I am so confused. We are asked not to discuss "religion" but Teal Swan is referred to as "a MODERN spiritual teacher and catalyst" and her thoughts, teachings, ideas and so on are given a great deal of time, accolades and heartily defended. Are there not ANCIENT spiritual teachers and catalysts that have provided ideas that have stood the test of time, these are valuable teachers as well but are not welcome to be discussed? Not trying to be a pain but perspective is everything.
Off to the garden where life is simple.
Chris: In my first post on this thread I said that I felt like window had been opened and the fresh air was pouring in. I respect the guidelines on this site (which I endorse and credit with keeping this one of the most thoughtful and intelligent sites on the web). I have tried to scrupulously keep discussion of my own spirituality and religious practices to a minimum in my postings and responses to comments. While doing this for the sake of maintaining civil discourse, I still felt that there was an element missing in our discussions, an element that would be very important for anyone facing long term difficulties, or life and death situations. I am glad you have opened this door.
The sense I have gotten over the years is that there are people of nearly every possible spiritual persuasion who frequent these halls. Discussion of these matters could easily become a source of contention and argument. On the other hand, if they can be discussed with mutual respect, acceptance, intelligence and a dose of humor, this could be a way for the participants to learn more about each others’ thought processes and to bring us to a fuller understanding of how to deal with the predicament in which we find ourselves.
I am an old dog with many set habits and thought patterns. Separating my spirituality and what others might see as religiosity will take some mental gymnastics. I have become much too lazy in thinking about these matters. However, I think I am up to the challenge and will attempt to go forward in a way that will keep within the guidelines while still revealing what time and experience have brought to me in this aspect of life.
Again, I a very glad that you have made this opening. I believe it will profit us all in the long run. I am very honored to be a member here and to occasionally have discourse with folks who I think are among some of the smartest and clearest thinkers I have ever met.
Some of you may have read Dr Tim Morgan's book "Life After Growth" or read his blog at surplusenergyeconomics.wordpress.com - if not, I recommend both highly. In Ch 5 of his book (p.51) are 2 graphs of mmtoe - the first as a 150 year feature - the second as a 4,000 year blip.
Religion doesn't come into it - it's a scientific fact that we are living in an oil based energy bubble about to burst.
We continue wasting this short term resource to produce and market millions of varieties of sugar based products, serving them up in endless different packages and creating non-productive employment while destroying the fabric of real industry. To what end?
I'm not convinced that spirituality will be that helpful when economic/energy disaster comes along. Survival, practicality, common sense, re-cycling and diplomacy skills will be higher up my list than whether an imaginary eye-in-the-sky approves of the consequences of human instinct. 75% of the population won't survive 2 years if the just-in-time-delivery system fails. Each to his/her own though.
I second evrything JT said above. My intent was to share my experience in a respectful manner. Knowing the typical PP'er to be data/evidence based, i thought it appropriate to share why I believe what I do and that there is empirical data supporting the Christian faith. I also wanted to make the distinction that what many might consider "Christian" is actually antithetical to the teachings of Scripture and of Jesus, the Prince of Peace.
*The topic of ancient texts came up because it was asked about specifically.
2) Collectivism **encompasses all the various "isms"
On a separate note, collectivist ideology is responsible for more death, suffering and destruction than just about anything else I can think of. Think Stalin, Mao, Polpot, Lenin, etc etc…the common denominators are collectivism, lack property rights, and prohibition of the Christian faith (amongst other things).
Economics is all about the allocation of limited resources that are in demand. Historically, while no system is perfect, a system of voluntary transcations between thinking adults has been the best way to allocate scarce resources. Individual property rights are central to that system, as property is more than just "land." An example of "non-land" property rights would be your right to tell me I can't talk specifically about Jesus here (your property) and your right to remove/edit my posts
See the 10 Planks of the Communist Manifesto here, and note the similarities to some of what Teal stated, especially w/ regard to property rights.
That is not a personal attack, but a respectful rebuttal to that particular worldview/ideology. As an individual, Teal seems like a genuinely sincere and good person.
thank you for this considered explanation as well as your prior discretion. As long as we can keep everything civil and comfortable, I am open to just about anything.
As I've said, I once knew a lot, but now I really don't know anything. Life is more and more mysterious the closer and deeper I get into it.
