abraham maslow
November 2008 
Logic vs Aliens
Sandra
In the end, I sense he wanted to have a different kind of discussion than the one I wanted to have. As he wrote to me personally: "I think we were presenting different worldviews - and each using the approach to “proving” that worldview that is congruent with it…. fun!"
Well, yes it was fun. Until it was not. I think it got competetive and personal, which is fine, but neither of us chose to look at this aspect, which in my humble opinion is a real problem if we are to engage in any discussion that purports to discover 'truth' and to serve the world at large.
I enjoyed having my mental wits excersized, and at the same time I rose to Julian's challenge quite unconsciously, and so participated and supported something (competetive win-lose discussions) I thought I was trying to do the very opposite of. Very interesting!
And a lot of points remained unaddressed - on both sides. I believe these points remained unaddressed because of our different aims, our different approaches, our very lack of self-awareness, not our differing worldviews.
So it's possible that the discussion never reached a certain altitude because of one major thing: at no point did either of us question our identification with whatever view or opinion we were presenting.
I came across a very interesting article in the NY Times about how people get pleasure at maintaining their fixed position even when new and better information is presented to them. Holding positions somehow stimulates the pleasure centers of our brain. If you are interested it is here:
A Shocker: Partisan Thought Is Unconscious
by Benedict Carey, NY Times January 24, 2006
Regarding the Alien thing. I spend very little time thinking about aliens. When I experience one, I'll be the first to let you know!
Regarding channellings.
Once again I'd like to quote my mathematical friend:
“It's the incredibly intelligent consistency in these cases that convince me that the “least complicated” explanations cannot be the “easiest explanations” like: an unconscious intelligent part of the personality is doing that. Could be. We do not know that. But it seems an unsatisfactory reason, not because I want to believe that “extraterrestrials” exist but because I cannot believe this reason, too. It seems too easy, or let's say: too sloppy. So, given the consistency of the material presented, it is hard to explain what is going on”
And I'll quote another friend's opinion, which I like a lot:
"However all these phenomena most certainly derive from the astral/affective worlds, or more rarely other regions like the subtle physical. So no, he is not channelling an alien civilization.
The whole subject of galactic consciousness and alien telepathy and so on is a fascinating one, Steven Guth refers to it under the rubric of Astrognosis, i prefer to call it Cosmecology. So there are interstellar psychic (subtle physical and astral) forces, but they are not technological civilizations like in science fiction. They are not even physical beings like you and I; i suggested to Steven once the term “astrodeva” may be useful in this context.
Not having seen his material I do not know if Bahsar is even tapping into astrodevas at all. It is probably more likely that he is just repeating the same New Age material as J.Z. Knight (Ramtha), Mafu, and others. All this stuff floats around as thoughtforms and people tap into it. There are a few channellers who are more interesting; Jane Roberts/Seth is exceptional."
My main and perhaps my only interest in channeled material is its content, particularly Seth.
If you are interested in taking a deeper look, I would suggest fellow zaadzter Paul Helfrich's extensive study of Seth's work. He has more personal experience with channelers than most people I know, and indeed explores how Seth's work relates to Ken Wilber's models; and has spent personal time with Ken himself.
You can begin with the library of articles here:
http://www.newworldview.com/integral.html
Have a look at:
Seth / Jane Roberts: A Conscious Creation Overview
and: The Dream-Art Science Sessions Abridged, as this outlines the channeling hypothesis, and interprets the core DAS sessions though an AQAL lens.
I'll quote from the Overview:
"In metaphysical terms, then, the channeling phenomenon often provides useful information about the nature of reality, the origins and nature of the universe, and strong clues about the purpose and meaning of life itself. In that sense, channeling has always served a larger sociological and community function. And to be fair, channeling abilities take time to develop similar to the skills of any mystic, scientist, or musician. As the developmental psychologists have mapped, we all go through adult stages of development that Integral Psychologist Ken Wilber has termed conventional operational, formal operational, and then postformal operational. It is in the postformal stage where the adult skill levels of a Buddha, Hawkings, or Mozart usually emerge. (Mozart was a child prodigy, and these stages can emerge at precocious ages. There are no hard and fast rules on how slowly or quickly anyone passes through them.)
