Atheist on board! :)

Hello everyone!

I joined this forum yesterday, prior to this I have never heard of post-metaphysical spirituality, spiritual atheism, Ken Weber, Spiral dynamics or pre/post rationalism. So my reflections below are my very first impression to these concepts.

My story in short is this: I was brought up in a religious home, started questioning the apperent fallacies with it already at a young age, but didn't of course have the mental tools to justify abandoning it until early adolesence.

I then went on to becoming the “lower” form of atheist -the reactionist atheist that simply avoided all concepts of spirituality due to them being irrational. My life then became empty and devoid of meaning due to this, so after a minor mental “breakdown” I regressed into the naiveness of mysticism and magic (new age green-style) thinking “it doesn't make sense, but without the spirit, life is empty, so screw rationalism and atheism”.

Needless to say, I very soon saw flaws and pitfalls of this worldview and I realized that by accepting everything in life as “lessons of the universe” and reducing any will of change to “primitive ego-needs” I was making myself an easy prey to those who DID give into these needs and masqued themselves as spiritual authorities.

But instead of reverting to atheism straight away, I took a side loop into the anti-thesis of the white light school of thought and embraced satanism -both the atheistic (La Veyan) and the theistic versions. Many people gasp at this, but to me, this gave me a dimension of religion I couldn't have gotten elsewhere, I got the other side of the coin of religion. And both have lots of truth and wisdom in them, but, to me, did not offer a satisfying and complete view of the world.

After this came a period of absolute confusion and I almost gave up hope on ever being able to make peace between my love of rational thought and my love of nonrational thought. Until I stumbled upon one of my favourite authors during my adolesence: Douglas Adams. He opened my eyes to the beauty and mystery of science and suddenly I found hope again, that I am yet closer to finding the balance between my two passions. No wonder that Richard Dawkins, being the one that converted Douglas into atheism, ended up being the one who truly looked upon his convertee with awe. Sadly Douglas is no longer with us, but hopefully his “spirit” or “memes” or what you choose to call it, will continue to be an inspirational source for many ahteist to come. But now I'm getting side-tracked…

What I would boldly (?) like to start off by asking is this: Being absolutely new to this concept of transrationality my spontaneous reaction is this: What (if anything) is different between atheism and transrationality? I understand what the difference is between pure rationalism and transrationalism, but I don’t see how this is any different from atheism, which also holds a rational stance and interprets religious and spiritual “truths” in poetic and metaphorical terms –some of them (subjectively) useful, some less useful and some not useful at all or even misleading…

I am curious and excited about finding out more about this, and hopefully in doing so, I will also contribute with something in return.

Cheers,
Ti Shu

Re: Atheist on board! :)

Hi!  & Welcome.  I'm new to this Pod as well.  We have a common history in that I used to profess athiesm myself.  Curiously, Einstein and others assisted me to my current evolution to the house of Dao.   (A convoluted journey I assure you.)  Are you familiar with L. Feuerbach?  I'm not going to tackle your question in this thread, but may jump in elsewhere with the random drive-by observation.
Bon Chance.
phil

Re: Atheist on board! :)

P.S.  In the spirit of flippancy I offer this:
Ti Shu, I hardly know you.
heh.

Re: Atheist on board! :)

Hello Phil,
thanks for replying!

I' ve heard of Feuerbach but that's about it…why do you ask?

May I in return ask what you mean by “evolution” from atheism to taoism? Do you mean that you abandoned your atheistic view in favor of a taoistic religious approach, or did you enrich your atheism with the philosophy of taoism? It's all about choice of words of course, I mean, you don't hear anyone say “I used to be an atheist, but then I fell in love, so I evolved into an “amorist” ” ;)

Too bad you are not going to tackle my question, I would have loved to hear an ex-atheist-taoists view on the matter. But hopefully someone else will…or I'll have to come up with other questions from other angles that are more attractive to you, but still circle the same issue.

You said: “Ti Shu, I hardly know you”

Me: Well of course, neither do I to any larger extent…but I do keep trying…oh, yes I think there is a word for that …”life” :)

Live long and prosper!
(no I'm not a trekkie, but I simply love that greeting!)

Re: Atheist on board! :)

I mention Feuerbach because his philosophy is relevant to man's theistic views. 
“I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being.” (Albert Einstein)
He (Einstein) had many interesting things to say about the relationship of man in the universe.  This started an “evolution” so to speak of my thought processes regarding athiesm.
I didn't say I wouldn't respond to your question.  I said I wouldn't tackle it in this thread. 
I'll get something started.
blessings-

Re: Atheist on board! :)

Phil: I completely agree with Einstein (and you) on that quote!

Re: Atheist on board! :)

“did not offer a satisfying and complete view of the world”

anyone who does is either lying or offering a “god of the gaps” fallacy. It is enormously liberating to admit we don't have all the answers, but we have the methodology/ability to gradually fill gaps with knowledge that were previously filled with multiple guesses in the form of superstitious/religious beliefs.

And the universe is such an amazing place that you can fill a whole life exploring what we do know and if you want to exploring the edge of the gaps that are being filled (bridged might be a better term) with sound knowledge.

Re: Atheist on board! :)

Hello davybuoy,

I'm not sure you read this sentence: “And both have lots of truth and wisdom in them, but, to me, did not offer a satisfying and complete view of the world.” in it's proper context. If you scroll up and read it again you will see that I was describing my HISTORY, and also I was referring to RELIGION. The reason for it not being satisfying was exactly that of filling the gaps, where they should have been left empty.

The same way, what I wrote about the new age view of acceptance of bad things leading to abuse is not what I think today, nor that an “enemy” should be smited with fierceful vengence as the satanists encourage. By being exposed to the two extremes I could see how they both contributed to a more complex view of reality.

But I still fail to see how atheism, based on the foundations of science, is any difference from transrationalism. Atheism means that for anything to be considered truth, it needs to be verifiable through science. Anything not verifiable to science is anything between “pragmatically useful” , “absolute rubbish” and “destructive”. Science has a way of roughly approximating where on the “usefulness” scale to put any given hypothesis of the unknown, which is called statistics. E.g. based on what we already know, the probability that we might find a previously never seen species of lets say…rodent, in the Amazonian rainforest is quite high (i.e. worth looking for). The probability that this species does not breathe oxygen is very low.

Could somebody please inform me what a transrationalist view has, that atheism founded in science doesn't? I am not claiming that they are the same thing, (in fact, I really hope they're not, so I can learn something new!) so please -nobody be offended, I'm trying to understand these new concepts in a critical way.