As a scientist I saw and worked with the mystery of life up close and personal. I worked on individual living cells under extremely high-powered magnification (differential interference contrast microscopy for anyone interested, as well as laser confocal). Each cell was a bustling city of immense complexity and once I really grasped the implications of how a few trillion of these little things might combine to become something I call "me" while never confusing their outer membrane with either their neighbors or invaders, well, I guess I had something of a spiritual awakening.
But I gravitated towards explanations and knowings that could not have had a petty, angry human-like god or gods at the center. To my inner sense of things, there's no possible way that the infinite complexity of life I was viewing could have been brought into being by an entity that also cared deeply about whether I ate shellfish, or was in a certain building on a certain day for worship, or used bad words.
Not having been brought up within the container of any particular faith (church on Christmas and Easter, that was it) I've checked out everything from Shamanism in various cultures, to eastern traditions, physical practices (yoga, etc), and so forth. I've found something useful and beautiful in each and every one. And some ugly bits.
So, true to form, I take what works for me, gratefully, and I leave the rest. It works for me.
At any rate, all of this has made me a more fulfilled and better person who is increasingly renewed into the sacredness of life. This serves me by making me really appreciate being alive, and knowing that I am not here to make a bunch of money, accumulate things, and shuffle off the mortal coil. There's something more to all of this, I just don't know what yet…and I may never know.
I'm interested to hear what works for other people, and why too. I am curious and always learning.
OOG,
Not so sure, myself. I got as far as the point where he stated, "If you're a libertarian then you have got to unsubscribe [to PP]." and then I turned off. I think somebody has the wrong idea of what liberty means. I get to choose what I listen to, even if it's something that I'm not familiar or comfortable with. 'Cos hey, that's how I learn.
Even as a libertarian, my individualistic pursuits are still secondary to nature's restrictions; I still need trees, soil and water regardless of how I perceive the world - can't be a libertarian (or alive for that matter) without 'em.
Again, T2H hit the buzzword for me - 'responsibility'.
Chris, I’m with Granny on this.
I’m going to say: the fool has said in his heart (that is, his WILL), “There is no God".
Why? Because he wants to be a little god. He wants to be worshipped by his neighbors, to enact his justice on others, to be a self-made man.
But that is enormously at conflict with reality, And even if, for one person, it were possible that he could be that little god, it denies that any others could be. So that conflict with reality pounds heads of fools together until they break.
Now, the one offense that I see in soceity, and yours too, Chris, is to mention the name and the works of the one God who has evidence to back His claim. Why? because it offend the thesis “there is no God”.
Now, as long as you did not bring up alternative religion – and spirituality that defines your actions and your paradigms is EXACTLY religion, I abode by your rules, and hopefully made valuable contributions. I offer as an example my posts to Wendy’s and Dave’s areas. Nor did I hit others over the head with my religion. Indeed, I made efforts to make my points from the opposing viewpoints, referncing pagan stories and works that are as ancient or more ancient than Christian ones. Multicultural, I was; Pantheistic or atheistic, I cannot be.
But to offer alternatives to Christian spirituality and religion while silencing Christian spirituality and religion is offensive to my God and to me as well. Moreover, it sets me in violation of one of the Christian tenets “he who acknowledges me before men, Him will I acknowledge before God/ he who denies Me before men, him will I deny before God”, if I do NOT speak out.
That at a time when everything in our society is flying to pieces, and if ever I needed both the Spiritual and indeed physical help of my God it being now…
You thus put all Christians at this site to the choice: either walk the walk of preparing your (personal, spiritual, emotional, financial) resiliancy or talk the talk, but not both.
Given the choice, I’ll walk the walk, and if that means leaving this site, so be it.
Let me know. Let me know publicly. because other Christians will know, too.
I can cease coming here.
Let me say, too, that I have never paid to be a full member; neither have I paid a donation to the Bible Broadcasting Network which I sometimes listen to, and find valuable, or my bible app, which I use. Why? because the base foundation at my attempt for both resilience and obedience to my Christ, is the Christian comcunity garden, which despite my best efforts has been stimied until now. Not having it in full, but at least getting started. Once that basic justice is in my hand, I can consider giving to others’ projects financially. Until it is in my hand, I cannot. Again, given the choice between walk the walk and talk the talk, I’ll walk the walk.
