One of the reasons i ask, is because i am only slightly familar with Momentus (from what i've read here). But from what i do know of Momentus, it sounds like this wet weekend thing is different in more than a few ways.
Though, i know how cult-shy we are. Which can tend toward knee jerk reactions to the idea of "spiritual workshops" and what-not.
Sir Guess, what "value" does this class offer for you ?
In reviewing the web-site, I must admit as to not being initially struck or impressed either way.
A good many classes (and products) tend to "toot their own horn" toward somehow offering a special knowledge of more or less hatching about a newer and improved "you!"
of course who can confirm or deny whether they actually do or not but...
what personally draws you to this particular class - perhaps even setting it apart from the rest?
Enter Big MindTM, genuine satori in three hours of facilitated interplay (98% of participants rate this process a "perfect 10"). Developed by Zen master Genpo Roshi.
"genuine" satori in THREE HOURS??? To me, this claim stands out like a sore thumb.
Makes me wonder what kind of "short cut" they are really using..
though some may have responded upon first impression, others could still be investigating the idea and info from this site. letting the ideas sit and stir in the soul
and i agree with Danny that more info is needed from you and how you see it as helping others here, and perhaps what you are leading up to, which i believe is to help others
i guess maybe i expected too much. hoping folks might look into things a bit more on their own more before they shoot.
also, i forgot how rude people can be, and didn't expect the usual single-note critics to be the first to show up.
i will not make that mistake again. sorry, my bad. being lazy. grumpy. busy. :P-->
- the Big Mind thing is a group-facilitated process where people are led through a wide variety of the states of the human mind (all of which are present and useful now, including the skeptic ;)-->), culminating in the state of mind that holds all of them together. its quite amazing really. it is described as "unsticking our inner gears," simply by introducing us to them, and then unifying them. in a playful environment. In Salt Lake, Genpo Roshi does the Big Mind stuff for free to whomever walks in off the street.
btw - "genuine Satori" is not some special magical hard to reach place (though many spend their life looking for it, climbing mountains and what not). which is what this process demonstrates. i think this is where people get hung up on the language. also, in many traditions, "Satori" is more or less baby food anyway. We can have an aha moment, then go right back into being a dork for the rest of our life. This can actually make things worse for us and others. Some can get real mean when they cannot "get it back."
- the shadow work is based on Jung's (and other's) psychological work on shadows of the ego, but taking it a few steps further by adding 1st 2nd and 3rd person perspectives to the process of exploring them. I've attended a shadow workshop before, and it was life changing for everyone involved. Highly rewarding practice, in general...the notion that "the shadow is golden," and that our greatest teachers are usually hidden in the darknesses of our own soul. the least likely and least desirable place to look, usually (which is a big reason why we usually simply suck much of the time, living in fear of the darkness...within ourselves, usually)
- the 3 body katas (body, soul, spirit) are something i am really interested in. i don't know much about them specifically, but i am familar with the concepts and have some experience practicing with the various "energy bodies." yes, they are there. and i could use 3 simple katas that cover the spectrum like that.
- the AQAL theory and Integral studies part is more academic than anything, i think. World class, too (not just fat claims of it, like PFAL). About as inclusive and non-sacred as they get (as opposed to the exlusive and super-dooper sacredness of twi). I suggest taking a look into them before writing them off. Karl Rove, Bill Clinton, and Tony Blair read integral theory, which is interesting.
The claims made on the webpage are quite justified, not hyped. These weekend things sell-out pretty quick, too.
And this is a diversely professional and academic but playful and loose environment.
And there are plenty of real degrees involved.
I often wish that our corn-field cult experience hadn't burned us so bad that we are unable to step foot near classes and teachers.
Its like so many of us have come to simply assume treachery and failure and error and deception, which is a travesty.
When there are a lot of amazing things being learned in the world today, in spite of the growing BS.
what personally draws you to this particular class - perhaps even setting it apart from the rest?
thanks for asking, Danny
a lot of things, really. maybe most of all is the transparency of the organizers, and how well-documented the methods are. and how both old and new are respected by the institute that developed it. and how there is nothing new or super special to it, really. most of what is new and special, perhaps, is the arrangement, and the overall framework and presentation.
and i really have come to appreciate both "cutting-edge" and "time-tested" philosophies and practices.