Ti Shu

Re: Atheist on board! :)

Davybuoy!
Aaah wait! Reading your message again I think I misunderstood you. In the reply above I assumed you were calling me a liar and that I was offering a “god of the gaps” fallacy because I didn't want to embrace a worldview that didn't offer a satisfying and complete view of the world. It didn't make any sense with what you wrote next so I had to read it all again. Actually what I now think that you were saying is that a “complete” view of the world, one that explains “everything” is not compatible with a satisfying one…no?

In that case I suppose we are in perfect agreement: Something that claims to objectically fill the gaps WITHOUT real proof is lying. I suppose using the word “complete” was not a good choice on my behalf, considering that in my definition of “complete” I include leaving questionmarks where they belong (in a way un-completeness) instead of trying to fill them with subjective “truths”.

The reason I used this word is because I was referring to “complete” in the sense that both my passions for rationality and nonrationality (playfulness, fantasy, creativity, passion) were not satisfied and did not feel like they were being used in their right context…lol…sorry, english is not my first language and also I didn't have very much sleep last night…but I guess I'm forgiven, being a noob around here, no? ;-)

If I have still misunderstood you, please let me know!

/Ti Shu

Re: Atheist on board! :)

Ti Shu,Thanks for the post.  I was thinking about questioning your own background, I am curious about why you would choose Satanist as a path?  As far as your question about transrationalism I am no expert but the way I see it is that we take the Traditional values and dogma from the rational level and try to interpret through post modern science and religion.  Although I think post-modern Religion fails to include important Truths via transcendence into ungrounded Post-Mystical.    I believe the pre-rational and rational understanding of Religion has some valuable insights, it means something!   Science can explore Truth by prescribing to the practices of the Religious Traditions, if Science dismisses them even yet I will not discount Science but see it as limited.     Transrational  does not have the luxury of a Religious Tradition to follow, some may interpret this as atheist or anti-?.  The truth is for me anyway…what Religion offers through mandated practices or dogma are those pieces of the puzzle that you lay into place to create a picture that includes more of the scenery.  It can be a risky adventure and requires a lot of courage, because you leave behind those people and groups that you had depended upon as authority.The way I understand atheist is that they have discarded the Mystery and Spirit behind all Life and the  Material world, transrational is only a method or tool that dares to question a “means” but fully aware that the End (figuratively) cannot be questioned because that is what drives us (infused in our very Being) to continue.That's my take, I would like to hear from others. 

Re: Atheist on board! :)

Annie,

I'll tell you a bit about why I looked to satanism for some of my answers along my path, I might have to simplify and generalize a bit, else it would take me days to explain:
First of all, in case this isn't obvious: let's make clear that I was not particularily interested in the Black Metal inspired let's-look-evil-to-piss-our-parents-off type of satanism (I do however enjoy the rich symbology often used in Black Metal). This of course might be attractive to teenagers, gaining independence in adolesence. What satanism had to offer to me is the anti-thesis of “white light” new age and the abrahamic (particularily christian) religions. I found satanism a very useful tool or framework for me to express why this type of religion was not harmless, or better than the alternative -which to me at that point was the reactionst atheism, which you would probably call rationalism. Satanism is a carnal religion, which celebrates the animal side of who we are, instead of labelling it evil. They recognice that denying yourself of the “dark spectrum” of feelings, or trying to kill your ego is neither healthy nor good. They think that one cannot truly give in to love if not ever giving in to hate, that one cannot be truly generous if not allowing oneself also to be egoistic. They think white-lighters are being harmfully hypocritical when suggesting otherwise. For example, repressing sexuality by making it taboo can backfire into perversions and violent behaviour, rape (think about catholic priest scandals). So they embrace the shadow side of humanity instead of supressing it.

Since my interest for satanism didn't come purely as the anti-thesis of abrahamic religion, but after a stage of atheism and new age spiritualism (the order for me was: abrahamic religion - rationalist atheism - new age spiritualism - satanism - total confusion - today…transrationalist?) I was better equipped to see how they both contributed to the puzzle, from each side. For instance:

Jesus said “do onto others as you wish them do unto you”
Anton la Vey said: do onto others what they do unto you”
My ecology textbook said: “tit for tat”

“Tit for tat” is the name of a behavioural strategy found in many social animals. There are many variations of this but in it's simplest form it means: Start of by being nice to others in your flock, this will make others more likely to be nice to you. If they still try to harm you, defend yourself.

If you ask a christian, they will say Jesus' statement includes what my ecology textbook says, if you read more deeply into it. Satanists will claim the same. For me personally however, looking at both sides instead of finding the other side at the depth of either one was a short cut.

I could write plenty more on the topic but maybe you have gotten the gist of it already?

Re: Atheist on board! :)

Annie,
One more note as a reply to your post above: You say that “Transrational  does not have the luxury of a Religious Tradition to follow, some may interpret this as atheist or anti-?.” Of course there has never been people before calling themselves transrational, but could we not say that there has always been people looking at the boundaries of the current dominating world views, trying to bring opposing strands together and moving humanity into new levels? I know this is not religious tradition as such, but it sure would count as a cultural heritage in my book, a global cultural heritage to be more specific :)

Re: Atheist on board! :)

As I grow up in Spirituality I see less distinctions in right and wrong or good and evil.  I appreciate your explanation on the subject of Satanism and find very little to argue with using your own reasoning.  I have been curious myself when looking at things I have experienced – encountering what I thought as pure Evil or Satan.  My opinion has changed but I am uncertain as to what in me that is so fearful of some presence that I interpret as unlike myself.  Without making the assumption that I am good and that was evil, I also have to re-think my definition of good and evil.  I can relate this to another question I have always had…Michael the Archangel, fierce in battle, warrior and advocate for Israel - who would not fear him if they found themselves on the opposite side of the fence.  That is if you believe in Angels?So it seems to me that fear has a purpose of protection, we find our self thinking we are being attacked;  which could be as simple as a structure of consciousness or a prejudice with another form or way of being.   As a Christian I claim a Universal Love a Law to live by – not always successfully but required to question all prejudices as fear for not maintaining an absolute superiority.  Given this is the fear never spoken, but all action that is driven by fear has this characteristic.  One can wonder how it would ever be possible to encounter that which can be “other than” Spirit – only those that have energy of “fear” expressed towards me or me towards them.  We could also explore situations that we find ourselves fearful of; this has to do with a personal comfort zone or preference.  We find our self violated usually because of vulnerability and nakedness – being seen in an unflattering or unprotected way.   To finally understand the degree of selflessness can be quite startling, one must remain with “form” and “mind” but maybe we simply fail to recognize our own uniqueness – yet maintaining a Universal Love.

