PDA

View Full Version : Body, Mind, Soul, Spirit


HolyHandgernade
06-19-2007, 10:58 PM
At the suggestion of another member I decided to start a thread aimed at a more general theological premise. Most of my current studies concern the relation between mystical experiences correlated with our knowledge of psychology and sensory experience. But instead of just telling you what I think, I'd first like to hear what you think, such as:

Most modern philosophies include sensory perception (sensibilia) and intellectual interpretation (intelligibilia). Does yours also include any form of transcendental apprehension or dimension (transcendilia)?

If not, why not?

If so, how do you imagine such a connection works?

Here are a couple of standard models to give you an iea if you need help formulating. The first is a depiction of what is commonly known as "The Great Chain of Being" or "the perrineal philosophy". The second is a depiction of that philosophy expressed in many of the great wisdom traditions:

http://wilber.shambhala.com/images/misc/great-chain.gif

http://wilber.shambhala.com/images/misc/great-chain-various-lg.gif

BucEyedPea
06-19-2007, 11:09 PM
I'm an astral stalker....I mean walker.

pikesome
06-19-2007, 11:11 PM
I'm an astral stalker....I mean walker.

Any money in that?

Direckshun
06-19-2007, 11:13 PM
I think you can only substantially build human knowledge with collective reasoning, a logic that needs to be shared by the largest of groups of people.

You can't build that collective reasoning with transcendancism or spiritual/supernatural encounters. You have to build it through verifiable experience and the logic of "intelligibilia," as you call it.

pikesome
06-19-2007, 11:15 PM
I think you can only substantially build human knowledge with collective reasoning, a logic that needs to be shared by the largest of groups of people.

You can't build that collective reasoning with transcendancism or spiritual/supernatural encounters. You have to build it through verifiable experience and the logic of "intelligibilia," as you call it.

Timothy Leary say nuh-huh.

BucEyedPea
06-19-2007, 11:21 PM
http://wilber.shambhala.com/images/misc/great-chain.gif

Now see, I'd make some changes to this but I believe in the heirarchy you have here. Soul & spirit are the same to me as is theology and mysticism ( I think?) ...at least on the same plane. I'd add philosophy at the very top as it is a subject that borrows from all subjects below descending down to physical matter. I had a chart like that in philosophy; just a tad different. Therefore, I think awareness levels and consciousness, both spiritual qualities have to be included in solutions for what ails man.

Mr. Kotter
06-19-2007, 11:21 PM
I think you can only substantially build human knowledge with collective reasoning, a logic that needs to be shared by the largest of groups of people.

You can't build that collective reasoning with transcendancism or spiritual/supernatural encounters. You have to build it through verifiable experience and the logic of "intelligibilia," as you call it.

So, IYHO existential existence and experiences are all that really matters in life? Is that correct? :hmmm:

BucEyedPea
06-19-2007, 11:27 PM
...matter...

Direckshun
06-19-2007, 11:32 PM
So, IYHO existential existence and experiences are all that really matters in life? Is that correct? :hmmm:
No, I believe experiences are one of two prongs needed to make significant strides in our collective knowledge of the universe around us.

Cold, hard logic is the other.

Mr. Kotter
06-19-2007, 11:32 PM
BEP...


Please, tell me you did NOT just pull the "Grammar Nazi" card?! :cuss:

:banghead:

BucEyedPea
06-19-2007, 11:34 PM
If you mean me, Kotter, no I wasn't making a grammatical correction at all...I was implying something deeper than that. I don't think I've ever corrected someone's grammar.

Mr. Kotter
06-19-2007, 11:35 PM
No, I believe experiences are one of two prongs needed to make significant strides in our collective knowledge of the universe around us.

Cold, hard logic is the other.

Logic is "the science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference." You have still confined yourself to the existential realm. So my question bears repeating:


So, IYHO existential existence and experiences are all that really matters in life? Is that correct? :shrug:

Mr. Kotter
06-19-2007, 11:36 PM
If you mean me, Kotter, no I wasn't making a grammatical correction at all...I was implying something deeper than that. I don't think I've ever corrected someone's grammar.

Whew! Good. Now I have to figure out what you were getting at.... :hmmm:

Direckshun
06-19-2007, 11:41 PM
Logic is "the science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference." You have still confined yourself to the existential realm. So my question bears repeating:

So, IYHO existential existence and experiences are all that really matters in life? Is that correct? :shrug:
You lost me.

HolyHandgernade
06-19-2007, 11:44 PM
I'm going to be preoccupied tomorrow morning, so let me give you an additional question to bat around until I get back:

Is there a difference between stages of consciousness and states of consciousness? If so, how do you differentiate them, define them?

-HH

ClevelandBronco
06-19-2007, 11:47 PM
Cool. We didn't even make it off page one and no one knows what the hell anyone else is saying. This one could go on for a while.

Mr. Kotter
06-19-2007, 11:48 PM
You lost me.

Science and empirical study, are by definition....existential in nature. So, according to the graphics HH posted in the thread starter, you are, in effect, saying the two "outer" rings of the charts/graphs have no real value, or relative merit in the human experience. I'm not trying to put words into your mouth...but if you base your knowledge and "beliefs" on only existential experiences, then only the two "inner" rings matter to you (or if you are Irishjayhawk--it may only even be the inner ring, and you junk the other THREE.) Is that what you believe? :hmmm:

HolyHandgernade
06-19-2007, 11:49 PM
Cool. We didn't even make it off page one and no one knows what the hell anyone else is saying. This one could go on for a while.

Worry not, I'll try to reign it in later, I'm more interested in initial responses right now.

-HH

Direckshun
06-19-2007, 11:54 PM
Science and empirical study, are by definition....existential in nature. So, according to the graphics HH posted in the thread starter, you are, in effect, saying the "two outer" rings of the charts/graphs have no real value, or relative merit in the human experience. I'm not trying to put words into your mouth...if you base your knowledge and "beliefs" on only existential experiences, then on the "two inner" rings matter to you. Is that what you believe? :hmmm:
Ah.

The two "outer rings" do have value, they do have merit.

But as they are based on faith, dogma, and unreliable spiritual experiences, rather than verifiable experience and reasoning, they don't do a lot to make significant strides in our collective knowledge of the universe around us.

stevieray
06-19-2007, 11:56 PM
The artist studied dynamics,anatomy,physics, optics, biology, hydraulics and aeronautics...was an experimental scientist before the formulation of the scientific method...

...and a believer in Christ and the Scriptures... :p

Mr. Kotter
06-19-2007, 11:58 PM
Ah.

The two "outer rings" do have value, they do have merit....

Can you explain their merit and value, in your view?

I'll have to pick this up tomorrow; sleep on it if you wish.

Taco John
06-20-2007, 02:10 AM
But as they are based on faith, dogma, and unreliable spiritual experiences, rather than verifiable experience and reasoning, they don't do a lot to make significant strides in our collective knowledge of the universe around us.


There is plenty of scientific data available on non-local consiousness based on verifiable experience and reasoning. You should read sometime about Joe McMoneagle. When you first come across material about the guy, your first reaction will be to roll your eyes and groan. But consider that the Army awarded him a Legion of Merit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legion_of_Merit) for his military work in non-local consiousness. He must have been doing something right.

HolyHandgernade
06-20-2007, 05:52 PM
So, I wanted to get back to the second question. Does anyone differentiate between states of consciousness and stages of consciousness, and if so, how?

-HH

Baby Lee
06-20-2007, 06:11 PM
BEP...


Please, tell me you did NOT just pull the "Grammar Nazi" card?! :cuss:

:banghead:
Well, she didn't bust you on the redundancy of existential existence.

irishjayhawk
06-20-2007, 07:48 PM
Apparently, I'm an existentialist. :shrug:

HolyHandgernade
06-20-2007, 10:56 PM
All right, we'll take a different approach, I'll just tell you what I know to be correct, and you guys can just concur how brilliant or fooked I am.

The first thing we have to do is understand the difference between states and stages, because too often a state may be confused with a stage, or vice versa, so:

States of Consciousness: refer to subjective realities and generally come and go. States can include waking, dreaming, and deep sleep. They can also include meditative states, altered states (such as drug induced), and varieties of peak experiences (can be triggered by many different things such as making love, walking in nature, or listening to music)

States of consciousness also have what are called "bodies". Bodies mean a mode of experience or energetic feeling. We have three general bodies: gross associated with waking state interactions; subtle associated with dream state interactions; causal associated with deep sleep interactions. I know this can get confusing, so let me walk you through it.

Gross interactions would be associated with the five senses. A subtle body interacting with a gross body would give us what we commonly refer to as "waking consciousness". In other words, the subtle body interprets the gross body interactions and constructs a vision (dream) of their waking experience. Take away or minimize most of those waking state interactions (such as when you fall asleep) the subtle body has visions (dreams) that no longer build on those interactions. When the subtle body subsides, all that is left is the formless awareness experienced in deep sleep (just because you don't recall it doesn't mean it didn't occur). Our states seem to make this journey continuously from gross to subtle to causal back to subtle back to gross, and over and over. This gives us waking consciousness to REM sleep to deep sleep back to REM sleep back to waking consciousness. This pattern is confirmed in experiments with brain wave activity. In fact deviations from this pattern can seriously disrupt the individual (maybe due to sleep disorders or prolonged stay in one of the states).

Stages or Lines of Development: refer to subjective realities that are an enduring trait. For example, when one develops through the linguistic stage, language is always available, it does not come and go like passing from a dream state into a waking state. Mathematic computation could be considered a stage development. Concrete and concrete-operational thinking are stages.

Lines of development are sometimes refered to as "multiple intelligences" and unfold in a stage sequence. A generalized sequence could be considered as egocentric to ethno centric to worldcentric. Lines that unfold along that sequence can include cognitive, interpersonal, psychosexual, emotional, and moral. A person can be at different stage development per each line. Such as worldcentric cognitive; ethnocentric interpersonal; egocentirc psychosexual, emotional, and moral. Not all great thinkers are moral; not all great empathizers are brilliant.

Mr. Kotter
06-20-2007, 11:11 PM
.... the gross body interactions and constructs a vision (dream) of their waking experience. ...

My wife's response to that is, "Get off of me; you ain't gettin' none now...with that mornin' breath. Besides, you know one of the four kids is AWAKE. So crawl your ass back over to your side of the bed, before I Lorena Bobbit that little smokey!"

:banghead:

...In fact deviations from this pattern can seriously disrupt the individual (maybe due to sleep disorders or prolonged stay in one of the states)...

I can attest to this folks...long story short; I've suffered from Severe Sleep Apnea for the past 7-10 years, and didn't know it. Finally got my CPAP, and recently surgery to correct the structural issues (yea, I'm a fat ass, but I had MAJOR structural issues too)....bottom-line is: breathing is good. Oxygen is good.

REM sleep, and NICE dreams have returned....after a 7-10 year absence. Heh. :p

HolyHandgernade
06-20-2007, 11:18 PM
So let's take a step back to the traditional model:

http://wilber.shambhala.com/images/misc/great-chain.gif

There's something not quite right. This model unfolds like a series of nests, or Russian dolls, where the lowest rung is transcended but included by the higher rung.

But let's say you have a rock in one hand, and a cerebral cortex in the other (we won't ask where you got it). According to the map both of these things are matter, nd thus belong on the lowest rung. But it would seem that the cerebral cortex doesn't quite belong in the same category. True, it is matter, but it is matter associated the third rung. This model needs updating.

Instead of matter as the lowest rung, what if we suggested matter is the exterior form of every interior occasion? In that sense you had an "I" on the inside and an "It" corresponding on the outside? But why stop there. What if we also included a plural form corresponding to the singular, a "We" and an "Its". This would give us a very different looking map:

http://wilber.shambhala.com/images/misc/four-quadrants-lg.gif

Now we have an occasion where every evolutionary development has an intentional, a behavioral, a cultural, and a social aspect which give rise to each other.

Mr. Kotter
06-20-2007, 11:24 PM
... Lines that unfold along that sequence can include cognitive, interpersonal, psychosexual, emotional, and moral. A person can be at different stage development per each line. Such as worldcentric cognitive; ethnocentric interpersonal; egocentirc psychosexual, emotional, and moral. Not all great thinkers are moral; not all great empathizers are brilliant.

That's awesome. Really cool. Seriously. :thumb:

Great thinkers, immoral: Hitler, Bill Clinton

Great empathizer, not too bright: Liberals

Great thinkers, not too empathetic: Conservatives

Immoral, not empathetic: Thugs, the mob

Bright, empathetic, multicultural, love machine: Me

:clap:

HolyHandgernade
06-20-2007, 11:27 PM
So you say, "Great, Einstein, you got a very impressive map, how does this equateto that gross, subtle, causal thingy you were talking about earlier!"

Well, what we're proposing is that we shift the traditional model into just the Upper Right quadrant, giving things like mind, soul, and spirit their proper interior validation. We also said that each of these "interior energies" has some form of exterior body, thus we get something that looks like this:

http://www.humanemergence.org/images/AQAL_map.jpg

Also, because these bodies emerge, you could also represent the emergent bodies like this:

http://wilber.shambhala.com/images/misc/family-energies-lg.gif

or like this:

http://website.lineone.net/~bryn_evans/Brain-Triune_2.gif

HolyHandgernade
06-20-2007, 11:28 PM
That's awesome. Really cool. Seriously. :thumb:

Great thinkers, immoral: Hitler, Bill Clinton

Great empathizer, not too bright: Liberals

Great thinkers, not too empathetic: Conservatives

Immoral, not empathetic: Thugs, the mob

Bright, empathetic, multicultural, love machine: Me

:clap:

My prize pupil!

