Participatory Spirituality for the 21st Century
Aronofsky has a new pic out. I know that some folks in this community are a fan of his work so up this post goes. I am going to use this post, if nobody objects too strongly, to write all i know about that story. It's something i spent a lot of time investigating and i've never really talked about it. First, let me say for those of you who don't know me that i don't identify myself as a Christian and haven't for over 30 years. I was raised secularly and couldn't really tell you what a church was when i was sixteen, let alone wonder about god. I think though, as far as i can remember, that i've always had this strange feeling that something was very much wrong on this planet, and that , that feeling goes right back to childhood. Now, to be fair, there was a brief period of time in my early 20's when i did identify with evangelical Christianity, but a year or so after sensing the corruption within that institution, i became what i now call an independent. I am still this way today; spiritually and politically.
Please be aware that very little that i post here will be from my imagination directly, most everything will come from the history of human literature on this mythology. Now i'm quite sure i hear Julian's voice in the noosphere saying, ' Andrew, this is just silly," well, perhaps, but this has been a part of my path, Aronofsky choose this subject matter, and without seeing the film, i can reasonable guess that it will not reflect what is said in these books.
It should be noted, that at the time Jesus lived, The Book of Enoch was part of the religious canon. Most people within that community believed strongly in those stories as far as my study of history shows, and that Jesus quoted from these stories a number of times, mentioning that his return would be surrounded by events that were just like what happened in those days. I'll certainly return to this later.
Now, i am not really interested in challenging histories orthodoxy on humanities past .That is not what this is about, but what i do think is somewhat possible though, is the idea that prior to the development of the written word, history gets a little bit murkier. By saying this, i am not suggesting there was a global flood, i am just suggesting that things are a little more unsure the farther back one goes from the written word. Obviously, this premise would be throughly attacked by historic fundamentalists; i don't care!
Okay, i am going to stop here for now, so The Book of Enoch and the story of god and angels! lol The first place to start on these myths………….
I see many contemplative/mystical experiences along those lines, too. Some experiences, however, appear to fall more into the category Jung calls "psychoid" -- involving an overlap between interior state experiences and external or "objective" events, not easily reducible to (or explainable as) "merely" private, subjectively generated, imaginal experiences. These events still present an explanatory challenge, at least to common subjectivist models of spiritual or so-called paranormal phenomena.
I'm not sure I agree with that particular assessment Edward. A part of what I do over time is question people personally about any experiences that they might have had out of the so called normal; and the answer as often as not is NO! Notta, nothing! And these people seem to be quite comfortable in their secular lives. Now who am I to judge? But sure, there are still many who do have mystical type visions and experiences. This difference of opinion on experience is why I wear atheist shoes rather easily. But I've also had my own experiences with God and Angels. I just wear that particular 'persona' differently than most people. On that one see the BOLDED post above.
Hey, Balder, thanks for weighing in and I get that there may be some people who would rather keep these experiences and thoughts rather private for various reasons. I agree with Jung, Campbell and Valle on most of their insights--sometimes brilliant-- on these experiences. For me though, I am not 100% convinced that they explain ALL of it adequately.
My theism, once again, did meet you halfway here; a postmodern God if you will. I guess there are those who would feel comfortable with the notion of post-metaphysics; especially within Buddhism and Hinduism , as their traditions are already set up for that move/transition (non-theistic/involution/evolution). But the big 3? I don't know, Judaism, Islam, and Christianity without God seems kind of pointless to me. If people leave those religions i see atheism as being more attractive. But I've offered the idea of an Integral faith for those three traditions; one that doesn't fetishize evolution ( that leaves science alone); one that reinterprets God through postmodern values, where God once again becomes LOVING, instead of a psycho! For me, I wouldn't go to Sanguins church, but I might if they called it Integral Christianity where God still existed for those people. Just that God is reframed, once again, as a universal loving figurehead. If one were to go through this thread and make point by point notes on the theism that i've outlined here, I think I've achieved that. Now, my guess is that a post metaphysical culture is probably centuries off, and my opinion is the move that I am advocating for would be a very beneficial pragmatic move until people are ready for more advanced notions ( assuming that they are).
