Why is making moral distinction necessary for you to do? Keep it to a simple couple lines please as I am a little slow.

Because there is a moral dimension to human life and moral issues that require decisions be made.

By morality, here, I am referring to how our behavior affects us, other people and the cosmos, and how these consequences can be either positive or negative.

The simplest moral principle is the golden rule, at least stated in the negative: "Do not do to others what you would not wish them to do to you."

Although there is a cultural dimension to human morality -- i.e., some values are culturally relative -- there are also moral norms that seem to transcend human culture. As an old saying puts it, "The Ten Commandments are written in the hearts of all people."

Every religion emphasizes moral living as foundational for spiritual growth.

I love simplicity.

The simplest moral principle is the golden rule, at least stated in the negative: "Do not do to others what you would not wish them to do to you."

Let's stick with the farmer and all his ups and downs so far, without adding anymore. If he sticks to using the Golden Rule, as any wise man does, what could he have changed in his bumpy life situation?


--------------------
"There is no darkness past ignorance . . ."
- Its still obvious. -

TBiscuit, there were no moral issues in that story. Horses running off and coming back, and a son falling off a horse and breaking a leg are not moral issues. The farmer's response might engage in a moral level in some way, but it would be inappropriate for him to pronounce moral judgment on horses and an accident.

BTW, the way I heard the story was "Good luck, bad luck, who knows."

Okay. Let's do it with moral issues then.


I read the newspaper with a friend.

"That's bad that a person got raped," he says.

"Bad, good, how do I know? And if I did know, of what practical value is it for you and me here?" I reply.

"That's good that a lady that was raped is now teaching kids how to be empowered," he says.

"Good, bad, how do I know? And if I did know, of what practical value is it for you and me here?" I reply.

"Hitler was bad," my friend says.

"Bad, good, how do I know? And if I did know, of what practical value is it for you and me here?" I reply.

"Its good that WW2 happened or else we wouldn't have the United Nations," my friend says.

"Good, bad, how do I know? And if I did know, of what practical value is it for you and me here?" I reply.

"Slavery was bad," he says.

"Bad, good, how do I know? And if I did know, of what practical value is it for you and me here?" I reply.

"Slavery was good because it meant instead of just slaughtering everyone in every town you conquered, you kept people alive and fed," he says.

"Good, bad, how do I know? And if I did know, of what practical value is it for you and me here?" I reply.


Again I ask: Where is the value in making moral distinction?


--------------------
"There is no darkness past ignorance . . ."
- Its still obvious. -

Is rape a good or evil act?

If you don't know the answer, I can't explain.

This is one way I�ve heard that story:

quote:

There is a Taoist story of an old farmer who had worked his crops for many years. One day his horse ran away. Upon hearing the news, his neighbors came to visit. "Such bad luck," they said sympathetically. "May be," the farmer replied. The next morning the horse returned, bringing with it three other wild horses. "How wonderful," the neighbors exclaimed. "May be," replied the old man. The following day, his son tried to ride one of the untamed horses, was thrown, and broke his leg. The neighbors again came to offer their sympathy on his misfortune. "May be," answered the farmer. The day after, military officials came to the village to draft young men into the army. Seeing that the son's leg was broken, they passed him by. The neighbors congratulated the farmer on how well things had turned out. "May be," said the farmer.

I think it does relate to moral judgments in the sense of labeling something good or bad. We might curse the flat tire we receive on the way to the airport but bless it later when we find we missed our flight � a flight that crashed into the ocean. But that�s only one reading of the story. I think the story is also meant to loosen the death grip most of us typically have on managing the details of daily life. We tend to want to micromanage ourselves into stress and anxiety as we try to control or interpret every detail around us. The story also reminds us that we should simply lighten up and to, at the very least, balance our pessimism with some optimism.

