Spiritual Atheism

I want to start of here with a wonderful discussion between Richard Dawkins and a very bright theologian believer with an actively involved studio audience on a Bristish TV talk show.

Several of the classic arguments come up. it's a good watch.

My sense is that existentialism, postmodernism and, yes, atheism are almost necessary prerequistes for trans rational spirituality. At the very least they seem to me to be indicators of a certain threshold being crossed.

What is left when we allow superstition and metaphysics to fade?

My answer is genuine adult mysticism and an open eyed appreciation of life and love without any promise for an afterlife. Life lived consciously in the shadow of death feels more spiritually engaged than life lived in the arms of a delusion…

it seems to me as well that there is an unacknowledged orthodoxy going round that wnats spiral dynamics and integral theory to somehow be inclusive of metaphysics and superstition.

While both systems understand the developmental reality of various religious memes at differentt stages - neither seem to me to support a lack of rigor and honesty about them once we are able to see through them…

Re: Spiritual Atheism

Dear Julian

I can sympathise with how you see it, and yet life without myth and mystery has never personally attracted me. I think any framework of reality and spirituality that excludes religious sensibility is too limited to be universal.

As I get older I become more and more aware of how deeply personal our views of reality are, how important it is for each one to find a coherent way of understanding life for that person at that time. If you’re right and spiral dynamics cannot be inclusive of this kind of religious approach, then it’s just another form of exclusivism, like fundamentalism (as an extreme I hasten to add).

Love

Nicole

Re: Spiritual Atheism

hey nicole, yes i hear that fear. my point  above, however, is that surrendering the literal interpretation of myth (ie religion) actually deepens, expands, enrichens and exponentialy multiplies the mystery!

that is the existential initiation i am referring to. it goes something like this:

a) the rational honesty and courage to acknowledge that no myth has ever been literally true.
b) the same honest courage to acknowledge that there is not anyone anywhere who actually knows what happens after death and there never has been.
c) the recognition that it is the fear of death, chaos and meaninglessness that leads us to cling to unprovable bliefs or “faith” about that which no-one actually knows anything.

from these flow three blossomed realizations:

a) the myths are creations of the brilliant and mysterious poetry of the psyche!
b) death is a universal constant that binds all of humanity together and that is a powerful archetypal force in the human psyche and culture.
c) the understanding that through setting oneself free of superstitious defenses and really embracing the mystery and inevitability of death as well as the extraordinarily high probability that death is quite simply permanent sleep - one is more spiritually present, more alive to reality, more appreciative of the preciousness of love and the torment of suffering, more commited to living actually in the hugely improbable mystery of human consciousness and feeling.

this is the great irony:

belief in a literal god is not at all mysterious. it is a closing off of an exquisite inquiry that keeps going and going.

having “faith” ie - belief without evidence in a defined idea is actually the exact opposite of embracing the mystery.

and worst of all believing literallly in tthe socially constructed god of my culture (be it from your traditional roots, your subculture exoticism, or the new age orthodoxy i am pointing out) actually profoundly limits awareness of the problems with that cultural worldview and how it blocks growth to the next level.

whenever  i talk about relinquishing superstition, like say in my conversation on my blog about people who claim to channel alien intelligences, others wisely try to accuse me of not being open to the mystery.

actually, i am not open to unproven superstitions that limit the mystery in unsatisfactory ways!

what you are expressing here is i think a confusion of tolerance on the one hand - which of course we should have on a practical level, with, on the other hand, the merely pluralistic green meme position that takes offense at honest inquiry into the relative truth or falsity of certain worldviews.

in other words i can be tolerant of the fact that someone believes in a white bearded man in the sky who grimaces everytime we take his goddamn name in vain or have dionysian premarital sex - but still state, at the same time, that this is a ridiculous and oudated superstition.

tolerance does not exclude rigor, courage or honesty. faith is not an effective path into mystery.

btw - HAPPY NEW YEAR! & thanks for the dialog so far….:O)

Re: Spiritual Atheism

Hi, Julian,

Thanks for the interesting video.  (I just copied the link over to a fundie forum, just to stir things up over there!) 

I have a couple of things I'd like to discuss, but I first want to ask you for your definition of “spirit” in the term, “spiritual atheism.”

Best wishes,

Balder

Re: Spiritual Atheism

awesome question.

it's interesting i have always liked using this word and had a hard time with what the majority of people interpret it as meaning.

i remember being at a dinner table when i was about 25 with some people and because i was supposed to be a spiritual person they started telling me all about this trance channel they saw.

i remember saying “what i mean by spirituality has nothing to do with communicating with the dead or believing in ghosts!” quite indignantly….:O)

when i use the word spirituality it refers to the pursuit of the essence of life, the inward meaning, the universal truths, engaging what is hidden and bringing it to consciousness. that to me is at the center of spiritual life. not belief in anything, least of something concretized as “spirit”. to me the embrace of a secular humanist atheisim is powerfully spiritual, especially in the face of religious opression, extremism and orthodoxy - which i feel mangle whatever we mean by “spirit.”

i also use the word soul.

which again has none of the meaning for me of “the part of us that survives death” - but rather has to do with the psyche, with our essential nature, with our deep longings and capacties and secret (sometimes even from us) inner world….

Re: Spiritual Atheism

Hi you guys, and happy new year!

Re: the question of faith – People define this word in different ways. Probably the most common definition is as you have described it, Julian: belief without evidence.

But I have come across post-mythic religious practitioners who see faith as something entirely other than belief or certitude. It is more akin to a trust in the unfolding of the Kosmos … a recognition that the universe is conspiring on its own behalf, through us, with us, and in us. This unfolding can certainly include doubt, questioning, and the seeking of evidence.

As such, what you seem to be expressing here could be defined as a kind of faith: a deep trust that “surrendering the literal interpretation of myth” actually “deepens, expands, enrichens, and exponentially multiplies the mystery.”

More later … kind of multitasking at the moment …

Mary

Re: Spiritual Atheism

Okay, back again – I wanted to include this passage of Donald Richo's (an ex-priest who is now Buddhist) on the complexity of faith, which he sees as evolving through stages (similar to Fowler's “stages of faith”) –

“Faith is thus a continuity of phases. Faith does not have to mean finding our final resting place in unaltering certitude or in any one phase. This would not be faith but fixation. True faith mirrors life; it keeps moving onward, a heroic journey, an evolution from light to dark and back to light. In John 14 we read: Unless I go the Advocate will not come. In the fullness of the faith experience, one god-image gives way to another–a death to new life experience. A lively inner experience of full faith happens when the old containers of faith vanish and new perspectives and challenges arise and are greeted with courage and joy. Yet faith exists on a spectrum …

Stage One: This is the stage of literalism, a one-dimensional view in which God is anthropomorphic and mirrors the human ego for better or for worse… It is an uncritical assent. The accent is on reliablity of authority and blind assent to the rules and dogmas of authority ….

Stage Two: The symbolic and abstract take more prominence. There is a personal entry into issues, a greater internal motivation, a commitment to apply personal experience to the design of consciousness. Here there may be a crisis of faith and more ambiguity. This believer is more skeptical …

Stage Three: A more intutive approach arises. There is more acceptance of paradox and mystery. One can recognize meanings and riches in what was rejected before. The mystery of the unity of all things begins to dawn ….”

I once attended a lecture on “Life after Death” by Catholic priest Richard Fragomeni. He shocked several folks by saying that as he grew older and more seasoned in the priesthood, the less interested he had become in what actually happened after we biologically die. He had to admit that he had no idea what happens after physical death. His concerns increasingly had more to do with this life, which he now interprets as a kind of “afterlife.” He sees it as an afterlife because as a Christian, he had already died and been raised with Christ (through the ritual and symbol of baptism) – thus this life was itself the “resurrection” – and the time to do things, to act, to be, was now.

Okay – I know it's a thread on spiritual atheism – so I'll stop now pulling it onto this “faith” tangent. But I did want to point out that there are people who continue to practice within a particular religious path but who do not adhere to the notion that faith is a kind of blind certitude and acceptance of institutional dogma …

Thanks,
Mary

Re: Spiritual Atheism

Hi, Mary, I appreciate what you've written here.  I've been thinking about writing about different levels or stages of faith, not all of which are predicated on “belief in an unproven (unprovable) claim or doctrine,” so I'm glad you brought these things to the table.  If you define faith narrowly, as I believe the “new atheists” like Dawkins and Harris are doing, then yes, it makes sense to argue that development requires us, at some point, to leave faith behind.  But a number of theological traditions have a deeper understanding of faith than the literalist/fundamentalist variety, and in the contexts of these traditions, it makes more sense to speak of a continuum of faith, with “evidenceless belief in mythical propositions” only one phase in an overall current of relationship with Being.

Best wishes,

Balder

Re: Spiritual Atheism

beautiful beautiful stuff mary. lovely nuanced trans rational and rich sources you are drawing from.

this does however - i am sure you'll agree represent a tiny tiny portion of what is out there. 99.9% of mythic religious believers (fundamentalist or not) or primarily concerned with the existence of a literal god and faith in what happens after death.

those who go beyond these two things are already coming to a spiritual concept that is on the other side of conventional faith.

Re: Spiritual Atheism

Hi Julian

Darn this not having adequate access to internet! There is all kinds of other stuff I want to read but it takes so long with the Blackberry…

I’ve been talking to a couple of friends in the meantime about what was troubling me when I first responded to your posts and they both were quite helpful in unpacking some more background on integral theory for me. You see this is all still very new to me and I get quickly lost in quadrants zones and first to third person language…

I hear what you’re saying and am glad that your approach opens up into greater mystery for you. I think a thread on mystery and myth might be a fun rabbit hole, when I have time and net access, because there are many approaches to both and working through some of them may be of help…

Happy new year to you too!

Love

Nicole

Re: Spiritual Atheism

Cool, Julian, thanks.  I am about to head out to Berkeley with my family, so I'm just dashing off this post, but I'll return to write more later.  I wanted to ask to more quick (orienting) questions, if you don't mind:

1)  What's your opinion of the relationship of atheism, agnositicism, and religious faith?  In particular, is there a reason you embrace atheism over agnosticism as the “humanistic” position?   Are you familiar with Stephen Batchelor's discussion of agnosticism from a Buddhist perspective?

2)  What is your stance on the materialist paradigm?  Do you, with Wilber, embrace a form of panpsychism or pansemiotics?  Or do you prefer a different perspective?

Best wishes,

Balder

Re: Spiritual Atheism

nice questions - let me get back to you on that when i have a moment - and have done some research into question 2!

here for everyone is a transcribed talk from buddhist writer/teacher stephen batchelor on buddhist agnosticism.

later

Re: Spiritual Atheism

well off the top of my head i think i prefer atheism for some reasons, agnostic for others.

i think atheism retains a certain kind of oppositional strength that is lost in the connotation of agnosticism - although it shouldnt be…

now of course many people who do not believe in literal mythic notions say that the term atheism is an unneccesary addition to the language because it is used to refer to someone who does not believe in god. why do we need this when we have no term for someone who does not believe in astrology or who does not believe in fascism - they would point out that even the word “atheist” priviledges religious belief as a norm - with non-belief in religion as some unusual state…we are all born atheists though…

i like the agnostic sense of not knowing and subscribe to it fully, but at the same time i think that implied in this is the atheist assertion that religion is nonsense.

i think often people like the softness of agnostic because they erroneously think it implies that all possible positions could be true - it sounds more relativistic and tolerant.

however the choice to remain agnostic on metaphysical issues is itself a refutation of faith.

with this i agree.

i find wilber's insistence on consciousness as prior to matter to be one of his real weak points. he bases it on vedanta and his interpretations of certain meditative states….but he then tries to integrate it in his G.U.T.in a way that i think is unnecessary and confusing.

i have no problem with consciousness as a phenomenon of matter and of consciousness becomeing more and more sophisticated as matter evolves.

i embrace a kind of panpsychism in that i think that the the potential for consciousness could be said to be present in the inanimate world - certainly we are products of the universe and nature and it follows that everyhting that exists has some kosmic address on the spectrum of consciousness. but i do not buy the new age fantasy of the universe itself as a big conscious, loving daddymommy that is granting our wishes and teaching us lessons - and this kind of silliness is the common misapplication of panpsychism, don't you think?

i think wilber unwittingly plays into this stuff and does not realize just how overwhelmingly new age/green much of his readership is.

i very much enjoy batchelor's inquiry and courage.

