Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Inthedark last won the day on September 20 2012

Inthedark had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

10 Good

About Inthedark

  • Rank
    Regular Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
  1. A large proportion of what we think is attributed to our subconscious and it is often steering us in particular ways without our knowledge, hence the saying "let me sleep on it". We are starting to realise that it drives a lot of our decision making. Some of these "feelings" could possibly be attributed to God in a person who is sensitive and is experiencing some "leakage" from the subconscious. I like to think God permiates everything, all reality, but I don't hear him talk to me.
  2. I agree it is a nice simple way to view some of the alignments between stages. With regard to Fowler's stages it is my understanding that most individuals progress but not all. Many might stay in stage 2, depending on their character and their environment, likewise 3. I also believe the lines between stages are not solid, so there can be a bit of two stages at the same time in certain circumstances. Most of those who do progress usually get to stage 4 and fall out of the side of the model but for those who can work through it, stage 5 is attainable. Stage 6 is reserved for those enlightened individuals and very rarely acheived. I believe this is a very basic summary of the way we work through the stages. Personally I would put myself at stage 4, trying to hang in there and knowing there is much more to learn ;-) Regards Paul
  3. You are correct Jonny, the inference is that it hastn't happened yet. Universalising means an understanding of the fact there are many paths to God and a sort of transcending of the normal frames of reference, an understanding of the whole e.g. Jesus, Gandhi, Mother Teresa maybe. That is my take on it Jonny. Here is a small section from an interview with Ken Wilbur on the pluralistic stage: Tami Simon: Now, I can imagine the person listening to "Insights at the Edge" is thinking, "Well, you know, I'm probably an integral person. Maybe I'm pluralistic moving into integral." How does somebody know the difference, whether they're at the pluralistic stage of development or the integral stage? What is that transformation? Ken Wilber: The pluralistic stage is still part of what's called first-tier stages. And this was based on the research of Abraham Maslow and Clare Graves among others, and what they found is that as development continued, when it got to the pluralistic stage, then the next stage of development into the integral was what Clare Graves called "a momentous leap in meaning." And Abe Maslow found that it was a jump entirely from being motivated by deficiency needs to being motivated by being needs. Now, deficiency needs means that I'm motivated by I lack something, I need it, I get it, I'm fulfilled. So I lack food, I get it, I'm satisfied; I lack sex, I get it, I'm satisfied. All of theseā€”I lack self-esteem, I get it, I'm satisfied. But then all of a sudden, with the integral level or the being level, one's motivation becomes that of abundance, becomes that of overflowing. You are motivated to do something not because you lack something, but because you are full. There's a superabundant overflowing of motivation. And it's sort of as if somebody gave you a million dollars or even a billion dollars, and so instead of operating from a scarcity drive, you are operating from an abundance, and the first thing you do is share this money with all your friends. So that's sort of the emotional difference between pluralistic and integral, but it comes down to the essential definition between first tier and this second tier or integral tier, and that is that as, still being part of first tier, the pluralistic value structure thinks that its values are truly the only real and believable values in the world. And so the pluralistic stage is antimodernity, antienlightenment, antirationalism, it's anti-traditional-values, and doesn't have quite a big enough mind-space to allow there to be some truth to all of these value structures. And so there's still, if you're at the pluralistic stage, there's the beginnings of an integral move in that there is an attempt to not marginalize individuals, there's an attempt to overcome oppression, an attempt to overcome repression and social injustice, but it still doesn't include all the other value structures. Whereas when you get to the integral level, all of a sudden the mind expands, and there's a place for everything, there's room for everything. There's a sense that everybody's right, although some truths are more right than others. The full interview is here: http://www.soundstrue.com/podcast/transcripts/ken-wilber1.php?camefromhome=camefromhome Regards Paul
  4. Hi there. I attended a talk to our local Ephesus Group on Sunday, which is a group associated with the Sea of Faith. The talk was given by the Ministry Team Leader for the local Presbyterian Church, namely the Rev Dr Susan Jones. I was suprised to hear her tell the group that the God of the Bible was dead, or at least the mask that we had given the Ultimate Mystery in the Bible was dead, but the Ultimate Mystery that is really God still remained. She said that she agreed with Fowlers Stages of Faith model putting herself at stage 4 or 5, but said it was delicate and she couldn't just say what she thought in open church. She said she was obliged to think of everyone in the congregation and where they were at in their faith journey, be respectful of that and in effect, tow the company line. In this particular forum, she was able to tell us what she really thought. We discussed the stages according to Fowler and she then talked about adding some descriptions used by Ken Wilbur in Integral Spirituality. She finally went on to add a further column in her graphic "crudely" aligning world history with the stages. It was a fascinating talk I thought. The tables she used during the talk looked a little like this: Fowler Name Description Stage 1 Magical Children Stage 2 Mythic-Literal Fundamentalists Stage 3 Conventional Orthodox, mainstream church Stage 4 Individual-Reflexive Questioning Stage 5 Conjunctive Integrating critical thinking and faith Stage 6 Universalising Practically sainthood She then referred to Ken Wilbur and added a column called "world view stages" as follows: Fowler Name Description World View Stages Stage 1 Magical Children Archaic Stage 2 Mythic-Literal Fundamentalists Magic Stage 3 Conventional Orthodox, mainstream church Mythic Stage 4 Individual-Reflexive Questioning Rational Stage 5 Conjunctive Integrating critical thinking Pluralistic and faith Stage 6 Universalising Practically sainthood Integral And finally, as stated previously she added a final column called "world history as follows: Fowler Name Description World View Stages World History Stage 1 Magical Children Archaic Pre-history Stage 2 Mythic-Literal Fundamentalists Magic Pre-history/history Stage 3 Conventional Orthodox, mainstream church Mythic Church history Stage 4 Individual-Reflexive Questioning Rational Enlightenment/modern Stage 5 Conjunctive Integrating critical thinking Pluralistic Post modern/quantum era and faith Stage 6 Universalising Practically sainthood Integral It was a fine way to spend a Sunday afternoon and it certainly got the juices flowing. I have always identified with Fowlers Stages of Faith and this extension of them was fun to explore. Regards Paul