-HH

HolyHandgernade
06-20-2007, 11:37 PM
What's important to remember is that these quadrants give rise to one another, one is not the cause of the other. In other words, the Upper Left is not the cause of the Upper Right (materialism) nor does the Upper Right create the reality of the Upper Left (idealism). They arise together and interior events cannot be explained away by exterior correlates. The exterior might give clues that a person is experiencing something, but the exact form of that something is only known in the interior awareness, and arguing what started the whole thing is as pointless as the "did you get your peanutbutter in my chocolate, or did my chocolate get in your peanutbutter".

-HH

Logical
06-21-2007, 12:13 AM
So, I wanted to get back to the second question. Does anyone differentiate between states of consciousness and stages of consciousness, and if so, how?

-HH:shrug: I won't even pretend I have an idea. I know, I know, why is this different.

HolyHandgernade
06-21-2007, 10:26 AM
:shrug: I won't even pretend I have an idea. I know, I know, why is this different.

States are something that moves through consciousness, while stges are something the consciousness constructs used to build understanding of the various states.

-HH

HolyHandgernade
06-21-2007, 06:32 PM
So, we have established the three great states as waking, dreaming, and deep sleep (with their corresponding bodies as gross, subtle, and causal). So what do the stages look like. We actually have numerous sstudies done on these various stages, or lines of development. These include:

Line/Life's Question/Typical Researcher

Cognitive/What am I aware of?/Piaget, Kegan
Self/Who am I?/Loevinger
Values/What is significant to me?/Graves, Spiral Dynamics
Moral/What should I do?/Kohlberg
Interpersonal/How should we interact?/Selman, Perry
Spiritual/What is of ultimate concern?/Fowler
Needs/What do I need?/Maslow
Kinesthetic/How should I physically do this?/Gardner
Emotional/How do I feel about this?/ Goleman
Aesthetic/What is attractive to me?/ Housen

Let's take a look at one of these lines more closely, the "Values" line to see how these structures build upon each other....

HolyHandgernade
06-21-2007, 06:35 PM
This is from an interview with the leader in Spiral Dynamics and What Is Enlightenment magazine:

WIE: Dr. Beck, can you begin to explain the basic concept of Spiral Dynamics?

DB: The concept of Spiral Dynamics is that human nature is not fixed; we're not set at birth. Rather, we have the capacities, in the nature of the mind/brain itself, to construct new conceptual worlds. So what we're trying to describe is simply how humans are able, when things get bad enough, to adapt to their new situation by creating greater complexities of thinking to handle new problems.

WIE: Can you elaborate on what seems to be our unique capacity to develop higher levels of thinking and cognition?

DB: Spiral Dynamics is based on the assumption that we have adaptive intelligences, "complex, adaptive, contextual intelligences," which develop in response to our life circumstances and challenges - what SPiral Dynamics calls Life Conditions. What we're always focusing on are the causative dynamics created by the Life Conditions and then the kinds of coping mechanisms and collective intelligences that are forged in response to those conditions. These collective intelligences are what we call memes.*

WIE: You seem to be pointing to the evolutionary nature of human intelligence, which makes it possible for us to adapt to and survive our existential challenges, or "Life Conditions." Can you speak further about the evolutionary significance of "memes"?

DB: Like genes, viruses, and bacteria, memes respond to the same basic principles in the universe, which is this concept of rnewal, this regenerating capacity. Each successive meme contains a more expansive horizon, a more complex organizing principle, with newly calibrated priorities, mindests, and specific bottom lines. It's a way of solving problems. It's a way of assigning priorities to what's most importan and why, formed in response to the Life Conditions. And just like a biological DNA code, which is a code that replicates itself throughout the body, a meme code is a bio-psycho-social-spiritual DNA-type script, a blueprint that spreads throughout a culture, and plays out in all areas of cultural expression, forming survival codes, myths of origin, artisitic forms, lifestyles, and senses of community.

WIE: So, you are saying that as humans adapt to their Life Conditions, this awakens new intelligences, or meme codes, which in turn shape the evolution of culture.

DB: Yes. And cultures, as well as countries, are formed by the emergence of these memes, or value systems, which are the glue that bonds a group together, defining who they are as a people and reflecting the place they inhabit onthe planet.

My longtime friend and colleague, the late Professor Clare Graves, sensed that there were deeper patterns in the evolution of human consciousness and identified eight levels of psychological and cultural existence, or value systems, which became the basis for the model. The same principles or levels of existence apply as much to a single person as to an entire society. Graves involved thousands of people into his research and was constantly on the outlook for these deeper patterns, which, he argued, reflect different activiation levels of our dynamic neurological equipment.

WIE: Could you outline the spiral model with its heirarchy of eight memes, or levels of existence?

DB: In the language of Graves, the spiral's "First Tier" is a set of six memes characterized by existence or subsistence. What that means is that we're more like animals than like gods and we have to deal with what are essentially earthbound existence problems. So the First Tier (BEIGE, PURPLE, RED, BLUE, ORANGE, GREEN) clusters together our "subsistence" or survival-level concerns, while the Second Tier (YELLOW, TURQUOISE) works to create healthy forms of all First Tier systems in the contet of an information rich, highly mobile global community. While Graves identified eight levels of existence, with a ninth (CORAL) on the horizon, the Spiral is expansive, open-ended, continuous, and dynamic. There is no final state, no ultimate destination, no utopian paradise. It's a never-ending quest, with each stage but a prelude to the next, and the next, and the next.

WIE: And what drives the evolutionary emergence of theses stages, or memes, up the spiral?

DB: Our crises, because they provide the inflection points and the benchmarks that trigger the shift up to the next level of human development. And each level of existence, or meme, is more like an emerging wave, a fluid living system, than a rigid heirarchal step. Once a new level appears in a culture, all of the previously aquired developmental stages remain in the composite value system. In Ken Wilber's language, each new social stage "transcends but includes" all of those that have come before. For this reason, the more complex thinking systems have greater degrees of freedom.

WIE: Why do you use a spiral model to chart the emergence of these evolutionary stages of psychological and cultural development?

DB: A spiral vortex best depicts the emergence of human systems, or memes, as they evolve through levels of increasing complexity. Each upward turn of the spiral marks the awakening of a more elaborate version on top of what already exists, with each meme a product of its times and conditions. And these memes form spirals of increased complexity that exist within a person, a family, an organization, a culture, or a society. We all live in flow states; there is always new wine, always old wineskins. And you can see that this whole evolutionary process is working because we're still here, because we've been able to survive thousands and thousands of years of coping with what has been quite a hostile environment. So we have a wonderful species that has an innate capacity to renew itself. That's what makes us human.

* The concept of "meme" was first proposed in the mid 1970's by the evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins, who believed that the evolution of culture should be considered as independent from genetic or biological evolution. Dawkin's "memes" refer to specific "units of cultural transmission," examples of which could be songs, ideas, clothes fashions, to name just a few. However, in Spiral Dynamics, these are called "little memes." When Beck uses the word "meme," he is speaking about a "core value system," or "value meme." These act as "organizing principles" that express themselves through little memes and that are so central to the way we think that they can "reach across whole grounds of people and entire cultures, and begin to structure mindesets of their own."

Up Next: The BEIGE Meme

HolyHandgernade
06-21-2007, 06:38 PM
BEIGE

1. Survival Sense: sharpen instinct and innate senses

Beige: Archaic-Instinctual. The level of basic survival; food, water,
warmth, sex, and safety have priority. Uses habits and instincts just
to survive. Distinct self is barely awakened or sustained. Forms into
survival bands to perpetuate life.

Where seen: First human societies, newboorn infants, senile elderly,
late-stage Alzheimer's victims, mentally ill street people, starving
masses, shell shock. Approximately 0.1 percent of the adult
population, 0 percent power.

WIE: The Spiral Dynamic's model charts our evolutionary development beginning 100,000 years ago with the appearance of the "first level of existence," the BEIGE meme. What defines this first stage ofhuman development?

DB: BEIGE is a virtually automatic state of existence, driven by the imperative physiological needs that trigger the very basic survival equipment with which we are born. In its original form, starting 100,000 years ago, the BEIGE level of existence was the first step that made us human. It is humans simply struggling to survive in environments where there are other animals. Yet we are more sophisticated and seem to have more conceptual skills for bonding into collective clans to preserve what we have and fend off predators. The father in the survival clan eats first because if the strongest dies, the family has no hope. So, the key to BEIGE is survival using instinctive intelligences, with a more heightened sensory system with which we can see better, hear better - we can sense things with the hair standing on the back of our neck. Simply staying alive is more highly valued than anything else.

WIE: Are there any remaining examples of BEIGE in the world?

DB: The only real BEIGE that exists today in its pristine condition is hidden away in Indonesia and parts of Africa. We've studied bushmen for some time, and its quite clear they have an uncanny ability to recall where the water is buried, and the ostrich eggs, and can sense weather changes. So we don't equate primitive with being primitive and "dumb" because there are possibly sixteen different senses, including a remote viewing capacity, that are activated at this level. But today, most of these senses have atrophied and have been overwhelmed by our more complex conceptual systems.

WIE: Do life conditions sometimes force people to exist at the BEIGE level, even though they may not actually be primitive or represent the "pristine" form of this meme?

DB: Oh, one can find pieces of BEIGE in street people who are basically hunter-gatherers, who get what they eat where they find it. You certainly see it in the horrible conditions of extreme poverty in Somalia or Ethiopia, where it's a hand-to-mouth existence. And also, it's evident in new-born infants, who eat when they are hungry. And some people, when exposed to a catastrophe, may regress to BEIGE. Higher-order priorities suddenly vanish in the midst of personal tragedy, extreme suffering, or deprivation. There's a kind of emptiness, which is certainly fear driven, because boundaries and expectations have suddenly dissolved and one is on one's own footing, living by their own wiles. It's that feeling that we have when we have to do something entirely different, something that we've never done before and are not sure that we can even do. I think that after September 11, we saw some people temporarily go into BEIGE because the crisis put them in a very different psychological condition.

Up Next: PURPLE

HolyHandgernade
06-21-2007, 06:42 PM
PURPLE

2. Kin Spirits, seeks harmony & safety in a mysterious world

Purple: Magical-Animistic. Thinking is animistic; magical spirits,
good and bad, swarm the earth leaving blessings, curses, and spells
which determine events. Forms into ethnic tribes. The spirits exist
in ancestors and bond the tribe. Kinship and lineage establish
political links. Sounds "holistic" but is actually atomistic: "There
is a name for each bend in the river but no name for the river".

Where seen: Belief in voodoo-like curses, blood oaths, ancient
grudges, good-luck charms, family rituals, magical ethnic beliefs and
superstitions; strong in third-world settings, gangs, athletic teams,
and corporate "tribes". 10 percent of the population, 1 percent of
the power.


Where seen: The "terrible-twos", rebellious youth, frontier
mentalities, feudal kingdoms, epic heroes, James Bond villains, gang
leaders, soldiers of fortune, New-Age narcissism, wild rock stars,
Attila the Hun, "Lord of the Flies". 20 percent of the population, 5
percent of the power.


WIE: The second level up the spiral is PURPLE. What evolutionary developments characterize the shift from the primitive existence of BEIGE to this next level of existence, the PURPLE meme?

DB: PURPLE is animistic, tribalistic, and mystical. In this world of PURPLE, we tend to have the first evidence of human bonding - the sense of a kindred spirit, that "I'm someone because I belong to a certain clan or tribe." During the Ice Age, the world became overpopulated. There were more humans per acre than there had ever been before. We had clans in the BEIGE system beginning to bump into other clans, with a sense of competition for niches starting to appear. Suddenly a clan, which is loosely structured, solidifies into a tribe of, say, four to five hundred people, so that the previous clan now survive in the midst of competition with other clans. So one of the Life Conditions changes that led to the shift from BEIGE to PURPLE had to do with territoriality and access to resources.

Now, at the same time, a mutation occurred to awaken in the brain the first real ability to assign cause and effect. This was the first sense of the metaphysical. In the BEIGE mind, events seemed to be scattered, each one unto itself, without much predictability. But, for example, in Africa, if the moon is full and the cow dies, the PURPLE mind connects the two events, one causing the other. So the awakening of the metaphysical system, together with the capacity to work more firmly in a team arrangement, occurred in the transition from the Dawn People (BEIGE) to the Mystical People (PURPLE), precipitated by the changing Life Conditions that occurred during the Ice Age, about fifty thousand years ago.

WIE: It seems that the emergence of the capacity for bonding and working together, would literally improve one's chances for survival.

