"God," Language, and Evocative Meaning: An Integral Conundrum

Julian,

I really appreciate how you've laid out this analysis and made your case for an alternative language.  I will come back and respond to some of your points more specifically in a subsequent post.  For now, what I feel moved to discuss is a paradigm that tantric (and higher) paths offer to Western theistic traditions:  the yidam, the meditation deity and the mode of spiritual practice related to it.  The yidam has sometimes been compared to an archetype, but this isn't really accurate – in my opinion, this analogy doesn't get at the depth or subtlety of what the yidam both “stands for” and, more importantly, actually enacts.  Are you familiar with yidams – how they are conceived and related to?

The yidam or meditation deity, while held in the mind as a living, vital, sacred presence – a vibrant enactment of the sacred energies of being, rather than just a “representation” of them – is nevertheless recognized as ultimately inseparable from your own mind.  The relationship with the yidam is simultaneously a devotional, I-Thou encounter, as the yidam is visualized in meditation and prayer, and an I-I encounter, as it is dissolved at the end of meditation back into one's own heart and mind. 

This approach, in my view, fully honors the power of our ages-old habit of personifying the divine, but takes it well beyond literal mythical “belief.”

Best wishes,

B.

balder - while i'm not sure of the specific utility of the yidam, that kind of consciously conceptualised “device” is similar to therapeutic visualisation tools increasingly being used in integrative psychotherapy. how is the yidam presented ontologically to students of the traditions that use it in their teachings i wonder?

best

adam

julian

you got there before me with the god language post. damn you're quick. and comprehensive. great post…

Now, this experience and it's powerful implications are very often conflated with the belief that what is happening is an experience of “god.”

i don't see how the conceptual interpretation of these states of consciousness as god, ultimate ground or any other flavour of ontological truth claim layered onto the state can't “get in the way of” the raw experience.

just feel it… it's all yours.

Julian,

Laying down terminology was a good idea. Maybe we can all find our way to the same page now, or at lest the same shelf.

I am in agreement with you that nothing is supernatural. There is no infinite intelligence above or beyond the natural world. There is nothing outside our capacity to relate to. If it is real, we can experience it.

About God in 3rd person, those believers who practice a process theology would agree that this God is more like a verb than a noun. But when we say God is “in” life, we don't mean underneath the skin or between the skull. We mean the organizing principle responsible for the form of the body itself. Conceiving of the life force, or God, as other than the body, as immaterial and somehow above it, is to violently tear form from matter. I think this is a mistake, even though it may be useful for the formalization of terms, for the accuracy of definitions, etc. In reality (ie, in experience), form and matter are never found apart.

Blake's vision of energy as “eternal delight” shows me that he recognized the simultaneity of subject and object. I know, I need to explain that. Here's what I mean: “energy is eternal delight” is identifying a subjective quality with an objective quanta. At the most fundamental level of reality, the inside and the outside become one.

This is significant when we try to deal with the apparent problem of finalism. If God is involved in the process of evolution, then it seems there must be a final destination for the whole process planned in advance. But it ain't necessarily so. If we remember not to take literally the grammatical distinction made between subject and object (between God and evolution), we realize that the beginning and the end of evolution are not a straight line but an endless circle. God just likes to play, to delight in eternity, which Hindu theology is well aware of (Watts often seemed to suggest Hinduism was a more mature monotheism than Christianity, in that it recognized that good and evil were both aspects of God).

The mythic structure is happiest engaged in circular reasoning : ).

The mental structure is cringing, though…

The rational mind wants to say that evolution is most certainly NOT a circular (irrational) process. It is a developmental sequence with a clearly discernable beginning and (eventually) ending. We can (conceptually) stand outside the process and watch the whole thing happen (so while evolution is represented as a line, the rational perspective itself is actually triangular, as the rational mind is the point from which the other points, beginning and ending, are viewed). You'll notice that both materialists and creationists agree about the structure of nature and our perspective on it, even while their time frames are vastly different. The world has a beginning and an ending for each. The crucial difference between the two is that materialists talk about a “big bang” and entropy as the cause and effect, while creationists say it was a transcendent Law Giver who created and will destroy the world. Both amount to the same thing, that we know for sure where we came from and where it is all going. Creationists are more influenced by rationalty than it first appears.
 
