From Brad: That�s such an interesting thought/phenomenon. Can one sort of democratize spirituality? Can one get the benefits of it without the "baggage" of having to adhere to revealed doctrine? Is spirituality without a commitment to concrete moral ideas anything more than fluffy puffy lightweight new age screwballness?

That's what I've been addressing in all those threads and posts about Helminiak, who is presenting a deep and moral understanding of human spirituality apart from a tradition of revelation. His focus is the dynamism of the human spirit itself, which he distinguishes from the psyche and our physiological processes. In this sense, he is offering a much-needed alternative to Wilber, who is also attempting to speak of the human spirit and its development, but with assumptions so deeply enmeshed with Eastern notions that he winds up being little more than an apologist for advaitan (non-dual) spirituality.

Tillich is very heavy stuff, Brad. I tried to read him about 15 years ago and all I got was a massive headache. If you like Christian existentialism, try
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soren_Kierkegaard. Like
Helminiak, Kierkegaard was gay and felt alienated.

Here's another existential alien, whose article is all too appropriate when running up against the limits of science and/or theology.

http://www.tearsofllorona.com/watts.html

There, now, aren't we all feeling more secure about our insecurity now? What, more insecure? Oh,well!

caritas,

mm <*)))))><

Tillich is very heavy stuff, Brad. I tried to read him about 15 years ago and all I got was a massive headache.

MM, I�m seeing several signs in myself that I�ve reached the limit of what I can absorb�at least for the moment. I feel like Jim Ignatowski from Taxi. In his case, though, his brain was fried from too much indulgence in drugs, not Tillich.

quote:

In burning Tillich's book, however, the Nazis were only demonstrating their utter disregard for the truth which could have saved them from the most terrible form of fanaticism, the fanaticism that comes from within. Tillich's book was radical in the true sense of that word; it pursued the dialectics of Marxism and the doctrines of Christianity to their roots. It raised the basic question as to why Marx had turned against religion at the same time as it addressed the similarly hostile reactions of religious people against Marxism. As he pursued these questions Tillich arrived at the somewhat surprising conclusion that this mutual hostility can be explained largely by the misunderstandings of science on both sides of the conflict. "The attitude of socialism toward religion could never have been as negative as it has become, if socialism had not thought that it had a substitute for religion as its disposal, namely, science.(22) Likewise, as Tillich demonstrates, the attitude of religious people toward socialism could never have been as hostile if the church had not accepted Marx's false premise that science is the deadly enemy of faith. Thus, behind and beneath the conflict between communism and Christianity stands the larger conflict over science, and the tragedy which Tillich saw unfolding in Nazi Germany could be repeated in different shapes and sizes until and unless the original misunderstandings are unraveled�

By contrast to this development, Tillich saw both capitalism and communism moving in a similar direction and making the same mistake. Both of them, in the name of science, have tended to exclude the element of the eternal in all things temporal. Describing this tendency in capitalist economies, Tillich writes:

In the past man's relation to material things was hallowed by reverence and awe, by piety toward and gratitude for his possessions. In the precapitalist era there was something transcendent in man's relation to things. The thing, property, was a symbol of participation in a God-given world.

I agree with much of that, in the broad sense. I think both Tillich and Teilhard are, in part, saying that there has been an unnecessary split between religion and science and that it hasn�t been healthy for anyone or anything. I agree. But I also wonder whether people, in general, are capable of more, by and large. Phil sees a number of religious people in this day and age (who surely should know better) who view science with irrational suspicion. Vice versa, of course. I don�t know whether a schism such as this is just something that has to run its course and then we will eventually come to a more sane stance on all this, or whether never the twain shall meet. But if one separates out the authentic religious and scientific aspects out and sees that much that is left is simply a struggle for no more than control and power, then one sees that there may be hope. Science and religion are not only reconcilable but are already (as I think Tillich points out) intermingled far more than most will admit. Both share many of the same techniques and attributes.

What everyone probably should be hammering and promoting in order to replace turf wars is a respect for the truth for its own sake. Science can give us one kind of truth and religion another. And sometimes they both give us untruths. Neither is infallible.

Phil said: That's what I've been addressing in all those threads and posts about Helminiak, who is presenting a deep and moral understanding of human spirituality apart from a tradition of revelation. His focus is the dynamism of the human spirit itself, which he distinguishes from the psyche and our physiological processes. In this sense, he is offering a much-needed alternative to Wilber, who is also attempting to speak of the human spirit and its development, but with assumptions so deeply enmeshed with Eastern notions that he winds up being little more than an apologist for advaitan (non-dual) spirituality.