Re: Atheist on board! :)

If you for some reason want to look more into the subject of satanism, a good place in my opinion is: http://www.theisticsatanism.com/index.html

In my understanding, “pure evil” as well as “pure good” is a dualistic fallacy, as you show with your example of Archangel Michael. In theory such concepts can exists, but in any real system with more than one will, this will be a relative concept. What most people mean when calling something evil, is that it is in opposition to ones own will -whether it be the external as in the will of other people, or internal as in the destructive parts of ones shadow self. Ecology is a wonderful tool to be used as a metaphore:

The fox is evil to the rabbit, the rabbit is evil to the grass. The fox's death which brings back nutrients to the earth is good in the perspective of the grass, but of course evil in the perspective of the fox. From an outside point of view, we call this ecosystem dynamics and realize that without all components, this ecosystem would collapse entirely, so good and evil simply doesn't apply. The same way, parts of your personality that doesn't feel “like you” are often desperate cries for attention, from areas of your personality that has been neglected.

I do not understand how the concept of Universal Love and Pure Evil can coexist…could you please explain this to me?

Re: Atheist on board! :)

Ti-Shu,   The points you made are excellent and I really like the metaphor using ecology.  It speaks of the balance of life; sustain life and in some cases one’s own life is given to sustain another – we could call that Love.  When one force is greater than the other, one may be physically stronger or more mentally determined to survive; this also we could call Love…love for oneself and love for one’s purpose.  Even with those two forces in opposition with each other there is still a balance and sustainability for life. I also like your description of evil as being in opposition to one’s own will, it would not be difficult to consider evil as one who would sacrifice you for their own personal gain.  Whether it is to silence your voice or an act of dominance – this does not sustain their life but sustains their individuality.  They can’t see you as they see themselves; if they did their individuality would include you.  It sounds like the ethnocentric view; although we can extend this out to include worldcentric where we fail in include the entire Kosmos.   It seems funny that we reduce good and evil as a concept belonging to our lower nature, survival, power and control and probably those “destructive parts of the shadow self” that were created here.  Even within the higher states of consciousness one is still in contact with one’s lower self, disguised as Demons or Angels the battle only appears as otherworldly. 

Re: Atheist on board! :)

Annie,
I am glad you liked my eco-metaphor :)
you wrote: ”It sounds like the ethnocentric view; although we can extend this out to include worldcentric where we fail in include the entire Kosmos.” This is a very beautiful concept that I have heard of being referred to as “enlightened self-interest”. This means, as the boundaries of the ego expands, so shrinks the realm of good/evil and contradiction.

If I may use my eco-metaphor once again; the rabbit can recognize it's contradictory interest to that of the fox, but accept it as a necessity of life on an ecosystem level and also differentiate between the only appearant evil of the fox and the forest fire from the “absolute evil” of the nuclear holocaust. The difference is, one is a necessary “destructivity” vital to the dynamics and health of the system, the other destroys the very prequisites for life as we know it. In theory, at the next level, the rabbit can see how even the nuclear holocaust fits into a larger, cosmic balance…who knows? Personally, I'm not anywhere near that yet.. ;) My point is however, just like you say: “Even within the higher states of consciousness one is still in contact with one’s lower self, disguised as Demons or Angels the battle only appears as otherworldly.” I agree wholeheartedly; knowing that there is such a thing as ecosystem dynamics, doesn't discourage the rabbit from running as fast as it can while being chased by a fox. But it does help relieving the grief when one of it's loved ones has fallen vicitm of a fox.

The good news, however, is that conflict and contradiction exists as necessities in the ecosystem because it is a closed one, with finite resources and space. I think what makes the concept of “universal love” graspable is the fundamental difference between the physical realm and the spiritual. The resources of the physical world is limited, whereas the spiritual is unlimited.

Re: Atheist on board! :)

Ti-Shu,

I was not calling you a liar, just stating that I don't think there exists a ”satisfying and complete view of the world”

Annie says ”Science can explore Truth by prescribing to the practices of the Religious Traditions, if Science dismisses them even yet I will not discount Science but see it as limited.”

Ever notice not a lot of people are worshiping Thor these days? Science has accounted for/disproved the reasons for believing and worshiping Thor, but understanding why the vikings thought he existed and what they got out their form of worship is important. In the same way many of the dogmatic facts of today's religions have been disproved and there is a compelling if incomplete theory that removes the need for a creator. That is not to say that there is nothing to be gained from a study of these religions, just that they need to be seen in their proper place.

Anne; If science dismisses religion, why do you see science as limited?

Re: Atheist on board! :)

Davybuoy,

I realize that Science speaks for a specific domain; I’m just not sure Science sees it that way.  Perspectives given from the UL quadrant can be verified if one practices those injunctions.  I believe that we can learn to speak the same language as the Scientist offering our perspective without the pre-rational/rational connotations.  Science in itself is not limited but what is limited is the view that this is the whole picture.

Re: Atheist on board! :)

Things are getting a bit clearer for me as this thread moves along, thanks guys!

I think we need to make a difference between what “science sees” and what we see in science and what we use it for…maybe this is the core of what I was asking about to start of with? I think this is what the quadrant is about, but please correct me if I'm wrong.

So in the end what really differentiates a rationalist from a transrationalist is that the rationalist thinks anything in the subjective field is not worth of study? An atheist can take any of the two positions then, by this definition.

But is this really two different stages, where do we draw the line?

I will try to show what I mean by making an extreme example, first using the chakra system and basket ball:

The prerationalist consideres chakras to be real vortices of coloured light that swirl inside our bodies at different frequencies. “No proof needed, I can feel it so it must be true.”

A rationalist tests this hypothesis using scientific methods, finds nothing to suggest that this is the case and hence categorizes it as rubbish. “I might actually feel it, but it's obviously an illusion so I should discard it.”

The transrationalist nodds at the scientific result charts and thinks: “hmm, but so many people have found this model in particular very useful -subjectically. So it's definetly worth a go at figuring out how it works.” S(h)e then goes on to study the glandular system, nervous system, blood circulation and how chemicals are released from the brain when meditating with this model and concludes: “well, there is certainly a lot that suggests that this simple model of chakras corresponds to centers and mechanisms in the body that can affect ones wellbeing, so it's not entirely rubbish, even though the map is not the territory. But thinking about the actual processes that happen in the body is a tad bit too complex for my poor brain to handle at once, so illustrating it in the simplified chakra way is a pretty neat approach while in meditation. Later on I can go and discuss this phenomena with my scientist friends and learn more about it, maybe change the model to better fit my findings, hence adding to the richness and awe of this experience”.

