Can we spell G-o-d?
Julian Walker questions "God" in a new post:
And then Julian goes through the "3 faces of God" - or Godhead - namely the 1st, 2nd and 3rd person sketches of ultimate reality. The post makes good reading, though I don't find much of substance in it, and basically for one main reason: if we wish to liberate the very notion of ultimate reality as "God" from traditionalist and conventional limitations and imbue it, that is, revitalize it with more mystical and contemplative and - why not - evolutionary denotations, we certainly need to use a language that acknowledges and includes "God", at least as an enriching option for the "Ultimate", instead of renouncing it to the fundamentalist reduction, right? Well, not everyone will agree (see the discussion on Julian's blog).
Now, I'm an esoteric Buddhist by method and view, therefore neither theist nor atheist in preference. The Ultimate to me is both beyond conceptualization and is the very nature of every occasion, so it must have a personal as well as an impersonal dimension, also a subjective as well as an objective one, and also an inter- and an intra- modality - that is, being simultaneously within and between everything - and yet is never exhausted by or limited to any of these. Plus, it's rather plain and evident, thanks to advances in developmental studies, that individuals and cultures tend to contextualize the Ultimate in accordance with their meaning-making protocols, either in elite mystical mini-cultures or in mainstream discourse.
Most of conclusions Julian makes are patently rationalistic - somewhat surprising - along with strengths and limitations implied. In contrast to his analysis, "God" was and is and will always be a non-ordinary trope, not a regular topos, irreducible to analysis by definition, being a name for the unnamable, an expression of ineffable, a polysemic antanaclasis of sorts for those that would regard it as a common concept or a name for something outside or even within themselves. Yet, this evading untraceable "God" is somehow perfectly obvious.
It seems a developmental necessity that each of us - and we together - move through a negation of this omnipotent semiotic device when we find it limiting - and practically impotent - in order to rediscover and ressurect its vitality at a new level - not just through meditation, contemplation, and mystical awakening - but also by creating a new public language, wherein "God" will again be a light unto ourselves and the world we live in, instead of a defense against death and reason, as it most undoubtedly is for far too many educated people today. Anyway, not to worry, God surely has a future.
Perhaps someone who knows God on a first-name basis is to be consulted in this regard.:-)
While I admire and agree with the observation that "god" has been conceived of in all three of these ways though time and across cultures - i find myself asking if it makes sense to use a word so laden, as Wilber acknowledges in no uncertain terms, with it's dominant religious connotation and bloody history, in the creation of a contemporary, integral spirituality.
I am quite familiar with the argument for the inclusivity of using the word - and think they have merit, however this article focuses more on why I, personally think we do better to find more evocative, accurate and less supernaturally/metaphysically loaded language in the description of a contemporary spirituality.
And then Julian goes through the "3 faces of God" - or Godhead - namely the 1st, 2nd and 3rd person sketches of ultimate reality. The post makes good reading, though I don't find much of substance in it, and basically for one main reason: if we wish to liberate the very notion of ultimate reality as "God" from traditionalist and conventional limitations and imbue it, that is, revitalize it with more mystical and contemplative and - why not - evolutionary denotations, we certainly need to use a language that acknowledges and includes "God", at least as an enriching option for the "Ultimate", instead of renouncing it to the fundamentalist reduction, right? Well, not everyone will agree (see the discussion on Julian's blog).
Now, I'm an esoteric Buddhist by method and view, therefore neither theist nor atheist in preference. The Ultimate to me is both beyond conceptualization and is the very nature of every occasion, so it must have a personal as well as an impersonal dimension, also a subjective as well as an objective one, and also an inter- and an intra- modality - that is, being simultaneously within and between everything - and yet is never exhausted by or limited to any of these. Plus, it's rather plain and evident, thanks to advances in developmental studies, that individuals and cultures tend to contextualize the Ultimate in accordance with their meaning-making protocols, either in elite mystical mini-cultures or in mainstream discourse.
Most of conclusions Julian makes are patently rationalistic - somewhat surprising - along with strengths and limitations implied. In contrast to his analysis, "God" was and is and will always be a non-ordinary trope, not a regular topos, irreducible to analysis by definition, being a name for the unnamable, an expression of ineffable, a polysemic antanaclasis of sorts for those that would regard it as a common concept or a name for something outside or even within themselves. Yet, this evading untraceable "God" is somehow perfectly obvious.
