Isn't a world like "love" loaded with contradictory and unclear meanings, but does that mean we have to reject it. I think Amaia puts it well, it's about the relation with what surpasses us as human ego's, what I have called before our relation with "all that is". I'm a  monophysicist pretty much myself, i.e. there is only one reality, one 'stuff', and the supernatural means, "even more natural" or super-nature ... However, I suspend my disbelief into the extent of that 'nature', and accept that there are man things we don't know, many things that may overturn our current understanding. We need the eye of matter to understand our natural world, the eye of the mind to understand each other and human culture, and the eye of the spirit to understand the numinous experiences that are beyond language.

Richard, you say all is interconnected and that is science, and I agree, but don't you see the 'sea' of difference between understanding that mentally, and on the other hand, to experience this directly, mystically, gnostically? We can say that "all is part of life", but again, isn't there a sea of difference between understanding this mentally, i.e. still separately as a watching and conversing mind, and/or to experience this directly, as a shaman might. We can either decide, if we do not experience this directly, to be a 'hoax', or we can accept that there is a real experience there, there is a 'there' there. Now, we always can return to the eye of the mind, i.e. "what does it all mean, for us", and we can return to the eye of matter, what is really the material "there" that is there, and as  you know, we know have at least 30 years of investigating the physical correlates of such experiences, and we now know that they are effectively there. But, this is crucial, just as we cannot reduce the 'meaning' of skakespeare by the physical qualities of the ink on paper, or the brainwaves of the author or reader, similarly, we can not reduce the experience of Tibetan monks, to just the physical correlates that can be shown to occur in their brains. Hence the dialogue is always between those three levels, that of understanding material laws, that of understanding human meaning, and that of experiencing directly the transformative power of spiritual experiences. That doesn't require anyone to believe anything said by such experiencer, but only, if we want, to follow the injunctions that may lead to those occuring in us as well. There is no obligation, but in my mind, there should also not be a rejection. To repeat, the secular world does not offer anything remotely similar to such experiences of the human bodymind, but have occured repeatedly throughout the ages to those who are willing to following such trainings and injunctions. Apart from the rejection of the semantics of the concept of spirit and spirituality, it is now a historical time to go beyond the rejection of 19th century rationalism against anything that is not purely 'rational', to a time of integration and dialogue between the various levels of the human being.

Two definitions below,

Definition by Jorge Ferrer

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. 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).

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.

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.


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. Spiritual knowing can be lived as the emergence of an embodied presence pregnant with meaning 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.


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.


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)


[edit] 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.


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.


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."


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]


Definition by Jorge Ferrer

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. 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).

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.

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.


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. Spiritual knowing can be lived as the emergence of an embodied presence pregnant with meaning 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.


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.


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)


[edit] 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.


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.


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."


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]



On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 10:10 AM, Amaia Arcos <amaia.arcos@googlemail.com> wrote:
Dear PR,

I really am looking forward to reading your original post properly and your response here and come back to it. Ideally it would be done over coffee, attended by anyone who might be interested - there would be 3 of us for sure - but if it needs to be typed, typed it will have to be.

I am time-tied right now but coming back to supernatural and its meaning.. I am a massive fan of playing with language, accepting new meaning for words before they even become mainstream, etc, not a "proper" language fascist in the slightest, quite the opposite, I love being informal with it but to decide that something as simple as a prefix (super) is going to mean exactly the opposite of what it means in just one particular case.. To me it is a pretty obvious fallacy. And one used to reject something one cannot even begin to comprehend, hence the need to reject it. Arrogance at its best in my opinion.

Also, I am starting to wonder, this is not so much about rejecting spiritual experiences/realities but about semantics, right? I don't know, but who cares what people mean and/or if it differs in its characterisation? I know my idea of spirituality is very different to that of an orthodox Muslim or Catholic, or even a Hindu or a Buddhist, but if I am having a conversation with one of them and look into their eyes, we both see/feel we believe and respect God/higher force(s), I really feel no need for them to understand God/souls/spirituality as I understand "it". I think the sense of respect for a higher force that rules over us and is nothing but love is the same. I also think it is the same as your scientific acceptance that all is interconnected. The only thing we might differ in is the level of power, control and understanding man (rational mind) has. To decide we are the measure of all things is pretty crazy in my opinion :)

Disclaimer: I have been a terribly arrogant skeptic all of my life up until fairly recently when "exotism" took over my life. I have fought it for the longest time, because I could not accept that I was starting to believe (with all my soul) what I had consistently rejected for so long. (Just to make clear that I have not grown up blindly believing in faith and superstition). I now accept I am not the centre of the universe and feel extremely liberated by it all to be honest.