I love stories such as the above. They are like little living laboratories where ideas and principles are shown in their most elemental and basic forms. It�s like looking at the squiggly lines produced on a negative from an atom smasher. It�s basic science. But how squiggly lines relate to our lives is another thing. In our macro world the world of the quantum can virtually be ignored as irrelevant. I think that�s also true of these stories to some extend. While they do show some very core principles, and we�re better for having seen those Buddhist squiggly lines, in the real world it becomes a necessity to make snap moral judgments. Thanks to the perspective of such stories we will make better ones�and sometimes, appropriately, NO judgments. But the goal of making no moral judgments, if that is someone�s goal is, I think, not workable and is out of balance with reality.

But the goal of making no moral judgments, if that is someone�s goal is, I think, not workable and is out of balance with reality.

I have found this to not be the truth. Sure, snap judgments pop into my head all the time. It is a by-product of the conversation I was born into, but having moved beyond personal identification with the content of my mind, I give no value to the judgments. They aren't Who I Am. "May be" is a great philosophy to live by, is free of stress, and feels a lot more like Heaven than the quagmire of judgmentalism I used to inhabit.

Is rape a good or evil act? If you don't know the answer, I can't explain.

You're missing the point of the parable. Focus on the context rather than the content. A tiger is beside me is the content. If the tiger is in the zoo is the context. I am safe. If the tiger is in the wild is the context. Run.

From the eternal context of the Creator of all things, or even the context of 2000 years of human evolution, good and bad are absolutely irrelevant. Making a judgment call is delusional in that a human being can never know the proper context needed to judge any of the content.

People, let's not confuse our amoral circumstances with moral ones. While it's true that we do misuse language by saying "this is good, this is bad," it doesn't follow that this misuse somehow demonstrates the non-existence of a real moral dimension of human life and the responsibility to make moral judgments in concrete circumstances.

Is rape a good or evil act?

It is an evil act. (BTW, notice that TBiscuit wouldn't answer this simple question, but somehow wants to link it to his horse story.)

Is a flat tire a good or evil act?

It is just a flat tire. Tires are amoral agents.

Should I help my neighbor who is ill?

That is a moral decision.

Should I curse my flat tire or accept it and make the best of the situation?

That is a moral decision.

Were the attacks against the U.S. on 9/11 evil acts?

They were indeed evil acts. That is a moral judgment.

------

What we are seeing here is an example of how "The Course in Miracles" (and Hawkins?) invalidates the moral order and the reality of evil through sophistry. Having also discounted the value of reason and intellecutal life, such people are sitting ducks for cult leaders and evil spirit.

I have a freind who always brings his own cup of Chai to the meeting rather than drinking the coffee which is provided. When I asked him why, he said it was to keep the tigers away. When I reminded him that there were no tigers within thousands of miles, other than at the zoo, he remarked that I should see then how well it was working.

Is rape a good or evil act?

It is just a rape.

Is a flat tire a good or evil act?

It is just a flat tire.

Should I help my neighbor who is ill?

If I follow the only commandment needed, namely the Golden Rule, the answer is Yes.

Should I curse my flat tire or accept it and make the best of the situation?

It�s irrelevant; you've still got a flat tire.

Were the attacks against the U.S. on 9/11 evil acts?

They were attacks.

Should I curse the attacks against the U.S. on 9/11 or accept it and make the best of the situation?

It�s irrelevant, they still happened; your judgment is not worth anything, so why make it and defend it so adamantly?


--------------------
"There is no darkness past ignorance . . ."
- Its still obvious. -

There you have it! No moral dimension to human life . . . no moral judgments . . .

As I noted before, if one doesn't understand why this is important, I can't explain it.

There you have it! No moral dimension to human life . . . no moral judgments . . .

As I noted before, if one doesn't understand why this is important, I can't explain it.


Where's the value in the judgments? They seem empty to me. If I follow the Golden Rule, of course I'm not going to rape someone. I don't need to know that rape is 'evil' in order to avoid doing it.

Of what VALUE are moral judgments?

