<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
(My comments are interlinear)<br>
On 9/11/2011 11:13 PM, Michel Bauwens wrote:<br>
<skip><br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAK_2xiJ6-LfALbxO-SZucnauRkdGGHvDiUhEXvSr9C_jfHZiPg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite"><span class="mw-headline" id="Definition_by_Jorge_Ferrer"></span><b>As
defined by Jorge Ferrer</b>: <b><i>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</i>.</b> 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.</blockquote>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAK_2xiJ6-LfALbxO-SZucnauRkdGGHvDiUhEXvSr9C_jfHZiPg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite"> 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).
</blockquote>
<br>
"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. <br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAK_2xiJ6-LfALbxO-SZucnauRkdGGHvDiUhEXvSr9C_jfHZiPg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<p><b>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.</b></p>
</blockquote>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAK_2xiJ6-LfALbxO-SZucnauRkdGGHvDiUhEXvSr9C_jfHZiPg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<p></p>
<p><b>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.</b> 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.
</p>
</blockquote>
<br>
I cannot interpret or parse that stuff at all.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAK_2xiJ6-LfALbxO-SZucnauRkdGGHvDiUhEXvSr9C_jfHZiPg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<p>Spiritual phenomena involve participatory ways of knowing that are
presential, enactive, and transformative:
</p>
<p><br>
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.</p>
</blockquote>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAK_2xiJ6-LfALbxO-SZucnauRkdGGHvDiUhEXvSr9C_jfHZiPg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<p>Spiritual knowing can be lived as the emergence of an embodied
presence</p>
</blockquote>
<br>
Typically this is primarily emotion and <a
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proprioception">proprioceptive</a>
sensation mashed up with associative memory samplings.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAK_2xiJ6-LfALbxO-SZucnauRkdGGHvDiUhEXvSr9C_jfHZiPg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<p> pregnant with meaning</p>
</blockquote>
<br>
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%.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAK_2xiJ6-LfALbxO-SZucnauRkdGGHvDiUhEXvSr9C_jfHZiPg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<p> 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.
</p>
</blockquote>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAK_2xiJ6-LfALbxO-SZucnauRkdGGHvDiUhEXvSr9C_jfHZiPg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<p>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.
</p>
</blockquote>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAK_2xiJ6-LfALbxO-SZucnauRkdGGHvDiUhEXvSr9C_jfHZiPg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<p>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. (<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.datadiwan.de/SciMedNet/library/articlesN81+/N83Ferrer_part.htm"
class="external free">http://www.datadiwan.de/SciMedNet/library/articlesN81+/N83Ferrer_part.htm</a>)
</p>
</blockquote>
<br>
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.<br>
�
<span class="editsection"><br>
</span><span class="mw-headline" id="Definition_by_John_Heron">����
Definition by John Heron</span>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAK_2xiJ6-LfALbxO-SZucnauRkdGGHvDiUhEXvSr9C_jfHZiPg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<p>"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. </p>
<p><br>
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. </p>
</blockquote>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAK_2xiJ6-LfALbxO-SZucnauRkdGGHvDiUhEXvSr9C_jfHZiPg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<p> 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. </p>
</blockquote>
<br>
The priestly class is diluted but still essential?<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAK_2xiJ6-LfALbxO-SZucnauRkdGGHvDiUhEXvSr9C_jfHZiPg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<p>Person-to-person <i>peer</i> 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 <i>between</i>
where divine self-disclosure can manifest."
</p>
</blockquote>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAK_2xiJ6-LfALbxO-SZucnauRkdGGHvDiUhEXvSr9C_jfHZiPg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<p><b>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.</b> See <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.human-inquiry.com/igroup0.htm"
class="external
autonumber">[1]</a></p>
</blockquote>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
QED<br>
<br>
PR<br>
</body>
</html>