Re: Spiritual Atheism

Mary I appreciate your thoughts about faith too….. and agree with them.  I remember reading once “a paranoid is a person who believes the universe is conspiring against them, while a mystic is a person who knows the world is conspiring on his behalf.” 

Julian, I am thinking about your statement: “but i do not buy the new age fantasy of the universe itself as a big conscious, loving daddymommy that is granting our wishes and teaching us lessons - and this kind of silliness is the common misapplication of panpsychism, don't you think?”   
I really don't want you to think I am silly….really! but honestly, I do think the universe is conspiring on our behalf with the underlying intention of waking us up.  My own life has been so obvious, ridiculously obvious,  as obvious as a connect-the-numbers drawing, or a paint-by-number picture……I don't think anybody could have lived my life and not 'gotten it' at least to the extent I have 'gotten it'…..I think the road that we create as we travel also is rising up to meet us simultaneously, somehow already travelled and already created.  It is what Deepak Chopra calls synchro-destiny.   I really  like Deepak.  I know he is on the black list in Integral Spirituality…..

I don't think that the 'loving daddy mommy universe' is trivial or trite or whimsical….and nor are the “lessons” easy either….. My lessons have been ruthless, and fierce.  As often as not, they have brought me to my knees, begging for mercy…begging for reprieve….. they are lessons that I would not wish on my worst enemy…. Nor would the losses suffered ever be ones I would “choose” in retrospect even for the understanding or grace that met me on the other side of the ordeal… I would never say, 'oh, that was terrible, but it was worth it.'   I don't think I am alone in this either…..the tragedies that are suffered are overwhelming, and they are so utterly common place, and they rip the heart right out of you…..

Maybe the path of awakening is different for people who have great meditation practices, wonderful discipline, and for some arbitrary reason decide to put energy into the spiritual path.  “Hey, let's find our yoga body everybody!” But, frankly, I don't think, in spite of the assertions of Mr. Wilber and the ILP path, that this neat and tidy path-on-a-pillow, and pay attention in your life is the way that most people awaken. (though I also think an integral life practice is important.)  Most of us have lives that are messy in the extreme. Most of us are opened by the horrible pain in that mess.  Some of us, who can stand to stay present, and consciously witness 'the story line'  will be redeemed' by grace..(Maybe, or maybe not,…I don't know how this works, or why…)……Further, and discouragingly, this 'via negativa' seems to cut a wide swath of destruction to birth a single awake soul. (ergo teh present war torn world, and the environmental crisis) So I am not saying this is the best approach, yet, I am pretty sure that  it is the one that most of us are on…..

Re: Spiritual Atheism

beautifully stated as always jane. thanks.

do you se though the implied sense of some personified external force orchestrating the seeming chaos on your behalf? this i think (in the nonpejorative sense) is actually a little narcissisitic….

you say that it cuts a borad swathe for merely one awakened soult o emerge. true dat - suffering brings many to their knees never to get up again.

saying that the purpose of suffering is to wake us up is actually putting the cart before the horse.

suffering does wake some people up - others it shuts down, still others it destroys completely. there is no purpose, merely what is and how it affects different people for different reasons, some within their control, most not.

there is no personal rhyme or reason to much of the chaos of the world.

our ability to survive and be awakened by suffering has to do with multiple co-arising variables that are genetic, psychological, geographical, social, luck etc….

it is the need to imagine some self-affirming order behind it all and thereby make the horror ok that gives rise to much metaphysics, no?

but what do we do with the boy with his arms blown off in iraq. where does he fit into the metaphysical panacea?

i guess there's always karma/reincarnation huh?

Re: Spiritual Atheism

Julian, just a simple question.  Is it fair to say you don't adhere to the notion of non-dual awareness?

Re: Spiritual Atheism

Julian, I have written on other forums (I am sure sounding somewhat of a nutbar) about this riddle that has always(as long as i can remember as a little child) been caught in my head…..  No surprise, the riddle is: “How did I(we) get here, I mean really?! ” 

 What goes around in my head is  a mathematical formula of the universe, a two sided, three dimensional mobeus strip…..Where through some process*(metaphorically it is a gate), the inside becomes the outside, and the outside becomes the inside. The  best metaphorical picture of this that I have seen is the uroborus, the snake that eats its tail.  This is the only visual that I can find that describes what riddles me. 

The two sides of this metaphorical 3D mobeus are Spirit and Matter.  The three dimensions are eternity/infinity/intension travelling in one direction, and time/space/c2(the speed of light squared) travelling in the other direction….. “and east is east and west is west, and never the twain shall meet” except in the math of absolutes, they do meet!  I think they meet in a really literal way, in the moment that is me and  you, and any and all of us.  I think  that when they meet consciously, this is what 'enlightenment' is….  Enlightenment is the conscious, on going realization of the the spiritualization of matter and the materialization of spirit, in this moment which is me.  It is the 'word(spirit) made flesh'…..  I don't think it is 'some personified external force orchestrating the seeming chaos on your behalf?'  I don't think it is an “external” force….. (so if you were concerned with my narcissism before, well, you will have a hay day now! ) I don't think the force is “external”…..  I am the gate that I have to go through.  I am the eye that I have to see the eye with….. “my life is the fabric with which it is my responsibility to polish the lens of my own perception.”

In any open and curious enquiry into this riddle, the creeping grandiose/delusional/narcissistic aspect of enlightenment has been a real clunker.  ('In the land of the blind, he with one eye is king.') Just like you mention Andrew Cohen and Adi Da…and the rest of this playing deck of messaiahs……there is the 'fear' that any person who actually wakes up to what is going on with become the requisite narcissistic asshole…..and even the act of discussing what 'enlightenment' is, whether or not I am, or you are, or the person at the counter is, well, this topic is almost 'taboo' because of the associated abuse of power that has seemingly gone along with it. As a result, another area of 'forbidden territory' is cordoned off as if it is too toxic to survive. It follows then that  with the plethora of messiahs,  there are the sheep among us that are just looking for someone to follow, someone to tell us we are good, and true and beautiful….and this creates another set of wake-me-up dramas…….and the 'world turns'.

When I think of how women's voices have been muted through the ages, (and I am not saying that women have not colluded in much of what has gone on, or  that, in spite of myself, I have not either, but still…) I wonder how the myths would have been re-written or differently tempered if this had not been the case.  One of the most horrifying and damaging stories we are told as children is the Abraham /ssac Story….Alice Miller pulled this one out and spoke about it, but long before I read her discussion, when I was in grade school, I figured out that God was fuckin' bastard, and Abraham was a weak little shithead!  And even now, I feel I can feel  the maternal lion rise in me—-“Take my heart, you fucker.!You are not killing my child, you delusional old fart!….take your “obedience” and shove it up your sadistic pathetic ass.”   There are worse things, by far, than dying……

And how is the Abraham/Issac story any different than what is actually going on right now, on the world stage? 


You write: “suffering does wake some people up - others it shuts down, still others it destroys completely. there is no purpose, merely what is and how it affects different people for different reasons, some within their control, most not.
there is no personal rhyme or reason to much of the chaos of the world.” 

I agree with this….and it makes me sad…and it also fills my heart with the the most pathetic, and seemingly useless compassion along with the deepest humbling heartfelt knowing “but for the Grace of God go I.”    All I know is that I am responsible for the plate that is given to me..I am responsible for taking my life 'personally'…….  There is no personal rhyme or reason to much of the chaos, well, until I (or anyone)  is capable and then willing to make it personal—unti I I choose 'to get my teeth into that thing which gets its teeth into me'…..  'many are called, but few are chosen'…… and strangely, it isn't 'god' (the fuckin' bastard, almighty father, orchestrator of human suffering who really pisses me off!) that  “chooses” who is going to wake up and smell the roses….it is me who chooses to wake me up, only to realize that I have never been asleep.  The garden never went anywhere!  “and the fire and the rose are one”….

Julian, I am really appreciating all of your outpourings.  I have not been following along on all of these threads, and I am not a great linguist so I find myself easily lost in semantics and not really understanding what is being said sometimes……at the same time, I love your fearless inquiry…..I love that in myself too…..I love it in everyone of us……It is like digging out after a snow storm or hurricane(I imagine)…there is a peaceful calmness, like the worst has happened(at least for the moment) and it is time to willingly and openly take stock of what has gone on, what is the immediate course of action, what resources do we have to work with, what can we share, what do I need to keep for my self…..and what is better buried in the composter  to ferment and digest, waiting for another season's nourishment.   Thank you.

Jane.

Re: Spiritual Atheism

After writing this morning, I was thinking of T.S. Eliot.  I have not read him thoroughly, and yet, how he is my true brother!  'the fire and the rose' T.S. Eliot–I googled–and came upon this writing of his:

[edit] The Cocktail Party (1950)

• It will do you no harm to find yourself ridiculous.
  Resign yourself to be the fool you are.

• You will find that you survive humiliation
  And that's an experience of incalculable value.

• That is the worst moment, when you feel you have lost
  The desires for all that was most dersirable,
  Before you are contented with what you can desire;
  Before you know what is left to be desired;
  And you go on wishing that you could desire
  What desire has left behind. But you cannot understand.
  How could you understand what it is to feel old?

• You will change your mind, but you are not free.
  Your moment of freedom was yesterday.
  You made a decision. You set in motion
  Forces in your life and in the lives of others
  Which cannot be reversed.

• We die to each other daily.
  What we know of other people
  Is only our memory of the moments
  During which we knew them. And they have changed since then.
  To pretend that they and we are the same
  Is a useful and convenient social convention
  Which must sometimes broken. We must also remember
  That at every meeting we are meeting a stranger.

• I have had quite enough humiliation
  Lately, to bring me to the point
  At which humiliation ceases to humiliate.
  You get to the point at which you cease to feel
  And then you speak your mind.

• You're still trying to invent a personality for me
  Which will only keep me away from myself.

• What is hell? Hell is oneself.
  Hell is alone, the other figures in it
  Merely projections. There is nothing to escape from
  And nothing to escape to. One is always alone.

• All cases are unique, and very similar to others.

• Half the harm that is done in this world
  Is due to people who want to feel important.
  They don't mean to do harm - but the harm does not interest them.
  Or they do not see it, or they justify it
  Because they are absorbed in the endless struggle
  To think well of themselves.

• It is very often that my patients
  Are only pieces of a total situation
  Which I have to explore. The single patient
  Who is ill all by himself, is rather the exception.

• There are several symptoms
  Which must occur together, and to a marked degree,
  To qualify a patient for my sanitorium:
  And one of them is an honest mind. That is one of the causes of their suffering.

• You have come to where the word 'insult' has no meaning;
  And you must put up with that.

• To men of a certain type
  The suspicion that they are incapable of loving
  Is as disturbing to their self-esteem
  As, in cruder men, the fear of impotence.

• The best of a bad job is all any of us make of it - except of course the saints

• Your burden is not to clear your conscience
  But to learn how to bear the burdens on your conscience.

• I should really like to think there's something wrong with me -
  Because, if there isn't then there's something wrong,
  Or at least, very different from what it seemed to be,
  With the world itself - and that's much more frightening!
  That would be terrible.

• An awareness of solitude.

• Everyone's alone - or so it seems to me.
  They make noises, and think they are talking to each other;
  They make faces, and think they understand each other.
  And I'm sure they don't. Is that a delusion?

