Integrative Spirituality: Grounded Contemporary Perspectives

 

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!

 

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!

 

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

 

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?

 

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).

 

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

 

Yeah, I've spoken with him a bit in the I-Izaadz pod and by e-mail, so I was actually hoping he might be able to get the conversation going a bit in this setting, too. Could make for some interesting discussion.

Thanks!
Grey

 

Hi Julian and others. Yes you're right, I'm sympathetic with this issue. Some societies are torn apart by exactly the dynamics we're discussing. When I asked for examples of healthy magenta and red and amber, I was hoping for something else though. Not just were we find them, but what they actually consist of, and especially basic qualities in spiritual terms. These healthy novelties we get to grow on the inside of our being as we pass through these stages, are crucial and not to be toyed with, being basic and vital for every single subsequent stage. Also, some horizontal developments are made much more difficult if magenta and red and amber health is not appropriated. We're basically still discussing integrative spirituality, so I'll stick to that particular aspect, and I'll keep it simple.

Magenta. Awe and wonder. Instinctive somatic adjustment. Environment as mind.
Red. Resolution and courage. Sense of destiny and personal path. “Strength and honor”.
Amber. Devotion to the supreme. Loyalty, humility and renunciation. Faith, morality, purity.
Orange. Integrity and clarity and independent thinking. “Keep it real”.

Each of these does something to the previous. If all goes relatively well, it's a process of sublimation. However, access to previous varieties is necessary. These are actual organs of our spiritual organisms (plus relativism, of course, with it's many many gifts). Spirituality and codified religious systems at each of these levels reflect these values and capacities in their teachings and practices, sometimes healthy, sometimes pathological. Each of them has their own ideal of spiritual life. Accidentaly, when and where in history magenta prevails in vertical structure, the horizontal states are discovered and unveiled by shaman, but not the formless causal (hence i was before mentioning that estranged magenta-red-amber capacities may seriously hinder one's state-training). Only later structures adore yogis, saints and sages in that order, to culminate with siddha, the spiritual epitome of “keeping it real”.

Now let's move higher and imagine a green thinker with these lacking, or seriously impared. Of course, one would either function like a halber-mensch, or would have to return to these levels for provisions (i.e. regress or fixation in some lines).

Here today we handle complex systems with many sub-systems. There are many layers and cross-currents at different depths of meaning and knowing, of reality and being. Yes, we may sometimes talking in cross-purposes, because this medium offers no possibility on more subtle and efficient exchanges of intention and intended nuances. Pathology occurs (1) within the level itself, (2) toward the lower levels, and (3) toward higher emergence - these three being interrelated.

My point is, once we identify the essential developmental contributions of each level in broadly spiritual terms, then we may argue, we should argue, and we must argue, that such purposes may be even better accomplished by moving up not just in technology (as Taliban have) but also in faith. Such is the way of encouragement, and gentle yet persistent persuassion (as in education and edification). That way we build an integral agenda and a skilled way of combining into one what Balder proposed as “speaking within a level” and “speaking to a level” - this way we integrate our wretched selves before we can hope to integrate this world.

Hokai

 

This is in response to Grey's comment, as ive come throght the Steiner school and so have an insider perspective, balanced by the fact that i'm lucky to have parents who practice Anthroposophy in an open minded and integrated way (and my little rebel in me who helped me come to viewing Steiner's work in a balanced, suspicious-inquisitive, and thanks to Integral, in perspective)

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.

First of all you have to seperate Steiner's ideas from Waldorf schools, although the education model does come directly from his model of developement.
What amazes me, if one simply reads what he has written in a number of books he regarded as 'core' to Anthroposophy, in particular the 'Philosophy of Freedom, the similarities with what Integral concludes are many.
Its an anomoly to me why a) more 'Anthroposophists' (or Steinerites as we called them at school) are not open to Integral, and yet it is completely predictable, especially when analysed from a spiral dynamic and pre-trans fallacy model; and b) why Steiner is not recognised as being Integral, which to me his work clearly is (though it has to be put in context - the post-modern, green meme, pre-trans awareness were all in the future to when it was written, and are essential in cleaning the baby from stagnant bathwater. Again its not too surprising given the image portrayed by so many Anthroposophists, especially in Waldorf schools, where power trips are all too common and self-deception/self-righteousness all too likely.

{i have to carry on work now, but ill continue later, if you're interested}

 

such good stuff hokai.

