Participatory Spirituality for the 21st Century
This thread could be a place to flesh out how and why this is happening and a place for me to archive my own thoughts and positions on Integral ( foremost to me is integrity and integration).
I’ve suggested previously that there are at least three divisions occurring: Edward’s spiritual atheism premised and framed within post metaphysical thinking ; Wilber’s framing which is what I classify as a type of *spiritual pantheism ( an impersonal telos driving evolution) this to my thinking is not post metaphysical in a strict sense ; and my position which I call integral theism-- here we could place all ideas about god that are consistent with integral thinking in general ( perhaps panentheism; process philosophy ; emergentist theism ; my favourite-alternative Christianity ; alternative Buddhism ; certain schools of Vedic thought ; Shamanism; entheogen theory, etc .) In an Integral culture these ideas might be classified under alternative metaphysics which may or may not include streams of post metaphysical thought . Also, we should make room for Dembski and Behe and their positions which have not been disproved and not given fair hearing within the church of scientific academia . To my mind-with my years of layman study-I can’t see any tenable position within the scientific endeavour that doesn’t concede that all there is at this time are a multiplicity of camps of beliefs ; that at this point in time there is no definitive scientific proof against spiritual processes in the universe . I’d even go as far to say that in a post-ironic age we have dishonest science critiquing dishonest religion ; at least within popular culture ( the media wars ) . We might add that science has been compromised at some level by personal ideology combined with the corrupting influences of neoliberal capitalism ( that funding is premised on ideology ) . This isn’t to say that non-theism ( atheism ) is wrong ; but rather, in an Integral context all ideas would be given fair hearing based on integrity and integration ( only that which is proven false beyond reasonable doubt would be jettisoned). I don’t believe there is enough evidence to jettison all theistic perspectives at this point in time.
We might add also that philosophical positions on the nature of reality have not been answered definitively and that once again all we have here are a multiplicity of camps framed within social construction, cultural conditioning, personal bias especially when it comes to IQ, inherent shortcomings on what it is a human can know about such things , etc.
*NOTE: sorry for calling Kenny a spiritual pantheist as I know that is not technically correct . He is a panentheist ( I think ) in the way of Advaita Vedanta or Mahayana Buddhism. Or he may be a teflon theist:)
Here are a few links :
Disputes over metaphysics:
Chalk one up for Kenny! He's got another fan:
Maybe Wilber is a spiritual centrist ?
A good read from David Ray Griffen.
Therein are points made about the corruption of science within capitalist popular culture . I pretty much agree with everything he says here but that won't change the antidote of putting the global financiers in charge of the atmosphere .
Also recall Catherine Keller's comments in Process and Difference (SUNY, 2002) about David Ray Griffin's distinctions of these two streams, much of which Wilber vomits verbatim.
"I will suggest that his [Griffin's] analysis suffers from a fallacy of misplaced opposition....he has mounted the argument against a deconstruction of his own invention.... Reconstructive postmodernism depends on deconstruction as much as much as deconstruction depends on the speculative schemes it deconstructs" (3-4).
In this book there is also a chapter by Gare on the genealogy of the 2 streams, much of which Hampson investigates.
More from Process and Difference:
Some of us within the process trajectory have outgrown the terms and tenor of our own mistrust of “deconstructive postmodernism.” Within Whiteheadian thought the “lure for feeling” that poststructuralism conveys may too readily get dismissed, as though it is nothing but infatuation with modish jargon. Yet if we repress this lure as morally lightweight and philosophically incoherent, do we not caricature deconstruction?
David Ray Griffin’s general argument with deconstruction—that Other in opposition to which the reconstructive alternative constructs itself—introduces his historical account of the postmodernity he prefers…. I will suggest that his analysis suffers from a “fallacy of misplaced opposition.”
He does not however engage Derrida, who coined the term deconstruction, nor Gilles Deleuze, Michel Foucault, Luce Irigaray, or Julia Kristeva, or indeed any of the French theorists whom one thinks of as originators of the “deconstructive postmodernism” to which this series offers the preferred alternative. Instead, he disputes with U.S. philosophers like Karl Popper, Wilfrid Sellars, and Keith Campbell. They are no doubt worthy opponents. Yet their questions, terms, and analytic methods simply do not represent what is known as “deconstruction.” Indeed there is if anything less tolerance between North American philosophy and French deconstruction than between the latter and process thought.
For he has mounted the argument against a “deconstruction” of his own invention. Griffin claims, more specifically, that deconstructive postmodernists make a “tacit identification of perception with sense-perception” and thus of the latter with “the given.” Yet the founder of deconstruction proper would, as I will show, reject precisely that identification (2-4).
I think there is a ton of over-reach all around on this planet at this time and Integral Inc. is no exception. It be enough for me to see the nations of the earth reach a healthy green whereby nations hold non-toxic pluralities of their citizens and NO nation gets to claim privileged access based on religion or ethnicity(and certainly not apartheid states) ; moreover said culture would become mindful of economy and ecology for the first time in history realizing that certain economic models are no longer sustainable (cough cough) ; we would have an energy supply that didn't turn our lungs and sky black or turn our water to acid; we would realize that our perceptions of reality are conditioned by our culture which would lead us to tolerance of another's view if those views didn't break civil and criminal law; our universities would be free whereby citizens could study the finer points of philosophical abstractions or study new ways of breathing fresh life into the humanities; where science isn't used as a tool of corporate,state,and military propaganda but vigorously persues questions about the material world without a mean-spirited proclivity of asserting definitively things which it is not equipped to answer . NOW HOW MEAN IS THAT ! Anyway, Russia and China would also have to play nice in the green sandbox and that's probably not going to happen anytime soon . Apparently they are in the process of ending the dollars hegemony; which will most likely lead us all to various shades of grey and black.
