Integrative Spirituality: Grounded Contemporary Perspectives
Balder
Integrative Spirituality: Grounded Contemporary Perspectives (VII)
Coming last in the Integrative Spirituality Symposium has been both a luxury and a burden. I've had the luxury of being able to read and reflect on everyone's contributions before considering what I will bring to the table; but my position in the lineup is also somewhat daunting, because now I have the difficulty of trying to come up with something original after all of these fine posts!
I really have appreciated the perspectives that have been offered so far, and I resonate with and share many of them. In this essay, I will not attempt a comprehensive statement on the nature of integrative spirituality, but will offer several perspectives on it which have been helpful to me and which guide me in my own inquiry and practice. Many of the essays in this symposium have approached the subject of integral spirituality primarily in terms of personal practice, and I will consider that dimension of it as well, but - partly in response to some of the conversations that have taken place over the past few days, but also because interfaith dialogue is an abiding interest of mine - I also plan to give a little attention to its LR and LL manifestations.
Writing this essay, I chose at the last moment the convention of defining and commenting on each word in the title of this symposium. In this way, I hope to open up and "evoke" the spirit of this topic, as it finds its expression in my own understanding and practice. At the end, I will offer a few personal reflections.
INTEGRATIVE: Formally, by integrative, I mean being committed to some iteration of Integral Methodological Pluralism. This does not require adopting a particular integral model (which may privilege Eastern, Judeo-Christian, humanistic, or other principles), but instead requires an appreciation for the multiple perspectives by which our worlds are enacted, and a commitment to honor and value the knowledge afforded by each of them. While Wilber's Integral Theory is a powerful example of this approach, and perhaps one of the most comprehensive, this notion has been around for a long time. One of the central tenets of Jainism, for instance, is anekantavada, which is variously translated as non-absolutism, non-one-sidedness, or non-one-perspectivism. This principle holds that no single language, conceptual model, or perspective is capable of disclosing the fullness of Being, and that multiple perspectives must be held together, as the many facets of the jewel of Spirit, if we wish to understand and appreciate the richness of reality.
On a more fundamental level, if we acknowledge knowingness as an inherent aspect of the unbounded wholeness of Being, then we may recognize that knowing itself is integrative - that its uninhibited movement in time is toward the apprehension of greater and greater wholes, and that it is an ally, and the occasion, for growth.
SPIRITUALITY: In broad terms, I define spirituality as active engagement with ultimate questions; openness to the optimizing thrust of Being; an occasion for inquiry and enjoyment; commitment to authenticity, freedom, and transformation; appreciative relationship and intimacy with Being (and other beings); and a celebratory dance in time and space. These short descriptions are not exhaustive, but they give a taste of where I am coming from in the comments that follow.
INTEGRATIVE SPIRITUALITY: When we join these words together, we evoke a way of life which honors, or in which we simply and finally recognize the wisdom of cooperating with, the promptings of Spirit, the optimizing thrust of Being, in all domains of our lives. Every perspective available to us simultaneously reveals what Spirit has done, and is its enacting and enabling Presence. We realize that every perspective-dimension is valuable, and is a facet of the burgeoning of Spirit within us.
In practical terms, we do what so many of the contributors to this symposium have already suggested - we attend with compassion and commitment, and bring healing, transformative light, to body, mind, and spirit, in self, culture, and nature. In Wilber's terms, we work for relative and absolute emancipation concurrently - recognizing the value of conventional growth and development, without losing sight of the vertical deepening in Spirit that is available at every point.
GROUNDED: What do we mean when we describe an approach as grounded? Conventionally, we may mean that it does not stray far from common sense or conventional wisdom, or that it relies only on those "facts" and models which have been most firmly established, or that it is practical and workable rather than abstract and disconnected from daily concerns. I respect each of these definitions, and do not intend to undermine their relative value, but I question the ultimate stability of the grounding they provide. To the extent that conventional wisdom, reliable models, and even workable approaches are all necessarily limited and circumscribed (by the availability of information, the horizons of one's Kosmic address, and so on), they are perpetually subject to challenge and revision.
One of the implications of post-metaphysics is that the Kosmos is, in an important way, groundless: that the given ground, at any given point, is still a perspective, and therefore not really given at all. At any stage in our development and understanding, we may work to "ground" ourselves in the knowledge available, mastering and masterfully employing the models at our disposal and the tools they provide, and this is indeed a wise use of our energy, but we should also recognize the inherent vulnerability and instability of the ground they establish. Other perspectives will always arise to challenge our own; the evolution of knowledge in time will eventually undermine or overturn our founding stories. If we mistake our beliefs and models and convictions for solid, inviolable ground, we will find ourselves called again and again to defend the territory we have claimed, and upon which our felt sense of identity rests.
As an alternative to this conventional definition of being grounded, I propose that a grounded approach is one which is intimate with the living knowledgeability of Being, the open-ended knowingness which is the creative ground for all particularized acts of knowledge and all individual knowledge claims, and which in its spaciousness accommodates the multiplicity of perspectives which enact our self-world horizons. In practical terms, this means having reached the point, through sustained inquiry, that one recognizes this knowingness, this open clarity, not as an ideal, not as a position to be adopted, but as the actuality of being. Because this knowing is foundational, being grounded means being open to what is, in and as its presencing, in uncontrived intimacy.
In terms of state training, this involves realizing and stabilizing in the spontaneous clarity of non-positioned knowing. In terms of philosophical perspectives, it may mean recognition of the postmodern truths of constructivism and contextualism, or a profound (AQAL) grasp of co-dependent origination. In terms of moral grounding, it may involve recognizing the wisdom of insecurity or growing comfortable with uncertainty (to borrow from two popular book titles which address the question of groundlessness).
CONTEMPORARY: Literally, the word means current, with the times, modern. But I want to propose something a little different: that con-temporary be read as "with time" or "with the fullness of time." Because a perspective which recognizes only what is immediately at hand, which lacks historical depth and speculative reach, is necessarily myopic and unstable, and would be a liability, not an asset, in a project such as the one we are exploring. A truly adequate "contemporary perspective" is one which understands and acknowledges what has come before, while also standing on the brink of the future infinitive, working with time in its creative unfolding. It is a perspective which encompasses and integrates the evolutionary thrust of knowledge in time, cognizant of the indelible prints of the past on the present without being bound or wholly determined by them.
PERSPECTIVES: The fact that the final word in the title is plural is an acknowledgment that the understanding we seek is bigger than any of us, beyond the grasp of any single model or formulation. It is a reminder that the foundation of our identity, the groundless ground of our being, is ultimately so deep and inviolable that we can only be enriched by an encounter with otherness; that we need not fear contradiction, or flinch at the appearance of alternative perspectives. Relatively, some perspectives are more adequate and encompassing than others; ultimately, each is a beautiful ornament, and a testament to the awesome fecundity and "allowingness," of our basic nature.
