Participatory Spirituality for the 21st Century
Under this broader forum topic category, I posted and associated Layman Pascal with visionariness. The post following that intro one expressed an impulse to begin to elaborate what might be visionary and what might not be. Implicit was that much of that brew called Layman Pascal would be plenty post-metaphysical.
I'm not sure how important it is in reference to him to distinguish 'pre' and 'post' (as if there is less fallacy in the 'post') since so much beauty, perhaps a non-measurable amount of beauty and other merit of correct and helpful/useful recognition and attribution into the unknown would exist even if it were 'pre'.
Layman likes the phrase "shaman in chief" as a description of a person who can make politico-social, well, AQAL quality leadership contributions. I think that the shamanic process and contribution to culture and man is generally presumed to be pre-rational and maybe almost reflexively considered to be pre-metaphysical, when it wouldn't be a surprise that the shamanic is pre-some-metaphysics and post(having transcended/included)-some-metaphysics.
As a quick characterization (correct me or further elaborate as seems appropriate for you), shamanism is often associated with a dream or a manner of inner process that is close with dream, probably usually with a primal sort of dreaming. Pre. I may have already made here such a partial, limited, and questionably accurate characterization that someone wants to set me on a clearer path. I'll leave this here for now, without clear conclusion.
Another aspect of the definition of visionariness and vision might be that, well daah, it has to do with seeing. Hence, one of the connotations below is a person as a "seer", a see-er. My early associations with the word is that a person can see into the future, can perhaps divine the future or content of the invisible and unknown.
Going a little logical here, we all (or most of us) can see, exercise vision, and maybe have visions in the form of imagination associated with different states like dreaming or waking "intuition". When does this root visionariness become interesting enough to label it with this special word, "Visionary"? Or, when it ought to?
OK, the usually classic values trinity should come into play in some way. How "integral" is it, how much and how well does it extend in different directions and dimensions of life, and what is our sense of how coherent this expressed-by-visionaries content is? Stuff like that.
It might not be enough to have great coherent knowledge. It might not be enough to be endeavoring to practically apply what is known for a variety of purposes and motives that project the future. It may not be enough to see and express things that others can't or daren't express. It may not be enough to be charismatic, even shamanic-like charismatic. It may not be conclusive that along with the above referred to capacities and qualities, there are apparently "powers", "siddhis", or paranormal-like demonstartations. What does it?
I guess it is not a scientific word. It is often used quite subjectively with various purposes, motives, psycho-social impulses.
[prior post and thread] http://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/layman-pascal
I thought a little about what visionary means before I comfortably labeled Layman one, for the sort of listener/participant like myself.
Obviously, in the below definition, only some applies, though we each might agree and disagree which points they are.
One definition not included here well is the current marketing label for conferences, events, workshops and such. It is a very attractive label - sort of - and more and more, not so much.
I don't mean visionary in that way.
Many of those people labeled "visionary" probably wouldn't feel like visionaries for me. Though bright, articulate, engaged sociopolitically, and such. I suppose some scientific and techie guys drive me to that word in a limited sense. Sci-fi writers like Neal Stephenson and the likes.
I could probably riff a bit more on the the manners of thinking, expressing, and extending himself, Layman, within himself and into the world of individuals and culture and society and the 'facts of life', but I think I won't now. There is a lot that I like in the unexpected stretchings that he provides.
Yada yada :)