When a Rational level mind hears the word, God, there is a recoil.
What do you think the Rational equivalent would be? The Universe?
What about the Pluralistic level? Maybe, Nature?
What about Red? Maybe, Ultimate Power?
1 Like
The ārational mindā as you call it, doesnāt exist. What we call mind is merely an amalgamation of thoughts and images which have a physical reference point we call āmy bodyā, and a mental reference point we call āmeā. That āmeā is the artificial self. Our mind is calibrated for one thing: survival. Awakening to higher levels of consciousness has nothing to do with our survival, and therefore nothing to do with our rational minds ā which are not actually rational at all. If our mindās function is to ensure a status quo (thus providing a sense of security, which is conducive to our survival and mental well-being), but the very nature of the Universe is change and unpredictability, then thereās nothing rational about the function of the mind. It is always fighting a battle it knows it will eventually lose.
1 Like
Are you referring to the āirrational premiseā of a God? To believe in a God is not necessarily irrational. To believe that the God described in Judeo-Christian religions is both the essence of unconditional love, AND an authoritarian who judges ā now thatās irrational. A God cannot be both of those things.
A belief is a lens through which we view the āoutsideā world. Our experience of belief is subjective, however, a particular belief (i.e. conceptual framework) is an objective phenomenon. If we look at the sentence, āI believe in unicorns,ā āIā is the subject, ābelieveā is a verb, and āunicornsā is an object. However, when we consider āa belief in unicornsā we are referring to a framework within consciousness ā which is an object.
Iām just meaning Rational in terms of the standard levels of development generally agreed upon in Integral theory; Traditional, Rational, Pluralistic, Integral etc or Amber, Orange, Green, Teel.
I think for each perspective:
Purple: god is life
Red: god is limits
Blue: god is the path
Orange: god is ultimate
Green: god is embodiment
Yellow: god is the rule
Turquoise: god is the world
Coral: god is the beyond
Thanks for your answer. Interesting. Iām coming at the question, a bit from the perspective of bridging language gaps between levels of development (or culture wars groups - traditional, modern, post-modern). So when a Blue-traditional person says God, perhaps an Orange-Rational person can learn to hear āThe Universeā or āNatureā etc.
Iām particularly interested in what Green-post-modern might think of as their most sacred thing. Embodiment is an interesting idea. Is that just, like, being someone, as youāre thinking of it there?
I have not spent a lot of meaningful time in green, but I think it would god is feelings/interior. Green is the first questioning of āwhat is lifeā and god from that perspective probably comes down to āwhat makes us humanā
Interesting, yeah I think I get where youāre coming from with that idea of Green subjectivity. Thanks 
Greetings Phil.
When my mentor was young, to test his understanding he went to a Zen Master who asked ā¦
āHow do you see God?ā
My mentor (without having to think about it) instantly replied ā¦
āThe same way God sees me.ā
As I consider your original post and following comments, it occurs to me that my mentorās reply applies to all developmental levels.
What do you think?
Thanks for the reply, Sidra. Well, Iād suggest that his mentor might have been recognising that Buddha nature is in all of us, but that this perspective (and concept of God) only comes at higher levels of development. For example, a traditional person, such as Jesusā contemporaries might have stoned Jesus for claiming to be one with God. Here, the term God is reserved strictly for something beyond humans. In my experience Rational level people tend to reject the term God completely. Hopefully that makes a bit of sense in terms of what Iām trying to conceptualise
Hi Phil. I conflated the conceptualizing of God at different developmental levels, with experience.
I think your original post caught my eye as I mildly wondered why it was important to you. I think about the spectrum of friends, from Christian Fundamentalist, to New Age spiritual types, to atheist, etc., and have to say, āwell, thatās the terrain,ā and rest (with eyes open) in my mentorās words, āsomething for everyone.ā
Thanks.
Hi Sidra,
Yes, I hear you about retaining that inner peace in the face of these competing world views. I think the question I had is in the spirit of ācoming back to the market with helping handsā, and based on the idea that vocabulary can be a powerful and low cost tool in helping people appreciate other perspectives. I really appreciate you taking the time to respond to my pondering
Hi Phil,
I find Iām neither a leader nor a follower in this life and donāt feel particularly qualified to know what constitutes helping other people. For me, the human landscape seems more a dynamic terrain to be navigated, case-by-case, than a marketplace where Iām looking to sell things.
