Noah

[andrew]

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………….

[andrew]

Here are some links that are relevant here especially with my assertion the big oil bought the alliance of the Christian churches in America over the last 50 years:

http://news.rice.edu/2014/02/16/misconceptions-of-science-and-relig...

http://newsvandal.com/2014/02/gods-plan-for-climate-change/

[andrew]

Chris Hedges' Ishtar post belongs on this thread for at the very least he recognizes, as do I, that American Evangelicalism is an abomination. In my thread, they are the goats of the left hand path. 

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/the_rhetoric_of_violence_20140420

I get that he wouldn't concede the possibility of what I am proposing here, but his description of the state of civilization in America (and the world) does align perfectly with the theology that i've outlined on this thread. 

IMO., his prognosis of integrals cozying up to mammon (global neoliberalism today)and celebrity will come to pass. Really unfortunate, that integral continually insists  on being dismissive to those  who continually point out how much of an error in judgment this is. We are not all equally culpable, and some are much more culpable than others. 

[andrew]

Here is a great link on Easter. i loved that he called Dawkins out on his bullshit!

http://bellejar.ca/2013/03/28/easter-is-not-named-after-ishtar-and-...

[andrew]

I'm going to answer some back and forth on the Anti-Capitalist thread because i think it belongs here. First, though, I should mention that I've followed this site and the dumb-ass's that write on here because for the most part i believe that they are genuinely interested in truth, seeking the nature of reality, and all those kind of yummy things. So, no, I don't think these guys are psych-ops!lol

I want to flesh out some more of what an Integral Faith might look like from my perspective. The first and foremost tenet of the faith is that there  would be no compulsion to belong to it if one chose not to; in other words, the faith would be based on notions of freedom of choice. The faith obviously wouldn't be post-metaphysical per se- although some groups could be- but would, rather, allow people to gather how they see fit to discuss a form of theism that they feel drawn to. Some groups could possibly be visited by really smart people ( whom contrary to poplar opinion god likes very much) who still feel drawn to a particular faith whether Hinduism, Judaism, Islam, Christianity, or Great Spirit Traditions. Most of these Integral Faith groups  would be framed within postmodern understandings of each of their differing faiths; reinterpreting and re-envisioning their faiths in such a way as to align with healthy and progressive interpretations of those faiths. Integral Faith based theists could be reassured that an emerging post-metaphysical culture would still be supportive of this kind of endeavour even though those particular groups may be more non-theistic or ethical atheist in nature. In other words, a post-metaphysical culture wouldn't be inquisitional in relation to theistic groupings. 

I should think that these gatherings would be more of a horizontal nature and that any hierarchy would be a benevolent one truly concerned with healthy development of the individual in relation to any given culture. That there would be auditing oversight of any finance to make sure money brought into any group served the greater purpose of society while also supplying basic income for any persons in leadership position. Inherent to these groups would be the notion that any means of trading goods and services would respect the earth and global commons. 

These faith based groups would obviously lean towards a healthy pluralism realizing that God is an unfathomable mystery and works in ways that humans cannot ever really understand. That the possibility of angels existing would be thought of as God's way of managing human choice. What i call the right and left hand protocols. These groups would realize that there is no war in heaven and that God is truly astoundingly awesome; especially the honour and majesty and truth of the right hand ways! The people in these groups would know that it is futile to argue over God's existence or non-existence, as God could never be proven or disproved as God is a matter of faith; and these groups would practice a form of good faith. A conveyer belt faith, if you will. 

In a conveyer belt faith group we wouldn't speculate about what happens to someone when they die. We would realize that for a human to judge another persons soul is folly and foolishness as only God has the power of life and death, and that that domain belongs to God. We could , however, agree that God is good and just and give God the benefit of the doubt that it's smart enough to know what it's doing. We could speculate on reincarnation and such but never allow afterlife speculations to taint the goodwill that we should all show each other in any way shape or form . The most important thing in an Integral Faith based theist group would be to cultivate happy and healthy relationships in the here and now based on egalitarian principles of truth and justice.

[andrew]

We should all be aware that goats of the left hand path are not likely to give up their terrible choices and will likely bring WWW 3 upon us: 

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/the-slide-towards-a-20th-..

There is not much people of good faith can do about this other than see it for what it is.

