Emergencies - philosophical, existential & spiritual

As far as spiritual emergencies go, I am trying to devise a framework for devising therapies and giving direction. In this framework I am trying to distinguish between a philosophical crisis, an existential crisis and a spiritual crisis. Assuredly, they are all intertwined; however, I believe they are rooted differently . This may also get at some of the nuances we have explored vis a vis the Holy Spirit and Kundalini.

The Philosophical Crisis

The perspective of the philosophical, which stands on the face of essence looking at the existence of creatures, derives ontological, cosmological and teleological formulae from this vantage point, hypothesizing answers to why there is something rather than nothing, among many other reflections of many types. It involves ways of thinking about and looking at the world , sometimes shaped by religion, sometimes by upbringing, often by culture and media.

Can you describe a crisis, in your life, that was distinctly philosophical in nature? That perhaps derived from a certain way of looking at things or approaching the world? That got resolved by thinking differently or having others point out, either fallacies in your thought processes or, alternative approaches? Did any aspect of these experiences strike you as formative or deformative, reformative or transformative? How did you manage these experiences [reading, studying, mentoring, direction, prayer, counseling, etc]?

The Existential Crisis

The perspective of natural mysticism, moves beyond the suchness of things in existence, beyond a contemplation of essences in existence, to the radically inexplicable thatness of it all, an ineffable experience of existence itself, neither personal nor impersonal, neither subjective nor objective, but deeply existential, where even the hypothesis of a God would leave the mystic�s unframeable question begging. One can never quite get over THAT things are and is astounded and amazed and confused that others simply take existence for granted. There can be all sorts of emotional overtones and subtle energy flows that accompany a natural mysticism.

Can you describe a crisis in your life, that was distinctly existential in nature? That perhaps derived from an energy upheaval or from ascetic practices of various types? That radically changed your mode of consciousness and profoundly affected your experience of self and the world? Did any aspect of these experiences strike you as formative or deformative, reformative or transformative? Did any such experiences eventually serve to cultivate some type of receptivity to, or prepare the ground for, what later became a more contemplative prayer life, what the great Caremlites described as mystical contemplation [see next section re: spiritual crises]? How did you manage these experiences [reading, studying, mentoring, direction, prayer, counseling, etc]?

The Spiritual Crisis

The perspective of the theological realm, in its fulfillment, will transcend the philosophical perspective, past the analogical experience of God known through essenses receiving existence [suchness receiving thatness] and piercing the veil beyond which unreceived existence, itself, is concealed from a natural mysticism to an intersubjective experience of reality�s depth in Love , deeply spiritual. Such experiences provide the mystical core of what others will come to experience only indirectly, through some mediated experience, but are themselves direct and unmediated.

Can you describe a crisis in your life, that was distinctly spiritual in nature? That perhaps derived from a deeply felt experience of being-in-relationship, of loving and being loved ? Most of us have experienced such kataphatically, through various consolations that had, more or less, clearly identifiable preceding causes. I am thinking, now, of those experiences that would have been more apophatic and with consolations that were less so arising from preceding causes , moreso akin to what the great Carmelites described as mystical contemplation. That may have evoked a whole range of emotions, positive and negative, that radically changed your relationship with God and others? How did you manage these experiences [reading, studying, mentoring, direction, prayer, counseling, etc]?

Any reframing of the questions and clarifying remarks are welcome and solicited. There should be something here for everyone to reflect on and share about. Below, I lay the groundwork, which would have been placed at the beginning as an introductory hermeneutic, but which would only have served to put some folks off, I'd reckon. So, I stuck it at the end for anyone who'd like to go deeper into why I feel led to draw up such a famework.

pax tibi,
jb

Background

I have considered, in my grappling with epistemology [how it is we know what we know and what it is we know], the great interrogatories: where-when-what-how and why and who and that. Where-when-what �how, I decided, corresponded to space-time-matter-energy, the realm of science. Why corresponded to the realm of philosophy. Who corresponded to the realm of theology. That corresponded to the realm of mysticism inasmuch as it deals with �that things are and not how things are�.