I�ve been flip-flopping lately over just what issues might be largely psychological in nature and which might be spiritual. It seems both types exist. It seems both have to be treated a little differently. And it seems that it�s easy enough to confuse the two and thus to spin one�s wheels either spiritually or psychologically. But some of the requirements of taking healthy steps, either spiritually or psychologically, can be so difficult that it also becomes difficult to know when one is just spinning one�s wheels trying to fix a spiritual problem with psychological solutions, and when one just isn�t able to comprehend and/or carry out the solution. A muddled mess seems a thing not so hard to find or make.

So we then add to that the subtleties of what Helmniak and Wilber are attempting to do. It can all be a bit overwhelming. One wonders if so many religions or techniques abound because each person requires something a bit different or because, no matter the religion or spiritual technique, this stuff is just hard!

Maybe you have already, Phil, but I wonder if you could highlight a few of the basic differences between these approaches.

"There is an almost sensual longing for communion with others who have a larger vision. The immense fulfillment of the freindships between those engaged
in furthering the evolution of consciousness has a quality almost impossible to describe."
-Teilhard de Chardin

No doubt he has advanced the discussion, as evidenced by Wilber's use of the term noosphere. Lots of people have advanced the discussion. People like Thomas Jefferson who snipped all of the miracles out of the bible have advanced the discussion. Is it the all-seeing eye atop the Masonic pyramid or is it the Messiah? We'll see...

Hi,

I just discovered this site today and I am very pleased I did. I have been a great admirer of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin since the age of 23 (I am 45 now). Since then, his vision inspired me tremendously. I've never seen or read something more coherent and at the same time more inspiring and "exciting". I continue myself to develop this vision, although I find it very frustrating to meet so little people who seem to share a comparable enthousiasm, insight and joy from his vision. Recently, I began to write a book called 'The Harmonisation of the Finite and the Infinite', largely based on Teilhard cosmic vision. In the first chapter, I deliver a proof that it is impossible to prove neither the existence nor the non-existence of God. It is written in Dutch though (my mother tongue). If anyone is interested in a English translation of this, please let me know.

I still have yet to delve into my copy of "The Phenomenon of Man" but I�m wonder what specific inspirations (if any) you may have drawn from it, Jan, and what lessons we may learn from it (if any) in terms of politics, economics, social systems, etc.

Maybe you could at least give us a "sneak peek" of your book by translating a few highlights from it. I�d hate to have you go to the trouble of translating the whole chapter.

Welcome, Jan. Teilhard fan here as well.

I second Brad's request for a sneak peak.

Ok Brad and Phil. Give me some time and I'll select a sneak peak from my book (so far, I only wrote an Introduction and three chapters of it) and translate it. To Brad though, I would like to anticipate already a little bit and tell him that the vision of Teilhard, although inspiring and giving lots of positive energy, is a deep (and cosmic) one and needs time to be integrated in one's own mind and in one's own acts. It also is a vision that asks the "right" and relevant questions (relevant to anyone's life) and in doing so, strongly invites people to think on matters and on a level they weren't used to before they began to discover Teilhard('s thoughts).

See you

quote:

To Brad though, I would like to anticipate already a little bit and tell him that the vision of Teilhard, although inspiring and giving lots of positive energy, is a deep (and cosmic) one and needs time to be integrated in one's own mind and in one's own acts. It also is a vision that asks the "right" and relevant questions (relevant to anyone's life) and in doing so, strongly invites people to think on matters and on a level they weren't used to before they began to discover Teilhard('s thoughts).

Yes, Jan. I think I would agree that the experiences (mystical or otherwise) we have can change our perception of events, how we interpret them, and thus how we deal with them. And we might not always be able to put into words this transformation process. That�s probably why I was curious about how it may have changed your outlook on things. We might not know what happens inside this black box of our mind and souls, but there are always outward, practical, everyday changes that show that something indeed did change, that reading a book such as "The Phenomenon of Man" did more than leave us momentarily dazzled with the possibilities. And I�ve certainly read more than a few books that seemed to produce no immediate effect and nothing more than a pleasant dazzle (although, down the road, we often see how these things fit into a larger picture). And I think this is natural and normal and there�s nothing wrong with a good dazzle!
And that dazzle may be representative of absorbing information that either we aren�t ready for or that is too profound to integrate and use immediately. But that said, besides the intellectual curiosity that some books bring (one of my favorite parts of reading), I�m always mindful to consider if there are any practical benefits that ensue from a book.