DB: You're absolutely right. Literally. And because these stages of existence, or meme levels, represent bio-psycho-social systems, they indicate the evolutionary emergence of biological and physical capacities and abilities. For example, we know that the level of the brain chemical oxytocin, which has various health-giving benefits, is higher when humans eat in a group. And so eating together, breaking bread together, feasts of various kinds, all raise the oxytocin level in the brainand improve survival. Another thing that developed at this time was whatever it is in the brain that chemically enables the person to hear inner voices, the voices of spirits. The PURPLE meme is heavily laden with such so-called right-brain tendancies as heightened intuition, emotional attachments to places and things, and a mystical sense of cause and effect. I have a well-developed PURPLE sense myself, having spent so much time with the Zulus in sacred places.

Next Up: RED

HolyHandgernade
06-21-2007, 08:10 PM
RED

3. Power Gods, express impulsively, break free, be strong

Red: Power Gods. First emergence of a self distinct from the tribe;
powerful, impulsive, egocentric, heroic. Magical-mythic spirits,
dragons, beasts, and powerful people. Archetypal gods and goddesses,
powerful beings, forces to be reckoned with, both good and bad.
Feudal lords protect underlings in exchange for obedience and labor.
The basis of feudal empires-power and glory. The world is a jungle of
threats and predators. Conquers, outfoxes, and dominates; enjoys self
to the fullest without regret or remorse; be here now.

Where seen: The "terrible-twos", rebellious youth, frontier
mentalities, feudal kingdoms, epic heroes, James Bond villains, gang
leaders, soldiers of fortune, New-Age narcissism, wild rock stars,
Attila the Hun, "Lord of the Flies". 20 percent of the population, 5
percent of the power.


WIE: With its tribes and rituals, PURPLE seems to have been quite a leap from the primitive existence of BEIGE. How did the next meme level of the spiral - RED - arise out of PURPLE, and what are its defining characteristics?

DB: In the RED zone, we have the first raw, egocentric self. I am somebody. Beginning approximately ten thousand years ago, what began to cause the change in Life Conditions that led to RED wer not failures, but successes. In PURPLE we had become very successful. We had found food, we had stabilized our lifestyle, we had conquered what we thought were the dragons in our life. Everything was smooth, boring. So many of the youths became discontented. They saw that there was something about their essence that, rather than being contained, limited. Then RED strides forth. Now we have an elite individual beginning to move away from the bonding element of PURPLE, which had become overplayed. So what PURPLE produced, through its success, was the need for strong individuals who ascend to power, who dominate, for example, in a military environment where we don't have time to vote whether or not to "take yon hill." Whatbegins to spring free is the assertion of the raw self - the renegade, the heretic, the barbarian, the go-it-alone, the power-self, the hedonist.

WIE: It's more difficult to see the positive attributes of the RED meme. PURPLE defintiely seems more appealing to me, with its emphasis on human bonding and the sense of the metaphysical.

DB: There are both positive and negative expressions to all the memes, including RED. In RED, we see high crime rates, we see all kinds of rage and rebellion, but we also see wonderful spurts of creativity, heroic acts, and the ability to break from tradition and chart a whole new pathway. And RED rebellion and impulsiveness could only happen because PURPLE, through bonding, stabalized things. And also, RED was a rebellion against the rituals and sacrifices forced on the youth by the PURPLE system, in painful rites of passage, for example. So that's why RED follows PURPLE, and why PURPLE set the stage for RED.

This is very important - I want you to see the interconnection. Memes are not free-floating entities. RED is not better than PURPLE. It's different. So you have to ask, first and foremost, what are the Life Conditions. If the Life Conditions require you to be strong and assertive, or to fight your way out of a horrible situation, then the RED meme is the way to be. RED is not an aberration, but a normal part of the human meme repertoire. This perspective is fundamental to Spiral Dynamics: you accept that the memes do not repreent a heirarchy of "better," but rather that each can be expressed in a positive or negtive way, and that the whole spiral with its assortment of meme codes is inside the person and may be called upon in response to the demands of their changing Life Conditions.

Next Up: BLUE

HolyHandgernade
06-21-2007, 08:14 PM
BLUE

4. Truth Force, find purpose, bring order, insure future.

Blue: Mythic Order. Life has meaning, direction, and purpose, with
outcomes determined by an all-powerful Other or Order. The righteous
Order enforces a code of conduct based on absolutist and unvarying
principles of "right" and "wrong". Violating the code or rules has
severe, perhaps everlasting repercussions. Following the code yields
rewards for the faithful. Basis of ancient nations. Rigid social
hierarchies; paternalistic; one right way to do everything. Law and
order; impulsivisity controlled through guilt; concrete-literal and
fundamentalist belief; obedience to the rule of Order; strongly
conventional and conformist. Often "religious" or "mythic" , but can be secular or atheistic Order or
Mission.

Where seen: Puritan America, Confucian China, Dickensian England,
Singapore discipline, totalitarianism, codes of chivalry or honor,
charitable good deeds, religious fundamentalism (e.g., Christian and
Islamic), Boy and Girl Scouts, "moral majority," patriotism. 40
percent of the population, 30 percent of the power.

WIE: [I]And now to the fourth meme level of the spiral. Could you begin by speaking about the Life Conditions problems produced by RED individualism and egocentricm, which ultimately required a shift up to the next level, BLUE?

DB: In BLUE there is a search for a transcndent purpose, a recognition of the importance of order and meaning, a universe controlled by a single higher power. Society could no longer function with the constant presence of RED, with its war-like, gang-like, warlord-like entities, so we have to grow up, to solve the problems created by RED success. Here for the first time is the capacity to feel guilt (RED feels shame, but not guilt). In the BLUE system, people gladly accept authroitarianism and self-sacrifice for the common good.

When BLUE first develops, it has to handle RED. And that's why in the Old Testament you have such punative measures as "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth." If there is a heavy RED component, then you have, in religious systems and legal systems, the very heavy punitive form of BLUE. It's designed to address the threat of RED, so as long as the RED threat is there, the punitive expression of BLUE will continue to exist. But as BLUE moves away from having to contain the violence in RED, it goes on its life cycle toward its own healthy version, taking the form of more institutionalized systems, in which righteousness, discipline, accountability, stability, perserverance, and order prevail.

What also seems to occur in the brain is a heightened capacity for abstraction, and that abstraction ability attaches itself to a cause, a cause celebre, an "ism" - for example, the Buddhist's Eightfold Path, or the idea of Islam, which are both abstractions. So once again, we're in the metaphysical zone, but this time the PURPLE spirits are organized into "a mighty fortress is our God..." And thus we have the birth of monotheism and Zoroastrianism and all the "isms" that suddenly start emerging about five thousand years ago. And while they had different content, the mode of thinking for all of them was identical.

WIE: I had never considered the world's religions from that point of view, that despite the differences in "content," they are expressions of the same evolutionary stage of development.

DB: Yes, because these meme codes are like a blueprint, or like magnets. The meme code we designate "BLUE" finds its transcendent purpose. What is the transcendent purpose? It could be Buddhism, or Judaism, or Islam. These religious expressions are what that meme code has attached to as a way to express itself. Therefore we can have holy wars between the "isms," both of which are in the BLUE code. Because there's a difference between the surface-level manifestations of the core value system, or meme, and the core system, or meme code, itself.

Up Next: ORANGE

HolyHandgernade
06-21-2007, 08:18 PM
ORANGE

5. Strive Drive, analyze & strategize to prosper.

Orange: Scientific Achievement. At this wave, the self "escapes" from
the "herd mentality" of blue, and seeks truth and meaning in
individualistic terms - hypothetico-deductive, experimental,
objective, mechanistic, operational - "scientific" in the typical
sense. The world is a rational and well-oiled machinewith natural
laws that can be learned, mastered, and manipulated for one's own
purposes. Highly achievement oriented, especially (in America) toward
materialistic gains. The laws of science rules politics, the economy,
and human events. The world is a chessboard on which games are played
as winners gain preeminence and perks over losers. Marketplace
alliances; manipulate earth's resources for one's strategic gains.
Basis of corporate states.

Where seen: The Enlightenment, Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged", Wall
Street, emerging middle classes around the world, cosmetics industry,
trophy hunting, colonialism, the Cold War, fashion industry,
materialism, secular humanism, liberal self-interest. 30 percent of
the population, 50 percent of the power.

WIE: How does institutional, disciplined, absolutist BLUE give rise to the ORANGE meme, the fifth level of the spiral model?

DB: ORANGE is about advancement, improvement, and progress. Once again, you play out the BLUE meme to its ultimate. You make it very, very successful. And then what happened? The individual gets restless. "But I'm an individual. I want to assert my personal autonomy." "No," BLUE says. "You must stay in line and conform to the dictates of the system. Don't you want to go to heaven? Don't you want to have a retirement?" And ORANGE says, "Yes, but I think I can produce heaven on earth. I think I can increase the size of the cake." Thus we have the great Enlightenment, which is simply the individual spirit breaking free from what had become very restrictive forces.

Now the BLUE system, when it first appeared, was relevant, was necessary. But ORANGE individualization began to appear about three hundred years ago, when the sacred leaders became too punitive and also became discredited because they could not protect people from the plagues. And thus we had the birth, thank goodness, of the scientific method. We also had a growing belief in optimism, in changeability - a belief that we can indeed shape our future, that we are the stewards of the universe and therefore have dominion over it. We can carve out a good life for ourselves. And again, some fascinating things happened in the European brain that seemed to occur for the first time in the 1700s - the mathematical sense, the sense of cadence, the linear sense that made possible written music, that made possible quantification and measurement. These classical left brain capacities uniquely developed in the Western brain in the ORANGE system. That entire wonderful movement is begrudingly classified as "Western," but that's really what it is.

WIE: It's refreshing to hear you speak about ORANGE in these terms, because I was reflecting on the many negative effects of this particular meme, for example, the ecological devestation that ORANGE industiralization has given rise to.

DB: That is why we have to look at these things: the Life Conditions, the meme code itself, and the way the meme code is being expressed in a certain context. If we don't like capitalism or consumerism, which are expressions of the ORANGE meme code, it's not the same thing as the meme code itself, which is the capacity to engineer things, to make things better. The creativity and ability to engineer that are inherent in that same ORANGE meme code can now be used to clean up the environment. That's why we can't afford to bash any of these memetic systems. We can challenge a manifestation of it, but without the ORANGE thinking system, we couldn't solve medical problems, we couldn't figure out how to clean up the water or the air, and we would sink back to the myth and mysticism of BLUE. I don't think anybody wants that to happen.

Up Next: GREEN

HolyHandgernade
06-21-2007, 09:32 PM
GREEN

6. Human Bond, explore inner self, equalize others.

Green: The Sensitive Self. Communitarian, human bonding, ecological
sensitivity, networking. The human spirit must be freed from greed,
dogma, and divisiveness; feelings and caring supersede cold
rationality; cherishing the earth, Gaia, life. Against heirarchy;
establishes lateral bonding and linking. Permeable self, relational
self, group intermeshing. Emphasis on dialogue, relationships. Basis
of value communities (i.e., freely chosen affiliations basd on shared
sentiments). Reaches decisions through reconciliation and consensus
(downside: interminable "processing" and incapacity to reach
decisions) Refresh spirituality, bring harmony, enrich human
potential. Strongly egalitarian, antiheirarchy, pluralistic values,
social construction of reality, diversity, multiculturalism,
relativistic value systems; this worldview is often called
pluralistic relativism. Subjective, nonlinear thinking; shows a
greater degree of affective warmth, sensitivity, and caring, for
earth and all its inhabitants.

Where seen: Deep ecology, postmodernism, Netherlands idealism,
Rogerian counseling, Canadian health care, humanistic psychology,
liberation theology, cooperative inquiry, World Council of Churches,
Greenpeace, animal rights, ecofeminism, post-colonialism,
Foucault/Derrida, politically correct, diversity movements, human
rights issues, ecopsychology. 10 percent of the population, 15
percent of the power.


WIE: The GREEN meme is the final level of the spiral's First tier. Can you speak about the GREEN meme, how it emerged out of ORANGE and the role that it plays in human emergence up the spiral?

DB: At its peak, GREEN is communitarian, egalitarina, and consensual. Without ORANGE we wouldn't have GREEN, because in ORANGE the inner being was bypassedand ignored. Our science left us numb, without heart and soul, and with only the outer manifestations of success. The "good life" was measured only in materialistic terms. We discover that we have become alienated from ourselves, as well as from others. So GREEN, this fairly recent memetic code, began to emerge about 150 years ago, out of the Age of Industry, Technology, Affluence, and Enlightenment, to declare that in all of these undertakings, the basic human being has been neglected. The focus shifts from personal achievement to group - and community-oriented goals and objectives - for GREEN, we are all one human family.

GREEN begins by making peace with ourselves and then expands to looking for the dissonance and conflicts in society and wanting to make peace there, too, addressing the economic gaps and inequaties created by ORANGE, and also by BLUE and by RED, to bring peace and brotherhood so we can all share equally. Gender roles are derigidfied, glass ceilings opened, affirmitive action plans are implemented, and social class distinctions are blurred. Spirituality returns as a nondenominational, nonsectarian "unity."

WIE: And since GREEN is the final meme level of First Tier, it must be preparing us to make the transition up to the "Being" levels of the spiral's Second Tier.

