Shalom Place Community Shalom Place Discussion Groups General Discussion Forums Christian Morality and Theology Perspectives on spiritualityGo | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply | |
| Perspectives on spirituality | Login/Join |
Actually, I've seen the same thing said about the "think too much" people. While, I suppose it can be true in some instances, I've also seen it go the other way and instill a faith that is so deeply cemented that it is almost a "special" kind of faith. I suppose I would say that God, who knows the inner workings of all people, reaches through to each as He knows is the best way they can "see" Him. OTOH, I have witnessed first hand the "knowing about" vs. the "knowing" of God. In many ways, it seems to me that the "think too much" folks may feel a greater need to analyze simply because there is a certain fear...or at least discomfort...of letting go and shooting. I don't see it as a bad thing, unless of course their entire lives are dictated by their minds. And I really don't see you as being that type of person. While I only know you through these boards, it just doesn't strike me that you are controlled in that way. Glad you liked the quote. It's actually from a sermon on the Supremacy of God, but I thought it was a great quote, too. There's a LOT of truth in it. Blessings, Terri | ||||
|
This is from a new Alan Watts book edited by his son Mark Watts: "To understand anything about the philosophy of the Tao, you really need to be in a state of wise ignorance. I am often cast among people who are frantically conceptualizing and defending their frameworks of conceptualization, who have very fixed, elaborate theories of the nature of the universe and of man's destiny in it, and of the way to fulfillment. These conceptions are very ambitious, but once people enter into the framework of conceptualization, they become increasingly abstracted from the natural world, and they start living in books rather than in life, or in the movies rather than with real people. When you enter into the world of conceptualization, you begin to fall into a fundamental fallacy of civilization, which is to value the world of symbol above the world that the symbol represents. In our culture we have taken this to the wildest extremes, so that legally you don't exist unless you possess a birth certificate or a passport, which are of course nothing but pieces of paper. For us, the record of what has happened is far more important than what actually is happening, and therefore we waste incalculable energy on recording trivia and filling out income tax forms. In our universities we are anxious that the registrar's records are properly protected, but the books in the library can be damaged or stolen at will." cloudofunknowing.com | ||||
|
This has been a good discussion, Terri, Brad, Michael et al. From my own personal experience and from what I have been able to dicover about humankind, the human approach to truth, beauty, goodness and love requires the integral application of our cognitive AND affective AND even INSTINCTIVE giftedness. Much of the truth of the enneagram as bolstered by its correspondence with MBTI is revealed as we all variously overexpress, underexpress or are even out of touch with either the cognitive or the affective or the instinctive aspects of our humanity. A person who is imbalanced even vis a vis one's instinctive side, much less one's affective side, is going to have problems relating to reality correctly even if otherwise cognitively gifted. We don't want to ever leave behind our instinctive and affective sides but want them to be transformed and placed in service of the cognitive. We don't want to leave behind the cognitive but want it to be transformed and placed in service of the affective and instinctive. We don't want to leave behind the instinctive but want it to be transformed and placed in service of the affective and cognitive. Being fully human and fully alive entails the application and enjoyment of ALL of these aspects of our humanity. To the extent there has been an imbalance in modern American culture, then I would have to side with Richard Rohr. What we need mostly is an Awakening of the Soul, which corresponds to Helminiak's description of the Psyche. We have gotten too cerebral in modern society and have overemphasized the cognitive to the detriment of the affective and instinctive. And, if you're an INTP, like me, one has an even greater problem, sometimes, being in touch with instinctive needs, Helminiak's organismic level. Thankfully, my religion, with its bells and smells and icons, ameliorates this to some degree. So, contrary to what anyone might suspect, the best scientist would not be one who is overexpressing cognitively. Such a person would very likely be severely handicapped when it came to sensory and perceptual awareness. A person not affectively attuned would likely be handicapped aesthetically, and the search for symmetry in science and math has always been largely driven by aesthetic sensibilities. The best cosmologists have always been in touch with beauty. Analogously, regarding those