Yes, there's a difference between spirituality and religion. Of course the two can overlap, but sometimes, especially when religion is used as the means to separate us from one another, as the means to dehumanize others while elevating ourselves, then it becomes the tool of the ego.
Spirituality, to me, is the process of discovering one's own personal and deeper connection to self and the greater mystery of life. It opens one up rather than boxes one in.
Religion often seeks to remove power from the individual and place it outside somewhere. To me spirituality is the exact opposite.
And, once again, I find you putting my words in exactly a different context than what I wrote, so I find myself wondering if you read what I write, or if you are purposely gaslighting me?
To repeat, there are many many teachers, and I personally draw upon many of them. Some are "new" in the sense that they are alive, but mainly they are reinterpreting human truths and discoveries that were part of life from long ago. Many of them have been discussed here already and absolutely nothing has been done to stop that.
If you prefer ancient teachers, then great!, use them. I have no dog in this fight…I know from personal experience that there are many useful avenues of inquiry.
But I will completely put an immediate end to anyone saying "I have the one and true way, and unless you too follow it we have a problem!" That's religion without spirituality and it just creates friction and difficulty for online communities.
I hope that's clear enough. If not, we'll have to end this experiment,.
I'm 100% behind the value of incorporating spiritual issues in this PP.com community because our problems and predicaments around "The 3 E's" are all essentially spiritual in nature. Greed. Materialism. Foolish shortsightedness. Care of the environment. Justice. Power (not energy) and its uses in society. Etc. Etc. Technology, economics, math and science all play important roles, but no matter what we do, if we don't deal with the spiritual issues we're doomed to keep spiraling down into chaos, pain, and suffering.
I'm also 100% aware that these discussions can be polarizing and derail productive discussion of important issues that need to be discussed. My observation is that all the polarizing and derailing comes when we try to PERSUADE someone else to come over to our view (or simply convince them their view is wrong) or when we attempt to silence, punish or banish those who hold/express views we don't agree with. Of course, these are the most important issues in life so if any of us believes they have discovered something true and necessary for happiness and success it's very tempting to attempt to persuade and correct others. Persuading and correcting tend to create resistance and opposition.
Therefore, I say we keep discussing these issues. But I further say we should generally couch our discussions using "I statements", as Chris has suggested in his own style. I can state what I have experienced, discovered and put into practice (and why) without resorting to directly invalidating anyone else's experience, discovery or practices (though what I have discovered may contradict something you have discovered). I think we can best do that by limiting ourselves to "I statements" and avoid the "you statements." For instance, I could say, "The organizing principle of my life is seeking to please and serve my God. This has major implications for how I care for God's world." What I should avoid saying is something like, "Your spirituality lacks any reference to God so it is bound to fail and lead you astray. You have to care for God's creation because it's His, not yours." Once we get in this habit of "I statements" it will be easier to notice and say something when someone attempts to make a "you statement" that attempts to persuade, correct, punish or banish. And before anyone gets the idea, this kind of thing is off limits too, "I think you are an idiot, wrong, and misguided." That's a "you statement" with the word I in it.
Here is a quote from Teal: The single-family household and property ownership is what got us into this particular mess, if you would like to know the honest truth. We used to operate in a tribal kind of setting that had its own issues because we went to war with each other all the time, but the real problem is the minute that we go attached to property ownership we got real capitalistic—very like "me, mine" and the ego got so incredibly fueled essentially that it started to be able to do things at the detriment to everything around it. It lost its connection with the rest of the world, which is, if you want to know the psychological issue that we have really got going that has led into this, it is that…
I feel like it is going to be a lot of the self sustainable communities that do well in this particular collapse, the people who get together and they actually have a way of growing their own food, for example, and everybody is lending their energy to a piece of the pie.
I could not disagree more. I believe that the family unit and responsible property ownership are the backbone of our society. The breakdown of the family unit is a huge contributor to social problems. And the tribal concept is a joke…on a National scale? …voluntary?..please. Although imperfect, our constitutional system is the best in the world. What metric tells be that? Simply the fact that more people desire to Immigrate to the US, than desire to go elsewhere. I was very idealistic at 20 years old and traveled to India to live in the Sri Aurobindo Ashram. It was a great experience, but there is no community better a small town made up of strong family units. I choose to own my property and be a responsible steward of what God has allowed me to manage. Is that Libertarian?