 

Yeah, melv, I am interested in hearing more, although I guess you've answered my question as to why Steiner doesn't resonate with me.  I tend to look for stuff that doesn't have any (or at least not much) stagnant bathwater to drain out. ;-)

Cheers,
Grey

 

Follow up to my previous post, see above. The reason such considerations get tricky very quickly is that we're talking of polyphasic development strategies. At 2nd tier center of gravity all 1st tier arsenal capacities are re-awakened and empowered and sublimated, as green cacophony becomes integral symphony. This is mostly a discussion of altitude, and it feels a bit awkward to avoid the Three Big (or the quadrants).

When we use terms like honor, awe etc. it is quite easy to brush aside such speech as mere “poetry” (in a slightly pejorative sense). But rational and relativistic pronouncements are also “poetry” in this sense, based as they are on the myth of the given.

Each worldview is essential just as each chakra is essential. Each display is numinous, and each a source of confusion. Again, what do we integrate? We integrate the ascending and the descending impulses, being identified with neither, and pursuing our practices as either. When in healthy teal/turqoise, we embody depth 7/8, but we also contain all lesser depths without constriction (i.e. without oppressing any aspects of our own interiority), and we develop ways of acting accordingly, so that we ourselves may serve as developmental pacers, exhibiting a gentle upward pull to those in lesser depths. But in order for that upward pull to become a tractor beam for lower altitudes, it is crucial to send encouragement in language/action/demeanor intelligible and acceptable (we don't waste our time pulling boulders with a magnet). Then, even so, no amount of encouragement will persuade a pathological occasion to advance levels. Such must be healed within the level itself, even from below, regressing therapeutically, or - if severely destructive and gangrenous (as terrorists in the world and trolls on internet) - cut-off for the good of many. (Of course, inspecting our own role in the process that led to it will seal the job. We could've been innocent bystanders, if there is such a thing, but we were still there, looking away.)

Returning to  Elektroglide's post (to whom I'm really grateful for providing a backdrop). Let me restate, I fully resonate with Julian's “Remember the cruelties!” sort of argument, however, what follows from EKG's post is something else,

“my assertion is that in order for joy to survive, in order for free minds to live in a free world, in order for us to continue to have the luxury to have discussions such as this, we must live by a philosophy which honours reality above all else. the abstract concepts must be grounded - must correlate - with reality. we need concepts and metaphors in order to function mentally, but we need them to be rationally formulated. an integrative spirituality - to use the term from the title of this symposium - is necessarily preceded by a philosophy. we are all philosophers, whether we like it or not.”

The assertion here is that rationally formulated concepts somehow correlate with reality, and that such are guarantors of philosophy. Well, wrong on both accounts. Integral philosophy is, by definition, post-rational vision logic, and advancing. And here we face the problem of meaning. “Integrative” means (i.e. resonates as) something different at magenta, red, amber, orange and green. They all “integrate” by applying there own “logic” in their own 1st tier worldspace. Of course, in the world of turqoise & teal, all such integrations are partial & cruel, productive of wars and inconsiderations, not just cultural.

Back to present discussion. 2nd tier-integrative or integral strategy is not to be confused with tantric non-duality per se, although it spontaneously resonates with some of its super-avanguard aspects (e.g. the ancient tantric language and multi-dimensional symbolism is often quite beyond most present spiritual formulations). In tantric persepctives the dichotomy of relative and absolute becomes radically transparent. Here, instead, the relative structures are seen as non-exclusive while still arising within a graded complexity and depth. Transcending and including the essential. Otherwise, it's just good ol' orange. But also, transcending and excluding the dispensable. Otherwise, it's just good ol' green.

There's a free lesson, however: when tantric masters of old would present their case to would-be students (including kings and such), they'd adopt the penetrating logic of adequate means. First, they'd bring up the purposes their recipients already acknowledge as relevant to the very meaning of their lives; second, they'd present the limitations of established ways to achieve such goals; and third, they'd offer a new, more advanced way of even better serving the purpose. The essentials of each level are tissue for the next.

I know this is dry conceptuality, and I'm not adroit at balancing between general and particular, so feel free to express your criticism. I'm satisfied however that this symposium has done it's job in discerning some stark positions held in “integrative” (including my own), so making a meaningful discussion possible.