pre-egoic structures that participate in our trans-egoic stages, Jung is correct and Wilber is wrong. The same structures that are employed in our pre-egoic experiences are those we enjoy in our trans-egoic experiences. (There is simply a spiral effect of regression in service of transcendence.) Now, there can be true trans-egoic stages that get erroneously described (reduced) to pre-egoic states, and there can be pre-egoic states that get described (elevated) to trans-egoic states, but whatever our egoic state, phenomenally, the basic structures are the same but are being experienced differently (have been transmuted via experience). Similarly, our spiritual growth enables us to experience ourselves cognitively, affectively and instinctively, differently from the way we experienced them all earlier on our journeys but they all remain, positively and absolutely, indispensable for every step of the transformative journey (requiring, variously, some reformation to overcome some deformation during formation --- moving us past various neuroses and character disorders!). Well, I sure jumbled up a bunch of different stuff there but I hope my overall thrust is clear even if some of my individual points are obscure. Bottomline, in some ways, one doesn't need quite as much head in the American religious experience and we do need to better cultivate heart. This differs from place to place. In some of those tribalistic cultures and more fundamentalistic religious expressions (even in the good old US of A), though, MUCH more head is needed (or they will end up killing us all!). As Lonergan teaches: we need intellectual AND affective AND moral AND social AND religious conversion. pax! jb | ||||
|
Rigorous theological reflection isn't popular, that's for sure, but it has its place. We don't begrudge the physicists their equations when they need to get down and dirty in their profession, although we'd probably much prefer they speak in more generalities about matter, energy and so forth. Same goes for theology and spirituality. There are questions that take one several removes from direct experience, and that's OK. If that's where one lives their lives, then that's a problem, but inasmuch as questions and concerns reside there, the examination of them is also part of life. To me, people living primarily in their instincts and emotions are just as out of touch with the fullness of their human nature as those who live in their heads most of the time. Threads like this one aren't for everyone; there are many who aren't much concerned about the issues raised here. That's OK. When/if they ever need to consider these matters, we've left a pathway that, hopefully, can be useful in some manner. It's like so many things -- one takes what one needs and leaves the rest. ---- OK, quiz time: How do you determine the cicumference of a round saucer? A. Go round it with a tape measure. B. C = Pi X D Which answer is more conceptual? Which is more spiritual?  | ||||
|
OK, quiz time: How do you determine the cicumference of a round saucer? A. Go round it with a tape measure. B. C = Pi X D Which answer is more conceptual? Which is more spiritual? Sigh...I don't know...lol. Blessings, Terri | ||||
|
I know! I know! There is no such thing as the cicumference [sic] of a round saucer.  | ||||
|
Hahaha..jb, I didn't even catch that ...lol. Cute, very cute  Blessings, Terri | ||||
|
Heh, that's sic . .  And the answer is . . . C = Pi X D is both higher conceptualization and more spiritual. IOW, conceptualization is not anti-spiritual or anti-mystical; some forms are purely spiritual in that they're several removes from sense perception and so are probing the essence of things. Note that this applies to mathemmatical formulations like the above, but also to physics, chemistry and into philosophy, theology and so forth. We couldn't do advanced conceptualization if we didn't have a spirit seeking to understand something more than just the way things are. And it doesn't follow that this deeper understanding is an intrinsic obstacle to living a spiritual life. If anything, it would seem that those who never spend much time there could have much of a spiritual life in the true sense of the term -- a life directed by their spiritual consciousness. They might have good habits, conditioning, lively affectivity, etc., but that's not necessarily spirituality. So it's a question of balance, here. See? | ||||
|
Konrad Lorenz | ||||
|