• Can we only love
  Something created in our own imaginations?
  Are we all in fact unloving and unloveable?
  Then one is alone, and if one is alone
  Then lover and beloved are equally unreal
  And the dreamer is no more real than his dreams.

• I shall be left with the inconsolable memory
  Of the treasure I went into the forest to find
  And never found, and which was not there
  And is perhaps not anywhere? But if not anywhere
  Why do I feel guilty at not having found it?

• Disillusion can become itself an illusion
  If we rest in it.

• It's not that I'm afraid of being hurt again:
  Nothing again can either hurt or heal.
  I have thought at moments that the ecstasy is real
  Although those who experience it may have no reality.
  For what happened is remembered like a dream
  In which one is exalted by intensity of loving
  In the spirit, a vibration of delight
  Without desire, for desire is fulfilled
  In the delight of loving. A state one does not know
  When awake. But what, or whom I love,
  Or what in me was loving, I do not know.
  And if all that is meaningless, I want to be cured
  Of a craving for something I cannot find
  And of the shame of never finding it.

• Two people who know they do not understand each other,
  Breeding children whom they do not understand
  And who will never understand them.

• In a world of lunacy
  Violence, stupidity, greed…it is a good life.

• I feel it would be a kind of surrender -
  No, not a surrender - more like a betrayal.
  You see, I think I really had a vision or something
  Though I don't know what it is. I don't want to forget it.
  I want to live with it. I could do without everything
  Put up with anything, if I might cherish it.

• There is another way, if you have the courage.
  The first I could describe in familiar terms
  Because you have seen it, as we all have seen it,
  Illustrated, more or less, in lives of those about us.
  The second is unknown, and so requires faith -
  The kind of faith that issues from despair.
  The destination cannot be described;
  You will know very little until you get there;
  You will journey blind. But the way leads towards possession
  Of what you have sought for in the wrong place.

• Neither way is better.
  Both ways are necessary. It is also necessary
  To make a choice between them.

• Those who take the other
  Can forget their loneliness. You will not forget yours.
  Each way means loneliness - and communion.

• We must always take risks. That is our destiny.

• I'd say that she suffered all that we should suffer
  In fear and pain and loathing - all these together -
  And reluctance of the body to become a thing.
  I'd say she suffered more, because more conscious
  Than the rest of us.

• If we all were judged according to the consequences
  Of all our words and deeds, beyond the intention
  And beyond our limited understanding
  Of ourselves and others, we should all be condemned.

• Only by acceptance of the past will you alter its meaning.

• Every moment is a fresh beginning.

Re: Spiritual Atheism

thanks jane! your uncensored soulful streams of consciousness are quite beautiful.

not sure what to respond to except to say that i am using the word “narcissism” in the non pejorative intellectual/developmental sense and i hope that it is clear that i am not worried about anyone here in a kind of dharma police/unsolicited therapist kind of way.

what i am interested in doing here is discussing ideas and their relative worth.

you are emphasizing the side of intuition and feeling and i have great sympathy for what you are expressing - at the same time it seems that you agree substantially with the problems i detect in certain ideas.

i hear perhaps some  category errors and jumping from this quadrant to that within the expression of single ideas. it's fun - but i dont walk away with a clear sense of what you actually think.

which is ok too.

:O)

i sense a sort of conflict between what you think and what your feelings and intuitions tell you……yeah?

Re: Spiritual Atheism

I am back at work for the night, and the 'category errors' are blocked by the work WeB Police…so alas, I shall have to wait until tomorrow to see what you are referring to….I am sorry if I am not able to be more clear….I keep experimenting with what works…. and it may be that I am jumping higglety pigglety from quadrant to quadrant….or maybe that is the nature of what I am trying to describe.

I am also interested in exploring and discussing ideas and their relative worth, including narcissism….I am okay with that too…even my own :)!  And all therapia aside!

In fact, I do not feel conflicted between what I feel and intuit and what I think…. though I have been reminded of Joseph Campbell's description  of the frustration of the hero returning with the marvellous boon, only “to play the fool in front of the sober eyes of the jury.”  Communication is like that sometimes…… like a person filled with music with the most inadequate and rudimentary ability to express it…..those squeaks and squawks, they sometimes sorta sound like it maybe could be a symphony, or no, maybe only squeaks and squawks…..still I am compelled to persist…. imagine what it must be like to be Stephen Hawking! 

Re: Spiritual Atheism

you always make me smile jane - this time i am laughing out loud. :O)

Re: Spiritual Atheism

I'm loving this thread, finding the discussion at times inspirational, revelatory, compelling, thought-provoking, satisfying ….. also fun! Ditto, if noot more so, for the 'The Myth of the Given' thread.

So respect and gratitude for Julian, Mary, Jane especially, and of course Balder.

Thanks, Julian, for providing the link to that transcribed talk of Stephen Batchelor's. I also “enjoy his inquiry and courage”, and have enjoyed the couple of books of his I've read, 'The Faith to Doubt 'and 'Buddhism without Beliefs'. I fully go along with the sentiment and spirit of his talk, and concur with it's broad thrust, if not every detail.

Also, I am absolutely in accord with the 'don't know' position … or lack of position … yet, paradoxically, there is or can be a certain 'knowing' …..  not about beginnings or lack of beginnings, or final outcomes, or what happens at/after death, or any of those kinds of things ….. it's to do with the continuity of experience, of things coming and going, arising and passing away (from the perspective of the Dzogchen teaching, self-liberating, … and yes, I do appreciate this term could be jargon if it needs to be qualified) … and the essentially undefinable (not limited by concepts) yet completely experiencable ever-present-Ground-inseparable-from-this-continuity-of-diverse-experience … the afore-mentioned pointing to the real meaning of tantra … and if one has experience of this and can again and again re-discover / re-enter into this, it won't occur as jargon.

In my (albeit limited) experience, this 'knowing' at least seems to deepen over time. It is a characteristic of a type of capacity (pertaining to non-dual awareness) theTibetan term for which is translated as 'Clarity', itself carrying a depth of meaning. This capacity of and for 'Clarity' is said to increase and deepen as one's practice of non-dual awareness deepens and becomes more stable and one is more and more able to integrate experiences and circumstances into one's ….. Being? (uncertain which term or word may or may not be aceptable here!)

So, as I relate to it, one can without contradiction be 'deeply agnostic' whilst being informed and guided by this 'knowing', at whatever level and in whatever manner it occurs. At the same time one can, with an open mind, choose to provisionally adopt methods and practices, given by an experienced guide, which received wisdom purports can or will increase various capacities and aid further development, in the time-honoured fashion of testing one or more injunctions, all without having to rely on 'consolatory illusions' as Stephen Batchelor puts it, and without this preventing one from being “… more spiritually present, more alive to reality, more
appreciative of the preciousness of love and the torment of suffering,
more commited to living actually in the hugely improbable mystery of
human consciousness and feeling…” as you put it, Julian.

Before I go I'd like to ask you, Julian, whether you accept that your statements “that there is not anyone anywhere who actually knows what happens after death and there never has been” and “(that there are) unprovable bliefs or “faith” about that which no-one actually knows anything” are in line with an agnostic position, and ask on what basis you assert that there is an “extraordinarily high probability that death is quite simply permanent sleep”.

Best to all,

Lol

Re: Spiritual Atheism

beautifully put ma rig pa.

thank you.

ummm yes i do agree that those are agnostic type statements.

and: we have almost zero solid evidence that death is anything but the end of conscious experiencing - much like (we imagine ) going to sleep and never waking up - with the obvious exception that there is no dreaming - because there is no dreamer…

everything we know in any verifiable way says that consciousness is entirely dependent on body and brain and that when these die consciiousness is over.

Re: Spiritual Atheism

Hey, Julian

It's so nice not to be imagining / projecting any more that you're shouting (he murmurred) ….. haven't for quite some time actually ….. and I never for a minute imagined you were ever shouting at me! ….. just shouting : )

I have a healthy respect for verifiable evidence, and I'm open to forms of verification other than those carried out in hospitals etc.

There are supposedly many documented cases of Tibetan lamas sitting upright unaided in meditation posture for days after being considered dead, and then when, from their tradition's perspective at least, their subtle consciousness moves on, the body slumps.

A recentish example (1983) was when a well known lama, Lama Thubten Yeshe, died in hospital in the States, may have been San Francisco, I'll  check up on it. Anyway he'd been very ill and was hoooked up to all sorts of machines and monitors. Just before he died he told his main student, Lama Zopa Rinpoche, that it was that sort of time, and asked to be helped into the sitting position. He is reported to have sat upright unaided for I think two days after the monitors confirmed clinical death, after which time his body suddenly slumped. So the report I heard claimed.

Having said all this, I've never checked to see if any cases, including his, were verified by reliable unbiased official witnesses, medical or otherwise. So, if I can't come up with some sort of acceptable accounts, whether from the internet or elsewhere, I'll eat my virtual hat!!

At the same time I'll research for officially verified accounts of great yogis 'disappearing' into  the body of light or rainbow body at the time of death … usually just leaving hair and nails, according to the accounts. A famous Bonpo lama, Shardza Rinpoche, is supposed to have had his rainbow body witnessed by the authorities ….. also at least one meditator in Tibet was reported having his 'rainbow body' death officially verified by the Chinese authorities post the Chinese occupation. Will do my best to dig out accounts of that.

Clearly it goes without saying that none of this will cut the mustard unless I (or anyone else out there!) can come up with something acceptable.

Best to you,

Lol

Re: Spiritual Atheism

now you're showing your cards dude :O)

rainbow body?
disappearing into light?

i'll smoke yer fookin' hat if you can prove these things!! :O)

anecdotal evidence of the paranormal plus 2 bucks will might buy you a cup of decent coffee my friend, but you'll need extra for the almond croissant.

i like this story of the lama sitting in meditation for two days after medically dead.

let's say it's 100% true.

OK.

what does this actually prove that can't be explained in terms of this being a position his body and mind spent a huge amount of time in while he was alive and that when he sat with firm intention focused on “dying the right way” his system held that posture?

it could also be that yes there are still subcoinscious (or maybe quite conscious but subclinical) things hapening in the body and the mind for a while - and then it is completely dead. this proves nothing about moving on or there being somewhere to move on to - we are in circular argument territory here…

i would be fascinated and excited to see any plausible proof of these things. bring it baby!

i'll look for some really big rolling papers in the meantime. :O)

oh - and it's a bit of bummer that being commited to rigor and distinction making comes across as shouting……what can i do differently?

isnt this like the badass intellectual theory wing of the integral set on the spiritual world changers website? lol

btw i have loved the dialog here fo the last few weeks - thanks!

Re: Spiritual Atheism

Wilber discusses atheism and agnosticism briefly (perhaps too briefly) in Integral Spirituality.  I think some of the things he says are relevant to our recent discussion, so I'll summarize them here.

Are you familiar with his arguments about the orange “pressure cooker lid” and the Level/Line Fallacy?  Essentially, he argues that with the differentiation of the Big Three (Art, Morals, Science), modern Western culture mistook a particular level of religion for the entire spiritual line itself, and thus rejected it almost altogether (essentially reducing the Big Four, which would include a healthy form of Spirituality, to the Big Three).  Thus, while art, morals, and science were able to develop and flourish in their own ways within Orange culture, religion generally was repressed – and this was helped by mythic fixation on the part of many religionists, who equally resisted the “secularization” of society.

According to Wilber, the “positions” of atheism and agnosticism, in those instances that they are arrived at through formal operational thinking, are essentially manifestations of Orange spiritual intelligence.  But because of the Level/Line Fallacy (LLF), the spiritual dimensions of these insights have not been properly appreciated, and an unfortunate rift between secular and religious thought has been preserved (with the former mistaking the latter as a purely mythical affair).