It seems a developmental necessity that each of us - and we together - move through a negation of this omnipotent semiotic device when we find it limiting - and practically impotent - in order to rediscover and ressurect its vitality at a new level - not just through meditation, contemplation, and mystical awakening - but also by creating a new public language, wherein "God" will again be a light unto ourselves and the world we live in, instead of a defense against death and reason, as it most undoubtedly is for far too many educated people today. Anyway, not to worry, God surely has a future.
Perhaps someone who knows God on a first-name basis is to be consulted in this regard.:-)
8 Comments:
as always a very nuanced commentary, my friend.
perhaps you are right that my points are mostly of the rational variety.
your final paragraph expressed i thought some sympathy for my concern viz the existential security blanket.
i don't know, man - i think i am maybe more focused than most of us on what it means to *differentiate* an integral spirituality from old world religion and new age silliness...this may be a quixotic task?
i guess i fear that integral's perhaps over-valued principle of inclusivity (and perhaps under-valued principle of transcendence/healing/reforming of pathology)plays out a little as having an unrealistic big tent mentality in which everything from jesus to 911 conspiracy theories to claims of "enlightenment" and pseudoscience quackery are given the label of "integral".... i see this in the wilberian community in this part of the world and its very strange! but i end up sounding the integral/rational police and that ain't good...but boy do we need a lot of critical thinking.
i didn't go into a mystic argument a la not effing the ineffable - and i think that may be an interesting point too in terms of the problem of using a proper noun to denote something beyond name and form.... its just really tricky - go on admit it!
hi, julian, and thanks for this feedback. i'm with you all the way on the need to differentiate and negate the nonsense that keeps escaping the pre/trans standard, especially amongst fans of integral. yes you're also right when it comes to being extremely cautious with all sorts of quackery and distancing our discourse from their preposterous conceptual mush, parading as post-rational, and can indeed be achieved by insistence on, but not stopping at, rigorous intellectual inquiry and sober investigation.
finally, i do admit that a proper noun - and any variation thereof - should be deemed tricky when used outside authentic contemplative confrontations with divinity and/or deity, which remains a very restricted domain.
since the process of differentiation will have to be pushed on many fronts, one strategy is definitely to use a non-theistic language as lingua franca for at least the post-denominational crowd. the precision of such language, and its evocative power will have to be ascertained. there are fortunately authors who have done that already, and i'm not entirely sure kw's choice to champion explicit "god-language" in so many occasions was always the most fortunate. however, we do live in cultures and times where the monotheistic component is extremely significant and remains to be influential, and therefore crucial to be influenced.
keep it going, hokai
well, i guess that is my question - and perhaps as someone outside of america you are a good person to ask..
i sometimes feel like integral theory is being now overly influenced by (amongst other cultural quirks) the very widely held american belief in the god of monotheism.
is couching integral theory in judaeo-christian language a useful strategy in europe, scandanavia, and asia?
what will intellectuals in less monotheism-influenced parts of the world make of the christian tone of the more recent integral material?
does integral buddhism have to praise jesus and integral christianity have to embrace shiva?
if so wouldnt this then just be contemporary post-conventional spirituality - that resembles what has conventionally been called buddhism, christianity and hinduism in essence not at all?
and then of course there is the little problem of whether it is possible to have post-amber religion with god and jesus intact - or conversely whether it is possible to have god and jesus as intact articles of faith and claim post-amber status.
i think philosophically this is a bit of a mess...
