Wow, Frank, I am both honored and intimidated that you have posed these questions to me, and truly I mean that. I am only vaguely, vaguely, vaguely familiar with your work, but I do sense from your first post in this topic that you have some blazing fire in the head and some blazing fire in the belly, and me, Iâve only got this tiny, thumb-sized flame in the heart, and some empty space elsewhere (and I donât mean Iâm an airhead, thank you.).
By the way, are you familiar with Ian Barbour and his work? I think he framed it under the caption âReligious Naturalism.â He had a degree in Divinity and a Ph.D. in physics, I remember his winning the 1999 Templeton Prize for his work in helping religion and science connect, dialogue. Perhaps one of his most notable phrases was something to the effect of âscience may tell us what is possible, but religion can tell us what is desirable.â I donât have an in-depth knowledge of his work, but that phrase has always been meaningful to me, and maybe weâll come back to that.
I am certain I am no intellectual match for you, particularly when it comes to science subjects like Thermodynamics. (Letâs see, thatâs the physics that deals with heat and temperature and their relation to energy and work; with four laws describing how these quantities behave under various circumstances and forbid certain phenomena, such as perpetual motionâright? Full disclosure: while I did know a tiny little something about thermodynamics, having tried, unsuccessfully of course, silly me, to apply the laws a couple of decades ago to experiences with subtle body kundalini shaktiâso much heat! so much energy!âI did look it up before responding to this post.)
Do you have a sense of play? Because I canât see myself getting through all these responses without a bit of it. To hold these subjects with a little bit of non-seriousness reminds me, at least, that both science and spirituality are interpretations of reality; they are not reality itself. Same goes for the Integral framework. This is where epistemic humility comes inâknowing that we donât know. And when we know that we donât know, might as well grin and bear itâŚ
You say that Spirit-in-action makes IT theological. I tend to go to the source of words, and theology, deriving from the Greek âtheosâ meaning God, and âlogosâ meaning words, essentially means âgod wordsâ or more relevant, I think, âwords about God.â So while Wilber et. al. who speak of Spirit-in-action are in a general sense speaking theologically, so is anyone who speaks of not-Spirit-in-action. In the most general sense, anytime we speak about Spirit, even to negate Spirit, we are being theological.
Which reminds me of a quote by one of the evolutionaries antecedent to Integral evolutionaries, Sri Aurobindo. âFaith is what we live on until thereâs knowledge.â (In The Life Divine, I believe.) Everyone lives on some degree of faith, faith that the sun will rise in the morning, set in the evening, etc. and even atheists, who I believe have a place in the Integral conversation, have a faith in the absence of Spirit.
But Spirit-in-action applied to IT does make IT comprehensive/whole for me. Iâve always felt the AQAL model is both substantive and roomy enough for anyone to maneuver in; if one doesnât relate to or like the spiritual components and references, one can leave them alone, extract them, and still have a functional, useful reality framework.
But without the spiritual components of Wilberâs theory/model, it simply would not be complete enough for many of us. If I canât locate my direct experiential knowledge (knowledge, not faith) within a reality framework, then itâs simply not comprehensive or whole enough or large enough for me. And yes, those colorsâŚperspectives: they speak to real things for many of us. And the âseer-ism,â that you say is the opposite of scientism; Iâm not sure I totally agree with that, given that there are studies relating meditative states to physiological changes in the body, and studies showing how shamanic states of consciousness affect brain waves, for instance. So there is a little objective âscienceâ documenting at least the effects of certain subjective, interior spiritual states, experiences.
As to âSpirit focuses on our EarthâŚwhy Earth in this vast universeâŚa special creation after all?â No, not a special creation; that honor, I think, would have to go to the first rock out, the speed-demon Mercury who every time it appears to go retrograde, four times each year my astrologer friend tells me, messes up communications and electronics, and we all know how important communication and electronics are to evolutionâŚ(a little woo-woo, a little play; couldnât resist).
One of the stripped-down words Iâve used in the past for Spirit (and Iâve used and still use a lot of different words, depending on the stage perspective Iâm taking), is Intent. Try that on for size: Intent-in-Action. Because it does seem that there is intentionality behind evolution, behind manifest creation. And indeed, itâs mysterious; canât get around that, and who would want to?
So perhaps the moon is as it is due to Intent; perhaps the moon is intended as nothing more than a little light in the night here on the earth, or as a facilitator of romance on earth, or to help the oceans do their tide-thing, or farmers time the planting of seeds, or give astronauts something to do with their timeâŚI donât know. But why would you say Eros is ineffective on the moon? Because there arenât complex, conscious life forms there? Thatâs kind of like asking why donât rocks speak English?
Back to Intent, we know that with humans intent can shape perception, can shape both what one perceives and how that is interpreted. So I donât think itâs that Eros has preferences, rather, humans have preferences tucked within their intent. Some people have an intent, consciously or unconsciously held, to âsee,â to experience directly âwho am Iâ and others donât. Or, arenât willing to use the methods in a disciplined and long-enough fashion that would reveal more of âwho am Iâ and this thing called Spirit.
Iâm pretty sure my responses here are not going to satisfy; maybe someone else can pick it up. But as Annie Lennox would sing âthese are the contents of my head.â And why donât you come over to the S-I-A team? you know, give peace a chance because all we need is love and we canât live with or without you.
I need to hear some music!
Thanks for the challenge and the fun.