Thanks for reposting the comments above. I wasn't aware of that old thread on Constructive and Deconstructive Postmodernism. Very important, I think, and I especially enjoy the comments of Catherine Keller which you've highlighted.
The PatternDynamics Community of Practice has had some interesting conversations (initiated by Gary Hampson) on Reconstructive Postmodernism (not as an alternative to deconstructive, but as a next step I think).
I wonder if Wilber relied on Griffin to interpret Whitehead in a similar way as it is sometimes said that he relied on Feuerstein to interpret Gebser?
This from one of Hampton's papers:
In terms of its major schema, professor of Western esotericism, Goodrick-Clarke (2008), identifies that:
Neoplatonic thought is characterized by the idea that there exists a plurality of spheres of
being, arranged in a descending hierarchy of degrees of being. The last and lowest sphere
of being comprises the universe existing in time and space perceptible to the human senses.
Each sphere of being derives from its superior by a process of ‘emanation,’ by which it
reflects and expresses its previous degree. At the same time, these degrees of being are also
degrees of unity, whereby each subsequent sphere generates more multiplicity,
differentiation, and limitation, tending toward the minimal unity of our material world. (p. 21)13
As part of this schema, a key Neoplatonic orientation—in some ways analogous to God—is that of the One:14 O’Meara (1993) describes the Neoplatonic One as “beauty above beauty” (p. 99) whilst Tarnas (1991) identifies that the One “is infinite in being and beyond all description or categories” (pp. 84-5).
12 Noting that traditions can sometimes develop in manners which differ from original impulses.
13 As indicated above, distinction between traditional and radical Neoplatonic approaches could be envisaged, one differentiating between a “traditional” interest in a via negativa (“traditional” Christian) framing (The One as better than The Many, Original Sin, humanity as fallen, the concept of temptation, etc.) and a via positiva (Hermetic / Renaissance / panentheistic / nondual) framing (The One and The Many as both good, Original Blessing, humanity as in participatory dialogue with the Divine, notions regarding freedom and adventurings of the soul, etc.). A dialectic between the two can be seen in the notion that multiplicity leads to both to “the beginning of strife, yet also the possibility of logos, the relation of one thing to another” (Gare, 2005, p. 68). As Gangadean indicates, it is this “relational power of Logos that opens the space-time in which the world, reality, and existence may proceed. It is this infinite relational power of Logos that makes discourse possible” (Gangadean, 2008, p. 132).
14 Gare (2005) traces Neoplatonic interest in number as archetype (through its identification of The One) to Pythagoras. Nonetheless, a differentiation can be made between Pythagoreanism and the range of Neoplatonic relationships to this vector (as per previous footnote).
That is from this paper:
The quote bolded above is very similar to views I hold on theism .
I also came across another of Hampton's papers which is calling for the long term reworking of economics from current models to ecological economics . Something which I completely agree with .
Have you read Matthew Fox's Original Blessing?
I have not . In general I've always found Fox a bit too New Agey for my taste . He seems to be another ( like Kenny) who asserts the nature of reality in definitive terms . An error IMO. Having said that, I've always offered a simple solution to this dilemma : phrased as , "from everything I've studied and from everything I've experienced I've come to believe this...........' Whatever that may be . That would be the end of dogmatism .
Sorry for some of the name misspells .
Scotland is going to issue a secondary currency ! WOOHOO!
If Fox is saying that humanity needs to redefine how we do business then he's right on the money on this one . We spend a lot of time on that topic on this forum. Here is the deal from the perspective of Christendom: Christian's are delusional if they think they should be partaking in a system of financial anti-christ wherein they help destroy the planet via pollution . These would be the goats of Christendom . In Revelation it clearly says that God is against those who destroy the earth-Christian's included . The Amish would be an example of the sheep in that religion . Of course the goats are very very confused about the nature of morality and in that regard could use some schooling from Kenny!
M. Fox is not without his shortcomings, but he was a good bridge for me into a panentheistic way of approaching Christianity. He's a mystical panentheist who does not shy away from sharp political/cultural criticism. His book The Coming of the Cosmic Christ is largely related to environmental/ecological concerns, with some interesting interpretations of Revelation (inspired by the enviro/feminist interpretation of Elizabeth Schussler Fiorenza).
I have no problem , David, with Mr. Fox's hermeneutic per se; but there are difficulties with it, in my opinion . And this is from an Integral theistic perspective : if we limit God as solely synonymous with human consciousness ( while conceding a supernal non-personal ass-holon ); then i think it's fare to ask the question, 'what happens to that version of god when and if Dennett and the boys 'prove' consciousness is solely dependent on the brain?' I should think that's the end of that version of god? Meanwhile, my hermeneutic of god would still be intact if such an event happened--as i don't equate god solely as either being a supernal non-personal ass-holon , or anything a human being can claim being . BTW: I think there are very very few Christian mystics throughout history who would claim their experience with god made them synonomous with god . Now , who's closet to the bulls-eye of reality on this one is one of the most fascinating queries of our time and unlike most theists- I don't discount theurj's view on these matters . It's also one of the greatest ironies of our age that any possible truth about god can only be discovered within human secularism ! And human secularism is right to stand its ground against toxic and false religion, IMO.....