Now, it has been said that epistemology models ontology [the study of being] and that the ontological riddle [why there is something rather than nothing] is occulted [unknowable in principle, just like what took place in the earliest moments after the Big Bang, just like certain quantum mechanics in the deep structure of matter]. This radical unknowability leads to an ontological undecidability , which, if it does not lead to an ontological despair or nihilism or to the type of idealism, which is a subjectivism hoisted on its own gallows, at least leads us to an epistemological humility. A radical empiricism or a logical positivism is not suitable either, not for an epistemology modeled on radical unknowability. Rather, there is an innate confidence in natural reason that allows us to move forward in a pancritical process of alternating conjecture and criticism , testing the correspondence between the psychological experiences of our phenomenal world with the actual physical world, employing a critical realism [a philosophical view of science and/or theology which asserts that our knowledge of the world refers to the-way-things-really-are, but in a partial fashion which will necessarily be revised as that knowledge develops]. If our core ontological commitments [hypotheses of being] are, in principle, unknowable, unverifiable and unfalsifiable [at least, pre-eschatologically], it does not mean that the web of auxiliary hypotheses surrounding them are not. In fact, we move forward , however haltingly, energized by a consonance between our phenomenal and physical worlds, by an ever-increasing intelligibility measured by logical consistency, internal coherence and external congruence . Our moves forward are fallible but not presuppositionally ungrounded and even if our presuppositions themselves appear ungrounded, we hypothesize their ground and move on . We move forward testing some propositions, if only by the manifest absurdity that their rejection would bring about.

And all of this leads us to the notion that there can be various truth claims about reality that derive from different epistemological loci. We are familiar with the methodologies and truth claims of science, which take place in the space-time-matter-energy continuum. But even if our epistemology remains unchanged, the types of knowledge it will yield and the levels of certainty it can provide, probabilistically , will vary as a function of the subject matter .

If, for instance, we ask of reality, �Why is there something rather than nothing?�, we dwell, in that instant, in the realm of philosophy and metaphysics. If we ask of reality, whether or not, ultimately, it is personal or impersonal, we dwell in the realm of theology. Finally, if, in the core of our being, we can�t in this instance get beyond the very that-ness of reality, we dwell in the realm of natural mysticism.

In the philosophical realm, where we begin our natural theology, our imaginations are charged with the analogical and our language is filled with the metaphorical [God is like this and God is like that]. In the realm of natural mysticism, where our imaginations are depleted and our conceptualizations fail , our language is anagogical [God is not this and God is not that]. In the theological realm, the analogical and anagogical voices give way to unitive experiences, experiences with ultimate reality that are both indirect and direct, unmediated and mediated.

Additional Background (which I may or not be entirely faithful to, above) can be found here at Mysticism, Metaphysics and Maritain By James Arraj

Hi JB,
I'm not sure if anything I'm going to relate here qualifies as falling into a "crisis" category for any of the areas you mentioned. But certain things you wrote, I can relate to as far as the formulation of my inner peace thus far in my life.

I am a watcher....I watch people, I watch events, I watch nature, I watch spiritual situations unfold. I'm also a thinker....not in the sense that I try to come up to absolute answers..but rather merely to ponder the questions and let the answers present themselves to me.

Personally, God has always been a part of the equation. Even as a child, though I didn't have a name for Him just then, I knew He was...or rather I knew there had to be a "One" or a "force" that made all things as they are. Once I learned who He was, I relaxed with the creation around me and simply enjoyed it rather than asking why it is as it is....why is there something rather than nothing. It seems to me there is no answer to that question. At least not one we can ever completely comprehend. This, however, is not to say that I ceased becoming frustrated with folks who didn't see the much deeper meaning of life/creation/existence. It is merely to say that I ceased being frustrated with my own sense that there was a much deeper meaning that I couldn't quite understand. At times, I still struggle with attitudes of nonchalance about "who are we".."why are we here"..."why is this circumstance this way"..."how does this fit". For, to me, the answers to all these questions lead back to the One....the Force....the Creator.

A health crisis served to bring me to a deeper spiritual event...one that took me quite by surprise, I might add...which opened the doorway for exploration into the realm I had always wanted to "see" and "touch". This is probably the closest thing to a crisis that I can actually remember (outside of the crises of life that sometimes happen). Because of this spiritual event, I was somewhat ostracized by my Christian community...not because they meant to....but because I had little patience with the lack of care or knowledge given to my questions, statements, revelations (for lack of a better word). But in Perfect timing, the way was made for me to understand and relax...yet again. I found solace, instruction, and understanding in reading various things by mystics, priests, Saints and scripture. Most of all, though, it came through God's touch. However cliche' that might sound, it exists. And when He chooses the right time, things suddenly fall into place and explanations are no longer needed..the experience IS the explanation.