DB: Yes, because what GREEN has accomplished, in a very positive sense, is the cleansing of the spiral, declaring an equality of all the different experiences of life. It weakens the control of BLUE and ORANGE, allowing the PURPLE and RED indigenous people tohave their place in the sun and their time on CNN. It works, you see, to find equality and sameness and sensitivity. And it is doing so for a very good purpose: because without GREEN, we could not go to YELLOW and Second Tier.

HolyHandgernade
06-21-2007, 09:39 PM
I'm probably boring people now, so I'll stop there. This is just one developmental line which establishes stages of consciousness. As noted there are others. The difficult thing now becomes, how do we represent these different stage developmental lines in a common background? For example, if we throw in Maslow's heirarchy of "needs" and Gebser's heirarchy of worldviews, what can we use as the overall integral background for which they can be compared. In Integral Theory, we call this "Self Background", and it can look something like this:

http://www.holons-news.com/images/Altitudes_big.jpg

In this manner, we can approximate a general level of "Self" relative to a particular line of development.

-HH

Direckshun
06-21-2007, 09:44 PM
Nothing to add here.
Great thinkers, immoral: Hitler, Bill Clinton
Just wanted to actually quote this.

HolyHandgernade
06-21-2007, 09:48 PM
In Integral Theory, we also have what we call "Zones". There are two Zones for each quadrant giving us a total of eight. Since we are focusing on the Upper Left, we'll stay there. A Zone is described how that quadrant "looks" from the "inside" and from the "outside".

With the stages of development, we described how the "I" quadrant looks from the "outside". In other words, how a scientist might look at interior awareness. We call these "Zone 2" approaches, or structuralism.

Zone 1 approaches, or phenomenology, describes how something appears to the individual in immediate awareness. Whereas Zone 2 dealt with structure-stages, Zone 1 will focus on states of consciousness. It is often in altered states of consciousness that many people have what they describe as the "spiritual experience".

The common "natural or ordinary states" include:

1. waking
2. dreaming
3. deep sleep

In some traditions, two more are added:

4. Witnessing
5. Nondual

Then there are the non-ordinary states:

1. exogenous (drug-induced)
2. endogenous (trained/meditative)

Cultural and traditional elaborations on the nature, contours, and interpretations of these combined states is known as a cartography of states. Cartographies will rarely be uniform as one culture or tradition may emphasize/ignore various aspects of any of these states, possibly even excluding an entire state altogether.

Some of the endogenous approaches include: zazen, centering prayer, shamanic voyaging, vipassana, dervish whirling, and contemplation

Some of the exogenous approaches include ayahuasca, peyote, and LSD

Examples of the ordinary states include:

1. gross-waking states: experiences talking to people, driving a car, doing a chore

2. subtle-dream states: vivid dream, daydream, or visualization

3. causal-formless states: deep dreamless states

4. Witnessing states: capacity for unbroken attention of the waking state or lucid dreaming

5. Nondual awareness: not so much a state as it is the ever-present ground of all states but can be experiences "as such".

-HH

Phobia
06-21-2007, 09:51 PM
Wow. I feel incredibly stupid all of the sudden.

Must leave this thread immediately.

HolyHandgernade
06-21-2007, 09:55 PM
This interaction will give us a grid of sorts to work with:

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/29/43745218_76b4bcdfc7.jpg

This could give us many different interpretations of religious figures, such as Jesus of Christianity:

Magical Jesus: Jesus the Magician (walks on water; multiple loaves, water into wine)

Mythic Jesus: (eternal truth bringer; personal savior; the judge)

Rational Jesus: Fully divine/fully human, but fully human in a more believeable way, draws distinctions in things discoverable by the human mind and spiritual realities that are not

Pluralistic Jesus: "the Christ experience" seen through many perspectives

Mr. Kotter
06-22-2007, 09:00 AM
Nothing to add here.

Just wanted to actually quote this.

There are, of course, different levels of immorality.

FWIW, I'd add Nixon to the list; and maybe Cheney, if that make you feel better.

HH: Thanks for your efforts, I've only had time for light-hearted/seagull posting of late; I'll have some thoughts (maybe....heh) when I can spend some time with it.

Mr. Kotter
06-22-2007, 10:55 PM
Post 36:

Question: So Dr. B considers religion, for example, to be a "meme"--which is analogous to a virus or bacteria? :spock:

That's a premise we are operating from?

Posts 38-42:

Okay,
Green: Colonial America
Blue: 19th to 20th Century America
Orange: Late 20th Century America.
Blue: Modern liberalism....????

Interesting; please....proceed with what I should expect from our "future?" The Teal and Turquoise levels....are we all going to be metrosexuals/bisexual atheists and existentialists who achieved self-actualization through wiccan rituals or connecting to nature, in our lyceums at communal campfires during meditation and yoga...or similar rituals and ceremonies in which we join hands around a the campfire, singing "Kum-buy-ya?" :spock:

I'm really dying to find out.... :hmmm:

Are the only folks who reach the Indigo stage, like....what....Timothy Leary and Jerry Garcia? ;)


:p

Posts 45 & 47....you lost me.

I can't see where you are headed with that... :hmmm:

From my POV, human existence is highly complex....and educated and reflective people experience a variety of levels of consciousness, states, and stages....both concurrently, and throughout life. That's pretty....self-evident, I'd argue.

Logical
06-22-2007, 11:17 PM
I suppose I am between a 1 and 2 on the top chart, I don't see how I fit on the second chart at all.

HolyHandgernade
06-23-2007, 08:18 AM
Post 36:

Question: So Dr. B considers religion, for example, to be a "meme"--which is analogous to a virus or bacteria? :spock:

That's a premise we are operating from?

Yes, but just as an analogy, value memes are intellectual patterns not biological ones. Each child that is born, intellectually, must traverse each of these patterns. How quickly they do so is culturally influenced, but a deficient exposure can lead to an unstable progression.

[Posts 38-42:

Okay,
Green: Colonial America
Blue: 19th to 20th Century America
Orange: Late 20th Century America.
Blue: Modern liberalism....????

Interesting; please....proceed with what I should expect from our "future?" The Teal and Turquoise levels....are we all going to be metrosexuals/bisexual atheists and existentialists who achieved self-actualization through wiccan rituals or connecting to nature, in our lyceums at communal campfires during meditation and yoga...or similar rituals and ceremonies in which we join hands around a the campfire, singing "Kum-buy-ya?" :spock:

I'm really dying to find out.... :hmmm:

Are the only folks who reach the Indigo stage, like....what....Timothy Leary and Jerry Garcia? ;)


:p

Actually, GREEN was a much later development, second half of the twentieth centurey. Here's a chart for when they unfolded, just remember, the unfoldment is chronological, it doesn't necessarily mean "better":

http://www.jonkohl.com/worldview/worldview-assets/newsletters/Spiral%20Dynamics.jpg

[Posts 45 & 47....you lost me.

I can't see where you are headed with that... :hmmm:

From my POV, human existence is highly complex....and educated and reflective people experience a variety of levels of consciousness, states, and stages....both concurrently, and throughout life. That's pretty....self-evident, I'd argue.

I call it the difference between "experience, interpretation, and expression". Each state can produce an authentic experience, but the stage a person is at will determine how it is subsequently interpreted and expressed:

Experience

Any person has the potential to have what we will term the experience of God. By experience we mean an unmitigated realization of the Divine. Because the divine includes but transcends the empirical and intellectual spheres, experience is not something spoken or seen. It is intuitively known without need of such symbology. We will assume the experience itself is universal and unchanging. In other words a person who has an experience intuitively knows the same thing a person hundreds even thousands of years ago also intuitive knew. So the logical question is, if this experience is universal and eternal, why do we have so many different interpretations of the experience?

Interpretation

While the One may be universal, the Many are not. Each person has a particular level of psychological interpretation which they filter every experience through. This screen will give interpretation via the cognitive level, empirical capability, cultural background, and social structure it arises in. In this series of workshops we use the Spiral Dynamics model to generalize these levels. So…..

A BEIGE individual interprets the experience as awe and wonder. He/she begins to transcend the primary concern for self-preservation into their association to the world about them.

A PURPLE individual interprets experience as spirit beings that inhabit trees, rocks, animals or maybe as ancestors from beyond.

A RED individual interprets experience as empowerment or that they are a god or descendent of a god.

A BLUE individual interprets experience as a message from God.

An ORANGE individual interprets experience as genius or the “eureka” experience.

A GREEN individual interprets experience as inter-connectivity.

Expression

Once the individual has an experience and interprets that experience, they now have to choose how to express that interpretation. According to Spiral Dynamics, a person has access to any of the levels that have emerged prior to their current level. So the expression may not reflect the level of the experiencer but rather the general level of an intended audience. Is that what occurs in Mark 4: 10-12:

To you has been given the secret of the kingdom of God, but for those outside, everything comes in parables; in order that `they may indeed look, but not perceive, and may indeed listen, but not understand; so that they may not turn again and be forgiven.'

Parables are like myths, the characters themselves are not historical, they are symbols of a story about something other than the events described. Figuring out what that meaning may be is not always easily deciphered. The disciples (initiates), however, are to receive a special interpretation, the parables are only meant as spiritual allegory.

HolyHandgernade
06-23-2007, 08:23 AM
I suppose I am between a 1 and 2 on the top chart, I don't see how I fit on the second chart at all.

I'm sorry, Logical, which chart are you referring to? The one in the thread header?

-HH

HolyHandgernade
06-23-2007, 08:27 AM
Interesting; please....proceed with what I should expect from our "future?" The Teal and Turquoise levels....are we all going to be metrosexuals/bisexual atheists and existentialists who achieved self-actualization through wiccan rituals or connecting to nature, in our lyceums at communal campfires during meditation and yoga...or similar rituals and ceremonies in which we join hands around a the campfire, singing "Kum-buy-ya?" :spock:

Umm, no. Your combining a lot of prerational stuff with transrational stuff, which is actually a concept addressed in Integral Theory:

The Pre/Trans Fallacy

Taken from Ken Wilber’s Sex, Ecology, Spirituality:

Ever since I began writing on the distinctions between prerational (or prepersonal) states of awareness and transrational (or transpersonal) states - what I called the pre/trans fallacy - I have become more convinced than ever that this understanding is absolutely crucial for grasping the nature of higher (or deeper) or truly spiritual states of consciousness.

The essence of the pre/trans fallacy is itself fairly simple: since both prerational states and transrational states are, in their own ways, nonrational, they appear similar or even identical to the untutored eye. And once pre and trans are confused, then one of two fallacies occurs:

In the first, all higher and transrational states are reduced to lower and prerational states. Genuine mystical or contemplative experiences, for example, are seen as a regression or throwback to infantile states of narcissism, oceanic adualism, indissociation, and even primitive autism. This is, for example, precisely the route taken by Freud in The Future of an Illusion.

In these reductionistic accounts, rationality is the great and final omega point of individual and collective development, the high-water mark of all evolution. No deeper or wider or higher context is thought to exist. Thus, life is to be lived either rationally, or neurotically (Freud's concept of neurosis is basically anything that derails the emergence of rational perception - true enough as far as it goes, which is just not all that far). Since no higher context is thought to be real, or to actually exist, then whenever any genuinely transrational occasion occurs, it is immediately explained as a regression to prerational structures (since they are the only nonrational structures allowed, and thus the only ones to accept an explanatory hypothesis). The superconscious is reduced to the subconscious, the transpersonal is collapsed to the prepersonal, the emergence of the higher is reinterpreted as an irruption from the lower. All breathe a sigh of relief, and the rational worldspace is not fundamentally shaken (by "the black tide of the mud of occultism!" as Freud so quaintly explained it to Jung).

On the other hand, if one is sympathetic with higher or mystical states, but one still confuses pre and trans, then one will elevate all prerational states to some sort of transrational glory (the infantile primary narcissism, for example, is seen as an unconscious slumbering in the mystico unio). Jung and his followers, of course, often take this route, and are forced to read a deeply transpersonal and spiritual status into states that are merely indissociated and undifferentiated and actually lacking any sort of integration at all.

In the elevationist position, the transpersonal and transrational mystical union is seen as the ultimate omega point, and since egoic-rationality does indeed tend to deny this higher state, then egoic-rationality is pictured as the low point of human possibilities, as a debasement, as the cause of sin and separation and alienation. When rationality is seen as the anti-omega point, so to speak, as the great Anti-Christ, then anything nonrational gets swept up and indiscriminately glorified as a direct route to the Divine, including much that is infantile and regressive and prerational: anything to get rid of that nasty and skeptical rationality. "I believe because it is absurd" (Tertullian) - there is the battle cry of the elevationist (a strand that runs deeply through Romanticism of any sort).

Freud was a reductionist, Jung an elevationist - the two sides of the pre/trans fallacy. And the point is that they are both half right and half wrong. A good deal of neurosis is indeed a fixation/regression to prerational states, states that are not to be glorified. On the other hand, mystical states do indeed exist, beyond (not beneath) rationality, and those states are not to be reduced.