So it’s likely that the majority of channeled sources will appear quite immature, even ridiculous in their beginning stages. And given that many people never learn the critical thinking, feeling, and intuiting skills necessary for discerning the utility of spiritual information, we often find conclusions drawn from channeled information biased by fanaticism, overinflated ego, religious dogma, and superstitious nonsense. Still, the words that describe any individual’s mystical experience, in themselves, hold incomplete and symbolic meanings as they are subjective in nature. And the concepts hinted at, like all classical perennial literature, as well as the more recent channeled bodies of information like the Seth Material, serve as a trigger for our own inner knowing. In other words, since the source of this knowledge is subjective, it is actually lying latent within each of us and doesn’t exist “out there” in the ether somewhere. So the most useful sources of channeled information will open new doors toward a greater understanding and realization of self. And, as the saying goes, “Teachers open the door, but you must enter yourself.”"
Finally, to logic.Logic is a fine tool. But based on false assumptions its conclusions are useless. And the use of logic becomes inappropriate if we use it as a hammer ( see below ); and when we forget that we are only only ever mapping life.
Julian made one or two assumptions that weaken his argument. You no doubt know the well used adage: When you assume, you make an ass out of u and me.
Unfortunately, it is easier to see someone else's ass than your own. So, with that in mind:
Julian assumed that since Bashar could not prove he was from an alien civilization, he was therefore delusional.
A priori we just do not know who is delusional and how much. And what share of the delusion we have in that game. We just don't know. Julian neither. (He might be in delusion if he really thinks he does.)
The second assumption Julian made was that because Bashar was delusional, he was in misery: in spite of absolutely no evidence that Bashar or Darryl Anka is in misery.
The third assumption was that "because" Bashar is in delusional and misery, we must put him out of it. This is a troublesome assumption, particularly in the field of social policy making.
The fourth assumption was that rational debate should have nothing to do with the province of deep listening. Perhaps some of you conflict resolution specialists (or NVC specialists) out there might have something to say about this one.
Now none of what I have written should detract from Julian's absolutely worthy aim to "present a 21st century spirituality based in humanism, adult cognition, psychological awareness and genuine practices."
I just suspect the discussion with Julian was subject to what Gary Jaron, oh yes, yet another lovely zaadster calls the 'tool trap".
Gary writes in his blog:
"Abraham Maslow once said something very important about ideas as tools; at the time he was commenting on the work and analysis being done concerning human psychology by Skinnerian psychologists. Maslow stated: “If the only thing you happen to have is a hammer, then you will tend to treat everything as if it were a nail. I call this the tool trap and I hope to help you find ways to compensate for it.
Maslow's realization is this: that every tool by its very nature imposes its nature, its essence, its usefulness and its uselessness, upon the user, and in doing so shapes the context of the user interacting with the environment. Hence if you have one tool you will unconsciously distort and ignore the actual nature of your environment and you will consider all the things around you only in accordance with the attributes associated with that tool. In Maslow's example of the hammer everything other than the hammer must be a nail, things to be pounded upon, to be interacted with and by the nature of the hammer."
I think I've written enough for today. It's time to go and have a look at my own ass. Or better yet, get some fresh air!
Access: Public
sneaky!
ummmm, please point out where you feel the debate got personal. i am not sure what you are referring to sandra…seriously.
ah, yes i see you are quoting the philosophical wisdom of assume = ass+u+me…well, what can i say, this one has been flooring me since at least 2rd grade! :O) but let's not be competitive. lol
as to your bold asssertions, you go!
let me see what i think:
Sandra: Julian made one or two assumptions that weaken his argument. You no doubt know the well used adage: When you assume, you make an ass out of u and me.
Unfortunately, it is easier to see someone else's ass than your own. So, with that in mind:
Julian assumed that since Bashar could not prove he was from an alien civilization, he was therefore delusional.
A priori we just do not know who is delusional and how much. And what share of the delusion we have in that game. We just don't know. Julian neither. (He might be in delusion if he really thinks he does.)
julian: i did not say that because bashar couldn't prove he was rom an alien civilization he was therefore delusional. that would be illogical. i said :
that either you thought he was actually channeling from an alien civilization or you thought he wasn't . period.
if you thought he was - that was based on zero proof and converesely was evidence of a certain gullibility.
