The Integral Schism

[andrew]

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 : 

Christian panentheism: 

http://philipclayton.net/files/papers/TheCaseforXtianPanentheism1.pdf

Disputes over metaphysics: 

http://christian-agnostic.blogspot.ca

[andrew]

Also, I have no problem with what might be termed a 'naturalist process panentheism', but as mentioned above; it may fall short in conceding possible transcendent aspects of divinity . 

[andrew]

Just came across this 

In light of this it would obviously be good if humans could live peaceably without religion . Until such time there maybe some utility in better and healthier interpretations .

[Ambo Suno]

hi andrew. as i follow your thread and others' inputs here and there, i seem to be getting into trying to articulate more fully what i think and feel about divinity, spirit, god, and this apparently 'ultimate concern.'

i don't know if i am more panentheistic, pantheistic, existentialist with wonderings, or what. there is so much thought involved in articulating, and what is being addressed does seem to be trying to take into account that which is much more essential and greater than thought and thinking man - hmmm, i seem to be a ways from sorting it out.

just sayin. any thoughts?

andrew said:

Also, I have no problem with what might be termed a 'naturalist process panentheism', but as mentioned above; it may fall short in conceding possible transcendent aspects of divinity . 

[andrew]

Hey there Ambo, i hear your concern about the limitation of human thought . It appears human thought has led to what I call a cacophony of madness and sadly; there doesn't seem to be any universal agent/s in any hurry to clarify all the multiple schisms . I've certainly experienced consciousness 'beyond' thought but am hesitant to qualify it in any definitive terms, and appeals to authority are not adequate in this area , Imo, although I can see how annoying it could be when uneducated knuckleheads (me) stick their  nose into such matters . I should probable mention that Wilber is of the Vajranana school of Buddhist thought with its dedication to the bodhisattva vow and an assertion of a two truth doctrine of relative truth and universal truth . I hold similar views here but more from a Christian conditioning . 

To clarify, here is what I've come to think about the whole bloody mess : 

- when someone dies the only thing we know for sure is that they are dead . 

-the only one capable of dealing with the dead is god (if there were one )and I wish humans would stop trying to help god out here ( they are not qualified to judge the dead). 

- in 2015 all people regardless  of race, gender, sexual preference , religion, deserve minimum standards of human rights . 

-that doctrinal disputes about things that can't be known are pointless and divisional leading  to every manner of strife . 

-that it's not a given that god is going to save us from this mess we've made and therefore ecology and environmental laws need to be passed en masse. 

-that religious systems and their adherents that are bigoted and prejudice causing  all manner of chaos need to be marginalized by civilization . Formal apologies all around should be the order of the day here ( past atrocities).

-that secular humanist societies are the best systems for allowing individuals to seek out the true nature of reality if there were such a thing . 

Some ideas anyway .

[andrew]

A bit more on Buddhism: i believe Buddhism is a religion and large parts of that canon deal with metaphysical speculation . I believe that aspect of Buddhism is better framed within faith matrix's . I also believe that Wilber is looking in the wrong place when he tries to get evidence for his faith within the scientific paradigm . This simply is the wrong place to look as it's not the right domain of knowledge. Ironically it could be science that drives the nail into the coffin of 'consciousness is god' religions . I maintain that humans don't know what god is ! 

[Ambo Suno]

"I maintain that humans don't know what god is !"

This sounds like a modest expression to me. Yeah - how could we.

Thx.

andrew said:

A bit more on Buddhism: i believe Buddhism is a religion and large parts of that canon deal with metaphysical speculation . I believe that aspect of Buddhism is better framed within faith matrix's . I also believe that Wilber is looking in the wrong place when he tries to get evidence for his faith within the scientific paradigm . This simply is the wrong place to look as it's not the right domain of knowledge. Ironically it could be science that drives the nail into the coffin of 'consciousness is god' religions . I maintain that humans don't know what god is ! 

[andrew]

I'm going to post this here as it talks about Buddhism (Wilber) and Judaism ( Cohen) : 

I get that this is problematic on this forum .

http://www.simpletoremember.com/articles/a/buddhismjudaism/

I am no dogmatist but I do believe that the search for truth must consider the cautionary tale of the Jewish people . Maybe this is a better place to look for spiritual evidence instead of science? Personally I reject all the dogmas of Christianity but consider Yeshua to be what I call 'the right hand of god'. I believe there is also a left hand of god for those who break what I call the two spiritual protocols of trying to own the earth, and trying to exploit everything and everyone for profit . One could, IMO, break the first protocol to a point if the second protocol was kept fully in tact and implemented . But when one chooses to break both protocols it's off to the left hand ways you go . This really is a non-dual way of looking at spirituality; moreover, I'm quite sure I've met 'agents' of the left hand protocols , I didn't necessarily want to ( and I have paid a price for having met them ) but I do respect them and don't envy their task upon the earth . Under this view it's pretty easy to see who the agents of chaos are and who the keepers of truth  and righteousness are ( very few today under a global system of anti-right hand protocols).

True religion, IMO, is not coercive and there is no compulsion to believe . This is personal and one must choose for oneself , IMO> 

[andrew]

Some points on how my view of spirit is consistent with post metaphysics: 

-that we've entered into a post-secular age

-that some cultures have perceived a subtle shift from post-modernist insights to post-post modern insights . 

-that reality is not simply given to us from what we perceive with our senses . 

-that reality is mediated by many different filters .

-that people experience spirit in different ways at different places . An Innuit was never likely to have a revelation of Allah .

-that post-metaphysical thinking distances itself from scientism .

[andrew]

- that rationality was good at deconstructing previous mythologies but incapable of solving the worlds current crisis's . 

Okay, my quirky view on the vast non-personal ocean of consciousness ( that in my view Dennett and the ER boys will never be able to disprove) : that it is a very real vast 'ocean' of non-personal consciousness that separates humans from personal 'godhead' . 

That humans have their priorities inverted when obsessing about questions that cannot be answered while accepting that is ok for people to be treated like garbage and consenting to a financial system that turns everyone into either pimps or whores . 

[andrew]

from Habermas:

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/books-and-arts/magazine/98567/ju...

[andrew]

A good debate on panentheism : 

http://www.proginosko.com/2012/01/why-i-am-not-a-panentheist/

[andrew]

This question belongs here and I consider it an important query : 

http://www.atheistrev.com/2013/12/big-question-1-anti-theism-vs-sec...

I believe raising a child in religion is a type of child abuse . I believe secularism gives the most people the most freedom to discover what the nature of reality is . I believe that humans are hardwired to believe in some kind of spirituality and it is to their detriment when they don't . I believe there are constructive and destructive avenues of interpreting scripture. I believe it best to view scripture as humanities mythological inheritance . I believe theocracies are destructive because every human has to go through developmental processes and its easy to get arrested in that development while interpreting religious doctrine literally . I believe atheism that is opposed to every manner of spiritual hypothesis to be destructive . I don't believe there is one correct definitive interpretation of spirituality past Wilber's 'orange'.

So how do we keep Islam from overreach within our secular societies ? 

How do we keep Judaic Law from becoming the constitution of America ( this is being attempted ) . 

How do we keep the Dubya's from wrecking havoc upon the earth? 

How do we implement just and fair societies that would quiet the criticism of secular culture from the religious when most of the basic premises within traditional religion do ask for some sense of economic fairness and accountability as to how we treat the earth and other people ? Why should capitalism get to ride roughshod over all of this ? The sacred and the secular . 

I for one am not praying for France ! Of course I don't pray for the caliphate either , but i do try to understand them and not use demonization tactics . For every atrocity they commit we commit equally worse or more so.