Phil said: Sew itz a kwestchun of balince, hear. Cie? I�m obviously going with JB�s answer to the circumfrance question. But truthfully, balance sounds good to me and I see it being played out even in the varied and various comments given on this topic. I'm inhaling the plumes of spirituality in here even now, and the oxygen content is high. It might be the airplane glue though. You never know.�it seems to me that the "think too much" folks may feel a greater need to analyze simply because there is a certain fear...or at least discomfort...of letting go and shooting. Terri, I think you are correct. And what you say has the ring of truth to it. I hope now that whatever spirituality I have will become a healthy means to overcome that fear. But for me spirituality started off as a means to an end, and that end basically was healing some broken parts and getting over my fears so that I could hopefully resume some kind life that resembled normal. I was thrown out at the plate in the first inning. Such a pragmatic, self-serving, willful approach wasn�t going to work. Then I began trying to match some of the feelings and thoughts that I already had to the structure (and what a grand and often complex structure it is in places) of Christianity and Catholicism. Some of the pieces matched up, but many didn't. There were, and are, some crucial (irony noted) differences. So then it was a matter of seeing who was going to give in first: me or all of Christendom. Don't laugh. I still hold out hope that it could be a tie. The next thing I did was to sort of call a truce. An open battle was out of the question. That could take years and cost millions of lives. I don't have that kind of time so I've decided that a reasonable definition of God was attainable, although it's going to take a long time, if ever, to envision Him as a benevolent God. But some compromises had to be made. But nor is this God simply one of the mischievous gods of the Greeks. I'm simply extending the principle for the way my mind works to the way *I* may work, which is to say, whatever propels my mind to create that which is so clearly outside of me (or more than me) also can logically be seen as propping up or propelling my whole being. But orthodoxy is a long way off, and frankly, I don't know that that's ever going to happen and I don't think I want it to happen�at least not yet. (And one needn�t be an Einstein to have this sentiment, I think.) All I can tell you, Terri, is that I�m trying to bring some meaning into my life by reducing the clutter and cleaning out the closet rather than to add more routines and more beliefs and more Things I Must Do To Be Happy. What JB says about the affective, instinctive and cognitive makes complete sense. A balance of all, a transformation of all would seem the optimum solution. But we are creatures of inherent imbalance and this is probably necessarily so. We all have unique preferences and personalities and how could this not ultimately be so if not traced to some imbalance, to some deep hardware setting that made some tend toward, say, music and others toward being a soldier. It seems then that an inherent and quite important part of achieving balance is feeling comfortable and sort of "balanced" on our tipsy unicycles of imbalance. I�m heavily biased toward the cognitive and intuitive while the instinctive heavily suffers. The challenge then for a person like me is to resist the urge to go out and try to build great buildings and instead to find creative new ways to assert the instinctive that isn�t 100% at odds with the cognitive and the intuitive. By the way, that�s great advice from that book edited by Mark Watts, MM. | ||||
|
Actually Brad, whether you realize it or not, I think you've already moved beyond some of the hurdles that a lot of "Christians" have yet to put behind them. There seems to be a tendency among the churched to create a God in the image that fits their criteria rather than sitting back and learning who He is. Blessings, Terri | ||||
|
Let me share just one possible interpretation of that hardware setting, binary at that, which results in these inherent imbalances: | 1 | = God. | 0 | = Not God. Also, let me save everybody here some time; no need to look on your fatherboards, I promise, the pertinent dipswitch is set to 0. Not to worry, there is another dipswitch: | 1 | = networked. | 0 | = no network. Again, no need to check; the christological factory default is | 1 | and we are all networked, which network very much resembles an image of, you guessed, | 1 | = God. pax! jb Bertrand Russell | ||||
|
I�ve never been called a dipswitch before and felt so good about it. JB, you�ve outdone yourself with that analogy. It was a perfect, errr, one.  | ||||
|
Better than being called a dips**t.  From Terri: Actually Brad, whether you realize it or not, I think you've already moved beyond some of the hurdles that a lot of "Christians" have yet to put behind them. There seems to be a tendency among the churched to create a God in the image that fits their criteria rather than sitting back and learning who He is. Right on! And yet that doesn't in itself make Brad a Christian, except, perhaps, an "anonymous" one a la Rahner et al. I think Brad is a good example of spirituality in the philosophic perspective, lived and explored at a very deep level, with integrity and a striving for authenticity. Nevertheless, I note that again and again he comes up against the boundary of this perspective and its interface with theism, finding himself struggling with the message and implications of theism. Going "there" would entail something of a paradigm shift, which one isn't always sure about entering. And yet who can clearly account for the bridges and crossings between the philosophic and theistic realms? Sharpies like JB can point them out, but there is a mystery about how, when and why one crosses over. I bring this up not as a criticism or judgment, but just to point out the reality of the boundaries between these perspectives. Same kind of thing goes for Jews, Moslems and Deists when they come upon the Christian message. Heck, when you get down to it, there are even lots of Christians who are more comfortable in the theist perspective than the theotic, for the latter entails a surrender of self to God that goes beyond what theism generally requires. | ||||
