symposium
August 2008 
Integrative Spirituality: Grounded Contemporary Perspectives
Posted on May 12th, 2007
by 
MrTeacup
MrTeacup
For me, the heart and soul of spiritual practice is practice and inquiry. In considering the theme of this symposium, I attempted to strip down and simplify, focusing on the things that I have personally felt most useful and profound. The conclusions that I've come to are tentative and always open to future revision, and I would like to gratefully acknowledge the many writers, teachers and fellow Zaadzters who have contributed to my understanding -- I hope to do them justice by synthesizing some ideas that I consider not just intellectually valid and true, but also so profound that realizing them somehow seems more like remembering long-forgotten truths than learning something new.
Many good and interesting things have unfortunately been given minimal consideration or ignored altogether, but I hope that I have left enough space that other viewpoints and priorities to co-exist with my own.
------------------------------
If you had to pick all the spiritual people out of crowd, you probably wouldn't pick me. I don't wear spiritual clothes, drive a spiritual car or listen to spiritual music. Its not that I think there's something wrong with doing those things, it just never seemed to make any difference. And if there is something real that transcends time, space, culture and personality, something so immense and foundational that it underlies everything in the universe, why would it make a difference?
Its common to hear people say that we don't live in a spiritual culture, because we're materialistic or shallow or out of touch with nature or too individualistic or not individualistic enough. Those things might be true -- I think some of them are -- but so what? I think it’s closer to the truth to say that we are a culture that stopped believing that we are spiritual, but even that doesn't really change anything. Believing in something spiritual doesn't bring you any closer to discovering fundamental truths about existence, and maybe it takes you further away from them. Belief and unbelief in God, a higher power, Absolute Self or Buddha nature have no bearing whatsoever on anything that could be called a fundamental truth, because if it is truly fundamental, how could we ever be apart from it?
It is sometimes said that astronauts in space are in zero gravity. They aren't, they are just weightless. This is because you can never really escape the pull of the earth's gravity, because no matter how far away you get, it will still exert some force on you. And every other object in the universe does too. So it’s an under-appreciated fact that you are, at this moment, connected to everything in the universe through the force of gravity. This is perhaps a useful metaphor for the experience of oneness, interconnectedness, Buddhist dependent co-arising, God's unlimited grace or other religious concepts, but this is not, in itself, evidence of them. It should not be interpreted that interdependence is communicated through gravity or any other physical forces, partly because an experience of excess gravity is nearly always fatal, but also because, as countless high school students will tell you, a demonstration of Newton's theory of universal gravity does not generally create an experience of transcendence. But there's a marked tendency among some to want to find objective evidence of something that requires no evidence; to misuse metaphor to prove something. This is a defensive posture that reveals that the speaker believes that arguments could, in principle, be marshaled in support of a set of conclusions about ultimate reality that would definitively prove its nature. But if doubt about statements about ultimate reality -- whether those statements are emotional, intellectual, magical or logical -- they can't be perfect descriptions of that reality, because any statement always implies the possibility of its opposite. Even the term 'ultimate reality' is insufficient because it implies the existence of the non-ultimate and a non-reality which we have to exclude in order to form the concept at all. What grounded spirituality proposes is to discover what is prior to all statements, which no statement can truly describe.
It’s easy to get swept up in spiritual imagery or blissful poetic descriptions, because it takes you up and out of the dullness and ordinariness of life. We rightly cherish those kinds of moments, but tend to forget that states of fear, insecurity, anxiety and despair can also be non-ordinary, and just as profound and real as the blissful states. Among spiritual seekers, I notice at least two distinct viewpoints on these experiences, and they couldn't be more different. The first is the view that paranormal, supernormal, supernatural, psychic or non-ordinary states are proof of the existence of another transcendent, more real reality beyond this one, and that they should be pursued and cultivated.
The other approach is what I'm going to call a grounded view, which avoids assigning tremendous meaning and value to these experiences, not because they are illogical or inherently false (though they may be), but because in some sense, all statements are inherently false. Under this view, non-ordinary experiences are important, not because they different, but because they are not different. We are seeking something simple, a fact so basic and familiar that it passes unnoticed. This is not an experience, but the place where all experience manifests and it remains no matter how extraordinary and other-worldly our experience gets.
If you want to become full, let yourself be empty.
If you want to be reborn, let yourself die.
If you want to be given everything, give up everything.