Example: I read Phil�s �Here Now In Love� and it had the practical effect of making me no longer run away from solitude and silence. I no longer felt (as) guilty just being quiet. I recognize that is was a GOOD thing, not something to put in the deficit column.

Ok Phil, I read you. I think I understand what you mean by 'practical effects'. I think reading - or even better, meeting during his life (alas not possible for us) - Teilhard can have, and already had on numerous people, many such practical effects like the one you mentioned. But before I give some personal example of that, I have to warn for one practical obstacle I see to this. I don't know how many works of Teilhard were translated into English, but I guess not that much (I know that's the case for 'Le Ph�nom�ne Humain' which became 'The Phenomenon of Man' and 'Le Milieu Divin' translated into 'The Divine Milieu' (I think), but that's about it). Personnaly, I read the complete oeuvre of Teilhard, including many of the numerous letters he wrote and in which he explained himself more extensively. Unfortunately, 'The Phenomenon of Man' is a very dense work and many things said in it would need further development, which Teilhard occasionally does give in many other of his writings. I don't see an immediate solution to that: an English translation of his entire writings would be necessary, but editors are in a business and have to make profits, so they are very reluctant (to say the least), in the case of Teilhard, to do that effort, because they fear there isn't sufficient demand for that.
Ok, now for some personal example of the practical effects Teilhard had and has on me. I discovered him when I was in a kind of personal crisis. I was immediately captured by his style of writing and above all, by what he actually said. He surely did the major part of helping me out of my crisis. Several years later, he was my major inspiration for my decision to enter the order of Jesuits, which eventually, I had to leave, mainly because they feared my strong defense of the ideas of Teilhard (he himself was almost expulsed out of the order of Jesuits for his ideas, as you probably know). He was also the main 'force' behind the fact that I discovered my self-esteem was too low. I found again inspiration in his writings to acquire a much higher self-esteem. Having done so I discovered at the same time that I have a very high IQ (150+ or even higher) (not one of these so-called online iq-tests that give you an astronomic high iq, only to flatter you, but a real IQ test created by a professional test-designer). And so on... I already wrote a book on him (in Dutch and never published). Now, I again write a book, greatly inspired by his vision, as I already mentioned. As you can easily see, his influence in my life (and on my life) is a major one.
Best Regards
Jan

That's an interesting story about Jesuits, IQ's, self-esteem and transcending a life crisis, Jan. I certainly understand the powerful effect that reading the right book at the right time can have. The book that did that for me was Les Miserables. The practical effect was that it made me much more aware and receptive to a "what's in it for you" philosophy instead of a "what's in it for me" one. And the marvelous way Jean Valjean was able to express and implement this through personal character and kindness (as opposed to, say, starting yet another government program or vociferously picketing outside of Javert's headquarters) was refreshing and inspirational, especially in this day and age. So I guess the message I'm hearing from you is that Teilhard's writings can have a similar profound effect upon a person.

A blast from the past for science buffs:

http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext96/hwswt10.txt

Wonder what the white lab coats make of this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pio_of_Pietrelcina

amazingfacts.org

Hi Brad,

Nice paraphrasis of "the right man at the right place at the right time". Surely you are right: "the right book at the right time" can have a tremendous influence, in positive as well as in negative sense; it can have the power to change the world. There are however, in my view, only very few works created by men that have that much power, and I think (I am sure) the writings of Teilhard are one of them. That's also the reason why I continue to build upon the solid fondations that Teilhard already constructed: if something is very clear nowadays, then it is the observation that "our" world needs a change for the better, nothing less than a change in direction. I hope to be able to contribute to that with my writings (which also should encourage people to rediscover Teilhard)
Best Regards
Jan

�"the right book at the right time" can have a tremendous influence, in positive as well as in negative sense; it can have the power to change the world.

It's interesting to take a look at what other people think are the books that changed the world.