This split is also described as the “pressure cooker lid,” because Orange culture (say, in academia) frequently has no room for a spiritual line of intelligence to develop and grow; anything “spiritual” is consigned to prerationality and outmoded mythical modes of cognition. 

Wilber suggests that pressure may be relieved by simultaenously relaxing the repressive tendencies of Orange and the “fixating” tendencies of Blue, opening a channel for the spiritual Line to resume its flow through Western culture (in a way that does not fragment it off from the central Orange and post-Orange channels).

Wilber's analysis makes sense to me.  I believe our cultural situation is more complex than this, and there have been various pockets of Orange and Green spirituality developing for a number of decades, but I think Wilber is at least describing one important section of our cultural landscape.

With Wilber, Batchelor, and Julian, I see the need for the development of a “spiritual atheism” or “deep agnosticism” that is consonant with major trends and developments in Western thought, but which infuses spiritual “breath” and blood back into its capillaries. 

This is already happening, of course, but it is a movement that is still finding its way.

Where I see it having difficulties, so far, is in the perpetuation of forms of the LLF.  For instance, confusing “faith” as a whole with its particular Blue manifestation.  This sets up a counter-productive antagonism, in my view, and overlooks or fails to recognize deeper forms of faith that are operative within the “new atheist” or “deep agnostic” movement.

I have more general thoughts along these lines, but I'll stop here for now.  My son needs some help drawing a fish!

Warm wishes,

Balder

P.S.  I confess that I do share Lol's openness to such phenomena as jalu or “rainbow body,” though I remain somewhat “agnostic” about them – and likely will till I witness them for myself.

Re: Spiritual Atheism

yes i love that part of IS.

i agree with it.

of course the corollorary to the LLF of confusing the spiritual line with blue mythic faith is the green new age LLF of confusing pre rational myth and magic with higher levels of the spiritual line.

again my point stands that the fundamental problem is a rational one and it has to do with differentiating pre and trans rational versions of spirituality.

mythic belief, superstition and failures to understand the difference between literal reality and symbol are prerarational. no amount of wishful thinking about deep faith will make this different. no amount of green relativism or tolerance or loyalty to the possibility of magic and myth being literal or of very special monks from other exotically ancient cool cultures  meditating hard enough to literally become archetypes that transcend the laws of physics and reason just because we have a childlike longing to live in a world where anything is possible will change this!

you make my point for me balder both in your quoting of wilber and selection of this section about the importance of differentiating mythic literalism from transrational spirituality and in your acknowledgement of a fondness for the kind of fantasy spiritual reality that ma rig pa is referring to….

the point is that differentiating pre from trans through the use of the rational gaze and through the liberartion via practice from reliance on regressive faith is not an embrace of mythic literalism but a refinement and transcendence of it - while recognizing and including the symbolic meaning that was unavailable to the earlier structure, yes?

this is not the position of a dry rationalist empirical anti-spiritualist - i am deeply invested in yoga, meditation, tantra, ecstatic dance, breathwork, energetic healing, emotional process, creativity etc and had a serious intentional psychedelic path for some years -  this is the position of someone who wants to intelligently integrate east and west. mind and body, the spiritual and the intellectual, ancient and contemporary, and consequently is very interested in where that is breaking down in our current zeitgeist.

Re: Spiritual Atheism

in our wandering but interwoven three threads here on enlightenment, the myth of the given and spiritual atheism i thought to direct y'all - any who are interested that is - in the direction of a blog post of mine called The Spiritual Psyche's Shadow: Guru's, Cults and Aliens.

this goes into some detail about some of the history of the trouble related to  the myth of the given, idealizing of the exotic, and fasination with enligtenment and those who claim it…

i am sure many of you are familiar with some of this stuff - but check it out, it's a really fun and informative read and mentions everyone from ramtha to jim jones to adi da to sai baba to maharaj ji to the heaven's gate suicides - all with multiple video links.

may we not be doomed to repeat the past.

~julian

Re: Spiritual Atheism

Hi, Julian,

I agree with you that it is important to be able to distinguish “literal reality” and symbol, and that pre-rational individuals and religious cultures are not really capable of doing this, simply because of the structural limits imposed by their level of cognitive development.  But if you lump all spiritual traditions into the same basket and do not differentiate between something like Ati Yoga in Tibetan tradition and the crystal-rubbing alien-worshippers of Sedona (where I used to live, by the way), then I think you are not living up to your stated ideal of being clear-eyed and discerning.

To be open to the possibility that a phenomenon such as jalu is real is not, per se, pre-rational.  There is nothing inherently irrational about being open to the possibility that the mind and body, in deep coordination and with penetrating insight, may be capable of accomplishing things that are inexplicable in our current (largely materialist) paradigm. 

That would be a pre-rational belief if the individual holding it did so merely for emotional reasons, for instance, suspending critical thinking in this one domain out of a need to hold onto some magical talisman.  In my opinion, it is actually irrational if such claims are rejected automatically and dogmatically, and are uncritically lumped together with belief in Santa Claus.

There is a kind of disconcerting condenscension in this position, perhaps because it fails to recognize the sophisitication that exists in other cultural perspectives.  I have worked with teachers, for instance, in vajrayana traditions who are quite familiar with modern scientific perspectives, and who have a very sophisticated understanding of the symbolic and are able to differentiate it from “literal reality” – but who are also capable of pointing out the symbolic, even somewhat mythic (metaphysical) nature of such modern constructs as “hard, literal reality.” 

I'm out of time this morning, again, so I have to go. 

Best wishes,

Balder

Re: Spiritual Atheism

Thanks Balder. You have eloquently put into words much of my discomfort. I think we can readily recognise the the reflexive atheism of a child or teenager who has just rebelled against his parent's religion isn't at the same level of a Hawkins, for instance. So to think of all religion as being on the same level regardless is extremely simplistic… I don't know enough about integral theory but i think there must be ways of being religious at all the levels, right, that don't necessarily limit one?

Love,

Nicole

Re: Spiritual Atheism

i hear you guys. i respect the pluralistic desire to be open to otther cultures. i respect the humble intention to not put down any culture from a western rationalist bias. most of all i respect the longing we all have for novelty, magic and mystery.

i really appreciate the space to express and explore these ideas. as you can tell i have a lot to say.

i think i may be straining the limits of the group tolerance for strong point by point opining so perhaps i will chill out after this post.

at the same time i think this is juicy and important stuff - so here goes! :O)

do you see my point though?

it goes something like this.

we in the counterculture alternative spirituality world would largely agree that jesus was not born of a virgin and that the story of the angel of death passing over the houses that had lambs blood daubed on the door frame  is a myth that should be read symbolically.

it is also likely that we don't take seriously the idea that mohammed received the koran directly from the mouth of the angel gabriel in a cave and that every word of it is therefore literally divine.

but in our somewhat naive idealization of cultures other than our judaeochristian roots we tend to be less rational in our assesment of what is mythic symbol and what is literally real or possibly real in their stories.

just because there are very intelligent people from very sophisticated cultures that still carry a connection to ancient premodern beliefs doesnt mean that those ancient premodern literalized mythic symbols are somehow transrational. does it?

just because these sophisticated cultures have wonderful practices that are capable of transforming consciousness in important and useful ways doesnt mean that we should suspend rational evaluations of exotic mythic ideas that are analogous with the more familiar ideas i referred to above. does it?

i am confused by this “might be real” stance.

jesus might also have been born of a virgin and j.z. knight might also be channeling a 3500 year old warrior king from a place called lemuria. the current dalai lama might be the 13th reincarnation of the same soul. tibetan lamas might be literally able to reveal their rainbow body at death thus confirming the literal truth of a set of metaphysical ideas. native american shamans might be able to literally shape shift into different animals. the buddha might have been born from his mothers side and taken 7 steps in each direction before proclaiming “heavens above earth below there has never been such a one as me!” 2012 might also be the end of the world as we know it if the mayans and terrence mckennas psilocybin visions are corrrect. the whole universe might be the dream of vishnu from whose bellybutton grows a lotus flower that brahma is sitting on in meditation posture. astrology might actually be a good way to determine wether or not today is a good day to invest in feng shui futures. (if there was such a thing…there might be - who knows? :O)

but these are all mythis statements. none of them should not be taken literally.

it sounds like you are objecting to me “lumping” all literalized mythic metaphysical beliefs into the same category.

i suggest that the grounds for this objection is precisely the idealization of east over west that i am describing.

why else would eastern mythic contructs some how seem more likely than western/middle eastern?

part of this comes from our conflict over ratiionality. the turning toward the east is part of our romantic attempt to rediscover the magic and the mythic in an exotic form that is different than our obviously flawed tradtions. now of course there are actually several powerfully important aspects of the eastern approach that i am all for investigating deeply and integrating into a contemporary approach.

embracing magic and mythic beliefs from the east would not be part of that.

there is an intertwining of our multiculturalism with our romantic regressive backlash against the dissociated rational with our sometimes regressive and sometimes progressive desire to find deep spiritual meaning. i am attempting to differentiate these strands.

we “might be” able to overcome the laws of physics (or our current understanding of the body and mind) through eastern practices? and i am expecting a vrigin birth any day now that the prophesied messiah is imminent….

now i know about swami rama and the tibetan monks who can affect varous bodily functions in ways we find impossible - this is so powerful and such a testimony to the possibilities of meditative awareness - but it is a big leap from that to uncritically accepting their metaphysical beliefs or that anecdotal unevidenced accounts of various magical occurences at death might be real. did you hear about the woman who saw the virgin of guadalupe in a blob of chocolate where she worked a couple months ago? (true story.) a lot fo people got very excited. it's “proof,” you see.

(i keep comparing the two because i anticipate you guys finding the judaeochristian mythic literalism ridiculous, but not the hindubuddhist. if you can give me good reasons that these comparisons of mythic/magic material are invlaid i am all ears…)

i think we are caught here in the fantasy of the superhuman hero a la neo in the first matrix movie - who combines the middle eastern messiah with the eastern meditative adept, a comic book hero's abilities and a counterculture liberation from authoritarian slavery, the martial arts master with the computer game cyberpunk…this composite archetype really caught the imagination of  our time - especially in spiritual circles.

this is a mythic construct which wilber and cornell west discuss as being radically deconstructed in the following two movies - which of course weren't as popular or as understood.

bottom line. no one has real magic powers. no one knows what happens after death. no one has ever seen literal proof of any eastern or western mythic construct - they are symbolic and do not refer to literal reality. no human being will ever be transformed into an archetype through agtic spell, mythic belief,, or radical trans rational awakening. because human beings becoming archetypes is a category error and no metaphysics will ever change this.

as condescending as it may sound (and i do apologize if i am being a total prick here) can we acknowledge that there is a regressive tendency to idealize the east and that part of that has shown up as a less rational analysis of their mythic and magic contructs as well as a less critical eye toward their holy man gurus who have over the last 4 decades shown themselves to be human all too human?

i know this is not popular, but for me any meanningful defintion of transrational spirituality begins with the recognition that there is not any magic of mythic material from any culture on the planet that is literallly real. it begins on the other side of the existential realization that the search for the mythic god and the magic talisman is a dead end. it begins with simple rational cognition and inquiry based practice that is not about superstitious belief/fantasy.

what makes you uncomfortable with that?

why the need to believe that unproven unreasonable assertions might be true?

how is this inclusive of rationality in a way that trans rational should imply?

my definition:

prerational mythic and magic beliefs are at odds with rationality.

transrational spirituality is inclusive of, embraces, and is guided by rationality in it's interpretation of psychospiritual experiences.

the rational gaze is not the enemy of spirituality  per se, but it will debunk prerational constructs to get us closer to truth.

the LLF here is one in which we confuse the higher developmental stages of the spiritual line with magic and mythic material from other cultures because we think their exotic nature combined with the very real transrational possibilities of the practices that coexist with them somehow exempt them from rational analysis.

there is a tendency to lump all things eastern into the transrational category.

i think this is a mistake.

pre/trans fallacy - and if you think i am doing it in reverse i am open to hearing why.

thanks
~j

Re: Spiritual Atheism

Julian,
First of all, I hope you don't chill out here…..I really want to stay with this conversation, not to 'argue' any particular view point because I am not personally invested in any of them, but because I want to keep looking at the landscape.
There are things that 'appear' magic to me—-Carolyn Myss, the medical intuitive, who diagnoses people with minimal information over distances, with some remarkable degree of accuracy(so I am told).  The shamanic communication of the Innu that I referred to early, this appears 'magic'.  How the elephants find the grave yard, and how the salmon know  to return to the same place to spawn…..all of it appears magic, to me.  It may be that we need to keep looking with a refined view to 'see' the cause and effect' connections, or the 'resonance' that allows this kind of connectivity, and communication….so we may be able to either debunk or explain these 'phenomenon' later with more information….but right now they look magic….