Oh, and apologies to the belle jar link as it is obvious that the writer is female.

[Layman Pascal]

Hey Andrew,

Religion for tomorrow, and the day after tomorrow, is an issue close to my heart.  As you ponder this topic you may wish to keep "rules of etiquette" in mind. How we talk to each other is usually more important than whether we fanatically believe or want to oppress... or not. Integral Faith has a place for absolutism but no place for those who do not perform a respectful relationship with each other.

We all develop through many oscillations -- between our intense commitment to various notions AND our willingness to be skeptical or easy about those notions.

The really important thing is not to prevent or discourage strong absolutistic feelings but to be somewhat dogmatic about having everyone engage according to a decent, productive behavioral style. You can think everyone else is totally wrong and SHOULD be converted the higher truth you have discovered. There is utility in that. But it becomes problematic as soon as it is expressed in ways that are not convivial, respectful, intelligent, flexible and humorous manner.

An integral faith does not need to police people's attitudes about how other people have different attitudes. But it does need to police the way this is mutually enacted. We do not all have to share a common willingness to have open-ended investigation into Higher Truth according to each person's own understanding free from any assertive challenges by others. But we have to make it a point of pride and necessity that we use the "style" which makes every kind of challenge into something productive and potentially nourishing.

Open-minded, open-ended, pluralistic faith is just as oppressive as any dogma if it does not produce and bind itself to some higher standard of communication. And that standard of communication is attained then many seemingly oppressive and close-minded positions suddenly become workable.

[andrew]

Hey Layman, 

i guess it wasn't obvious that i was using irony: 

http://theoatmeal.com/comics/irony

However, being a great lover of the game of golf i do know a thing or two about etiquette . I shall endeavour to keep any further trash talk within the confines of the pub! Apologies all-round.

I've re-posted omitting the first paragraph :

I want to flesh out some more of what an Integral Faith might look like from my perspective. The first and foremost tenet of the faith is that there  would be no compulsion to belong to it if one chose not to; in other words, the faith would be based on notions of freedom of choice. The faith obviously wouldn't be post-metaphysical per se- although some groups could be- but would, rather, allow people to gather how they see fit to discuss a form of theism that they feel drawn to. Some groups could possibly be visited by really smart people ( whom contrary to poplar opinion god likes very much) who still feel drawn to a particular faith whether Hinduism, Judaism, Islam, Christianity, or Great Spirit Traditions. Most of these Integral Faith groups  would be framed within postmodern understandings of each of their differing faiths; reinterpreting and re-envisioning their faiths in such a way as to align with healthy and progressive interpretations of those faiths. Integral Faith based theists could be reassured that an emerging post-metaphysical culture would still be supportive of this kind of endeavour even though those particular groups may be more non-theistic or ethical atheist in nature. In other words, a post-metaphysical culture wouldn't be inquisitional in relation to theistic groupings. 

I should think that these gatherings would be more of a horizontal nature and that any hierarchy would be a benevolent one truly concerned with healthy development of the individual in relation to any given culture. That there would be auditing oversight of any finance to make sure money brought into any group served the greater purpose of society while also supplying basic income for any persons in leadership position. Inherent to these groups would be the notion that any means of trading goods and services would respect the earth and global commons. 

These faith based groups would obviously lean towards a healthy pluralism realizing that God is an unfathomable mystery and works in ways that humans cannot ever really understand. That the possibility of angels existing would be thought of as God's way of managing human choice. What i call the right and left hand protocols. These groups would realize that there is no war in heaven and that God is truly astoundingly awesome; especially the honour and majesty and truth of the right hand ways! The people in these groups would know that it is futile to argue over God's existence or non-existence, as God could never be proven or disproved as God is a matter of faith; and these groups would practice a form of good faith. A conveyer belt faith, if you will. 

In a conveyer belt faith group we wouldn't speculate about what happens to someone when they die. We would realize that for a human to judge another persons soul is folly and foolishness as only God has the power of life and death, and that that domain belongs to God. We could , however, agree that God is good and just and give God the benefit of the doubt that it's smart enough to know what it's doing. We could speculate on reincarnation and such but never allow afterlife speculations to taint the goodwill that we should all show each other in any way shape or form . The most important thing in an Integral Faith based theist group would be to cultivate happy and healthy relationships in the here and now based on egalitarian principles of truth and justice.