Because much of the world, it seems, is stuck in one or the other (at the expense of both).
i also really like the lack of prejudice (racial, academic and otherwise) inherent in the approach.
and not due to some "everything is equal in value" flatland approach either,
but an attempt at a rational and comprehensive evaluation of elements for what they are worth
and the massive amount of live open dialogue that goes into "the work"
also, even though i have yet to see as comprehensive and coherent an approach as integral theory, in an intellectual sense,
there are also quite a few other valid and relevent emerging schools of thought and movements that i believe are touching on things the integral institute does not.
no, i am not introducing "my new cult" to the GSC
i am a cult of one...lol
more like a wandering minstrel who pops in from time to time
an exploration of sorts into what we already have. and to develop it into something that really can stay in our grasp. not just a fleeting light or stroke of genius that happens to all of us but to see it work from the inside out
Uhmmm, speaking of being rude, ... all I gave was my initial impression after reading something about it on their website. True, we're not talking about an in-depth investigation being done here, but neither is it 'farting on your thread'. (And then again, this thread doesn't belong to you to begin with).
People give their first impressions all the time. It's part of life. Now I would be willing to bet even money that, upon doing the same initial reading over the material on their website, and I gave a 'thumbs up' surface review, you wouldn't be whining about 'farting on your thread' then now, would you? Hhmmmm?
So someone (me) had a critical remark based upon an impression of your program called Integral Workshop. So is that kind of response that you learned from these people? ... Hhmmmm, from what I could remember, Momentus grads had a similar response towards their critics too. ... Hhmmmm
Well, if anything, this just strengthens my impression.
last i recall, it used to be something funny, or cute,
or even accidental (which was my first impression of your first impression)
but dont worry, i dont even want to argue with you, man
you'd probably keep me here for days, anyway
but hey, here i go for a sec anyway...duh
maybe i'll get lucky, eh?
imo, the impressions in your most recent post are loaded with suggestion guised as arguments
and now that you have for some reason admittedly allowed your first impression to become so strengthened as your primary impression
i would be somewhat surprised if you ever bother to look into any of it any further, regardless of what i say (please surprise me...)
i expect you might continue to "hmmmm" out your shallow but hardening impression, though
just as uninformed as before, and yes, quite as rude as usual, if not a tad more
(btw-when did voicing that someone is being rude become too rude and deserved of further rudeness? hmmmmmm? lol)
and so yer right about possession of the thread...its all yours
because i think it will be way too hard to ignore you, at this rate
or try and write around you
ummm...
what a spaz :P-->
thanks for nothing
and...good luck with that, i guess :D-->
and sigh :(-->...for what its worth...i dont think farting is some moral sin or character flaw, it usually just stinks
and please, try and keep at least a few things clear before you further bury me in your boogers and poo (if that is what yer gonna do):
-i never asked for an in-depth investigation as you suggested (i asked for thoughts, not gropes)
-i did not specifically ask for a simple thumbs up or thumbs down (both of which might be considered farts or burps, imo).
-i do not learn any of my responses from "these people" (i am actually trying pretty hard to keep up with your language style)
-i dont think you are very qualified critic of "these people" (whatever that means) unless you think glancing at an event advertisment somehow qualifies you as such --> ;)-->
i prefer momentarily exploring how things can be possible
Wow! And some folks say that I'm overly sensitive. -->
Look guy, you did ask what 'we guys' (posters here) might think of it. I took a look at the site, and the info about it. I gave my response, which admittedly was what I felt when I looked at it. And I was open about it. Heck, I even put a question mark after the 'Momentus reborn' remark. I said that your mileage may vary. I even tried plainly explaining that.
And that's f-wording on your thread? I don't think that I'm the one making the big deal here.
((shrugs)) Never mind. You can have your thread back. ... Just chill out, ok? You'll scare the fish.
SirGALot - I've read a tad of Ken Wilbur's stuff, and browsed that site link, so this is a cursory comment, I'm offering it solely based on the area that has caught my attention. 1) I do like the general idea of his "integral approach" and here's what I understand of it - it attempts to look at every part of a specific area of life and determine the commonalities in them and from that develop a composite view of how to understand that area. So if it was say, religion, all religions would be looked at and studied to glean from them the basic parts they have in common and from that would come a single, common "religious" understanding, basically a doctrine.