- Tao Te Ching
If you were trying to find God, where would you look? Where do you find your true self? At 19, I was a Christian, and in trying to figure out what God wanted from me, I put two continents and an ocean between me and my family and forgot everything I ever knew. It was my dark night of the soul. Up until then, I was a serious student of the Bible and had dutifully memorized scripture. But then, I began to realize that what I supposed was the inerrant (or at least very accurate) word of God could be interpreted quite differently depending on who was reading it, and if God did plan on punishing me for my misdeeds, it was only fair that he make his standards clear. And yet after 2000 years, Christians still can't agree on the answer to the worst question you could possibly get wrong. In terms of ambiguity, legislatures composed only of mortals can come up with a higher quality product compared to what is supposed to be divinely inspired. The Holy Spirit, I reasoned, badly needed an editor, so if God had something to say, it was time that he spoke directly. So I told him that it wasn't working out, that sure, we'd had some good times, but its time to move on. We'd grown apart. I said, I'm sorry God, but I can't do this long distance relationship thing any more -- so I broke up with God.
Then, a miracle:
Nothing happened -- no thunderclaps or lightning bolts, no satanic voices entered my mind, there was no signal at all that God had withdrawn his grace. I'm not sure that I really expected anything, but surely rejecting God is a serious offense? Yet the world seemed unmoved by the immensity of the moment. At that point, spirituality became inquiry, not certainty. I knew that no teachings or scriptures could provide certainty, because ultimately, I still have to decide whether it’s true. You can't find God second-hand. Everything that tries to speak about God can, at best, only help your form your own hypothesis, and hypotheses are useless if they aren't tested. A few years later, reading Sartre, an atheist, that we are condemned to be free, I understood what he meant.
For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face.
- 1 Corinthians 13
The transcendent must be available to each of us, directly and unmediated, but what words can be spoken of it? Wittgenstein asks us to remain silent, and that seems like the wise choice. God is... what? I open my mouth, but no words come out. No wonder its blasphemy for Jews to say the name of God. Isness. Suchness. Thisness, thatness. Language breaks down and becomes a parody of itself, like when you stare at word until you can't tell if it’s spelled right or not. The metaphysical question is why is there something rather than nothing? And the great existential question is, what happens when, being something, I become nothing? To respond to this question with ideas of an afterlife or questionable supernatural speculations is to refuse to answer at all; hiding ignorance with a promise that another dimension exists where all questions about being and meaning are definitively answered. For me, the big problem is not that supernatural ideas are often pre-rational magical thinking -- they often are, but I'm open to the possibility that it is not -- but that they are often used as a promissory note, an IOU, the magic eight-ball saying, "Ask again later."
You'll find it in all exoteric religions: mystical or supernatural ideas are used to justify a system of beliefs and practices, but they never seem to get around to asking the important question -- what is the eternal, unborn mind? Waking up to this is the goal of a true spiritual path, but so often the exoteric religions wrap the question up in supernatural fantasies and forget about it. Modern New Age spirituality claims an affinity for contemplative traditions and for "enlightenment", but if people don't actually engage in contemplative practice, if they don't ever wake up to Spirit, the movement is functionally exoteric. Esoteric spirituality differs from exoteric religion in that it does not put off knowing the truth. It doesn't attempt to quiet our suffering and our pain; instead, it offers liberation by seeing things as they actually are. Exoteric religion hopes to "see face to face" after death; esoteric spirituality is the realization that we can see clearly now.
Saving the world is not really part of it. The world may be awash in suffering, death, materialism, logical fallacies, superficiality, religious fanaticism, environmental degradation, terrorism, but none of these concerns are directly related to the project of waking up. That's not to suggest that these concerns are unimportant or that we shouldn't care about them, but to point out that to the extent that we are caught up in our own delusions and our personal perspective, we don't care about them. It we want to make a difference in our own lives or in others', it’s necessary to see clearly or we run the risk of perpetuating delusion and suffering. We fail to notice that our "solutions" to external problems are often truly motivated by our own self-concern. Painful experiences trigger a cascade of feelings and anguish, and we are moved to solve it, to make certain that the trigger never happens again, so eventually wear a groove into our psyches that says, "I shouldn't have to feel this way." Why me, why do I have to suffer? When our actions are motivated by reaction against our experience, a very basic rejection of what is, we give up freedom. Seeing clearly allows us to choose to respond, instead of instinctively reacting.