If one considers six domains of value as 1) intention 2) act 3) circumstances 4) purposes and consequences 5) aesthetics and 6) holiness, then we can indeed assign valences to each domain.

a) intention can reflect good will or ill will and can correspond to virtue ethics

b) acts and c) circumstances can reflect right or wrong and can correspond to deontological ethics

d) purposes and consequences can reflect good or bad and can correspond to teleological ethics

e) aesthetics corresponds to beautiful and ugly and corresponds to aesthetic judgment

f) holiness corresponds to the holy and the polluted and our sense of the sacred

Holiness reinforces a belief in humankind that, somewhere, somehow, Someone will align what is, in reality, 1) well-intentioned with what is 2) right and with what is 3) good and with what is 4) beautiful.

To all appearances, these values are decidedly NOT in alignment and humankind is NOT in a position to either properly discern or align these values, finite and fallibilistic as we are. [Let me qualify that help is on the way and that has always been there by virtue of the Spirit.]

There is no a priori rational justification for whether or not one should use a) virtue ethics (focused on character) b) deontological ethics (focused on acts and circumstances) c) teleological ethics (focused on consequences) or d) any combination of the above. One can, based on one's experience, propose some novel rules in an attempt to model reality (moral reality or otherwise) and then test those rules against observed phenomena, such as in any hypothetico-deductive method. Those proposed rules, though, are not rationally provable, but rely, rather, on an existential warrant.

If your existential warrants are different from mine and/or your fundamental rules (axioms) are different from mine, then all we can do is argue past one another regarding, such as in this instance, moral realism or moral anti-realism. There is some argumentative recourse in such cases, however, the philosophical back door known as the reductio ad absurdum analysis. We can take one another's axioms and logic and extrapolate them out to an extreme in order to demonstrate that their position results in absurdity. This does not mean they will be moved, however, by such a demonstration, because, at bottom, that is just the point some folks are trying to make: that reality is absurd, a tale told by an idiot.

In my view, it is an untellable story, at bottom, incomprehensible, but this does not mean that it is not, in part, intelligible, and this intelligibility extends to moral realities, aesthetic realities and sacred realities. The mystery remains, especially the theodicy mystery re: why the above-listed values seem to vary independently of one another. One can reject the proposition of the existence of the sacred and the Holy, but the mystery would still persist, in this case as a theophany mystery, which is to say that truth, goodness and beauty and love would be hard to account for vis a vis their origins.

At any rate, these are fundamental existential orientations or attitudes, moral realism and anti-realism, and they cannot be coherently debated, only, rather, submitted to reductio ad absurdum appeals, which are not conclusive but which have great cognitive force for those of us who are not nihilists or radical deconstructionists.

I hope I have obfuscated the pre-existing clarity.

pax,
jb

Even in the less theistic religions there are moralist imperatives. I have seen them in Taoist teachings and heard Zen masters speak of demons and angels. The Bible says the law is written on our hearts,etc.

And now, a story about enlightenment...

The Buddhists say there are eight winds. They are gain and loss, praise and ridicule, credit and blame, and suffering and joy. If you aren't aware of them, they will blow you away like dry leaves in an autumn breeze. For example, when someone praises you, and that tastes sweet, like candy in your mouth, you are being blown away by the wind of praise.

One day in ancient China a young man thought he had become enlightened. He wrote a poem to his master about how he was not blown away by the eight winds. Then he sent it to his master who lived three hundred miles up the Yangtze river.

When the master read the poem, he wrote "fart, fart" on the bottom and sent it back.

The more the young man read those words, the more upset he got. At last he decided to visit his master. In those days, a three hundred mile trip up the Yangtze river was very difficult journey.

As soon as he arrived, he went straight to his master's temple. "Why did you write this?" He asked, bowing. Doesn't this poen show I am no longer blown about by the eight winds?"

"You say you are no longer blown about by the eight winds," replied the master, "but two little farts blew you all the way up here."

