@FermentedAgave
I actually find I agree with much of your other post above regarding Ukraine / Russia and yes even there not being absolute “Truth” regarding Trump on the issue. There is a lot of chaos there.
Qanoner tend to be across the political spectrum. I believe there are just as many facebook scientists on the left as on the right.
fault rarely has any bearing on my point of view. Fault is about the past. My emphasis is the future. It’s just the writing on the wall for the future that if people do not stand behind their morals, a group will come along and attempt to use violence to force the immoral position.
If trump was assassinated today, it would give the United States a reprieve of perhaps 4 years. He is AT FAULT, but he is not the root cause exactly. Another Trump will come along if Americans are unwilling to figure out what their morality is and stand behind it.
Back to Ukraine - it is easy to see in hindsight that Ukranians of course had to stand against Russia. But in 2014 it wasn’t so certain. They were fighting the Russian controlled Regime in the streets of Kyiv with sticks, plywood shields and hockey equipment. It was prior to that in 2013 when Ukranians found their morality and made a descision to stand behind it, and the current war not being a complete rout is the result of those descisions.
What ratio L vs R would you think at FB?
Are there Left Wing Qanoners?
They could always accept Moscows Rule without blood shed. Killing and Dying for a patch of dirt, a figmentary notion state, a line on the map could be seen as absurd really.
Why would anyone be willing to die for something such as self determination?
What integral altitude would the concept of self determination have been developed in. At what Integral altitude would self determination be considered regressive, outdated.
Just to be clear, Qanon is an explicitly pro-Trump conspiracy culture, so there aren’t many leftists among them. There are other sorts of conspiracy theorists on the left, of course.
What integral altitude would the concept of self determination have been developed in. At what Integral altitude would self determination be considered regressive, outdated.
It depends on how you define it, one could argue that “self-determination” comes online for the first time at red, and then remains a deep structure throughout the rest of our development, while continuing to evolve a great deal from stage to stage. Another argument is that agency and autonomy — and therefore some sliver of “self-determination” — are present in every individual holon in existence, and has been since the Big Bang.
At what Integral altitude would self determination be considered regressive, outdated.
Again, depends on how you define it. The current stage will always see the previous stage’s version of “self-determination” as outdated and/or regressive. I’m not sure we ever “grow out of” self-determination altogether, it simply becomes increasingly integrated with our communal/cooperative drives as we grow through the stages, and as we begin to recognize and accept those aspects of “self” that were never actually determined by us in the first place. I also think our sense of “self-determination” becomes increasingly transparent during the awakening process, as our perception of separateness begin to fade and our identity slowly shifts from the separate self to the Ground of Being itself.
Lots to look at here.
As we slide into a relativistic assessment of self determination, are we working towards a goal? Perhaps the goal is to show self determination is an illusion, so does it really matter if our governance is determined by people we have some influence over (Kyiv) or governance by those we have almost no influence with (Moscow)?
Looking up Ground of Being I’m finding religious definitions. Is this how you are using the term or is there a Neo definition? God as Ground of Being?
As we slide into a relativistic assessment of self determination
It’s not a relativistic assessment, it’s a developmental assessment
Looking up Ground of Being I’m finding religious definitions.
Yes, I was talking about the “waking up” process, one of the fundamental paths of integral living, along with growing up (developing through the stages of consciousness), cleaning up (shadow work), and showing up (flourishing in your behaviors, relationships, career, etc.)
“Waking up” is the spiritual piece, and describes states of consciousness that in many ways sit at the very core of Ken’s work. The “Ground of Being” is one popular expression for “ultimate reality” — the seamless, nondual integration of self and not-self, subject and object, inside and outside, emptiness and form, etc.
One metaphor that Ken likes to use is “the Ground of Being is the paper upon which the quadrants are drawn”, which I always liked.
It doesn’t appear that you are actually a supporting member of Integral Life, but in case you sign up one day, here are a few pieces you might enjoy. Some are available for free.
Thanks Corey. Interestingly this “ultimate” state is seemingly commandeered directly from Christian and/or Buddhist religious theology, but schwizzelled into a spiritual but not religious “ultimate state”.
God as Ground of Being becomes seamless, nondual integration of self and not self, subject and object, emptiness and form, etc. Hmmmm?
Are you familiar at all with Ken’s Integral Spirituality model, which identifies the common states of consciousness that are present in all the world’s spiritual traditions?
Seems like classic rational deconstruction then reconstruction resulting in an extremely similar result as to what was deconstructed in the first place. Is it simply “you’re missing the point” with the Pre/Trans Fallacy?
What’s profoundly “higher level” by using “Ground of Being” to describe that line/zone/area where our descriptive capabilities get fuzzy yet we know there is more, as opposed to calling it “God as Ground of Being” from which it was derived.
Hinduism is quite old so what’s really new here? The language or graphics? How would the other religions state extremely similar “God as Ground of Being” concepts? Are their practices to enfold the non-duality effective or ineffective? Are they as effective as Integralism?
You’d have to take that up with Ken, I am simply trying to summarize his work for you. But I would say it’s not a “deconstruction”, rather it is an observation that our religious/spiritual institutions tend to have both “esoteric” and “exoteric” dimensions to them — and while the exoteric forms vary greatly from one lineage to the next, the esoteric forms appear to be more or less universal.
Ken’s claim is essentially that all spiritual lineages go back to an individual who had a particular experience — a direct state of consciousness — and that these states/experiences are available to all of us, almost like a natural part of the human anatomy.
So Ken’s mission was to identify exactly what these states were, how they were described from tradition to tradition, and how every culture and every lineage describes these states in different ways. Identifying the deep features (the common esoteric core shared by all spiritual traditions) and separating those from the surface features (the culturally-selected exoteric beliefs, most of which correspond to particular stages of vertical development within a particular set of cultural pressures, conditions, etc.)
Which is why Ken chose somewhat neutral terminology in order to describe these states — gross, subtle, causal, witness, nondual. And then he goes on to mention the many different terms that have been used to describe these states within particular traditions, whether that’s “God” or “Ground of Being” or “Ultimate Suchness” or “Christ Consciousness”, etc.
So why does Ken separate these spiritual states of awareness from the religious traditions they emerged within? Because he sees them as truly universal, and not limited to a religious world that is primarily dominated by amber interpretations. In other words, these states of consciousness are truly available to everyone, regardless of your stage of development, or the extent of your religiosity. And because he sees these states of consciousness as the ultimate point of religion, beyond the various historical/sociological factors we so often discuss in this space. He sees that many/most of these states were rejected as the world moved into modernity, as alchemy became chemistry, as astrology became astronomy, as phrenology became psychology and then neurology. He sees this as a broken link in the conveyor belt, and his response is to liberate the esoteric from the exoteric — to liberate the raw spiritual experience from the various calcified beliefs and dogmas that have been wrapped around those experiences — so that we can recover this timeless wisdom and reinterpret/re-enact it in the modern, postmodern, and integral worlds. And perhaps most importantly, to present spiritual awakening in as empirical a way as possible — identifying the actual practices/methods/injunctions that produce these experiences. Ken often talks about how this follows the three basic strands of knowledge:
Perform an injunction. If you want to know if the moons of Jupiter are real, you have to look through the telescope. Looking through the telescope is the “practice”, it is the injunction, Similarly, if you want to know if these spiritual states are real, you have to be willing to do the practice.
Observe the data. Once you do the experiment, you have an experience. You see the moons of Jupiter with your own eyes. You witness spiritual realities within your own inner awareness.
Confirmation. Check your data with a community of the adequate who has performed the exact same injunctions as you. In some lineages there is even a sort of “test” to see how deep the newly gained spiritual insight runs, such as koans in Zen, for example.
Now, this is obviously a bit different than, say, measuring the spin of an electron. These spiritual realities present themselves within our own interior UL quadrant, not within the exterior UR quadrant. But Ken maintains that we can use these very same scientific standards to examine our interior phenomenology, as much as our exterior realities.
And this is all important, because it allows for a much more robust trans-lineage exploration of spirituality, where concepts can be leveraged from particular traditions, without being limited by the belief system of a particular tradition (which, yes, are often “pre-rational” because they emerged and were institutionalized before the rational stage had a chance to emerge en masse). Which is why so many people are profoundly surprised — and profoundly turned on — once they learn that terms like “Buddha nature” and “Christ consciousness” are actually both describing the exact same territories.
My suggestion? Read some Ken. Or become a member of Integral Life to see the vast wealth of discussions we have exploring all of this on our website.
Here are two Ken books I highly recommend to begin and/or deepen your exploration:
Decomposition might be a little better wording that deconstruction. Agree completely that there is much in common between most religions (all?), their spiritual practices, and the states/experiences enabled. Any study of religious history sees adaptations, cross pollination, parallel developments, and outright plagiarism between the various lineages. Seems Ken has the very same goal with Integralism as Hinduism, Jainism, Sikhism, Judaism, Shamanism, et al and is looking to take it to another level. Perhaps another level without the cultural and societal baggage that religions also carry.
Your description of religions have both esoteric and exoteric domains seem not inconsistent with what I would characterize as every major religion. I think there is some attempt by Integralists to try and duplicate the AQAL opportunity pallettes that religions already offer across the spectrum of humanity. Most religions already actively look to provide the hungry with food and shelter, social gathering, shared community, inner peace, mental well being. Then they also offer the deeper practices of say monastic or contemplative lives, all consuming if you will commitments and practices.
It does seem that in the compare/contrast what many fall trap devising comparisons that coincidentally forward their agendas is to compare say their holy man/woman practicing a monastic life to another religion’s adherent that shows up on Saturday’s for the good food, possibly find a mate and a perhaps a job, yet rarely if ever practices the religion’s pathway to higher states/experiences.
I haven’t listened to the podcasts yet, but any such conversation will be haunted by the spectre of racist bias. The Ukraine crisis is a humanitarian disaster for sure, but it is not the worst in the world. That ranking belongs to Afghanistan followed by Ethiopia and Yemen, all non-Caucasian populations. I am not aware of any discussion of a “moral imperative” to assist those people. If anybody knows of one, please let me know.
Afghanistan, Myanmar, Indonesia, and literally the entirety of the African contienent simply does not have the sexy juices. DNC, Clinton, Russian Collusion, Trump, Hunter, Burisma, Putin and an actor turned politician.
It simply looks like Ukraine bubbles up as juicy PR opportunity.
Meanwhile back in Afghanistan which was no “moral imperative” but a meta approach of “who are we to say it’s bad for Red to abuse 40M people trying to develop”.