But thatās not to diminish your interest in those ālow costā tools, i.e., the labeling of God at various developmental levels. Iām sure I weigh where people seem to be coming from, and then try to gauge my end of exchange accordingly, maybe helping, hopefully gracious enough to receive help, and hopefully, doing no harm.
Nowhere near a Christian, but salient in conversation lately, is Jesusā Second Commandment, āLove your neighbor as yourselfā (Matthew 22:39). ā¦
ā¦ A tall order, tattoo-worthy. Keeps me honest.
Best,
Hi Sidra,
Yes, I agree every moment is unique and the outcomes of our actions are always unknown. However, I think the will to help can always be true without clinging to any other false certainty. The ācoming back to the market with helping handsā is paraphrased from the 10 Ox Herding Pictures story in the Zen tradition. Itās not really about selling, but offering for freeā¦ or at a very low cost ha. By low cost, I mean both the energy required to offer help and the amount āpaidā by the receiver. A win-win trade. This āhelpā is really just as an expression of enlightened living. Fred Kofman talks about these ideas much more coherently than me https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8bk4e69a_k
Best
Greetings Phil,
You wrote, āā¦This āhelpā is really just as an expression of enlightened livingā¦ā
ā¦ works for me. Familiar with the marketplace/Ox herding stuff.
Hereās to making it up as we go along (to paraphrase āIndiana Jonesā going after the Ark).
Iām done. Happy Trails!
P. S. And thanks for the exchange, for putting it out there, in a venue that often proves unwieldy, didactic, vitriolic.
Thanks, Sidra. Good to meet you, and happy trails too 
P.S. I hear that 
Hey Sidra,
Yeah it does seem like the culture wars are getting more pronounced in a way. But at least weāre talking to each other 
(and occasionally butting heads). Maybe my idea of language bridges could be thought of as brief little openings in our cultural bubbles that might let us peek into another world view. Not providing any major shift, but perhaps that glimpse could be enough to plant a seed of curiosity. I think as Integralists, studying the languages of the ābubblesā could help us see the related patterns between them and help us navigate our own implicit drive to help everyone to move towards what they ultimately want themselves. Just a toolset of course.
Phil, (Since you responded to my latest deleted post, Iāll re-post it for context, below ā¦ I had deleted it because it felt too cumbersome, āunwieldyā 
).
I donāt think weāre butting heads here. Iām good with your intent, now that I have a sense of the spirit behind it.
Related: The latest episode of Bill Maherās Real Time, had Bill challenging both the Left and the Right to click onto internet links, to actually examine what the other side was saying with an ear towards understanding. I applauded (Now if only Bill could take a dose of his own medicine, and challenge his own biases around a pre-rational God, which he vehemently rejects ā¦ and open just a little to the notion of something beyond the intellect, trans-rational realmā¦).
Hereās to our blind spots,
S.
Mopping up (maybe).
Phil, earlier in this thread, and to your point, you wrote, " ā¦ bridging language gaps between levels of development ā¦"
It begins to occur to me that at the point of a ābridging a gapā moment at whatever levels, say, from a ātraditionalā me to a ārationalā you (as catalyst), all three of Wilberās waking up, growing up, cleaning up factors immediately appear on my table and Iām now poised for satori or psychotic break ā¦ or both (whatever goes on inside you as catalyst would be your affair).
Maybe I can begin to appreciate your original post. Seems like humanity is in that moment now, collectively, individually, with stakes never higher. What youāre calling ādevelopmental gaps,ā I tend to view as silo walls, self-supporting echo-chambers which are hardening, thickening, in some cases, dissolving in others, yin/yang stuff (Ultimately, I have to think the āGood Guysā win ā¦ but itās a bitch beinā human ā¦ my experience anyway).
Maybe youāre on the cutting edge of crafting a vocabulary of ālow-cost toolsā for those open to bridging gaps ā¦ so, Go Phil!
Now Iām done (maybe) .
Haha, It was a tad āunweildyā, but I pondered it from my email for a while and when I came here and saw you had deleted your post I decided to just reply anyway. Couldnāt let this cool little convo end like that!
No, I donāt think weāre butting heads at all. I was referring to the culture wars that weāre seeing play out in our news feeds every day.
I wasnāt really familiar with Bill Maher until recently, but heās been popping up on YouTube a bit. Fun to watch.
All the best, Sidra. Feel free to get in touch if you feel like it! Thanks for the chat, and indeed, hereās to our blind spots! 