What winds are blowing you?

caritas,

mm <*))))))><

If one considers six domains of value as 1) intention 2) act 3) circumstances 4) purposes and consequences 5) aesthetics and 6) holiness, then we can indeed assign valences to each domain.

Like I said, I'm a little slow. What if we define value in its more traditional sense, namely, what is it worth? What do I or anyone get from using moral judgment?

--------------------
"There is no darkness past ignorance . . ."
- Its still obvious. -

quote:

Originally posted by TBiscuit76:
[qb]

Of what VALUE are moral judgments? [/qb]

In an exclusively deontological system of ethics, where only the means count, there are no ethical dilemmas, no judgment needed. In an exclusively teleological system, where only the ends count, there are no dilemmas, no judgment needed. The fact that we DO encounter ethical dilemmas in life seems to falsify both of these approaches, however.

See Ethical Dilemmas

Like I said before, one cannot compel another through a logical proof to take one moral approach vs another, or some combination of approaches, one can only attempt to demonstrate the absurdity of another's approach. That isn't a role I choose to take on, here, at present. But I thought these clarifications could be useful.

pax,
jb

Of what VALUE are moral judgments?

1. They acknowledge the moral reality to self and others.
2. They persuade conscience to act one way or another.

Come on, TBiscuit! Saying that the attack on the WTC is "just an attack" as though that's some kind of amoral phenomenon like a thunderstorm is ridiculous. I don't know what value you think you're upholding here.

Do people pronounce moral judgments on amoral circumstances? Of course, and it's a silly business when they do -- a gross misuse of the mind and judgment. But it doesn't follow that this misuse of moral judgment disqualifies moral reality or the importance of making legitimate moral judgments when the need arises.

Phil, I've been reflecting on the issues you raised.

Firstly, even If Dr Hawkins is indeed enlightened, then his information is nevertheless that of a fallible human being. As a psychiatrist clearly his math, physics and chaos theory seem to be amiss.

Secondly, I am all ears still to the validity of kinesiology because of the (to me) self-evident dangers of intellectualism and concepts. The reliance on one's cultural spiritual teachings is historically a dangerous affair. The secularisation we see in the West began because of an awarenesss that the concepts of religion, tho lovely, tended to cause wars. It is fine to blame people for being sinful, as the Jews of the old testament are, but religious concepts themselves are also intrinsically slippery and prone to dangerous distortion at any time; religion must be carefully suppressed from governance since it is too dangerous a force for evil or good. It is irresponsible to suppose that mind and concepts alone have the kind of inspirational power to heal and help people. Because of our concepts, our dialog here has been more about accepting mutual incomprehension, despite a strong awareness of other traditions.

Thirdly, regarding the moral issue (ie, rape simply is versus rape as a moral crime) I have this thought:

The spiritual value overriding the moral value is Peace. It includes the moral, I mean to say. This peace is a no-concepts kind, as in the kind That Passes Understanding. The value of concepts is figuring out how best to let go of concepts and move into peace. But this kind of otherworldliness brings up real world challenges:

Hawkins' way of resolving this, interestingly, is to state clearly that states of enlightenment can be incapacitating, BUT that the moral, virtuous and enlightened soul shed a kind of uplifting influence to the rest of humanity, which works invisibly to uplift. So even if the enlightened person dies or is incapacitated, their influence is felt. This form of spirituality, which seems influenced by Mahayana Buddhism, is how the advaitist/nondual metaphysic is reconciled with dualistic theology.

Johnboy, many thanks for the rich material of your posts. I will take a bit to digest it. Do you have any suggestion for an online dictionary of your terms?

Finally, my understanding of fallibalism is practice is that we live in the least worst moral system we are capable, that our level of vice is the least vicious we can manage. So - and I intend no disrespect here - is it not fair to suppose that the church is the least unholy possible? I say this because the person of Christ makes Christian spirituality what it is in fact. If this fallibility can extent to popes, the dalai lama and the supposedly enlightened Hawkins, why not to Jesus? He was a man as well; perhaps we got the least fallible avatar in him.