How are we to integrate this geometrical disagreement between mythic and rational structures? Maybe we ought to begin to think spherically… The mythical circle is too superficial, too slippery. The rational triangle is too constricting, too serious. But a sphere gives us room for depth and the time to develop genuine meaning, to learn to play for keeps, to dance intentionally, to laugh with purpose, etc (I am playing on the sense in which mythos is playful while rationality is concentrated, and that integrating them requires a bit of ingenuity).  A sphere allows for circles and lines, but transcends each.

These shapes and their relation to structures of consciousness come from Gebser's Origin, btw. Maybe they will be useful scaffolds, maybe not. If not, I have just digressed–let's get back to finalism!

Evolution is both ordered and chaotic. In other words, it is creative. It doesn't know what it is going to do next, but you can bet the general trend will be toward greater depth and intensity of experience by way of increasingly complex intra-bodily organization and inter-body relationship. So the goal of evolution is, basically, “Go Deeper!” It isn't the sort of goal that is out there waiting. It is created as evolution unfolds. 

Enough of 3rd person God, let's go on to 1st person. Oh, before we do, I think that so long as we all keep in mind that “God in third person” is shorthand for all the stuff that was just discussed (here and in your text, Julian), we can avoid the somewhat “dulling and confusing” reaction to hearing it phrased that way. Now, among other company, maybe we might want to be more careful…

1st person God… yes mystical experience is what is being pointed to here. These experiences are certainly transformative. One can learn more in the span of a few minutes during one of these experiences than they might in entire lifetimes otherwise. Mystical experiences are certainly related to the brain and the genes within neurons. But even in mainstream neuroscience, nature and nuture are now recognized as fully integrated. We cannot determine that either organism or environment is ultimately responsible for any particular proclivity. This doesn't mean that, in the case of individual organisms, we cannot examine the genome and get a good idea what traits they are expected to exhibit. I am talking here on an evolutionary scale, not individual organisms. The real cause of our brain structure (and therfore the experience which is related to it) is not our brain, but brain, genes, and environment as they developed through time together. In other words, these mystical experiences are based on the whole of our brain's relationship to reality, not just on the brain here and now in this particular time slice. This is exactly what the experience itself feels like, no? The descriptions don't do justice to it, and may even distort it, but at least I am not using “God” : )

Now, this is what I am really interested in… God in 2nd person. I was going to make a video response to discuss where I stand on this, but I figured that would be disruptive of the general style here. But let me explain why I wanted to make a video… Text-based discussion seems to naturally dichotomize reality into subjective and objective categories. I have my opinions and perspective, but I use words we can all share in an attempt to to describe them. But because the words are very clearly external to me, up here on the screen, they are objectified. This is why we are able to logically dissect one another's attempts to lay down the law as we see it. We all make the tacit assumption that reality is out there, and that our job is to accurately reflect it with our words. This is hopeless, obviously. Can we ever agree about what words best stand for what we experience? If we could, language wouldn't be worth the tremendous amount of effort it takes to learn it! It'd be too static to mean anything useful, and would be at a loss to describe anything dynamic (which is most of reality).  If we really want to be on the same page, we'd need to dispense with words while sharing each other's embodied company (video would have come closer than text, if not all the way). The shared presence which results when such communion takes place doesn't come because we all surrender to a more intelligent being external to ourselves. Nor does it come when we see the divine in others. It comes because we allow ourselves to return to that primal ground before a word was uttered, where self and other are not yet two. Again, I managed not to use “God,” but I find it impossible to dispense with metaphysical language. This doesn't necessarily mean the I-Thou encounter/identification with the divine is supernatural. It just means I cannot begin to say anything about it without using such provocative language.

Blake's poem is wonderful. He expresses well what I was trying to hint at earlier about form and matter not being separate:

“All Bibles or sacred codes have been the causes of the following Errors.

1. That Man has two real existing principles Viz: a Body & a Soul.
2. That Energy, call'd Evil, is alone from the Body, & that Reason, call'd Good, is alone from the Soul.
3. That God will torment Man in Eternity for following his Energies.”

God as “I” is the unity experience.