Literalism and Positivism
What I mean by positivism is the belief that all meaningful statements are derived logically from empirical, objective observations. Positivism, under this definition, has a hyper-logical, but impoverished meaning-making apparatus -- if it can't appear on a dial or a meter, it doesn't exist, and implicitly views subjective experience as inferior or even meaningless, even if it concerns itself purely with subjective experience. For example, you went to see a movie with some friends. Was it good? A positivist would say that this is a meaningless question since the quality of a movie is not an objective fact that can be measured, and no answer to this question would be meaningful that did not follow logically from objective facts. We would probably not invite such a person to the next movie we go to see, because we generally have no trouble asking and accepting answers to questions about subjective experience, and find it useful to do so.
Spiritual seekers tend to have two distinct approaches for dealing with their positivist friends. The first simply accepts the fact that positivism is the dominant mode of discourse in describing "real reality", and attempts to use rational, scientific tools to prove spiritual truths. What is wrong with this? Nothing, if you believe that logic will lead us to all the answers, and is the sole source of truth and meaning. But spiritual seekers, though they frequently deny this positivist dogma, make their case for spirituality by unknowingly affirming the same dogma. This is kind of like trying to fill a hole in the ground by digging it deeper, while the digger celebrates the quantity of dirt he or she is able to produce, intending to use it later to fill the hole. Ironically, in resisting this effort, I am suspected of being a crypto-positivist, not a genuine spiritual seeker at all.
In fact, I'm advocating a second approach, one that closely echoes Ken Wilber's Integral Methodological Pluralism. To stretch the metaphor a bit, this says that you can't dig a hole in the sky. Positivism only denies spiritual truths if we accept that it has anything to say at all about spirituality. But the converse is also true -- anything fact that logic can prove or disprove cannot be a spiritual truth. In this way, we preserve the integrity of both science and spiritual inquiry. One digs in the dirt, the other contemplates the sky. Under this approach, authentic spirituality can only be restored to the culture after we have freed ourselves of positivist excesses, not by continuing to enslave ourselves to them. (Incidentally, this same dynamic is present when people attempt to show that women are essentially the same as men. The majority mode of discourse is used to elevate minority priorities, but at the same time, it continues to do violence to minority modes of understanding the world. Other works in this genre include: Black People: Basically White People, and Hinduism Is Really Christianity)
Positivism is not the same as precision. Logical people are often precise (and often not), and it’s easy to mistake imprecise confusion with 'surrendering to the mystery'. Most people carry a huge amount of unconscious beliefs, habits, assumptions, cultural orientations and psychological baggage that filters experience to produce the reality we want instead of the reality that is, and that occurs in very systematic and subtle ways. A precise, non-judgmental examination of the workings of the mind is a useful tool to counter this. Examining our belief structures logically can reveal to us what we take to be real is not, and is best understood non-literally and metaphorically.
Other Symposium Essays
Access: PublicTagged with: symposium
I'm going to the Whole Earth Festival tomorrow, but I'm bringing my laptop, so I hope to be able to respond to comments to some extent.
Excellent, T! Truly. I think you've captured the essence of “grounded” here. Love Julian's title, too: “Spirituality in a Teacup”! Beautiful!
Namaste.
Grey
Hey MrT, this is absolutely delicious!!! Clean, clear, sky-open, mountain-firm, ground-stable stuff, straight from the mouth of Implicity.
Exoteric religion hopes to “see face to face” after death; esoteric spirituality is the realization that we can see clearly now… Yes, yes, yes. Because we are already seeing it, it's closer than the eyeball, it's nearer than the self-sense, and - it's always Everywhere. There's no way of saying it, because saying exludes the unsaid. And yet, and yet… we must say something. And you did.
Saving the world is not really part of it. Exactly! The perfection of imperfection comes forth, and we do whatever is good to heal the torment and confusion, but not because we refuse to accept the way the world - or anyone in it - is at any moment.
Also, the last two paragraphs are great. Not only do I resonate with your post personally, I'm convinced it is a good foundation for a variety of heterogenous authentic spiritual approaches for today and tomorrow. Good work!
Hokai
I like your style, Mike, and I especially appreciate your emphasis on inquiry as a basis for grounding spiritual practice. I love this:
“At that point, spirituality became inquiry, not certainty. I knew that no teachings or scriptures could provide certainty, because ultimately, I still have to decide whether it’s true. You can’t find God second-hand. Everything that tries to speak about God can, at best, only help your form your own hypothesis, and hypotheses are useless if they aren’t tested.”