Rereading this it seems a little strong to suggest Christ could simply be in error, but then why not? We all make mistakes, and it is possible our work can be the better for it.

Warm regards,

Paul Bard

PS - This dialog has provided inspiration for me to question drhawkins methodology a little more publicly in the yahoo groups devoted to his work. Hopefully that may reveal more.

Paul, I have been trying to define most terms by the manner in which I place them in context. If a particular word throws you, please, just come out and ask. Not even a general philosophy dictionary will capture many terms that are very specific to particular schools, such as Maritain's existential thomism and his distinction between dianoetic, perinoetic and ananoetic. I use some very specific terminology toward the end of maintaining some rigor in my definitions, predications and nuances --- because this stuff is HIGHLY nuanced and, too often, folks are talking past one another instead of to one another, misunderstanding how each person is using the same term. Philosophy, as much as it can be a pain in the rear, can serve as a lingua franca, to get everyone on the same sheet of music, or using the same linguistic currency.

For example, you drew a distinction, I think it was you, between scientific validity and scientific proof. I didn't know quite how to respond but I let it pass because I thought I knew what you meant, thinking maybe you were distinguishing between the theoretical and the practical or something like that.

As for Jesus, He did empty Himself, not clinging to equality with God as something to be grasped at. Also, He grew in age and grace. This implies some finitude of some type and gets into what they call the debate between High and Low Christologies. Putting that aside, what do y'all think about the definition of an authentic religious myth as "something which, while not literally true, nevertheless evokes an appropriate response to ultimate reality"? That has always given me some comfort with respect to my piety and God making provision for my own finitude, my heart otherwise being in the right place. We don't have to get it perfectly correct, as they say, essentialistically, because there will always be a gap between the theoretical ideal (essentialistic) and our existential realization of same, this notwithstanding our ongoing theosis (growth in divinization). Another interesting aside: How many of y'all can abide with a notion that divinization and humanization result in the same end state? Or, if you disagree, how would you qualify or nuance that notion?

Thanks, Paul, for your congenial engagement and inquisitive nature, for actively listening and gently suggesting.

pax,
jb

From Paul: Secondly, I am all ears still to the validity of kinesiology because of the (to me) self-evident dangers of intellectualism and concepts. . .

I recognize this danger, but it seems to me that the antidote is not some kind of pseudo-science that has been empirically discredited and is rife with subjective manipulations. The antidote to bad ideas and concepts is better ideas and concepts, more closely aligned with reality as we can empirically determine what that is, and more congruent with human and spiritual values that develop human nature holistically and integrally. I happen to believe that Christianity meets those criteria better than anything else that's come along and, fwiw, I don't think Hawkins would disagree completely.

The secularisation we see in the West began because of an awarenesss that the concepts of religion, tho lovely, tended to cause wars.

This is a very complex topic, but I don't agree with the connection you're making here. I'm trying to think of what wars the "concepts of religion" have caused in the past two centuries. Except for Islamic fundamentalism's direct contribution to the present world unrest, I can't think of any. In fact, the most horrific abuses in history are a consequence of secular ideologies--abuses and ideologies that were condemned by religions.

Again, the antidote to any misuse of concepts in the service of harmful ideologies is a reformulation of the teaching so it doesn't do so. This is Islam's great challenge in this age, and we should all pray that they get it right.

. . . religion must be carefully suppressed from governance since it is too dangerous a force for evil or good. . .

No theocracies! Amen! But religions do have a right to try to influence the moral and political order, and cannot avoid doing so. I don't think that's a bad thing. Let the discussions go on, and may the best ideas win.

It is irresponsible to suppose that mind and concepts alone have the kind of inspirational power to heal and help people.

Who ever said anything about "alone"? Stories, myths, music, art, prayer, meditation -- these all help to heal and inspire as well.