God as “It” is the creative force, as y'all have been saying. Almaas calls it the “Optimizing Force” or the “Evolutionary Force.”  Here is a quick definition (although he may not be differentiating between Wilberian states and stages when he says “self-realization,” by which most people mean the unity experience or the first face of God):

“It is this ontologically given, and spontaneously functioning, evolutionary dynamism of the self that we see driving human psychological evolution, which is experienced directly in self-realization, but lost sight of in the experience of the ego-self. The dynamism of Being drives the evolutionary thrust of the self at all stages of its development, but it is also the dynamic center and source of any activity and creativity in the state of self-realization.” (The Point of Existence, p. 485)

This isn't a pie-in-the-sky thing for Almaas—or for Wilber, Aurobindo, or the at times vastly underrated Andrew Cohen—it is in fact something one can get in touch with and live from (and does at the third-tier stages). Here is a discussion from Almaas about it from Spacecruiser Inquiry:

“The Desire for Guidance

Guidance is a way of referring to the discriminating intelligence of this optimizing force of our Being. So experiencing guidance does not mean that you are a child who is going to be taken by the hand from one place or experience to another. Guidance is the accurate discernment of the optimizing direction for experience, moment to moment.  It is needed when the soul is not living from her true nature-when she is in the familiar situation of obscuration and distraction.

If the soul is operating from her own inherent capacities-from true nature-she will not need guidance for her development. Then unfoldment will happen on its own because that is what an optimizing force means. It is a force within our soul that is intelligent, responsive, and aware. It will respond to things accurately, intelligently, and appropriately to develop the soul in the best way that she can develop. And that is what we want when we seek any kind of guidance-internal or external. Inner guidance means the directing of our unfoldment so that the unfoldment will optimize itself all the way to wholeness. Inner guidance guides the soul in her unfoldment so that she will unfold in the right direction, correctly, toward maximizing and optimizing her life and experience.

The more deeply we become involved in our unfoldment and the more we align with it, the more our external life situations become part of that unfolding. Issues such as which girlfriend or boyfriend to have, which business to be in, where and how to live, and so on, will become subsumed in the unfoldment. This is not necessarily true at the beginning of the journey, and it depends on the relevance of the particular situation to the overall unfoldment of the soul. For example, sometimes deciding which job to take is crucial for your unfoldment, but sometimes it isn't. Guidance will function to help you see which job to take if that choice is relevant for your overall unfoldment. All the practical choices we have to make in life can be within the range of inner guidance if we look at them from the perspective of what will optimize our overall development.

In other words, what determines whether guidance will function or not is not what you want the guidance for, but what your motivation is. If you want guidance about a job because you want to make more money, that is not relevant for the guidance. If you want guidance about jobs because you want to see which one is going to enhance your soul's development, you will probably get guidance. So the more aligned and attuned we are with our optimizing force-with the inherent evolutionary movement in our soul-the more guidance arises. That's why people who are externally oriented tend not to be guided in the way we are talking about here. They are being guided, but by external considerations.” [p.203-205]



However, while the discrimination necessary to realize this guidance is found beginning in Turquoise/Indigo, there remains in the person very relative, personal structures. There is still in the person an egocentric, an ethnocentric, a nationcentric. These selves have been put in the back seat and are increasingly drained of energy while identity is pulled more and more out of them, but they are still there, and this is one reason the second face of God idea still has validity even for the most evolved people. The Indigo force, the Violet force is not within the personal self—it is outside the personal self, though paradoxically it is the same force that has been driving the personal self and evolving the personal self.

It is nevertheless, in the beginning in particular and increasingly less over time, experienced as something that is outside the self, an impersonal energy and intelligence rather than a personal energy and intelligence—the response in the beginning is likely to be “this is Other.” The most personal part of ourselves then has to “surrender” to this energy and intelligence, which at the same time is not other than who we ultimately are and have always been. It is simply that the most relative part of ourselves thinks it is other, so the second face of God is a useful idea for integrating the two and aligning the personal self with the impersonal Indigo self, Violet self, etc.

Ken Wilber and Andrew Cohen have a great discussion about this here. The reason why this is so rarely discussed is that it is a stage emergence that hasn't been around that long. I agree, however, that the idea of God can derail a person's discrimination of this “guidance,” among other things. That's tricky business. At the moment that starts to happen you have to switch to God in the third person a la Almaas (“experiencing guidance does not mean that you are a child who is going to be taken by the hand from one place or experience to another”). I believe it's a mistake to teach those third-tier stages simply as “surrender.” As one teacher I know has said, surrender is discrimination and discrimination is surrender.