Hokai

 

Anthroposophy seems like a variation of perennial philosophy. Integral theory accepts some aspects of it, but also critiques and rejects some aspects. Here's an example:

Wilber himself, for at least 15 years, has been a merciless critic of the perennial philosophy for many reasons: it lacks quadratic grounding, it is ignorant of evolutionary trends, it takes it own LL cultural background and identifies it with Divine mandate, it misunderstands Kosmic habits as eternal Platonic forms, and so on.

Although I have been a harsh critic of the perennial philosophy, I still believe that, especially in its most sophisticated forms, it is a fountain of unsurpassed wisdom


Much of New Age philosophy is built around perennial philosophy, and I think that a lot of people are attracted to integral because it includes a few aspects of it, but don't notice that it rejects a whole lot of it too, partly because the critiques are pretty technical. I've noticed that a lot of people seem to confuse integral with perennial philosophy, and I think that's a mistake. Wilber-5 is even more distant from it.

 

Hokai,

Thank you for your last two posts. They contain great wisdom, and I do think we all need to be humble and see the strengths of each previous level - strengths that we as individuals still may be far from having integrated in several different lines!

peace
pelle

 

Balder, I appreciate the spirit of your approach to interfaith dialogue and dialogue in general, and it's nice to see a reference to Raimundo Panikkar.

As a general comment, by way of illustrating something about how I try to approach those whose belief systems differ from my own, I will share something related to Jerry Falwell, who just passed away.

I was living in SF when the AIDS crisis began to reach a peak in the early half of the 80's. My wife was literally the first social worker in SF to work excuslively with an AIDS population (that's social work jargon). We studied death and dying work with Stephen and Ondrea Levine, and I did some volunteer work with AIDS patients at that time.

Like many others, I was disgusted by the stance of Jerry Falwell on AIDS and homosexuality, and I did not think well of him.

In 1987 I was living in NY, where I took a course in humorous illustration at my alma mater, The School of Visual Arts in NYC. One of the assignments was to do a caricature. Pressed for time, I grabbed a newspaper at home a day before class, saw a photo of Falwell, and was inspired by it to create a pen & ink and watercolor caricature of him. I portrayed him standing with his pants down, holding a Bible, and wearing a halo over his head. There was a  pile of steaming shit  behind him and that too had a halo over it. To me at that time Jerry Falwell was not a human being like myself, someone with feelings, etc., but he was instead a stereotype of a certain segment of the US population that I tended to despise.

Robert Grossman, a famous caricaturist, was a guest in my class when I turned my assignment in, and he raved about my caricature of Falwell and encouraged me to pursue caricature in my freelance illustration work.

But something about this didn't sit right with me. It was one thing for me to show my caricuture of Falwell privately in a sympathetic class, but I could not see how it would be helpful or skillful to put a contempt-expressing image like that into the public sphere where it could be viewed by Falwell sympathizers and by Falwell himself. I couldn't see the point of putting out that kind of polarizing energy.

Twelve years later, in 1999, Falwell and 200 conservative Christians met with a gay minister (Mel White) and 200 gay and lesbian Christians, and they had a summit meeting that focused on the link between anti-gay and lesbian rhetoric and violence against gays and lesbians. This was perhaps a miniscule gesture on Falwell's part, so small that some might see it as insignificant, but to me it was better than nothing, and it made me feel good about my decision to not make polarizing images, such as my caricature of Falwell, public.

May he rest in peace.

I think I should add that if anyone thinks I'm being too tolerant toward Falwell, please understand that I'm quite capable of getting as mad as hell about people like him. I could get so worked up in a matter of minutes that I could throw this monitor (the big old-fashioned boxy kind) through a window, or I could rant here about how people like him piss me off. But what good would that do? It wouldn't be good for my heart, mind, or soul, and it certainly wouldn't move anyone who is narrow-minded and hateful to be less narrow-minded and hateful. I don't always choose lovingkindness over the alternatives, but I do find that lovingkindness is more effective in the long run. I think it's possible to oppose things that we disagree with or think are wrong without polarizing the “other.”

 

Hey guys, on the subject of Anthroposophy…

Mr Teacup said:
Anthroposophy seems like a variation of perennial philosophy. Integral theory accepts some aspects of it, but also critiques and rejects some aspects. Here's an example:

Wilber himself, for at least 15 years, has been a merciless critic of the perennial philosophy for many reasons: it lacks quadratic grounding, it is ignorant of evolutionary trends, it takes it own LL cultural background and identifies it with Divine mandate, it misunderstands Kosmic habits as eternal Platonic forms, and so on.