But I wonder again, as I have with TBiscuit, what you mean by "concepts"? Every word is a concept, to some degree, so to say that concepts cannot be used to heal, inspire and help is tantamount to saying that we cannot use language to do these good things. You would agree that is false, I'm sure.

Because of our concepts, our dialog here has been more about accepting mutual incomprehension, despite a strong awareness of other traditions.

I wouldn't characterize the discussions to be "mutual incomprehension." There are disagreements being expressed, especially concerning the significance of AK and the merits of Hawkins' map of consciousness. Disagreements aren't incomprehension, however; it just means people have different opinions. We're saying what those are, and trying to understand why we have them. There IS some idiosyncratic use of words by some, and that makes for problems, but the solution is to agree on the meaning of words and then see what kind of understandings are possible.

I'll pass on the discussion about the importance of tending to the moral dimension of life, but will note that your comments about peace do not exclude the points I make. If we look to the life of Jesus, for example, we see that he could be very confrontive in the moral arena and yet he was also a man of peace. Speaking moral truth to power, calling a spade a spade, etc. -- these are part of peacemaking, imo.

Rereading this it seems a little strong to suggest Christ could simply be in error, but then why not? We all make mistakes, and it is possible our work can be the better for it.

I've often made the point in lectures and workshops that Jesus made mistakes. No doubt, he spilled his milk, cut a piece of wood too short, forgot about time when playing with friends, etc. Mistakes are not sins, however, and that's the difference. Also, I don't think we've really any way of saying that Jesus got it wrong in terms of spirituality or his understanding of the divine. One can disagree with him--especially from the perspective of another religious tradition. But, as I told TBiscuit, there are no facts about God that we can use to evaluate Jesus or anyone else.

In Christianity, what we're saying is not so much that Jesus is like God, but that God is like Jesus! See? That makes it difficult to consider Jesus' teaching on God, the spiritual life and human destiny fallible.

The Church's understanding of Jesus and his teaching . . . that's another matter, and perhaps ought to be another thread. I will say, briefly, that one of the best kept secrets in the Church is the age-old affirmation of a hierarchy of doctrines. IOW, some are more important than others; some are more fallible than others. The high doctrines are not really up for grabs, although their formulation can change to speak to the understanding of a culture.

I see JB has engaged you on some of this, so I'll close for now, thanking you as well for your respectful and engaging posts.

quote:

The reliance on one's cultural spiritual teachings is historically a dangerous affair. The secularisation we see in the West began because of an awarenesss that the concepts of religion, tho lovely, tended to cause wars. It is fine to blame people for being sinful, as the Jews of the old testament are, but religious concepts themselves are also intrinsically slippery and prone to dangerous distortion at any time; religion must be carefully suppressed from governance since it is too dangerous a force for evil or good.

Paul, that's very well said and I think that's a view held by many � particularly today. But not by me and not concerning Christianity, and particularly not concerning Christianity in America.

With the erosion of religious freedom comes the erosion of all freedoms and that is exactly what can and will happen if we become enamored with secularism for secularism's sake (and as I see it, secularism is also a catch-all for a great many non-religious religions including atheism, scientism, etc.) We may put so much faith in secularism as a way to solve our problems (citing your idea that religion tends to cause wars when it is actually the non-religious Stalins and Hitlers of the world who have been the most damaging) that we may forget what this arrangement was designed to protect in the first place: religious freedom (and thus ultimately all freedoms of thought and conscience).