At any rate, God as It is the grain of truth in the mythic religions.


David

First:

“God” is the third person reality of the inner human responding to its imperfection that humnas have evolved to over time.

The negative aspects of “God” have ironically come about because of human imperfection.

The cure has been infected by the disease!

I took it easy on you in the first part because I agree with half of your observations but have problems with you and Wilber's conclusions.

His post modern “God” is just as much a fantasy as the “mythic” God.

This is so because Wilber and the other postmodern “scientific mystics” don't accept the reality that humans are in a condition of MISDEVELOPEMENT. [Called “fallen man” in spiritual jargon] Therefore [humans] have a need to develop a “God” system or spiritual system [that doesn't have to have anything to do with “god” such as Buddhism] because of this condition.

Indeed the postmodernist are deluded that: THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH US, WE ARE EVOLVING.

This fantasy is just as bad as the sky goders who think spirituality is an outward phenomenon; whereas the postmodern “scientific mystics”, like Julian, Wilber, Balder, and many others here have the delusion that WE ARE EVOLVING, AND THERE IS NOTHING OUT OF KILTER WITH THE HUMAN CONDITION.

That is a fatal delusion!

More later

Julian,

I appreciate your explorations here.  As a Catholic, and very happy one at that, I imagine that instills within your mind, and your spirit, a certain impression of who I am.  But if I were asked what my definition of God is… my answer would be… “all consciousness that is based in love”. 

And then some would say… “Well you better be careful calling yourself a Catholic, because that is not the definition they believe in.”

And I would say… “poppycock”.

The definitions of God that you shared at the beginning of this thread, like many definitions in dictionaries… are old, and do not necessarily reflect on the fact that religious thought does evolve, very much like an Integral model.

For example, In the past, the Catholic Church, as did all Christian Churches, taught that hell was a place of eternal damnation, fire and brimstone. 

Less than 6 years ago, Pope John Paul II, the then leader of what many view as the most dogmatic Church on the planet, shared that Hell is not a place, it does not exist outside of us… hell is inside of us… when one turns their back on God, on love, then thier spirit / consciousness is filled with anger and fear… and when we die, we take with us the anger and fear that we created for ourselves on earth.  God does not punish for not loving, love is always here to embrace, and those who chose not to love… choose an eternity without love… without God.

Last year, Pope Benedict wrote a book called God is Love.  In it, he shares many dimensions on the consciousness of Love.  He does not speak of God as a being, nor heaven as a place… but God and humans as a shared consciousness in the spirit of love.

I agree that there are many, like yourself, who when they hear the word God…. they cringe with images of the past… that are filled with fear, violence and dogma.  No one denies that all happened in the past.  Perhaps it happened because virtually every civilization on the planet were war mongerers, rapers and pillagers.  Their consciousness had not evolved to the point that it has today.

But that is not what people who have devoted their lives to their religion hear.  For the vast majority, they find love, community and beauty in their beliefs.

All I am trying to share is that evolutionary consciousness is not solely the domain of Integral and Wilber… it is part of almost every religion on earth… everyone feels change and is called to evolve… the 'religious' are not stuck in the past… unless they choose to be… and those choices are conscious ones out of free choice, not dogma.

Thanks

Dave

What a bunch of well-informed and sensitive expressions. I applaud the wisdom.

On the other hand, I cant help but play the devils advocate and point to the context. The conundrum is born from integral culture's relationship to mythic terminology. It's a recent development, but it may have seeds in the distant past. Jewish tradition has it that the very name of god is unpronouncable, hell, I can't even spell it. Perhaps there is some wisdom there. Perhaps these mental exercises distance us from the divine rather than bringing us closer. Perhaps these attempts create barriers to Truth rather than bridges.

These higher devices are imbedded in decending currents. Could they not subvert important processes of development in the later developments of the first tier providing more grasping attachments, justifications and rationalizations of that which should be transcended?

