Participatory Spirituality for the 21st Century
Is it even possible to get more dogmatic than this?
i tend to lean towards some kind of spiritual darwinism, too; although i would always posit that idea as religious faith. i lean towards the word intelligence rather than love as i have a problem with t-rex shredding of other dinosaurs being an example of love. lowly evolved intelligence yes; love no, at least not for me...
for me there's another problem here: if one has spent their whole career telling 90 to 95% of the population that their ideas of invisible things are wrong or at least partially wrong, then imo, one might be very very careful about how one goes about asserting one's own ideas about invisible things especially when one has previously mentioned that most of us are not quite intelligent enough to get it....
That T-Rex is being completely herself -- acting on instinct to procure the nourishment she needs to sustain her life and perhaps bring forth new life. Might this be primeval "communion"? (I'm making her female for no particular reason, BTW. I suppose a T-Rex could be an "it", but just I felt like distinguishing either a he or she).
Death and birth are intertwined, and one part of the cosmos is always devouring or dancing with or crashing into or pulling on another part of the cosmos. From a certain view, this movement might be seen as a flowing of "Love" -- the grand cosmic life-current that is always birthing and dying, cycling and circling, tumbling down then radiating forth . . .
(Oh, stop cringing, folks. It's gonna be okay . . . ;)
Thanks for the Hendrix flashback, Ed.
And I am obsessed. Or perhaps possessed? I wonder by what name the hermeticists would call this demon of IPS? Perhaps a variation of the word "ipseity" would work? The meaning from dictionary.com fits: selfhood, individual identity, individuality, from Latin ipse 'self.' Get thee behind me IPSE? (For integral postmeta spiritual experience.) Are you experienced?
Andrew -- Yes, "violence" is certainly involved -- but, IMO, it's not a big enough word. If there were not silences and stillnesses and surrenderings as well, life would not flower. And for sure, "love" is problematic because people generally associate it with affection, relationship, human bonding. By using "Love" with a capital L, I'm attempting to point at this dynamic flow of energy, at turns "violent", at turns "placid" -- simultaneously "destructive" and "creative" -- that courses through the cosmos. Its swooshings and cycles and interactions and transformations have, at least in part, made galaxies, starfish, chocolate, Hendrix songs -- and other wonders we'll never see -- possible. So yes: I can understand the pull to (nick)name these energies "Eros" and "Agape" and so on.
But I guess it could also be seen as a kind of anthropomorphizing (or deification?) of the physics of the universe. That's not really my intention, but I understand (some) of the criticism on this. Describing the big bang as "violent," for example -- I don't see that as an objective description. (Nor is "Love," of course). "Violence" tends to imply anger and malice, or an urge by an individual or group to dominate or destroy. We might describe the big bang as violent because we imagine it as a huge forceful explosion. Yet it might also be perceived as a huge energetic shining forth of all that exists -- a grand creative blooming of energy, time, space, and matter. Either way, those are subjective descriptions.
My simple guess is that the reasoning goes: if one starts to speak "postmetaphysically", one will scare away many new viewers through seeming overly complex and alien. Thereby not gaining their attention, and consequently, their money.
There are simple ways of expressing that you are not talking about actual facts, you don’t need to resort to complex methaphysical thinking for that.
Maybe Ken was just tired or not at his best, when making that introduction. Anyway it is human. It happens to us all.
I don't mind folk "selling out." Not at all. Just don't sell out so hard you forget who you are?)
When people start to make their living, or maybe many people’s living, through spiritual teaching, selling their books, or saving the world, the selling easily gets so hard that your full commitment to truthfulness gets sacrificed. Instead you start speaking of the urgency of evolutionary change.
I tend to hear behind all the external concerns expressed in this kind of talk, a very personal urgency or compulsion to make a breakthrough or advance in one’s career.
Context is important itsm. The paradox of the dragon comes to mind. I used to do martial arts when i was younger but even then; the cognitive dissonance bothered me. In truth, self defence only as a form of pragmatism. Spiritually? Turn the other cheek. The people who would commit violence easily have us who are reluctant to at an extreme disadvantage. This is not easily solved. Love and hate; life and death are both in gods hands. Choose which hand to follow wisely as there is also justice and painful chastisements . Unlike integral, god does understand differing degrees of murder and our choices matter.
Also, when a wolf kills it doesn't kill for sport or money. It kills in harmony with its environment to survive.
It's also my opinion that chastisement is for correction. You did ask!