As you can see, what I said earlier is true. In all the areas you've mentioned, God is the central focus for me. I can't change it...nor would I, if given the chance. There is a certain assurance that comes from realizing that He is the one who does indeed have all the answers. If He answers my question, then it is for my spiritual edification as well as application in my life. If He does not answer it, then it either isn't time for me to know it, or it isn't important in this life...perhaps in the life after....but not this one. I am dependent on Him. He is my Father, my Lord, my Instruction and I trust Him implicitly.

Simplistic?....yes. Satisfying?...absolutely. But it doesn't make it satisfying for everyone who asks the questions. Learning from others is certainly a most helpful thing and has been in my life, a Godsend.

Not much help, I know...lol..but it's how my life is

Terri, thanks for your great generosity in sharing. You hit a home run and touched all the bases , too! I was trying to get better in touch with emergence dynamics , in general, and thought that, by suggesting that we look at crises, in particular, it might more easily put most of us in touch with those dynamics, not all of which involve crises, of course. Very many times, though, they do.

1) Most of all, though, it came through God's touch. However cliche' that might sound, it exists. And when He chooses the right time, things suddenly fall into place and explanations are no longer needed.. the experience IS the explanation .

As far as spiritual emergences/emergencies go, what you wrote above was powerful and I know others will be able to resonate with it. I know Thomas Aquinas would. What an experience he must've had to be able to call his Summa Theologiae so much straw!

2) A health crisis served to bring me to a deeper spiritual event...one that took me quite by surprise, I might add...which opened the doorway for exploration into the realm I had always wanted to "see" and "touch". . . . . . in Perfect timing, the way was made for me to understand and relax...yet again.

This is another tangent for many of us, I'm sure, the transformative potential of a health or similar crisis. There are times, in fact, that I look back on certain periods of intense suffering in my life and see them as having borne gifts, gifts I'd not want to do without and which I couldn't conceive of having received any other way.

3) I am a watcher....I watch people, I watch events, I watch nature, I watch spiritual situations unfold. I'm also a thinker....not in the sense that I try to come up to absolute answers..but rather merely to ponder the questions and let the answers present themselves to me.

Perhaps this most closely resembles an implicit philosophical stance, knowing the answers are there and that life's unfolding will draw them forth [the principle behind the Socratic method].

4) Once I learned who He was, I relaxed with the creation around me and simply enjoyed it rather than asking why it is as it is....why is there something rather than nothing. It seems to me there is no answer to that question. At least not one we can ever completely comprehend. This, however, is not to say that I ceased becoming frustrated with folks who didn't see the much deeper meaning of life/creation/existence. It is merely to say that I ceased being frustrated with my own sense that there was a much deeper meaning that I couldn't quite understand.

This may be what has been called the wisdom of uncertainty and suggests an ability to tolerate ambiguity and embrace paradox. This may be the one hurdle Einstein never jumped and, if he had, no telling where his ruminations and fascinations would have taken him [such as in Quantum Mechanics]. Perhaps more than a philosophical stance, this is a sort of mystical aptitude, not to say that Einstein didn't have his own mystical leanings, but whatever his block was, I don't feel led to label it intellectual

Those were the things that kinda jumped off the page at me. Your response will likely well serve as a catalyst, too, providing some illustrations that others might use as a coatrack on which to hang their own experiences (supplementing my otherwise dry and colorless commentary). Thanks again, Terri, you who are always so charmingly self-deprecating (just because I use big words?)

pax,
jb

Oh oh oh...I HAD to comment on paradoxes..lol. I LOVE them! I think that's why I watch and think. It's also why I love getting to the core of a person or situation or experience. Everything has layers, but I want to know what lies beneath and often times it is completely different that the most obvious first appearance. I think that's one reason I love God and the spiritual realm so much. What could be more paradoxical than to die in order to live...to be least in order to be greatest...to go to the darkest night of the soul in order to see the light. Ah..good stuff!

