Rss Feed
Tweeter button
Facebook button
Youtube button

Tag: "interiority"

Worldviews in Dialogue 1. Superman Explores His Sensitive Side

by Carter Phipps

In this new series, Worldviews in Dialogue, we want to explore the interior nature of different historical worldviews, comparing and contrasting the values, perspective, and the quality of consciousness intrinsic to different types of worldviews both in contemporary, and sometimes ancient, culture. We hope to use art, literature, pop culture, media and just about every other form of cultural expression to illustrate the ever-fascinating differences between these deep underlying structures of consciousness that have informed the evolution of human culture.

Modernism and Postmodernism. We use these words a lot on this blog to talk about the difference between two worldviews, two fundamentally different sets of values, two historically different ways in which human beings have constructed the world around them and made meaning. And whether we’re talking about Spiral Dynamics, Integral Philosophy, developmental psychology, or some other school of thought or research that identifies the critical importance of worldviews in the evolution of consciousness and culture, it is important to have a deep understanding of exactly what makes up the differences between these two stages of culture.

Of course, when we’re talking about such broad yet fundamental distinctions, the differences express themselves in myriad ways but are not always exact or perfectly clear cut. Yet as culture has changed over the last hundreds of years we know that there are certainly real differences between the values and perspective of a modern worldview that emerged on the cultural scene in the European Enlightenment and the values and perspective of a postmodern one that has been on the mainstream cultural stage since the 60s.

Modernism calls to mind things like scientific insight, reason and rationality, nation-states, industrialization, democracy, Newtonian physics, etc. The postmodern worldview calls to mind environmentalism, political correctness, pluralism and equality, respect for marginalized peoples and indigenous cultures, the breakdown of hierarchy, self-awareness and self-exploration, etc. Continue reading…

Share This:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • email
  • LinkedIn
  • Reddit
  • Twitter
  • Yahoo! Buzz

No More Messiahs (Part II)

by Carter Phipps

In my last post, “Apocalypse Now, Progressive Style,” I spoke about both the messianic tendencies that arise in traditional religious cultures the world over and the surprisingly similar tendencies toward eschatological thinking that we see even in progressive culture. I asked how we can find our way to a legitimate idealism about the development of human culture without falling prey to the mind-trap of messianic thinking.

A few years ago, I was doing research on an article on messianic thinking, and I came across a fascinating historical tidbit from the nineteenth century about Anne Besant, who had been a women’s rights activist in London before joining the Theosophical Society and eventually becoming its president. Besant was an interesting character for many reasons, but she is perhaps best known for her efforts to find the young boy who was supposed to grow up to be the World Teacher of the Theosophical Society. That boy was Jiddu Krishnamurti, the great twentieth-century teacher who rejected his association with Theosophy along with any sort of messianic titles and became a powerful independent philosopher/teacher in his own right.

It’s a fascinating story in many respects, but what struck me at the time was the reason for Besant’s messianic turn. It seems that she was incredibly passionate about progressive causes at the time, and amidst difficult conditions of the poor, and the squalor and poverty of an industrializing London, she began to lose faith in the modernizing forces at work in the economics of the day. After a flirtation with Marxism she met Helen Blavatsky, founder of Theosophy, and became interested in those esoteric teachings.

I’m sure there were many reasons for Besant’s interest in Theosophy, not the least being her own longtime spiritual interests, but one reason struck me as important: she was losing faith in the capacity of progressive causes to make a difference in the rapidly industrializing homeland.  Continue reading…

Share This:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • email
  • LinkedIn
  • Reddit
  • Twitter
  • Yahoo! Buzz

Perspectives on Integral Ecology—4

by Michael E. Zimmerman

2713551For an introduction to this series of dialogues between EnlightenNext magazine’s Ross Robertson and environmental philosopher Michael Zimmerman, see this post. For the previous blog in the series, click here.

Ross,

Your marvelous account of how profoundly affected you were by your first visit to Yosemite reminds me of what happened to my wife at the same place. About twenty years ago, we drove from Berkeley to Yosemite to spend a few days camping and hiking. As we emerged from a tunnel, Yosemite Valley, El Capitan, and many other features of that astonishing place suddenly manifested themselves in all their vastness, beauty, and glory. Confronted with this overwhelming display, her knees buckled. She experienced what Kant and several later thinkers called the “sublime.” According to Kant, great storms and gigantic natural phenomena may be called sublime not only because their sheer scale dwarfs us physically, but also because they stagger our ability to encompass them in terms of our conceptual and imaginative categories. In some respects, experience of the sublime is akin to or at least calls to mind certain exalted spiritual states, compared to which everyday affairs shrink to insignificance. Interestingly, your experience speaks not so much of oneness with nature (nature mysticism, as it is sometimes called) but rather awe in the face of the unimaginable heights, depths, and angles that Yosemite has to offer, Continue reading…

Share This:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • email
  • LinkedIn
  • Reddit
  • Twitter
  • Yahoo! Buzz

Kosmic Concepts: Interiority

by Tom Huston

Here is the “Kosmic Concept” I wrote for Issue 44 of EnlightenNext — our definition of a term that every evolutionary should know:

Escher - Self-PortraitINTERIORITY n.
1. The inner depth dimension of the manifest evolving Kosmos.
2. Subjective consciousness as distinguished from objective matter.

