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.<br>
<br>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.<br>
<br>Two definitions below,<br><h2><span class="mw-headline" id="Definition_by_Jorge_Ferrer">Definition
by Jorge Ferrer</span></h2>
<p><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. 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).
</p><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><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><p><br>
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. 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.
</p><p><br>
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><p><br>
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 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><p><br>
</p>
<h2><span class="editsection">[<a href="http://p2pfoundation.net/Participatory_Spirituality?title=Participatory_Spirituality&action=edit&section=4" title="Edit section: Definition by John Heron">edit</a>]</span> <span class="mw-headline" id="Definition_by_John_Heron">Definition by John
Heron</span></h2>
<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><p><br>
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><p><br>
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><p><br>
<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 href="http://www.human-inquiry.com/igroup0.htm" class="external
autonumber">[1]</a>
</p><br><h2><span class="mw-headline" id="Definition_by_Jorge_Ferrer">Definition
by Jorge Ferrer</span></h2>
<p><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. 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).
</p><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><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><p><br>
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. 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.
</p><p><br>
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><p><br>
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 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><p><br>
</p>
<h2><span class="editsection">[<a href="http://p2pfoundation.net/Participatory_Spirituality?title=Participatory_Spirituality&action=edit&section=4" title="Edit section: Definition by John Heron">edit</a>]</span> <span class="mw-headline" id="Definition_by_John_Heron">Definition by John
Heron</span></h2>
<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><p><br>
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><p><br>
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><p><br>
<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 href="http://www.human-inquiry.com/igroup0.htm" class="external
autonumber">[1]</a>
</p><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 10:10 AM, Amaia Arcos <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:amaia.arcos@googlemail.com">amaia.arcos@googlemail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
Dear PR,<div><br></div><div>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.</div>
<div><br></div><div>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.</div>
<div><br></div><div>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 :)</div>
<div><br></div><div>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.</div>
<div><div></div><div class="h5">
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On 12 September 2011 01:34, Poor Richard <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:poor_richard@att.net" target="_blank">poor_richard@att.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<u></u>
<div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
My responses are interlinear...<div><br>
<br>
On 9/11/2011 2:41 AM, Michel Bauwens wrote:
<blockquote type="cite"><br>
discussion Poor Richard's blogpost:<br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">---------- Forwarded message ----------<br>
From: <b class="gmail_sendername">Amaia Arcos</b> <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:amaia.arcos@googlemail.com" target="_blank">amaia.arcos@googlemail.com</a>></span><br>
Date: Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 9:00 AM<br>
Subject: Re: is there no p2p spirituality because there is no
spirituality<br>
To: Michel Bauwens <<a href="mailto:michel@p2pfoundation.net" target="_blank">michel@p2pfoundation.net</a>><br>
<br>
<br>
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:<br>
<br>
<i>I lean towards natural causes, even if those causes turn out to be
very subtle and perhaps very surprising. </i>(when talking about his
"exotic" experiences) > eingh, spirituality is as natural as nature
itself, not following.</div>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
My first problem with the term "spirituality" is semantic. I am
interested in <span><span>developing and promoting terminology that
would carry more "invariant meaning across the global communities of
interpretation"</span></span> (a phrase I'm quoting from a FB post by
Jonny Cache).<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<div><br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div><br>
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.</div>
<div><br>
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.<br>
<br>
su·per·nat·u·ral<br>
adjective<br>
1. of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural;
unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal.<br>
2. of, pertaining to, characteristic of, or attributed to God or adeity.<br>
3. of a superlative degree; preternatural: a missile ofsupernatural speed.<br>
4. of, pertaining to, or attributed to ghosts, goblins, or otherunearthly beings; eerie; occult.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br><font color="#888888">
<br>
PR</font><div><br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>
<div>
<div><br>
On 9 September 2011 04:06, Michel Bauwens <<a href="mailto:michel@p2pfoundation.net" target="_blank">michel@p2pfoundation.net</a>>
wrote:<br>
><br>
> <a href="http://almanac2010.wordpress.com/spiritual-new-supernatural/" target="_blank">http://almanac2010.wordpress.com/spiritual-new-supernatural/</a><br>
><br>
> article via Poor Richard ...<br>
><br>
> Michel<br>
><br>
> --<br>
> P2P Foundation: <a href="http://p2pfoundation.net" target="_blank">http://p2pfoundation.net</a>
- <a href="http://blog.p2pfoundation.net" target="_blank">http://blog.p2pfoundation.net</a><br>
><br>
> Connect: <a href="http://p2pfoundation.ning.com" target="_blank">http://p2pfoundation.ning.com</a>;
Discuss: <a href="http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation" target="_blank">http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation</a><br>
> Updates: <a href="http://del.icio.us/mbauwens" target="_blank">http://del.icio.us/mbauwens</a>;
<a href="http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens" target="_blank">http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens</a>; <a href="http://twitter.com/mbauwens" target="_blank">http://twitter.com/mbauwens</a>; <a href="http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens" target="_blank">http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens</a><br>
><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</div>
</div>
<font color="#888888">--<br>
“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<br>
</font></div>
</div>
<br>
<br clear="all">
<br>
-- <br>
P2P Foundation: <a href="http://p2pfoundation.net" target="_blank">http://p2pfoundation.net</a>
- <a href="http://blog.p2pfoundation.net" target="_blank">http://blog.p2pfoundation.net</a> <br>
<br>
Connect: <a href="http://p2pfoundation.ning.com" target="_blank">http://p2pfoundation.ning.com</a>; Discuss: <a href="http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation" target="_blank">http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation</a>
<div><br>
Updates: <a href="http://del.icio.us/mbauwens" target="_blank">http://del.icio.us/mbauwens</a>; <a href="http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens" target="_blank">http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens</a>; <a href="http://twitter.com/mbauwens" target="_blank">http://twitter.com/mbauwens</a>; <a href="http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens" target="_blank">http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens</a><br>
</div>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div></div>
</blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div></div></div>-- <br><div><div></div><div class="h5">“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<br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>P2P Foundation: <a href="http://p2pfoundation.net" target="_blank">http://p2pfoundation.net</a> - <a href="http://blog.p2pfoundation.net" target="_blank">http://blog.p2pfoundation.net</a> <br>
<br>Connect: <a href="http://p2pfoundation.ning.com" target="_blank">http://p2pfoundation.ning.com</a>; Discuss: <a href="http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation" target="_blank">http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation</a><div>
<br>Updates: <a href="http://del.icio.us/mbauwens" target="_blank">http://del.icio.us/mbauwens</a>; <a href="http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens" target="_blank">http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens</a>; <a href="http://twitter.com/mbauwens" target="_blank">http://twitter.com/mbauwens</a>; <a href="http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens" target="_blank">http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens</a><br>
</div><br>