|
Heck, when you get down to it, there are even lots of Christians who are more comfortable in the theist perspective than the theotic, for the latter entails a surrender of self to God that goes beyond what theism generally requires. I couldn't agree more, and to be honest, I can't quite figure that out. I'm not sure if it's a fear that the surrender is akin to superstition or what. What most concerns me, I guess, is that it sterilizes the faith, and I see that as almost epidemic in some circles. I wonder at times what God must think of that. I think Brad is a good example of spirituality in the philosophic perspective, lived and explored at a very deep level, with integrity and a striving for authenticity. Definitely, and I see the boundary too. In fact, I've seen it in a few folks, and I won't go into the results, but I was amazed to watch the way God worked. Note to Brad: Please don't see this as analyzing you or anything. I'm sure I speak for us all when I say that you're special to us, and we appreciate the depth of your character and spirit. I'd love to hear your thoughts on Phil's observations. Blessings, Terri | ||||
|
I couldn't agree more, and to be honest, I can't quite figure that out. I'm not sure if it's a fear that the surrender is akin to superstition or what. I think the truth is, Terri and Phil, that such commitments (such boundary cross-overs) make demands on the heart, and it�s more of a demand than I can sustain right now. If one doesn�t have sufficient love, either going in or coming out, then it becomes the intellect�s sole job (soul job?) to try to regulate or make sense of these things. As you know, there are severe limitations to such an orientation. The intellect can commit only so far and, in fact, gets in the way of other types of commitments that can or need to be made. And I should probably add that the "normal" religious route, because of past experience and current realities, has been totally polluted for me. If y�all were next door neighbors you might twist my arm but unfortunately you�re not. Note to Brad: Please don't see this as analyzing you or anything. As long as there�s no bill, then please analyze all you�d like. I know I do. But thanks for asking, Terri. But you should know that I�m often a bit further along in whatever I�m doing than are my words. Words take a while to catch up. And you should know that I�m trying to apply such documents as "Abandonment to Divine Providence" even now.I'd love to hear your thoughts on Phil's observations. I think he called it rather well. | ||||
|
And I should probably add that the "normal" religious route, because of past experience and current realities, has been totally polluted for me. If y�all were next door neighbors you might twist my arm but unfortunately you�re not. In truth, I probably wouldn't twist. I've seen all too well that God works in ways that are not the "normal" religious route . I would, however, LOVE to sit at a table on a warm day and exchange thoughts over a cup of coffee or tea or whatever. God is one of my favorite topics of discussion .And you should know that I�m trying to apply such documents as "Abandonment to Divine Providence" even now. Ooooh I've heard great things about that. It's on my "to read" list, but I haven't gotten there yet. Something I will say about abandonment (and I don't know if this is even a part of what the book is about), is that it's a bit scary at first, but then later, it's like sliding into warm, fresh springs of moving water. There's something about it that draws you. Blessings, Terri | ||||
|
Brad: I think the truth is, Terri and Phil, that such commitments (such boundary cross-overs) make demands on the heart. . . Precisely! At least that's supposed to be the case if embraced authentically. Going from the philosophic to theistic IS a paradigm shift, and it's good to recognize this. It means, minimally, going from accountability to principles to accountability to the Creator. Paradoxically, the principles at stake will change very little, but the way one embraces them will change. One is faithful to the principles because one is - a. hoping to be rewarded by the Creator and/or b. hoping to avoid condemnation from the Creator and/or c. wanting to realize the destiny for which one has been created by keeping such principles - and/or d. wanting to show gratitude to the Creator and to reveal the goodness of the Creator by living ethically. C and D are the higher motivations, of course! But the telling factor in all of this is belief in the existence of a Creator. Once one consents to this as more than an intellectually tenable possibility, one enters another paradigm, which eventually reconfigures everything from one's sense of identity to one's sense of purpose and motivation for living. - - - Thanks for sharing your experiences of struggle on this issue, Brad. I figured your wouldn't mind my calling that to attention, as you've shared about these matters on many threads. | ||||