Although I have been a harsh critic of the perennial philosophy, I still believe that, especially in its most sophisticated forms, it is a fountain of unsurpassed wisdom

Because of me 'inside knowledge' there's a couple of points there i'd like to expand on before getting back to what i was saying before, and hopefully link it with the thread/blog/symposium more broadly.

First up, the point of evolution id link to pick up two-fold. In terms of Steiner's view on developement and evolution, i disagree. The concept of evolution, of ideas and actions that spring from them, Steiner re-iterated countless times the need for moving with the times and refreshing/updating ideas and practices

To quote Steiner: “If you go back to the earlier forms of education, you will discover that they have all arisen from the general culture of their time, from the universal nature of human feelings and experiences. We must rediscover a universal approach, flowing from human nature itself. If I had my way, I would give anthroposophy a new name every day to prevent people from hanging on to its literal meaning, from translating it from the Greek, so they can form judgments accordingly. It is immaterial what name we attach to what is being done here. The only thing that matters is that everything we do here is focused on life’s realities and that we never lose sight of them. We must never be tempted to implement sectarian ideas.” - Rudolf Steiner

That is unfortunately ignored by many 'Anthroposophists' (and i neither like the term too much, mostly due to its negative manifestations in people, nor would call myself one).

But also evolution as described by SD, the idea that we start from the states of consciousness that were lived out in earlier stages of history and are moving from ego-centric to universe-centric, and therefore have many different outlooks, requiring many different educational approaches. These ideas actually underpin the whole Waldorf education system, and in cases where this is carried out more with the way of thinking that underpins the above Steiner quote, examples where it is carried out 'according to plan', the success rate is quite phenomenal, whether success means creating balanced open and confident young people, or as is the case in my job, where success is enabling our students to be more free, independant and balanced, where the education is more theraputic.

Although i understand the above critisms in Mr Teacup's quote, i think there is more there that is of importance, besides what was directly referred to with regards to evolution (there is much more i could no doubt quote from Steiner that relates more to the theoretical and philosophical aspects, but that'll have to be another time), and interestingly, the way i personally relate to Steiner's ideas is not a matter of me having found 'the way' by any means - Integral and life-experience have given me access to too much other good stuff, but that because i was literally born and bred on Anthroposophical food (Biodynamic food is proving itself in an exponential way at the moment, and in a way that bypasses theory, but again, another discussion) and educated in a Steiner scholl till i was 17, i have had to look quite deeply into it to make sense of my life.

What i have found, and am only just beginning to find voice (because i'm only just dipping into practice in an ILP kind of manner), is that there is something that Steiner's ideas have to offer (and its not unique here - Balder has shown this clearly in his symposium post) that work in a different way that is still in touch with the Integral back-bone of no-nonsense spirituality., but what is perhaps more unique, and what really seperates his ideas from classic perrenial philosophy, is his emphasis on logic and reason, and thinking as a spiritual path and practice, yet with a huge link to the natural phenomena both scientifically and post-rationally.
Misunderstanding kosmic habits as eternal platonic forms is really a matter of the practitioner ignoring some of the explicit pointers that keep one from becoming rigid and dogmatic. The language may need updating, and context revising, but the methods and results are to my current exeprience pretty sound.

Much of New Age philosophy is built around perennial philosophy, and I think that a lot of people are attracted to integral because it includes a few aspects of it, but don't notice that it rejects a whole lot of it too, partly because the critiques are pretty technical. I've noticed that a lot of people seem to confuse integral with perennial philosophy, and I think that's a mistake. Wilber-5 is even more distant from it.

I have read a pretty similar statement from Steiner, and again many many people who are attracted to these kinds of ideas miss the fact that the philosophy itself rejects many ideas they hold as givens. I'm not trying to suggest Anthroposophy is an equivalent of Integral - thats balloony… but its complements it very well (as do many other ideas from many origins)

The other area that has a fairly unique contribution from Steiner's work is the connection with nature's patterns, from a highly trained logical thinking and sharp observation standpoint that integrates in some ways feelings (logic is itself a feeling) and subjective experience (in the same way meditation does). An evolved Geothean scientific methology in some respects. (i can go into this another place)
What this brings is a harmony in the lower right, (also emphasised are lower left social elements, upper right with the practices that develope higher vitality and nutritional quality (in food) and of course the upper right meditative path), but more to the point, its a practice that both holds the quadrants in view (although not put in that language, its all there) yet works on them in a kind of whole picture manner rather than focusing on a quadrant (even if focusing on four quadrants simultaneously, its subtly different).