But more than that too.  I have had an number of remarkable co-incidences in my life….. moments of 'synchro-destiny' , if you will, that have surprised me and stopped me short….. Granted, they are nothing that I would hang my hat on happening on cue, or because I really wanted them too…but they have stopped me short and been breathtaking…..akin to having my name, unexpectedly, called in the wilderness…..moments when I have to conceed that the universe is conspiring on my behalf……it is the only explanation that I can come up with……and I know that even admitting this puts me into shaky potentially psychotic territory…..and believe me, I don't want to go there…..but I also need to be true to my experience.

I read Stan Groff's book, The Stormy Search for the Self, and I was really interested in a common theme, where people in the throes of a 'spiritual emergency' often had similar experiences of 'synchronicity' (objectively verifiable)…..places with the landscape seems to clarify thus exposing the 'underlying order of things', the scaffolding upon which we build our assumptions and theories…. and this happened in a non-causal way…..  miraculous.  I have experienced miracles…..miracles that have blown my socks off…..that have left me in the deepest most awesome spacious mystery…… and miracles that I have no delusion of having performed at all myself…  they were gifts from beyond my limited sense of self…..and they shattered the bubble of my perception, in an instant.

On another tangent, I have also been blown away by the exquisite math of the universe….(I have written about this in other places)….sometimes the miracle of Pi strikes me with utter amazement….imagine that there is the neat and tidiness of a simply fraction 22/7 that is the constant between the circumference and radius of a circle.  This strikes me as simply astounding.  (why not some big messy obscur number lost in the infinity of other fractions.  Why one where there is even some reasonable chance at discovering it with rudimentary number skills!?) The tidiness of other equations, E=mc2 for instance,blows me away. I am blown away by this elegance far  more than all of the 'magical' shennanigans of the snakeoil sales men  as they merrily dupe the rubes(even if I am one sometimes) ever could!…..  the miracle of this universe is just utterly astounding…..Like, How can it even be?!  How do we get something from nothing?!  Have you ever really looked at your hand?!  Imagine that I can move it or not move it!?  Forget about all the phoney baloney magic in the world—how does it work that I can move my hand, or NOT!?  What is intention?  How is it that I can change my mind? or that I can think these thoughts, or that I can open these eyes and look out on this beautiful day, and the frozen lake and my gorgeous dog bounding through the snow after my boys?!  How is THIS possible?  And what of that gorgeous red pinegross beak that just landed at my feeder, and look at those trees!……All of it…..

And further, What is it that keeps us caught in some constipated, blinkered, frightened form, instead of blown open each moment in rapture and ecstacy?–Indeed, this is a miracle too(perhaps an unfortunate one, but really a miracle all the same)  It is the Open Secret perhaps that keeps the radiance contained in such a way that time and space expand into being and we are caught in the great forgetting, and then, if lucky, we are latter brought to our knees as we again re-member(integrate) the spirit and body………. 

And  all this digression about death!  Who cares about death?  We are such a bunch of simpletons when it comes to our limitations…..”Live, live, live….Life is a banquet and most of you suckers are starving to death!”   We will spend a long time learning about death, or NOT as the case may be, when it arrives……..this we know with some evidence: Life is short, death is long…..

Anyway, I am sleep deprived right now…..but if I had an orchestra right now, I would make it play Beethoven's 9th. symphony…….. and later tonight, I might go and lie on the lake and look at the north lights dance…..What more can there ever be that this! Or as ee cummings wrote:
“oh thank you god for most this amazing day!…
For the leaping greenlie spirits of trees,
for the Blue true dream of sky,
For everything which is natural
Which is infinite,
Which is YES!” 
 

Re: Spiritual Atheism

again jane this is quite beautiful.

i would make athe wilberian distinction between peak experiences and how we interpret those experiences.

peak experiences are available to alll human beings regardless of age an/or cognitive or psychological level of development.

HOWEVER - how they interpret the peak experience once they are again in the steady state will be ENTIRLEY a reflection of their present level of development.

isnt this fascinating? it means that a similar altered state/spiritual opening can beexperienced by people at all three broad levels of development - but it will be interpreted as proof of preational beliefs, rational beliefs or transrational beliefs depending on the person!

it is important to bear in mind that emotionally convincing experiences don't necessarily imply absolute truth.

this leads nicely into the new thread on pre and trans…

see you there
~j

ever taken any drugs?

Re: Spiritual Atheism

Hi, Julian,

Perhaps you are used to trying people's patience with your passion and your strong opinion, but just speaking for myself, I have not felt “strained” by your “strong point by point opining,” and you're welcome to keep it up if you're so inclined.  I can keep up, and I enjoy it – though I get frustrated when, like today, I'm rather busy and don't have all the time I'd like to respond.  I should have time this evening, and I will write to you then.

Best wishes,

Balder

Re: Spiritual Atheism

Julian, I’m really enjoying what I’ve been reading lately from all sides of this thread and I hope it continues… I think Balders second last installment was a big help for everyone.

At times it sounds like you’re trying to abolish certain studies because majority of the consciousness that revolves around them is pre-rational.

Astrology for example is the alleged influence of the stars, planets, and moon on human affairs. If the colour of a room can influence a person in subtle ways than why is it
nonsensical to think of an energy mass the size of a planet as having an influential bearing on us?

Is it nonsensical to assume that it’s highly probable for aliens to exist at higher levels of understanding than our own when there’s an estimated 70 sextillion stars in the visible universe?

You can’t kill pre-rational myth, but you can tackle the dysfunction within a pre-rational value system. I ultimately believe that is what you’re trying to do, but I haven’t been resonating with many of the distinctions you’ve been putting forth. I am however finding the common ground in the way we see things, which is a hell of a lot more than before.

Re: Spiritual Atheism

glad you are finding common  ground seth!

correction: i am not advocating the abolishment of any field of study.

agreement: you can tackle prerational dysfunction.

as regards astrology and aliens, the speculations you offer are interesting. there is zero science that backs up astrology, in fact the most extensive study ever done, designed by prominent astrologers themselves came up very very poorly for any correlation whatsoever.

we have zero evidence of alien life forms - of course they may still be out there, but this does not mean we should believe they are until we know for sure.

the choice to believe without evidence, and even with evidence to the contrary is a kind of prerational mythic faith.

i have started a new thread to clarify the diferences between preratrional and transrational sprirituality - see you over there!

Re: Spiritual Atheism

Yes, I listened to kosmic consciousness and know all about the case Wilber holds against astrology, assuming that is where you’ve heard your claims (probably not). Personally I would like to look at the actual studies performed, so if you know how I can get my hands on them, please, hook me up. The examples Ken gave were lame at best.

Surely I don’t have to prove that energy influences energy, because that’s all I have to do at this point for my case to stand and your case to fall. I need to see your evidence proving that the energy mass of a planet can’t have any influence on the dynamics of a human, whether the reason is that our physical distance is too far or whatever. If you want to extend your energy in helping my understanding I’ll do the same for you, if not I’m sure we are both at peace in our own level of openness.

I don’t know if you’ve actually said the notion of aliens is nonsensical or not, but showing a probability to the extent that I just did is enough to prove that it’s irrational to dispose of the possibility of their existence. Yes, it also proves that it is irrational to be firm in the idea that they existence.

Re: Spiritual Atheism

Nicole wrote: “I don't know enough about integral theory but i think there must be ways of being religious at all the levels, right, that don't necessarily limit one?”

Yes – I believe that there are. And apparently the peeps at I-I do also, as can be seen by the titles of some of their recent and upcoming workshops: Integral Christianity, Integral Buddhism, and so on …  There is talk of religion at the blue, orange, green, turquoise, indigo altitudes. I've just started listening to the talks that Br. David Steindl-Rast and Fr. Thomas Keating gave at last October's Integral Christianity conference – wonderful insights about the need for relgious traditions and institutions, which enable the wisdom and the powerful stories of a lineage to be passed on to ensuing generations – coupled with a recognition of the need to transcend the inherent limitations and deep flaws of these traditions as one evolves spiritually.  I was also intrigued by what they said about leadership and guidance, in response to someone's question on where would we find the leaders who would take the church beyond blue? They suggested that genuine guidance would currently most likely be found outside of the institutions, or on the margins of it, and not from someone representing the institution itself.

You people write too fast for me! And now I gotta get going …!

Re: Spiritual Atheism

Dangit, I meant my previous post to reply to Nicole's post further above, but somehow it posted here. Oh, well …

Re: Spiritual Atheism

I bow in gratitude to all of you, most especially Jane, Balder, Julian, and Mary. This is a brilliant discussion; I find it challenging and tremendously moving.

I must respond in brief and remain primarily an observer due to limitations in energy, but I wanted to thank everyone for their willingness to contribute to this thread. To the quieter contributors – Nicole, Lol, Seth – I appreciate your comments deeply,and your attentive and thoughtful presence.

I would not have replied if Jane had not just quoted one of my favorite e.e.cummings poems, and if my first thought this morning, sitting up in bed, had not been “I thank you God for most this amazing day, for the leaping greenly spirits of trees…”

How lovely is it that on this day I feel a shared awareness of this poem of gratitude and celebration, and relate to what it expresses, feel its resonance, and know another is doing the same (right now perhaps) and take comfort in connection because of that?! Isn't that wonderful? Not magical, but better.


Julian, you said,
“i know this is not popular, but for me any meanningful defintion of transrational spirituality begins with the recognition that there is not any magic of mythic material from any culture on the planet that is literallly real. it begins on the other side of the existential realization that the search for the mythic god and the magic talisman is a dead end. it begins with simple rational cognition and inquiry based practice that is not about superstitious belief/fantasy.
what makes you uncomfortable with that?”


What makes me uncomfortable with that is that it's all wrapped up. End of story. I don't see in this position acknowledgement of what is not yet known, and what is not knowable. While I agree that “there is not any magic (or) mythic material from any culture on the planet that is literallly real” I don't know how anyone could have sufficient perspective and knowledge to determine that all claims of “magic” are in fact prerational magic/mythic-level beliefs. Not without sufficient evidence in every single case.

As much as human beings seem to have a deep need or tendency to “believe”, we also seem to have a deep need or tendency to reject what seems unlikely or impossible to us. And to do so with utter certainty. I suspect that the need to believe (without evidence or in dismissal of evidence) creates more suffering than the compulsion for certainty (with support of evidence), but I believe the compulsion for certainty is an enemy of Awareness. And thus creates and perpetuates suffering.



“why the need to believe that unproven unreasonable assertions might be true?”

Because some things that once seemed absolutely unreasonable have turned out to be true.


“how is this inclusive of rationality in a way that trans rational should imply?”
I love this question! Every thing that defies rationality does not necessarily deny it. Every once in awhile, some high improbability actually evidences itself. A mind that (thinks it) knows everything already is a mind subject to irrational tendencies. I do not believe that all transrational spirituality begins only with “simple rational cognition and inquiry based practice”. I think Jane's eloquent testimony to the holiness (my word) that she experiences daily in witnessing and experiencing the apparently mundane expresses this far better than anything I could say.