  5. An outdated law providing a right to carry firearms from a time when it was justifiable is the problem in my view. It is now embedded in the American psyche and as a consequence invokes strong emotion amongst Americans on what it means to be American. Like it or not it is now part of the National Identity. Personally, not being a part of that culture, I find the right to carry firearms offensive and irrelevant in a modern developed country. I can understand it in one of our modern theatres of war or where there is a break down of social rules, such as in Syria. As a Christian it makes even less sense to carry weapons, especially those specifically meant for killing lots of human beings in a short timeframe such as semi automatic weapons. Only the state needs to be armed in some fashion to enforce the rule of law. Society needs to lead by example and not carry firearms. Those who choose to break the law and carry firearms should be dealt with by the law, but again, the example being set by society should be a civilised one without the need for the death penalty. It is a logical inference to say more weapons and access to weapons means an increased likelihood that they will be used both appropriately AND inappropriately by your average mums and dads in an over reaction to some petty crime or a justified use in self defence, by criminals to aid in committing criminal acts, by angry teenagers or the mentally unstable. Someone sometime has to make a stand. In short my suggested solution is that society should lead by example; that example being what that society believes (enacted through the democratic process) is the right way to behave in relation to carrying guns. My slant is clear, but as I say above I haven't been brought up in that culture. Paul
  6. I enjoyed this little talk thank you rivanna for posting it. Social psychology with regard to groups is fascinating stuff and I like most of what Mr Haidt has to say. The war comments I think simply relate to the loss of the self in the group, for the betterment of the group. This apparent transcedance (not sure if that is the right word) is acheivable in small teams of people who share a common goal and share in the suffering. It is as though the suffering brings out the selflessness. I have experienced a warmth, a flooding of warmth through my body and a loss of fear regarding my personal safety as I tried to further the common goal of my small group; everything felt as though time had slowed and I was moving in slow motion. I lost myself in the moment and did what was required, as did my mates. This was a military situation and the loss of the "self" absolutely increased our survival chances. This phenomenon is common in warfare and is probably the reason why military training is often tougher than is actually possible, not to break the individuals in the group, but to cement the group through shared suffering. This seems quite important when considering Jesus as a political activist, the Apostles and the early Jesus movement, prior to the existence of the church. Paul
  7. Very well put rivanna. Both movies, although different, leave you with more questions than answers Paul
  8. I know what you mean, it takes a couple of viewings or more really. This one is also a very interesting movie you may enjoy called Mr Nobody. The premise is he's the last "mortal" human left on earth and he tries to remember aspects of his past to retell to a reporter whilst considering his life and ultimately coming to terms with his mortality: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=miPQLmKtRXQ Regards Paul
  9. Waking Life - an interesting exploration which some may appreciate. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7583894250854515095&hl=en
  10. It is very difficult to subjectively investigate death and those who do die and are brought back seem to have a variety of experiences, although many are remarkably similar. I had a post op speed wobble after an ankle reconstruction when reacting badly to a drug I was given. I remember a strong vertigo feeling like I was withdrawing into myself, not just peripheral vision but everything - I felt no fear. I also felt a flood of warmth wash over my entire body as this happened, then nothing. It was pleasant but was a foreign feeling to me, something I've never felt before or since. I technically stopped being human for a short time before becoming one again very soon afterward with no recall of anything inbetween. I don't know what that means to anyone else, I think only I can know about how something which happened to me was experienced and felt. I can't say whether or not that experience means anything with regard to afterlife; my position on that has been mentioned in this thread in a previous post. If in fact that was death, albeit very briefly, what I can say is that there is nothing to fear. Paul
  11. I read this article today on the NZ news site Stuff stating that as part of the Christchurch earthquake rebuild, the Anglican and Catholic churches have been engaged in high level talks regarding sharing a new cathedral in Christchurch. This would be the first time since the split some centuries ago that the two churches have been under the same roof. A thawing of the ice in shared adversity (and I'm not just talking about the earthquake). I think it'll be interesting for all if they decide to go ahead and set a new precedent: http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/7641464/Historic-super-cathedral-plan Regards Paul
  12. I agree. The hearer must be open to what is being said to take it on board, and it is so often not the case during debate; often both parties remain fixed in their position, or give only a little. I suppose ego gets in the way on occasion, amongst other things.
  13. Quite right of course PaulS, being put to death silently spoke volumes. But the reason for him being put to death was his voice and teachings being heard at the higher levels of authority in his location. He was a threat to that governing authority, who he challenged quite openly in the last week, which was a very "sensitive" time to be doing so. Regards Paul
  14. Changing people is a hard thing to do if those people aren't open to change. I think the best we can hope for is to be an example in what we do and how we do it and hope that people choose to emulate that when they are ready. Regards Paul
  15. Interesting. You know when room clearing Yvonne they call the door frame "the coffin". The first man in with his buddy's lined up behind in "the stack" is considered to be dead or seriously injured if the room being entered has the enemy within it. Imagine being in that mind space every time you clear a room in a building in a war zone, which could be hundreds. Every time it was your turn to be point, you'd be wrestling with your own mortality in a very real way. A tough job to say the least. It doesn't justify being unjust or offensive but it gives the situation at hand a little balance when viewing things like this. Personally I take it with a pinch of salt. It's not right, but I understand where it comes from. Paul
  • Create New...