And you sum up our dilemma quite well:
“Most people carry a huge amount of unconscious beliefs, habits, assumptions, cultural orientations and psychological baggage that filters experience to produce the reality we want instead of the reality that is, and that occurs in very systematic and subtle ways.”
My knee-jerk response, whenever I consider such things, is to immediately ask: “Well then, what shall we do about it?” I found myself wanting to ask you about what specific practices you utilize, what you specifically mean by a ” precise, non-judgmental examination of the workings of the mind”.
Then it occurred to me I might be missing the point, that your essay is, in and of itself, an example of the kind of inquiry you’re advocating.
Since I’m on an Alan Watts kick lately, I’ll leave you with a quote that seems relevant:
“The question ‘What shall we do about it?’ is only asked by those who do not understand the problem. If a problem can be solved at all, to understand it and to know what to do about it are the same thing. On the other hand, doing something about a problem which you do not understand is like trying to clear away darkness by thrusting it aside with your hands. When light is brought, the darkness vanishes at once.”
Thanks for the fine contribution.
–Bob
Hi Mr. Teacup/Mike. Great post, many good points! It seems that what Jorge Ferrer calls “residual positivism” indeed exists among some spiritual seekers, who try to “eff” the ineffable, as it were.
Mike, I really enjoyed your essay. Today, since I have to work on my contribution, I don't have a lot of time, but I wanted to say I appreciated your comments about positivism (and the ways it can infiltrate spiritual discourse inappropriately) and your personal story of “leaving God.” Something similar happened to me: After having become disillusioned with the myths I'd been fed, I announced to God: “Lord, I am turning my back on you. I am doing this in order to better and more fully find you…”
meister eckhart in the house - “the greatest leave-taking of all is the leave-taking of god for God…”
i hear leave-taking as meaning something like “renunciation.”
I loved this essay. I'm left with 'Ah' silently sounding. Nothing to be affirmed, nothing to be denied. For me the heart of the piece is this:
”We are seeking something simple, a fact so basic and familiar that it passes unnoticed. This is not an experience, but the place where all experience manifests and it remains no matter how extraordinary and other-worldly our experience gets.”
I would just add one word: “often”, between 'it' and 'passes'. Thank you, Mr. Teacup!
Dear Mr. T. - I really loved to read this piece. It made me feel that I could actually understand what you mean. And quite a few gems there that some other commenters have already mentioned.
One thing I wonder about, though. You echo a famous adagio, “reality as it is.” Is that not also positivism? (I don't know, but it seems so, no?) And does the idea that there is actually such a phenomenon as 'reality as it is' foster the view that spirituality is revealing the “one true reality”, something objective? Which in turn leads down an awful road…
So can't we just throw away this whole idea, and simply stay with sometimes noticing the ”so basic and familiar” - not a place or a space in which anything manifsts, I would add, but the very “basic and familar” in and of itself?
i really relate to your perpective, mr t…love the intro where you speak of not driving a “spiritual car”…because it sounds like you are driving the car of your conciousness and that is the most spiritual activity i can think of…hehe…it is what it is, eh?…
to continue my whitman kick:
I exist as I am, that is enough,
If no other in the world be aware I sit content,
And if each and all be aware I sit content.
One world is aware, and by far the largest to me, and
that is myself,
And whether I come to my own today or in ten thousand
or ten million years,
I can cheerfully take it now, or with equal cheerfulness
I can wait.
Hi Mike,
I really enjoyed your post; it resonates deep inside me. As you say: “At that point, spirituality became inquiry, not certainty.”
Thanks!
Frans
wonderful essay mr. teacup—concise, well-written, beautiful inquiry ….and thanks for telling about your own personal story….this always seems to clarify things for me for some reason….and I agree with Bob that “your essay is, in and of itself, an example of the kind of inquiry you're advocating.”
This essay is a treasure, Teacup. Thank you for it.
Your statements are intelligent and beautiful. I would like to offer a possible additional perspective on something that you have mentioned in your writing—the perspective that it is largely the personal responsibility of the spiritual practitioner as to what becomes foreground and what becomes background on a spiritual path. And in so doing, I want to reaffirm that not all traditions that are inclusive of supernatural and psychic phenomenon promote these experiences as “goals” to be pursued and cultivated…just as landmarks to note on the journey.