100 Most Influential Books of the Century

100 Most Influential Books Ever Written

Ten most popular books of all time

The 100 greatest adventure books of all time

101 Great Books
Recommended for College-Bound Readers

The most frequently banned books in the 1990's (USA)

The Modern Library's 100 Best Novels

Interesting indeed to see what other people saw as the top 100 influential books of the twentieth century. For me however, the interest is only relative. I know, from experience, that Teilhards thinking didn't get yet the interest, the research and the influence they would deserve. But that doesn't say much about the intrinsic value of it. Potentially, his writings have a tremendous power of influence. But they are surely not easy to understand (more precisely: his writings can sometimes seem simple, - and in their deepest essence they are - but in reality it is quite difficult to capture the real meaning of them. Also, such top x lists are, by nature, relative in their interest. As we all know, on Internet it is possible to find the worst as well as the best, the big difficulty being to filter the trash from the valuable things. It is, for instance, also possible to find such a list where some work(s) by Teilhard would get a much higher 'rating'. Actually, I did find such a list by introducing the request 'milestone books of history' in Google. The first result I got, also has Teilhards 'The Phenomenon of Man' in it among other very well known titles of other famous writers. Here is the link: http://www.thymos.com/know/mileston.html. Notice also that altough Teilhard explicitely stated that his thinking was not a philosophy, but rather something he called 'hyperphysics', his book 'The Phenomenon of Man' is cataloged under the title 'Milestone books in the History of Philosophy'. This might seem a detail, but it is not really one in my eyes. At the same time, it is no surprise: when I first discovered his work, some 22 years ago now, I saw the same titles by him cataloged, in different libraries, under 'Philosophy', 'Biology' as well as 'Theology' . A clear manifestation of the fact that his thinking can't be cataloged under one of the classic classifications, which is, to me, already a compliment for the boundary-breaking power of his thinking.

I'm through the first hundred pages of Phenomenon. I'll get back to you.

The 100 Most Influential Books Ever Written list is wonderful, Brad. Thank You! That's a winner!

Very peased to make your aquaintance, Jan!

Thanks mysticalmichael9. Likewise for me making your aquaintance. Happy and fruitful reading of 'The Phenomenon of Man'!

�when I first discovered his work, some 22 years ago now, I saw the same titles by him cataloged, in different libraries, under 'Philosophy', 'Biology' as well as 'Theology' . A clear manifestation of the fact that his thinking can't be cataloged under one of the classic classifications, which is, to me, already a compliment for the boundary-breaking power of his thinking.

Well, you certainly make the book sound appealing, Jan. I guess the only thing to do is to read it. But are there any claims that he makes that you find interesting, extraordinary, and that are also easy to explain to us? If someone knew absolutely nothing about Teilhard, why would you suggest that someone read one of his books? What would they learn from him that is most important?

I had to take a second glance at what you wrote, MM. I thought you said "I'm through the first hundred books of the 100 Most Influention Books Ever Written." I've heard of Evelyn Wood, but that would be ridiculous.

Jan, I think a lot of Catholic theologians have been influenced by Teilhard's work, especially in the second half of the 20th century. Take Karl Rahner, for example, who was arguably the greatest Catholic theologian in the Century. He certainly knows of Teilhard, and seems to be taking it into account as he goes about things. Same goes for Hans Kung and lots of others. You just don't find many theologians ignoring the implications of evolution since Teilhard, and they're all standing on his shoulders when they try to relate it to traditional Christian teachings. So even though some of his ideas were considered "problemmatic" by the Catholic hierarchy, there are many others that are just fine, and his perspective on the relationship between complexity and consciousness seems to have become almost axiomatic in may professions.

I thought this article was complimentary to the discussion. If not, I'll move it.

Psychology and the Abolition of Meaning
by Jeffrey Burke Satinover

quote:

In the complementary domain of biological psychiatry, this same reduction is to the organic substrates of these functional subsystems at ever finer levels of detail.
From within this truly analytic framework-analysis consisting of the lysis or breaking down of a whole into constituent parts-all areas of seeming autonomy within human experience are illusory, the residue, as it were, of our ignorance of the true causes that lie "beneath" our experience and cause it, and which only for the time being remain obscured.

Unwittingly, and unacknowledged, the scientific study of man thus aims ultimately at his abolition as man-as free agent-and his reconstruction as mechanism�.

�.The example of homosexuality is particularly useful in the context of this discussion because the social and political forces arrayed around the question just happen, at this moment, to be constellated in such a way as to make many people want to find little or no choice involved in it. The homosexuality debate is thus configuring itself in precisely the reverse way of most debates about the medical bases of human behavior: people usually resist the idea that their behavior is driven by unchangeable, biological factors (consider the feminist arguments). But in the case of homosexuality, many people are today quite open to the idea of a line of research progress that will reduce this particular behavior mostly to prior causes, and even to the end point this line marches toward, that of no choice involved in homosexuality at all.