[Layman Pascal]

Hey Andrew,

Just to be clear -- there was no problem with the first paragraph. My comments contained no implication that you were lacking in etiquette relative to your presentation of these topics. The point about etiquette is specially about thinking about what we would need in order to actually produce Integral Faith.

The entire significance of my remark posted above was to suggest that the king of Faith Groups you are imagining would arise naturally if the proper rules of etiquette were implemented among them -- but that lacking the right mood and protocols for exchange it would not really matter whether they agreed upon a context of "freedom" and "no compulsion to join" etc. 

For example, you suggest that in these group people would "know that it is futile to argue over God's existence or non-existence, as God could never be proven or disproved as God is a matter of faith". My observation was that such an attitude is partly irrelevant. This kind of shared knowledge could permeate a group that still does not function very well as an Integral Faith hive. But on the other hand, it would be perfectly find for members to strongly believe that it is crucial to argue of God's existence or non-existence... as long as the nature of those arguments has an acceptable style, conviviality, etc.

If we actually wanted to establish a "conveyor belt faith group" then we would not need any attitude about not speculating on the facts of post-death experience, etc. All such speculations are quite acceptable if the framework is functional. 

So, irregardless of what bit of your remark is imagined as ironic, the very heart of Integral Faith must be seen to lie not in the open attitude which permeates the groups but rather in the commitment to some set of interaction styles which allows even closure to function as openness.

Unless I mean all of this as a gesture of dramatic irony...

Amen.

andrew said:

Hey Layman, 

i guess it wasn't obvious that i was using irony: 

http://theoatmeal.com/comics/irony

However, being a great lover of the game of golf i do know a thing or two about etiquette . I shall endeavour to keep any further trash talk within the confines of the pub! Apologies all-round.

I've re-posted omitting the first paragraph :

I want to flesh out some more of what an Integral Faith might look like from my perspective. The first and foremost tenet of the faith is that there  would be no compulsion to belong to it if one chose not to; in other words, the faith would be based on notions of freedom of choice. The faith obviously wouldn't be post-metaphysical per se- although some groups could be- but would, rather, allow people to gather how they see fit to discuss a form of theism that they feel drawn to. Some groups could possibly be visited by really smart people ( whom contrary to poplar opinion god likes very much) who still feel drawn to a particular faith whether Hinduism, Judaism, Islam, Christianity, or Great Spirit Traditions. Most of these Integral Faith groups  would be framed within postmodern understandings of each of their differing faiths; reinterpreting and re-envisioning their faiths in such a way as to align with healthy and progressive interpretations of those faiths. Integral Faith based theists could be reassured that an emerging post-metaphysical culture would still be supportive of this kind of endeavour even though those particular groups may be more non-theistic or ethical atheist in nature. In other words, a post-metaphysical culture wouldn't be inquisitional in relation to theistic groupings. 

I should think that these gatherings would be more of a horizontal nature and that any hierarchy would be a benevolent one truly concerned with healthy development of the individual in relation to any given culture. That there would be auditing oversight of any finance to make sure money brought into any group served the greater purpose of society while also supplying basic income for any persons in leadership position. Inherent to these groups would be the notion that any means of trading goods and services would respect the earth and global commons. 

These faith based groups would obviously lean towards a healthy pluralism realizing that God is an unfathomable mystery and works in ways that humans cannot ever really understand. That the possibility of angels existing would be thought of as God's way of managing human choice. What i call the right and left hand protocols. These groups would realize that there is no war in heaven and that God is truly astoundingly awesome; especially the honour and majesty and truth of the right hand ways! The people in these groups would know that it is futile to argue over God's existence or non-existence, as God could never be proven or disproved as God is a matter of faith; and these groups would practice a form of good faith. A conveyer belt faith, if you will. 

In a conveyer belt faith group we wouldn't speculate about what happens to someone when they die. We would realize that for a human to judge another persons soul is folly and foolishness as only God has the power of life and death, and that that domain belongs to God. We could , however, agree that God is good and just and give God the benefit of the doubt that it's smart enough to know what it's doing. We could speculate on reincarnation and such but never allow afterlife speculations to taint the goodwill that we should all show each other in any way shape or form . The most important thing in an Integral Faith based theist group would be to cultivate happy and healthy relationships in the here and now based on egalitarian principles of truth and justice.