“The first (type of spiritual path) is the view that paranormal, supernormal, supernatural, psychic or non-ordinary states are proof of the existence of another transcendent, more real reality beyond this one, and that they should be pursued and cultivated.
The other approach is what I'm going to call a grounded view, which avoids assigning tremendous meaning and value to these experiences, not because they are illogical or inherently false (though they may be), but because in some sense, all statements are inherently false. Under this view, non-ordinary experiences are important, not because they different, but because they are not different.”
I have not really encountered many spiritual traditions (of the first type you mention) where these types of paranormal, supernormal, and etcetera…experiences are generally encouraged as a pursuit or a spiritual “goal” to be cultivated as proof of a more real reality. These types of occurrences are sometimes mentioned as experiences that might (some more probable than others) occur along the spiritual journey and can provide a deeper understanding and perceptiono of reality. Also, it is usually stated they only occur given consitent engagement in certain practices…and again, that they can be helpful landmarks worthy of note along the journey… Perhaps, my exposure has been limited, yet I wanted to inquire: Is this what you meant by the second type?
I will concede, Teacup, that some spiritual aspirants do make these experiences their personal pursuits and do aim to cultivate them. Yet isn't it the practitioner who needs to take personal responsibility for that kind of sort of focus and attitude? Isn't it the practitioner who ultimately makes the choice to bring the paranormal/supernormal into the foreground rather than integrating it into the background?
Psychic-like states began happening for me when I was 21 in this life, yet I definitely would not qualify them as “non-ordinary.” Since 21, these experiences have become less and less “non-ordinary” for me as I have gradually accepted them for what they are—part of my daily experience—no more extraordinary or spiritual than washing the dishes, playing in the grass, or holding a baby. And I have rarely discussed these experiences separate from my creative writing and poetry for obvious reasons. A mature and receptive audience is a wonderful thing. I sense that I am in the midst of one currently, and feel at ease to share. Thank you, everyone.
When these experiences began, I had been (for all concerted purposes) an ambivalent agnostic, who didn't give much thought to “spirituality” in the course of my day-to-day living. For most of my childhood, I was raised in a fundamentalist southern baptist church—from which I became disillusioned at about 15—and perhaps due to this, at the age of 21 I felt no pull to religion or other forms of “traditional spirituality.” I had not even heard of meditation. Yet this remained a constant: I had begun contemplating “God” when I was 7 and felt a strong pull to this intangible energy I could not describe for most of my life.
All that said, were it not for the spiritual traditions and teachers that provide information and guidance regarding “supernatural” and/or “psychic” events/experiences, and receive and promote them as being natural and normal (need I say “ordinary”) in the greater context of reality, my life or my mind might have been completely lost. For I had no formative referents for what was happening to me—certainly no guidance in any textbooks of empirical science or info from sermons at the First Baptist Church. As a result, I currently feel that spiritual traditions that do acknowledge and are inclusive of “supernatural-” or “psychic-” type experiences can be of great merit and pragmatic value.
Lastly, your description and exploration of positivism is absolutely remarkable in it's clarity and precision. Deep bow.
I love this: “…you can't dig a hole in the sky.”
What an amazing statement of self-reflection that is.
:)
Thanks to everyone for all the positive feedback. The personal story is always important, so I'm glad I could include it to shed light on the genesis of my ideas, and how I got here.
Bob, you are right, this essay is kind of a practice in itself. I have had a lot of trouble articulating a way to explain it, and then I notice that when I try, I engage in the practice itself. So I think part of it might be establishing a vocabulary of interiority, like tying yourself to a stake in the ground and then mapping the territory by groping around in the dark. Its a focused and deliberate process, but I think a great deal about subjective experience can be usefully communicated. Its finding out exactly what I mean.
Mushin, I think this is a very good point. I think you recently compared this to revolving around the “ultimate” center of the universe, which is a good way of looking at it. I think any ideology build around the concept would be false, or at least, not necessarily more true than any other ideology. But in some ways, the concept is so slippery its very difficult to do it in practice – there are many plausible misinterpretations. I have a couple of other vague thoughts that I need to think through more before I could say anything. My sense of this question is that it asks whether the integral view of spirit adequately accounts for the insights of post-modernism/post-structuralism, and I'd appreciate any further light you can offer on the argument.