But the reason why is rooted in some pretty deep explorations that go way beyond capitalism or libertarianism.
If we examine humans throughout our evolutionary past, we note that for all but the last 10,000 years we were tribal in nature. That is, we lived in extremely tight communities of ~150 or fewer individuals. Concepts of 'ownership' and property were not just undeveloped, but in many cases completely nonexistent. This is why the Native Americans had no idea what trading Manhattan for beads even meant. It was simply not a construct that made any sense to them.
Within that tribal-relational construct the hardware and software of our biology can apparently operate quite efficiently and seems to do so with ease. This is not to romanticize hunter-gatherer societies and say that I have any interest in returning to such an existence. I do not.
But I will note that there seem to be some strong advantages to living in closer relationship with 'our tribe' however we define that.
The book Sex at Dawn made a huge impact on me in terms of understanding the role of our biological underpinnings in shaping our experiences. What Teal is referring to is the fact that the culture we had to create and adapt to in order to live the way we currently do is actually quite brutal in many regards and it enforces a form of separation and isolation that are very difficult to reconcile with our DNA blueprint.
She's speaking of emotional and psychological issues, not economic models. She's not promoting any particular economic -ism at all, just observing what serves us and does not serve us from her perspective.
This is where I think you'd have a different view if you understood the entire line of thinking that led to her 'mountain top' statement about communities and property. Maybe. Or maybe not.
At any rate, if you are interested there's an entire line of study about the pros and cons that resulted from shifting from a nomadic and tribal existence to an agricultural and anonymous cultural overlay.
But humans are extraordinarily adaptable and we can live in many different configurations.
I think we've given the whole transactional/isolated nuclear-family experiment a good trial run and now it's time to re-try the relational/regenerative extended family model.
Remember, they are only ideas and concepts…unless come along with strong emotions…then they are beliefs.
To my inner sense of things, there's no possible way that the infinite complexity of life I was viewing could have been brought into being by an entity that also cared deeply about whether I ate shellfish, or was in a certain building on a certain day for worship, or used bad words.
I think that one of the most divisive issues is between theistic spirituality and atheistic spirituality. Chris, it seems to me that you are personally in the practice of spirituality that has no place for a supreme being: non-theistic or atheistic spirituality. That much seems obvious to me. What is not obvious to me is whether you can tolerate and embrace those whose spirituality is theistic (i.e. it includes a supreme being). The above quote (and many others over the years) makes me wonder. More precisely, I have no doubt you can embrace people who have a theistic spirituality, but I sometimes wonder if you can tolerate their beliefs and concepts. I encourage you to keep an open mind about whether or not there is a supreme being and, if there is, how that reality might effect our spirituality, morality, ethics, lifestyles, "The 3 E's," a future worth inheriting, etc. I have often observed and thought that many people imagine what THEY would do if THEY were God, and if they look around and don't see evidence of those things getting done, then they conclude there is no God. IF there is a supreme being, I imagine judging him/her/its existence, nature and behavior on our puny human standards could very well be a huge mistake. In the above quote, you express in an "I statement" that your personal view of life cannot accept a creator God who would care "...whether I ate shellfish, or was in a certain building on a certain day for worship, or used bad words." IF there is a personal supreme being who cares anything at all about us, he/she/it might care a great deal about all kinds of things. Personally, I've taken the approach of concluding there is such a supreme being and it serves me well to find out what those things are he/she/it is concerned about. I have discovered that the supreme being I know is much, much more intrusive and demanding than just the shellfish I might eat, the place and time of my worship, and the bad words I might use. I believe he wants to OWN me, and "fundamentally transform" everything about me and my life. And I'm good with that, since I am so limited and have screwed up so much. I don't think it's my place to pick and choose among the supreme being's demands I'm going to follow based on my own evaluation. And when I do that anyway (and I do) that's what I call "sin."
Chris wrote:
But I gravitated towards explanations and knowings that could not have had a petty, angry human-like god or gods at the center.