From the third-century Greek sage Plotinus to the twentieth-century English mathematician and philosopher Alfred North Whitehead, many of history’s most influential thinkers have recognized that the universe is far more than a merely physical process. Hidden beneath the outer appearances of the material world there is, in the words of Jesuit priest and paleontologist Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, “a within to things.” This other half of reality, a mysterious space unperceivable by our five senses, has been variously called consciousness, spirit, sentience, prehension, or subjectivity. But when speaking about the great story of Kosmic evolution, it is often useful to describe it as simply interiority. Continue reading…

Share This:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • email
  • LinkedIn
  • Reddit
  • Twitter
  • Yahoo! Buzz

One Process (Quote of the Week)

by Andrew Cohen

One ProcessIn Evolutionary Enlightenment, the perennial revelation that there is only One is interpreted as the recognition that we are all part of One Process—a singular cosmic unfolding that began fourteen billion years ago and is still evolving, in this very moment, as you and as me. Every aspect of your experience in every moment, from the gross to the subtle, has been produced and is being produced by a cosmic process. Your physical form has been produced by a process that is the evolution of the exterior of the cosmos. Your psychological and emotional experience has been produced by a process that is the evolution of the interior of the cosmos. When you awaken to this perspective, you literally can no longer see yourself as separate. Continue reading…

Share This:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • email
  • LinkedIn
  • Reddit
  • Twitter
  • Yahoo! Buzz

Perspectives on Integral Ecology—3

by Ross Robertson

Yosemite wallsFor an introduction to this series of dialogues between EnlightenNext magazine’s Ross Robertson and environmental philosopher Michael Zimmerman, see this post. For the previous blog in the series, click here.

Michael,

I like the way you tied together the two core issues I brought up—anthropocentrism and interiority—so simply and directly in your last letter. I think my editorial comrade (and fellow “bright green” junkie) Joel Pitney summed it up pretty well in his enthusiastic comment to your post:

Until you can have both a consciousness-centric appreciation for the interiority in everything AND a recognition that our particular depth of interiority as humans (including morality and environmental responsibility itself) is the most advanced expression of consciousness that the universe has produced to date (as far as we know), then your perspective on the relationship between humanity, nature, and spirit can never be complete.

Touché! I wrote another story a few years back on similar issues surrounding interiority and consciousness in animals called Do Animals Have Souls?, and ever since then I’ve always found questions about the boundary lines between “animal” and Continue reading…

Share This:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • email
  • LinkedIn
  • Reddit
  • Twitter
  • Yahoo! Buzz

Perspectives on Integral Ecology—2

by Michael E. Zimmerman

For an introduction to this series of dialogues between EnlightenNext magazine’s Ross Robertson and environmental philosopher Michael Zimmerman, see this post. For the previous blog in the series, click here.

Michael ZimmermanDear Ross,

Thank you very much for your interest in the book that Sean Esbjorn-Hargens and I have written about integral ecology. I welcome the opportunity to dialogue with you about it!

You zeroed in on two hot topics: anthropocentrism and interiority. Let me say a few things about anthropocentrism first. In the late 1970s, I began working with George Sessions and Bill Devall on the emerging deep ecology movement, about which they would write the first book in 1985. One of my contributions was to argue that the famous (and controversial) German philosopher Martin Heidegger was a proto-deep ecologist. Although intrigued by Heidegger’s criticism of the domination of nature, George and Bill were uneasy about his alleged anthropocentrism. Heidegger claimed that human language opens up a clearing or “world” within which things can show up in the complex ways that they do for human beings. Heidegger denied that his view was anthropocentric, because the capacity for disclosing things is a gift that brings obligations, not a tool for lording it over the planet. Continue reading…

Share This:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • email
  • LinkedIn
  • Reddit
  • Twitter
  • Yahoo! Buzz

Evolutionary Enlightenment 101: Part I

by Andrew Cohen

Patrick Bryson - Guru 1Part I — 51%: The Magic Number

Do you know what the magic number is in spiritual physics?

I’m talking about that all-important equation that makes it possible for us to understand how radical spiritual transformation actually happens. Radical spiritual transformation, in the way that I teach, means significant and demonstrable evolution beyond ego.

Once you see the answer clearly for yourself, it seems obvious. But before you see it for yourself, it remains an ever-impenetrable mystery as to why and how human beings evolve beyond ego. But I figured it out. Continue reading…

Share This:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • email
  • LinkedIn
  • Reddit
  • Twitter
  • Yahoo! Buzz

Perspectives on Integral Ecology—1

by Ross Robertson

Painting in the Dark (interiority), 2005, by Sally SmartFor an introduction to this series of dialogues between EnlightenNext magazine’s Ross Robertson and environmental philosopher Michael Zimmerman, see this post.

•   •   •   •   •   •   •   •   •   •

Dear Michael,

Thanks again for agreeing to discuss this always subtle and fascinating subject—integral ecology—with me here on our blog. I am so impressed with the book so far, and I’ve only made it through the first few chapters! I heard it took you and Sean about ten years to write, and I can see why. You’ve got a masterpiece on your hands that I hope will see its way very far and wide into the cultural conversation. (Speaking of which, how has it been received so far?)

If all goes well, perhaps we can help that process along a little bit here by starting to highlight some of the richest, most important, and most controversial aspects of the book in our dialogue together. My hope is that we can also help clarify, simplify, and synthesize some of these ideas for an audience of (more or less) sophisticated laypeople. Because if there’s one thing Integral Ecology is not, that’s casual reading! Continue reading…

Share This:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • email
  • LinkedIn
  • Reddit
  • Twitter
  • Yahoo! Buzz