[P2P-F] two comments on internet and spirituality

Sat Sep 10 04:40:22 CEST 2011

via the nextnet mailing list, reacting on previous commentary at NextNet:

Michel Bauwens <michel at p2pfoundation.net> 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 <michel at p2pfoundation.net> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://lists.ourproject.org/pipermail/p2p-foundation/attachments/20110910/ec224974/attachment.htm 