Multiplicity does not need to be reduced to singularity or uniformity in order to accomplish oneness; the union that matters is already given. In my view, we have reached a point in our evolution, with the world shrinking daily and all the world's cultures pressing up against each other, that we are being called to transcend those habits of thought which have opposed us one to the other - not by demanding allegiance to a grand meta-narrative, or cleansing the world of every perspective which strikes us as inadequate or outmoded or uncomfortably alien, but first and foremost by finding that ground which cannot be opposed, the inexhaustible heart of Spirit, and from there meeting each other in and as the gifts of our othering. As Catholic theologian, Raimundo Panikkar, writes, "isolation is no longer possible and unity is not convincing since it destroys one of the parties."
In my view, a truly integrative spirituality will honor the integrative impulse in the development of knowledge and the growth of human perspectives, while yet retaining the humbling insight that the infinite riches of Spirit will never be captured by any single project, however grand. We are called now to find a way forward together, which at this stage in our human evolution appears to demand a non-relativistic, integral pluralism, through which we recognize the creative heart of Spirit behind and within the scandal of particularity, and in and through the profusion of perspectives that have evolved over time.
Personal Reflections
This essay has perhaps tended too much towards poetry for some people's tastes (including my own!). I wanted to find a way to communicate the "spirit" of the topic under discussion, as I understand it, without simply reiterating the various recommendations and observations that have already been made (most of which are excellent). If you will indulge me a bit more, I will turn very briefly to the particularized ways that I relate and aspire to "grounded integrative spirituality" in my own life, still using the poetic voice I have established. In the comments section, I will be happy to speak in more concrete terms, outlining practical applications of this vision (if anyone is interested).
With others here, I view my spiritual path largely as a path of inquiry. Several of my main practices in recent years - Buddhism, the Time-Space-Knowledge vision, and the Diamond Approach - place inquiry at the heart of spiritual praxis. For this reason, I resonate more strongly with Wilber-5 (post-metaphysical, integral methodological pluralism) than with earlier versions of Integral Theory. From one perspective, inquiry itself is a vehicle of transformation, a means of carrying those who engage it to greater freedom, wider vision, and deeper intimacy with being. But from another perspective, it is already an expression of that freedom and knowledgeability, as revealed by its very availability at the heart of ordinary experience. My commitment to the paths these various vehicles lay out is a commitment to total questioning, which is at the same time an uninhibited welcoming of experience. This does not mean that I do not encounter resistance, reactivity, deflection, and so on in my exploration of body, mind, spirit, and shadow. I inevitably do. Rather, it means that each "failure" of inquiry is itself an invitation to go deeper; that we are never ultimately "stuck," nor can we ever really stray from the Agapic pull of Spirit, the vitality of Great Time. To inquire is to participate with Spirit, to join God in his creative play.
In my pursuit of relative and absolute emancipation over the past twenty years, I have done so as a Christian, an agnostic mystical humanist (opposed to all traditional forms of religion), a Buddhist (first in Theravada, then in Vajrayana schools), and a student of newly emergent visions (Integral, TSK, Diamond Approach). Each approach has left its mark on me, and I see in each not only relative (stage-appropriate) value, but the potential for Spirit to meaningfully disclose itself through irreducible particularity. Each in itself has the power, I have found, not only to speak a language of correspondence, but to speak a language of sheer and vital presence, in which the symbol stands not for but as Spirit in its fullness. We need the rigors of critical thought, and I value it deeply; but we need just as much this ability to see in our communications the presence of the dynamic ground, flashing forth in its immediacy. Each word points at our homeground; each gesture is divine effulgence.
Access: Public
Very appropriate concluding essay, Balder. Without really doing any planning, I think we've managed to put together an excellently balanced, cohesive week-long event. Well done everyone!
Balder,
I really appreciate the way this is written…I am quite a fan of the poetic voice…the energy behind it makes it much more understandable to my still developing integral intellect…which has been stretched considerably throughout this symposium…it was the perfect puntuation…
and I am left quite curious about the “Time-Space-Knowledge vision” and “Diamond Approach”…so i thank you for introducing me to practices i have yet to hear of…
“Multiplicity does not need to be reduced to singularity or uniformity in order to accomplish oneness; the union that matters is already given”…so simple…no single facet will ever complete the diamond, eh?…
with grace…S.
Balder that is indeed integrative. I take my hat off to such readable depth.
I have understood more of Wilber-5 and post metaphysics and its true meaning, in part due to the poeticism in your words, and namaste to the putting of Integral in context with, well context in such a clear and logical way. Thats whay i call AQAL being put to good use as a bullshit filter from a non-fearful second tier space inegrating theory and experience.
Cheers
Melv
Bravo brother!
Best,
David
bruce
i really enjoyed this piece and it's characteristic clarity and even-handedness.
please expand upon this:
“We are called now to find a way forward together, which at this stage in our human evolution appears to demand a non-relativistic, integral pluralism, through which we recognize the creative heart of Spirit behind and within the scandal of particularity, and in and through the profusion of perspectives that have evolved over time.”
i think the achilles heel of what many people are calling integral is the problem of the kind of relativism that we all found so erroneous in some of pavlina's stuff - va tech, subjective reality etc etc…. (also btw in the unwillingness to just say - look, jesus was not born of a virgin, not the buddha from a slit in his mother's side…right?)
one of the things we all had in common was a real non-relative sense of a big mistake being made that had highly problematic implications…
how do you propose maintaining the kind of clarity about what is just plain wrong-headed, a misunderstanding of esoterica, an ungrounded,, non-inquiry based set of ideas that serve more to defend against reality than promote spiritual growth or healing while still moving forward in the ways that you so beautifully and wisely suggest?
the problem at hand with the new age and indeed with exoteric religion seems to me to be the shying away from the kinds of distinctions we have all shown ourselves to be quite comfortable making….
i hear a lot of the type of ideas you are expressing being misused on zaadz i think so as to avoid making some non-relativist distinctions about accurate interpretation and the problem of pathology, denial etc…
now i know we agree on much of this - you are more cautious than i and i am inviting you to take a stance on the matter here as you did with your beautifully nuanced piece on gandhi a couple weeks back….
one of the things i wonder about is why it appears to be condescending to take a non-relativist position on say - whether or not the universe was sending steve pavlina a message about his significant life moments though the “numerology” of va tech - or say, that no one has ever risen from the dad , scripture notwithstanding….when ironically i think it is in some ways equally if not more condescending to privately think these things but play along with others delusions…… ya know?
more please!
