Evolution As Metaphysics And Spiritual Violence - Integral Post-Metaphysical Spirituality2024-03-28T08:41:02Zhttps://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/evolution-as-metaphysics-and?commentId=5301756%3AComment%3A2635&feed=yes&xn_auth=noNope - I refuse to acknowledg…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2013-07-11:5301756:Comment:497452013-07-11T21:03:55.067ZLayman Pascalhttps://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/LaymanPascal
<p>Nope - I refuse to acknowledge multiple entities!!!</p>
<p>But just to be safe... "Red Lion" is now officially a synonym for "Joseph". </p>
<p>As in Jesus, Mary & Red Lion. Or Red Lion Campbell. </p>
<p>Whew...</p>
<p></p>
<p>Nope - I refuse to acknowledge multiple entities!!!</p>
<p>But just to be safe... "Red Lion" is now officially a synonym for "Joseph". </p>
<p>As in Jesus, Mary & Red Lion. Or Red Lion Campbell. </p>
<p>Whew...</p>
<p></p> Layman, just FYI, the author…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2013-07-11:5301756:Comment:496892013-07-11T20:24:11.398ZBalderhttps://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/BruceAlderman
<p>Layman, just FYI, the author of this thread is a different Joseph, not Joseph "Red Lion" Camosy. </p>
<p>But maybe he'll like being a Red Lion, too. :-)</p>
<p>Layman, just FYI, the author of this thread is a different Joseph, not Joseph "Red Lion" Camosy. </p>
<p>But maybe he'll like being a Red Lion, too. :-)</p> Red Lion,
For some weeks now…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2013-07-11:5301756:Comment:498612013-07-11T20:03:31.572ZLayman Pascalhttps://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/LaymanPascal
<p>Red Lion,</p>
<p>For some weeks now I have been pondering a topic for one of my email "weekly harangues":</p>
<p>The complex relationship between what I am temporarily calling <em>authenticity & inspiration</em>.</p>
<p>As our sensitivity grows, we become better friends with Feminine and seek a more playfully self-limiting and open-ended style. This works terrifically well for other people like ourselves... and not so well for people who need to get "puffed up". But the energy of puff is…</p>
<p>Red Lion,</p>
<p>For some weeks now I have been pondering a topic for one of my email "weekly harangues":</p>
<p>The complex relationship between what I am temporarily calling <em>authenticity & inspiration</em>.</p>
<p>As our sensitivity grows, we become better friends with Feminine and seek a more playfully self-limiting and open-ended style. This works terrifically well for other people like ourselves... and not so well for people who need to get "puffed up". But the energy of puff is not illegitimate. I am turned off by the car salesman who clearly wants to sell me something. Like a woman at a bar... I am disgusted by the obvious seduction. I denounce seduction. I demand to be seduced in a way which will NOT remind me of seduction!</p>
<p>But such evaluations grow complicated between types and levels. The use and existence of the <em>ascending assertion</em> is not what the descending force is truly complaining about. Our job is to find the appropriate uses of both on their own... and also work to create the new spaces in which they grow more intimate and balanced.</p>
<p>Evolution is evolving this new concern which wants to hold even "evolution" cautiously... this is the proof of the process at a particular level. But my gullible grandmother is not ready for this -- she must simply agree to "believe in evolution". Simple and catchy is a complaint for philosophers... but not a complaint for life. Etc.</p>
<p>We can and should use the nuanced biological understanding of "evolution" to temper our own tendency to make exaggerated directional claims. Stephen Gould is excellent fodder for this. Yet at the same time we remember that "contemporary mainstream biology" not only has holes, flaws but also no special claim upon the word <em>evolving</em>. Darwin must sit alongside Terence McKenna, Lamarck, Nietzsche, Whitehead, Cultural Epigenetics, and a thousand others who vastly complicate the decision about how "progressive" is change. </p>
<p>Of course any Metaphysics of Adjacency demands something like my idea that 99 is the new 100%. But this is ambiguous. It does not only say that we have unjustly "closed" the endzone but also that where closure appears... it actually does not and has not ever appeared. Completely only every meant Mostly. So totalization is redeemed. It is not the site of the danger...</p>
<p>We are typically too repulsed, as individuals, by authoritarian, idealistic and totalitarian approaches... that we lose sight of their contextualized philosophical applicability and flexible social utility. Therefore we conflate them (as do Popper, Derrida, etc.) with the fascistic and nihilistic elements which are embedded in our feelings, thoughts and speech patterns.</p>