Thanks, Phil, for the information you gave me, I will certainly try to take advantage from it. I knew Karl Rahner and Hans Kuhn only by name until now. I also know Hans Kuhn is (rather) controversial in the Catholic Church. What I didn't know is that both develop their theology with strong roots in Teilhards vision. Certainly very interesting. I will soon read some of their work. Thanks again.

Well, Brad, you certainly ask some good questions there, may it be true that they aren't easy to answer. Let's give it a try though (my answer is kind of 'improvised', but the advantage is that it is also spontaneous)
Let's start with your first question, i.e. if he makes any claims that I find interesting, extraordinary?
To be honest, what I find the most extraordinary with Teilhard is the coherence and fruitfulness of his entire cosmic vision. As already mentioned, I didn't find anywhere else these 'properties' of one's thinking in the same extraodinary degree as with Teilhard. Choosing subjects in that vision that could be considered as extraordinary in their own right, is therefore a bit of an artifical, arbitrary exercise: his statements/claims own quite a lot of their strength, precisely thanks to the inner coherence of the 'cathedral' he builds. If I have to choose though, why not one of the most central ideas of his entire vision, namely that what could be considered as Teilhard's law, because nobody before him formulated it, and certainly not with the cosmic extension he gave to it. I mean, of course, his 'law of Centro-Complexity-Consciousness' where he states that the most fundamental cosmic irreversible movement of the 'Weltstoff' (how could this word be translated in English?) is that of the complexification of a part of it; complexification that is always accompanied by an increase in consciousness. Authors like Stephen Jay Gould (who had immense popularity, as you probably know), would fiercely attack that 'law' by Teilhard. But, together with a lot of scientific (and other) people, I think this central point of Teilhards vision is true and has tremendous consequences. Teilhard gives also a definition of a 'complex entity', but I don't consider his definition as already completely 'finished' (something I discuss in the book I am writing). Nevertheless, he learns us to distinguish, in an objective way, between 'heterogene entities' and 'complex entities': the Earth itself (like the Universe (or the several Universes) itself) is a heterogene entity, but not a complex one. On teh other hand, a human being is, on an individual level, the most complex entity that we are able to observe.
One of the many extraordinary strong things about that law is that is applicable to every level of reality: from the smallest (although, most probably, there is not really a smallest) elementary subparticle up to the biggest galaxy, from the smallest virus up to mankind, considered as a whole.
In order not to let become my answer too long, I will leave your 3rd question for another occasion and give an answer to the second one. Why would I suggest reading Teilhard to anyone, especially to someone who doesn't know a thing about him? Well, simply because Teilhard (like no other writer I know) greatly contributes to what he considered to be the most central axis of cosmic evolution: the development of vision. Vision on an individual level, and, still more importantly, on a collective level. The benefits of developping such a 'organic', cosmic, unified vision are endless: it is a process that makes one really grow; in other words, that makes it possible for someone to become really successful (not for instance in some, narrow, wrong, materialistic way). Grow in the most important sense there is, namely the in depth development of one's 'inner side', one's consciousness; that last word taken in the most broad and deep sense one can give to it. It not only makes oneself become more conscious, richer, more free and more happy, but it also gives the fundamentals, the 'context' and the scale to solve any fundamental problem that mankind faces and still will face. Therefore, for me, there is no substitute to reading Teilhard.

Oops! Silence... no reaction... Did I hurt - without knowing, nor wanting it - someone's feelings or convictions? If so, please know that this wasn't at all my purpose. One can consider me as an 'explorer of truth': the only that interests me, is truth. And it is true also that in doing so, I already hurt more than one person, without in the least having this as an objective. It is part of who I am. ;-)

"Grant me to recognize in other men, Lord God, the radiance of your own face."

"When the signs of age begin to mark my body (and still more when they touch my mind); when the ill that is to diminish me or carry me off strikes from without or is born within me; when the painful moment comes in which I suddenly waken to the fact that I am ill or growing old; and above all at the last moment when I feel I am losing hold of myself and am absolutely passive in the hands of the great unknown forces that have formed me; in all those dark moments, O God, grant that I may understand that it is you (provided only my faith is strong enough) who are paifully parting the fibers of my being in order to penetrate to the very marrow of my substance and bear me away within yourself." -Teilhard de Chardin