Which I think has 2._ some value, but I think also has an inherent failing (and again I'm not familiar with the extent/all of the work he and the group have done), namely that I don't personally assume it's rational to start from a premise that all religions have a little, some or even a lot of "truth" in them simply because they have parts that are similar to (all) others - in other words common beliefs across the board don't define "truth", as all religions could have common fallacies, myths, traditions, etc. What is exactly truthful about those things could be far removed from the actual beliefs. If that's the case, I would want another means to determine what that might be.
As far as the classes and seminars, I have no idea. I'm dubious of anything that promises "results" delivered in a weekend workshop, that kind of thing, because there are variables that have to be accounted for to promise anything like that. And one of the biggest is that the participant - well, fully participate, try, suspend reservation, etc. in order to fully participate in the experience. You can't promise a person will learn to swim in say, a week, if the person won't get in the water and follow instructions. So that variable has to be accounted for. Who wants to end up in silly situations where people are pressuring you to "dive in", rather than actually dealing with you as a person with your own interests and concerns?
But like I say, I don't know what they actually offer or do, thess are just some obervations. Some of Wilbur's stuff I've read was interesting though.
it attempts to look at every part of a specific area of life and determine the commonalities in them and from that develop a composite view of how to understand that area.
there is that notion of commonality like you've described (which i dont recall the term used),
but that is not how the composite view is developed, if i am understanding you correctly.
The different traditions and philosophies are also recognized for their different values and strong suits
quick crude examples:
some are more interiorly developed
some more exteriorly
and some are more communally developed
some more agentic
some are a gift to rational and post-rational thought,
and some are developed in their ability to handle old mythic representation
etc...
in that sense, the religions and philosophies are not forced into a box together with equal shapes, just because they have something in common
but added to a neutral framework they hang on kinda forms itself around them and their values, common or otherwise
making for one exotic huge never-finished model
quote:
What is exactly truthful about those things could be far removed from the actual beliefs.
I think this is where is a high value placed on "lineage" when it comes to traditions.
Those gemstones of practitioners in each tradition that are often buried under mountains of looser modern translations
(which, btw, also have their place in integral theory...in fact, some folks are not upset with integral theory, per se, but get more upset at how certain other enemy philosophies are included)
quote:
I don't personally assume it's rational to start from a premise that all religions have a little, some or even a lot of "truth" in them simply because they have parts that are similar to (all) others
why not? to use some sort of inclusive principle as a baseline, that simply will not reject anything as completely untrue or invalid?
the assumption that NO translation of truth is complete or absolute, but all expressed truths are indeed partial.
in that, every one is somehow partially true, and those parts are almost never equal, or the same wavelength.
in short, the idea that no one is smart enough to be 100% wrong.
(there is more to it, too. i am not the best rep for integral theory)
also, there is an emphasis on the difference between translative aspects, and transformative aspects of methods
in that, experiences of things are very often similar (in transformative experience), regardless of names and language
also, integral theory is quite complex. it has morphed and developed for over 30-40 years now. Ken Wilber did not coin the phrase "integral" either (i forgot who), nor is the only writer on the subject. and it takes quite a while to get a grasp of all the components of the theory.
many times, critics obviously do not understand it before they critique it. which is understandable. reminds me of Zixar's great tagline "its not my fault if you didnt read the whole thing." happens a lot to Wilber's work.
quote:
You can't promise a person will learn to swim in say, a week, if the person won't get in the water and follow instructions. So that variable has to be accounted for.
i think it is. They do comprehensive surveys and whatnot, and people from all walks of life and religions sit through the Big Mind process. and they found that, regardless of background, skepticism is basically the major thing that stops people from playing with it.