:O)
“…this means having reached the point, through sustained inquiry, that one recognizes this knowingness, this open clarity, not as an ideal, not as a position to be adopted, but as the actuality of being. Because this knowing is foundational, being grounded means being open to what is, in and as its presencing, in uncontrived intimacy.”
Yes, Balder! That's it. The article is poetic as you say, but I still find it precise enough in formulations and definitions.
“…the symbol stands not for but as Spirit in its fullness.”
Thanks,
Hokai
“SPIRITUALITY: In broad terms, I define spirituality as active engagement with ultimate questions; openness to the optimizing thrust of Being; an occasion for inquiry and enjoyment; commitment to authenticity, freedom, and transformation; appreciative relationship and intimacy with Being (and other beings); and a celebratory dance in time and space.”
Beautiful Bruce! Even your poetry has a multitude of perspectives built in…
“One of the implications of post-metaphysics is that the Kosmos is, in an important way, groundless: that the given ground, at any given point, is still a perspective, and therefore not really given at all.”
This is so important, and you clearly show us the inherent “insecurity” involved in truly entering an Integral Worldspace.
“If we mistake our beliefs and models and convictions for solid, inviolable ground, we will find ourselves called again and again to defend the territory we have claimed, and upon which our felt sense of identity rests.”
Very humbling for me to read this.
“In my view, a truly integrative spirituality will honor the integrative impulse in the development of knowledge and the growth of human perspectives, while yet retaining the humbling insight that the infinite riches of Spirit will never be captured by any single project, however grand.”
So very true. And again, it is built into the essay itself since your poetic prose is open-ended in the picture it draws for us.
Thank you so much for experientially showing us Integral writing with an infinitude of perspectives inside of it.
Blessing and a bow,
Pelle
Balder, I had high expectations for you, and you did not disappoint us!
…[find] that ground which cannot be opposed, the inexhaustible heart of Spirit
I love this turn of phrase, its succinct and simple and captures the essence of a real challenge for everyone trying to create a new, integrative spirituality.
Balder:
Clearly one of the best pieces written in this symposium, and a fine statement by any measure. Your passion, clarity, and poetry match your inquiring mind and capacity for clear expression. Thank you for also nodding to intersubjectivity when discussing grounding. I admire your refusal to allow simple notions of “common sense” and “simple language” restrict the meaning of the word grounding.
The fault I see in your work is a fault I see in many other's writing from an integral perspective–including my own.
Julian commented that (to put words into his mouth) you seem to be trying to sit on both sides of the fence at once. I'm going to risk sounding a wee bit like Julian's evil twin here, but when you look at this piece together with your comments earlier in this symposium you do seem to be trying too earnestly to have it all ways. For example, just the other day you wrote in a comment to Elektroglide that you don't agree with ALL that he had to say, and that you had agreements and disagreements. That seems a tepid response that I wouldn't expect from the author of this particular essay. You conveyed the impression that you roughly found Eleketroglide's essay about as favorable as you did unfavorable while using language vague enough to allow you to deny any such intention.
I honestly don't know what motivates you to write in this manner, so I won't try to speculate/project. But my honest feedback to you is that as a reader I find such differences between your various comments and posts in this symposium to be intriguing at best, confusing on average, and slippery at worst.
btw, my favorite part of your post today was the part on inquiry. good stuff!
Thanks, everyone, for your comments. This has been an exciting and rewarding week for me on Zaadz, thanks to Julian and all who joined in to help realize his inspired idea.
I will respond tomorrow to some of the questions or criticisms raised, particularly by Julian and Joe, once I've had a good night's sleep!
Best wishes,
B.
Beautiful piece, Balder–and exemplary of what could be called healthy, balanced integralism.
Bruce,
My work schedule prohibits me from active participation in the discussions for the next couple of days, but I must say that I am blown away by the quality of your piece. So thoughtful, so well wriiten. I think it’s the perfect way to finish up the symposium. I love how you broke down the terms, simultaneously grounding them while opening them up to explorative inquiry.
Awesome stuff, sending a deep wave of gratitude through me at having been a part of this gathering.
–Bob
Hi Bruce,
Once I took the the time to read it slowly and carefully I was taken by your sincerity. I very much enjoyed the whole thing but the ending stood out;
“Each in itself has the power, I have found, not only to speak a language of correspondence, but to speak a language of sheer and vital presence, in which the symbol stands not for but as Spirit in its fullness. We need the rigors of critical thought, and I value it deeply; but we need just as much this ability to see in our communications the presence of the dynamic ground, flashing forth in its immediacy. Each word points at our home-ground; each gesture is divine effulgence.”
I love this! No gap between understanding and action. Embodied Spirit!
Hi Balder,
Beautiful poetic writing, a balanced ending that nicely achieves equanimity (whether or not that's what you were intending.) I REALLY have to praise the quality of your writing.
My only concern is that a piece so quiet and balanced might be open to misinterpretation (unless a person was already familiar with your perspective from previous posts.) I would have liked to hear clearer, more well-defined stances with some ass behind them on particular issues. Your eloquent delivery is such that you could get away with quite a bit of ass while still sounding compassionate and clear. I guess what I'm looking for is more concrete distinctions between what you might consider healthy grounded spirituality and, well, the opposite kind—so that people know exactly where such an eloquent thinker stands.
Congratulations on tying up the symposium so nicely!
Hi, Julian,
By saying we are called to a non-relativistic pluralism, I am not saying that we should reject the principles of relativism altogether; we should just recognize the shortcomings of pure relativism, and the negative consequences that flow from failing to make certain distinctions. In the arena of interfaith dialogue, I think there is need for critical inquiry and debate – that we should not shy away from stating our positions clearly, or challenging others' positions when we regard them as problematic – and yet, I think this should be done in a spirit of love, and with respect for the fact that we are dealing with spiritual vehicles which have transformative and enactive power, and from which we can also learn.
In encountering other religions, I think we need to do so from a different position than the one which simply looks for how well it “matches” a given reality. We have to look at religions not only as static maps, but as creative events. As Almaas says, “Each teaching has its own unique logos: language, view, logic and dynamic.” I would add that each also has its own creative effects; when we enter into a teaching, we enter a participatory dance which doesn't simply uncover what is timelessly there, but which has been laying grooves creatively in the Kosmos, and which may yet create more.
There's a kind of “openness of experience” that is assumed here – that we honor that there is a clearing for newness to emerge, as well as for further elements of the Kosmos' riches to be displayed. That there is not just one way to be, or to know. So, when we encounter an “other” in the form of another religion, if we are sensitive to the dynamics of our encounter, and to the dynamics active in that vision itself, we see that we are entering an actual generative space.