<p>It is too easy to exaggerate the "tragedy of integral". We want a critique, yes, that demands more and drives it forward, but also we must account for the fact that superficial, distorted and largely unacted versions of anything are bound to characterize the bulk of any movement. </p>
<p>Our new style must be less dick-ish... but there is still a place for dicks. The task of encouraging the articulations which have a closer blend, a more advanced cultural and humanistic nondualism, must not get too mixed up with our personal, philosophical and social complaints about old-fashioned styles which are attractive to some parts of people. </p>
<p>In conclusion, there is no violence inherent in the metaphor of evolution. The violence is imported into that metaphor by other factors. And it must be anticipated, happily, that most people will stay with the less complex, less correct version of the metaphor. Their gullible in the face of the implications of symbols must be addressed over time... but the symbols are not to blame. No more violence resides in "evolution" than in "nigger" -- which is to say none at all. </p>
<p>Much error is permissible. </p>
<p>Truth, which must be enforced, builds forward from the context which aligns error toward truth... not from the context which "frees truth from error". </p>
<p></p>
<p></p> Cool! I'm sure it must...
…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2013-07-11:5301756:Comment:498592013-07-11T17:13:44.966ZBalderhttps://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/BruceAlderman
<p>Cool! I'm sure it must...</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Well, either that, or you've just fallen into the Outer Darkness. :-)</p>
<p> </p>
<p>(I reposted your essay on FB today)</p>
<p>Cool! I'm sure it must...</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Well, either that, or you've just fallen into the Outer Darkness. :-)</p>
<p> </p>
<p>(I reposted your essay on FB today)</p> Frank Visser at Integral Worl…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2013-07-11:5301756:Comment:495892013-07-11T06:44:52.624ZJosephhttps://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/JosephFarley
<p>Frank Visser at Integral World liked my <a href="http://www.integralworld.net/farley1.html" target="_blank">essay</a> & has kindly reposted it on his site. Hot damn! Does this mean I'm 2nd tier?</p>
<p>Frank Visser at Integral World liked my <a href="http://www.integralworld.net/farley1.html" target="_blank">essay</a> & has kindly reposted it on his site. Hot damn! Does this mean I'm 2nd tier?</p> I may be a little late to thi…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2011-09-28:5301756:Comment:300142011-09-28T19:30:27.476Zshaman sunhttps://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/shamansun
<p>I may be a little late to this discussion, but I just discovered it through another post about Andrew Cohen's new publication: Evolutionary Enlightenment. Over the past year, I've engaged in discussions with the EnlightenNext community, attended a few meetings and made some friends with some nice people. Overall, I've kept my distance with stepping on board as a member, because I remain uneasy with Cohen's philosophy, teachings, and even a gut-sense that something about him is "off." A…</p>
<p>I may be a little late to this discussion, but I just discovered it through another post about Andrew Cohen's new publication: Evolutionary Enlightenment. Over the past year, I've engaged in discussions with the EnlightenNext community, attended a few meetings and made some friends with some nice people. Overall, I've kept my distance with stepping on board as a member, because I remain uneasy with Cohen's philosophy, teachings, and even a gut-sense that something about him is "off." A generous friend from this community offered me his copy of the new book before it was published. I've read a little over half the book so far, jotting down notes in the margins and filling the book with notes of my own. Joseph, I have to say that your astute reflections on this subject hit the nail on the head and left me with quite a lot to think about. I ended up writing some spiritual reflections on mysticism and evolution, but I'll save that for the end of this post.