For most of the recent modern era, and certainly since Freud (and Marx and Ludwig Feuerbach), the reductionist stance toward spirituality has prevailed - all spiritual experiences, no matter how highly developed they might in fact be, were simply interpreted as regressions to primitive and infantile modes of thought. However, as if in overreaction to all that, we are now, and have been since the sixties, in the throes of various forms of elevationism (exemplified by, but by no means confined to, the New Age movement). All sorts of endeavors, of no matter what origin or of what authenticity, are simply elevated to transrational and spiritual glory, and the only qualification for this wonderful promotion is that the endeavor be nonrational. Anything rational is wrong; anything nonrational is spiritual.

Spirit is indeed nonrational; but it is trans, not pre. It transcends but includes reason; it does not regress and exclude it. Reason, like any particular stage of evolution, has its own (and often devastating) limitations, repressions, and distortions. But as we have seen, the inherent problems of one level are solved (or "defused") only at the next level of development; they are not solved by regressing to a previous level where the problem can be merely ignored. And so it is with the wonders and the terrors of reason: it brings enormous new capacities and new solutions, while introducing its own specific problems, problems solved only by a transcendence to the higher and transrational realms.

Many of the elevationist movements, alas, are not beyond reason but beneath it. They think they are, and they announce themselves to be, climbing the Mountain of Truth; whereas, it seems to me, they have merely slipped and fallen and are sliding rapidly down it, and the exhilarating rush of skidding uncontrollably down evolution's slope they call "following your bliss." As the earth comes rushing up at them at terminal velocity, they are bold enough to offer this collision course with ground zero as a new paradigm for the coming world transformation, and they feel oh-so-sorry for those who watch their coming crash with the same fascination as one watches a twenty-car pileup on the highway, and they sadly nod as we decline to join in that particular adventure. True spiritual bliss, in infinite measure, lies up that hill, not down it.

Mr. Kotter
06-23-2007, 11:24 AM
Fascinating.....Post #53.

BEST and most interesting post in the thread, so far...very interesting and illuminating. FTR, the other stuff is good and necessary to get to this point, but this is what I was hoping to hear about. :hmmm:


Umm, no. Your combining a lot of prerational stuff with transrational stuff, which is actually a concept addressed in Integral Theory:

The Pre/Trans Fallacy

Taken from Ken Wilber’s Sex, Ecology, Spirituality:

Ever since I began writing on the distinctions between prerational (or prepersonal) states of awareness and transrational (or transpersonal) states - what I called the pre/trans fallacy - I have become more convinced than ever that this understanding is absolutely crucial for grasping the nature of higher (or deeper) or truly spiritual states of consciousness.

The essence of the pre/trans fallacy is itself fairly simple: since both prerational states and transrational states are, in their own ways, nonrational, they appear similar or even identical to the untutored eye. And once pre and trans are confused, then one of two fallacies occurs:

My question was purposefully provocative, and TIC. But it seemed to bring elicit exactly what I was hoping to see...


In the first, all higher and transrational states are reduced to lower and prerational states. Genuine mystical or contemplative experiences, for example, are seen as a regression or throwback to infantile states of narcissism, oceanic adualism, indissociation, and even primitive autism. This is, for example, precisely the route taken by Freud in The Future of an Illusion.

In these reductionistic accounts, rationality is the great and final omega point of individual and collective development, the high-water mark of all evolution. No deeper or wider or higher context is thought to exist. Thus, life is to be lived either rationally, or neurotically (Freud's concept of neurosis is basically anything that derails the emergence of rational perception - true enough as far as it goes, which is just not all that far). Since no higher context is thought to be real, or to actually exist, then whenever any genuinely transrational occasion occurs, it is immediately explained as a regression to prerational structures (since they are the only nonrational structures allowed, and thus the only ones to accept an explanatory hypothesis). The superconscious is reduced to the subconscious, the transpersonal is collapsed to the prepersonal, the emergence of the higher is reinterpreted as an irruption from the lower. All breathe a sigh of relief, and the rational worldspace is not fundamentally shaken (by "the black tide of the mud of occultism!" as Freud so quaintly explained it to Jung).


So, rigidly existential folks would seem to embrace this paradigm.... and would be "reductionists." As atheists/agnostics/humanists they hold up science and empirical study as their "God." Reductionists would include those posters here, who reject and scoff at religion....as an "ancient myth of medieval goat herders" or a "primitive psychological decoy?" Is that the idea?

"Egoic rationality"....heh. I like that--and the association with Freud. VERY nice. :hmmm:


On the other hand, if one is sympathetic with higher or mystical states, but one still confuses pre and trans, then one will elevate all prerational states to some sort of transrational glory (the infantile primary narcissism, for example, is seen as an unconscious slumbering in the mystico unio). Jung and his followers, of course, often take this route, and are forced to read a deeply transpersonal and spiritual status into states that are merely indissociated and undifferentiated and actually lacking any sort of integration at all.

In the elevationist position, the transpersonal and transrational mystical union is seen as the ultimate omega point, and since egoic-rationality does indeed tend to deny this higher state, then egoic-rationality is pictured as the low point of human possibilities, as a debasement, as the cause of sin and separation and alienation. When rationality is seen as the anti-omega point, so to speak, as the great Anti-Christ, then anything nonrational gets swept up and indiscriminately glorified as a direct route to the Divine, including much that is infantile and regressive and prerational: anything to get rid of that nasty and skeptical rationality. "I believe because it is absurd" (Tertullian) - there is the battle cry of the elevationist (a strand that runs deeply through Romanticism of any sort).


So, aggressively evangelical and proselytizing fundamentalist and literalistic Christians and other similar religious groups would seem to embrace this paradigm...and would be "elevationists." They are likely unable, or unwilling, to reconcile evolution and scientific contradictions with their faith--to the extent, often, of demonizing empirical study.

Tertullian-like "blind faith" as some call it. Interesting. :hmmm:


Freud was a reductionist, Jung an elevationist - the two sides of the pre/trans fallacy. And the point is that they are both half right and half wrong. A good deal of neurosis is indeed a fixation/regression to prerational states, states that are not to be glorified. On the other hand, mystical states do indeed exist, beyond (not beneath) rationality, and those states are not to be reduced.

For most of the recent modern era, and certainly since Freud (and Marx and Ludwig Feuerbach), the reductionist stance toward spirituality has prevailed - all spiritual experiences, no matter how highly developed they might in fact be, were simply interpreted as regressions to primitive and infantile modes of thought. However, as if in overreaction to all that, we are now, and have been since the sixties, in the throes of various forms of elevationism (exemplified by, but by no means confined to, the New Age movement). All sorts of endeavors, of no matter what origin or of what authenticity, are simply elevated to transrational and spiritual glory, and the only qualification for this wonderful promotion is that the endeavor be nonrational. Anything rational is wrong; anything nonrational is spiritual..

So, the elevationists tend to be neurotic; and reductionists choose to be blissfully, and arrogantly, ignorant? :hmmm:

Cetainly, the 20th Century was a reductionist period--and the 21st Century has started off with a bang. The elevationist reaction through the Counter Culture and New Age beliefs certainly seems to have limited appeal though. Life experiences and spiritual maturity seem to temper those over-reactions in many people though, IMO--at least the ones who are ambitious enough to conscientiously consider such matters.

Interesting notion that, in effect, the hippies/Hollywood/New Age type folks, and fundies/literalists/devout-dogmatics are actually different sides to the same coin--as is the irony that existentialists (as reductionists) are as primitive as they folks they often denigrate as "primitive." Heh.


Spirit is indeed nonrational; but it is trans, not pre. It transcends but includes reason; it does not regress and exclude it. Reason, like any particular stage of evolution, has its own (and often devastating) limitations, repressions, and distortions. But as we have seen, the inherent problems of one level are solved (or "defused") only at the next level of development; they are not solved by regressing to a previous level where the problem can be merely ignored. And so it is with the wonders and the terrors of reason: it brings enormous new capacities and new solutions, while introducing its own specific problems, problems solved only by a transcendence to the higher and transrational realms.

Many of the elevationist movements, alas, are not beyond reason but beneath it. They think they are, and they announce themselves to be, climbing the Mountain of Truth; whereas, it seems to me, they have merely slipped and fallen and are sliding rapidly down it, and the exhilarating rush of skidding uncontrollably down evolution's slope they call "following your bliss." As the earth comes rushing up at them at terminal velocity, they are bold enough to offer this collision course with ground zero as a new paradigm for the coming world transformation, and they feel oh-so-sorry for those who watch their coming crash with the same fascination as one watches a twenty-car pileup on the highway, and they sadly nod as we decline to join in that particular adventure. True spiritual bliss, in infinite measure, lies up that hill, not down it.

Wow. That's really some good stuff right there. Seriously. :clap:

I'm sure there will be several posters, from those opposite sides of the divide, who will take umbrage at this analysis/theory/assessment. However, from my perspective (and IMHO)...Wilber nails it. I'm going to add him to my reading list. Good stuff.

:thumb:

HolyHandgernade
06-23-2007, 01:18 PM
He's written more than 20 books, so if you want some help in where to start, let me know.

-HH

irishjayhawk
06-23-2007, 08:05 PM
What I liked was his definition of supernatural belief. I like that he doesn't pull the dogma that makes spirituality a religion into the mix. This helps keep clutter out. Though, it would seem he could have easily shot down the dogma that religion inherently has with his definition and stance on supernatural belief.

However, I disagree with some points. First, I disagree with his assertion that spirituality is a trans. It does not transcend rationality - or shouldn't. And here's my justification:

Let us assume that we all have collective amnesia tomorrow and forget everything we've learned - everything. In what way would we discover the world, again?

Well, first, we'd probably conclude we need to gain some sort of communication. Therefore, we could all be on the same page. Of course, geographic barriers will spawn different languages and thus produce the same "translation" process as we have today. We would most likely need a written and oral system and this would take some time to develop. In fact, we need to help this develop.

Thus, we explore the world. Of course, we need to eat. Thus, we would start to find things to sustain ourselves. What we know as fishing, hunting, farming etc, would begin to crop up. We would acquaint ourselves with fire to cook. It would result in a couple deaths due to our lack of knowledge as to what "fire" actually is. We would discover that it's, what we would call, "hot" and it would "burn" you. These sorts of discoveries would persist and develop the language. Generation after generation would (re)learn these things. And there ends the example for my intents and purposes, though it could be much, much longer and more developed.

It is here I must pose the question: would we use "faith" or "reason"?

It would most certainly not be "faith". The reason (not "reason") is simple but has many options to choose from.

Reasons:
1) Language wasn't developed until we had already discovered the world.
We could not understand the Bible nor could we write one. To write another "Bible" we would need an understanding of how the world works before jotting down anything. Moreover, the geographic barriers that led to the spawning of new languages - and different ones - will also lead to the exact same problem we have today: a geographic divide of spirituality. Of course, this is much, much later.

2) Empirical testing, evidence and proof are the means to the primary knowledge.
Think about it this way. We would not "pray" (as we know it) to seek the answer as to whether fire is hot. That comes with concrete empirical testing and evidence. It appeals to the sense of touch. It is through testing and the gathering of proof and evidence as well as sensory perception that we understand the world and pass that knowledge on.

3) Questions of the supernatural only abound after we have grasped the natural.
No one would start asking a supernatural being for help because the point has not arisen to where knowledge of the world leads to questions of "how did we get here" etc. The reason I say this is simple. One must be acquainted with the surroundings in order to survive. The longevity of life would depend on this. With the increased longevity and the knowledge of the way things work (agriculture, cooking, manufacturing, tool building, etc) we can spend time pondering the supernatural because we've got enough grasp of the natural.

==
All three points indicate that we'd have to grasp the natural world in order to even think about the supernatural. Otherwise, we would simply die away. In other words, we must become higher than animals - intelligence wise - before we start embarking on the supernatural. Thus, I cannot bring myself to embrace any philosophy that has supernatural belief as transcendent beyond reason.



================
I also disagree with his point about rationality's downfall. He says:

Reason, like any particular stage of evolution, has its own (and often devastating) limitations, repressions, and distortions. But as we have seen, the inherent problems of one level are solved (or "defused") only at the next level of development; they are not solved by regressing to a previous level where the problem can be merely ignored. And so it is with the wonders and the terrors of reason: it brings enormous new capacities and new solutions, while introducing its own specific problems, problems solved only by a transcendence to the higher and transrational realms.

Of course reason has it's can of worms that it consistently opens. However, how are we ever to make progress if no can of worms is ever opened. The end of his above claim is falling into the same fallacy I pointed out above. He seems to be under the impression that to discover that fire burns, we need to consult a transrational realm. This is flat out not true. We need only consult our senses, which in any case, interact solely with the natural world and is thus based in empirical testing (aka science/reason).

For example, let's take the cloning. It opens a can of worms. It gives us both insight into technology, physics, chemistry, biology and the like. However, to solve it's "problems" we need not consult a transcendent level of awareness. It is here that I think morals or pseudo morals are conceived. I believe he is cloaking a few things into some deep language and one of those is the morality that new developments bring. Consulting a transrational realm to solve a rational problem is like consulting a plumber on fixing a heart attack. It's consulting something/one from another realm of expertise to fix something in a different expertise.

I contend that if we were to approach matters with his above tact, we would severely retard society's growth.