I hardly think that an authentic second or third tier has any need or use of such devices, not for it's own development. The confusion and difficulties are the result of attempting to market higher insights to lower levels and it might carry a slight stink of intellectual dishonesty, a compromise of values. Perhaps it is the result of some left-over green over-sensitivity that hasn't grown a big enough set of hang-em-downs to shoot straight from the hip and tell an ugly truth.

Truth aint always pretty. It can be a bitter pill to swallow.

Could it (the conundrum) be collective shadow crying for more light to be shed in…..?

Julian, I appreciate your analysis of the 1-2-3 of “God,” and I agree with most of what you write. I also do not believe in some supernatural, externalized diety. My experience has shown me that many people (though certainly not most) who identify as Christian also do not believe in such a “God.”

Where I still disagree with you largely revolves around statements like this:
Interestingly, as sophisticated and nuanced as one's definition of “god” gets, the underlying notion of a supernatural being/force that creates or controls our lives and is behind the curtain, animating  reality etc is one that I don't think is ever overcome or not-meant when we use the word.

You can likely see from my lead-in that I actually think that more sophisticated “definitions” of God explicitly get rid of the notion of a supernatural being/force. Certainly no definition is Truth, though. My thinking aligns quite well with the writing of Matt (buddhacious), and he does a much better job of elaborating his (and my) position, so I won't rehash what he so eloquently, yet rationally, presented.

Again, I do think I get where you are coming from, and I really do love and agree with your ideas about an embodied, mature spirituality that actively grapples with difficult realities and paradoxes. And I want to agree again with Balder and Joe that holding this with a mind towards both / and instead of either / or is the epitome of mature structures at this time / place. For clarity sake, I never meant to suggest that all integralized conversations should include the word God. Just that all integral conversations should not get rid of the word God when attempting to communicate the more nuanced, mature perspectives that you advocate. Especially when such conversations are between Wilber and people like Brother David, which seemed to instigate this series.

The reality is that people are - right now - using the word God in ways that preclude supernaturality and are very mature and nuanced. Religion is actually evolving to more mature stages of consciousness, and to deny this or overly focus on the immature versions is to miss a very important point. This recognition is what seems to be missing (or at least seriously downplayed) from your argument.

Julian,

Good question… it is the crux of the matter.. I agree.

Two comments:

First, on the Catholic Church and child abuse.. horrific.  I will say though that the Church is past covering things up now, and moving priests to greener pastures. 

When Benedict visited the US he publicly apologized for the actions of the priests.  He met victims and offered them his deepest apology.  Along with monies being paid out… he has now made it clear that any priest who is found to have acted immorally against children, will immediately be removed as priests and subject to the punishment of governing laws of the country in which he resides.  Things do change.. but slowly.

That leads to my second point…

Many years ago, I had the opportunity to attend Harvard Business School.  The last case study we did was on Corporate Culture, and how long it can take to make changes.  For instance, I was an employee back then of Canada's largest telco, with 30,000 employees.  The case study took us through an exercise that basically proved it would take 20 or more years to change the culture of my company … and that was only after it had to truthfully face its own weakenesses.  Otherwise, generations can go by and nothing substantial changes.

Religious organizations are no differerent… in fact worse… because they are trying to protect their history, which is thier legacy, more than preparing for the future.  I truly believe my Church is committed to massive change… including policies on priests marrying and stuff like that.  The problem is… any significant change can take decades, if not a century before it takes hold and the world sees things differently. 

So to answer your question… albeit extremely slowly, I believe many religions are changing, for the better, and adopting new methods of defining and communicating many of the spiritual consciousness principles we all share.  I also believe that Integral evolution… to succeed… must start (if it doesn't already) from the premise of honoring the past… for it has been an evolution to get here… and it will continue to be an evolution for eternity (whatever that means).

It must be a gradual process.. before my dad met my mom, he was a Jesuit brother.  He is now in his mid-80's.  Can you imagine telling him, a couple of years before he passes away, that there is no God as he knows it?  I would not wish that on anyone… because there is a very strong linkage between our consciousness and our beliefs.

mmm… how can I say it…

Hypothetical case…We know  you are passionate about Integral, and a disciple of Ken Wilber.  Let's say you lived your entire life.. every breath, every thought, every action you took was in honor of Integral, and it worked for you.  And then, with only a couple of years to live after a happy old life… Ken came to you and said… “Julian, I was wrong.  There is a god, and that God did create the universe.”

