*cringe*

 

 

Is it even possible to get more dogmatic than this?

Views: 318

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Yes, it is the usual kennilingus dogma but what strikes me is how old and ill he seems. His voice wavers and he seems weak and frail. He seems to be reading a teleprompter from his usual script but the reading is slow and strained. I have sympathy for seeing him this way, have compassion in hoping that he is not suffering exceedingly in his aging and illness.
I had similar reactions all around to this clip when it came out.  Most of all, I felt concerned about his health and saddened to see him so frail and lacking his usual energy and sharpness.  But I also found the message to be representative of the emerging "Integral religion," which I support in principle but not really in its content (at least as it is being emphasized and marketed at these recent events).

What is wrong with love? Don’t you feel love for all sentient beings?

Were you beaten or neglected as a child? I was and I still feel it!! Lol

I think he looks pretty good for someone going thru a serious illness.

This introduction by Ken is in my opinion dogmatic only, if you take it as a dogma that is not open to questioning and criticism. I have difficult to believe he has meant it to be so.

I perceive this presentation as one interesting perspective on love. It is actually much better than all the too sugary statements I hear practically every day in the name of love.

 

Btw. Ken looks on this videoclip clearly healthier than in some earlier ones. That is really fine.

 

Irmeli

I don't find the video to be exceptionally dogmatic, nor cringe-evoking. He's just providing a basic introduction to some integral notions for an audience that might include some folks who are just becoming familiar with his work. And it is a gesture of hospitality and welcome for those attending an annual gathering, offered at a moment when he's not feeling his best. Bless him.

"Btw. Ken looks on this videoclip clearly healthier than in some earlier ones. That is really fine."

 

Yeah Irmeli, I agree and was very happy to see that too. Let's hope this is a case where we then can judge the book by its cover!

 

"This introduction by Ken is in my opinion dogmatic only, if you take it as a dogma that is not open to questioning and criticism."

 

To me, Ken here seems to be commenting blatantly on the objective state of reality. He asserts what he asserts without ever qualifying it with anything even nearly resembling a kosmic address. Of course, one shouldn't have to constantly do that while talking, but I think one should at least make it clear that, in some way, one is not talking "from nowhere". Especially when one has written an entire book on this very issue. (And at the end of said book, openly and quite harshly criticized others for their metaphysical behaviour.)

Thanks for posting something a little controversial, Dawid, and luring some other people out to talk!  Works every time.  ;-)


But dang it, I'm feeling too much like a "9" at the moment, finding it easy to agree with everyone. 


In my talk with Ken not too long back, I was touched by the energy and effort he put into our (long) conversation, especially hearing his wavering and somewhat frail-sounding voice.  I actually felt moved to tears at one point, because what he was doing just seemed so generous and big-hearted to me.  So, I definitely relate to Mary's comment -- "Bless him" -- in relation to his "welcoming video," which was a nice gesture, I agree, especially given his state of health.


At the same time, I appreciate Dawid's concern that this material is presented without much or any of the kind of 'contextualizing' or 'kosmic addressing' that he insisted was so important in Integral Spirituality.  On the one hand, I think it would get quite tiresome if we had to do this sort of thing all the time, so I don't think everything that comes out of Ken's mouth needs to be qualified in this way. You can receive a message like this in the context of his larger work and probably assume that he would not try to push these statements in a dogmatic way, if questioned or criticized; in fact, I am pretty certain he would acknowledge the very points that Dawid is arguing are missing from this talk.  But on the other hand, given the long history of metaphysical thinking in most of the world's religious traditions -- and given the likely newness of Integral spirituality to many people, including attendees at the ISE event -- it does seem important to make some effort to frame his talk post-metaphysically, even in a very general way, especially since this was one of the central and most emphatic messages of his book on this subject (Integral Spirituality).  As the ISE video message stands, especially taken just by itself, it is presented in a way that comes across as "just as metaphysical" as the views he critiqued in IS.

He's just providing a basic introduction to some integral notions for an audience that might include some folks who are just becoming familiar with his work.

Just wondering: Is it a "canonical" Integral idea that strong and weak nuclear forces are the same as the Greek Eros?  Not trying to make trouble; just wondering.

Strictly speaking the strong and weak nuclear forces are symbolic expressions of something. They are not the thing itself, just as the concept Greek Eros is a symbol of something else. I perceive it refreshing, when symbols from the "hard science" get occasionally also treated metaphorically together with Greek Eros. I would actually enjoy even more of something like that.

Of course, then the listener should have that much discriminative capacity that she does not take this methaforic speech as representation of scientific facts.

I'm not sure how metaphoric he's actually being here. He seems to me to be suggesting, rather literally, that "eros" is the entelechy within the universe -- that while the universe may be self-ordering, all the same, it is not made of "mere" matter and energy but that there is "something else" present that is responsible for teleological movements toward complex objects, like the human brain, for example.

In any case, I was wondering if this idea is part and parcel of what it means to be "Integral," or if it is just a feature of Ken's own thinking; ie., does being "Integral" mean, more of less, accepting Ken's system, or can one still be "Integral" and yet be at odds, more or less, with the details of his thought (even though there will be certain "family resemblances" with the basic outlines of his thinking that allow one to also call oneself "Integral" in outlook).

Which is to say: is the day coming when "Integral" is a movement of like-minded and more or less equal-standing thinkers -- as in a "movement" of painters and writers (eg., expressionism) -- or is "Integral" really something more like "Kantianism?"



Irmeli Mattsson said:

Strictly speaking the strong and weak nuclear forces are symbolic expressions of something. They are not the thing itself, just as the concept Greek Eros is a symbol of something else. I perceive it refreshing, when symbols from the "hard science" get occasionally also treated metaphorically together with Greek Eros. I would actually enjoy even more of something like that.

Of course, then the listener should have that much discriminative capacity that she does not take this methaforic speech as representation of scientific facts.

Kelamuni said:

In any case, I was wondering if this idea is part and parcel of what it means to be "Integral," or if it is just a feature of Ken's own thinking; ie., does being "Integral" mean, more of less, accepting Ken's system, or can one still be "Integral" and yet be at odds, more or less, with the details of his thought (even though there will be certain "family resemblances" with the basic outlines of his thinking that allow one to also call oneself "Integral" in outlook).

 

Last weekend I put this into test, when I participated in Terry Patten's weekend seminar in Helsinki.

It seems to be my nature to express aspects and voices that I perceive to be neglected or even suppressed irrespective of the setting I'm in. I challenged Terry many times with my differing opinion. The first day he seemed somewhat irritated, and yes I felt  some anger arising in him, which he didn't however explicitly express. The next day however he was much more at ease with me. In the end of the seminar he thanked me for having keeping him awake, and also from stopping him to speak bullshit.

 

Reply to Discussion

RSS

What paths lie ahead for religion and spirituality in the 21st Century? How might the insights of modernity and post-modernity impact and inform humanity's ancient wisdom traditions? How are we to enact, together, new spiritual visions – independently, or within our respective traditions – that can respond adequately to the challenges of our times?

This group is for anyone interested in exploring these questions and tracing out the horizons of an integral post-metaphysical spirituality.

Notice to Visitors

At the moment, this site is at full membership capacity and we are not admitting new members.  We are still getting new membership applications, however, so I am considering upgrading to the next level, which will allow for more members to join.  In the meantime, all discussions are open for viewing and we hope you will read and enjoy the content here.

© 2019   Created by Balder.   Powered by

Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service