(when publicly introducing the process, Genpo Roshi said that his mother and a Zen master where the only two who did not make it all the way)
But the process is disarming enough, and the skeptical voice is such a vital part of the process, that even most skeptics will give it a shot.
makes me think of how human language and schools of thought, it seems, is deep in yet another phase of hyper-specialization (to match our hyper-growth, it seems). the jungle is more exotic with specialists than it ever has been. like so many compartments of jargon. where we are doomed to misunderstand a lot a lot a lot of things
example, even within western medicine, some fields of study have a hard time communicating and collaborating at all, which has produced "heaps of piles" of mostly exclusive value-sets (tied to language), simple misunderstanding is the name of the game. same words, many different schools of fish. its ironic, too, how we are growing somewhat explosively, anthropologically, yet it is getting harder and harder to talk to each other
reminds me of scriptural "Babylon," and how it seems we need a new "tongue" these days. one that serves us beyond the conventional limits of language (if we hope to dialogue regarding "God" at all)
Sir G. -- Have you been to some of these workshops, etc? Tell us what it's like. When I read about the "Naked" sessions, I thought they were sitting around philosophizing in the nude ... or is it more like the naked truth? If one were to register for one of these conferences, what would we expect to experience? -X
Recommended Posts
GarthP2000
Momentus reborn?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mstar1
I dont know how you two get along,
but can you handle 3 hours of 'faciliated interplay' with Satori?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
I'm curious...why did you write this?
What part reminds you of Momentus?
And did you investigate before responding?
(you don't have to answer, of course)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
One of the reasons i ask, is because i am only slightly familar with Momentus (from what i've read here). But from what i do know of Momentus, it sounds like this wet weekend thing is different in more than a few ways.
Though, i know how cult-shy we are. Which can tend toward knee jerk reactions to the idea of "spiritual workshops" and what-not.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Yes, I looked at the website, and read a little of their material, and I dunno, it had that Momentus 'feel' to it.
But that's just me. Your mileage may vary.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
great...so you more or less farted on my thread
gee thanks
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
Sir Guess, what "value" does this class offer for you ?
In reviewing the web-site, I must admit as to not being initially struck or impressed either way.
A good many classes (and products) tend to "toot their own horn" toward somehow offering a special knowledge of more or less hatching about a newer and improved "you!"
of course who can confirm or deny whether they actually do or not but...
what personally draws you to this particular class - perhaps even setting it apart from the rest?
Danny
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
"genuine" satori in THREE HOURS??? To me, this claim stands out like a sore thumb.
Makes me wonder what kind of "short cut" they are really using..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
Personally, I think it tends more towards the "Ron Popeil" school of enlightenment. But, then, that's just me...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
this is what you said now sirguessalot
though some may have responded upon first impression, others could still be investigating the idea and info from this site. letting the ideas sit and stir in the soul
and i agree with Danny that more info is needed from you and how you see it as helping others here, and perhaps what you are leading up to, which i believe is to help others
as you know i have great respect for your words
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
thanks, cm. yer right.
i guess maybe i expected too much. hoping folks might look into things a bit more on their own more before they shoot.
also, i forgot how rude people can be, and didn't expect the usual single-note critics to be the first to show up.
i will not make that mistake again. sorry, my bad. being lazy. grumpy. busy.
:P-->
- the Big Mind thing is a group-facilitated process where people are led through a wide variety of the states of the human mind (all of which are present and useful now, including the skeptic
;)-->), culminating in the state of mind that holds all of them together. its quite amazing really. it is described as "unsticking our inner gears," simply by introducing us to them, and then unifying them. in a playful environment. In Salt Lake, Genpo Roshi does the Big Mind stuff for free to whomever walks in off the street.
btw - "genuine Satori" is not some special magical hard to reach place (though many spend their life looking for it, climbing mountains and what not). which is what this process demonstrates. i think this is where people get hung up on the language. also, in many traditions, "Satori" is more or less baby food anyway. We can have an aha moment, then go right back into being a dork for the rest of our life. This can actually make things worse for us and others. Some can get real mean when they cannot "get it back."
- the shadow work is based on Jung's (and other's) psychological work on shadows of the ego, but taking it a few steps further by adding 1st 2nd and 3rd person perspectives to the process of exploring them. I've attended a shadow workshop before, and it was life changing for everyone involved. Highly rewarding practice, in general...the notion that "the shadow is golden," and that our greatest teachers are usually hidden in the darknesses of our own soul.
the least likely and least desirable place to look, usually (which is a big reason why we usually simply suck much of the time, living in fear of the darkness...within ourselves, usually)
- the 3 body katas (body, soul, spirit) are something i am really interested in. i don't know much about them specifically, but i am familar with the concepts and have some experience practicing with the various "energy bodies." yes, they are there. and i could use 3 simple katas that cover the spectrum like that.
