Update: If you're a member of Facebook see the ongoing discussion at the FB IPS forum, which starts with the question about Clinton and Warren.
I also posted the Warren v. Clinton in the Facebook IPS forum. One commenter (Mark) asked if such a political question belonged in a forum on spirituality. Which opens a whole can of worms on what integral postmetaphysical spirituality implies.
I responded: What
could be more spiritual than helping people earn a living wage to feed
their families. Than addressing income inequality so that people have a
fair shot at creating enough money to meet their basic needs and have
some surplus time and energy to devote to needs higher on the hierarchy,
like spiritual pursuits? And I don't mean just traditional religion but
so-called integral postmetaphysical spirituality (IPS)? Seems most of
us that are into such spiritual pursuits are already privileged with
enough surplus in the lower levels like survival, membership, individual
autonomy and transcendental awareness that we take for granted that
most of the population is struggling to eat and pay the rent. If you are
the latter you will not focus on much of anything else, let alone IPS.
So
which political agenda lends itself more toward lifting up most people
to even approach IPS? Just preaching IPS to the choir of already
relatively wealthy elites is a circle jerk. Taking the prime directive
seriously means taking action to lift everyone up to achieve their
highest potential, not just in financial terms but all the higher needs.
But we can't get there without addressing real socio-cultural problems.
And it matters a lot which political agenda is in power.
I'm
also reminded of Wilber's contention, and with which I agree, that the
predominant factor in an individual's level of consciousness is the
economic system. Levi Bryant would also agree, coming from an OOO
perspective. And coming from a Christian perspective take the recent
proclamations of the Pope about trickle down economics being a major
factor in subverting one's religious obligations to the people. Or Jim
Wallis, who sees economic budgets as moral issues, how we enact our
moral and religious beliefs in treating each other.
Btw,
as IPS ning forum we've long included political and economic issues as
part of an integral view to achieving spirituality. LP's recent thread
on integral religions notes this as a necessary ingredient. I can go on
and on but that's a start of an answer.
Mark said: You
make some very good general points and I appreciate the spirit of your
message. But, as I see it, all you've done here is justify that anything
political/economic is relevant to spiritual matters and ought to be
included when investigating
the latter. I agree with this as an abstract principle and that we need
to bring the political and religious/spiritual into more dynamic
conversation, but this doesn't mean that it's necessary or, in this
case, aligned with the intention of a post metaphysical spirituality
forum like this one. It may or may not be. If I were adjudicating, I
would recommend that you provide some framing in your initial post
explicating how the link/piece ties into the subject matter of
spirituality. And in this case, as you've shown, it's in a very general
way that they are related or should be related. Anyway, I find that
integrally informed folks (myself included) are inclined toward
interdisciplinary orientations, and this is great, but there's also
important reasons for maintaining disciplinary
boundaries/specialization.
My reply: So
does spirituality include, including integral spirituality, how we
practice it? How we help others? Does it mean we just engage in academic
discussion limited to defining the upper reaches of what constitutes it
within our own specialization? There is
obviously a need for that too, hence my heavy engagement with it. But
does it matter which political agenda has power to affect the general
well being of most people? Isn't that a spiritual practice, to engage a
better political agenda? I'd also suggest Terry Patten's ILR interview,
where he sees such political engagement as addressing "the well-being of
the whole world, with their relationship to the Ground of Being, or
Spirit."
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.