Participatory Spirituality for the 21st Century
A friend just shared with me a new booklet titled, New Monasticism, by Rory McEntee and Adam Bucko, which I am making available below (in PDF form) for anyone who is interested.
“We assert that new monasticism names an impulse that is trying to incarnate itself in the new generation. It is beyond the borders of any particular religious institution, yet drinks deeply from the wells of our wisdom traditions. It is an urge which speaks to a profoundly contemplative life, to the formation of small communities of friends, to sacred activism and to discovering." ~ McEntee and Bucko
“Time is not an accident to life, or to Being…Each existence is tempiternal…ever old and ever new. Our task and our responsibility are to assimilate the wisdom of bygone traditions and, having made it our own, to allow it to grow. Life is neither repetition nor continuation. It is growth, which implies at once rupture and continuity. Life is creation. If creation is an act of contemplation, as Plotinus says, real growth would be to reenact in a contemplative way our partnership in the very creative activity of reality.” ~ Raimon Panikkar
You're welcome, Mary. Yes, the Beguines are a good example; thank you for the reminder. In Buddhism, Vimalakirti and Layman Pang could be seen as good exemplars as well (for a lay life which enfolds and enacts certain monastic-contemplative ideals and forms).
I've read a bit more of the booklet and see now that the authors do mention possible forms that a new monastic movement might take (including taking vows, adopting a rule, undergoing formation, etc), but it seems they are primarily focusing here on "monk as archetype" (UL) and leaving other AQAL dimensions (LL, UR, LR) to others to work out in their own ways (with local variations in form, etc). My concern was that focusing primarily on a UL identification with an archetype, and calling that "monasticism," would be too diluted and abstract (and interior) a definition, by itself, to really be deserving of the name.
My concern was that focusing primarily on a UL identification with an archetype, and calling that "monasticism," would be too diluted and abstract (and interior) a definition, by itself, to really be deserving of the name.
--I see what you're saying. Good point, Bruce.
Regarding tracing the horizon, Jean-Luc Marion describes a phenomenon's trace as leading beyond both Husserl's horizon of the object and Heidegger's horizon of being to a "place" of pure givenness (not to be confused with any particular given), Heidegger's "no thing." Although I haven't read him say so, this "place" reminds me of Derrida's khora.
Marion talks about God coming to us from beyond the horizon of being. In this way, God cannot be inscribed upon the horizon of being and is thus not trapped in the matrix of metaphysics. God is independent of this matrix, breaking the metaphysics of onto-theo-logy. God is not a being -- not even a supreme being -- and is not the ground of being, either, another metaphysical maneuver, in Marion's view, to contain and manipulate God.
I'm a bit familiar with Caputo, but I'm not sure how he uses horizon. So this comment may not be completely relevant. Just wanted to jump in the conversation. :)
Yeah, we need an IPS t-shirt and bumper sticker! Slogan? Maybe taking a snip from Balder's description of the forum: "Trace the horizon." I like it because one interpretation could be Derrida's trace and Caputo's notion of horizon.
I'm sorry it has taken me almost a week to respond. I just discovered that gmail is treating everything that comes from this site as spam. I've fixed that.
I'm afraid I'm not at all familiar with the Eastern meditative philosophies that Wilber talks about in this context, but I'm quite familiar with Derrida, Heidegger, Lacan, and Kristeva. Thanks for the link to the thread. It was an interesting read, and I've saved the link to Derrida's "For the Love of Lacan." I've read it before, but I wouldn't mind doing so again.
I might be over my head on this forum, as it appears to be Wilber heavy. I've only read a couple of his books. I have kept up with the general thrust of his thought's development, but not the details. My direct involvement with integral thought is Jean Gebser's phenomenology, about whom I did learn from Wilber.