Let me throw out another example: the monetary system. The monetary system is based entirely on "proof", "evidence" and "reason". It is based ENTIRELY on the natural realm. It is trading something concrete for something else. It is not - at all - based on faith, spirituality, or supernatural. If it was, I could simply tell someone that I have 1 billion dollars and that should cover anything. Except, I don't have the physical document. I am merely telling them to take it upon faith, which is what supernatural belief relies on. It's like someone trying to pay for a bus ticket with galleons (money found in Harry Potter books). They don't exist (excluding toys that have since "brought them to life") monetarily. Thus, they don't constitute currency. However, if the monetary system was based on faith, why would galleons be any different than a dollar bill. Do you see what I'm trying to say (I think I said it way to convoluted)?



In all, I think his argument on the "rational" side is weak. It doesn't give any insight. However, on the faith side, it does give some enlightening ideas. Moreover, he acknowledges that spirit is indeed nonrational. But then again, he says it's trans which falls into a gaping fallacy, in my view.

Mr. Kotter
06-23-2007, 08:46 PM
IRISHJAYHAWK:

So, let me see if I have this right:

1. You accept Wilber's critique of spirituality--except when he characterizes it as "transcendent," but you you reject his critique of rationality and existentialism....because it doesn't comport with your own narrow construct that all human existence should only focus on empirical evidence and experience. Doesn't that strike you as mighty convenient?

2. You seem content that mankind will never evolve past the second (or perhaps, third?) ring in the thread starter "model of being", or of progressing past the Orange Meme aspiring for the Green, Yellow, or Turqoise Meme's....because, rationality and reason are ALL that there really is...we have no need to understand anything else, because if it is not "observable" and "empirical" in the scientific sense, it isn't real IYO.

3. You reject the value of such transcendence on the notion that science and empirical research will grant us everything worth knowing, and that diversions into what Wilber terms "trans"....merely detract from what can be achieved if we weren't diverted. This despite the fact that most of us can walk and chew gum at the same time....that reason and scientific inquiry have flourished during the same time that religion and faith have grown and prospered as well.

4. Finally, you also seem to be under the illusion that our monetary standard is still based....on the gold, or a gold and silver standard, that we have in reserve, dollar for dollar....that which is represented in currency and in circulation in our economy. That hasn't been the case for nearly a century. Surely, you know that. Yes, it is FAITH that our government and economy can be trusted to repay that which we have in circulation....that gives our currency it's strength and today's value--it's not the symbolic gold, silver, and other precious metals that are stored in places like Ft. Knox, which represents only a percentage of the currency issued and in circulation.

Correct me, if I'm wrong? :shrug:

Existentialists are often critical of spiritual and religious types for being rigid and dogmatic in their beliefs. It is a criticism that, while painted with too broad a brush is often true.

Aren't scientific/atheist/agnostic/humanist types just as guilty of dogmatic and rigid belief, when they choose to elevate empirical study and science as their own "God"--a God not to be questioned, challenged, even when it is shown to be inadequate?

:hmmm:

irishjayhawk
06-23-2007, 09:03 PM
IRISHJAYHAWK:

So, let me see if I have this right:

1. You accept Wilber's critique of spirituality--except when he characterizes it as "transcendent," but you you reject his critique of rationality and existentialism....because it doesn't comport with your own narrow construct that all human existence should only focus on empirical evidence and experience. Doesn't that strike you as mighty convenient?

It aligns with what I've discovered, so I guess it's convenient. However, it is you who is saying my view is narrow. Just as spirituality is irrational.

2. You seem content that mankind will never evolve past the second (or perhaps, third?) ring in the thread starter "model of being", or of progressing past the Orange Meme aspiring for the Green, Yellow, or Turqoise Meme's....because, rationality and reason are ALL that there really is...we have no need to understand anything else, because if it is not "observable" and "empirical" in the scientific sense, it isn't real IYO.

I'm not sure what you would classify in what ring. That is, "thoughts" are not physically observable, but we know we are having "thoughts" because we have defined them using our language system. But, I would disagree that they are in the same realm as transrational.


3. You reject the value of such transcendence on the notion that science and empirical research will grant us everything worth knowing, and that diversions into what Wilber terms "trans"....merely detract from what can be achieved if we weren't diverted. This despite the fact that most of us can walk and chew gum at the same time....that reason and scientific inquiry have flourished during the same time that religion and faith have grown and prospered as well.

This is very, very misleading. Religion and faith often confronted, stigmatized or hindered scientific inquiry. Heliocentricity, for one. The fact that both have grown through out the same period is irrelevant. It's like a plant that grows in the shade of another. It doesn't mean both flourished because obviously if both had flourished it they would be the same height and attract equal sunlight.

Moreover, it is in the here and now that the MOST conflict between science and religion has seen. Stem Cell Research is one excellent example. It is the majority (religious) against the minority (scientific). While some of each camp overlap, the politics side with the religious on almost every issue in fear of losing vote.

What would you deem things we need to know that surpass reason and scientific inquiry?


4. Finally, you also seem to be under the illusion that our monetary standard is still based....on the gold, or a gold and silver standard, that we have in reserve, dollar for dollar....that which is represented in currency and in circulation in our economy. That hasn't been the case for nearly a century. Surely, you know that. Yes, it is FAITH that our government and economy can be trusted to repay that which we have in circulation....that gives our currency it's strength and today's value--it's not the symbolic gold, silver, and other precious metals that are stored in places like Ft. Knox, which represents only a percentage of the currency issued and in circulation.

You are inputing another type of "faith". In the dollar example, since you want to talk about gold/silver standards, would be the equivalent of me saying "Here is $2000" but I only gave you 2 bills. I told you to take it upon faith that those two bills add up to $2000. You would not do this and thus consult the rational stage which is reliant on proof and evidence. (ie. Physically counting the money to $2000)



Correct me, if I'm wrong? :shrug:

Existentialists are often critical of spiritual and religious types for being rigid and dogmatic in their beliefs. It is a criticism that, while painted with too broad a brush is too often true.

Aren't scientific/atheist/agnostic/humanist types just as guilty of dogmatic and rigid belief, when they choose to elevate empirical study and science as their own God--a God not to be question, challenged, or shown to be inadequate?

:hmmm:

No, scientific/atheist/agnostic/humanist types are not as guilty of dogmatic and rigid beliefs. The reason is pretty simple: science concedes when it is wrong, religion does not. And I think you also know, yourself, that this question is as absurd as the "can atheists/etc have morals", when the case is clearly so.

Furthermore, the point of science is to QUESTION, CHALLENGE or shown to be INADEQUATE. All the things science does not do. It needs no elevation.

Mr. Kotter
06-23-2007, 10:41 PM
It aligns with what I've discovered, so I guess it's convenient. However, it is you who is saying my view is narrow. Just as spirituality is irrational.

So, in your view, anything....not empirical/observable/measureable (rational, in the sense you are insisting--not me) is unworthy of investigation, consideration, or value?

I'm not sure what you would classify in what ring. That is, "thoughts" are not physically observable, but we know we are having "thoughts" because we have defined them using our language system. But, I would disagree that they are in the same realm as transrational.

The smaller diagram in the thread starter; the inner two rings, qualify...even by your narrow view...as valid. You seemingly reject anything outside that, if I'm understanding you correctly. Is that right?


This is very, very misleading. Religion and faith often confronted, stigmatized or hindered scientific inquiry. Heliocentricity, for one. The fact that both have grown through out the same period is irrelevant. It's like a plant that grows in the shade of another. It doesn't mean both flourished because obviously if both had flourished it they would be the same height and attract equal sunlight.

Moreover, it is in the here and now that the MOST conflict between science and religion has seen. Stem Cell Research is one excellent example. It is the majority (religious) against the minority (scientific). While some of each camp overlap, the politics side with the religious on almost every issue in fear of losing vote.

Again, you are fond of painting with a wide brush. Yes, faith has questioned theories and controversial issue....as they emerge. The strength of the RC Church during medieval times though, surpasses anything comparable today. Your argument is a straw man.

Yes, politicians (at least conservative ones) are taking a cautious/go-slow approach with stem-cell research--which, according to many folks (even non-religious types) isn't necessarily a bad thing. However, anyone with a brain can see....the momentum of this movement, especially as research continues and if it lives up to it's "promise" is... clearly on your side. You give the other side too much credit...when the research is, CLEARLY, "progressing" despite objections by an albeit powerful fringe. However, objections are not....despite what you or I may think, without merit. On the contrary, if they shape a more responsible, and ultimately a more "accepted" approach to the controversy...then, in the end, that's actually a GOOD thing. Because, it engenders credibility....that, in a democratic society, is important; and which, in this case, might otherwise be absent.

What would you deem things we need to know that surpass reason and scientific inquiry?

The simple fact you'd ask this question, speaks to the inadequacies or your paradigm. SOOOO much unexplained....you have faith that "science" will some how, some day, reveal to us? Talk about blind faith....heh.

;)

You are inputing another type of "faith". In the dollar example, since you want to talk about gold/silver standards, would be the equivalent of me saying "Here is $2000" but I only gave you 2 bills. I told you to take it upon faith that those two bills add up to $2000. You would not do this and thus consult the rational stage which is reliant on proof and evidence. (ie. Physically counting the money to $2000)

Is currency founded in dollar for dollar hard "value" of gold and silver and other precious metals or not? If it isn't, there is an clear and undeniable element of "FAITH," in the monetary system which YOU cited as an analogy to empirical study and science---a very flawed analogy, I must point out.


No, scientific/atheist/agnostic/humanist types are not as guilty of dogmatic and rigid beliefs. The reason is pretty simple: science concedes when it is wrong, religion does not. And I think you also know, yourself, that this question is as absurd as the "can atheists/etc have morals", when the case is clearly so.

Furthermore, the point of science is to QUESTION, CHALLENGE or shown to be INADEQUATE. All the things science does not do. It needs no elevation.

Look in the mirror, and tell me who is more rigid....you or me? I'm willing, as are many "believers" (despite your delusions)....that 'we' don't have all the answers. You are painting all believers as literalistic/dogmatic/fundamentalists. That might be 1 in 4, or 1 in 3...at BEST. Most of us don't have nearly the FAITH (ironically) that you seem to have that science will answer all of our questions. But we also recognize, we don't have all the answers either. So stop pretending that we all feel that way.

Yes, there are plenty of religiously rigid and dogmatic types; however, to deny the existence of similarly rigid and dogmatic people, existentialists/atheists/agnostics/humanists, on your side of this debate....only diminishes your credibility, IMHO.

irishjayhawk
06-23-2007, 11:02 PM
So, in your view, anything....not empirical/observable/measureable (rational, in the sense you are insisting--not me) is unworthy of investigation, consideration, or value?

What?

The smaller diagram in the thread starter; the inner two rings, qualify...even by your narrow view...as valid. You seemingly reject anything outside that, if I'm understanding you correctly. Is that right?

I would include the mind as well. After that, yes.

Again, you are fond of painting with a wide brush. Yes, faith has questioned theories and controversial issue....as they emerge. The strength of the RC Church during medieval times though, surpasses anything comparable today. Your argument is a straw man.

The strength of the RC Church has no bearing on the fact that they questioned theories and controversial issues as they emerged. If you want a "today" example, look no further than the disappointing view against condoms in AIDS ridden Africa.

I'm not sure I see the straw man - or at least the same one you do.


Yes, politicians (at least conservative ones) are taking a cautious/go-slow approach with stem-cell research--which, according to many folks (even non-religious types) isn't necessarily a bad thing. However, anyone with a brain can see....the momentum of this movement, especially as research continues and if it lives up to it's "promise" is... clearly on your side. You give the other side too much credit...when the research is, CLEARLY, "progressing" despite objections by an albeit powerful fringe. However, objections are not....despite what you or I may think, without merit. On the contrary, if they shape a more responsible, and ultimately a more "accepted" approach to the controversy...then, in the end, that's actually a GOOD thing. Because, it engenders credibility....that, in a democratic society, is important; and which, in this case, might otherwise be absent.

I never disagreed that the off handed approach is wrong nor that the objections are without merit. However, objections based solely on morals that are derived solely from their respective dogma (Church teaching, Holy Book, supernatural being) is something I object to. Maybe I am wrong, but this seems to be the majority of believers. If not, what exactly are they getting their morals from?



The simple fact you'd ask this question, speaks to the inadequacies or your paradigm. SOOOO much unexplained....you have faith that "science" will some how, some day, reveal to us? Talk about blind faith....heh.

;)

Yet, you are doing the exact same, but with certainty. I am well aware that we may never know. You assumed I had the faith they will without a doubt discover the answers to these questions.

You, as a believer, are answering what science cannot answer AT THE PRESENT TIME. Just as in Jesus' time they weren't aware of the germ theory. The middle ages didn't have the microscope.



Is currency founded in dollar for dollar hard "value" of gold and silver and other precious metals or not? If it isn't, there is an clear and undeniable element of "FAITH," in the monetary system which YOU cited as an analogy to empirical study and science---a very flawed analogy, I must point out.

Perhaps it is a flawed analogy but again the backing doesn't matter. I would argue that you are inserting a different type of "faith" because this isn't "faith" in a supernatural, but "faith" in the natural. Either someone has 1B dollars or they don't. You wouldn't go into a transaction and give them the benefit of the doubt on "faith" - even in the natural form.


