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

Mon Sep 12 11:34:08 CEST 2011

(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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://lists.ourproject.org/pipermail/p2p-foundation/attachments/20110912/f135ed93/attachment.htm 