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>First I wanted to share a few reflections concerning spiritual violence: now I am not a "monist" per se, even though I am at least intellectually appreciating non-dualism. My understanding of non-dualism, however, is not that the self must be annihilated, but that it is a unique expression of the infinite, or Godhead. Perhaps this is more of a Western, Jungian, or alchemical idea, but for me the ego is the tip of the ice berg, of which the Self is the deeper dimension and the individuation process an important part of the transcendent realization. This is probably equating metaphors terribly, but there is a Zen Koan that says: before I saw mountains, then there were no mountains, now there are mountains. The self doesn't get squished. If anything, for me a healthy realization only enhances the unique experience of being embodied, with a unique take on life, a personality, and individual experience. For me, true non-duality is not the loss of the personal in favor of the impersonal. But I realize this can often be a challenge, especially with a powerful mystical experience, we are tempted to "bliss out" into the infinite. The true challenge is integrating this universal dimension back into everyday life.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Many spiritual traditions bring up this issue, in Zen it is the "stink of enlightenment." Like Alan Kazlev points out by referencing Sri Aurobindo's "intermediate zone" guru, mystical transformation is a messy process and is not necessarily easy. There can be many spiritual snags, where the initiate or practitioner can get stuck and end up inflating their ego. In a time where spiritual traditions are being rediscovered in a materialistic age, and where many people are desperate for meaning and transcendence, the danger of spiritually-sick Gurus is prevalent. I wonder how prevalent this might be in the Integral community's teachers, especially in light of the recent events.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Concerning biological evolution and cultural evolution - I'd add there are many other theories besides Spiral Dynamics, or Wilber's developmental framework. Marshal McLuhan is one more mainstream example, but then there is also William Irwin Thompson's work with the Lindisfarne Association that is often un-mentioned, despite there being a sophisticated theory of cultural evolution which is more in line with the life and mind sciences than developmental psychology (as in Wilber's case). I'm referring to Thompson's work with Ralph Abraham, a mathematician, Francisco Varela, Lynn Margulis and James Lovelock. Personally, I am studying these folks and find their insights to be quite rewarding, and perhaps more accessible to mainstream dialogue (though ironically talked about less) than Wilber's work. But perhaps that's comparing apples and oranges. (I'm a student in the Goddard Consciousness Studies program researching many different theorists, including Wilber).</p>
<p>You're right that it is probably <em>easier</em> to see that human societies undergo large-scale transformations over big stretches of time. But to equate these multi-generational transitions with individual growth is dangerous, and often gives way to ideology (WE can change the world immediately through our actions!) Cultural evolution has always taken generations. I'm open to the possibility that in this time period, where so much is happening at once, single individuals may be able to contribute a lot more than ever before. Sure. But let's not forget the big picture. It keeps us humble, patient, and in it for the long haul where the transformation is going on.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Anyhow, here's that piece I wrote reflecting on spirituality and personal evolution:</p>
<p> </p>
<blockquote><p>More so than appropriating new "memes" or "genes" - the story of social transformation is genuinely coming from within, a shift in our orientation. Jean Gebser regarded them as "mutations," but a mutation is a turbulent and difficult thing. It cannot be mastered by the conscious ego, ideology or rationalization. Rather than seeing us as purely self-evolving beings climbing a ladder of evolution, does it not make more sense to understand individual growth as a movement towards the center - towards wholeness? If we are constantly oriented towards the position of "constant evolution," or an infinite "growth to goodness," ironically, we may miss out on the life at hand. If you are an esotericist, you might recognize that the only way for human consciousness to evolve is to clear the way for that which is hidden to sprout up in ourselves. To let the "soul" more actively participate in all facets of life, consciously. As we clear a path in ourselves, we allow these so-called higher worlds to participate in this one: making coffee, going to work, raising a family, inventing and innovation, good works and conscious living. You might call that participation an "evolution," and perhaps in the long haul it is, but let's not fetishize the term and collapse it into an idea, nor conflate it with what we know about biological evolution. <br/><br/>This is just an observation about the individualized use of the term "evolution." It's easier to understand socio-cultural evolution because it is stretched out across history, observable in the transformation of ideas, mythologies and the orientation of human consciousness over time.</p>