I liked what you said about intense suffering having borne gifts. I feel the same way and in many ways, I've learned that only in suffering do I truly appreciate the gift that it has given me...or appreciate the gift I already had and had taken for granted.

Oh...and I love the big words, btw..lol. I just am not always sure I understand them. Ahem...my dictionary gets a work out!! That's a good thing...LOL!

Note: Of course it is not necessary to look at these distinctions - philosophical, existential and spiritual - merely from the standpoint of crises or emergencies. Feel free to discuss them in any other context, too. To the extent that such distinctions are drawn, however, as paradigms for types of contemplation , and to the extent they would therefore have emergent aspects [emergencies], I thought one way of shedding some light on the validity of the distinctions made in the paradigm would be to discuss them in terms of pathology, because if they are separate and valid paths to distinct phenomena/epiphenomena, they might exhibit separate and distinct pathologies. Others may comment on this from their perspective as counselors or directors, or as metaphysicians

Indeed, some of the crisis aspect of spiritual emergence comes from epiphenomena or side effects and by-products. At some point, it seems that we must break through or get past the affective components, the desolations and consolations, and energy flows, in order to place our naked wills in the service of love. Then, voila, the energies and consolations retake their place in the service of this will, reordered somehow, inspite of ourselves ---they then lose their attraction, in and of themselves, and/or their ability to disrupt? [not to greatly oversimplify a subject in need of much nuancing]

pax,
jb

Looking for some guinea pigs, are we? Okay. I don�t know if I�m defined more by philosophical, existential or spiritual matters. It seems only logical that we are a mix (or go through different �stages�), but I have I hunch it may be a fourth, the Kermit Crisis (It�s not easy bein� green).

I don�t believe I�m stuck in the Philosophical Crisis: why is there something rather than nothing? Those two choices alone are too small for my imagination. Which I suppose leads naturally to your description of the Existential Crisis: �One can never quite get over THAT things are and is astounded and amazed and confused that others simply take existence for granted.� Actually I think I�m dulled to this. I take existence for granted. Or I�m a sort of ant-Existential Crisis sort of person. I don�t accept existence as it presents itself. As far as the Spiritual experience is concerned, I think I understand partly what that�s about and know that my life is not based on it. But I�ve had enough �extreme� moments to know what it�s all about.

So, oddly enough, you may count me a member of the �Green� party. I present myself to your capable hands for further dissecting (just put the brain back when you�re done with it.)

And when He chooses the right time, things suddenly fall into place and explanations are no longer needed..the experience IS the explanation.

That�s just a wonderful thought, Terri.

This may be what has been called the wisdom of uncertainty and suggests an ability to tolerate ambiguity and embrace paradox. This may be the one hurdle Einstein never jumped and, if he had, no telling where his ruminations and fascinations would have taken him [such as in Quantum Mechanics]. Perhaps more than a philosophical stance, this is a sort of mystical aptitude, not to say that Einstein didn't have his own mystical leanings, but whatever his block was, I don't feel led to label it intellectual

OT, but what the hay: JB, I have a hunch (one of those super-intuitive things) that Einstein is right. In essence he believed �God doesn�t play dice.� And let�s separate the theological implications from this because he was really, I think, talking about �the universe� and how it should organize itself given that mathematics and so many other things seem to work down to the smallest scale in a logical and orderly fashion. The randomness of quantum physics is messy. Scientists don�t like messy. Their job is to clean everything up so that it makes sense. Of course the universe (may!) care little for how WE think things should be. Rather than thinking Einstein was �stuck� because of an inability to embrace paradox, I just think he ran out of time and was hampered by the fact that the instruments to give him more data didn�t yet exist. I believe he was thinking PAST quantum physics rather than through it. As you know, quantum physics apparently throws up a wall beyond which we can�t see past � heck, in fact it supposedly makes no sense to even ask what�s behind that wall. I can see how Einstein couldn�t accept this and I think he was right.

Quantum uncertainty and randomness � I think it�s an absolutely brilliant creation by God or whomever. On the macro scale we get, for all intents and purposes, a deterministic universe where things can change and evolve in an ordered way. Complexity can form. On the micro scale we get a certain �jumbling� that is deeply embedded in the nature of things and keeps anything from getting �stuck� in a dead-end system or cycle. It�s a perfect combination. And yet we still haven�t combined the four fundamental forces into any single theory (nor can we, IMO, until it takes into account consciousness, feelings, and a few other �spooky� things that you�ve touched on, JB).