This does not mean, in my view, that there is no way to make value judgments or critical distinctions about the ways a religion fosters insight or development or whatever. But it does point, on a deep level, to a groundlessness that is rather disconcerting…but which is also exciting, and inviting.
With that said, I'll come back to what I think your main concern is: whether I'm willing here to take a stand, to declare something false or destructive. Yes, I certainly am. I participate as “Balder” on a number of Christian forums, and the Balder you'd meet there is a bit more ornery and confrontational than the one you meet here. I attempt to engage with people there on a number of levels, and from a number of different angles. Sometimes I have taken a downright oppositional approach, pointing to what I regard as rather monstrous and immoral implications of certain “Amber-level” doctrines. Sometimes I just come out and say why I think Buddhism or some other path is more coherent or powerful when it comes to fostering particular kinds of growth, or accounting for particular kinds of phenomena. But often I take a more sympathetic approach, trying to enter the presuppositional space of the Christian worldview and then inquiring from within the dynamics that are already in play. This may involve plumbing for further depths, unearthing what I regard as the unintended or unrecognized consequences of certain positions, pointing out the resonance a certain Christian teaching finds in non-Christian worldviews, questioning reliance on certain interpretations which strike me as outmoded or problematic and sometimes suggesting new ones (without criticizing the religion as a whole, or calling folks deluded), etc. Sometimes my confrontational approach has gotten me some “traction,” but I think the “insider” approach has been more fruitful overall (for myself included).
My objections to the typical “new atheist” arguments that I've heard have not been that they dared to question sacred cows, or to challenge literal interpretations of myth, but that they've tended to be too sweeping and destructive in their pronouncements – and generally non-respectful of the power, depth, variety, and subtlety that is present in many of the world's traditions. Positively, they tend to reinterpret religion as (rather naive) psychological symbol systems; negatively, they regard it as the “fossil record” of outmoded forms of human cognition, which would better be dropped in favor of a purely scientific worldview. They appear to have a surface understanding of various religious systems, and therefore fail to perceive both the depth and the transformative potential that is actually present (the recognition of which informs Wilber's “conveyor belt” concept).
As a concrete example of the way I would approach criticism of a religious doctrine (hopefully to help clarify what I'm saying here, and as a nod to Daate's request that I show more ass!), let me offer the following:
Let's take the notion that scripture is infallible or the literal “word of God.” (Here, I am being deliberately general, since I'm not just targeting the Bible.) I think the notion that a divine transcendent being literally authored a perfect, unchanging book is a product of mythic-level thinking, and while it may serve an “anchoring” purpose for a faith community, and even serve as a catalyst for growth in certain contexts, it clearly may also generate a number of problems. Here are some of the potential problems that I see: discouraging critical thinking (outside of a certain horizon of meaning); potentially thwarting growth beyond a certain level of understanding; cementing people in doctrinal positions which pit them against their neighbors (say, if the book “says” a piece of real estate has been “given” to a particular people; or that it is their duty to destroy non-believers); potentially gutting teachings of developmental depth (since all are presumed to have been issued by the same perfect mind and therefore must be equal); preserving cultural norms and conventions as universal, inviolable “truth”; and so on.
Some of these problems can be avoided if the book is understood as having been authored by human beings, and is therefore expressive of a range of developmental, characterological, cultural, and other types of perspectives. I personally think a careful “reading” of sacred texts through AQAL/SDi or other integral lenses would be quite fruitful and illuminating.
But we may note that something is also lost if we totally humanize such texts and strip them of numinosity. Is there a way to relate to these texts that does not turn them into mere “fossil records”? The practice of Lectio Divina, for instance, suggests an open-ended way of entering into a creative dialogue with the Bible, in which it still plays a mediary role without being confined either to merely mythical or rationalist horizons. And certain Buddhist and Bonpo traditions point clearly to the ways in which a religion's objects and symbols may undergo a sort of contemplative transfiguration, in which they can be encountered not as descriptions but actual vital presentations of the sacred reality towards which they are presumed (at other levels) to point. This latter vision appears to resemble mythic-level ways of conceiving of spiritual images and artifacts, but it takes place on an entirely different plane – and therefore can equally accommodate mythical, rational, or integral “interpretive” frameworks.
So, there is a way in which sacred texts and objects can retain their vitality without being reduced exclusively to the terms of a particular Kosmic address. Recognizing this, we can issue challenges (as outsiders) to various interpretations that we regard as misguided or developmentally inadequate, without seeking to discredit the entire vehicle because a number of its adherents occupy a particularly narrow space within it.
I'm not entirely argued with my argument here – I think there are things I'm leaving out – but this is quite long for a “comment,” so I'll stop here.
Best wishes,
Balder
P.S. Oops, I meant to say, “I'm not entirely content with my argument here….”
One thing I think I need to clarify is that I am not saying we need to regard all religious vehicles or teachings as equally valuable or authentic, simply because they bear the name “spiritual” or people happen to believe in them. Generally, in my comments, I've been talking about those traditions which are well-established, which exhibit some level of contemplative awareness, which have a healthy range of practices, and which have been fed and shaped by generations of “inquiry” and practice. But there are all sorts of belief systems out there, and not all of them flow from the same depth of understanding. Some of them are downright wacky and, honestly, shouldn't be taken seriously.
bruce i love your mind and heart.
your intentions are so good and you are so willing to wrestle internally and externally with the real issues.
you have more of a fascination with religion than do i - i think this makes you more tolerant and perhaps realistic about a way forward in the real world.
honestly, though, i think the world would be a better place if we let go of the bible altogether. ( note to readers: please do not confuse this with any kind of book burning impulse - by “we” u mean intelligent educated people who have moved to orange and beyond and are interested in inquiry-based practice. ALSO: please don't confuse the former with an elitist statement - i am trying to be candid and use the vocabulary we have at hand….)
i am quite familiar with the bible, and i do not think the text is worthy of the kind of sophiticated spiritual/intellectual analysis you want to bring to it - either as a piece of literature or as a piece of spiritual insight/moral guidance.
the suggestion of recognizing that it is not the infallible word of god is a good starting point, why though should one then interact with the text as if it still holds some numinosity?
it held numinosity for a small group of people in a very particular environment, with a particular social context and set of cross-pollinated mythic images 2 or 3 thousand years ago….
honestly, there are so many more inspired and numinous texts available, from leaves of grass to the mathnawi, from the marrriage of heaven and hell to a brief history of everything, from krishnamurti to kabir, from kahlil gibran to cicero, from jennifer hecht to lawrence kohlberg, from emerson to douglas hofstadter, and on and on…..
i understand the impulse to encourage an altitudinally mobile interpretation of the bible - i just wonder if it useful, possible and something that anything above .01 % of abrahamic believers are interested in?
i find wilber's conveyor belt idea very elegant and hopeful, but i don't think that it means that people at orange and above interacting in a forum like this should be deferential to mythic religion or magical new aginess….nor should either of these things be confused with either integral stage consciousness nor an integral perspective. nor, for that matter, should this phrase “being integral” be understood as meaning one never dismisses the kind of whackly nonsense to which you allude, right?
the reason i am emphasizing this is that i think the (beautiful and well written) approach you took above is easily confused with a kind of relativism that i know neither of us embrace.
how then to move forward with a methodological pluralism that is not afraid to make healthy pre/trans distinctions?