On 12 September 2011 01:34, Poor Richard <poor_richard@att.net> wrote:
My responses are interlinear...


On 9/11/2011 2:41 AM, Michel Bauwens wrote:

discussion Poor Richard's blogpost:

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Amaia Arcos <amaia.arcos@googlemail.com>
Date: Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 9:00 AM
Subject: Re: is there no p2p spirituality because there is no spirituality
To: Michel Bauwens <michel@p2pfoundation.net>


I wish I had a printer so that I could see this article on paper and make notes on the side. From glancing over it:

I lean towards natural causes, even if those causes turn out to be very subtle and perhaps very surprising. (when talking about his "exotic" experiences) > eingh, spirituality is as natural as nature itself, not following.

My first problem with the term "spirituality" is semantic. I am interested in developing and promoting terminology that would carry more "invariant meaning across the global communities of interpretation" (a phrase I'm quoting from a FB  post by Jonny Cache).

The usage of the term "spirituality" has a long history. Both its historical and current usage by many implies a connotation of the supernatural or things outside the natural world. That's one problem I have with it, based on my skepticism toward mind-body dualism and natural-supernatural dualism. Amaia's comment above informally addresses this issue. I, like Amaia perhaps, consider many of the things implied by the term "spirit" to be part of nature. But others either imply or may infer a natural-supernatural dichotomy. This makes the term too ambiguous and "loaded" for me.

Some use "spirituality" as a broad basket of ideas such as reverence for all life, the inter-relatedness of all life, altruism, morality,  conscience, love of others, self-love, selflessness, virtue, etc. All these ideas have numerous different forms of expression in a variety of different "communities of interpretation" including current and past religious traditions as well as academic and secular bodies of knowledge.

I think it is fair to say that the terms spirit, spiritual, and spirituality actually mean something different to each person who uses them, and one person often means different things at different times. That is actually much of thier appeal sometimes. Spirituality is a word you can use in mixed communities of interpretation to refer to high, noble, or virtuous aspects of human nature in a very generic, non-sectarian way. I don't object to its deliberately ambiguous use in that way as a "bridge" between diverse communities of interpretation when it is used to open common ground-- if further along in the process we intend to make a transition to less nebulous or ambiguous terms.



Yes, I am very aware the term "supernatural" exists, which if analysed means exactly the opposite of how people use it or the dictionary defines it. Super is a prefix that denotes "a lot of ", according to the same dictionary it means "specially/particularly" so supernatural, if anything, means very natural, a lot of natural, specially/particularly natural. And that is what spirituality is, precisely. Super-mega-natural.

That "rational" humans decided to go against their own logic rules in language in order to make sure they were seen as rejecting stuff they could not begin to comprehend is a complete different story.

su·per·nat·u·ral
adjective
1. of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal.
2. of, pertaining to, characteristic of, or attributed to God or adeity.
3. of a superlative degree; preternatural: a missile ofsupernatural speed.
4. of, pertaining to, or attributed to ghosts, goblins, or otherunearthly beings; eerie; occult.

Language has not been engineered in a lab. It has evolved organically. I agree that "supernatural" could logically be defined or taken to mean the opposite of what it is commonly defined and taken to mean. However, as commonly used, it is far less ambiguous than spiritual.

The words nature and natural are not without problems, too. Some (myself included) often use nature to mean all that exists, while others exclude man, god(s), ideas, man-made products, etc. from the realm of nature. It's hard to avoid using "natural" to distinguish things that are man-made from those that are not, but it has become all but meaningless on food package labeling. I often use the form "naturalistic" instead of natural to reduce some of the ambiguity.

My main point would be that if we are trying to discuss anything in an even modestly formal or precise way, it is probably incumbent on us to give a brief definition of what we mean by the word "spirituality" if we choose to use it. My main objection to the word is that it often obfuscates meanings rather than conveying them. It is my opinion that some people use the word "spiritual" because it obfuscates their own specific beliefs, beliefs that might prove less defensible, even to themselves,  if expressed more precisely.

PR


--
“We would think and live better and be closer to our purpose as humans if we moved continuously on foot across the surface of the earth” Bruce Chatwin



--
P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net  - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net

Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation




--
“We would think and live better and be closer to our purpose as humans if we moved continuously on foot across the surface of the earth” Bruce Chatwin



--
P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net  - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net

Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation

Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens