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?
The “rational mind” as you call it, doesn’t exist. What we call mind is merely an amalgamation of thoughts and images which have a physical reference point we call “my body”, and a mental reference point we call “me”. That “me” 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 — which are not actually rational at all. If our mind’s 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 there’s nothing rational about the function of the mind. It is always fighting a battle it knows it will eventually lose.
Are you referring to the “irrational premise” 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 — now that’s irrational. A God cannot be both of those things.
A belief is a lens through which we view the “outside” 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, “I believe in unicorns,” “I” is the subject, “believe” is a verb, and “unicorns” is an object. However, when we consider “a belief in unicorns” we are referring to a framework within consciousness — which is an object.
I’m 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. I’m 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 “The Universe” or “Nature” etc.
I’m 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 you’re 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 “what is life” and god from that perspective probably comes down to “what makes us human”
Interesting, yeah I think I get where you’re 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 …
“How do you see God?”
My mentor (without having to think about it) instantly replied …
“The same way God sees me.”
As I consider your original post and following comments, it occurs to me that my mentor’s reply applies to all developmental levels.
What do you think?
Thanks for the reply, Sidra. Well, I’d 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 Jesus’ 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 I’m 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, “well, that’s the terrain,” and rest (with eyes open) in my mentor’s words, “something for everyone.”
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 “coming back to the market with helping hands”, 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 I’m neither a leader nor a follower in this life and don’t 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 I’m looking to sell things.
But that’s not to diminish your interest in those “low cost” tools, i.e., the labeling of God at various developmental levels. I’m 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 Jesus’ Second Commandment, “Love your neighbor as yourself” (Matthew 22:39). …
… 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 “coming back to the market with helping hands” is paraphrased from the 10 Ox Herding Pictures story in the Zen tradition. It’s not really about selling, but offering for free… or at a very low cost ha. By low cost, I mean both the energy required to offer help and the amount “paid” by the receiver. A win-win trade. This “help” 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, “…This “help” is really just as an expression of enlightened living…”
… works for me. Familiar with the marketplace/Ox herding stuff.
Here’s to making it up as we go along (to paraphrase ‘Indiana Jones’ going after the Ark).
I’m 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 we’re 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 “bubbles” 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, I’ll re-post it for context, below … I had deleted it because it felt too cumbersome, “unwieldy” 
).
I don’t think we’re butting heads here. I’m good with your intent, now that I have a sense of the spirit behind it.
Related: The latest episode of Bill Maher’s 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 … and open just a little to the notion of something beyond the intellect, trans-rational realm…).
Here’s to our blind spots,
S.
Mopping up (maybe).
Phil, earlier in this thread, and to your point, you wrote, " … bridging language gaps between levels of development …"
It begins to occur to me that at the point of a “bridging a gap” moment at whatever levels, say, from a “traditional” me to a “rational” you (as catalyst), all three of Wilber’s waking up, growing up, cleaning up factors immediately appear on my table and I’m now poised for satori or psychotic break … 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 you’re calling “developmental gaps,” 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 “Good Guys” win … but it’s a bitch bein’ human … my experience anyway).
Maybe you’re on the cutting edge of crafting a vocabulary of “low-cost tools” for those open to bridging gaps … so, Go Phil!
Now I’m done (maybe) .
Haha, It was a tad “unweildy”, 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. Couldn’t let this cool little convo end like that!
No, I don’t think we’re butting heads at all. I was referring to the culture wars that we’re seeing play out in our news feeds every day.
I wasn’t really familiar with Bill Maher until recently, but he’s 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, here’s to our blind spots! 