This question is for you Bruce if you want to take a stab at it. It has to do with mm's idea of the rainbow body. I didn't quite get where he was coming from on that so I will pose the question to you. From what I could gather there seemed to be the notion that the involution/evolution non-theistic universe had/has some kind of built in template that turns a human body into a rainbow body. From what I could gather this was some kind of evolutionary leap. Is this anywhere near correct as far as your knowledge of these myths?
A convenient distinction of these experiences is between expansion of the self and rupture of the self. If the contexts are not clear then experience is limited *. The onus is on the experiencer and my distinction is not a comment on the authenticity of these events. So here goes….
Expansion is when we make room for whatever encounter that turns up, with the other or any psychic/astral/subtle/alien contact/realms. Then it is intelligible. Rupture is when these are precipitated, in some sense they are forced through, and then you have the nightmare that people have in processing them. Which doesn’t make sense, and they don’t make sense
On the disciplines and practices that could serve this expansion, my take is it is up to them to present them progressively. My instincts are towards an unmediated approach…
To the degree there is a gap between interpretation and reality**, that is an interpretation of an interpretation, which we can call experience and method, until of course we consider that experience is method, to close that gap. So the contexts and communicability of an experience is significant, as that is method in relation (not just a personal experience) still on a personal note that could be the shift from a state to a stage.
**Since reality is an interpretation, given the event horizon. Experience and interpretation are realities perhaps en route to a reality that is not either
*experience is limited for instance from the range of same differences and intersubjectivity. It’s interesting to look at intersubjectivity as between subjects and within subjects. Considering that state to stage thing, we could imply same difference within and between them!
Vali's answer has much to recommend it.
Edward's assessment I think has more to do with the high percentage of people "hereabouts" (integrally informed postmetaphysical spiritual practitioners) than people at large -- at least insofar as people are both aware and willing to admit such experiences.
Personally, I do not consider them to be "private" -- although I do not usually go into particular sexual details in theory-forums either -- but rather it is a matter of ensuring that the style of the exchange has a tempo and orientation that looks profitable.
Since I am currently working on a text of short essays explaining the thought and language styles associated with organic religion, the use and Nature of "God" is foremost on my mind. From a post-metaphysical context "God" is one of those words which is almost more trouble than it is worth -- since nobody knows what anybody else means by it. It would be much more useful to drop this vague word and simply DESCRIBE rather than name. However we all notice the sense of potency and classicism associated with the term.
The normal notion of a integral God (as you say -- a return to the Loving One) is definitely useful, simple and may have a transitional role during the slow emergence of a more nuanced conception. Meta-theoretical approaches (as described in my Rules of Metatheory) ultimately require us to hold both convergence and divergence in our consciousness simultaneously. So the "divergent" version an Integral God is, first, the notion of the many faces of God for different levels and temperaments of understanding. Much of Integral Christianity is focused on trying to connect people to churches and teaching which click into their current phase of development. And secondly divergence proceeds into all kinds of edifying quibbles about "which God is which?"
However there is also a convergent phase which must bring all of these dissected Gods back into a functional singularity. However it must do this without sacrificing the gains of the divergence. Thus this God must be, for example, the Many-One (and not the One as an alternative to the Many). In fact, as you may know, this actually is closer to the original use of Elohim in Judeo-Christian Book.
At the moment when I say "God" I mean: the force of coincidence between diverse ontological domains. (These are domains like objective outcomes, subjectivity, culture, rules, etc. as well as gross, subtle, causal...)
And to leap into your question for Balder:
From what I could gather there seemed to be the notion that the involution/evolution non-theistic universe had/has some kind of built in template that turns a human body into a rainbow body. From what I could gather this was some kind of evolutionary leap. Is this anywhere near correct as far as your knowledge of these myths?
The premise of the rainbow body stories, particular in the "high dzogchen buddhism", indicates that potential that certain operations of consciousness can interact developmentally with the biological energy fields of the body to create a qualitative shift (like whipping cream getting whipped). These "altered fields" have efficacy during life and can maintain a certain coherence and potency of the individual after death -- particular in terms of effects in the realm of pure affects. Such fields "feel like" and occasionally appear iridescent, multi-faceted and luminously spectral (spectrum-like) in comparison to ordinary bio-psychological energy fields. While this potential is established by the involving patterns into which we are born, the evolutionary efforts of sages to attain this condition constitutes a leap which subsequently makes that type of karmic leap easier for others... drawing humanity toward the compassionate goal of general illumination.