Balder - There's so much packed into this relatively small presentation. I sprouted especially appreciative antenae when I read Perspectives. Your elucidation of the possible depth of our identification, the depth of our identity, blew fresh air into my feathers. Momentarily, I constellated sturdy.
”PERSPECTIVES: The fact that the final word in the title is plural is an acknowledgment that the understanding we seek is bigger than any of us, beyond the grasp of any single model or formulation. It is a reminder that the foundation of our identity, the groundless ground of our being, is ultimately so deep and inviolable that we can only be enriched by an encounter with otherness; that we need not fear contradiction, or flinch at the appearance of alternative perspectives. ”
Thanks, Still
But Julian,
The Bible really comes to its own when seen in an evolutionary perspective. Words of wisdom and beautiful imagery and poetry can be found but isolated and taken out of context the Bible passages will only become more of the same of the worlds spiritual writings. Exposes of the Absolute in various ways.
What blew my mind was when I endeavored to understand the mysteries pertaining to Jesus' life and death. Anyone, even you Julian, will come to their knees once this beauty is revealed in your own experience and then we will be able to understand how one mans action can affect other people. But this needs a lot more introspection to unravel.
Balder, I'm with you all the way. Thanks
Julian: “i find wilber's conveyor belt idea very elegant and hopeful, but i don't think that it means that people at orange and above interacting in a forum like this should be deferential to mythic religion or magical new aginess…” (it was addressed to bruce, but wth)
Hey, Julian, may I chip in?.. If I can hear you correctly, you're championing the idea of non-deference, which by itself means you'd never really get people from different worldviews in the same room or forum, except for some non-deferential exchange of compliments. Still, since this is a public forum, it is appropriate to adjust how we language our concerns.
On one hand, I absolutely agree with your arguments “whacky nonsense” when you talk of pathological manifestations of magic and mythic. Strangely enough, you don't mention pathological rationalism, which is even whackier since people at that level are supposed to be able to take a critical stance towards their own held views (but it's still 1st tier, right?).
There's something better than deference, namely respect. One should respect healthy expressions of every stage, meaning one cannot proclaim that legitimate beliefs and views of any level are whacky. Also, one should learn how vital elements of every stage get subsumed by the next stage. So in order to legitimize your arguments, give us a presentation of how you see healthy magic and mythic in today's world, but not just beliefs - those levels are not entirely about beliefs, just as rational is not empty of beliefs. Just give a list of principles, similar to the one you gave of ridiculous beliefs. We've been through those levels, and we can still bend our knees, right?
Also a list of pathological rational items wouldn't hurt either.
As a wise man once said, “Do not ask what your worldview can do for you, ask what you can do for your worldview.”
Hokai
Hokai, those are the exact same questions I would like to ask Julian, I just didn't know until you formulated it so well :)
And Julian, here is your chance to impress me ;)
peace
pelle
Balder,
“Each approach has left its mark on me, and I see in each not only relative (stage-appropriate) value, but the potential for Spirit to meaningfully disclose itself through irreducible particularity. Each in itself has the power, I have found, not only to speak a language of correspondence, but to speak a language of sheer and vital presence, in which the symbol stands not for but as Spirit in its fullness. We need the rigors of critical thought, and I value it deeply; but we need just as much this ability to see in our communications the presence of the dynamic ground, flashing forth in its immediacy. Each word points at our homeground; each gesture is divine effulgence.”
After packing so much into such a tight space, I really came to appreciate the “end piece” above. It says, succinctly, what I have been trying to extract from my own deliberations - the immediacy of the “dynamic ground” of the personal story, “each word” points to home in the examined, authenticated story, each expression, divine performance from such authentic, consecrated ground.
Thanks Bruce, this has indeed been one rippin', rockin' exercise. Many thanks to all who went through the wringer here.
yer pal,
Michael
Balder,
Overall, I agree with your approach to inter-level dialog, but I find myself also agreeing with Julian. I think the context in which the dialog takes place matters a lot. If you choose to have dialog with amber Christians on their forums and in their churches, I think your method is brilliant and I would never think to do anything differently. But in an Integral context, I think a more sophisticated approach capable of more discrimination and wisdom is vital.
There are two different questions being asked and answered here:
1. From an Integral perspective, how is Integral different from Pluralistic, Rational or Mythic-Magic?
2. How do we represent and communicate integral cognition to other levels?
My concerns around this topic – and I think this is true of Julian too – is that we as integral thinkers are lacking clarity on question 1, especially around Pluralistic, and by not having that clarity, we risk turning off people who are transitioning into integral. Maybe its my own personal perspective on this, but years before I discovered Wilber, I was wandering around thinking, “Where the fuck are all the integral thinkers?” – I was quite vexed about it at times. So I think its important that we not fail to speak Integral, because the vast majority of people who would be attracted to Integral theory are already ready for it. People are at the level they are at, its very difficult to get them to move, and if they aren't ready for it, then they aren't ready for it.
It seems like there's an idea that speaking with clarity and integrity from an integral cognition is a bad thing because it might hurt people's feelings – yes, maybe, but those people were never going to get on board in the first place. At the same time, when we enter into dialog on their turf, we need to do it gently and on their terms.
Julian,
the suggestion of recognizing that it is not the infallible word of god is a good starting point, why though should one then interact with the text as if it still holds some numinosity?
Do you believe that mythic religion has access to the numinous? Wilber-5 insists that it does, just like every level does. If you accept that, then mythic religious artifacts must contain some insight into the numinous that could be valuable to individuals with integral cognition along their individual paths. Furthermore, integral spirituality would not be possible at all were it not for mythic spirituality. If mythic texts in general can be useful, then why not let individuals make their own decisions? What is unique about the bible among other mythic texts that we should exclude it?