if you thought he wasn't then either a) you would think he was delusional - ie he believes something both extraordinary and fundamental about himself and reality that is not true…
or b) you think he is a charlatan ie he knows it is not true but is pretending because this is his schtick and its a way to get credibility from credulous people who help bolster his credit and allow him to cash in - if you'lll excuse the silly wordplay :O)
that logic is iron clad sandra, and nowehere am i suggesting that bashar is delusional because he cant prove it. i am saying that if one believes him one is very gullible and that this is probably based in a) under developed cognitive ability ie critical thinking and/or b) a psychological defense system that has kept one's spirituality and worldview in a pre-reational place - exemplified by the longing to believe being stronger than ones rational perceptions. of course this has dangerous consequences as i have outlined.
these may seem personal to you, but as i said, they are in fact observations of the relationships between beliefs, cognition, proof and psychology, that i have written a lot about on my blog and that are backed up by numerous noted transpersonal and developmental psychological theorists and clinicians as well as the disciplines of serious philosophy and science.
Sandra: The second assumption Julian made was that because Bashar was delusional, he was in misery: in spite of absolutely no evidence that Bashar or Darryl Anka is in misery.
Julian: ummmm actuially you will find nowhere a reference to bashar being in misery. you must read more carefully if you want to refute my assumptions and try referring to things i actually said. oops is that competitive? no, actually i again am just interested in truth….
now i did say that someone who believed there was an 8 foot fuzzy blue monster under their bed (was this example too boring to remember? :O) was more than likely mentally ill. one of the defining factors of mental illness is that it creates suffering, precisely because ones mental representations of reality are grossly distorted. all of us of course have some inaccuracies and neuroses, but in these cases, as my example illustrates it is severe. contained within the signifier “monster” is the implication of something scary. if i believed in a non-existent blue very big monster under my bed, which is where i sleep - i would probably be a little freaked out and it is safe to say - SUFFERING, ne c'est pas?
Sandra: The third assumption was that “because” Bashar is in delusional and misery, we must put him out of it. This is a troublesome assumption, particularly in the field of social policy making.
Julian: I said nothing of the sort - this is your own assumption and based in some bone you have to pick elsewhere…
Sandra: The fourth assumption was that rational debate should have nothing to do with the province of deep listening. Perhaps some of you conflict resolution specialists (or NVC specialists) out there might have something to say about this one.
Julian: this was not an assumption, it was a statement regarding the fact that we perhaps had different ideas over the rules of engagement in an intellectual discussion/debate. i was saying that the point, counter point, logical argumentation socratic method was a style of discovering the truth of various ideas, and that this is in fact distinct from a therapeutic container or a group process space - both of which i am very familiar with and comfortable in.
sandra we are not having a conflict that needs resolving. we were discussing the relative value and usefulness of certain ideas and beliefs as they apply to reality.
in a graduate school discussion, a philosophy class, a healthy political debate, assessment of empirical scientific claims, it is the arguments, the facts, the logic that matters.
and as to “deep listening” i have to say the above assertions as to my assumptions are evidence of very little of that on your end my friend!
actually, in an intellectual discussion therapeutic listening would be condescending. this would be inappropriate unless backed up with really good arguments and used as a way to suggest an objective psychological reason for some distortion in an argument.
when holding space i am sensitive to the inner-child of my client/student. when debating worldviews with peers i am assuming ( oh no not that!) that we are adults who are willing to be in the fun rough and tumble of discovering truth through the evaluation of one thing: the strengths of the arguments themselves!
i for one thoroughly enjoyed our discussion and it felt very clean to me sandra.
to directly quote something i actually did say to you:
“please remember though i strongly refute many of your arguments - i bow just as deeply to your being. there is another beautiful distinction there and i celebrate it!
peace
~julian”
clever clever Julian ;-)
I'm utterly wrong about your assumptions.
I read between the lines, and of course this is thoroughly non-logical; and as I mentioned, my own ass, small though it is, does gets its way in there.
And I did it again, I got tool trapped! silly me. Ignore everything said about you, Julian. Maybe some of the other stuff will be of interest.
Namaste.
god (if there is such a thing, provable by logic) bless your small ass, sandra! :O)
hmmm reading between the lines is all very well - but it's good to read the lines too - and then perhaps check in about the interpretation, si?
looking forward to more!
>I'm utterly wrong about your assumptions.
humm! Back to the tool thing! .
I see in your exchange the phenomenon of un-noticingly-switching-from-'logic'-to-'feel'-to-back-to-logic thingie which I've tried to describe in email.
Assumptions, revealed in written words, are apparent to any reader via 'feel' and the writer puts them out there conscious-or-not. Often offered as a game where they can be denied – or not. That's *why* they *are* between the lines. (See OJSimpson in the news Nov2006 for an excellent denial of truths in the same line as they are written.)