Look in the mirror, and tell me who is more rigid....you or me? I'm willing, as are many "believers" (despite your delusions)....that 'we' don't have all the answers. You are painting all believers as literalistic/dogmatic/fundamentalists. That might be 1 in 4, or 1 in 3...at BEST. Most of us don't have nearly the FAITH (ironically) that you seem to have that science will answer all of our questions. But we also recognize, we don't have all the answers either. So stop pretending that we all feel that way.

Don't confuse passionate defense of science in an age of religious dominance for blind faith in the institution. Again, I will concede any time - and if I have misspoken (please point it out to me) on this - I will admit my error. I have never said for certain that it will prove anything like the questions you want answered.

However, you are not like most believers. Most believers, especially according to polls, aren't as liberal as you and wouldn't claim "not to know". Deists is perhaps the best camp to be in for believers because dogma/religion claims to have the answers. God DOES exist. God gave us commandments. God says this and that.

Personally, and you may have said this earlier or in another thread, you seem more like a deist than anything.


Yes, there are plenty of religiously rigid and dogmatic types; however, to deny the existence of similarly rigid and dogmatic people, existentialists/atheists/agnostics/humanists, on your side of this debate....only diminishes your credibility, IMHO.

How can one be dogmatic about atheism? About science? Are we dogmatic because we follow the Scientific Method?

I think you are also fond of painting with broad brushes.

Mr. Kotter
06-23-2007, 11:28 PM
I'll respond more selectively, some of this....it appears we are just treading water....


The strength of the RC Church has no bearing on the fact that they questioned theories and controversial issues as they emerged. If you want a "today" example, look no further than the disappointing view against condoms in AIDS ridden Africa.

No bearing, you say...the fact that during the Middle Ages the RC Church and the Inquisition...put to death those who engaged in heresy, or blasphemy...has NO BEARING on such a comparison with the "similar" role that, religion plays today...NO BEARING???

Condoms in Africa? Hell, we can't get....AMERICAN kids to use them like they should. You wanna blame that on the Church?

Sorry.... LMAO LMAO

I never disagreed that the off handed approach is wrong nor that the objections are without merit. However, objections based solely on morals that are derived solely from their respective dogma (Church teaching, Holy Book, supernatural being) is something I object to. Maybe I am wrong, but this seems to be the majority of believers. If not, what exactly are they getting their morals from?

Objections based SOLELY on religious morals? You can't be serious. Bubba, an average uneducated non-religious redneck from Arkansas...could easily object on the "unnatural" morality of it. One need not be religious or even educated....to recognize the possible violation of nature, and laws of nature....which, in the view of some (not me) are an attempt to elevate mankind to the status of God.


Yet, you are doing the exact same, but with certainty. I am well aware that we may never know. You assumed I had the faith they will without a doubt discover the answers to these questions.

You, as a believer, are answering what science cannot answer AT THE PRESENT TIME. Just as in Jesus' time they weren't aware of the germ theory. The middle ages didn't have the microscope.

There is absolutely no certainty on my part--ever; only a challenge to the certainty you are projecting. If you believe science only needs "time" to solve all the "unexplained" nature of life and the universe.....that's precisely the problem I'm talking about. There are many things, religion nor science...will EVER solve.

Perhaps it is a flawed analogy but again the backing doesn't matter. I would argue that you are inserting a different type of "faith" because this isn't "faith" in a supernatural, but "faith" in the natural. Either someone has 1B dollars or they don't. You wouldn't go into a transaction and give them the benefit of the doubt on "faith" - even in the natural form.

You, as with the whole distinction between Faith and Science....are making this, much, much, too difficult. FAITH in our government and economy IS what gives our currency value; it may not be "supernatural"...but the difference between the two, is irrelevant.

Don't confuse passionate defense of science in an age of religious dominance for blind faith in the institution. Again, I will concede any time - and if I have misspoken (please point it out to me) on this - I will admit my error. I have never said for certain that it will prove anything like the questions you want answered.

However, you are not like most believers. Most believers, especially according to polls, aren't as liberal as you and wouldn't claim "not to know". Deists is perhaps the best camp to be in for believers because dogma/religion claims to have the answers. God DOES exist. God gave us commandments. God says this and that.

Personally, and you may have said this earlier or in another thread, you seem more like a deist than anything.

"Most" believers? You rely on "polling" data...however flawed, to reach that dubious conclusion, I take it? Yeah, I may be different in that I'm willing to articulate my position more precisely than most...but I think, once again, you conveniently are lumping all folks who sit their ass in a pew on Sunday....mistakenly, as blindly SUBSCRIBING to every aspect of the doctrines, dogma, and specific teachings that a particular demonination may promote. That is purely, simply, and patently....not the case in my experience.

Many "believers" participate in congregations and become members of a church, more out of fellowship, a sense of community, or even as a culturally comfortable and convenient.....outward expression of an individual spirituality, that is NOT tied to the specific rigid and dogmatic teachings of the particular church they happen to attend. Mankind is a social animal; our motivations are much more likely driven by that....than some devotion to a particular doctrine.

How can one be dogmatic about atheism? About science? Are we dogmatic because we follow the Scientific Method?

I think you are also fond of painting with broad brushes.

dogma: An authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true.

If the unerring and absolute truth that you ascribe to science and empirical study is not "dogmatic"....I don't know what is.... :shrug:

irishjayhawk
06-23-2007, 11:48 PM
I'll respond more selectively, some of this....it appears we are just treading water....



No bearing, you say...the fact that during the Middle Ages the RC Church and the Inquisition...put to death those who engaged in heresy, or blasphemy...has NO BEARING on such a comparison with the "similar" role that, religion plays today...NO BEARING???

Condoms in Africa? Hell, we can't get....AMERICAN kids to use them like they should. You wanna blame that on the Church?

Sorry.... LMAO LMAO

I didn't blame the Church but still being AGAINST condoms even when it prevents AIDS (or helps to) is asinine. And I think you misunderstood what exactly I meant by the first part. The strength of the RC Church and the fact it doesn't have any comparable thing today doesn't have any bearing on the fact that they did question beliefs. I didn't see the connection in your post.

Objections based SOLELY on religious morals? You can't be serious. Bubba, an average uneducated non-religious redneck from Arkansas...could easily object on the "unnatural" morality of it. One need not be religious or even educated....to recognize the possible violation of nature, and laws of nature....which, in the view of some (not me) are an attempt to elevate mankind to the status of God.

I have a problem with the fact that the supernatural powers are often the source of morals, which isn't true. Other than that, I agree. And FTR, I never said non-religious people weren't against it. And I don't see any violation of nature and laws of nature here.

There is absolutely no certainty on my part--ever; only a challenge to the certainty you are projecting. If you believe science only needs "time" to solve all the "unexplained" nature of life and the universe.....that's precisely the problem I'm talking about. There are many things, religion nor science...will EVER solve.

First, you have stated God Exists here or in another thread (pretty directly too). Thus, you are claiming to have an answer. "God". Thus, you are doing the exact same thing you accuse me of doing - even though I'm not.

No, believing science only needs time to solve the unexplained is not far fetched nor a problem. As I said later in the same post that I have never claimed nor would claim - and if I did I misspoke - that science will solve ANY or ALL answers in the future.

And the last claim is your opinion entirely.



You, as with the whole distinction between Faith and Science....are making this, much, much, too difficult. FAITH in our government and economy IS what gives our currency value; it may not be "supernatural"...but the difference between the two, is irrelevant.

The difference is not irrelevant. Faith in the supernatural implies there are things outside the natural. Faith in the natural keeps things in the same realm.



"Most" believers? You rely on "polling" data...however flawed, to reach that dubious conclusion, I take it? Yeah, I may be different in that I'm willing to articulate my position more precisely than most...but I think, once again, you conveniently are lumping all folks who sit their ass in a pew on Sunday....mistakenly, as blindly SUBSCRIBING to every aspect of the doctrines, dogma, and specific teachings that a particular demonination may promote. That is purely, simply, and patently....not the case in my experience.

First, I said polls because usually you like poll data or data in general. So I don't rely on it at all. And for the last part, I am not making that lumping. I have said time and time again there is overlap on issues and things - from both sides. However, to subscribe to a religion and fund it implies you agree with the majority of their claims. You wouldn't fund the Democratic party come election time if you were voting Republican. (Unless you're weird ;) )

Many "believers" participate in congregations and become members of a church, more out of fellowship, a sense of community, or even as a culturally comfortable and convenient.....outward expression of an individual spirituality, that is NOT tied to the specific rigid and dogmatic teachings of the particular church they happen to attend. Mankind is a social animal; our motivations are much more likely driven by that....than some devotion to a particular doctrine.

I believe this wholeheartedly. Many people would call this conformity or herding (re sheep).

And for the last sentence, then why is it that the majority of people cite the Bible as a source for morals as the Bible is a doctrine. In fact, it's the basic doctrine. So I don't think you can say that and be entirely truthful to yourself.



dogma: An authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true.

If the unerring and absolute truth that you ascribe to science and empirical study is not "dogmatic"....I don't know what is.... :shrug:

Again, I said above - conveniently you didn't mention anything about it - I don't believe science is ABSOLUTELY true because this would a) not qualify as science and b) I admit science might not ever find out the answers to said questions.

You are apparently ignoring me on that point, but oh well.

I'm out for tonight. The sunburn on my eyes is finally getting to me,.

Mr. Kotter
06-24-2007, 12:26 AM
<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/YWPE_VkssEw"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/YWPE_VkssEw" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

Logical
06-24-2007, 01:05 AM
I'm sorry, Logical, which chart are you referring to? The one in the thread header?

-HHYes

HolyHandgernade
06-24-2007, 08:44 AM
However, I disagree with some points. First, I disagree with his assertion that spirituality is a trans. It does not transcend rationality - or shouldn't. And here's my justification:

Before I get into your justifications, let me point one thing out, the phrase Integral Theory uses is "transcends but includes", that is, it doesn't exclude. It may pare out the unnecessary, but it realizes there are important contributions at each level that must be integrated.

Let us assume that we all have collective amnesia tomorrow and forget everything we've learned - everything. In what way would we discover the world, again?

Since the only line I chose to expound upon was the "values" line highlighted by Spiral Dynamics, I'll use that as an example. What SPiral Dynamics would say is, "What are the Life Conditions." If you say we all get collective amnesia, does that mean all technology we had developed to that point is still there and we can't remember what it is or what it does, or is all that wiped out as well? And to what level does the amnesia take you to? Does it throw you all the way back to BEIGE where even language is forgotten, or just to PURPLE? Anyway, I'll go to your examples.

Well, first, we'd probably conclude we need to gain some sort of communication. Therefore, we could all be on the same page. Of course, geographic barriers will spawn different languages and thus produce the same "translation" process as we have today. We would most likely need a written and oral system and this would take some time to develop. In fact, we need to help this develop.

From this, I'm assuming we go all the way back to BEIGE. Therefore, communication is a later development. Food and shelter take first priority and the only conclusion is self preservation. If amnesia is the result, we don't even recognize family bonds, which mean cooperation only occurs after some form of trust is established between competeing entities. There is no mass communication (or at least we don't have an understanding how to use what is there), so we couldn't all be on the same page. At best, we begin to establish some form of communication with those in our immediate vicinity, usually through tokens such as shared food. Natural instincts are dominant at this level meaning our drive to procreate would have precedence over fraternal partnerships.

Thus, we explore the world. Of course, we need to eat. Thus, we would start to find things to sustain ourselves. What we know as fishing, hunting, farming etc, would begin to crop up. We would acquaint ourselves with fire to cook. It would result in a couple deaths due to our lack of knowledge as to what "fire" actually is. We would discover that it's, what we would call, "hot" and it would "burn" you. These sorts of discoveries would persist and develop the language. Generation after generation would (re)learn these things. And there ends the example for my intents and purposes, though it could be much, much longer and more developed.

Most important, trust will begin to be established through bloodlines first.

It is here I must pose the question: would we use "faith" or "reason"?

It would most certainly not be "faith". The reason (not "reason") is simple but has many options to choose from.

Wow, that's a big jump, but let's got your reasons.

Reasons:
1) Language wasn't developed until we had already discovered the world.
We could not understand the Bible nor could we write one. To write another "Bible" we would need an understanding of how the world works before jotting down anything. Moreover, the geographic barriers that led to the spawning of new languages - and different ones - will also lead to the exact same problem we have today: a geographic divide of spirituality. Of course, this is much, much later.

We've made a huge leap in developing communication to get to this point. You can't build from survival band to tribe without an intermediary from the spoken to the written word. That intermediary is in the form of story telling and song that describes a context larger than the individual families, but to which these families can all partake. Once language does take a written form, what do you think they are going to write about? They are going to write about their stories, not an exploration of the world in any scientific sense.

I got to go more later.

-HH

HolyHandgernade
06-24-2007, 10:12 AM
2) Empirical testing, evidence and proof are the means to the primary knowledge.
Think about it this way. We would not "pray" (as we know it) to seek the answer as to whether fire is hot. That comes with concrete empirical testing and evidence. It appeals to the sense of touch. It is through testing and the gathering of proof and evidence as well as sensory perception that we understand the world and pass that knowledge on.