AND i hear where you are coming from given your nuanced, limpid, luminous vision of reality.
anyway - just some late night reflections. for me this stuff is quite niggly.
is couching integral theory in judaeo-christian language a useful strategy in europe, scandanavia, and asia?
to be honest, one of previous critiques directed at wilber concerned the use of buddhist and vedanta terminology. i didn't mind that, but i'm sure many people outside both the general eastern religion and the newage eclectic sphere found it a problem. i guess we'll just have to bear with that and use ourselves the language we resonate with.
what will intellectuals in less monotheism-influenced parts of the world make of the christian tone of the more recent integral material?
yes. i can only imagine. but then real intellectuals have a respect for these things. on the other hand, kw and i-i are perhaps trying too much to be everything to everyone. and this may result in not being seen as convincing.
does integral buddhism have to praise jesus and integral christianity have to embrace shiva?
not overtly. but there must be a recognition at a higher level that these deities, these collective experiences, have surface features that differ, and deep features that are basically the same. this shouldn't be a problem.
if so wouldnt this then just be contemporary post-conventional spirituality - that resembles what has conventionally been called buddhism, christianity and hinduism in essence not at all?
"conveyor belt" would require each of the great traditions to develop an integral emergent in time. and quite on the contrary, from an integral vantage point one can really save the essence of each of these traditions. otherwise we have either dying out essenceless, or else pulling whole societies backwards with their outdated formulations. the inner teachings must be made public, and in that process an integral framework can help make sense of the transition.
and then of course there is the little problem of whether it is possible to have post-amber religion with god and jesus intact - or conversely whether it is possible to have god and jesus as intact articles of faith and claim post-amber status.
no, not intact. but i don't know what you mean by "intact".
i think philosophically this is a bit of a mess...
yes, indeed, and that's why so few are even trying to sort it out.
julian, as i went through the previous comment of mine, i noticed that almost every one of those propositions could (perhaps should?) have been written as a question.
the thing is, if estimations are correct, over 70% of world population is at amber or lower. given elections, they'd vote for what they see as resonant with their view. now that may be interpreted in various ways, and one of them is that purely rational arguments simply won't work for these people. a comprehensive strategy involving multiple pressures - from secular education, to femlib, to reformed religious offerings - even if systemic would take time even if undertaken sincerely and with commitment, so that basically we're stuck with taking these levels and numbers in account.
again, looking at orange and green, their spiritual sentiments and the "logic" they use to reflect on them are often quite below their optimal reasoning. their again a polyphasic, multilevel approach is required, to differentiate the pathological from the authentic (not always synonymous with pre and post). agree?
so, basically we need a host of integral formulations. each community and each discipline will need to embrace what they find useful and - in best case scenario - a slow integral virus will permeate the mainstream with various tools being applied by different groups to solve their specific stuckness. Integral solutions can ONLY be applied to ripe situations, since they involve a leap into a wholly new way of envisioning problems and solutions.
trying to formulate a one, universal language for all existing mixes of conditions is doomed to fail. any thoughts?
all very well said my friend.
i guess i am less focused on integral saving the world, though this is clearly a useful endeavor.
i think perhaps i am more comfortable with the notion of clarifying what a "next stage" looks like for rational and transrational, practice based,, integrative spirituality - and then let those who are ready come and experience this...
i agree with what you are saying about the dangers of I-I trying to be all things to all people - this in fact is for me the dillemma!
being non-exclusivist is one thing, but if integral fails to help people make distinctions and fails to be clear about developmental stages, pathology etc, i think we go further into a translative model wherein new agers and true religious believers think that being "integral" mans adopting a new language rather than doing the hard work of evolving up the spiral via practice, cog dev, and looking at the shadow that is obscured by unreasonable beliefs.
this is in my experience already the case and the integral mantra of being able to take multiple perspectives has rapidly become a very unsatisfying and i think ineffective relativist posture.
oh - also: i think the critique of his use of hindu-buddhist jargon is a valid one too!
i think it s a hold over from american boomer narcissism - ooh look at me who understands the exotic eastern teachings and uses in-group terminology!
i think we do better to reference different traditions and define their terms while using non-mystifying, non-denominational language to a) better say what we mean and b) point to various experiences available to all through practice..
the reliance on ideas/beliefs around enlightenment, holy men, uber-special realizations of non-dual "absolute truth" not only limit audience, but also create a wormhole for all sorts of posturing, misinterpretation and supernaturalism...and (amongst other questionable things) right through that hole emerge adi da and andrew cohen.
good thoughts. yes, privately i'm also more interested in people who are ready to move on. too often the fascination with cosmic ideas won't propmt sufficient personal work. bypassing still occurs in wide-eyed followers. thanks.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home