That there is a �wall� of quantum physics, behind which we supposedly can�t look, is telling. Limits usually suggest something. That �wall� may have everything to do with matters we�ve talked of before where we may find that �materialism� isn�t the whole answer. Einstein, bless him, must have had some sort of inkling of this and even his mention of God in �God doesn�t play dice� suggests his own intuition was trying to leap behind that wall (and his intuition was nearly flawless in practice � INCLUDING, possibly, the idea of the Cosmological Constant).

Well, if anything, this post will provide JB with evidence of whatever crisis I�m having.

I have a hunch (one of those super-intuitive things) that Einstein is right .

Dear Member #52,

Your deep metaphysical insights border on profound existential genius and the answers, therefore, truly lie within you such that you and your friend can both be led out of this minor philosophical crisis.

There IS a way out for both you and Albert, which is the way of Arraj, Aristotle and Aquinas . For as little as a nickel a month, you can join the AAA Highway Club and, should you, or your friend Albert, get stranded on the Metaphysical Freeway , AAA will be there to rescue you if your engine of efficient cause breaks down or runs out of causation gas. They'll be there in negative nanoseconds (unconstrained by c ] to replace this efficient cause engine with a formal cause motor and see to it that you get to your final cause destination, superluminally even, if that's your preference. Using their special additives of nonlocality and synchronicity , they'll rid you of that pesky engine knock of indeterminacy and pull old Schroedinger's Cat out of the heisenbergian serpentine belt from under the old Copenhagen 's hood. Don't let nonenergetic causation get you down! Join AAA today. For details, see The Mystery of Matter:Nonlocality, Morphic Resonance, Synchronicity and the Philosophy of Nature of St. Thomas Aquinas by James Arraj .

Heck, I'll bet old Aristotle and Aquinas and Albert are having afternoon tea over at the Maritain's this very nonmoment!

pax,
jb

p.s. Thanks for pretending you had a crisis. That was a friendly thing to do, rescuing my thread and all like you did.

p.p.s. You know that 2 + 2 = 5 experience you get all the time, the one that causes you to hypothesize telos? Aquinas would call that Grace and would consider it to be spiritual , taking you from the realm of natural theology to a lofty status of sacred theologian. If he should mention this during tea and crumpets in your lucid dream tonight, don't pick a nit with him on this. Just play along and he might slip you the answer , since John Lennon is probably still in the helicopter with the Maharishi and it'll be awhile before anyone else gets a turn.

As far as the Spiritual experience is concerned, I think I understand partly what that�s about and know that my life is not based on it. But I�ve had enough �extreme� moments to know what it�s all about.

Jeepers, I don't want to come across patronizing or condescending or such, but you sound SO much like Christianity's St. Paul. 1) He had his extreme moments . 2) He said his life wasn't based on those moments since he was always doing something besides what those moments suggested to him. Heck, #52, I think you just inadvertently pegged MY latest crisis!

pax,
jb

Let's sing:

I been redeemed
By the enneagram
I been redeemed
By the enea -gra- a- a- a- ammm
I been redeemed by the enneagram
no more eye - in - tee - pee I am
all my sufis are washed away
I been redeemed

JB,

Maybe I�m in the midst of a morphogenic crisis. I�ve slogged my way through most of �The Mystery of Matter.� My conclusion is that our little human minds, particularly in this Western, materialistic, production-oriented, cause-and-effect culture, so molds us (ha!) to linear thinking that there is a bound to be a natural �rebellion of the psyche� if the things that Bohm and others say is true (and even if they don�t have all the details or even the main paradigm it is for sure that something else is true other than our �classical� view of things).

Of course I know you knew I was going to say all this.

Sincerely,

- Member #52 (aka �Function follows Form�)

Don't let nonenergetic causation get you down! Join AAA today.

I�m driving a Ford (you know, Fixable Only with Radical Determinism). I hope that doesn�t preclude me from being a member. [Loved that AAA stuff.]

if the things that Bohm and others say is true (and even if they don�t have all the details or even the main paradigm it is for sure that something else is true other than our �classical� view of things).