|
In truth, I probably wouldn't twist. Well then, pretend you're going for the twist and then jump straight to a Three Stooges eye poke, slap, or coconut head pounding. Something I will say about abandonment� The way I look at it, Terri, is that I ain't putting this ol' body to much use so I might as well let somebody else have a go. It's a relative small leap (at least intellectually) to go from "letting go" in order to mine the contents of my mind to letting go in the interest of one's entire life. Besides, the fact is, I abandoned my life a long time ago�just to the wrong people. To give you a taste for some of what's in "Abandonment": Thanks for sharing your experiences of struggle on this issue, Brad. I figured your wouldn't mind my calling that to attention, as you've shared about these matters on many threads. Don't mind at all, Phil. Thanks for the advice. | ||||
|
hahahaha...okay..the poke, slap, and pounding cracked me up. I might try that! I reaaaaaaally loved this part of the quote you posted: When God speaks it is a mystery, and therefore a death-blow to my senses and reason, for it is the nature of mysteries to compel the sacrifice of both. Mystery makes the soul live by faith; for all the rest there is nothing but contradiction. I'm gonna have to hurry up and get to this. It seems like modern writers so often try to place God in an intellectual, explainable box, and I think that's a mistake. (That's not to say that studying about God and scripture and trying to understand all of it is a bad thing, but rather that there are some aspects of Him that simply are NOT explainable.) Sounds like a good read! Blessings, Terri | ||||
|
I reaaaaaaally loved this part of the quote you posted: Yeah, that quote obviously caught my eye too. And it's one of the most delicate quotes I've ever dug up. By delicate I mean that it seems to have the refutation of its own propositions built in. I mean, "�and therefore a death-blow to my senses and reason, for it is the nature of mysteries to compel the sacrifice of both"? Surely one can't make an affirmative statement about truth while at the same time talk about denying one's senses and reason? That's a mystery. But then, of course, that was indeed the context of that statement: Mystery. There's some coherence there, I think. That our minds are not able to grasp and understand everything is no reason to throw our hands up into the air and throw away reason, of course, but the reverse side of this coin is that it is inherently the case that our minds can not grasp and understand everything. This realization is not a statement that we shouldn't' try to understand more but that part of trying to understand more is learning to deal with the bits that are completely un-understandable, if you understand what I'm saying. You might find the book a bit slow going and repetitive, Terri. I think it's, of course, more than just an instruction manual and is meant to be sort of a meditation experience itself in the reading of it. So keep that in mind. Maybe Phil has other thoughts on that. | ||||
|
Yeah...some of the really old writers are meditational experiences. I found that to be true when reading part of "Dark Night of the Soul" by St. John of the Cross. One has to have the time to really..well...meditate..on what is being said and taking that into themselves seeking revelation. This realization is not a statement that we shouldn't' try to understand more but that part of trying to understand more is learning to deal with the bits that are completely un-understandable, if you understand what I'm saying. Believe it or not...I understand exactly what you're saying .Blessings, Terri | ||||
|
Believe it or not...I understand exactly what you're saying I probably should have also said something like "going beyond slavish reason to other methods of obtaining knowledge". Here's another quote from "Abandonment" that I thought you might like, Terri. I like the rock analogy.
| ||||
|
"Philosophy is an unusually ingenious attempt to think fallaciously" � Bertrand Russell I think he's right to the extent that many of the things we put into words are such inadequate descriptions of the things that exist in reality, and some of the things that we do put into words don't really exist. | ||||
|
Oooh I loved that whole quote you posted. Okay...I GOTTA get to reading that. It's obvious the knowledge of abandonment is first-hand. Awesome. I love that kind of thing because it describes so well what I don't have the words to describe. Thanks! Blessings, Terri | ||||
|
| Powered by Social Strata | Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
Shalom Place Community Shalom Place Discussion Groups General Discussion Forums Christian Morality and Theology Perspectives on spirituality