Within the integral community, I don't think we suffer from an excess of deference to it or a belief that it is the infalliable word of god. The culture at large might, but one important point I would like to make is that the absence of critical thinking among magic-mythic religoin and spirituality does not make critical thinking itself the cure. This is an unsophisticated approach to the problem, similar to believing that ice packs cure fevers – in the same way that fevers are only symptoms, the lack of critical thinking is also a symptom of an underlying condition that must be addressed.
We don't need to ditch any of the levels (by the way, it's impossible), in order to speak with clarity and integrity. We need to point to problems that arise, and point to pathologies within certain levels. But getting stuck is not a crime. Let's pretend we're experimenting with this sort of multilingual situation, even if representatives of various levels are not necessarily here to talk for themselves. But it's important to bear in mind that beliefs don't go around on their own - there are always real people who hold on those beliefs like they were their very lives, and sometimes they are.
As considerable % are already strongly established at rational, solving major pathologies and fixations on lower levels in each quadrant (it's not only ideas) should be sufficient to produce a natural elevation in various streams. But we must realize we're talking of billions of people, and it's a complex 4Q-affair with all sorts of dynamics holding people in those places - like basic fears that politicians and people of cloth just love to exploit. It's not a matter of talking someone into sanity.
Speaking of magic, egocentric and mythic as regressive tendencies in higher structures (orange and above, especially in 2nd tier thinkers), well that's an interesting subject. Something quite particular, and different from believing in immaculate conception. Newage is only one and widespread form of such, and an exotic infatuation with triviality.
Hokai
Mr. Teacup, your response is timely. I was just thinking about Julian's question to me, and the reverse question to him I was planning to post was, “In what context?” So, here's my response to Julian, but I will also bundle responses to you into it….
Julian: “how then to move forward with a methodological pluralism that is not afraid to make healthy pre/trans distinctions?”
Before I answer this, I want to ask about context. I've been discussing the narrower domain of actual dialogue with Evangelicals and the like, describing the ways in which I attempt to engage, personally, with individuals whose worldview is quite different from my own. But in describing my tactics there, I am not intending to give a prescription for what Integral, as a movement, should do.
I think it's important to remember that AQAL/IMP is supposed to be without content. While Wilber has various ways of integrating world religions together – using AQAL, SDi, perennial philosophical literature, etc – his particular “stew” is not the only one possible; other flavors are available. Unless you make the radical claim that it is not possible to be an Integral Jew, an Integral Buddhist, an Integral Christian, an Integral Muslim, an Integral Hindu, etc, then “Integral” is at most (and perhaps at best) a constellation of perspectives which share a certain praxis, a meta-paradigmatic approach and perspective, but which also differ in important ways. Integral Christians will not likely agree with you that the Bible should be scrapped, for instance, or that it has no continuing relevance in a postmodern/Integral world – even though other Integral atheists may feel that way. The task of the Integral Christian will be to elucidate an integral understanding of scripture, or the role of scripture, in Christian life, and bring that to the table. The Integral Christian may join the Integral atheist and Buddhist in leveling criticisms at individuals who use the Bible to justify hate crimes or discrimination or whatever, or who use it to place an “Amber ceiling” on developing Christians, and yet differ fundamentally from them around certain questions – say, the salvation paradigm versus the enlightenment paradigm; the fate of individuals after death, etc.
In terms of the overall “approach” of the Integral community, I favor a positive, constructive one – one which works to formulate and elucidate Integral theory and praxis within whatever fields one moves, and under the umbrella of whatever spiritual/humanistic traditions one has adopted. I think this symposium is a good example of this positive approach. There is certainly room for interfaith debate and critical dialogue (as well as interreligious “teachings” and practices, such as are conducted at ISC), and I agree with you that we must be willing to make critical distinctions. I hope I have not given the impression that I do not think it is okay to disagree with folks who have different memetic centers of gravity – I don't think that at all. But I am hesitant about outlining some sort of social improvement program, in which we target whole sectors of the “believing public” for an Integral assault. Yes, I think we need to speak clearly and directly; yes, I think we need to enter the arena of public debate more actively. But with care, and as Hokai also emphasizes, with respect for healthy expressions of each v-Memetic level of development.
You may not recall, but some years ago I started a dialogue on Integral Naked called, “Is Integral Christianity Really Christian?” In that discussion, an Evangelical pastor I know also participated. He was welcomed by the warm Integral Christians there – Mary and others – and he said he was intrigued by Integral Theory (he was a philosophy major before becoming a pastor), but after doing his own research, he wrote to me that he feared that, were Integral Theory to gain an upper hand in Western society, his brand of religion would be outlawed as regressive and dangerous. He himself was quite smart and quite capable of holding his own with Orange, Green, or higher debate partners, but for whatever reasons, he had chosen to place his faith in a fairly conservative, traditionalist form of Christianity. I mention him here because I have wondered, based on some of your comments, whether you would, in fact, like to ban or pathologize Amber-level Christianity, at least among the adult population.
If so, that puts us in very contentious, very difficult territory. I agree with you that a lot of harm has flowed from religious traditions which have “anchored” at this level – particularly when they butt up against individuals from other cultures. I used to debate regularly with (and strongly criticize) a group of Denver Christians who are interested in reinstituting a Biblical monarchy in the U.S. and returning to Old Testament-style penal codes. Their notions of justice and “sacred order” are appalling to me. So, I see the dangers that this level of thinking can pose to modern society, particularly when it shows up in more pathological forms (such as in the Denver group I mentioned). But Amber has its strengths as well, and its own beauty.
Are we to legislate an appropriate “time period” for Amber-level thinking? Say, pathologizing it if it continues into adulthood? It may just be a “character” thing, but my preferred approach is simply to attempt to give voice to a healthy, hopeful Integral vision – debating with individuals, in appropriate contexts, but not targeting whole religious traditions or segments of the population, pathologizing them if they have found stability and happiness at a particular memetic stage. It may be that, at some point, it will simply be expected, socially, that people will exit Amber thinking and perceiving and not look back (except with amused fondness, as we look now at our childhood). But we ain't there yet.
Mr. Teacup, you said, “But in an Integral context, I think a more sophisticated approach capable of more discrimination and wisdom is vital.”
Can you outline what you're thinking here?