My point is.. my dad's faith works for him… in fact he believes prayer to God is what cured him of systemic bone cancer.  Given he didn't take any meds or have any treatments, something happened.  How can you tell him after so many years of loving God, his Church and his beliefs… that God is just a manifestation of consciousness in his head, and his prayers were nothing more than him healing himself, if that is what happened at all?

Does that help?

dave (and others)

regarding the need to meet people where they are in life (what else should one do?), i agree. that doesn't mean that all views, perspectives, beliefs, actions, values, communication, education, degrees of sanity etc are equally valid. these perspectives and beliefs are valid to the extent that they are consistent with sustainable human wellness, and all the psychological, social, and environmental factors that this necessitates.

and for those of us who have already gone through or are going through the process of moving beyond erroneous cultural beliefs, and done the work necessary to see through fallacious truth claims, there is no reason to pretend that we haven't, in thought, deed, or word(s). i would go further - since the stakes are rather high at the moment, i think anyone possessing intellectual clarity and emotional depth, relatively unhampered by cultural hypnosis whether traditional or consumerist, should promote their free thinking and feeling without apology, and without compromise, in whatever manner is appropriate and sensitive to the context they find themselves in.

furthermore, anyone who values human life and civilisation should strive to promote a reality-oriented philosophy as a matter of principle (and urgency). respecting people of different beliefs does not require indulging or defending delusion and illogical thinking, nor does denial of falsehood necessarily require hurting and insulting defenders of those falsehoods. it is the responsibility of all of us to accept that truth is primary over delusion, that facts are primary over feelings (and that the latter are no reliable way of ascertaining the former).

i submit that much of the argument around theology and religious belief is based on avoiding hurting feelings and especially internal dissonance. the primary function of imagined belief systems - whether in christian, buddhist, integral or any other doctrine - is ultimately, i believe, to subconsciously or consciously facilitate the avoidance of fear: fear of death and dying, fear of living, fear of thinking, fear of independence, fear of aloneness, fear of autonomy, fear of self-responsibility, fear of conflict, fear of disagreement, fear of unworthiness, fear of rejection, fear of being unloved or unlovable, fear of helplessness, fear of damnation, and so on.

the path of maturation requires that these fears be faced and transcended in due course. sustaining any belief without evidential and logical grounds for doing so is, in my experience, in direct conflict with this process, and i will not condone evasion, however well-intentioned it is.

you start from wherever you are - and begin being intellectually and emotionally honest. maybe in tiny 1% steps, or maybe surrendering to bigger realisations which one has been resisting for some time, but always as much as one can, growing in authenticity at one's own pace, hopefully with the support of others. i believe that this is the only “spiritual” path worthy of the cause of sustaining human love, and of human life, on this earth.

you are free to choose - what's more important, your beliefs about reality, or reality itself? or more fundamentally - your feelings, or the truth? to the extent that one's beliefs are accurate (coincide with reality) there is no necessary conflict. it is both our freedom and responsibility to update our beliefs and premises to be as accurate as possible on an ongoing basis.

as a species, we need to start getting real - right here, right now

Adam,

I understand.  I talk to my dad, my pastor, my family and friends about my truths about God as spiritual consciousness.  We have great discussions, and everyone respects what we find in common and what we do not.  I completely agree we must communicate authentically, whether what we know is understood or agreed to or not.  No problem there.

I admire the two recent Pope's for opening up their views on God as conciousness as well. 

But isn't it something different, even irresponsible, for a religion with 1.5 billion followers to just stand up one day and turn the faith on its ear?  If people are going to be shifted out of their reality…

It takes time and commitment to generate a new way of thinking and being.  The old and new must co-exist and evolve gradually… we are not talking about revolution, we are talking about evolution.

Finally.. your comment about getting real.. right here, right now…

I'll bet you countless generations before us have seen humanity at some kind of precipice and have said exactly the same thing before.