I guess Exhibit A would be ultra-secular France and much of old Europe. They can't seem to reason their way out of a wet moral paper bag while predominantly Protestant and Catholic and Jewish America remains the beacon of freedom and justice in the world. Two hundred years of Christianity in America, with a proper and reasonable understanding of The First Amendment, has not made America a smothering theocracy but rather has made it a land where all are free to practice religion (or no religion) as they see fit. I believe that the banner of secularism is carried by many well-meaning people but also by many (maybe a majority) of people who are hostile to religion and who share the view that religion is inherently harmful and that rational and radical secularism is the sect that should win out. That is, I find the danger of establishing a competing pseudo-religious belief under the guise of secularism when that really isn't what we're talking about at all. And if we keep our eye on current events we'll see little by little how this is likely to come to pass under the guise of separation of church and state. Today it will be removing God from the pledge of allegiance. Some my say this is reasonable, but it's the thin edge of the wedge for it's only a small step until churches are forced to pay all taxes and this will be under the guise of not using public money to support religion which, in fact, is already an argument used to keep public (our) money from being used to educate our kids in private schools, whether religious-based or not. It's possible that ultimately religion will only be able to be practiced in the safety and privacy of our homes�which sounds a heck of a lot like the situation in the old Soviet Union.

This is not to say that I deny the possible harms of religion and government. The founding fathers clearly did not want a theocracy, a state religion, while still wanting freedom of religion. It's a delicate and complex balance. Thus I think it's VERY important to keep in mind the side of the story that I'm espousing lest genuinely fair-minded people, particularly fair-minded religious people, be deceived by a supposed neutral move to more and more secularism.

Paul we covered secularization processes in this particular thread , which you may find thought-provoking.

pax,
jb

quote:

Originally posted by pawbard:
[qb] but religious concepts themselves are also intrinsically slippery and prone to dangerous distortion at any time; religion must be carefully suppressed from governance since it is too dangerous a force for evil or good. It is irresponsible to suppose that mind and concepts alone have the kind of inspirational power to heal and help people. [/qb]

One might find some additional perspective by browsing through this thread.

re: mind and concepts, alone --- that ALONE is no small nuance, eh?

the same thing goes for the nonrational, so to speak, ALONE?

I think we have advocated a well-balanced approach here at Shalomplace, historically and consistently. As such, that mind and concepts, alone, is a strawman fallacy insofar as it addresses anything we've ever said here, not to at all deny that such could be a problem in some hermeneutics.

pax,
jb

Hello All!
Happened onto the Shalom Place discussion board and thought I'd jump in. I hope the water's fine.

I spent the last couple of hours zipping thru the 7 pages of posts. Phew! Alternated btw LOL and wrinkling my forehead many times. JB, you're the one wrinkling my forehead the most. You've got an amazing way with words! Y'all come across as sharp and passionate folks.

Some tidbits, and a little of my story, if I may...

The Hawkins model and his analysis method (kinesiology)leave something to be desired, as all models and methods do. Yet there is plenty of good and useful information for the God & Reality seeker. I have found his books to often be very enlightening, and at times I have read passages that have catalyzed the wonderful unifying experience btw intellect and heart within me that transcends both. For this I am very grateful, as I feel there is much written truth there that resonates for me. Indeed, I often found Hawkin's words served to agree with and validate my own inner reality and experiences, as well as deepen my insight into the timeless wisdom of Lord JC and others.

I notice that a lot of the discussion here is revolving around the validity of Hawkin's approach, as well as how his model is comprehended.

I find that when a model is very appealing, esp when it seems to be so direct and all-encompassing, it can easily tend to "take over" as my dominant intellectual filter of reality. Perhaps many of you can relate.

I think back about all the various models of explaining reality that I have embraced over the years, and it makes me laugh. How silly (and at times quite prideful) I have been... and yet it is very clear to me that it has all been worthy and necessary for my own development. I think we can all agree that all models are limited, some being more or less limited, and all intellectual constructs finding favor within us as we need them, and then discarding them as greater capacity for insight and understanding ensues.

For me I eventually got to an understanding about understandings. Let me explain. On and on my seeking proceeded, and eventually I came to the place where I saw that all models, teachings and explanations were worthy yet incomplete and ultimately unfulfilling. ALL of them. Always.

That was a shattering and humbling realization...