Are you agreeing with me that this is correct application of the terms?

In that case, I much look forward to watching the rationalist play basketball; drawing complex charts of angles, velocities and calculating the exact muscular contractions that are needed to make the ball go into the basket when throwing it. And watch as he smugly giggels at the transrational idiots on the opponent team, who with advanced basketball theory in the back of their heads, ABANDON this at the moment of playing, in favor of the primitive and illusionary “gut feeling” which leads them to simply run around and throw the damn ball in the basket. -I'm talking about a theoretical extreme of course, this person would obviously not survive long enough to put two socks on his/her feet…

So in conclusion, what the prerationalist and the rationalist are both really lacking, is an understanding of what scientific method is, how and where it should be applied and how to treat things that fall out of the defined area of science. Transrationalism is about trying to establish universal methods on how to evaluate and further develop the usefulness of those things that fall out of these defined boundaries. Correct?

/Ti Shu

Re: Atheist on board! :)

Hi, Ti-Shu, I've enjoyed reading your introduction and your unfolding inquiry here.  On transrationality:  in Integral thought, an early model held that certain trained meditative states – psychic, subtle, causal, and nondual, in Wilber's preferred terminology – were developmental achievements on the far side of the attainment of rational / formal operational cognition.  Now, Wilber no longer places these states on the top of the developmental latter.  However, he still retains the notion of transrationality, which is now explained with other models, such as Cook-Greuter's model of ego development. 

Re: Atheist on board! :)

Thank you Balder!
I clicked on the link and started reading it the day before yesterday, but when attempting to click on it today, the link is now broken..?
Anyway, from what I read I found the concept of multiple perspectives very useful. An integral approach would then be able to consider multiple perspectives, including ones own and see how they interact in a meaningful way, in contrast of only seeing ones own, or seeing that multiples exist, but not being able to differentiate between them…I will have to study this in more depth, as I said, I only managed to skim through it so far.

Re: Atheist on board! :)

Balder!
I have now read the Cook-Greuter paper you linked for me. I really enjoyed reading it, even though I must admit it was quite a struggle, as I'm not used to reading such texts and I'm not used to the terminology and concepts. My reflections are along these lines:

1. Since the model describes the developmental stages as a succession of increased complexity of perspectives, does that imply that the stages have to be experienced in consecutive order? Can one skip one or several steps? In my personal experience, this is possible, but the earlier unexperienced stages usually pop up eventually, making the order of development non-linear.

2. Can you experience development at different stages simultaneously, such as “good days” = higher stages, “bad days” = lower stages? For instance, on a good day, I would see criticism as useful feedback from which I can learn a new perspective and grow, on a bad day, I would be more self protective.

3. The untive “egoless” stage is very confusing to me. (I guess this is back to the pre/postrational discussion again.) How does having a truly “cosmic perspective” mean something different from being dead? I agree you could feel united with the cosmos on an emotional/spiritual level, but physically, your body is not the same as the next persons body, so you will never be entirely “free” of your ego. And I don't see why anyone would want to either? Thank god we are all not “one”…because then I wouldn't exist. Thank god I'm not perfect, or I would find it meaningless to get up in the morning :)

Re: Atheist on board! :)

Hi, Ti-Shu,

I'm glad you got something out of it.  While Integral Theory currently uses her model, it is undergoing some critical re-evaluation (by researchers inside and outside of the field of Integral studies), since apparently it has some issues.  I attended an Integral Theory conference last year, and panel members there mentioned that its sentence-completion test does not always yield results consistent with more established models.  It appears it needs some more work, at least for its assessment of higher stages. 

Here are my thoughts in response to your questions:

1.  According to Integral Theory, one cannot skip stages of development.  One cannot skip from pre-operational thinking to formal operational thinking, for instance, without having first developed concrete operational thinking to some degree.  (One does not have to thoroughly master or deeply develop a stage before moving on, but one does have to develop the basic structures.)  On the other hand, it is possible to “peak experience” higher states, according to this theory, but these states will be interpreted according to the stage(s) one has already attained.

2.  Yes, it is possible to operate from different “stages” on different days and in different contexts.  In fact, that is probably the norm.  Here's what Zach Stein, a developmental researcher, wrote recently in an online essay:  “Now, the way I see development (i.e. Fischer's Neo-Piagetian perspective) suggests that we roam up and down these levels all the time, depending on context and support, etc. No one is at a level; we inhabit levels only for certain periods of time and in certain company. Moreover, you may be more developed in your reasoning about the quadrants than you are in your reasoning about levels, or more developed in you reasoning about important interpersonal issues then you are in your reasoning about Integral Theory (again, see Stein and Heikkinen, 2008 in JITP). Generally, where you are is not my concern (in part because you are all over the place).”  Bill Torbert, the creator of another developmental system, says pretty much the same thing.

3.  Regarding “egolessness,” I think that phrase can be pretty confusing.  I would agree that basic ego-functions are retained, even if one “moves on” in some other ways.  You might be interested in an essay and thread discussion on this topic:  Buddhism and Psychoanalysis: Ego and the Deconstruction of the Self.  Here are the first three paragraphs of the essay…

One of the casualties of the twentieth century introduction of Eastern contemplative traditions to the West has been the misappropriation of Freudian terminology by scholars and practitioners of these Eastern traditions. Nowhere is this more evident than in the confused use of the concepts “ego” and “egolessness” by psychologists of the meditative experience (Engler, 1986, p. 18). “Ego” has become variously equated with the rational mind, the self-concept, or the experience of individuality and has informally come to represent all that must be let go of in the process of meditation. “Egolessness” has become an acceptable aspiration of those practicing meditation; yet, more often than not, this goal is understood from a Western psychological perspective, rather than with the more subtle, originally intended Eastern meaning. The word used in translation, “egolessness,” has brought with it connotations of an upsurge in primary process thinking and id-dominated intrapsychic forces (Meissner, 1984, p. 229) that are often mistakenly embraced by Western practitioners eager to jettison their egos. As a result, concepts that include the Buddhist “anatman” (no-self) doctrine and the psychodynamic “ego” are often understood only superficially, hampering dialogue and understanding between the two traditions.

 
The fate of the ego in Buddhist meditation, in fact, has not been clearly delineated in Western psychological terms. The tendency of contemporary theorists has been to propose developmental schema in which meditation systems develop “beyond the ego’” (Walsh & Vaughan, 1980), yet this approach has ignored aspects of the ego which are not abandoned and which are, in fact, developed through meditation practice itself.

