, doesn't speak like that or embrace those ideas and terms…his thought is refined in every capacity…which means respectful…how do you account for these beggarly views in your premise?

 

Surprise me julian, i like surprises…tell me there is room in your equation for elevated levels of thought that include the ideas of holiness…i like THAT idea..can we give that some credence??

 

yaffie, in all fairness, if you are going to challenge someones beliefs, you have to be willing to have yours challenged as well…

the problem i see with god, is the concepts that man has of god, and thereby limits god, any which way you look at it…

men have made god into what they wanted god to be, and continue to do so…

one example alone was when England's king decided that he wanted to divorce his queen and marry another…

this my god is better than your god is seen between the jewish god, the christian god, and the god of islam…and within those three, there are numerous 'other' religions that sprang forth…

man's ideas about god have complicated things so much so, that i see julian's dilema, and those that share it…even if i disagree with it…as i also disagree with you yaffie…

i was raised in the strictest of churches of christ, and was spoonfed the new testament, so much so that it is engrained in me…and yet all my life, i rebelled against what i saw as hypocrisy and direct conflict with the words of Jesus…and yet that hunger for truth was always within me, pushing me to question everything…

i began studying gnosticism over 20 years ago, and that opened my mind up quiet a bit, and like the gnostics, i could not accept the idea of this old testament god that was nothing like the god of light and love, and the Christ that i had come to see as a liberator instead of a saviour…let's face it…he was a revofuckinglutionist…adams pet word…

from there i studied buddhism, hinduism, taoism, zen, and finally, dzogchen…and probably others that i have failed to mention, but you get the general idea…


i don't believe in religion…the word means to bind…and that is exactly what religion does, at least that is my view of it…i also do not believe that god is something separate from me, if there is infact a god…today i am questioning even this very awareness that i have contemplated for the last few years…

all through that reading this book and that book, what i have found basically is that to dismiss all as illusion, is to deny the very life i have…if there is a god…then god is my life's blood…the very beating of my heart…my very true nature minus all the conditioned beliefs…within that true nature there are no legislating rules, because true nature acts accordingly with the truth revealed as the universe unfolds…each and every moment new…

i am a body, mind, and spirit/voice…i am energy…i am light and dark…i am joy and sorrow…and what i am transcends bliss and peace and love and hate and chaos…i am all those things and feel passionate about life as it is revealed in each moment…rainbows and sunsets and playing in the rain…i have always been like that, and it was always conditioned beliefs that made me crazy…

now maybe i needed them to know now that i don't…dunno…but i do know that i love life, love being a free spirit, love right where i am…i laugh through my tears and face my struggles today…i don't run from them…every moment is new…and my true nature is present with me in all of life's experiences…

that is my story and i am sticking to it today…who knows, tomorrow it may be something different, but as someone wise said…”if it aint broke, don't fix it!”

i will say one last thing and then shut up; Adam, you have me doing lots of critical thinking…and i am questioning my beliefs even