Yet when what is seen between the lines is then described in words, the things easily felt and seen become hard things, they become facts which are in the realm of 'logic' and then logic points out that the words are inaccurate. The author feels the switch from her reply of “feel” to his “jump to logic” (his refusing to feel the feel-words) in the midst of this scorching, and chooses between a number of things, such as
surrendering: Backing Off,
staying in logic: Arguing Back,
choosing to feel: Logically Giving In with words sufficiently sophisticated to go over the non-feeler's head.
I know this might not be easy to follow. I don't write well. Or better said, I try to write about more than is easily described in words.
Sandra, what I see happening was an offer from J to logically talk about feel and since you are interested in logic, you accepted. But when the time came for J to feel your insight, he refused and he gave you back logic instead. Almost a betrayal. The unsaid game had been that his interest in insight/feel implies that when the time came to feel that he *felt*. But instead he stuck to logic – at which point you are (if you stay in the conversation) at his mercy as it were. If it stays logic you are exposed undefendedly to logic's condescension, being made-wrong etc.
I enjoy finding a logic mind that shows enough heart who will be willing to respond:
“I see where you are going with this and I don't choose to go there. I am comfortable in talking about it, but it wouldn't be fair for me to only argue etc about it, so rather than permit lopsided logic thing happen where you are sharing from the heart and I appear to be making you wrong, I'd like to back out of this and change the subject.”
Logic can only conclude things like right/wrong win/lose and that's it's nature. It's not enough that the Subject be Heart: both persons must be prefer Heart over Logic and that the discussion end with something more satisfying than the correctness-drug, the pleasure of logic.
Welp, that's what my logic says about what I feel and I'm sticking too it just as long as I don't think about it anymore!
Love,
Michael
Essentially what is happening in discussion between the logic-minded and the explorer of “that which can't be known,” is the steady hijacking of free discussion into logic-debate. This is actually violent, I think. It takes some bravery to explore what is unknowable. The previous age's benchmark of logic and knowing easily expose one to ridicule. The evolution of advanced thinking is only now moving into uncertainty and many arguers mask, probably unknowingly, that they are not going to permit uncertainty. They will insist, sooner or later and certainly before the end, (if only with remarks of summary) that the other position is less-than logical and less-than a good argument. As if that has any connect to a discussion on, say, the indescribableness of the taste of an apple. The fact is that there is no argument-ing when exploring not-knowing.
Open minds might want to watch for other minds which insist on arguments and proofs in realms where none lie. Logicians may appear to be no more than distraction and yet in the course of exploration, they are in fact obstacle. They get in your way. They can, and do, pronounce at any time, “You can't prove that!” Well! What are we to do? Continually answer that the taste of an apple can't be proven? I suspect, sad though this might feel, that these folk be left to gently live out their lives undisturbed as they have no intention of giving up their logic, even to the logically unknowing among us.
On that note, I'm off to have some porridge ;-)
oh my goodnes michael - could you be a little more obtuse and condescending please?! :O)
the voice you are using here is so faux academic and pretentious.
and you are not really saying anything.
the worldview i am consistently refuting here is precisely this:
it sounds like you automatically assume a mutual exclusivitybetween a kind of mystic wonder/not knowing (what i have been calling transrational) and the application of reason to that which can be known and evaluated in a rational way.
this is highly dualistic and - again with the “performative contradiction”:
you are championing not knowing as better, while critizing logic as being violent for thinking anything could be “better” than anything else. silly.
waht you propose is that there is some higher order of spiritual initiation that you are a part of that is exemplified by being “open” to the most silly ridiculous elements of new age nonsense that i have been using bashar as a stand in for.
the failure to use rationality to make healthy distinctions between higher spiritual states of consciousness and regressive fantasy is not new or special or evidence of depth - it is pathological at worst (and i have given many examples) and silly at best.
all i am proposing is:
using ones adult rational mind to distinguish between junk science, pre rational beliefs and spirituality that is a pscyhological defense against trauma and existential angst on the one hand, and authentic trans rational grounded mysticism on the other.
the tack you are continuing here from the previous bloggers in your clan is one in which you insist that such a distinction is not possible, and if it were, it would not be useful, it would be opressive and violent. au contraire.
