(My comments are interlinear) On 9/11/2011 11:13 PM, Michel Bauwens wrote: <skip>
*As defined by Jorge Ferrer*: */Spiritual knowing is a participatory process. What do I mean by "participatory"? First, "participatory" alludes to the fact that spiritual knowing is not objective, neutral, or merely cognitive/.* On the contrary, spiritual knowing engages us in a connected, often passionate, activity that can involve not only the opening of the mind, but also of the body, the heart, and the soul.
Evidence favors the position that body, mind, heart, and soul are one entity. Yes, some parts of the body and brain are relatively specialized, but mostly below the level of the modalities mentioned. Emotion, for example, is based in multiple specialized areas of the brain and body.
Although particular spiritual events may involve only certain dimensions of our nature, all of them can potentially come into play in the act of spiritual knowing, from somatic transfiguration to the awakening of the heart, from erotic communion to visionary co-creation, and from contemplative knowing to moral insight, to mention only a few (see also Ferrer, 2000a, 2002).
"somatic transfiguration", "awakening of the heart", "erotic communion" "visionary co-creation", "contemplative knowing" and "moral insight" all exist in secular theory and practice free of any "spiritual" trappings. Granted, the secular, a-spiritual approach is not nearly as well known or represented as the spiritual and religious counterparts. Even in the universities, institutes, and labs where these secular equivalents are being developed, some "homage" to traditional antecedents (if any exist) is often made in the form of retaining some legacy terminology. In the long run I think that practice will pass.
*Second, the participatory nature of spiritual knowing refers to the role that our individual consciousness plays during most spiritual and transpersonal events. This relation is not one of appropriation, possession, or passive representation of knowledge, but of communion and co-creative participation.*
Despite the popular misconceptions of science, the same can be said for the experience of many professional and amateur scientists who work with living systems. It is the fact of working and interacting with people and other living systems in an open and sympathetic way that produces communion and growth, not the spiritual mumbo-jumbo.
*Finally, "participatory" also refers to the fundamental ontological predicament of human beings in relation to spiritual energies and realities. Human beings are - whether we know it or not - always participating in the self-disclosure of Spirit.* This participatory predicament is not only the ontological foundation of the other forms of participation, but also the epistemic anchor of spiritual knowledge claims and the moral source of responsible action.
I cannot interpret or parse that stuff at all.
Spiritual phenomena involve participatory ways of knowing that are presential, enactive, and transformative:
1. Spiritual knowing is presential: Spiritual knowing is knowing by presence or by identity. In other words, in most spiritual events, knowing occurs by virtue of being.
Granted that this is the common belief. In fact, spiritual-seeming phenomena may simply be presented by the unconscious part of the brain to the conscious part that way.
Spiritual knowing can be lived as the emergence of an embodied presence
Typically this is primarily emotion and proprioceptive <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proprioception> sensation mashed up with associative memory samplings.
pregnant with meaning
Alternatively, an appropriate-seeming meaning associated with the internal experience is supplied by the brain. The actual, objective appropriateness of the interpretation may vary from 0-100%.
that transforms both self and world. Subject and object, knowing and being, epistemology and ontology are brought together in the very act of spiritual knowing.
This is typical of the nebulous, grandiose claims of some spiritual apologists. It can mean much or little depending on the detail and the evidence provided for the particular claims.
2. Spiritual knowing is enactive: Following the groundbreaking work of Varela, Thompson, and Rosch (1991), my understanding of spiritual knowing embraces an enactive paradigm of cognition: Spiritual knowing is not a mental representation of pregiven, independent spiritual objects, but an enaction, the bringing forth of a world or domain of distinctions co-created by the different elements involved in the participatory event. Some central elements of spiritual participatory events include individual intentions and dispositions; cultural, religious, and historical horizons; archetypal and subtle energies; and, most importantly, a dynamic and indeterminate spiritual power of inexhaustible creativity.
The same can be said of many psycho-physical practices without spiritual trappings, such as sports. The counter argument might be that sport which meets the above criteria is spiritual, but I suggest the spirituality inference is redundant. To settle the argument once and for all no doubt we must race a spiritual athlete with a non-spiritual one.
3. Spiritual knowing is transformative: Participatory knowing is transformative at least in the following two senses. First, the participation in a spiritual event brings forth the transformation of self and world. Second, a transformation of self is usually necessary to be able to participate in spiritual knowing, and this knowing, in turn, draws forth the self through its transformative process in order to make possible this participation. (http://www.datadiwan.de/SciMedNet/library/articlesN81+/N83Ferrer_part.htm)
I've already noted that both science and sports are transformative. So is psychosis. The issue is how and why something is transformative. If spiritual appologists address those questions in detail I can respond in more detail. Definition by John Heron
"The parties involved in a co-creative, enactive, transformative relation reciprocally and dynamically shape and reshape - in and through the process of meeting – how they understand each other, the regard they have for each other, and how they act and interact in relation with each other.
This definition is framed to apply to the central person-to-person relations. It can, with appropriate modifications, be applied to relations between ways of knowing, to relations between persons and their worlds, and, including and transcending all these, to the relation between persons and the divine.
There is nothing particularly spiritual about any of that until the last word, which blasts through the flimsy ectoplasm of spirituality right into the presence of god and and the holy grail.
Person-to-person relations are central because they are a precondition for setting the scene for divine self-disclosure and for persons to participate in it. In previous epochs this precondition was met by teacher-disciple hierarchical relations. Today divine self-disclosure can manifest through person-to-person peer relations, serviced from time to time by temporary hierarchical initiatives rotating among the peers.
The priestly class is diluted but still essential?
Person-to-person /peer/ relations are central, in my view, because of the intimate relation between epistemic participation and political participation. Epistemic participation is about the participative relation between the knower and the known. Political participation in this context is to do with participative decision-making among those involved about how we know and what we know. If participative knowing between persons is consummated in fully reciprocal encounter, then co-operative decision-making, both about how to engage in such reciprocal knowing and about what it reveals, is necessary for authentic interpersonal knowing - the realm of the /between/ where divine self-disclosure can manifest."
Again nothing necessarily spiritual about that until the word "devine" in the last sentence. However, "devine" could possibly be replaced by "group", "communal", "higher", "further", "greater", etc.
*Spiritual practice: A primary ground for the practice of participatory-relational spirituality can be cultivated by collaborative peer-to-peer relations between persons engaged in fully embodied, multidimensional, transformative flourishing in and with their worlds.* See [1] <http://www.human-inquiry.com/igroup0.htm>
Alternate version: Community-building practice: A primary ground for the practice of participatory-relational community building can be cultivated by collaborative peer-to-peer relations between persons engaged in fully embodied, multidimensional, transformative flourishing in and with their worlds. QED PR