Delia,
I have not really encountered many spiritual traditions (of the first type you mention) where these types of paranormal, supernormal, and etcetera…experiences are generally encouraged as a pursuit or a spiritual “goal” to be cultivated as proof of a more real reality.
I agree, it's unusual for an esoteric spiritual tradition to emphasize supernaturalism, it's much more common in exoteric religions. I think there's a lot of people who might consider themselves “spiritual seekers” who aren't necessarily attached to a tradition, what you might call a buffet-style approach. I think this is pretty common, even here on Zaadz, and so I'm trying to distinguish between spirituality as a lifestyle choice and real authentic practice like you would find in a spiritual tradition, and I try to make the point that lifestyle spirituality is actually pretty exoteric and so has much more in common with exoteric western religion than esoteric eastern traditions.
Teacup,
“…I try to make the point that lifestyle spirituality is actually pretty exoteric and so has much more in common with exoteric western religion than esoteric eastern traditions.”
Yes, this has been my experience as well. You just clarified this point beautifully. Great thanks.
:)
hmm…
Lifestyle & the Pursuit of Authentic Spirituality: Choices in Depth and Freedom
Julian? Potential fodder for a future symposium?
;)
hey guys - been away today, but really enjoyed the contribution from mr t - and am scrolling through the comments…
Hi Mike,
I really enjoyed your writing and resonated with your story. Isn't it wonderful to be able to return and throw new light upon old scripture as it comes alive in ones own life. And how slowly everything starts to make sense, out of a historical perspective. Now this learning takes on a larger, less personal, view. We are able to partake in this world and to help where help is needed. Learning continues and personal choice becomes a major player in “what already always is”. Growing, maturation, participation, evolution, communion beyond the personal. Embodying Spirit, practice, integration, will and surrender. There is so much to explore.
Mr. T.,
I'm currently working on a piece summing some of the things up I've indicated here, and in my recent comments on 'integrative spirituality' - hope some time soon to publish it on my blog here.
Teacup:
Fantastic piece. I resonated with it strongly and, judging from the comments above, so did most of your other readers. Well done.
My most important hesitation is the same reaction that arose in me upon reading Hokai's contribution to this forum. You acknowledge vaguely the significance of intersubjectivity, but you don't really get into the muck of how your universalizing and generalizing speech reaches to airly heights without first descending into the particularities of your experience. As with Hokai, I would have benefited more from seeing your piece grounded in your own life and experience, including your attempts to root around and deconstruct the workings of that experience, rather than offering more general stuff. It's a powerful testimony to your abilities as a writer to be able to pen a piece that gets such wide praise at Zaadz, but then honestly I might have been more impressed if you'd stirred up the shit a little with a post that got less universal praise.
joe, sa'rah, delia, jim, bjorn and mushin -
if you are so inclined, i would love to invite you to write pieces monday or tuesday summarizing your impressions of the symposium - and include them in our round-up.
this would of course include any statements you would want to make about what was missing, what surprised you, etc…
thanks for being such active participants and providing your voices!
stay tuned for balder.
sa'rah, delia, jim
t - i really enjoyed this piece - as with hoklai's i don't have much to add or comment on.
it's very strong, grounded and real.
gave me an excellent impression of your non-pretentious engagement with both philosophical rigor and non-dual suchness.
would that half the people trumpeting the non-dual were doing it with a tenth as much clarity and integrity.
thanks for keeping your head.
bravo.
Joe,
Thanks for offering your insights. On whether I've stirred the shit enough, it seems that I can't win with you :). If I write something that outlines my disagreements and difference, I'm too agentic. If I write something that's too unifying, I'm not agentic enough? What you say is true though – the discussion we've had on this topic up until now have been pretty divisive, and as I've said elsewhere, we need consensus. So I wanted to write something that brought the temperature down a bit and something that reinforced the need for practice. That said, I make a few important distinctions that I think stir the shit up a bit:
1. Integral spirituality can be minimally distinguished from New Age spirituality by integral's emphasis on esoteric practice. My opinion is that New Age spirituality should be regarded as exoteric, and in many of its manifestations, as a less exclusive variation of Western Christianity. I think we are right to question “spiritual” teachings from New Age teachers who do not grapple with existential questions, and who essentially recommend that we ignore them. I think we can reject much of New Age on this basis rather than getting stuck in a maze of whether there is or is not evidence of the supernatural.