Dave

those last two posts really moved me…does that mean i should discount them both?  lol…

seriously, they were awesome…both of them honest…and real…

you two have inspired a song…somewhere in the middle of what you both are saying…is a wonder place…gonna go write…thanx for the inspiration…

dave

But isn't it something different, even irresponsible, for a religion with 1.5 billion followers to just stand up one day and turn the faith on its ear?  If people are going to be shifted out of their reality…

It takes time and commitment to generate a new way of thinking and being.  The old and new must co-exist and evolve gradually… we are not talking about revolution, we are talking about evolution.

did you actually read what i wrote? about baby steps, about starting from where each of us is, at their own pace?

but to answer your point - no, it would be extremely responsible for people of faith to abandon it in favour of their own immediate perception and cognition. it would actually be shifting them into their reality. which is the same as everyone's reality. there is only one reality, and there can only be one reality. we're all in it, and it's up to us to see it as clearly as our highly limited faculties permit.

I'll bet you countless generations before us have seen humanity at some kind of precipice and have said exactly the same thing before.

generally not until it's too late. and it's no less true now that it was then. except things are rather different now.

your point is?

Sorry Adam,

Either I offended you, or your style is getting a little condescending and snippy.  For the former I apologize.

Yes I did read what you said, every word.  Second, perhaps I am missing something.  I thought the context of the discussion was about both religious organizations and its members acknowledge that God is not what has been taught, and start moving in a new direction based on our own perception and cognition. 

It's one thing for every individual to embrace it, one step at a time, it is quite another for a religion to announce a 'new cognitive evolution dogma' and then leave its members to work it out as they see fit.

Secondly, by leaving one's evolution in the hands of individual perception and cognition, you may well find the opposite of what you hope occurring.  The Catholic Church is the fastest growing religion in the world.  There are now more Catholics in the United Kingdom than Anglicans.  Highly educated, cognitively perceptive Anglicans are converting the Catholicism at exponential rates.

The idea that anyone who belongs to a religion and holds faith is not true to their perception and cognition… well… it just isn't true.  While you may not cognitively understand faith… does not mean faith is not both perceiveable and understandable. 

My point is… humanity does go through stages of evolution, and face the quantum forces to move on or stay where we are.  We are at one of them… we will be facing them again.  The will to change and grow,and actually do so is not a new phenomenon… humanity has been doing it for centuries. 

Julian,  I know you would embrace the news with joy and energy.  So would I. 

However, I'll remind myself not to introduce you to my dad.  lol  There are many people who are very content with their belief systems, they are right for them, they are happy… it can be tough for some people, especially those who are aging… to energetically embrace revolutionary change to their belief systems.

We who would love every erg of new knowledge to flow through us, must have compassion for those who have lived a full life, are tired, and settled in thier own happiness.

That's all I was saying.

thanks for your response dave

no offence taken here, i appreciate the apology, though none is necessary.

best wishes

adam

Julian,

I'm sure you won't be surprised to learn that I agree with the vast majority of what has been said here. The integral discourse would feel to me far less friendly and open without your vital contribution :) But to make things interesting, I still have to turn the tables a bit:

One point that is often made about integral from a Green perspective is this: Integral is hierarchical and even if, when correctly understood, it can't be used to oppress people, its language of hierarchy and value judgments encourages people to become oppressors.

Assuming I'm understanding you correctly, I think that there is a very close parallel between the perspective I've just summarized, and what you are saying about Integral's use of the word “God”. You want ontologically-correct speech to Green's political correctness, and both perspectives share a common emphasis on the LL quadrant (meaning and language) in playing a causal role in an individuals level of development.

My immediate reaction to this is that there is too much emphasis on the LL in this line of reasoning. I'm open to the possibility of being wrong, but I feel like I have to either accept both or reject both.

Julian all your definitions only tell me that there is no ONE way to define divinity.

Divinity CANT be confined to one thing or one definition

The 12 century mystic Ibn Arabi had an idea of God called ”Wahdat-ul-Wujood” (Unity of Being) essentially states that in God lies everything and God lies in everything.

Wikipedia

I subscribe to this notion of God and move on to the fact of my own condition

My extrapolation on this is that there are two aspects of
“God”

God in development [Quintessential] through involution, and God in the unchanging reality of being. [existential]

There is no development in the existential aspect of God, but the developmental aspect

[involution] is all about the developement of humans to the level of the existential divinity.

A subtle nuance to this is:
The “God” of religion only exists because the inner nature of humans has been knocked off its course.