My experience was of being lost in life and suicidal as a result. I didn't "gravitate" toward anything spiritual. Metaphorically speaking, it was like I was struck in the head with a spiritual 2X4 by the God I later came to know personally. (I guess that's what it took to get my attention and temporarily interrupt my personal pity party.) It was then that I sensed very near me a monstrously large and powerful spiritual presence, and I fled in terror. But "The Hound Of Heaven" pursued me and I finally stopped running and submitted. But before I could have a positive relationship with him, I had to address his anger which was anything but petty or human-like. Having been here since 2010, I've seen your righteous indignation over many injustices and evils, and in 97% of the issues I share your righteous indignation. (Issues like: polluting the natural world, committing fraud on a massive scale, lack of prosecution of clearly evil and illegal behavior, etc.) So, where does righteous indignation come from? I think it comes from a powerful sense of right and wrong that is violated by other human beings. (Shame and guilt come when I violate what is right and wrong.) So I think it's quite appropriate to think that IF there is a supreme being who is all-knowing and morally perfect, that he/she/it would get righteously indignant with every evil, destructive and wasteful thing we humans do.
I say all of that to say that I believe morality and ethics come from our spirituality, whether it be theistic or non-theistic spirituality. Often I think people accept portions of the spirituality and morality/ethics they receive from parents, teachers, and other people without doing the work of discovering it for themselves. People also often try to discover what they themselves want to believe and therefore practice in life. I think that in theistic spirituality morals and ethics come from the nature of the supreme being: whatever is like the supreme being is good, and whatever is contrary to the supreme being is evil/bad. So in my spirituality, experiencing righteous indignation over immoral actions is good (that's what God does), but losing my temper and slapping my spouse is bad (God is never petty and never loses his temper). So I frequently wonder when exploring nontheistic spirituality: where does the sense of right and wrong come from in spirituality that has no supreme being to refer to and measure things by? Where does your sense of right and wrong come from? Where does Teal Swan's?
All of that is not irrelevant for creating a world worth inheriting. These spiritual issues are the foundation for anything positive we might do in that direction. How much energy should each of us consume? How many children should I have? What's the best social structure to live in: nuclear family, primitive tribe without family units, a blend of tribe and nuclear family? How should we deal with those whose choices and behavior are environmentally or economically unsustainable, even blatantly destructive? How do I handle the despair I feel as I watch us continuing down the path to destruction? I say we keep doing our best to incorporate spiritual issues into our 3 E's discussions as we strive to create a world worth inheriting. We all have a lot to learn.
Chris, suppose Jedi were real. Remember Tatooine being blown up?
How would a person or being that was deeply interconnected to every living lifeform react to such an event?
Now, let’s step over to Japanese cuisine or some of the more shocking aspects of oriental cuisine. We’ll start with sushi. I heard on a radio the announcer describe how he had been at an extremly posh Japanese restaurant in Japan where he selected his fish from the tank.
The cook came to his table, and conked the fish on the head to knock it out. Then, with an extremely sharp razor he sliced the fish into bite sized portions, and put a slice of lemon on the side. He then idicated to the radio jock that when he was ready to eat, he should squeeze the lemon over the fish.
Well, the slices had cut through all the muscle except the dorsal muscle, and yet it woul. appear that the nerves were still basically intact. So the lemon woke the fish with pain, then caused the one remaining muscle to contract, resulting in the fish’s last act to be to spead itself across the plate in pain and kill itself in the final coup-de-grace for the gourmet’s dining pleasure.
I could easily recite a scene described to me from (I’ve never watched it) thusand faces of death, in which a trained acting monkey is brought out to perform for the guests, then locked in a neck ring, the top of the skull removed, and the guests get to eat still-living performing monkey brains as it moment by moment loses its ability to reason, to think, to see, to hear, to feel pain, to fear, to breathe.
How would a jedi react to such a meal? Could he enjoy it?
If there was a deity, even not God, that was extremely interconnected with all living things, could it be so petty as to NOT abhor such meals? Now, consider from your own view of the bustling city of cellular life, that the red blood cells are self-driven. They are thinking creatures, no different in concept from ants or euglena.
Could a god that was inteconnected be so callous not to care, and FAIL to say (as in the noahide laws) you shall not eat an animal with the life still in it"? Or, “you shall not eat the blood, for the life is still in it, but you shall spill it out upon the ground”? To order care that the animals not be put to needless pain when being slaughtered?
