[P2P-F] Fwd: is there no p2p spirituality because there is no spirituality

Mon Sep 12 06:13:07 CEST 2011

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<http://p2pfoundation.net/Participatory_Spirituality?title=Participatory_Spirituality&action=edit&section=4>
] 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] <http://www.human-inquiry.com/igroup0.htm>

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<http://p2pfoundation.net/Participatory_Spirituality?title=Participatory_Spirituality&action=edit&section=4>
] 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] <http://www.human-inquiry.com/igroup0.htm>

On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 10:10 AM, Amaia Arcos <amaia.arcos at 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 at 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 at 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 at 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
>>
>>
>>
>> On 9 September 2011 04:06, Michel Bauwens <michel at p2pfoundation.net>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > http://almanac2010.wordpress.com/spiritual-new-supernatural/
>> >
>> > article via Poor Richard ...
>> >
>> > 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
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>  --
>> “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
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> “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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://lists.ourproject.org/pipermail/p2p-foundation/attachments/20110912/fbee768b/attachment.htm 