 
Familiarity with the current ego psychological-object relations view of the ego reveals that meditation can be seen as operating in different ways on many distinctive facets of the ego, promoting change and development within the ego, rather than beyond it. This view requires that the ego be understood as a complex and sophisticated matrix of structures, functions and representations, rather than as a single entity that could be readily abandoned. It recognizes the indispensability of the ego while at the same time revealing how meditation practice can uniquely modify it, producing an ego no longer obsessed with its own solidity.

Re: Atheist on board! :)

Balder,
thank you for your clarifications. “One cannot skip from pre-operational thinking to formal operational thinking, for instance, without having first developed concrete operational thinking to some degree.  (One does not have to thoroughly master or deeply develop a stage before moving on, but one does have to develop the basic structures.)”

Well, I think this what I was aiming at; in my experience, regression to earlier stages are more prone if that stage was only experienced at a shallow level, especially if subjected to that level of thinking from others. This connects to my other observation that we are not only at one stage at the time. I'm wondering then if the different stages actually are never left, but continue to develop towards mastery (which of course never happens fully within our lifetime). In that way we go from one line of development to more and more lines of developments. (Lines that interact in a web-like fashion). Inner aspirations as well as external confrontations (with people, situations etc) will then direct us towards the line of development in particular that needs to develop. Much like evolution can “direct” an organism to either develop larger ears or a bigger nose or both, depending on which is the most “useful”. I hope I understood you right on this one.

Ah yes! I didn't know that the eastern concept of “egolessness” does not correspond to the western interpretation of it, but I always thought it “smelled bad”, now I know why!

I think a good rule of thumb is that any form of “enlightenment” that can be achieved by frontal lobotomy is not my cup of tea.

Re: Atheist on board! :)

I have been giving this some thought: “So in the end what really differentiates a rationalist from a transrationalist is that the rationalist thinks anything in the subjective field is not worth of study? An atheist can take any of the two positions then, by this definition.

But is this really two different stages, where do we draw the line?”

It seems to me that an atheist by definition “one who believes that there is no deity” will never follow the same path that a “theist” will follow using transrationality.  A theist has already encountered the Mystery and is now searching for the most adequate description, a theist is not speculating as to their own interpretation with the transrational perspective. He/she already knows of the Mystery but chooses Science with confidence that this Mystery can and will be discovered with very little significance to its Name or method of revelation.  Until the atheist has encountered this Mystery in whatever form It chooses the atheist is lacking a fundamental infusion of certainty.  This certainty does not come with the scientific mind it comes with a vulnerable inadequacy of knowledge.  This is only the beginning disposition, once this certainty is revealed a transrational quest for knowledge begins – the search is never for completion but falls into the category of “ways and means” of expression.When thinking about the four quadrants each perspective given in each domain has a link that crosses over into the other domains – they each lack something that the others provide and they each recognize this.  So to say that Science will not and can never see UL states of consciousness is inaccurate, they only see this using a different measurement – and like all tools one first needs to see it as useful before one can learn its applications.  At the very least the Scientist themselves will have many holes in their own theory – acknowledged or not. 

Re: Atheist on board! :)

Hello Annie, I am really enjoying reading your reflections! You seem to have a perspective on this that somewhat differs and somewhat resonates with mine, which makes it very interesting. For me the word “atheist” simply means: The absence of belief in any given definition of deity. Being atheist really says nothing about experiences of the “mystery” or not, only about the interpretation of this experience.

When we encounter experiences that go beyond the grasp of science or human language we are all struck with awe. As human beings we strive to know the “why” and “how” of mysteries. The cause of the experience may or may not have a scientific explanation (yet or ever).

A deist (by my experience) is someone who -in absence of scientific/objective means of explaining this phenomena, finds comfort and/or usefulness in a particular or several non-scientific explanations -such as “it's god”. An atheist shrugs its shoulder at this and says: Ok, so it's “god” or “the flying spaghetti monster”…why not call it X and admit we just don't know and leave the rest to poets, musicians and artists for interpretation?

A transrationalist claims to have transcended this debate, and thereby “understands” something that the atheist misses out on, by calling it X and also something that the deist misses out on by calling it “god”. I guess it's this “something” that arises from this integral perspective that I'm curious about…I REALLY would apreciate specific examples, from transrationalist findings, that were not possible through scientific method alone…anyone?

Re: Atheist on board! :)

Thanks for articulating that I was not really aware of those distinctions.  I noticed that you used the word “Deist” instead of “Theist” – one believes in the existence of the Creator of the Universe while the other denies this, simply advocating morality or natural religion.  This is an interesting point and probably works much better with transrationality, we are not only talking about the absence of naming but the absence of qualities of being.  The problem I see with this is that one can only realize it after one has navigated the path of duality, along that path one needs pointers of opposites. So your question on the “something” that arises from an integral perspective that was not possible through scientific method alone – definitely sounds like the next valid question to ask.  We can testify to what we have experienced but experience still fails to translate the “something” and can also be a hindrance to understanding.   So beyond experience is inexperience or unknowing which is not foreign to the scientific domain, only unaddressed.  The “something” that arises is the Scientist and all of Life so the focus is correct…we are studying experiences while the inexperience or unknown gives us the “something” to study.So the “something” turns out to be all that can be experienced, while the one who questions cannot be experienced.

Re: Atheist on board! :)

Annie,
lol…to be honest I think I was actually meant to write “theist”, but for some reason I wrote “deist” instead, which actually makes it much better, so thanks for pointing that out to me! :)

I agree with your thoughts and you are pointing out something to me that I have concluded myself before, but I didn't think to apply to the concept of transrationalism/integrality in particular; that one has to experience and understand the duality before being able to transcend it. It's hard (-maybe not even possible?) to be integral about anything if missing half of the puzzle. I see now that this is what you have been telling me about what the non-spiritual atheist is “missing”. Personally, as you already know, I have been back and forth in the atheistic and spiritual, a ping-pong match between the two halves of the brain… :)

But on a tangent, I would like to mention one observation that appeals to me:

The concept of evolution is a hard one to grasp for the human mind, as we are “programmed” to think in terms of intention. Evolution is not a will that is carried out on the system, it is the meta-concept that arises from the multiple wills of the system components -the will to survive. What you Annie, called “love”…and I really like that perspective! What is evolution then, other than universal love of life?