You ask what works for everyone else:
Here is what worked for me: a request to the creator of the universe, “send your servant to find for me a wife who will lead me to you, and whom I will lead to you”. It is a variant of the challenge and plea: give me what I need to bring me in.
Everything else followed from that, The details are less important.
And no, I am not saying people must believe what I believe. I am confident that I will be wrong on some aspects. But to the extent that we are wrong, we are likely to have trouble. Therefore each person does better to follow the best truest reality and the realest truth they can find, and seek the best they can find.
Terrance McKenna says, the universe is coordinating a point of view. More and more things are happening in less and less amounts of time, coming in co-relationship with each other (us included). Connectivity is happening, which is being felt by most people in a variety of ways. And most of those people are seeking meaning and clarity, yet still needing a place where they can take off their hat and have it still be there when you go looking for it. (Chris hangs his hat on information and facts, others find meaning in a grand designer, ect…)
Regardless of your strategy, it is under strain! Someone are doubling down and other seeking a better model. Our shared constructs are crumbling, not just one or two yet most of them. What the hell is going on?
Thanks…I'll study this more…Appreciate the response.
I guess I'm just simple minded…when someone says The single-family household and property ownership is what got us into this particular mess. I draw a conclusion that perhaps she is looking for an alternative to single family households and property ownership. If her statement was meant to imply that single family households are a great model and work best in Tribal interaction with other single family housholds, then I get that, and as I stated, the small town model for me has those elements. Anyway…look forward to some study on this.
The descritized nuclear family is a failed model. Extended families sharing resources makes much more sense. With respect to property rights, that’s a tough one. How do you keep the wolves at bay if you can’t mark territory off limits? What’s to keep the collective from taking any and everything? Not everyone is at Yellow meme.
I really enjoyed your conversation with Teal Swan, a person I hadn't heard of before today, I am going to look up more of her material.
Apparently I am a "Doomer". I found myself smiling each time either of you mentioned what a post collapse society might look like and thinking, "if anyone survives". I am in the "rust belt" between Chicago and Detroit and I have to confess that I'm not super optimistic that there will be very many people here when the dust settles.
As a "spiritual atheist"/pagan, I am dismayed, but no longer surprised, by the reaction of some Christians in the community to non-Christians. They seem to take choosing to be other then Christian is a personal affront. Non-Christian is not the same as anti-Christian. Relax, please, we'll be OK, thank you for your concern.
I am always bemused by the suggestion that "freedom", "democracy", private property, etc. has anything to do with our current level of prosperity. We owe our wealth to the industrial extraction of vast amounts of fossil energy. Just ask the "communist" Chinese, they seem to have something going on as well.
As to when people will wake up and realize that some thing is wrong, I don't see that happening until hundreds of people are being gunned down in the street. Oh, wait… Perhaps they'll have to be starving in the street.
I remember Michael Ruppert predicting that our upcoming societal collapse would include a collapse of religion (or maybe he called it "organized religion"). I thought about that and had to think of something a wise pastor friend of mine once said. He said that you can simplify Christianity down to two threads, one being the church triumphant…in regards to that thread of Christianity (triumphalism), I think that Ruppert was spot-on.
But, of course, there's the other thread, which is about forgiving your "brother," loving your "neighbor," sharing your "loaves and fishes," stopping to help the traveller left for dead in the ditch, etc.
I am not going to challenge the boundaries that Chris has tried to set in this particular thread - like other Christians, the boundary set seems artificial to me, but I will not test it beyond what I've just said. My spirituality comes from Christianity and it is something that I really didn't come to by my own choice. Carl Jung talked about "Numinosity," what has power to a person is a rough approximation of what he meant. My parents and others managed to instill a numinosity for some Christian things in me and it seems that things that are passed on like that from loved ones to small children tend to be the most numinous.
At the same time, I really do respect what Chris is doing. This "New Age" stuff seems to be for people who don't get much out of traditional religion/spirituality. So it is to their credit that they have found something else. These new consciously created spiritualites are probably going to be a little more resilient during societal collapse - most of their followers appear to have more humility about their path than a lot of us who have managed to get something from the great religions that have survived for centuries.
pyranablade thanks for a nice post. This thread is a bit on the side of the religious or spiritual mine field, I appreciate your comment that feels much more centered.