To muse that some thing else is indeed true is to continue to muse in the cartesian-newtonian-einsteinian paradigm because, in the aristotlean notion [now we're talking classical ] we aren't dealing with a thing at all, immaterial as formal cause is and all

Understandably, it can be quite the confounding enterprise to argue against the existence of tooth fairies, river sprites and the like insofar as aspatial, atemporal, immaterial nondimensions driven by nonenergetic causality are concerned. Truly, any hypothesis of formative causation lies outside of the realm of empirical science's techniques of falsifiability and verifiability and belongs in the realm of metaphysical speculation. But unlike one's argument for river sprites, extraneous causation gains legitmacy, neither as a vitalistic ploy nor as a fanciful notion, but instead as an indispensable explanatory idea , though not one capable of scientific verification. At least that's what Jack Haught muses.

The above was not a polemic over against anything Member #52 said but a footnote for any cyberwayfarers who would think I was being silly about the AAA Club I was, nonetheless, having fun.

pax,
jb

re: Of course I know you knew I was going to say all this.

As a matter of fact, I did and I am still feeling my psychic oats having beaten 16:1 and 14:1 odds at The Boundary Institute's website , the very first time I ever visited. Check the results for July 4th and, though I may be slipping in rank, I'm in no jeopardy of falling out of their hall of shame. Actually, this was fun. Check it out:

http://www.gotpsi.org/cgi-bin/bi/cardShof.pl

http://www.gotpsi.org/cgi-bin/bi/cardhof.pl

Happy 4th!
jb

Amazing, JB.

I was doing the location test and doing horribly. Then I began to notice that where I was selecting was strongly tending towards a point symetrical to the red circle along the vertical axis of the square. Hmmm.

Jeepers, I don't want to come across patronizing or condescending or such, but you sound SO much like Christianity's St. Paul.

Truly you give a person a lot to think about, JB. Your posts usually do. Sometimes the things you say today don�t begin to make sense until weeks or months later (that�s assuming there�s any sense to them to begin with). But I�ve never heard of anyone having a �St. Paul complex� so I don�t have to worry about that at least. J

Your thread is an apt one for me because it speaks of crisis. My life up to this point has been a crisis. Oh, not a succession of hair-raising peaks and valleys - just a constant �don�t fit in� type of thing. I�ve listened to many others here who are sincere, kind and wise people, and the thing they seem to have in common, besides their faith in God, is that they�ve learned to not �think� their way out of problems. For me that�s like asking a dog not to sniff the other dog as it walks by.

p.p.s. You know that 2 + 2 = 5 experience you get all the time, the one that causes you to hypothesize telos? Aquinas would call that Grace and would consider it to be spiritual, taking you from the realm of natural theology to a lofty status of sacred theologian. If he should mention this during tea and crumpets in your lucid dream tonight, don't pick a nit with him on this. Just play along and he might slip you the answer, since John Lennon is probably still in the helicopter with the Maharishi and it'll be awhile before anyone else gets a turn.

Is telos one of the Tele-Tubbies? That link to �Mystery of Matter� has got me to thinking. Non-locality, synchronicity, dreams, archetypes, forms � they all suggest that there is a hidden, driving force behind our lives (a formative field or whatever) and that our instinctual predisposition toward religion is an apt intuitive response, although not necessarily 100% correct in all the details, to this unseen driving force. It�s so ingrained in us that if we have problem A, B or C in our lives that we should use a deterministic, �cause and effect� approach to finding the solution. For every problem �A� there is a solution �B� � pure behaviorism. But just like the apparent fact that DNA can not account for all of our behavior nor the growth of an organism if there is a missing part, this �cause and effect� behavior may not be able to get at our real problems. Okay�but where to go from here?

If he should mention this during tea and crumpets in your lucid dream tonight, don't pick a nit with him on this.

Yes, as you already know, I do think dreams are more than just the brain trying to make sense of a sequence unrelated �flashes� of images. I swear I have dreams so vivid and so interesting at times that I could sell theatre tickets to them. The problem is that there are so damn many sometimes that I wake up literally exhausted. It�s difficult to isolate anything out of this almost Ingmar Bergman rush of images.