On 9/12/2011 7:39 AM, Michel Bauwens wrote:
related to our question/discussion here:
http://noetic.org/noetic/issue-fourteen-september/the-guru-question/
with a comment of mine at the bottom
Michel, I am not fond of the word guru, but I acknowledge the existence of people who fit many of the commonly attributed criteria to varying degrees. The thing is, many of the guru critera can be met by many people who would not be widely acknowledged as gurus. These are simply highly-developed people in all walks of like. I don't want to imply they are plentiful, exactly, but they are more plentiful than the classic gurus. The closest people to being gurus I've known personally were an elderly 5th grade english & history teacher, two fellow middle school students, and Dr. John C. Lilly of the Janus Institute. I spent a couple of weeks with him and was introduced to the sensory deprivation tank. Though I had already read his work before meeting him, the participatory interaction was very effective in amplifying and imprinting everything. Lilly also has a special presence, similar to the Jaque Cousteau I've met only through the TV set. If that weren't enough, his wife was totally awesome. On the other hand, I tend to exclude most of the people who call themselves "gurus" from serious consideration these days. I believe J. Krishnamurti and George Gurdjieff among others whose work and lives I am familiar with, might have deserved the title, but of contemporary people I might call gurus I can only think of Pemma Chodron and Thich Nat Hann, but I'm not sure if they really qualify. I am most confident of Pemma because of listening to many hours of her audio. The voice conveys a bunch of information. Rather than guru, I prefer the terms teacher, mentor, or more in the p2p vein, learning partners. What all gurus and teachers potentially have in common is just more of something you want than you already have. Im my case, I would define such things in terms of bio-cognitive development, skills and abilities, knowledge, and wisdom rather than in spiritual terms. Even the so-called direct transmission occurs in some degree between any two people (or more) who become intimate, in proportion to the degree of intimacy achieved. Intimacy is not only built through direct face-to-face and physical contact, but through various kinds of shared activity as well. As direct psycho-physical intimacy increases over time, the bandwidth of the bio-cognitive communication increases. Some of the channels are language, voice quality, body language, pheromones, and bio-electromagnetic fields. Voice modulation, body language (including micro cues), airborne chemicals, and physical contact all stimulate the release of a wide array of neurotransmitters and other hormones throughout the body. These change the states of brain networks, nerves, and tissues throughout the body. That much is established fact. My additional hypothesis is that all these channels of communication gradually come into greater synchronization between people. Its similar to the way higher data throughput is achieved between nodes in a computer or communication network as they each synchronize to the same timing, states, and protocols. The rate at which this happens between people and the degree to which it happens depends on the innate psycho-physiological characteristics of the participants as well as their acquired proficiency. It can be trained, although such methods are not well developed in the secular world. When well-developed, interpersonal communication bandwidth may change as much as the difference between using a 300 baud modem and using a 10 gigabit broadband connection with a computer. The importance of shared activity to developing bio-cognitive intimacy and high communication bandwidth can't be over-emphasized. Important activities are singing and dancing, eating and drinking (especially alcohol), domestic houskeeping (especially kitchen work), manual labor (gardening/farm work, carpentry, etc.), professional work, artistic collaboration, dialog/debate, sports and recreation (camping is great), travelling, and adventure. Sharing risks and crises is especially effective. The more time participants spend together the better. Sharing living quarters and workplaces is especially effective, within the limits of intimacy fatigue. And of course if these things are done mindfully, with the intention of developing high-bandwidth intimacy, and with appropriate methods and skills, the best results are possible. Some of this is common sense, but the hypothesis about high-bandwidth bio-cognitive intimacy is not something I pulled out of my ass. I have achieved such intimacy with several different individuals and with several small groups who lived and worked together. Drugs: under the right circumstances there can be a place for the controlled, educated use of psychoactive substances in the formation of high-bandwidth bio-cognitive intimacy. PR