I don't think that's how it worked. That fire is hot is a sensory perception, but the intellect that determines why fire is hot is not pregiven capacity. The hypothetical-deductive process that charaterizes scientific method comes much later. That process is built when previous methods of explanation become inadequate.

3) Questions of the supernatural only abound after we have grasped the natural.
No one would start asking a supernatural being for help because the point has not arisen to where knowledge of the world leads to questions of "how did we get here" etc. The reason I say this is simple. One must be acquainted with the surroundings in order to survive. The longevity of life would depend on this. With the increased longevity and the knowledge of the way things work (agriculture, cooking, manufacturing, tool building, etc) we can spend time pondering the supernatural because we've got enough grasp of the natural.

This assumes it was somehow differnent in our history. What are the most impressive features of the natural world? The Sun, moon, and stars. Especially the Sun. Here's an object in the sky, that when it is present, gives you light to see, warmth for comfort, and seems to invigorate all life. But then it goes down, it gets dark, cold, and scary. Then it comes back. So, this giant orb in the sky is born in the morning, gains strength to midday, appears to wane in the evening, and then dies later at night, only to be reborn the next morning.

If you are just strating to try and figure things out, your first instinct is not going to be: "Well, its obvious we're orbiting the ball of fire and gas as well as rotating on an axis (because it is obvious our world is round), which produces this effect of sunrise and sunset". No, first you are going to be afraid that the Sun might not come back, and you are going to hope through the night it does come back. Then you are going to associate your hope that it comes back as the reason it comes back. Then you are going to convince others that it is our collective hope that continues to bring the Sun back, and so on and so forth. You are jumping alot of stages to get to rational interpretation without an adequate explanation of why and how we get there. You value the rational interpretation, and because our current educational system provides you a quick path to rational interpretation, that rational interpretation is something that just naturally occurs by a given age. Its just not how it works.

All three points indicate that we'd have to grasp the natural world in order to even think about the supernatural. Otherwise, we would simply die away. In other words, we must become higher than animals - intelligence wise - before we start embarking on the supernatural. Thus, I cannot bring myself to embrace any philosophy that has supernatural belief as transcendent beyond reason.

That's fine, but I don't think it is at all practical. If think it is a form of idealism. By the way, I don't think it transcends "reason", I think we can transcend rational interpretation. I don't equate reasoning and rationalizing as the same thing.

-HH

HolyHandgernade
06-24-2007, 10:17 AM
I suppose I am between a 1 and 2 on the top chart, I don't see how I fit on the second chart at all.

Are you saying you are between matter and life, excluding mind? Or did you mean between life and mind?

-HH

irishjayhawk
06-24-2007, 11:45 AM
I don't think that's how it worked. That fire is hot is a sensory perception, but the intellect that determines why fire is hot is not pregiven capacity. The hypothetical-deductive process that charaterizes scientific method comes much later. That process is built when previous methods of explanation become inadequate.



This assumes it was somehow differnent in our history. What are the most impressive features of the natural world? The Sun, moon, and stars. Especially the Sun. Here's an object in the sky, that when it is present, gives you light to see, warmth for comfort, and seems to invigorate all life. But then it goes down, it gets dark, cold, and scary. Then it comes back. So, this giant orb in the sky is born in the morning, gains strength to midday, appears to wane in the evening, and then dies later at night, only to be reborn the next morning.

If you are just strating to try and figure things out, your first instinct is not going to be: "Well, its obvious we're orbiting the ball of fire and gas as well as rotating on an axis (because it is obvious our world is round), which produces this effect of sunrise and sunset". No, first you are going to be afraid that the Sun might not come back, and you are going to hope through the night it does come back. Then you are going to associate your hope that it comes back as the reason it comes back. Then you are going to convince others that it is our collective hope that continues to bring the Sun back, and so on and so forth. You are jumping alot of stages to get to rational interpretation without an adequate explanation of why and how we get there. You value the rational interpretation, and because our current educational system provides you a quick path to rational interpretation, that rational interpretation is something that just naturally occurs by a given age. Its just not how it works.



That's fine, but I don't think it is at all practical. If think it is a form of idealism. By the way, I don't think it transcends "reason", I think we can transcend rational interpretation. I don't equate reasoning and rationalizing as the same thing.

-HH

Well, first, I would say that my example ended because we both know that language - like you said with intermediate examples - would take a long time. And many things would happen. I ended it for the sake of shortness.

Anyway, the hypothetical-deductive process must fit under the label of "faith" or "reason" (I think the alignment is trans and pre respectively.) This is very concrete form of testing so I think it is, without a doubt, under the "reason" label.

I really do like your Sun analogy but I still feel it undermines survival. Sure, it may be possible to hope it will come back. I offer two things for consideration. First, I still think that without some level of grasping of the natural world, the supernatural would in no way become anywhere close to what it is now. Second, just because people are hoping it comes back in no way means they are destined to become supernatural believers.


On a related tangent:

However, let's say they are. Then we have an obvious evolution of supernatural belief: from multiple object theism (polytheism) to one object theism (monotheism). With this comes the obvious jump that religion, and therefore any concept of "god" is man made considering that every basis for religion previous was based on a concrete object. That is, once we are sophisticated enough and have mastered the natural world enough, we can begin to form the concept of "god" in which it doesn't have to be a concrete object. It then stands for the unknown.

HolyHandgernade
06-24-2007, 01:44 PM
Anyway, the hypothetical-deductive process must fit under the label of "faith" or "reason" (I think the alignment is trans and pre respectively.) This is very concrete form of testing so I think it is, without a doubt, under the "reason" label.

I see "reason" as the transcending process. SO we would have "magical-reasoning" which transcended by "mythical reasoning" which is then thranscended by "rational reasoning", which is then transcended by "pluralistic-reasoning" which is transcended by "integral reasoning" which may be transcended by intuitive reasoning and so on and so forth. So, attributing all of creation to a creator god may be a type of mythical reasoning, that serves its purpose for its Life Conditions, and after it is successful and stabalizes, it allows people the freedom to explore via another method, which becomes rational reasoning.

Remember, it doesn't matter if you believe the Sun is pulled by a chariot, revolves around the Earth, or the Earth revolves around the Sun. All three of you see the same thing, that is, rising in the East and setting in the West. But if you got transported back to ancient Greece, your interpretation would have no cultural basis and so you would be the one looked at as the nut!

I really do like your Sun analogy but I still feel it undermines survival. Sure, it may be possible to hope it will come back. I offer two things for consideration. First, I still think that without some level of grasping of the natural world, the supernatural would in no way become anywhere close to what it is now. Second, just because people are hoping it comes back in no way means they are destined to become supernatural believers.

What I think happens is that the "supernatural aspect" (I call it the eternal aspect) is always the same, but the temporal aspect is always evolving. So, if you are able to peer into the same eternal void that Lao Tsu did, you would see the same thing. But then you have to translate and express what you saw. And since your world is more evolved than Lao Tsu's your description is different than his. So I think even shamans were able to peer into the eternal void, but their expression of it doesn't have the same level of interpretation later sages would have.

On a related tangent:

However, let's say they are. Then we have an obvious evolution of supernatural belief: from multiple object theism (polytheism) to one object theism (monotheism). With this comes the obvious jump that religion, and therefore any concept of "god" is man made considering that every basis for religion previous was based on a concrete object. That is, once we are sophisticated enough and have mastered the natural world enough, we can begin to form the concept of "god" in which it doesn't have to be a concrete object. It then stands for the unknown.

That's actually another thesis I'm working on! I describe it as a transition from prepersonal to personal to transpersonal. Animisims describe the general level of prepersonal, theisms describe the general level of personal, and deisms describe the general level of transpersonal.

Animisms ascribe spiritual quality to inanimate objects. Such as animals, matter, and celestial objects. Theisms start to emerge as the focus of Spirit moves from awe of the natural world to awe of the mind's capacity. So Spirit must reflect that highest conception, and Gods are conceived basically as superhumans or having human like qualities. Finally, transpersonal says, if we strip away the human qualities, then what do we have? And it is here, that we begin to try and conceive of Spirit in terms of "emptiness", "abyss", "All", "One", etc. Nice observation!

-HH

Adept Havelock
06-24-2007, 02:49 PM
Kotter, you asked me to comment on this thread, so here it is:

It's an interesting philosophical construct. I've not commented to this point because IMO accepting it requires an inherent assumption that, as Irishjayhawk suggested, the "supernatural" or spiritual is in some form superior to, or transcends the rational/observable. That is a notion I fundamentally reject.

I accept the existence of the first three rings, but IMO the other two (soul/spirit) are little more than wishful thinking by self-aware primates. :shrug:

So, in your view, anything....not empirical/observable/measureable (rational, in the sense you are insisting--not me) is unworthy of investigation, consideration, or value?


As for this line of thought, I offer that it has the same "value" as anything else. Whatever someone is willing to pay for it (in financial terms, time-spent, or effort expended in understanding). Anything else is a false (marxist?) definition of value.

Speaking strictly for myself, as far as them being "unworthy" of investigation or consideration? IMO, pretty much. I'd put about the same effort into investigating the statistics of people who suffer misfortune after a black cat crosses their path compared to those who did not. In other words, I find little value in it, so I'm unwilling to spend much on it.

I did place more value on it when I was younger. I went through a long phase of studying various holy books, religions, and the history therof. However, that experience is largely what has led me to my current views.

I'm likely the wrong person to ask about this. As one who generally sees spirituality and religion as little different from superstition or astrology, I don't put much value or thought into philosophical concepts or constructs designed to "validate" them.

JMO.

On another note, it's been made fairly clear recently that my views on this subject are inherently offensive (there's that "unacceptable paradigm" again) to some. Thus, as most everyone in DC knows my view on religion/spirituality, I saw little reason to trot out the same horse yet again.

Then again, what do I know? I'm just a dogmatic reductionist who has chosen the Scientific Method as his primary lens of viewing the Universe. :p

With that said...I did find this amusing over my morning coffee....

.

HolyHandgernade
06-24-2007, 04:26 PM
Then again, what do I know? I'm just a dogmatic reductionist who has chosen the Scientific Method as his primary lens of viewing the Universe. :p

With that said...I did find this amusing over my morning coffee....

.

Actually, in Integral Theory, that is a completely acceptable strand of spirituality expressed through the ORANGE value meme. It applies the methods of that meme and comes to the conclusion it does. As for being a reductionist, Integral Theory just says, its true but partial, as it woul any philosophical outlook, including Integral Theory itself.

-HH

BucEyedPea
06-24-2007, 04:46 PM
Adept, for some reason it doesn't usually bother me when you do it.
You share your opinion it but it's not like you to start threads on regularly to call out believers either.

irishjayhawk
06-24-2007, 11:42 PM
Kotter, you asked me to comment on this thread, so here it is:

It's an interesting philosophical construct. I've not commented to this point because IMO accepting it requires an inherent assumption that, as Irishjayhawk suggested, the "supernatural" or spiritual is in some form superior to, or transcends the rational/observable. That is a notion I fundamentally reject.

I accept the existence of the first three rings, but IMO the other two (soul/spirit) are little more than wishful thinking by self-aware primates. :shrug:



As for this line of thought, I offer that it has the same "value" as anything else. Whatever someone is willing to pay for it (in financial terms, time-spent, or effort expended in understanding). Anything else is a false (marxist?) definition of value.

Speaking strictly for myself, as far as them being "unworthy" of investigation or consideration? IMO, pretty much. I'd put about the same effort into investigating the statistics of people who suffer misfortune after a black cat crosses their path compared to those who did not. In other words, I find little value in it, so I'm unwilling to spend much on it.

I did place more value on it when I was younger. I went through a long phase of studying various holy books, religions, and the history therof. However, that experience is largely what has led me to my current views.

I'm likely the wrong person to ask about this. As one who generally sees spirituality and religion as little different from superstition or astrology, I don't put much value or thought into philosophical concepts or constructs designed to "validate" them.

JMO.

On another note, it's been made fairly clear recently that my views on this subject are inherently offensive (there's that "unacceptable paradigm" again) to some. Thus, as most everyone in DC knows my view on religion/spirituality, I saw little reason to trot out the same horse yet again.

Then again, what do I know? I'm just a dogmatic reductionist who has chosen the Scientific Method as his primary lens of viewing the Universe. :p

With that said...I did find this amusing over my morning coffee....

.

I agree with everything said here.


HolyHand - Perhaps it's because I just worked for 9 hours and it's midnight (or close to, anyway) everything but the last paragraph didn't sink in or register even vaguely. Having said that, I'm interested in hearing your thesis on that subject. By the way, I may have missed it but are you an anthropologist or academic of some sort?

@BucEyedPea - It's interesting because I don't start threads to do this either but you despise me. :p

HolyHandgernade
06-24-2007, 11:54 PM
HolyHand - Perhaps it's because I just worked for 9 hours and it's midnight (or close to, anyway) everything but the last paragraph didn't sink in or register even vaguely. Having said that, I'm interested in hearing your thesis on that subject. By the way, I may have missed it but are you an anthropologist or academic of some sort?


I'll try and get it to you when I have it worked out a little better. Just more of a passion these days. I studied history at KU but didn't finish. The nice thing about air traffic control is that when your day is done, you don't have any work you have to take home with you. That leaves some time for exploring other subjects and this happens to be my favorite.

-HH