<p> </p>
</blockquote> Indeed. Recall our prior Gaia…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2010-08-15:5301756:Comment:33322010-08-15T15:03:26.000ZEdward theurj Bergehttps://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/theurj
Indeed. Recall our prior Gaia discussion on Hamilton's <a href="http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B3ket5n91z-5OWYyZmJhZTAtZDlmYS00MjUwLTgzOTgtZTVlMTM1MjUwNmRh&hl=en" target="_blank"><u>Authentic Enlightenment</u></a> wherein you said this on 4/20/09:<br />
<br />
"One of the reasons I posted this essay was because of his conclusion. He makes an appeal to “post-postmodern” forms of spirituality, but in my opinion, the nature of his argument suggests to me that he hasn't grasped the postmodern critique…
Indeed. Recall our prior Gaia discussion on Hamilton's <a href="http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B3ket5n91z-5OWYyZmJhZTAtZDlmYS00MjUwLTgzOTgtZTVlMTM1MjUwNmRh&hl=en" target="_blank"><u>Authentic Enlightenment</u></a> wherein you said this on 4/20/09:<br />
<br />
"One of the reasons I posted this essay was because of his conclusion. He makes an appeal to “post-postmodern” forms of spirituality, but in my opinion, the nature of his argument suggests to me that he hasn't grasped the postmodern critique clearly enough to even begin going 'post' yet."<br />
<br />
There are a lot of gems in that thread on the obvious Boomeritis involved in this movement.<br />
<br />
PS: the old thread is stored at Google docs and takes a minute to fully load.<br />
<br />
<br />
<cite>Balder said:</cite><blockquote cite="http://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/evolution-as-metaphysics-and?page=2&commentId=5301756%3AComment%3A3329&x=1#5301756Comment3327"><div>I also posted <a href="http://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/video/beyond-boomeritis">this video</a> largely in response to this thread. It seems to me -- though I'm willing to look at it from another, more sympathetic angle -- that the Boomer narcissism that is being denounced by Cohen is powerfully (and ironically) exemplified by the view of "evolution" that he is promoting.</div>
</blockquote> There's some blog commentary…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2010-08-14:5301756:Comment:33292010-08-14T23:49:24.000ZMary W.https://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/MaryW
There's some blog commentary by John Wagnon on Visser, Stein, and others available <u><a href="http://integral-options.blogspot.com/2010/07/critiques-of-aqal-at-itc-2010.html" target="_blank">at this link</a></u>.<br />
<br />
Visser's paper is one of the ITC award-winners, by the way.
There's some blog commentary by John Wagnon on Visser, Stein, and others available <u><a href="http://integral-options.blogspot.com/2010/07/critiques-of-aqal-at-itc-2010.html" target="_blank">at this link</a></u>.<br />
<br />
Visser's paper is one of the ITC award-winners, by the way. I also posted this video larg…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2010-08-14:5301756:Comment:33272010-08-14T15:42:35.000ZBalderhttps://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/BruceAlderman
I also posted <a href="http://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/video/beyond-boomeritis">this video</a> largely in response to this thread. It seems to me -- though I'm willing to look at it from another, more sympathetic angle -- that the Boomer narcissism that is being denounced by Cohen is powerfully (and ironically) exemplified by the view of "evolution" that he is promoting.
I also posted <a href="http://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/video/beyond-boomeritis">this video</a> largely in response to this thread. It seems to me -- though I'm willing to look at it from another, more sympathetic angle -- that the Boomer narcissism that is being denounced by Cohen is powerfully (and ironically) exemplified by the view of "evolution" that he is promoting. You can see the ITC papers at…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2010-08-14:5301756:Comment:33192010-08-14T14:01:43.000ZEdward theurj Bergehttps://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/theurj
You can see the ITC papers at <a href="http://www.integraltheoryconference.org/talks" target="_blank"><u>this link</u>.</a> See not only Visser's but Meyerhoff and Stein's papers.
You can see the ITC papers at <a href="http://www.integraltheoryconference.org/talks" target="_blank"><u>this link</u>.</a> See not only Visser's but Meyerhoff and Stein's papers.