Although we must keep in mind that these stories have very different meanings come from different groups at different times for different purposes.
I appreciate you throwing me a few bones here Lp! Sometimes it feels a little bit like a root canal, though:) I am in general agreement with much that you say although I am still a bit confused on what you think the Dionysion revolution is and its general utility; especially any soteriological lines. I did read today that a certain mushroom is good for healing PTSD.
I'm going to wander a bit here and i mean no disrespect to your previous post. The most powerful empire in history in recent decades has chosen to wage war and spend a fortune on fighting tribal Islam. Truthdig mentions today that the cost of that war would have paid for college education for every American! Funny what neoliberalism finds worthy of welfare and what is not. Now, I wouldn't necessarily argue for the methods used by these tribalist's and their recent tactics are abhorrent, but at least they see the damage being done to their lands by the neoliberal obsession with resources control i.e. oil! That's a bit more than one can say for many westerners who unconsciously go about their day under control of the subtle manipulations of the corporatocracy. I might add that consistent with MIC methods is the use of paid covert groups to wreak havoc while performing the hidden agendas of their masters. These tactics will certainly play more of a role in the downslope of peak oil .
On the climate front: it's funny how the news feeds start filling up with pond methane gas warming as soon as one offers ideas like a C02 sabbath. It's not just the Koch brothers manipulating information. Big money is pretty good at these tactics, too. If the the bottom line of the God Ka$h is affected negatively, then you know that the propaganda machine will be put into full force and the doom of the status quo will remain in effect.
Anyway Edward, I apologize if the questions got a little too personal. On a different note: render unto Dawkins that which is Dawkins! Science should try to figure out as much as possible about how things work. In my opinion, though, they will only be able to figure out how God does things and never be able to figure out what god is ( this is my thread).
This guy has something to teach us, too. But I more than not agree with Sole because AJ is serving mammon here selling fear and I can't abide that. This is another example of the abuse of the myth of free markets. Anyway, the old hippie said that the only thing we would be able to know at the end of the age is what kind of fruit a tree has. In the case of AJ his fruit is rotten and his understanding of theology is appalling ; but consistent with 1700 years of apostasy.
I like Soles libertarian socialism, though! But he's got to know that geo-engineering is a fact.
Hi, Andrew, I just now saw your question to me above. I have been busy and not participating here as much lately (as I expect you've noticed), so I'm not sure exactly which of Max's comments you're referencing. But in general, I understood him to be talking about a specific Dzogchen teaching -- that certain high-level practitioners, employing the right techniques, can transform their physical bodies into a 'rainbow body,' a body of light; or whose bodies appear to shrink and dissolve if they die before completing the whole process. (There are many stories of people finding, not the master who withdrew into a cave or closed tent to engage this practice, but just a small lump of flesh, if anything at all). To my knowledge, Dzogchen does not posit this as an evolutionary-teleological end (i.e., that all beings are evolving in this direction), but rather sees it as the fruition of the Dzogchen path. I believe Max was speculating that Jesus may have realized the rainbow body.
The Dionysian Cultural Revolution is a term for the general cultural style, tempo and mood which accompanies planetary wisdom-civilization, metatheory, postmetaphysics, integrative culture, etc. It is a way of imagining the "attractor" wihch presents itself in the aesthetic works of nondual sages, in the poetic anticipations of postmetaphysical thinkers, etc. You could imagine it as a combination of high spiritual culture and the most distinctive elements of postmodernity (in their positive form). It is not necessarily connected with traditional fears and fantasies about bacchanlia, drug culture, etc. but it is generally in favor of those things. Dionysus is the DIO of NYSUS. The God of Branching, the Lord of the Tree of Life, the Spirit of Immanent Transcendence, the Friend of Fools and Saints, the Convergence of High Religion and Paganism, the Patron of Fractals, Complexity and Chaos Science, the Convivial Spirit of Wine Drinking, the Non-Metaphysical Transcendence, the Implication of Post-Nihilistic (but anti-idealistic) Entertainment.
Nietzsche picked up the term from Greeks. I picked it up from him to apply to the many facets of the growth into growth-culture. It suggests a redemptive aesthetic, a particular set of qualities associated with the mood of planetary human culture and bio-friendly spirituality.