- the AQAL theory and Integral studies part is more academic than anything, i think. World class, too (not just fat claims of it, like PFAL). About as inclusive and non-sacred as they get (as opposed to the exlusive and super-dooper sacredness of twi). I suggest taking a look into them before writing them off. Karl Rove, Bill Clinton, and Tony Blair read integral theory, which is interesting.
The claims made on the webpage are quite justified, not hyped. These weekend things sell-out pretty quick, too.
And this is a diversely professional and academic but playful and loose environment.
And there are plenty of real degrees involved.
I often wish that our corn-field cult experience hadn't burned us so bad that we are unable to step foot near classes and teachers.
Its like so many of us have come to simply assume treachery and failure and error and deception, which is a travesty.
When there are a lot of amazing things being learned in the world today, in spite of the growing BS.
The universe seems quite stubborn that way, imo.
thank God
Edited by sirguessalotLink to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
i think confirming and denying are among the easiest things.
denial is always immediately available.
confirmation requires that you at least try and perform the injunction, or otherwise investigate.
i mean, one can deny a place exists without ever stepping foot there.
and one can confirm that such a place exists by simply going there.
and of course, how an experience is translated is another issue...
i think a big problem comes in when someone who has actually been there is interacting with someone who denies that it exists.
sad for both, really. especially if the skeptic is willing to spend more energy on their position,
or is otherwise self-programmed to simply mostly always deny and doubt things.
(which is the gift of skepticism and the curse of the skeptic)
a good example of this for me is when people vehemently deny the reality of "ghosts" and "hauntings."
i know they have not seen and experienced what me and others saw and and experienced, more than once.
not that my translation of what happened is absolute...but some abnormal events did occur.
anyone who denies this is a fool (in this case).
they might not know they are a fool (in this case). but i do.
in fact, i cant help but know it.
so i'm kinda screwed, too
i think we need to cut each other some slack in regards to what is "real"
and how we interpret reality, because there is new data pouring in all the time
especially these days. but it will not be evaluated fairly and honestly if the evaluators disregard their own huge blind spots (i.e. shadows)
the shrinks need a shrink
the doctors need a doctor
the scientists themselves need to be put under a better microscope
if you know what i mean...
Edited by sirguessalotLink to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
thanks for asking, Danny
a lot of things, really. maybe most of all is the transparency of the organizers, and how well-documented the methods are. and how both old and new are respected by the institute that developed it. and how there is nothing new or super special to it, really. most of what is new and special, perhaps, is the arrangement, and the overall framework and presentation.
and i really have come to appreciate both "cutting-edge" and "time-tested" philosophies and practices.
Because much of the world, it seems, is stuck in one or the other (at the expense of both).
i also really like the lack of prejudice (racial, academic and otherwise) inherent in the approach.
and not due to some "everything is equal in value" flatland approach either,
but an attempt at a rational and comprehensive evaluation of elements for what they are worth
and the massive amount of live open dialogue that goes into "the work"
also, even though i have yet to see as comprehensive and coherent an approach as integral theory, in an intellectual sense,
there are also quite a few other valid and relevent emerging schools of thought and movements that i believe are touching on things the integral institute does not.
no, i am not introducing "my new cult" to the GSC
i am a cult of one...lol
more like a wandering minstrel who pops in from time to time
who likes to relate the tales of my journeys
(in spite of the often sour mood that pervades)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
yes, cool, lots more info....
an exploration of sorts into what we already have. and to develop it into something that really can stay in our grasp. not just a fleeting light or stroke of genius that happens to all of us but to see it work from the inside out
adventurous
courageous
for those who seek
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Uhmmm, speaking of being rude, ... all I gave was my initial impression after reading something about it on their website. True, we're not talking about an in-depth investigation being done here, but neither is it 'farting on your thread'. (And then again, this thread doesn't belong to you to begin with).
People give their first impressions all the time. It's part of life. Now I would be willing to bet even money that, upon doing the same initial reading over the material on their website, and I gave a 'thumbs up' surface review, you wouldn't be whining about 'farting on your thread' then now, would you? Hhmmmm?