my response to that is: failing to make the distinction between pre rational and trans rational modes of not-knowing/belief/spiritual open mindeness creates the new age mess on the one hand, where buddhism and channeled aliens sit on the same shelf of the bookstore and the religious insanity on the other hand that threatens to end human existence in the name of god.
not a one of you sweet folks has chosen to actually respond to this central idea, instead you keep stereotyping me as a coldly rational abuser who refuses to consider your “higher” claims about feelings, intuition and the wonder of not knowing, while not actually responding to the nuances of what i am actually saying.
one should not use feelings to evaluate claims like: weapons of mass destruction in iraq, wether or not water can retain the energy of thoughts, the existence of a mothership behind hale bop that is coming to take us away, or wether or not bashar is a channeled alien intelligence.
one should not use feelings in this regard anymore than one should use logic to determine wether or not you love someone or how you feel aboout the reality of death.
one should not use pscyhology to prove quantum physics or a slide rule to interpret rumi.
nor should one refute a rational logical argument with cop out poorly crafted critiques of logic. answer the points!
OR nake a strong case for why bashar or masuro emoto or nay of the other EXAMPLES i am giving actually fall into the realm of trans rational not knowing…i assert that they do not.
seeing as you too insist on your trite mischaracterization, i will repeat: i am a healer, yogi, dancer, musician, writer - i am all for feeling, intuition, mysticism, the scary-beautiful dive into the unknown process of self inquiry and dicovering the moment in all it's quivering wonder -
*as well as* integrating the exercise and application of the adult rational mind in order to have discernment as to the difference between naive spiritual bullshit and the real deal transformational jewels is a huge part of that!
the failure to make a distinction for example between the self evident mystery of not being able to put the tast of apple into words, or prove it and rigorously questioning claims about alien channeling is highly problematic.
the suggestion is that because certain things point out to us the great unknowable mystery that we are swimming in therefore *nothing* should be discussed using logic. regressive, pretentious and lazy, sir. and unfrotunately, it is through this loophole that the cultish spiritual charlatan set has always made millions, addled brains and ruined lives.
are you familiar with integral theory? here is a simple version of some of what it asserts:
the scientific method is the best approach for revealing truth in certain empirically verifiable areas. (example hard science)
the hermeneutical approach is best for revealing truth in certain interpretive areas. (example literature, painting, psychotherapy)
the logical deductive approach is best for revealing truth in certain reason base areas. (example philosophical debate)
the introspective meditative appproach is best for revealing truth in certain contemplative areas. ( consciousness, somatic psychological self-knowledge)
mystic not knowing is best when confronting the immensity of the mystery, shorn of all other modes of knowing, humbled but uplifted.
to confuse these modes of knowing and the objects they can clearly discern is to commit a massive category error.
countering my clear deconstruction of bashars claims that he is channeling an alien civilization with the weak but superior suggestion that one is in a state of not knowing and logic does not apply is not only spiritually arrogant and petentious, it is lazy and incorrect.
and in case your feelings too are tender here michael please bear in mind that for me, and i hope for you - there is a huge distinction between my harsh critique of a certain way of thinking, communicating and posturing and the respect i accord you as a fellow human being who is choosing to enter the dialog.
frankly i think that my directness, honesty and willingness to pursue a clean point counter point approach is potentially LESS “violent' than the thinly veiled one upsmanship, mischaracterizations and waffling that has been going on.
hopefully you can bring something different.
the funny thing is, this is the first time i feel i am getting personal in my responses.
and it is in response to continued mischaracterizations and off-the-point superior assumptions that are actually baseless.
try responding to the rest of it, mr. smarty pants :O)
yes i said it was the first time i was getting personal. it seems that perhaps there is some confusion again between 1) refuting arguments and asserting for your consideration the problems with certain worldviews (which we all have done equally in a great dialog) and 2) some kind of violent ad hominem.
in other words i may tear down a set of beliefs and poorly contructed ideas while doing your person absolutely no harm in the process - in fact this is the essence of reason - and it's spiritual imperative is to be more interested in truth than in making nice. (again to my examples of science, political debate, philosophy, grad school etc….here the above imperative is held as sacred - one's hurt feelings at having ones ideas critiqued are not!)
i wanted you to know that i was choosing to consciously respond personally based on your tone. *and* that i have no problem saying i still respect your humanity - though your position is silly. (does this make sense, or are we opposed to all distinctions and so personally identified that any assualt on IDEAS is seen as an attack on the SELF?)