So the summary of the vastly complicated processes of evolution is the infamous tautology: What survives, survives. Now…recognize this from somewhere? JVHV = “I am, what I am” ;) (Credit to Douglas Adams, for sharing this observation)

Re: Atheist on board! :)

Hi Ti-Shu, 

A transrationalist claims to have transcended this debate, and thereby “understands” something that the atheist misses out on, by calling it X and also something that the deist misses out on by calling it “god”. I guess it's this “something” that arises from this integral perspective that I'm curious about…I REALLY would apreciate specific examples, from transrationalist findings, that were not possible through scientific method alone…anyone?  

The transrationalist stands in relation to the rationalist the way the rationalist stands in relation to the pre-rationalist (theist). The rationalist sees the theist belief in an ultimate existent being (God) as untenable. The transrationalist sees the rationalist belief in an ultimate existent thing (atom) as untenable. That is, the transrationalist can see the myth the rationalist is operating from as myth whereas the rationalist actually believes they are capable of finding an objective truth outside of belief i.e. if we just build a bigger particle accelerator we will finally find that small particle and unify the 4 forces etc., then we will understand everything about the universe. An integralist sees the myths or narratives evolving or emerging thru time dependent on cognitive development, culture, etc. 

Here is an early transrational expression. 
Once upon a time, I, Chuang Chou, dreamt I was a butterfly, fluttering hither and thither, to all intents and purposes a butterfly. I was conscious only of my happiness as a butterfly, unaware that I was Chou. Soon I awaked, and there I was, veritably myself again. Now I do not know whether I was then a man dreaming I was a butterfly, or whether I am now a butterfly, dreaming I am a man. Between a man and a butterfly there is necessarily a distinction. The transition is called the transformation of material things. 

Here is the Cook-Greuter paper Bruce was referring too.

Re: Atheist on board! :)

Hello e,

there is still the missing piece of the puzzle left for me, which hasn't been adressed as far I can see. Yes, it is clearly mythical to suggest that science will one day be able to explain everything. Most scientists at a higher level will agree on this and even be able to point you in directions of what areas exactly that the limitations of science has been discovered, by using the scientific methods themselves. Once again, let there be a CLEAR distinction between the scientific method and the scientist him/herself. Within the framework of science, assuming that everything can be explained through science is the pragmatically most sensible hypothesis to use WITHIN the realm of science, as it encourages further investigation instead of putting a lid on what might or might not in reality be dead ends. From another perspective, we do not know what scientific methods will be discovered in the future, so assuming we know already exactly what its limitations are, is just as mythical.

The rationalist perspective falsifies the prerational perspective by showing it's appearant limitations and by dispelling the myths. It offers instead an alternative method of discovering truth, which is called the scientific method, which -nobody would argue, have proven to be very good at doing exactly what it claims to do. By exposing people to the vast RESULTS produced by using rational methods, prerationals can be conviced of it's value.

In the same way, to convince a rationalist that the transrationalist view/method produces something that was not achievable by using scientific method alone, a rationalist can be convinced of the value of the transrational approach. It is not enough to point out the limitations of one method if not being able to provide a better alternative. As long as this is not done, the rationalist will shrug and say “so you say science can't know everything…well I already knew that, it's not perfect but it's the best we've got…anything beyond science I will classify as “god of the gaps” or “the spagetti monster” until you give me valid reason for not doing so” .

Could you please elaborate why this poem in particular is an example of transrational expression? I particularily did not understand the last sentence…

Thanks for the link!

Re: Atheist on board! :)

The prerationalists ontologized the elements (fire, earth, air and water) into gods. Chuang Chou is questioning the ontology his own mind is held asunder. The rationalist (scientific materialist) feel they themselves exist and objects are separate from them and by their methods they will somehow come to know what those objects are i.e. it’s only a matter of time and large federal grants. :-) Chuang Chou is saying that waking “reality” is in fact dreamlike. He is questioning how he and everything exists…the beginnings of transrationality. His disparate awareness are merging. No longer can waking be the state of access to the “real” world and sleeping the state of access to the “dream” world. The rationalist is held spellbound by the myth of the given i.e. there is a real world in which I exist upon waking and the senses divvy up to my awareness information about that real world. Their models and epistemological truth claims follow from that naive belief. The transrationalist sees those truth claims as provisional (at best) within the dream of separation.

Re: Atheist on board! :)

Hi Everyone

e, while seeing those truth claims as provisional at best, does the healthy transrationalist  (after doing their push-ups and eating their greens),  also see that the model “in which I exist upon waking and the senses divvy up to my awareness information about that real world”,  still seems to act as one of the most reliable models supporting human development and discovery?

Adding the perspective that the supposedly concrete truths are provisional within a dream of separation - how does that make the transrational better or higher than the rational? And anyway, haven't we come to this realsisation - that it is only a dream of separation - through use of the rational?

Mehtinks this distinction between rational and transrational is fuzzy, overblown and concretised by theories.

Can anyone answer Ti-Shu's excellent question: “I REALLY would apreciate specific examples, from transrationalist findings, that were not possible through scientific method alone…anyone?”

Sorry Ti-Shu. I've been looking and reading for years and I still can't find any. Anyone?

James

Re: Atheist on board! :)

It depends on how one is defining transrational, doesn't it?  Since Wilber has changed his model, the definition is no longer so clear – though the developmental model I referenced above suggests that, after rationality is attained, higher development involves an increase in perspective-taking capacity coupled with greater integration of intuition, embodied awareness, visionary capacity, state-access, etc.  A holistic integration of cognitive modes, rather than reliance solely or primarily on reasoning or rational procedures.  For instance:  How about those moments of insight that Bohm, Einstein, etc, describe – those inspirations that come, not through rationally thinking something through, but from some other (more visionary or intuitive) mode of cognition, often showing up “whole,” and then later getting “unpacked,” worked out, and tested through rational procedures?  The scientific greats do not rely on rationality or scientific method alone, do they?  And yet rationality remains indispensable. 

If rationality demands at least the development of 3-p (mastery of third-person perspective taking), then transrationality may involve concurrent increase in perspectival sophistication (4p, 5p, 6p) and deeper integration of or access to intuitive, visionary, or other non- or extra-rational modes of cognition.  Such developments would not stand opposed to scientific method; within science, in fact, they could enhance it (and, in the case of some scientists, clearly already do).

Re: Atheist on board! :)

Balder, Ti-Shu,

Something I have been wondering about and know that there must be a book on this somewhere but…what about the idea of non-dual thought and furthermore without a subject – only an object?  I think this could fall into the category of transrationality.   We could call this intuition but we may want to be able to include the scientific domain.  Suppose intuition was developed by learning how to extract knowledge without a context, this it seems requires no analysis or givens or judgments – a clear mind.  Even after the mind is clear you somehow must be able to translate feeling perception into something knowable.