Best wishes,
Balder
hokai i f*ken love these questions and your sassy finisher!
right on.
pelle i am glad that hokai is putting his money where your mouth is! :O) good to see you here buddy. let me know if you are interested in doing a response piece to the symposium and i will link to you!
hokai as you can tell i am acknowledging balder's wisdom in this regard, but challenging him to keep nuancing it so that the kinds of statements he is making do not lend themselves to the misinterpretations we have already seen. i am quite sincere and trying to struggle with this problem. i hear your valid criticisms and don't really have an answer except to point back to my original comment in which i said that bruce is probably being more realitic and tolerant than i am - and that said i still had questions…
i know you are sympathetic to this issue too….as your next comment down suggests and our previous interactions have borne out.
now in response to your questions:
healthy magic, as we know exists in adults who are tribal people, at this point perhaps in the Kalahari Desert, New Guinea, and probably in certain other areas of Africa, New Zealand, South America.
healthy magic also exists in children all over the world before they reach Piaget's concrete operational stage at around 7 years old.
we know that in cultures where the general center of gravity is at blue and above that magic in persons older than 7 is a little strange and in adults is cause for real concern, ranging from the benevolent silliness and incongruity of many new agers to the often debilitating pathologies of PTSD and OCD to the serious personal and social problems of the mentally ill.
as far as healthy mythic, i think we see it in the good charitable work the church does and the organizing principle it creates for millions if not billions of people who take solace in their literal mythic beliefs, are not going to take on new worldviews in their lifetimes and are living in accordance with the moral imperatives suggested by that mythic belief to the best of their ability.
i am one of those people though who finds literal mythic belief in people in the west who are older than 12 or 13 to be sort of perplexing. i don't mean anything offensive by this - and i know that different lines progress at different rates based on a whole set of variables - it is just remarkable to me that 90% of the american population believes that jesus is literally the son of god, rose from the dead and is coming back sometime soon to usher in a post-apocalyptic utopia - particularly since a few of them and their opponents in the middle east have the weaponry to prove at least the first half of their prophecy.
now i agree being respectful is necessary - and i see nothing disrepectful about the above comment.
as for unhealthy rational - well i see that in the complete denial of an inner life that is not uncommon in america and to some extent europe.
pathological rationality in my mind denies anything that doesnt have simple location and collapses everything to it's exterior referents.
love is just a chemical reaction, altruism merely an evolutionary adaptation, deep states of meditative absorption a misfiring of the brain, all meaning relative and constructed, truth in the philosophical sense non-existent.
pathological rational denies the reality of the psychological unconscious, or the intense inwardly apprehended beauty of the arts, pathological rationalism in the hands of the neo-cons gets in bed with the charismatic christians because it's good for business and rationalizes collateral damage in the name of cynicallly propogated soundbyte slogans that manipulate the emotions around freedom and evildoers etc….
pathological rational in the hands of the new age community gets in bed with magical thinking and gives birth to things like steve pavlina's “subjective reality” which denies the tragedy of va tech and tries to find some numerological significance in it that communicates to him personally via the logos.
in it's more sophisticated form this kind of stuckness refuses to see the powerful paradoxes that are revealed at post-rational levels as anything other than irrational nonsense - but that's a can of worms we have already gorged oursleves, no?
i am very open to hearing yours, balders, or pelles additional observations about these questions you posed…
Mr. Teacup, you said, “But in an Integral context, I think a more sophisticated approach capable of more discrimination and wisdom is vital.”
Can you outline what you're thinking here?
This symposium, for one thing. More generally, an integral critical practice that's oriented inward, within the integral community, not directed outward. I thought the Pavlina critique was overall a very healthy exercise, at least from my perspective, despite some lines apparently being crossed between some people. And some of the resulting comments about the dialog being too agentic, lacking in right speech etc., while probably partly true, may have also served as a way to simply change the subject and ignore the message. I noticed that very few of the people who disagreed with the Pavlina critique commented on the symposium essays, and that's unfortunate.
I guess what I'm saying is that we already do integral critiques, and I'm wondering how that fits with you. I'm also not sure that I agree that we should adopt multiple perspectives because the ground of being is groundless, if that's what you meant. As Ken put it, let's not confuse Derrida with dharma.
Julian, I think you might be mixing in pluralistic with your description of pathological rationalism?
Yes, I agree – this sort of symposium is a step in the right direction. I was saying as much to Julian. I value this sort of exchange and hope this is the start of more of this type of thing on Zaadz.
I'm not sure why you're asking me how “Integral critiques” sit with me. I gather that I've given the impression that I do not welcome them? Here on Zaadz, I blogged on the Pavlina/VA Tech issue and offered my own critique about what I found problematic about Pavlina's views, and I've engaged in a number of debates with Julian on different issues as well. Joe has pointed out that I can sometimes try too hard to walk all sides of an issue, but I regard this as a (9-ish) character flaw (which I'm working on!), not as something that flows from a philosophical or moral conviction that critical discussion and debate is offensive and best avoided.
Mr. Teacup: “I'm also not sure that I agree that we should adopt multiple perspectives because the ground of being is groundless, if that's what you meant. As Ken put it, let's not confuse Derrida with dharma.”
That's not what I said. This is what I said: “The fact that the final word in the title is plural is an acknowledgment that the understanding we seek is bigger than any of us, beyond the grasp of any single model or formulation. It is a reminder that the foundation of our identity, the groundless ground of our being, is ultimately so deep and inviolable that we can only be enriched by an encounter with otherness; that we need not fear contradiction, or flinch at the appearance of alternative perspectives.”
I don't think we should adopt multiple perspectives because we are groundless. I think we should adopt multiple perspectives because reality is not a simple objectifiable entity which can be captured as it is, in its fullness, with any single gaze. Reality includes sentient subjects, not only as abstractable observers of “the real,” but as active participants and (stay away, Ramtha!) co-authors with it.
Best wishes,
Balder
it is beautiful to have an epiphanic moment about one unconsious reason i chose these symposium partners - it is because you hold the key to an issue i have great difficulty with.
thank you hokai and balder for your very eloquent and reasonable writing.
i do understand where you are coming from and again see the wisom in it… i think we may be talking slightly at cross-purposes here - i have no agenda to “ban” anything, nor am i in favor of any legislation against mythic memberhsip religion - that would be fascist.
i am however in favor of separation of church and state and church and education (which is being eroded) and i am in favor of encouraging people who see no reason to pretend to any mythic literalist belief to confess their minority position in america without shame or fear of retribution.
i am suggesting that teaching critical thinking in schools so that it is more likely that children will naturally (as you suggest b) actualize their spiritual line beyond amber in higher numbers and be more naturally drawn to contemplative forms of whatever spirituality is available to them as a genuine spiritual growth stimulator in concert with their cognitive line rather than in segregation from it…
i fear perhaps you are unwittingly protecting the oppressor - at least to some extent here, no?
look at roe vs wade in danger, the controversy over sex education and the HPV virus that will protect girls from developing cancer later in life, money to AIDS infested regions only on the condition that abstinence is taught instead of condom use as a preventative, bush saying god told him to go to war on faulty intelligence and lies, bin laden thinking he struck a blow for god against the great satan.