my point is that y'all (seeing as you us the word “our”) felt it was personal before when it actually had to do with arguing points and was not personal - this is the frst time i actually ventured into the territory of calling out the personal traits.
a) i think the - you're getting personal and “violent” - accusation (without any responsible backing up) is a default position when your weak arguments are refuted.
i have already asked sandra to point out where specifically she felt that actually happened on my page - she has not. (still waiting - and happy to learn.)
i can only assume that my attempt to define pre and trans rational, my assertions about the difference between mental illness and enlightenment, my critique of new age silliness may have been somehow personally offensive - though i feel it was clean and well argued, as well as sincere…i am still happpy to be shown otherwise.
sandra has already attempted to show me my ass (her language - i take no offense - we all have one!) - but i handed hers back to her because her points were very weak and based in a lack of attention to what i was actually saying.
b) your arrogant superior spirituality and vague faux intellectual waffing that i have adressed above is in fact dualistic, reductionist and lazy. (please refute.)
let's not confuse glib one-up pseudo psychoanalysis with pointed backed-up responsible observations. (do you get the distinction i am making?)
punk!
i am happy to return to an actual discussion of the ideas and arguments above anytime now.
you might start by re-reading my above post and replying to something other than that one line. ( if you actually want to play - get in the game and commit to responding point by point at least a little …)
you miight also look at the part of the dialog where i suggested that it is in fact the faithful who are not open to reasonable debate that are responsible for the most actual violence- to reiterate: no genocide, cult suicide, jihad, inquisition, terrorist attack, abortion clinic sniper casualty, was ever caused by an excess of rational debate…
as i have said before i think we are in a pitched batttle between worldviews - the difference is - i am making that plain and constructing an argument for why one is better - you guys indirectly do the same while naively pretending to be “above all that”. come down of your cloud and maike a strong argument - i am all ears! respond to my actual points in a way that expands my mind - i am so ready….
otherwise, happy trails. we'll pick up somewhere else about something else. no problem.
cheers!
~julian
> this is the first time i feel i am getting personal in my responses.
That was exactly our point.
:-)
——
I've come back to modify to this comment to add a bit of civility as the short line above seems awfully bare.
I commented here on Sandra's blog because she was interested and I said what I had to say.
But have a great life!
thats cool michael. understood. deep namaste to you. (julian steps off the mat.)
for the record i was interested in what you had to say too…
if any here are interested in continuing the zaadz pages ping pong - i invite you to a new subject on my blog; ”The Many Faces of God”.
peace (and the rigor that deepens understanding and so too deepens and grounds the peace that passes all understanding) to all
:O)
> i am making that plain and constructing an argument for why one is better -
>you guys indirectly do the same while naively pretending to be “above all that”.
What if we *are*indeed* above all that? *big*grin*
What if you just got really lucky and actually had two enlightened beings show up on your one-of-a-million blog and you didn't notice? Wouldn't that suck?
>come down of your cloud and maike a strong argument - i am all ears!
>respond to my actual points in a way that expands my mind - i am so ready….
Welp, if you is so ready, you'll stop your brain long enough to hear what I'm about to say. Given that for thousands of years and millions of people lives' there has been an on-going effort to enlightenment with very little response, I find it unlikely that my little post herein will be read and seen and felt and acted upon.
But here goes anyway!
> this is the essence of reason - and it's spiritual imperative is to be
>more interested in truth than in making nice.
The nature of spiritual stuff is of “feel” and it may or may not have a reason-type component.
Julian, your default is not that – your words all come from Reason and that it *has* (sticking to the above quote) a spiritual imperative.
Your priority of view is like these outline patterns:
You:
!. Reason
A. spiritual imperative
Us:
1 Spirit (literally, that which we are, not what we have)
A. might have reasonable discussion
Until your priority flips, you will continually see us as acting superior and can't hear a word we say. (which is why Sandra never got back to you, I'm sure)
I'm not saying we're better. In fact I recommend that you never wake up, the truth is not much fun at all. Nearly all beings end their lives' on Earth being eaten alive. Bliss is just as sucky a trap as terrible suffering.
Yet nearly nobody wakes up who is not despairing of Reason, so you are unlikely to enjoy this at all. You love your Reason – and good! I certainly wish you a happy life! I Do Not think awakening worth anything and wouldn't do anything to bum anyone out enough to wake up. We have to volunteer.