[andrew]

Okay, good! I'm aware that there are those who find my style and presentation really annoying. I also am no scholar, thank-god!

BTW, even Rory McIllroy , when speaking at The Masters this year suggested that the etiquette rules of golf may be a little bit dated and stuffy. If we can use golf as an analogy to the three mono-theistic traditions , then his observation  is quite astute, i should think.

As people within these traditions start to meander their way through modern, post-modern, and post-post modern stages there will be plenty of room for an Integral Faith; one that necessarily allows these groups to understand God on their own terms ;rather than  theorizing that all religion is Vedanta (which they could be, but there is plenty of good argument to think that that notion is problematic).

There would be some groups who may still hold conservative reverence towards god although these groups would still have to concede post-modern values for them to be an Integral level faith. Unitarians may already be enacting this to some degree, as one example. 

I don't necessarily disagree with you on groups that would want to explore arguments over the nature of god, etc; however, the past has shown humans to be quite incorrigible on this matter, the results of these arguments leaving something to be desired. I should think that anyone interested in an Integral faith would have gone through a demythogolizing process; perhaps even becoming atheist for a time, but a some point reconsidering ideas about god from a post-rational perspective. I get that many people who have done this consider the idea of the person of god as nonsense, but i don't necessarily agree with  that as a definitive final outcome of the inquiry.

Certainly within Hinduism this line of development would be fruitful, as also in Great Spirit traditions. 

[andrew]

More on the golf analogy: there are some golfers who completely lose it out there! Throwing tantrums because they couldn't control the fade or draw; or skulled the ball on a flop shot, but this is a regressive enactment to childhood when they don't get their way! Traditional religions who act like this will eventually be 'forced' to recognize that god isn't going to validate their childish bigoted notions, quite the contrary, really, imo.

[Layman Pascal]

1.

My short piece on The Four Faces of Integral Politics addresses some of this -- if we assume that "politics" means the "art of working together". I discuss an all-quadrant approach to being socially integrative.

We need (UL) people who hold integrative perspectives (UR) formal structures in which the different groups of people are arranged in a way that approximates integral intelligence... even though the people can be at different levels (LL) an understanding of how to generate a shared integral-style ethos or group spirit, and (LR) a set of rules which is complex enough to be at an "integral level" no matter who is using them.

So the UL part expects that each integrative participant has already gone through a demythologizing process and gained some considerable skill in presenting their positions in a very open-ended manner. But the UR and LR parts suggest that we must set up something where ANY kind of certainty has place as long as it is operating through a style which is actually productive. How not what.

The problem with golfers is not that they have emotional outbursts -- but that some emotional outbursts are more acceptable, useful, tolerable, productive than others. We miss the mark if we want to get together a group that has no tantrums.  Although it is understandably more difficult to think in terms of separating "progressing tantrums and non-tantrums" from "regressive tantrums and non-tantrums".

2.

In addition to that we have a kind of left-hand and right-hand approach to being inclusive:

One the one hand we go out of our way to decentralize perspectives. No integralite, whatever their personal habits, actually asserts that Vedanta covers everything. The "official" position is that any tradition or newly emergent traditions are potentially equally viable and therefore we must hold open a space which does not make too many assertions or seem to prefer one to another.

But on the other hand we learn to make the assumption that, since all insights and empowerments can be mediated by potentially some form of any tradition, that we do not need to waste too much time trying to affirm everyone. We just expect that everyone is talking about the same thing no matter how they say it.  And that as soon as someone starts wondering about why it gets said this way or that way more often they are no longer really participating... but falling back into superficiality.

So those two approaches must work together.

[andrew]

I like the approach! I would think some of these groups might be theistic in nature. Which brings me to tone. This guy apparently could hear the tone alter as a battery weakened on his effects chain

Even with great tone he was by no means a favourite of mine. Then there were guys with sweet sweet tone: 

And the there were those who pioneered tone:

And guys who had an angry tone at times: 

These guys have tone that theurj sometimes has, justifiable angry.

Tone may be a more suitable parameter than etiquette?