No more gurus: the emergence of peer production opens the way to a commons of spiritual knowledge from which all humanity can draw.
Is it possible to peer produce spiritual
experience and insight, just as knowledge, software and code for computers are
peer produced by communities of self-organizing individuals? If so, does this
matter?
My answer is yes. Spirituality consists
of socially-constructed worldviews that may no longer be appropriate to the
time and space in which we live. In this context, newly emerging spiritual
viewpoints and practices can be seen as necessary ‘upgrades of consciousness’
that can help us deal with new social and cultural complexities. The
implications are profound.
Spirituality and religion always bear
the hallmark of the social structures in which they were born and become embedded.
Emerging religions often represent a partial transformation of these social
structures because they represent new forms of consciousness, but they can
never become hegemonic if they are not rooted in, and accepted by, the
mainstream social logic.
For example, it’s not difficult to see
that the Catholic Church and Buddhist Sangha have strong feudal elements in
their organisational structures and ideas; or that Protestant churches are
strongly linked to emerging capitalist and/or democratic forms; or that what
has been called “New
Age spirituality” is often geared towards a marketplace of commodified
spiritual experiences that are available for sale. There is little doubt that
the Catholic Church and the Buddhist Sangha would not have grown as they did had
they not accepted the Roman political order and slavery respectively.
Therefore, it’s logical to expect that
the emergence of peer production as a new model of value creation and
distribution should also lead to new forms of spiritual organization and
experience.
Peer production or ‘p2p’ is defined as
any process that allows for open input, participatory processing, and where the
output is universally available as a commons to all. This definition includes a
number of elements that might also apply to peer to peer spirituality.
First, the spiritual community needs to
be open to everyone who accepts its basic rules and injunctions. Second, there must
be no pre-defined hierarchies capable of imposing centralized roadmaps or
beliefs. And third, spiritual knowledge cannot be copyrighted or privatised,
as, for example, occurs in Scientology.
The key positive ethical value of a peer
to peer spirituality - and what distinguishes it from all older forms - is
rooted in what has been called “equipotentiality:” the capacity of every human being to develop their own
qualities, which are all necessary as contributions to common projects. We all
have the capacity to develop different skills which are complementary to each
other.
Equipotentiality
is the necessary antidote to the ranking methodologies that infect
authoritarian and hierarchical spiritual forms. According to the Spanish
transpersonal psychologist Jorge Ferrer, the “comparing mind” is an
essential underpinning of hierarchy, constantly engaged in ranking individuals
as higher or lower to each other.
By contrast, “An integrative
and embodied spirituality,” says Ferrer, “would effectively undermine the
current model of human relations based on comparison, which easily leads to
competition, rivalry, envy, jealousy, conflict, and hatred. When individuals
develop in harmony with their most genuine vital potentials, human
relationships characterized by mutual exchange and enrichment would naturally
emerge because people would not need to project their own needs and lacks onto
others.
More specifically, the turning off of the comparing mind would
dismantle the prevalent hierarchical mode of social interaction—paradoxically
so extended in spiritual circles—in which people automatically look upon others
as being either superior or inferior, as a whole or in some privileged
respect."
Instead, each and every individual should
be considered as a set of many different attributes, strengths and weaknesses,
and in each of them they can be worse or better than others. The key is to
build a social system that allows every individual to contribute their best
skills and qualities to a common project, and to be recognized for it.
This is exactly what happens in peer
production, and the same would be true for p2p spiritual projects. What is
important here is not to see spiritual achievements like ‘enlightenment’ as
transcendent qualities that trump all others and infer an unchallengeable
authority on one person, but rather as particular skills that deserve respect,
just as we respect great musicians or artists without giving them any special power.
That means no more gurus, just skillful
teachers with a particular job to do. Such teachers are technical facilitators
- nothing more and nothing less. They are equipotential peers who serve a specific
function.
Of necessity, the
methodology of spiritual inquiry in this approach is radically different. The “cooperative
spiritual inquiry groups” developed by John
Heron are a good example of this methodology in practice. In these
groups, the spiritual search starts by collectively accepting certain
experiments and injunctions in order to facilitate the emergence of spiritual
experience, but there is no pre-ordained path.
For example, an experienced Zen teacher
might be invited to lead a meditation exercise, but all the participating
individuals would share their experiences with others in the group in order to
enhance mutual understanding and learning. Unlike the spiritual practices of
hierarchical groups, there is no a priori validation of certain experiences,
nor condemnation of others. Every experience is honoured, and forms part of the
collective meaning-making experience.
In the past, spiritual seekers faced a
choice between traditional religious structures whose horizontal or communal
aspects were usually embedded in hierarchies; and more individualist New Age
versions which were often quite narcissistic - based on the acquisition of
spiritual experience (often in exchange for money) and only weakly rooted in
horizontal relationships. By contrast, a p2p spirituality would honour community
and co-production above all else.
All this suggests a new approach to
spirituality which I call ‘contributory.’ This approach considers each
spiritual tradition as a set of injunctions within a specific social framework that’s
influenced by epoch-specific values such as patriarchy and doctrines of
exclusive truth. At the same time, each tradition also contains a body of
psycho-spiritual practices which disclose particular truths about our
relationship with the universe. Discovering these spiritual truths requires at
least a partial exposure to these practices, but it also requires ‘inter-subjective’ feedback
from other people, so it’s a quest that cannot be undertaken alone. It has to
be shared with others on the same path.
In this
approach, tradition is not rejected but critically experienced and evaluated. The
contributory spiritual practitioner can hold themselves beholden to a
particular tradition, but need not feel confined to it. He or she can create
spiritual inquiry circles that approach different traditions with an open mind,
experience them individually and collectively, and exchange experiences with
others.
Through these
circles, a new collective body of spiritual experience can be continuously
co-created by inquiring spiritual communities and individuals. By adding p2p governance and p2p property relations to the peer
production of spirituality, we can also create pre-figurative
practices that can help to construct a different future. Like the Catholic
monks who created a new Christian subjectivity that would become the root of
the newly emerging Christian civilization, peer to peer spiritual practitioners
are co-creating an emerging p2p-based, commons-oriented society.
The outcome of
this process will be a co-generated reality that is unpredictable, but one
thing is sure: it will be an open, participatory approach that leads to a
commons of spiritual knowledge from which all humanity can draw.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.