The problem with all that, of course, is that many of us, against our will's actually, have no choice. We have had a glimpse and no longer buy into the insane mind's ideas racing around. Reason become, welp, this little thingie for communicating when no other method is available.
>this is the frst time i actually ventured into the territory of calling
>out the personal traits.
I wonder why you are here, Julian, on a spirit type site? The things most closely tied to that which you *are* are personal traits! I wonder what in the world you are *thinking* to be thinking you are somewhat spiritual when prior to this you haven't even addressed personal traits! The mind boggles!
I suggest you protect yourself and get out of here 'toot sweet' and go join a soccer club! *grin* You'll have a lot more fun than hanging around heavy assholes like us or the Lady's Spirituality Battalions flooding this site!
A few bloody shins (one or two at a time, to be sure) at soccer are a whole lot better than the deepest dark night of the soul imaginable – which is the fire we're playing with in spiritual exploration. I am deadly earnest when I quote some great sage who said waking up is a “total catastrophe.”
> as i have said before i think we are in a pitched batttle between worldviews
So I mean, there it is in a nutshell. We are presumably intending upon some aspect of spirituality and yet here you are saying you are in a pitched battle! Is there some kind of sense to you in this statement? Contrary to the way the mind works, consciousness and spirituality do not do 'battle.'
I believe that one of the very first realizations of spirituality (whatever the hell that is) is that there are no battles, there is only the mind thinking there are battles and running around in circles deluding itself. The fact that there are other minds willing to play out this stuff in the physical world has no bearing here, as the point is whether a single mind (yours in this case) notices it is battling instead of being.
I invite you to notice.
thanks for taking the time to respond michael! happy to hear your direct responses to my points.
allow me some reflections please:
you do have a worldview - you are presenting it in no uncertain terms. re read your own post if you doubt this. and you think this worldview is BETTER than mine. . great! you should, - why else would you hold it?
you are boldly and directly saying that you know something i dont because you assume i have not had the awakening you have had - or have not been through the “dark night of the soul.” this of course is a possibility, given that there really ARE stages of development and actual initiations into various states of consciousness and realizations of truth - i am so glad we agree on that - even if it is to hold the possibility that you have had an initiation i have not, and therefore have a deeper understanding of something…which is what you assert. now we are getting somewhere.
you say also that you think perhaps i have no place on a spiritual website and should join a soccer club (btw i appreciate and smile at the humor ..) now you are acknowledging that YOU have a definition of what a spiritual person is and i dont fit it. OK good - we are in agreement that spirituality is a definable thing and that it might be good to discuss what makes spirituality effective and what kinds of qualities a spiritual person should cultivate - cool!
AND THEN:
you claim that there is no room for debate and no battle over worldviews and that it is my lack of awakeness that leads me to deludedly think so…because a REALLY spiritual person would never dream that this was so. well i am glad that for the period prior to this switch in your post you were not being REALLY spiritual either, because now you have said what you actually think instead of adopting a posture.
the worldview “battle” i am pointing out is between two distinct perspectives (as you so kindly actually outlined in your “pattern “and suggested i needed to “flip” to your priorities before then putting me down for having a position….) i intentionally use the word battle because i think it is a healthy struggle between two sets of ideas - but i certainly dont think of it as warlike - in fact if you read through my posts i am suggesting that having healthy debate “battle” is the great offering of reason as an alternative to bloodshed.
AND its a way to find truth.
here's how i see the contrasting (isnt that a nicer word to use?)perspectives:
1) that spirituality is beyond reason and therefore all applications of reason are invalid when it comes to matters of spirit - now of course spirit is really everything and so if we want to “believe” in bashars claims or masuro emotos claims or sai baba's magic tricks or whatever ubiquitous charlatanry we want to it is spiritually incorrect to critique those beliefs based on reason, psychology, or science.