I'm still trying to work out and explore these ideas, and im sure my struggle for clarity is apparent, but thats about where ive got to…

Throughout all of this, i still hold that Integral is the tool which has allowed a healthy integration of Steiner's ideas (with many others) into my worldview and practice, and that in itself says a lot about both philosophies.

 

Bruce,

thanks for your kind comments. The level/line fallacy is indeed one of the most spread problems, perhaps even more problematic (though less obvious) than the pre/trans fallacy. It is not as easily rectified, since it is deeply fused with heavy ideological positions. I certainly hope we will have opportunity to work together on further articulatiions.

Hokai

 

I have read a pretty similar statement from Steiner, and again many many people who are attracted to these kinds of ideas miss the fact that the philosophy itself rejects many ideas they hold as givens.


I think that's a great way of putting it. I think reading Wilber should reconfigure and reorganize a lot of your deeply held beliefs and philosophies, even ones that have helped you through difficult times. At least, that's the way it was for me, and continues to be.

I have not read very deeply into Wilber's critique of perennial philosophy or into Steiner's take on it to be able to say. I suspect that much of it sticks though, which explains why Anthroposophy is not explicitly referenced in the integral literature. Wilber references other thinkers constantly, why would he leave out a well-known figure like Steiner? I wouldn't be surprised if Steiner did have his integral moments, but I would be surprised if Anthroposophy as a whole was. Integral theory certainly allows us to read it and re-interpret it, to include what is good and useful and find other sources for the rest, but an integral theory is a meta-framework where we can locate other theories. Anthroposophy does not represent itself in that way, as far as I know, as a theory of theories.

 

Bruce

I really enjoyed reading your finely delineated and deep thoughts on the matter…
I find that you are very skilled at articulating intuitions in a rigorous way that feels so satisfying to read. Thank you so much, it has helped me…

The one part that I feel i would like to hear more from you about is the body. Where does bodywork sit in your personal practice?

i have an intuition that the groundless ground of being finds a profound resting place in the most material part of us: the body. What a paradox that is!

XX Gitanjali

 

Mr Teacup that sums it up pretty well - I think that a person who utilises Integral as a meta-framework and practices any genuine (perrenial or post-perrenial ;) spiritual path through the AQAL lense will be at a great advantage - which is what i see when i read what most members of the I-I pod.
This goes for someone who's practice-vehicle happens to be Anthroposophy as well, but not the other way round - the biggest challenge i see in Anthro organisations is finding meaningful links with the 'outside world' where a common language is possible, and this suggests that alone, Anthroposophy is limiting, which is not the same with Integral (apart from cases where people become too rigid in Integral language)

nuff said, i'm going to dive back into this symposium…

Balder i have to echo what's been said in response to your original post and comments, i really appreciate your sharp integrally refined insight that is integrated with an understanding and apprecitation of the core truths in so many worldviews and philosophies.

In these words : 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.

This really highlights why i am complelled to respond when people think Anthroposophy is largely a mythical/magical philosophy, and its greta to have it neatly put.

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.

Beautifully put, and what you say regarding symbols is part of what i was trying to get at with regards to the jewel in Anthroposophy - symbols are a powerful way of transmitting information in a way that can often feed our whole being without having to fit in the limits of words and thinking models (however inclusive, evolved and true they are). The combination of the two, if you like the rational with the artistic, offer a high level of integration and leave constant questions/paradox's as a way forward from each 'answer'.

The awareness and documentation of the non-rational without rationality is extensive and rightly must challenge such thinking (and especially action when a person occupies a position of power/leadership).

But equally when rationality rejects non-rationality the result is often quite an  aloof, 'superior' and seemingly heartless standpoint (though this is often not the case on further examination). It does serve to keep away many 'New Age-ers' but also limits the impact and potential for positive action and change. I appreciate how you transcend both of these in this symposium (as have all the contributers)

Nuff appreciation!

Melv

 

hey everyone - wanted to draw your nuanced religious pluralism observations to my new post: jerry falwell and the power of delusion