How does one make the distinction between what constitutes superstitious belief/fantasy and what simply seems ridiculously implausible to you?  As far as I'm concerned it is irrational to absolutely insist on plausibility and dismiss the implausible without complete and sufficient evidence. I believe Dawkins builds the theory in his current book on the assertion that the existence of God is utterly implausible (though I only am basing this on what I remember of an article I read in the NYT Book Review many weeks back, so if I am mistaken let me know…) Why is that considered sufficient evidence? Why is the choice to not-believe without evidence different than the choice to believe without evidence?
Isn't Pi, as Jane pointed out, absurdly implausible? To decide that you can know what you cannot know absolutely – to me that seems downright unscientific. And worse, it deprives one of the pleasures of awe and wonder, and the capacity to enjoy the mystery, the dignity of true humility, and the blessings of pure unfragmented awareness.

With greatest respect and best wishes,
Lauren

Re: Spiritual Atheism

Wonderful, Lauren, beautiful beautiful beautiful.

You've addressed some of the very points I've been grousing at & to myself about, partly because I just haven't had the time to keep up  ……  and you've articulated your responses to them with such elegance, such grace.

A thousand heartfelt thanks, you're an inspiration.

Wish I had more time to finish another post, something to do with eating a hat,  but it'll have to wait. Got to get to bed.

Re: Spiritual Atheism

Lauren – ditto to what Ma Rig Pa said. I'm delighting in your eloquence!

Re: Spiritual Atheism

hey lauren - you posted this right after i got a lot more busy and so i hadnt responded.

ma rig pa (or Lol ) called me out on avoiding some of your challenges over on the pre/trans thread that i started after this one - so i responded there to what he thought was important.

i liked the attitude of your post, but you will see that the two main things Lol thought i was avoiding struck me actually as logical fallacies and not particularly good arguments.

i didn't say so right away, because i thought it would be more skillfuil to invite you to say more on the topic over there.

an invitation which i extend again, as i would love to hear some more voices actually offering their ideas about the differences between pre and trans rational spirituality.

i hope this finds you well
~julian

Re: Spiritual Atheism

Coolness – great stuff, y'all.

Julian, I just saw (and skimmed) your new thread, and will probably migrate over there as well (what a bunch of thread-breeding bunnies we are), but for now I'll respond to your last letter here.

First off, I do see your point, and I think it is a good one:  In the West, mystically inclined spiritual seekers often give more of a “pass” to Eastern religions than they do to Western religions, not holding all their claims to the same standards of validation and so on.  I think this is true in many instances.  But obviously it is not universally true, and I would argue that not all “far out” claims made by mystics (East or West) are necessarily the products of prerational fantasy, or premodern interpretations of “merely psychological” or “purely coincidental” events.

You said I was objecting to your tendency to lump all prerational myths into one category, but of course I was not doing that at all.  I agree that the prerational elements of every religion are on par with each other, by definition, and it is fair to treat them as such.  Where we appear to differ is in our interpretation of just what qualifies as mythic and prerational (hence your new thread).

In expressing openness to mystical, currently inexplicable phenomena (such as jalu), I don't think Lol or I (or anyone else here who has experienced events which stretch or punch holes in our neat little worldviews) are suggesting, in the least, that we should surrender our rational faculties and just accept these things blindly.  I am well aware of the many mythical elements of Buddhism, for instance, and I am no more ready to give them uncritical, unreasoning acceptance than I am to accept that Genesis is literally true, just because the Bible says so or it has the weight of traditional authority or whatever.

When I say that I am open to something like jalu, or certain other “paranormal” phenomena described by spiritual texts or practitioners, I mean that I believe these particular claims merit further investigation.  I have experienced a number of amazing events in my own life, as have others here, and this personal history does predispose me to keeping an open mind about things.  I am not ready to declare what is impossible in this universe, though I can use rationality to build a case for what is likely and what is unlikely, based on my current level of understanding, and I can peer “into” concrete stories to mine them for spiritual and psychological import.  In the case of various religious hagiogrphies, it is pretty easy to recognize which elements are mythical, and to draw benefit from them on other (more symbolic) levels without having to insist on their literal truth.  I can derive this sort of symbolic nourishment from the story of Genesis, for instance, or the story of Padmasambhava's conquest of Tibet, and I'm satisfied with that.

But the fact that religious traditions, classically, are great repositories of myth does not rationally require me to interpret all “far out” claims on this level, or to dismiss any discussion of events which defy our current causal explanations as childish wishful thinking.  Am I willing to consider that jalu is just a myth?  Certainly.  It may very well be.  But in this case, and in some others – based on my meditative experiences, my studies, and my rational and philosophical reflections, the testimonies of individuals I consider reliable, and so on – I am willing to keep an open mind, and to keep the door open to further inquiry and investigation, and I do not consider this position to be at all regressive or infantile.

In fact, to universally dismiss all paranormal accounts as “obviously mythical” strikes me as an irrational position, ultimately, because it is adopting a rigid and unyielding perspective when our history has shown us, again and again, that our certainties and our “givens” are neither certain nor given.

Best wishes,

Balder

P.S. I am thinking of two things I didn't cover here:  1) an exploration of the LLF, which I think the new atheists are committing in some instances; and 2) discussion of personal experiences which have predisposed us to holding an open mind toward certain paranormal claims (if indeed we are open to such things).  Perhaps we can explore either of those things later on in this thread, or in your new one.

Re: Spiritual Atheism

Thanks Bruce!! You’re very clear at saying what I’m trying to convey.

Honestly, it can be a little frustrating to have something valuable to say and not finding the proper words, grammar or speed to express the essence in time.

I’m working on it!

Seth

Re: Spiritual Atheism

Hi excellent pod people,

debunking? Great. Let’s go all the way. As others have pointed out, so far, even our most vociferous debunker has not been radical enough in his approach to the noble path of eliminating make-believe.

Assertion: bottom line. no one has real magic powers.

Question: How do you know that? Seriously.

A: no one knows what happens after death.

Q: How do you know that? Have you some magical insight into everyone who ever existed and ascertained what they know or don’t know? Which leads to another question: Who are you?

A: no one has ever seen literal proof of any eastern or western mythic construct - they are symbolic and do not refer to literal reality.

Q: Again, how do you know that - or anything else for that matter?

Prophecy: Cocksure comes before a debunk. Possibly because it hits its head on a bunk bed, but experts aren’t certain yet.

More later, maybe…

Heee

Re: Spiritual Atheism

yeah thats the spirit! :O)

ummmm mascha i don't really see your point. if there was any verifiable proof of what happens after death it would be widely known, like all other things are provably real. now of course there are (per the integral model) several different kinds of scientific methodd and several different kinds of proof. the things i have been debunking do not imo meet believably any of these criteria.

considering that this question is central in many ways to the human condition - there are many many theories and beliefs about what happens after death - none of which are proven.

as such no-one knows what happens after death and it appears most likely that nothing at all happens based on the data.

the position you are taking - while humorous - is kinda empty.

debunking things doesnt mean questioning everything in a ridiculous blanket fashion, it means seriously asking questions about the nature of knowledge, experience, faith and evidence.

i have spent some time in the last three threads going into considerable depth about the criteria i think are useful in applying ideas like the myth of the given to spirituality and it's popular ideas like enlightenement etc…

if you are seriously suggesting that we keep the door open that maybe archetypal saviors literally take human form and are ocassionaly born of virgins and later rise from the dead….well ok, but in integral land i think we have a fair idea that this is a mythic level amber/blue worldview that we are interested in moving beyond yes?

but i wonder perhaps if something else is at pllay here - maybe my questioning of mythic literalism sounds bothers you for some reason? i am open to hearing it if so…

my questions for you -

a) do you recognize and make any distinctions between prerational and transrational worldviews/spirituality?

b) and have you read wilber's pre/trans fallacy essay?

i would enjoy chatting more with you about this in the new thread.

peace
~j

Re: Spiritual Atheism

Hello Julian,

ah, you’re being a good sport :-D) First off, I’m replying here only to keep some continuity. It gets a bit confusing if we have to repeat points in another thread. You know, I didn’t even see your reply to my above post until the next day because this feature, where new replies show up in the middle of threads, is a novelty for me.

Now I wonder - perhaps you did see my point after all? The following sentence may indicate an opening towards extending the inquiry far enough to also include the subject, thus questioning what, if anything, can be known as an objective reality separate from the perceiving subject. To illustrate, I’ve underlined the second half of a sentence where you have graciously modified your language so as to leave room for something you might acknowledge as scientifically valid: good ole Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle:

“as such no-one knows what happens after death and it appears most likely that nothing at all happens based on the data.”

My answer to your questions a) and b) is yes. Though I don’t keep much of what Wilber says in mind after I’ve read it, I’m so intrigued with my own authority, however faulty and bungling it may still be.

Finally, what bothers me at times is what I view as the standard mix of “reddish-orange” dogmatism inherent in some of your repeated claims; the dismissive vengefulness and ridicule apparent in the tone; and the indiscriminate lumping together of pre- and trans-rational phenomena. This combination strikes me as posturing, assuming the position of an ‘ultimate authority’ in search of recruits, admirers, yea-sayers, followers in short - the exact same pitfall you’re railing against. Why this bothers me is very clear: I want to get past that kind of mental positioning in myself. I long for an authenticity that doesn’t need to fight & oppose. Yes, your honor, guilty as charged.

Fact is, I only join conversations such as this anymore because Balder and Jane and - oh, you know who your are, I don’t have to list all your names - because there are people here who can debunk a debunker without much of a personal charge.

Love to all always,

M

Re: Spiritual Atheism

Hey ho, it’s hat eating time ….. I did think it would've been too good to be true ….. can't say I really expected Google to come up with an article starting along the lines of “Chinese government ministry scientists baffled as they witness the unexplainable …”, but as I'd never done a Google search on this topic before, it was incumbent on me to maintain an agnostic position with integrity and at least recognise that I didn't know whether I would or wouldn't find such an article. Ditto on whether the phenomenon alluded to actually can occur or ever has occurred … or not.

The same goes for any documented evidence of meditators sitting upright for however long after *death* has been *certified*, whether or not they are actually in the deepest meditative absorption or exhibiting an advanced case of rigor mortis. The issue at hand here is that I was unable to come up with anything to substantiate the phenomenon actually occurring at all. I did find an online account of Lama Yeshe's last days and death, but it doesn't in any way support the story I remember hearing which was more than likely of the Chinese whisper variety with a dollop of wishful thinking an added ingredient.

So now we come to the business of the day, the eating of my virtual hat as promised. On purely compassionate grounds I can't allow you to smoke it, Julian, because it contains certain ethnogenic substances that are made highly toxic when burnt, but which fortunately are neutralised by an enzyme produced in the digestive process. So here we go ….. munch munch ….. mmmmm, not bad … no bitter taste whatsoever!

On to the next bit of business. In your response re. meditators allegedly sitting upright in meditation after death, you said:

”what does this actually prove that can't be explained in terms of this being a position his body and mind spent a huge amount of time in while he was alive and that when he sat with firm intention focused on “dying the right way” his system held that posture?

it could also be that yes there are still subcoinscious (or maybe quite conscious but subclinical) things hapening in the body and the mind for a while - and then it is completely dead”

I am wholly open to these possibilies ….. and ….. while I don’t expect any Tibetan lama / yogi will arrange to die in that room where the JREF Million Dollar Challenge takes place, I also don’t think that this or any other way of proving / verifying is a primary concern of the type of practitioner I’ve alluded to ….. I don’t require these kinds of things to be believed by anybody, myself included ….. and I remain open to the possibility that the type of content contained in “the testimonies of individuals I consider reliable”, as Balder put it,  might just one day be accidentally or otherwise witnessed and verified in a way that is acceptable to the rational inquirer ….. if this hasn’t occurred already.