2) that actually the above view is partially true but incomplete, because really there are 2 broad kinds of spirituality:
a) trans rational spirituality which builds upon the rational stage of cognitive development, is able to think metaphorically without literalizing it, is in touch with critical thinking, is not a regressive defense against trauma and existential angst. it does not rely on belief in unreasonable and unprovable assertions of the kind that have historically caused disaster for human beings. trans rational spirituality gives us self-inquiry practices and healing modalities that initiate us into an adult relationship to reality, a reclaiming of sacredness, and a bitersweet awakening to this fragile and improbable human condition. it is not at odds with logic, psychology or science, but integrates their truths into a deeper and mroe complete worldview by including spiritual practice and experience.
b) secnod: rational spirituality - which is a naive regression into magical thinking, fantasies of omnipotence, denial of death, belief in angels, aliens, spirit guides and rituals that affect the outcome of situations or at the very least ensure that you get a parking space before the other guy…pre rational spirituality is more literal in its interpretation of metaphor/mythology/altered state experiences and is generally more gullible and prone to exploitation because it renders one child-like in ways that are not advantageous. pre rational spirituality is in many ways a defense structure against psychological pain and existential anxiety.
now i am almost certain that you are referring to trans rational openings when you talk about tyour “dark night of the soul.” i am sure you are talking about a stripping away of consoling beliefs and an initiation into existential adulthood that is both humbling and illuminating.
yet in our discussion so far i think your position unwittingly perpetuates the dualism between rationality and spirituality, which then allows those under your influence to be confused as to pre rational and trans rational spirituality - which can then create a regressed, magical, ungrounded, addle brained way of relating to reality - where properly people should be getting more grounded in adult cognition, emotional authenticity and embodied aliveness - in these three qualities arises a genuine spirituality.
in response to your position, your worldview, your assertions about what is and isnt spiritual, what the purpose of a site like this is, what a spiritual person should be like etc…this is my response. it contrasts with yours, points out some flaws and suggests some areas that may need rethinking. i know that may seem impolite, annoying or unlenlightened, but its the way reasonable people consider teh relative value of various points of view, and though you might judge that process as unspiritual, you yourself are doing it - we all are - thankfully!
oops! a portion of the above post should read:
b) second: *PRE* rational spirituality - which is a naive regression into magical thinking, fantasies of omnipotence, denial of death, belief in angels, aliens, spirit guides and rituals that affect the outcome of situations or at the very least ensure that you get a parking space before the other guy…pre rational spirituality is more literal in its interpretation of metaphor/mythology/altered state experiences and is generally more gullible and prone to exploitation because it renders one child-like in ways that are not advantageous. pre rational spirituality is in many ways a defense structure against psychological pain and existential anxiety.
that should make more sense….
anyway, if you are interested in what i mean when i say that (wether we like it or not) there really is a battle (and always has been) between differing worldviews about what spirituality is, see my latest blog post:
The Many Faces of God and let's start a new conversation.
adios. amores perros.
Yes, goodbye. Thanks for the verification, Julian, truly.
Good luck with your blogging, me I ain't yet decided to blogger-oo, but thanks, Sandra, and Julian, for this intro to the blog thing. I have a sense of what the medium is about now, thanks much!
Love,
Michael
————————-
My goal in life is to express all the over-brimming love I feel for the world and try to give all myself so that others will feel better and when I have spare energy, want to make sure all the bunny rabbits are warm and no creatures ever suffer at all, since most beings die being eaten alive, I hope to change all that.
or was all that God's plan? Well if so, I certainly know better than Him. Maybe He didn't have the whole picture. Like I do.
Love. That's the Answer!
;-)
.
i am curious michael: what is this reference to “most creatures dying being eaten alive?”
is this a joke about making sure the bunny rabbits are warm, or are you an animal rights activist?
blogging can be about/like many different things.
if you could recommend one book to me what would it be?
i recommend a brief history of everything by ken wilber for your consideration.
have agreat weekend
~julian
I'm offline for a few days…might have something to share when I'm back.
Loving this thread :-)
I guess it might be helpful here to write a bit about dialogue.
<There is a real risk in dialogue. More than arguments you render yourself as authentically as you can. Also giving the other space to do the same.
When conversations turn into judging the rightness of one's own arguments and the wrongness of the others (can be on sliding scales, of course) than that is a discussion.
Often, I find, scepticism and 'devils advocates' are much too early on the scene. First views have to unfold: And really unfold they can only in dialogue with a person (or more) that is truly willing to listen, and maybe actually help you in refining your views.
Then, and in my view - as long as these communications happens basically between people willing to engage thus - only then it's time for the sceptic or devils advocate to get the stage and see what remains of the reasons and arguments gained in a dialogue.
What strikes me in these exchanges here - as they did on Julian's blog where they started? - is that often the positions are not so far apart. What seems to be part of the trouble though is that we want to be understood on our own terms. And that doesn't seem possible.
Much Love,
Mushin