via the nextnet mailing list, reacting on previous commentary at NextNet: Michel Bauwens <[email protected]> Sep 09 08:38AM +0700 ^<#13250fb0e9a0f971_digest_top> Though I'm quite critique of Ken Wilber (google my name and his for my critiques), I still like the concept of the three eyes ... Paraphrased of what I remember, the eye of matter is how the mind looks at material phenomena, and deals with the area of science; the eye of mind, looks at the human production of minds (and requires the rules of mind, logic, philosophy, novels, theatre), i.e. the humanities and the social sciences, hermeneutics, in short the 'sciences' of meaning. The eye of spirit looks at the production of 'events' when we are in meditation or 'witnessing mode', i.e. when we leave the area of language to directly experience the numimous ... Obviously, the eye of mind is the great mediator, since we always come back to our mind and the medation of language, and equally obviously, mind and spirit can be examined with the eye of matter as well, but just as it is reductionist to explain say human love exclusively through chemistry, it would just be as reductionist to explain away mystical and gnostic numinous experiences through the brain mapping of its chemistries ... The direct experiencing of what is beyond language deserves its own respect. I think that Richard's notion of scientism could easily encompass those two dangers of reductionism. John Heron's spiritual inquiry, or Jorge Ferrer's approach allow for spiritual explorations that are completely compatible with reason and science. Modern human beings need the skills to navigate easily to and from the different realms, respecting the rules of each .. when experiencing the numinous, poetry, mystical language, direct visual expression of what has been seen, is the most appropriate; when discerning it's meaning, we use hermeneutics, when examining its material basis, the sciences of matter (neurobiology etc..) Michel Bauwens <[email protected]> Sep 09 07:26PM +0700 ^<#13250fb0e9a0f971_digest_top> Another thing I would like to see about this, and which is quite different from the approach taken by Richard, especially at the end of the article. There, Richard seems to assume a total opposition between rational and magical thinking, but is that really so? Is there a rational way to produce art and poetry, or isn't art and poetry produced by different epistemological functionings. In other words, reason is just one epistemological mode, not an exclusive one. If we take an integral approach, then it is perfectly possible to explore and use both magical and mythological modes. Sometimes, a-rational modes can produce very useful knowledge. Just to illustrate, two studies I remember, but cannot reference, but I can assure you I did see them. One was a study comparing the medical effectiveness of traditionally trained acupuncturists with western trained acupuruntists, showing the traditional ones to be more effective ... this is so despite acupuncture not really making any scientific sense within the western paradigm the other was a longitudinal study in the netherlands, about the effectiveness of various forms of therapy. TO the great despair of the researchers, reincarnation therapy came out on top ... That doesn't make it true, but makes it worth engaging with it. In general, spiritual techniques such as concentration, meditation, yoga, tantra, orthodox prayer techniques, tibetan visualisation techniques, etc. .. will disclose human potentials that are simply not offered by secular science. And this is just a general argument, it is really useful to engage with other people's perspectives, ontologies and epistemologies, and to understand them from within, without prejudging them. There are thousands of years of intensely engaging with the 'inner world', which leave proven biophysical effects on the bodymind, and it would be really a shame to ignore them. Is it really the animistic/shamanistic tribes that are destroying the biosphere, the scientists, embedded as they are in the capitalist and industrial power system? The answer shows that it would not be wise to reject a 'magical thinking' which sees life and awareness everywhere, and therefore respects it much more deeply than a science which sees only dead objects. An integral, rather than oppositional attitude, would be more productive in allowing us to critically engage with other perspectives, which are also valid ways of being and seeing the world. Especially at the end of the article, where you assume that people that use magical thinking are purposely dishonest, is really in my opinion a travesty of the truth. It is simply their vision and lifeworld. Michel -- 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