i know no-one here is in favor of these things, and perhaps your argumnent is that it is because of the very dangers of this extremism that dialog must be fostered with reasonable people of faith. i can agree with this - and i don't think there is anything bad about acknowledging, as teacup did that i am not saying anything against that, rather calling for clarity about the distinctions within the integral community itself.
on a philosophical, moral and practical level i completely agree, i applaud what you are describing in your interactions with christians balder - you have walked a fascinating and courageous path in this regard - it takes a wise and centered human to do this.
hokai i know that you too are a scholar of religion - so you two share a praticular depth of experience and knowledge to which i can only sincerely bow.
i am not saying the things you suggest i am - though i will look at why it comes across that way.
does this clarify more what i actually mean?
oh, i am also not suggesting that the bible be banned at all - ever, nor mein kampf for that matter - not that there is any relation - i am just pointing out the completely anti-censorship position i hold!
however it might be suggested that the bible, koran, as well hindu and buddhist texts that have mythic content be acknowledged alongside the greco-roman, amerindian and mesoamerican myths as the anthropological product of the deep psyche in educated circles and studied as such.
of course yes they contain alllusions that try to hold the numinous - but as we know it is the literalization of those allusions that creates a lot of trouble.
jesus, quetzalcoatl, dionysos, and others are all the same archetype expressed in different language and with slight variation in emphasis, no?
i am not suggesting that anyone be punished for believing otherwise - rather that we move toward living in a world where we are not to be punished for saying so!
anyway thanks for picking through this with me guys - there is a lot of good stuff in what all of you are saying - sounds like this is good symposium material for the summer!
peace
oh and as far as an integral religion symposium.
my humble suggestions: balder, hokai, wolfspirit, pelle and mary to start with - i’ll just listen attentively and learn…
I'm not sure why you're asking me how “Integral critiques” sit with me. I gather that I've given the impression that I do not welcome them?
Maybe its my poor choice of words. Let me try again: within your essay, you strike a more conciliatory tone that could be misread as not allowing for full-bodied critique. But I think that in fact, you and Julian just emphasize different approaches that we all agree are useful, and I suggest that we can understand them together by seeing them as complimentary modes depending on whether the context is intra-community (within the Integral community), or inter-community (with other viewpoints).
Thanks for the clarification, Mr. T. That makes sense to me.
Julian,
Thank you for describing what you see as healthy magenta and amber, as well as pathological orange. I guess I just wanted to hear you acknowledge those sides of the equation, since you so often talk about the unhealthy versions of the first two, and the healthy version of the latter.
Let me also say once more how much I enjoy your new style of debating and interacting. I find it much easier to read and digest what you're saying when I know your listening and responding to what others are saying.
I am in complete agreement regarding the separation of church and state, as well as church and school. I'm in fact against all kinds of private schools before college, since they are so commonly used for religious indoctrination. Society owes it to every child to at least have a very good opportunity to reach orange, and the only way to guarantee this (that I'm aware of) is to provide a high quality public school that everyone must attend for 10+ years.
That said I don't want to pathologize or marginalize any of the big religions. The only way for them to move past amber is to stay connected to society! This might seem like an impossible paradox I'm outlining, personally I tend to think of it as a fine line that we all have to walk.
I see the Bible and all texts originating out of amber as valuable on many levels. They're invaluable for children/adoloscents passing through the mythic stage, and on higher stages they can be used as symbols for meditation, inspiration to serve others in your own life, etc etc. I also think it's important to remember the possibility that morphogenetic grooves are now in place that will facillitate state training for anyone choosing to do so under a certain lineage or religion. This is only speculation on my part, but knowing what we do about Integral Post-Metaphysics and the continual co-creation of the Kosmos it is certainly a possibility.
I would also like everyone to know that on Monday a week from now I'm starting a thread in Chapel Perspicacious in the I-I Pod called “I-I Blogopalooza”. This will feature a small group of podsters as well as Joe Perez. Everyone will publish a short essay each with their personal perspecives on spiritual practice, the integral worldspace, current debates, etc. I think it's gonna be a blast!
So exhale this week after all the explorations that have taken place thanks to the Z-Symposium, and get ready to debate next week again!
peace and love
pelle
good stuff pelle!
right on - can't wait for the blogapalooza!
i have been tentatively planning the next symposium for that week, but will see about postponing for another week…
having said that healthy magenta probably still existed in parts of africa i was haunted by the recollection of the curent murderous superstition in south africa that sex with a virgin will cure man of his HIV infection…. surely not a good example of “healthy” anything!
mr.teacup - exactly!
Excellent dialog everyone! This symposium has been a truly important event for me.
This latest discussion actually includes a number of comments that have reminded me of a more practical spiritual “dilemma” of my own, which concerns Rudolf Steiner's Anthroposophy and Waldorf schools. I particularly resonated with this comment by pelle:
“The only way for [big religions] to move past amber is to stay connected to society!”
Just a very brief bit of background into my “personal dilemma”: My ex-wife is very much into Anthroposophy and wanted to send our daughter to a Waldorf school, but I don't resonate at all with Steiner, and pelle's comment above pretty much sums up by biggest complaint about Waldorf schools. Fortunately (for me), the issue was resolved on “logistical” grounds because the nearest Waldorf school is about an hour's drive from where my ex and I live, and my ex seems to have given up trying to convince me of the virtues Anthroposophy, but I don't feel like the issue has been totally resolved, so I'm still interested in clarifying the whole thing in my own mind so that I can better support my own position when the time comes.
This may be taking the conversation in a slightly different direction, but I thought there might be one or two people here who know something about Steiner and could comment. I mean, he is sometimes credited with being “integral” in his teachings, which are based largely on Christianity (and Theosophy and Rosicrucianism) with a bit of eastern philosophy thrown in the mix, and you can certainly see certain points of agreement with integral thought, but my general impression is that mostly all he's done is thrown a bunch of magic-mythic concepts from various religions into a melting pot and called it a “science” in order to somehow make it sound more integrated and evolutionary.
But I realize I'm no expert in Anthroposophy, so I may be making some prejudicial statements here, and I may even be making the mistake of judging the teachings based on how they're put into practice rather than on what the teachings actually say. So does anyone else here know something about it and have an opinion one way or the other?
Cheers,
Grey
P.S. I'm not saying that Steiner hasn't made certain important contributions either, but I just don't resonate with a lot of the things I've seen and read.
I have PM'd Melv who is our resident Anthroposophy expert in the I-I pod. Hopefully he can come over here and clarify some things for you Grey.
peace
pelle