 Balder: This also sounds a lot like what you talk about with TSK, although I think I am heading more to the understanding of training the mind to be able to do this, rather than sitting with just silence.

Ti-Shu: What “edge” does this man have by knowing that he is actually a butterfly dreaming that he is a man, from someone who belives he is a man for real, but sometimes dreams of being a butterfly in the fantasy/dream world?

This one has me stumped also but for a different reason, if the dream and waking state are in fact the same, the same temporary existence, fleeting and without substance – one may find life to be less meaningful and maybe more delusional.  This really is an indicator of one who dreams their life away, I think we can make the distinction that both are relative but one must make some effort to find meaning while awake. 

Re: Atheist on board! :)

Annie said: “what about the idea of non-dual thought and furthermore without a subject – only an object? ” Yes! Nobody made any comments to my comparison of evolution with “god”. I didn't mean to say that necessarily god = evolution, but Annie now expressed exactly what I was getting at, they are (or at least I think they should be) both universal concepts without a subject -only an object. The object being “life”. Understanding these concepts in these terms requires ”increase in perspectival sophistication” which is the term Balder used.

The dream state is your own personal universe, where you are both god and creation. You have infinite freedom and zero responsibility. The dream state and the waking life are “the same existence”  in the sense that the dream state is a subset of the waking life. Many people see the physical, waking world as a prison, I'd rather look at it as the privilige of multiple “universes” experiencing eachother :)

Re: Atheist on board! :)

Ti-Shu,

Yes, I like that!  “the privilige of multiple “universes” experiencing eachother :)”  you could write a book on that subject…it has so many implications.  I had read a post from Tom regarding consciousness; and he was questioning the validity of stating that consciousness was the highest perspective.  My thoughts were exactly along the lines of your statement.  If consciousness can experience that which is beyond our world would that not make it the highest perspective?  One could then question the individual perception and then one is required to bring back some kind of proof. 

Once we begin to question a single universe we then need to question our perspective, to imagine multiple universes is to image that which we do not identify with – the other.  This leads us to Kosmic consciousness and beyond.

I believe we can also tie this in with god=evolution, except god is none other than our individual expression – the difference seems to be in our own limitations, to avoid this one must see objects without a subject.  To use a rather crude term; one could say pulling out of thin air.  This is what it would look like until you become the air, at that point you are what is evolving and you have everything that evolves. 

This also implies identity and the ability to know that which you identify with.  This knowing is not the same as knowing as an individual, God did not name those things that existed he left that up to us (Christian perspective), what God does is create and what is good is Creation or Life.  We must somehow participate as Creators.

Re: Atheist on board! :)

Annie,
the perspective is the key in my opinion. The difference between the concept of god and the concept of evolution is; Evolution is created from life, whereas god -personal or not, is the creator of life.

In the natural world, complexity derives from simplicity, not vice versa; our conciousness is the “god” of the cells of our bodies. We as a conciousness did not dictate the creation of our cells. So our cells created us, but once in place, the relationship is reciprocal. Or lets take the example of money: We created the concept of money and the rules of the economic system we live in. But once in place, the economy affects us in a very real way and has a “life” of its own. And of course there are economic “priests” that study this and make predictions on what the economy “likes” or what “enrages it”…

Annie said: “We must somehow participate as Creators.” I agree! Because the “gods” we create indeed rule over us if we let them…

This is way off topic and I'm waffling away…sorry :)

Re: Atheist on board! :)

Ti-Shu,
I didn't really say that correctly:  I believe we can also tie this in with god=evolution, except god is none other than our individual expression – the difference seems to be in our own limitations, to avoid this one must see objects without a subject. 
I did not mean to imply that we are god's only expression, we are limited in our own expression.  It may not even be correct to say that to avoid this one must see objects without a subject.  I think without a subject the notion of limits is not really of concern, what one sees of themself doing is what is needed to be done - and maybe to a certain extent something that has already happened.

Re: Atheist on board! :)

…or absolutely perfect as you are.

Re: Atheist on board! :)

Re: Atheist on board! :)

Bravo! Bravo! 

Re: Atheist on board! :)

Hello James, thanks for contributing to the discussion! Well…if you have been looking for years and still can't find any I suspect you are either looking for the wrong thing (as am I too in that case) or transrationalism is just another way of saying: Intelligent (as in pragmatic or socially intelligent) rationalism, as opposed to the rationalism one would expect from a computer. I know far too little about it yet to have an opinion.

Sorry if I'm being stupid, but I still don't get the dream-state butterfly argument. To me, it's not really relevant if this guy is a guy in the real world dreaming about being a butterfly, or a butterfly in the dreamworld dreaming it is in this strange “real” world as a man. Soon enough he/it will come to notice the obvious differences between the two worlds (e.g. the waking world has a strict set of rules of physics, causality, linear time etc, the dream world does not). At the end of the day, he will still have to follow the rules of the “real” world when in it, for instance not jump off a building expecting to be able to fly etc. Knowing/believing that he is actually a butterfly doesn't really help him in being a better man in the “real” world…my question remains the same only phrased differently:

What “edge” does this man have by knowing that he is actually a butterfly dreaming that he is a man, from someone who belives he is a man for real, but sometimes dreams of being a butterfly in the fantasy/dream world?

Re: Atheist on board! :)

James: Adding the perspective that the supposedly concrete truths are provisional within a dream of separation - how does that make the transrational better or higher than the rational? And anyway, haven't we come to this realsisation - that it is only a dream of separation - through use of the rational?

Most come to it by a relinquishment of the rational i.e. you are brought to your wit's end.


Can anyone answer Ti-Shu's excellent question: “I REALLY would apreciate specific examples, from transrationalist findings, that were not possible through scientific method alone…anyone?”

If I am correct and the transrational stands in relation to the rational the way the rational stands in relation to the pre-rational, wouldn't that be like applying the law of gravity to Santa's sleigh to see how fast it will fall out of the sky?

-

Ti-Shu: What “edge” does this man have by knowing that he is actually a butterfly dreaming that he is a man, from someone who belives he is a man for real, but sometimes dreams of being a butterfly in the fantasy/dream world?

The edge is that he sees the constructed nature of what you see as two disparate worlds and does not fear the loss of anything in those worlds (himself included). Do you mean will he get to win the lottery or live after death? Would understanding Einstein's theory of relativity allow you access to the treasures Poseiden has hidden in his ocean's depths?

You cannot measure Chuang Chou's insight with a slide ruler or electromagnetic microscope.