I’d now like to give due praise and thanks to the contributors on this thread … and this isn’t confined solely to those mentioned.

First to yourself, Julian … I don’t want this to come across as a back-handed compliment … I want to thank you for all the golden wheat you’ve provided us with.

I’ve sung the praises of Jane, Mary, Lauren and Balder already (although I want to add steadfastness and magnaminity to the list of B.’s qualities I’m grateful for).

Seth, I’ve appreciated your contribution …. there has been talk already about resurrecting an ‘Integral Astrology’ thread – do you want to kick one off?

And last but not least, to Mascha for your use of the rapier while I was still staring impotently at the wooden sword in my hand.

Best to all

Lol

Re: Spiritual Atheism

wow i am awed by the beautiful people here contributing to this thread… if it helps, julian, i too cast my little belated vote not to have you fold up as i enjoy your contributions and your energy, and while we don't always agree, it's too much fun and there are too many more interesting aspects of this rabbit hole for that to be a reason to stop!

mary and lauren, i especially thank you for your recent and light-bearing posts. i just wish i had endless time but have to get to work soon! can't zaadz all night and day :)

love,

nicole

Re: Spiritual Atheism

here is an article from Resurgence Magazine: 
Rediscovering Astrology, by Thomas Moore:

http://www.resurgence.org/resurgence/issues/moore221.htm

When is a mountain ONLY  a mountain? ho hum,  and When is a mountain REALLY a mountain!? ooh ahhh!  and who would know the difference:  It is a bird, it's a plane, no it's, it's, it's…..

I think I will trot over to the pre tran thread…..or better yet, clean the Christmas decorations away, go for a ski, and then see what it all looks like after some fresh air…..

Re: Spiritual Atheism

jane: re the astrology article - pre rational.  :O)

i am totally open to discussing why on the new trhead…

peace out
~j

Re: Spiritual Atheism

Pre rational!  As quick as that!?

Well, Julian, this proves that you are nothing, if not clear  and decisive…..Gotta love a man with a immutable opinion….Can you carry a canoe too?

I will take my article over to the pre/trans….and discuss…..I like Thomas Moore too…..I will not let him go lightly into that dark night….but I am open….

Re: Spiritual Atheism

you're a good man ma rip pa. :O) like a little kethcup with your entheogenic hat?

Re: Spiritual Atheism

Julian, I know you've had a number of posts addressed to you in the past couple days and there's only so much time in a day to keep up with them, but I hope you find time to respond either to Lauren's recent post or my last post to you here.

I've been following the Pre/Trans thread and plan to contribute something there soon, as well.

Best wishes,

Balder

Re: Spiritual Atheism

well mascha, i hear your concern, but i don't agree. in fact i am trying to be as discriminating as possible and the whole thrust is an attempt to differentiate (specifically not lump together) pre from trans. though i am sure we might disagree as to what goes in those categories - hence the new thread - which is precisely about exploring and backing up and making sense of those differences in opinion. i look forward to your input., as it sounds like you have some strong opinions of your own - even if they are strong opinions about not having strong opinions! :O)

yes i have strong ideas and opinions on these matters. i am very happy to have a forum to express them as part of the preparatory and polishing work i am doing on a book.

my apologies if i sound authoritative in a way that irks you, it may just be that i have made my mind up about a great deal of the things i am bringing up for discussion and as an opportunity to refine and clarify my arguments.

i am having a great time doing that and find it incredibly instructive - and having checked in with a few others have found that to my delight though feathers may get ruffled, most are on board and enjoying the ride - evenn if we don't agree on all things..

now, of course, you are free to object to this style, but i bow deeply to you and disagree with your charcterization of it.

what you might see me doing all the way through these four related threads is trying to clarify the meaning of certain technical terms and their application to spirituality. imo this is a good thing.

as part of the integral community i find myself fascinated in nailing down some of these terms that get thrown around kinda vaguely, oftentimes without seeing how they apply to our lives and times…for me the integral operating system, spiral dynamics and the whole process of philosophical inquiry and spiritual practice is all about this level of dialog. and, yes, it is still a dilog if one or more party's are really sure of certain positions they hold. and, no, one doesnt have to be open to being wrong about certain thing if one is willing to back those positions up and have serious (fun) debate about them….until that changes. :O)

i hope this finds you well and as commited to your form of inquiry as i am to mine.

respect
~julian

Re: Spiritual Atheism

hey balder - i will not abandon this thread, but will come back when i have a chance to get into the responses you are pointing out….thanks for the reminder!

Re: Spiritual Atheism

hey balder and lauren in particular, and everyone else too!

first i want to suggest two extraordinary books about truma and healing: waking the tiger by peter levine and most especially: the inner world of trauma by donald kalsched.

at the risk of sounding like a pompous ass :O) let's all read the pre/trans fallacy essay again as we get deeper into the new thread. what are the real world psychological implications of this observation? personally i think it gives us a powerful lens to look at the boomeritis spirituality of the green new age collective we are all a part of, willingly or not.

i think the points you two are bringing up begin to get at the heart of what the pre/trans thread i started will hopefully be - a discussion on how we make distinctions between pre and trans. i  look forward to hearing more from you about these ideas specificallly that perhaps go a little deeper into exactly which states/beliefs and why you think should not reside in the prerational camp….

this is obviously a dense and complex conversation and not one that remains contained within the boundaries of theory. it has so much to do with our worldviews, emotions, and longing for meaning and grace.

my position is very simple so far.

all mythologies, metaphysics, magical claims (which we shall define here as anything outside the laws of physics), archetypal beings or symbolic constructs are:

a) taken literally at the prerational level as historic, present or yet to come, facts.
b) shot to pieces as completely non-existent at the rational level (no proof exists for ANY of them)
c) analysed and understood at the transrational level for their metaphoric value and as a beautiful (if partial and often flawed) sign of the extraordinary intuitive symbol generating power of the psyche in it's attempt to interact with the great unknowns of our existence.

the rational gaze, once uplevelled to the transrational, is not put aside. it is the foundation on which transrational interpretation and revelation/epiphany rests. transrational cognition has nno problem making very clear distinctions betwee what is literally real and what is symbolic - neither does it balk at evaluating different interpretations of symbolic material as deeper or more superficial.

easy example:

a) the virgin birth of jesus is believed to be literally true by mythic level prerational christians. this is a prerational belief - by definition.

b) at the rational level we recognise that this is simply an impossibility and is an idea common to several myths/religions that has no basis in fact and yet is held onto by prerational people as a jolly good reason to from time to time butcher and murder those who do not agree, be they religious adherents of another stripe or rational atheists.

c) at the transrational level we become engaged by the poetic wonder of mythology and while recognizing the origins of all mythology as resting in the human psyche, we start to see the sacredness in that mysterious process of meaning making, symbol generating, projecting into the mystery. at this level we being to become adept at interpreting the symbolic references in the mythic material and applying it to our lives and our internal process, without the need to “believe” in it literally (prerationally) and with all the sacredness intact and all the superstition surrendered. so the virgin birth might represent a spiritual kind of birth, a new life taht awakens in the heart and mind, a sense of altruism or compassion that springs forth from no ulterior motive and is therefore uncaused or virgin and mysterious in it's origin…

now i think these three categories are pretty straightforward and i see no need to equivocate about them.

you'll notice that the awe-inspiring relationship to the mystery is absolutely central and that i have ALL THE SPACE IN THE KOSMOS for it. :O)

at the same time i am entirely comfortable DIFFERENTIATING pre from trans and feel that this is important from a theoretical and experiential standpoint.

here's an example of why:

i work one on one with people all the time and i train people to do one on one bodywork/dialog process.

now let's say someone comes in and tells me that they saw jesus last night in their bedroom and he said the end of the world will happen tomorrow at 2 pm.

of course the first question is: have you taken any drugs recently. if not, i would do everything i could to kindly, gently diplomatically, but firmly insist that this person get a thorough psychiatric evaluation. it would be unethical in my opinion not to do so

now many spiritual healers and teachers i know, even licensed therapists would not have this response.

and this is one of the things that is dangerously wrong with the green relativist romanticism that plagues the alternative community.

or how about the person who comes in talking quite seriously about their spirit guides and the literal ghost that haunts them?

now obviously in both cases i am going to be very gentle and much more cautious than i would on a forum with peers. but what would happen for me internally is that i would get as grounded as i can and prepare to hold space for some really powerful and probably unconscious PSYCHOLOGICAL TRAUMA that is being telegraphed to me by this symbolic (but literalized) language.

now of course this is completely different from someone who comes in speaking of having difficulty integrating very expansive meditation experiences with their daily living or with the unfortunate persistence of their emotional triggers.

it is also different than someone coming in and saying that their heart is broken open to the suffering of the world and they have a mind-blowing epiphanic revelation of what jesus or the image of the bodhisattva represents on an archetypal/feeling level.

what i have found over the years is this:

the tendency to literalize (or concretize) spiritual symbols/material is 99% of the time a red flag of one or both of two things:

1) the person has tapped into a very regressed aspect of self that was really traumatized at some point or is operating from a magical defense against feeling some very painful emotions or dealing with intense trauma. (when we are children we have a prerational worldview)

2) the person has suffered a breakdown of the membrane between the conscious and the unconscious mind such that they are in the grips of a psychotic or semi-psychotic delusional state. (meister eckhart- the madman is drowning in the same waters the holy man swims in)

neither of these two states are fun, spiritually advanced, or  levels of perception that are more clear, complex, beautiful or rich than ordinary rational, grounded awareness. though they represent a powerful opportunity for growth if handled well )and if we are lucky) they are actually decompensated, degraded states of being that psychology, spirituality and healing should properly attempt to resolve.

they should not be mistaken with transrational spiritual openings. i have no problem stating unequivocally that for example the paranoid schizophrenic is not experiencing access to a higher truth.

again part of what is so dangerous about the alternative community is that practitioners who do not know the difference between pre and trans will often encourage and fetishize fragmented and dissociated states in their client/students - which only makes them worse and everyone more confused….

so again i think it is about making good distinctions.

pathological. healthy. prerational. ratiional. transrational. accurate. delusional.

to me it is more harsh, more erroneous, more of an insult to the human spirit not to make these distinctions out of a kind of pious “respect” or vague allegiance to “possibility” (that to me just sounds like green relativism) thatn too make the distinctions and actually be of service to people in terms of identifying and resolving pathology, identifying and guiding stagewise healthy growth, identifying and processing issues that have derailed or distorted awareness in any of the lines or at any of the levels of growth.

the difference between pre and trans. pre is at odds with rationality. trans transcends yet includes and rests upon rationality.

all magic fantasy, all mythic literalism, all superstition, all unproven accounts of the laws of physics being eluded are by definition prerational.

this in no way excludes awe at the mystery.

it just puts that awe right back where it belongs: right back in the real world/universe that we live in and the extraordinarily improbable consciousness that is in relationship to it.

this in no way excludes any possibility that there is much to learn and that our understanding of reality will keep deepening.

this in no way is a tyrranical opression of anyone's right to think whatever they want.

it is an attempt to unpack the meaning of certain integral ideas that for me begin with wilber's roots in transpersonal psychology.

se on the next thread - i am excited to hear you flesh out your position on what is pre and trans and why!


:O)
peace and have a great weekend!
~julian

Re: Spiritual Atheism

Julian,

Can I ask without causing defense, on some of the actual case studies you’ve experienced as a practitioner so I/we know this isn’t all about your own rational regression?

You can smudge the details of your story to maintain the oath between you and your patient/s.