I also saw that my ongoing compulsion for the seeking itself, my addiction for intellectual models and teachings was really a secret way for me to be 'safe'... a way to be temporarily assuaged and comforted by allowing myself to buy into some mental construct and make it my home. But, the gnawing incompleteness inherent in every construct I had encountered was making it painfully evident that salvation and fulfillment was not to be found in the mental sphere. I had reached a dreadful dead end. Oh my.

I realized that every single intellectually constructed model will eventually max out into a cerebral maze of conundrums or unknowables that are not amenable to further intellectual poking. Though I had learned a lot, and it was all no doubt necessary, now it was all adding up to one great big cop-out. I was doing it to myself... a clever life-long distraction technique that my ego fed upon to its ongoing delight. No matter how much of a buzz I got from intellectual insights and the temporary joys they provided, the buzz was wearing thin.

I saw that my next step required summoning up the courage to take the risk of abandoning my safe haven within the mental sphere. I had to fess up to the fact that I 'knew a lot about' spiritual things and could dazzle many folks with my knowledge, but that I truly didn't really 'know' hardly any of it by actually 'being' it. I got it that I didn't get it.

Simply speaking, my head was getting all the exercise; my heart was asleep. I had to let the mind go.....

Something switched inside me at that point, and a lifetime of ego-addictive habits quickly unraveled, to my great surprise. My mantra became "Trust, Surrender, Leap of Faith into the Unknown." And "Keep Going"... no matter how crazy or scary. I realized that I really knew nothing, and that my vaunted opinions about everything were bs. I resolved to humble my intellect to its natural working limits whenever it reared its head; i.e. my intellect 'knew' absolutely nothing about the awesome actual heart-opening experiences of kindness, forgiveness, compassion and unconditional love that give this blessed gift of human life any real substance. I resolved to let my heart rule, no matter what.

To make a long story short, all hell has broken loose over these last several years, and it seems that not much is left. There has been a long progression from adolescent Catholicism, on through many eastern and western (and northern and southern!) spiritual side roads, coming around to a simple and essential wisdom-of-the-moment that emanates from the heart of its own accord. Whereas non-dual enlightenment teachings of the Buddha and Advaita served me well up until recently, now I feel it emerging that the heart-centered wisdom of JC is infusing my awareness effortlessly. Perhaps it is that enlightenment teachings served to challenge and break my lifelong slavery to ego-intellectualness, and once free enough, the Holy Spirit is engaging to awaken the heart to ever greater inner mysteries. On it goes.

And, interestingly enough, this mind has sort-of kicked back into gear (in a socializing way), now animated by an awareness quite different from the former one. I'm still just getting my feet wet with this. But it's really amazing and fun, and I'm finding a renewed natural energetic kinship with folks such as yourselves who populate this board. I find the energy of this group to be very engaging, with an apparent willingness to "Keep Going". Perhaps my $.02 will be useful here and there. And I do delight in all the passionate rantings I've already seen. Carry on!
RWS

RWS, a hearty welcome!

Thank you for sharing so much of your journey. I relate to much, and even though a lot of intellectual exchange has been happening here, it's my experience as well that "going beyond" all this into the unknown in a relationship of trust and surrender with God is what feeds my soul and enables serenity and sanity to take root.

Re. the intellectual realm and models, I think there is a need for the intellect to become a servant and support on the spiritual journey and this entails proper formation. Unto this end, models can be helpful, especially if we hold them lightly and do not confuse the model with the Reality. How we think about things is important, and the intellect is a gift given to us by God to help us discern truth from falsehood, even light from darkness. I hear you recognizing this to some extent in your closing paragraph.

The problem for many is that they have been so beaten up by unhealthy conceptual models that stifled authentic spiritual encounter and wisdom that they go to the other extreme when they finally find some kind of meaningful spiritual experience--hence, I believe, the attraction to something like AK as a means of evaluating truth claims and states of consciousness. As some of us have tried to point out, this alternative approach has its own set of problems as well.

Are we there yet?

On the way. And hoping you will continue to journey with us.