If you check out this thread comparing more-and-less Dionysian elements. Or else my Nietzsche's Jukebox is a longer investigation into the philosophy between the redemptive teleological aesthetic of the cultural spirit associated with integrative level consciousness.
Thanks for checking in here Bruce! And I appreciate the clarification LP.
I'm going to link this here because I find relevance to this thread:
You know, I am not advocating for a cute cuddly teddy bear in the sky here! In my experience, it is a frightful thing to stumble across the Lord! Indeed, In The Court Of Love - the flames burn hotter than imaginable; but in my experience and theology , the flames serve justice ( the right hand path). I don't know the outcome of the painful chastisement of the choices of the left hand path, but I do know that the traditional stories of hell in CIJ are not correct in the way that they have been taught, imo.
In my theology, when this women speaks assuredly of no ultimate being she is describing what I call the withdrawal in the Jesus/God/Matrix. Although, paradoxically, the right and left hand protocols are always in effect; but we could never know or prove this empirically.
Let the fires burn! The fire in the night sky; the vicious circle turns…...
Some thoughts on this:
Hedges needs to be very careful about what he's arguing for here. We can see the regression to ethnocentric values happening in recent decades displacing hard fought for memes like equality for women; non-discrimination based on ones race; sexual orientation; slavery of children; despoiling of the environment. We see this trajectory in Zionism, Christian Zionism, tribal Islam, fundamentalist Hinduism, etc. These regressive values displacing modern democracies with their return to bigotry and justification of violence based on human prejudice. NO, we definitely do not need a return to this premodern world. So, if people like Hedges are not extremely careful about what they are arguing for they will inadvertently open a door and pathway whereby their ideas are co-opted by those who would willingly do a great disservice to a civil civilization.
We now know that not all the tribes were egalitarian; that not all the tribes were good stewards of their environment; that not all the tribes revered a loving sacredness; that not all the tribes lived by a peaceful ethic. We know now that there was an element of irrational magical thinking and superstition within premodern culture that becomes especially problematic when one interprets the worlds holy books literally. If we see the worlds holy books as being in the best sense: creation myths, fables, allegory, parable, archetype, symbolism, etc., then we stand a chance of not regressing to premodern superstition , and allowing the usurping of modern democratic gains.
Within this thread I have endeavoured to show that there is no ethnocentrism in God; that God IS and has always held what we call post-modern values today. That religionists err when they think that God centres out a child to make an example of ; that God wants women to be subjected to male dominance and brutality; that God will reward those who despoil the earth for profit; that God wants us to build temples where falseness and distortion are taught as matters of doctrine; that God wants us to exploit its spirit within us all by unfair trading of goods and services. I have shown in this thread how todays culture is a culture of mammon based on idolatry of the god Ka$h; how the anti-christ is a collective in the guise of the corporation; that this is a false messiah and its soteriological projections are a fantasy; that the global neoliberal economic structure is a false spirit and is patterned on false notions of karma and reincarnation. We should not, however, attempt to solve these distortions by reverting backwards to untruth and falseness.
Yes, by all means, lets bring back a sense of the sacred for he is absolutely right that we are doomed without that sacredness; but let's also be very careful about what kind of sacredness we are recalling. A sacredness that values this life; this earth, these lifeforms; and does not dissociate itself from life for a transcendental distortion and falseness. Whatever may happen to us when we die is no justification for abhorrent behaviour in the here and now. It's in this endeavour that an Integral Faith would find great utility as it is able to differentiate between childish and mature notions of spirit; but what an Integral Faith should not do is dismiss outright the possibility of God in our lives.
Should read: patterned on poor interpretations of karma and reincarnation.
Should read: non-slavery of children; a growing awareness to not despoil the environment. We are seeing retrograde trajectories within Zionism………..
Too much physical labour and not enough editors! lmao
Anyway, supposing that civilization marched onwards and onwards for thousands or millions of years into the future; humans would still wonder and question the existence of god (even A.I. might, too) 150 years away from the plough; once again, doesn't answer this question conclusively. So yes, there is a certain hubris to complete dismissal of theism although obviously i agree with abandoning toxic theistic doctrines and dogmas.