I’m glad to see your dialog is more inclusive within the forum… still a little long though. :)

Seth

Re: Spiritual Atheism

well seth. i feel like i am little damned if i do and damned if i dont with you right now.

on the one hand the feedback is i am writing too much. on the other you are asking for specific case histories to back up my points.

i think i will just say that i have been working for some time clinically and researching/studying/practicing  in this area and i feel fairly secure in the conclusions i am drawing. yes, alot of this is based in actual case histories. it sounds like maybe you are not familiar with some of the dynamics i am describing?

i am not sure if you are suggesting that i am just making this up? i am not.

also, forgive my ignorance on this point - but i have absolutely no idea what you mean by “rational regression.” please explain.

seth i am very interested in hearing your position on the issues you sem to have taken great exception with me on.

i hope this finds you well.
~julian

Re: Spiritual Atheism

“well seth. i feel like i am little damned if i do and damned if i dont with you right now.”

I feel the same way towards you, Julian.

I’ve never felt ‘we’ dynamics like the ones I’ve been feeling of late.  I think we’re both in the ‘right’ place.

This all seems healthy to me.

Re: Spiritual Atheism

seth,

i trust you will check out my point by point response to lol viz some of what you appear to be agreeing on regarding what i was saying or not saying…he went into some depth cutting and pasting what he wanted me to respond to…

i am not sure how i would have given you that same damned if you do and damned if you don't feeling.

what do you mean?

~julian

Re: Spiritual Atheism

I’ve given you gift upon gift and I acknowledge the reciprocal.  It’s all just a relative loop between me and you at this point.

If I’m called to jump back into dialog with you, I will.

Have a good one!

Re: Spiritual Atheism

seth i have barely any idea what you are talking about. i feel like we have hardly engaged. i am glad you feel like you are recieving gifts from the exchange though, such as it is.

be well
~julian

Re: Spiritual Atheism

hey Julian,

thanks for the video link. will check that out.

although i pretty much agree with Dawkin's scathing critique of religion, his approach is too flat and arrogant in championing science and demanding for evidence for everything thus collapsing the human quality for capacity of having “faith.”

“My sense is that existentialism, postmodernism and, yes, atheism are almost necessary prerequistes for trans rational spirituality. At the very least they seem to me to be indicators of a certain threshold being crossed.”

exactly!

case in point: even Sam Harris is open to the paranormal and mysticism and even digs meditation.

for more debates on Atheism, check out this link: Beyond Belief 2006 Conference

~C

Re: Spiritual Atheism

c4

yeah i have watched that conference and have it linked off my blog.

i love sam harris' clarity and intelligence.

i agree dawkins is all of those things. and i too agree with his position.

nice to hear from you
~julian

Re: Spiritual Atheism

Sam Harris also posted this article, 10 Myths and 10 Truths About Atheism, on RichardDawkins.Net. i posted a response on my blog. allow me to repost it here.

——

1) Atheists believe that life is meaningless.

“On the contrary, religious people often worry that life is meaningless and imagine that it can only be redeemed by the promise of eternal happiness beyond the grave.”

Yes, this is true. But since Sam Harris is generalizing here, I'll say, forget “beyond the grave”, most people find meaning and happiness with the promise of waking up tomorrow and being alive in the next few days, months, and years. And I would presume that that include Atheists as well. But www.com/psyrelig/happy.htm">according to some research, religious people are happier than non-religious people. Does that mean that religious people find more meaning in life than people who are non-religious?

3) Atheism is dogmatic.

“Jews, Christians and Muslims claim that their scriptures are so prescient of humanity's needs that they could only have been written under the direction of an omniscient deity. An atheist is simply a person who has considered this claim, read the books and found the claim to be ridiculous.”

Yes. It's true. It's not fair to blame those crimes on Atheism. But what Sam Harris didn't mention was that Atheism also has qualities of fundamentalism. Why? Because just like religion, Atheism has levels of development. There are pre-conventional atheists, there are conventional atheists, and there are post-conventional atheists (Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins are post-conventional). Dogmatism (which is a quality of pre-conventional to conventional level) on any religion or idea or philosophy results from the levels of development of the individuals and society. In short, you can be highly religious and non-dogmatic at the same time, and you can be a highly reasonable Atheist but still dogmatic.

4) Atheists think everything in the universe arose by chance.

“Although we don't know precisely how the Earth's early chemistry begat biology, we know that the diversity and complexity we see in the living world is not a product of mere chance. Evolution is a combination of chance mutation and natural selection. Darwin arrived at the phrase “natural selection” by analogy to the “artificial selection” performed by breeders of livestock. In both cases, selection exerts a highly non-random effect on the development of any species.”

In other words: Atheists think that everything in the universe arose by evolution? Now how many Atheists out there really understand the theory of evolution? Can they differentiate between cosmological evolution, biological evolution? How many Atheists out there just believe and have faith on what the highly scientific Atheists would say about evolution? I'm just asking because Sam Harris appears to be saying that Atheists fully understand evolution. So here's a question for Sam Harris, does consciousness evolve?

6) Atheists are arrogant.

“When scientists don't know something — like why the universe came into being or how the first self-replicating molecules formed — they admit it. Pretending to know things one doesn't know is a profound liability in science. And yet it is the life-blood of faith-based religion.”

I agree. But, um, this still sounds very arrogant to me:

“I am optimistic that the physicists of our species will complete Einstein's dream and discover the final theory of everything before superior creatures, evolved on another world, make contact and tell us the answer. I am optimistic that, although the theory of everything will bring fundamental physics to a convincing closure, the enterprise of physics itself will continue to flourish, just as biology went on growing after Darwin solved its deep problem. I am optimistic that the two theories together will furnish a totally satisfying naturalistic explanation for the existence of the universe and everything that's in it including ourselves. And I am optimistic that this final scientific enlightenment will deal an overdue deathblow to religion and other juvenile superstitions.”

– Richard Dawkins

Well, don't take it from me. I don't know if Mr. Wilczek is an Atheist but he has a less arrogant view, IMHO.

“I'm optimistic that physics will not achieve a Theory of Everything.

“That might seem an odd thing to be optimistic about. Many of my colleagues in physics are inspired by the prospect of achieving a Theory of Everything. Some even claim that they've already got it.(Acknowledging, to be sure, that perhaps a few i's remain to be dotted or a few t's to be crossed.) My advice, dear colleagues: Be careful what you wish for. If you reflect for a moment on what the words actually mean, a Theory of Everything may not appear so attractive. It would imply that the world could no longer surprise us, and had no more to teach us.”

– Frank Wilczek

7) Atheists are closed to spiritual experience.

“There is nothing that prevents an atheist from experiencing love, ecstasy, rapture and awe; atheists can value these experiences and seek them regularly. What atheists don't tend to do is make unjustified (and unjustifiable) claims about the nature of reality on the basis of such experiences.” 

That's true. And it really sucks that most major religious institutions make stupid claims. Instead of coming up with theories and logical hypothesis, most religion stick to their dogmas instead of studying and recreating the spiritual experiences of their founders.

8) Atheists believe that there is nothing beyond human life and human understanding.

“From the atheist point of view, the world's religions utterly trivialize the real beauty and immensity of the universe. One doesn't have to accept anything on insufficient evidence to make such an observation.”

Um, we're “programmed” by our experiences to accept things. We can't even differentiate between free will and destiny. But do we have to have sufficient evidence for everything to accept and enjoy it? Man, I have no sufficient evidence for my wet dreams. All I know was that I enjoyed it. My only evidence was my soiled boxer brief. My point? Our interior experiences (during waking, dreaming, and even dreamless sleep) are just as real even if we don't have sufficient evidence to show for them.

10) Atheism provides no basis for morality.

“We have made considerable moral progress over the years, and we didn't make this progress by reading the Bible or the Koran more closely. Both books condone the practice of slavery — and yet every civilized human being now recognizes that slavery is an abomination. Whatever is good in scripture — like the golden rule — can be valued for its ethical wisdom without our believing that it was handed down to us by the creator of the universe.” 

I agree. We don't need a mythic belief in God to be moral. But is it moral to poop on everyone else's religion? And what level of morality are we talking about here?

What arrogant Atheists seldom understand is that religion is a function of culture. Telling people to give up their religious beliefs is like telling them to sever their familial and social ties. Most religious people reject the Atheist arguments not because they are illogical or because people are stupid, but because their social ties are threatened–those ties are as strong, if not stronger, than their religious beliefs.

Championing Atheism in a monotheistic nation is a dirty job. But someone has to do it. Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, and Daniel Dennett are doing that dirty job. I'm grateful to them for taking this debate out in the public arena. No matter how partial their beliefs are.

~C (for Christian Atheist)

Re: Spiritual Atheism

c4

this is a wonderfully commentary.

i want to invite you to the pre/trans thread and my most recent post there.

i have a jumping off point form the limited and partial but accurate perspective of the new atheists that includes:

a) cognitive development
b) shadow work
c) inquiry-based spiritual practice

i think that this is a more comprehensive way of addresing what they are so unrealistically hoping to change through pure rational force.

Re: Spiritual Atheism

This is for anyone it pertains to.

I use the word regression in the sense that it is only relative within the context of the arising.  My belief is that anyone who is directly attached to a dysfunction within a ‘we’ space are regressing in some way within their psyche until it’s authentically functional.

Examples:

If a persons words are causing resistance in another then that person is responsible for the dysfunction.

If a person is resisting what another person is saying and responding in an aggressive nature that person is responsible for the dysfunction.

People who observe and say nothing are also directly responsible to the dysfunction.  Their passive nature can also help or hinder the resolve.

The responsibility of creating the most efficient resolve pertains equally to all perspectives involved.  The most efficient resolve includes all of them.

Any dysfunction is a regressive dynamic within all who are attached to it (whether they’re conscious of it or not) and once healed the word regression becomes obsolete.

I am you, you are me… we are all it.

Re: Spiritual Atheism

I haven't had much chance to read through this thread (or several others that have taken off lately - lots of good stuff to read through soon, wheeeeeeeee!) but I did watch the the debate that Julian linked to, so I'll just briefly give my initial impressions. 

It was somewhat interesting to see Dawkins as a rational flatlander duking it out with religious people, but I felt quite disappointed - and not at all surprised - that the level of the debate was so low.  I was hoping someone would bring up levels of spiritual/religious consciousness, but that was nowhere to be seen - all of religion/spirituality was lumped together and dismissed wholesale by Dawkins, and that went completely unrecognized and unchallenged.  Another problem I had with it, which didn't come up for me until a while after I watched it, was that all the terms were undefined.  What did people mean by “god,” “spiritual,” “faith” etc.?  Everybody was talking about different things, it seemed to me.  I feel more appreciation for Ken Wilber's point that when people have these kinds of debates, such terms are almost never clearly defined, and so you just get an incoherent mess.

Toward the end, Dawkins was challenged as having faith himself - based on a statement from his book, something like, “probably intelligent aliens exist which are vastly superior to humans, to the point where they would seem like gods to us,” and he replied, “You've got to be kidding me!”  I felt total sympathy for him in that moment, because it was a completely invalid criticism.

I would have loved it if someone had brought up points about the evolution of worldviews, situating rationality as part of an ongoing development; if terms had been defined more clearly; and if someone had made points about doing an actual investigation of consciousness and ultimate reality by such practices as prolonged meditation. 

Anyway, those are my initial thoughts on watching the video.  I look forward to reading through this thread, and maybe I'll have more to say on the subject at that time.

spirals,
arthur

Re: Spiritual Atheism

couldnt agree with you more arthur.

ken's framework can really help to structure this kind of debate if everyone present  is aware of it.

i don't think that dawskins actually is just a flatlander. he may not be integrally informed, but he has a powerful respect and appreciation for nature and evolution that we would recognize as spiritual - though he would take issue with the term, and i see his point…

the video talk and q&a here are very to the point and some of what he reads form his book is really beautiful. let's not forget that this is one of the greatest intellects alive today. i think in some ways it's a little unfair to judge dawkins and harris on not being integral. they are doing something else, very important for our times and it is up to us to transcend and include their work in a more integral way - which i am trying to do!