2. Magical thinking may be a delusion, but from the perspective of the absolute, so is logical thinking; but logic is still superior to magic on the relative side. Because of this, I'm at odds with the more interventionist approaches to combating magical thinking.
Also, my archnemesis Elektroglide is out of town, so expect the sparks to fly when he comes back :)
Jim,
Thanks for pointing me to Jorge Ferrer. I found the first 3 chapters of his book, Revisioning Transpersonal Theory, which I think is very relevant to this symposium.
Wow - smooth, without the nicks and cuts of a blade.
I don't know what radio ad that came from, but it wanted out.
Thanks, T, that was beautiful.
Still
T,
Outstanding! Steady, sweet, compassionate, grounded in your own story, provocative, intensely readable, sobering. Somehow, just opening and “turning-to” the wonder within the mysterious, awakening unfolds.
“A precise, non-judgmental examination of the workings of the mind is a useful tool to counter this. Examining our belief structures logically can reveal to us what we take to be real is not, and is best understood non-literally and metaphorically.”
This is where the wonder is for 1st Tier. The unexamined story (belief structure) limits our attitudinal options to apathy, positivism, and skepticism.
“Painful experiences trigger a cascade of feelings and anguish, and we are moved to solve it, to make certain that the trigger never happens again, so eventually wear a groove into our psyches that says, “I shouldn't have to feel this way.” Why me, why do I have to suffer? When our actions are motivated by reaction against our experience, a very basic rejection of what is, we give up freedom. Seeing clearly allows us to choose to respond, instead of instinctively reacting.”
At the risk of sounding remotely “religious or doctrinaire,” this sounds like new “gospel” to me. Learning to “see clearly” is prerequisite to the construction of true foundation. Curiosity, honesty, and outside “help” are beneficial to the process.
yer pal,
Michael
teacup: but you DID win with me. I just think it would have been more impressive if you'd played an away game instead of a home game with lots of adoring fans. but thanks for the reminder that you made points 1 and 2 (both of which put me in your home team)
julian: haven't seen balder's piece yet, but overall I'd say this was a successful effort that accomplished its stated intentions. I do wish you'd organized the setup a bit more democratically and openly to avoid the appearance of cliquishness, but that's water under the bridge. overall my concluding observation is simply that while I found very much to agree with (less with yours and elektroglide's posts), I found the near absence of a brief, simple intersubjective awareness to be depressing. At times, the absence was barely noticable. At other times, the absence was in-your-face naive realism.
For perspectives that were aiming for “grounded,” they seemed more disembodied relative to class, culture, gender, sexuality, ethnicity, ability, etc. In your rush to post-green levels, your contributors forgot to tip the hat to green's permanent truths and enduring contributions. To spout a cliche, any one of your contributors could have added a simple sentence to say, “My perspective is born out of my experience as a ___ male, born and raised in ____ and steeped in a plethora of intersubjective contexts. If your own perspective varies significantly, you may need to make adjustments to account for my ___ and of a ____. type.” Hence, lacking that awareness and simple forthrightness, and seeming to disregard efforts to steer the conversation into more embodied terrain, I judge the contributions not integral enough in this essential aspect. The symposium suffered as a resultt, and overall its relevance is hampered.
joe you play a tight game my friend.
please feel free to write a piece about your assessment of our efforts and i will link to it in the round-up.
bear in mind the word integral was not in the title and no-one stated that this was to be an AQAL affair.
as far as what we did set out to do - i am very satisfied.
i threw this together in ten minutes the thursday before we started as an experiment and grabbed the 6 people i wanted to hear more from and wanted to expose more to the zaadz community. even though we differ in certain ways, these were six who seemed to have their heads on their shoulders in relationship to the somewhat loopy conversations of the last few months. i assumed that this would make for a great level of dialog and an interesting text…
it worked! thanks for participating.
more to come and a range of subjects - we can't possibly hope to cover everything in one week - perhaps we will have to read your blog for that complex completeness! :O)
take care
~j
julian said:
“perhaps we will have to read your blog for that complex completeness! :O)”
reading Until and Integral Christian is optional. but reading my memoir, Soulfully Gay, just released by Integral Books, is essential. Read that, and you can figure out how I respond to your observations of pre/trans fallacy and your “new age” charges. Buy the book. :-)