It wouldn't exist as a concept if this phenomenon [humans losing their nature] didn't happen.

 An aspect of the existential God has created the  impulse of “God” in order to  return humans to the track of their true nature. The impulse is driven by the condition of the lost nature, on one level, and also the impulse of God to know himself, on another level.

All I know is this:

The great codifier of Torah law and Jewish philosophy, Rabbi Mosheben Maimon (“Mamonides” also known as “The Rambam”), com piled what he refers to as the Shloshah Asar Ikkarim, the “Thirteen Fundamental Principles” of the Jewish faith, as derived from the Torah.Maimonides refers to these thirteen principles of faith as “the fundamental truths of our religion and its very foundations.” The Thirteen Principles of Jewish faith are as follows:

1. Belief in the existence of the Creator, who is perfect in every manner of existence and is the Primary Cause of all that exists.

2. The belief in G-d's absolute and unparalleled unity.

3. The belief in G-d's non-corporeality, nor that He will be affected by any physical occurrences, such as movement, or rest, or dwelling.

4. The belief in G-d's eternity.

5. The imperative to worship G-d exclusively and no foreign false gods.

6. The belief that G-d communicates with man through prophecy.

7. The belief in the primacy of the prophecy of Moses our teacher.

8. The belief in the divine origin of the Torah.

9. The belief in the immutability of the Torah.

10. The belief in G-d's omniscience and providence.

11. The belief in divine reward and retribution.

12. The belief in the arrival of the Messiah and the messianic era.

13. The belief in the resurrection of the dead.

I know these to be absolutely true. If there are any righteous gentiles who want to help us Jews fulfill G-d's vision for creating the World, please go to this website:http://noahide.org/

If you are Jewish, please do more Mitzvot, especially wrapping Tefillin and learning about the 3rd Temple, may it be speedily rebuilt in our days. Rebbe Nachman says Truth is One, falsehood is many. 

1. BELIEF IN G-D
Do not worship Idols

2. RESPECT G-D AND PRAISE HIM
Do Not Blaspheme His Name

4. RESPECT THE FAMILY
Do Not Commit Immoral Sexual Acts

5. RESPECT FOR OTHERS’ RIGHTS AND PROPERTY
Do Not Steal

6. CREATION OF A JUDICIAL SYSTEM
Pursue Justice

7. RESPECT ALL CREATURES
Do not be cruel to animals.

Julian

  Here are three questions for you

Two direct questions, and the other, a more complex one with an observation included.

With the “Integral” philosophy  being the essence of  Wilberian thought, how can they then try to diminish ANY concept of “God” without diminishing itself?

Observation and question:

My concern with Wilberian logic regarding the God issue and spiritual development is with their implied [directly and indirectly] notion that humans are NOT in a state of mis-development [ that requires religion and metaphysics of some sort.] And all we are doing is evolving [based on traditional notions of evolution.] They have relegated the “Self struggle,” the crux of spiritual development to “Shadow work.” To me this marginalizes the importance of the struggle to become a “good” person within the spiritual developmental systems - an existential requirement of advancement. In short,  Wilberian philosophy deemphasizes the condition of mis-development that humans are trapped in, I believe.

Eiten,

your entire religion is based upon the so-called voice that Abram heard…

Abram was a lier…and a murderer…

Moses was too…

then there is the matter of the 'burning bush'…

that supposedly gave the ten commandments…

40 years the Israelites trained in the wilderness as warriors…

they broke every commandment of their so-called 'burning bush' God…

Joshua led his warriors to kill every man, woman, and child…and animal…to steal land…

this is just a summary of the horible deeds of your God…refer to the old testament for a
detailed version…

he is a God of division, and a God of war…we have only to look to the Middle East for
proof of that…

there have been military experts that have been studying the old testament, in view of just
that…that have given logical, military explanations for the so-called miracles that have
for centuries claimed supernatural properties…

also, there are UFO experts looking into all of the so-called visions and mysterious
occurances strewn through the old testament…they too, have given logical explanations
to the outdated 'spritual visions'…maybe, just maybe, men of ancient times were trying
to explain their witnessing of higher technologies…

if we do not begin to look at this stuff logically and scientifically…we will stay
trapped in that 'cave man' mindset…that has led mankind