I often begin with a disclaimer
I received the “cricket’s request” (why such quietude on this forum?) as lets get this discussion hoppin’ … send in your chirps and chirrups before the sun goes down and our cricket communications go down with the sun.
I claim to be a great reader…I can read any of your work, and then some…but as a young grasshopper, to chip/chirp in with an intelligent response often furthers the silence of my cricket kin. What I am about to say neglects the depth of intellect seen on this thread thus far. But I do have something to say, perhaps nothing more than that of a lone grasshopper, rubbing leg to wing as the lone moon moves across the sky. Maybe I do understand the language we are discussing here…but my grammar is all wrong.
(all quotes from @Tom_Murray’s essay (book? Romance novel? …you had me at “embodied and experiential perspective” !!)
On religious beliefs/magical thinking:
The mystical sages and shamanistic healers of the future only need to understand and skillfully activate the magical (including “archetypal” and some of the “mythical”) strata of consciousness, as they always have – ideally from a place of great care and skillful means. They do not need to “believe in” literal or metaphysical manifestations of magical beings and phenomena to do their important work. Concepts such as Spirit and Soul continue to be rich ideas for the metaphorical and metaphysical (and post-metaphysical) dimensions of human Being. We do not want to reject them, but rather find modes of belief-holding and dialogue that move flexibly between levels of interpretation, knowing the ideas are tools for mutual understanding and liberation, rather than realities we are subject to. (p. 231)
I like this segment of the conclusion. Many individuals (if we may term ourselves as such) on this forum have shared mystical experiences, the uncanny happenings. Your conclusion may make a sage-shaman out of all of us, on our good days! Yet what do we do with the magical activations? Where do we go from here?
I want to emphasize the importance of skillfully “suspending disbelief” (or play “the believing game”) to access the magical, mystical, and metaphysical gifts of life, for example:
− To sense the large oak in the forest as a Being that I am intimately connected with – that whispers forgotten truths into my inner ear…
…Such things are critical, not as literal indicators of metaphysical truths, but as experiences that can be penetrated for deeper, if fallible, truths. Importantly, post-metaphysical thinking must include a phenomenological inquiry into the truths found in raw experience
I share a recent post on another thread…
back story:
I had an experience while walking in a forest, no expectations other than a short walk in the woods, and entered into a “zone” like experience. I felt something change. I came upon a brush area (rhododendron shrubs) where many sparrows had come for a gathering. I sung their song with one note changed and one responded with the same call, something that does not occur. The sparrow mimicked my alteration in tune. A few seconds later I “experienced” the bird’s language…their environment, their soundscape, their mental landscape. A sort of sharing of its/their language and surrounding field. Unforgettable…yet what do I do with this experience?)
Am I a mystic? An expert? Is anyone an expert? Is there room for a fella like me, beginning again and again, having an expert-level experience yet repeatedly unable to understand how to proceed unless through the help of my friends, my co-conspirators? What do I do with this experience other than share?
We can no longer look to eternally-true authorities for answers to these questions – we must develop ways of thinking that allow the answers to evolve with us and through us. (p.233)
I wish I could personally do Divine justice to your piece here, Tom… and have the “urge” + the ability to share the depth of intellectual discoveries as @theurj has accomplished above. And kind Mr. Bruce, i do appreciate you efforts to spark a discussion here and elsewhere.
In closing, for this post at least, I wish to state for the record that we are all already existing in this space of post-metaphysical thinking, according to what I interpret from Tom’s conclusions. I am not concerned with what we call it, at least for now. I do want more of it. I do want to know how these individual experiences and accounts will add up. I do want to know where we go from here.
Side question for @Tom_Murray (and any others):
You mention in the introduction:
Wilber’s work carries too many metaphysical implications, and more can be done to bridge the cultural distance between rationality and spirituality.
I found one reference to this (p. 224), in which an experience is then taken “to a claim about the nature of reality and the cosmos.” Could you expand upon this? (I understand that you do expand in that segment, “Feeling and being infinite and empty”…maybe I am asking not for criticism of only Wilber, more so, what can be done to bridge the gap)
Also, how does your work differ from Wilber’s The Religion of Tomorrow? The two works align (developmental models, shadow work, “upgrading” outdated religious frameworks, to name three), yet there is something a bit different accomplished in your work Tom. I would like to hear more. Perhaps I just need to read between the lines…
Side note:
This and any forum will never be THE site for a perfect discussion. Discourse, the Infinite Conversations platform, does many things well, but one drawback is the lack of ability to manage multiple threads under one heading (such as this #10 Knowing and Unknowing will not have multiple forks or branches). This will make for one long flowing thread that we could perhaps clean up a bit…but then it alters the conversation. We tend to let the conversation remain as is, warts and all.
What Discourse does allow is for a more creative approach, a broader user-experience than most forums. It may even begrounds for a post-discourse, aligning with post-metaphysical thinking. The opportunity for creative magic can be utilized more frequently, imo.