So someone (me) had a critical remark based upon an impression of your program called Integral Workshop. So is that kind of response that you learned from these people? ... Hhmmmm, from what I could remember, Momentus grads had a similar response towards their critics too. ... Hhmmmm
Well, if anything, this just strengthens my impression.
Want me to open some more windows now?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
sigh...
last time i'll use the F-word around you, i guess
last i recall, it used to be something funny, or cute,
or even accidental (which was my first impression of your first impression)
but dont worry, i dont even want to argue with you, man
you'd probably keep me here for days, anyway
but hey, here i go for a sec anyway...duh
maybe i'll get lucky, eh?
imo, the impressions in your most recent post are loaded with suggestion guised as arguments
and now that you have for some reason admittedly allowed your first impression to become so strengthened as your primary impression
i would be somewhat surprised if you ever bother to look into any of it any further, regardless of what i say (please surprise me...)
i expect you might continue to "hmmmm" out your shallow but hardening impression, though
just as uninformed as before, and yes, quite as rude as usual, if not a tad more
(btw-when did voicing that someone is being rude become too rude and deserved of further rudeness? hmmmmmm? lol)
and so yer right about possession of the thread...its all yours
because i think it will be way too hard to ignore you, at this rate
or try and write around you
ummm...
what a spaz
:P-->
thanks for nothing
and...good luck with that, i guess
:D-->
and sigh
:(-->...for what its worth...i dont think farting is some moral sin or character flaw, it usually just stinks
and please, try and keep at least a few things clear before you further bury me in your boogers and poo (if that is what yer gonna do):
-i never asked for an in-depth investigation as you suggested (i asked for thoughts, not gropes)
-i did not specifically ask for a simple thumbs up or thumbs down (both of which might be considered farts or burps, imo).
-i do not learn any of my responses from "these people" (i am actually trying pretty hard to keep up with your language style)
-i dont think you are very qualified critic of "these people" (whatever that means) unless you think glancing at an event advertisment somehow qualifies you as such
--> 
;)-->
i prefer momentarily exploring how things can be possible
rather than endlessly arguing why they are not
and yes, doubting everything at least once
peace out,
Todd
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Wow! And some folks say that I'm overly sensitive.
-->
Look guy, you did ask what 'we guys' (posters here) might think of it. I took a look at the site, and the info about it. I gave my response, which admittedly was what I felt when I looked at it. And I was open about it. Heck, I even put a question mark after the 'Momentus reborn' remark. I said that your mileage may vary. I even tried plainly explaining that.
And that's f-wording on your thread? I don't think that I'm the one making the big deal here.
((shrugs)) Never mind. You can have your thread back. ... Just chill out, ok? You'll scare the fish.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
thanks Garth
and try not to read over-sensitivity into my response so much
i'm as cool as a cucumber...really
just like you
p.s. by f-word i meant my use of the word "fart"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
not sure what you mean by that
but in light of the idea of a WET weekend...lololol
it is written:
if the "substance" of spirit is the very water we all always live in
the fish do not know they are wet
and so the goal of a spiritual teacher is not to add something new (like VPs spirit)
but to skillfully point at the obviousness of God, who is everywhere
or some such thing
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
Greets Tweets.
SirGALot - I've read a tad of Ken Wilbur's stuff, and browsed that site link, so this is a cursory comment, I'm offering it solely based on the area that has caught my attention. 1) I do like the general idea of his "integral approach" and here's what I understand of it - it attempts to look at every part of a specific area of life and determine the commonalities in them and from that develop a composite view of how to understand that area. So if it was say, religion, all religions would be looked at and studied to glean from them the basic parts they have in common and from that would come a single, common "religious" understanding, basically a doctrine.
Which I think has 2._ some value, but I think also has an inherent failing (and again I'm not familiar with the extent/all of the work he and the group have done), namely that I don't personally assume it's rational to start from a premise that all religions have a little, some or even a lot of "truth" in them simply because they have parts that are similar to (all) others - in other words common beliefs across the board don't define "truth", as all religions could have common fallacies, myths, traditions, etc. What is exactly truthful about those things could be far removed from the actual beliefs. If that's the case, I would want another means to determine what that might be.