Look guys don't get hung up on the higher better aspect. Let's not make problems where none exist. Just think of it as a way of looking that is different then the rational and worthy of exploration if you are so inclined. It's no big deal.

Re: Atheist on board! :)

Hi Ti-Shu

Yes perhaps I am looking for the wrong thing, I'm not sure! That's one reason I'm still here, and why I'm glad your asking such refreshingly direct questions :-)

Bruce, thanks for the Bohm and Einstein examples. Great! A concrete example and explanation!  Francis Crick and his dream of the coiled serpent biting it's tail when he was trying to unravel the structure of DNA  might also be a good example then.

Do these examples make Einstein or Bohm or Crick “transrationalists”? Or as Ti-shu suggests, simply intelligent rationalists?

Bruce asks: “The scientific greats do not rely on rationality or scientific method alone, do they?”  I agree. In fact I would go further and ask, have there ever really been significantly influential scientists who are 100% purely rational, without access to nor interest in these “intuitive, visionary, or other non- or extra-rational modes of cognition”?

I suggest that the idea that science has been led by 100% purely rational scientists is a false stereotype, created in order to exaggerate or concretise  so-called transpersonal or transrational phenomena. We didn't need to invent a new word or category - transrational, we already had the words - intuition, visionary etc.

I do agree with Bruce though that we may benefit by ”increase in perspectival sophistication (4p, 5p, 6p) and deeper integration of or access to intuitive, visionary, or other non- or extra-rational modes of cognition.”

James

Re: Atheist on board! :)

“Yes perhaps I am looking for the wrong thing, I'm not sure! That's one reason I'm still here, and why I'm glad your asking such refreshingly direct questions :-)”

James, well then at least there are two of us in that boat!

Could you say then that Einstein was a “transrational natural” or “transrational prodigy” as one would call Mozart a muscial prodigy? Is integral theory an attempt to create language for a concept (post metaphysical spirituality) in the same way that musical notes provide a universal language with which to communicate about music, outside cultural context? Or am I comparing concepts that aren't comparable?

Re: Atheist on board! :)

So if anyone is still reading this post, the answer to my question “what is the difference between atheism and transrationalism?” is:

An atheist can theoretically be anywhere between half-way transrationalist to fully transrationalist, since the atheist has (through the use of rationalism) rejected the prerational spiritual concepts. From that point onwards, atheists will vary in the degree of which they embrace transrational spirituality.

Thanks everyone!

Re: Atheist on board! :)

Hi, Ti-Shu, I think that's at least a good start at an answer.  But I think we'd need to clarify what is meant by 'atheist.'  If 'atheist' is taken literally, as 'one who does not believe in God,' then this does not (necessarily) correspond to a particular developmental level; whereas 'transrational' is intended to refer to a particular stage of cognitive development.  It is certainly possible for a concrete operational child or a formal operational adult, for instance, to be an atheist (a person who does not believe in God), based on any number of factors (cultural, personal predilection, etc).  In neither case would the term, 'transrational,' apply. 

So, one answer to your question, “What is the difference between an atheist and a transrationalist,” is that atheism is a belief or (more broadly, in some cases) a worldview, whereas transrationalism refers to a stage of development (which may accommodate any number of perspectives or beliefs, including atheist ones).

Re: Atheist on board! :)

Ah, true! One should not make the misstake that all atheist are superstition-rejectionists or necessarily came to be atheists because of reaching a certain level of development, this is an important point since there are divisions within the atheist movements as well because of this. Well, I learned a lot from this thread! Now… where do I go from here? (I ask myself this question a lot)

Re: Atheist on board! :)

Atheists are an extremely varied lot, so I'd say there would be “divisions” :)

Re: Atheist on board! :)

Hi,Ti-Shu,This Native Indigenous Indian me,I am a Atheist as Far as The Chrstian,Jews.Moslems are concerned.Why would us Indians Belive in the European God.Why would do what they say when they dont even prcatice what the Preach.History speaks for itself.They killed us hunted us down like Dogs we were not even considered Human until the 1800's.They stoled our Land.They took our children and sent them to there Christian Boarding School by Force.They Brutaliize and even Killed quite a few of these children in these Boarding School all in the Name of Jesus and God.So if your Atheist this Indians totally Understands.I have met many Atheist who practise Kindness,Compassion and Healing and Forgiveness.Guess what they are not Christian or Jewish or Moslem.I saw something else in these Atheist was there deep since of Altruism and Humanity and Yet they Spiritual not like the others kind.

Re: Atheist on board! :)

Hello SpreadingEagle!

You wrote:”Why would us Indians Belive in the European God.” Well, why would you? Or why would you not? Everyone is free to believe whatever is closest to their hearts. Land just like spirituality can be stolen and raped by force but themselves know not of such concepts and are thereby depleated and impoverished by the attempt to claim and control them. The history of constant struggles for domination over land, resources and the very heart of human beings is causing suffering and emptyness for people all over the world. As a native Indian you know of this suffering very close at hand. It is my hope to be a small part in the much needed global awakening to this realization and it sounds like you are too. I try to recognize kindness, compassion, healing and forgiveness no matter in what form it manifests. We all suffer from personal and cultural bagage that clouds our vision at times, which to me is one of the hardest challenges of being human. This is where we look for strength, in the depth of our own beings and in the communion with our fellow human beings. Best of luck to you!

Re: Atheist on board! :)

An “atheist” is merely someone who doesn’t believe in the; “theory” of “God.”

“God” as “theory” is limited to the Sky God concept of a Santa Clause type being who rewards those who are “loyal” to him, and punishes those who are not.  

Understand this: “God” is a metaphor for the cosmic law that rules everything.

Re: Atheist on board! :)

Well Zakariyya, I don't buy books anymore, but if I did, I'd buy yours.

Cheers,
Mark

Re: Atheist on board! :)

Maybe I'm splitting hairs here, but it occurred to me that the word “law” and the word “god” in my opinion both indicate absolute givens “from above” which are solid and separate from what they are governing. Call it “universal custom” and you lose the implication that someone or something is in the authority to enforce or interpret this law. A custom is an integral part of the system that it “rules”, as much an enforcer on the parts of it as a result of it…see what I'm getting at? A law is written (by someone/something), wheras a custom is lived. I'm not a native english speaker, so perhaps there is an even more appropriate term than custom? By dropping the word “law” you would also lose the possible misunderstanding that it is a law in the sense of a “scientific law”. Scientific laws are only a subset of universal custom, by my way of seeing things.

I came to think about this as I noticed a discussion on another thread about e-prime. How we should think about the underlying implications of the words we use. I found it very inspiring!