[P2P-F] the guru question

[Poor Richard]

On 9/12/2011 7:39 AM, Michel Bauwens wrote:
> related to our question/discussion here:
>
> http://noetic.org/noetic/issue-fourteen-september/the-guru-question/
>
> with a comment of mine at the bottom

Michel, I am not fond of the word guru, but I acknowledge the existence
of people who fit many of the commonly attributed criteria to varying
degrees. The thing is, many of the guru critera can be met by many
people who would not be widely acknowledged as gurus. These are simply
highly-developed people in all walks of like. I don't want to imply they
are plentiful, exactly, but they are more plentiful than the classic
gurus. The closest people to being gurus I've known personally were an
elderly 5th grade english & history teacher, two fellow middle school
students, and Dr. John C. Lilly of the Janus Institute. I spent a couple
of weeks with him and was introduced to the sensory deprivation tank.
Though I had already read his work before meeting him, the participatory
interaction was very effective in amplifying and imprinting everything.
Lilly also has a special presence, similar to the Jaque Cousteau I've
met only through the TV set. If that weren't enough, his wife was
totally awesome.

On the other hand, I tend to exclude most of the people who call
themselves "gurus" from serious consideration these days.

I believe J. Krishnamurti and George Gurdjieff among others whose work
and lives I am familiar with, might have deserved the title, but of
contemporary people I might call gurus I can only think of Pemma Chodron
and Thich Nat Hann, but I'm not sure if they really qualify. I am most
confident of Pemma because of listening to many hours of her audio. The
voice conveys a bunch of information.

Rather than guru, I prefer the terms teacher, mentor, or more in the p2p
vein, learning partners.

What all gurus and teachers potentially have in common is just more of
something you want than you already have. Im my case, I would define
such things in terms of bio-cognitive development, skills and abilities,
knowledge, and wisdom rather than in spiritual terms.

Even the so-called direct transmission occurs in some degree between any
two people (or more) who become intimate, in proportion to the degree of
intimacy achieved. Intimacy is not only built through direct
face-to-face and physical contact, but through various kinds of shared
activity as well.

As direct psycho-physical intimacy increases over time, the bandwidth of
the bio-cognitive communication increases. Some of the channels are
language, voice quality, body language, pheromones, and
bio-electromagnetic fields. Voice modulation, body language (including
micro cues), airborne chemicals, and physical contact all stimulate the
release of a wide array of neurotransmitters and other hormones
throughout the body. These change the states of brain networks, nerves,
and tissues throughout the body. That much is established fact.

My additional hypothesis is that all these channels of communication
gradually come into greater synchronization between people. Its similar
to the way higher data throughput is achieved between nodes in a
computer or communication network as they each synchronize to the same
timing, states, and protocols. The rate at which this happens between
people and the degree to which it happens depends on the innate
psycho-physiological characteristics of the participants as well as
their acquired proficiency. It can be trained, although such methods are
not well developed in the secular world. When well-developed,
interpersonal communication bandwidth may change as much as the
difference between using a 300 baud modem and using a 10 gigabit
broadband connection with a computer.

The importance of shared activity to developing bio-cognitive intimacy
and high communication bandwidth can't be over-emphasized. Important
activities are singing and dancing, eating and drinking (especially
alcohol), domestic houskeeping (especially kitchen work), manual labor
(gardening/farm work, carpentry, etc.), professional work, artistic
collaboration, dialog/debate, sports and recreation (camping is great),
travelling, and adventure. Sharing risks and crises is especially
effective. The more time participants spend  together the better.
Sharing living quarters and workplaces is especially effective, within
the limits of intimacy fatigue. And of course if these things are done
mindfully, with the intention of developing high-bandwidth intimacy, and
with appropriate methods and skills, the best results are possible.

Some of this is common sense, but the hypothesis about high-bandwidth
bio-cognitive intimacy is not something I pulled out of my ass. I have
achieved such intimacy with several different individuals and with
several small groups who lived and worked together.

Drugs: under the right circumstances there can be a place for the
controlled, educated use of psychoactive substances in the formation of
high-bandwidth bio-cognitive intimacy.

PR