As far as the classes and seminars, I have no idea. I'm dubious of anything that promises "results" delivered in a weekend workshop, that kind of thing, because there are variables that have to be accounted for to promise anything like that. And one of the biggest is that the participant - well, fully participate, try, suspend reservation, etc. in order to fully participate in the experience. You can't promise a person will learn to swim in say, a week, if the person won't get in the water and follow instructions. So that variable has to be accounted for. Who wants to end up in silly situations where people are pressuring you to "dive in", rather than actually dealing with you as a person with your own interests and concerns?
But like I say, I don't know what they actually offer or do, thess are just some obervations. Some of Wilbur's stuff I've read was interesting though.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
thanks for chimin in, Socks
and taking the time
there is that notion of commonality like you've described (which i dont recall the term used),
but that is not how the composite view is developed, if i am understanding you correctly.
The different traditions and philosophies are also recognized for their different values and strong suits
quick crude examples:
some are more interiorly developed
some more exteriorly
and some are more communally developed
some more agentic
some are a gift to rational and post-rational thought,
and some are developed in their ability to handle old mythic representation
etc...
in that sense, the religions and philosophies are not forced into a box together with equal shapes, just because they have something in common
but added to a neutral framework they hang on kinda forms itself around them and their values, common or otherwise
making for one exotic huge never-finished model
I think this is where is a high value placed on "lineage" when it comes to traditions.
Those gemstones of practitioners in each tradition that are often buried under mountains of looser modern translations
(which, btw, also have their place in integral theory...in fact, some folks are not upset with integral theory, per se, but get more upset at how certain other enemy philosophies are included)
why not? to use some sort of inclusive principle as a baseline, that simply will not reject anything as completely untrue or invalid?
the assumption that NO translation of truth is complete or absolute, but all expressed truths are indeed partial.
in that, every one is somehow partially true, and those parts are almost never equal, or the same wavelength.
in short, the idea that no one is smart enough to be 100% wrong.
(there is more to it, too. i am not the best rep for integral theory)
also, there is an emphasis on the difference between translative aspects, and transformative aspects of methods
in that, experiences of things are very often similar (in transformative experience), regardless of names and language
also, integral theory is quite complex. it has morphed and developed for over 30-40 years now. Ken Wilber did not coin the phrase "integral" either (i forgot who), nor is the only writer on the subject. and it takes quite a while to get a grasp of all the components of the theory.
many times, critics obviously do not understand it before they critique it. which is understandable. reminds me of Zixar's great tagline "its not my fault if you didnt read the whole thing." happens a lot to Wilber's work.
i think it is. They do comprehensive surveys and whatnot, and people from all walks of life and religions sit through the Big Mind process. and they found that, regardless of background, skepticism is basically the major thing that stops people from playing with it.
(when publicly introducing the process, Genpo Roshi said that his mother and a Zen master where the only two who did not make it all the way)
But the process is disarming enough, and the skeptical voice is such a vital part of the process, that even most skeptics will give it a shot.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
visiting the website was akin to my experience
years ago of attending a banquet at a hotel the final evening of my wife's weekend astrology seminar.
When a comedian at the mic told dinnertime jokes, which ended with the punchline
"pluto must have been in transit"
provoking audience laughter and applause.
But me? I sat there, a Christian fish out of water, and didn't get it. But the "astrologers" there did.
Danny
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
thats funny, Danny
makes me think of how human language and schools of thought, it seems, is deep in yet another phase of hyper-specialization (to match our hyper-growth, it seems). the jungle is more exotic with specialists than it ever has been. like so many compartments of jargon. where we are doomed to misunderstand a lot a lot a lot of things
example, even within western medicine, some fields of study have a hard time communicating and collaborating at all, which has produced "heaps of piles" of mostly exclusive value-sets (tied to language), simple misunderstanding is the name of the game. same words, many different schools of fish. its ironic, too, how we are growing somewhat explosively, anthropologically, yet it is getting harder and harder to talk to each other
reminds me of scriptural "Babylon," and how it seems we need a new "tongue" these days. one that serves us beyond the conventional limits of language (if we hope to dialogue regarding "God" at all)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Xena
Sir G. -- Have you been to some of these workshops, etc? Tell us what it's like. When I read about the "Naked" sessions, I thought they were sitting around philosophizing in the nude ... or is it more like the naked truth? If one were to register for one of these conferences, what would we expect to experience? -X
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.