(all links - except to "Gaia" and "Do
Future yourself" - refer to German texts)
We have to tackle some problems. On the one hand, we need ploughed land, ground, homes, technical means and so on. Marx said something about those needs. On the other Hand we must transform our culture and our lifestyle. We have to change our ways of living and working. In transforming society we have to transform ourselves and while transforming ourselves we will change the society.
can be conceived and rationally understood only as revolutionary practice."
(III: THESIS ON FEUERBACH Karl Marx)
Spirituality is one possibility of changing ourselves. What is spirituality? There are many definitions. If spirituality demands praying - I'm not spiritual. I refuse all forms of spirituality which are "too lazy to think". But I won't refuse people who are spiritually. Its a tightrope walk.
These weeks an interesting coincidence takes place. We discuss
the topic "Spirituality" in a group of friends in Jena
and we discuss this topic in a mailing-discussion-group at the
same time around the world.
I outline some opinions:
Steve and I fear that spirituality might work like a religion. It may "hold (only!) its doctrines and values as the true, right... ones" (Steve, 28.3., add. in ( ) A.S.). I feel that many "spiritual" people refuse non-spiritual people because they are not "really human". But it is often elitism to say that the other people are "not ready for it esoteric secret".
We have to define what spirituality is. We can understand each other in the definitions. I wrote my doubts in a mail and got interesting answers.
Here are some definitions of spirituality:
I like this. I don't pray. But I often think that hearing good
music or snuggle up to the child can be a better meditation than
forced praying without feeling... (I can't write about this, because
this is "nondual"(see: T.Murphy about "Wholeness and Enlightenment").
When I was 14, I had "a sense of oneness with" the
universe. But it was a flight from the real world. When I studied
physics (relativistic quantum theory) I defended my feelings against
bare formulas. I want to integrate Feeling (I want not say that
I mean mystical experience although maybe some of them are such
feelings) and Knowing - not loose the knowledge.
I won't lose my self. But my "self" is nothing without introducing it in a community - the world. While this my "self" becomes another of course. I needn't to prove my knowledge to my friends to give a lecture in the discussions about philosophy with my friends in Jena . I've learned to be silent (it was hard to me!) and to be a part of the group easily. Some groups develop around me without lectures - only due to human being...
None of my ancestors was able to study or learn. My grandmas worked and
worked and worked... Their lives weren't "transcended",
but dull. I'm very happy to have another possibilities. Therefore
I insist on them. Yes I know - I've learned (!?) to limit the
meaning of mere thinking. I allow and promote feelings... on the basis of an understanding different from that of my grandmas. In this sense
In this sense I'm unlearning some school-thinking. Hegel
"Verstand" (understanding) and "Vernunft"
(reason). "Vernunft" unites the differences made by
"Verstand". Hegel only knew rational brain-"Vernunft".
We accept and know more.
Ken Wilber has a good presentation: at first there is a "fusion"
(mush without differences). But than we need the stage of differences
to achieve the stage of "Integration". Integration is
not the same with fusion! In this way I can accept wholeness.
With Hegel I see differences in the units and these differences are necessary for being and evolution. If there were no differences, there would be no interaction (like we in our discussions). Uniform things didn`t need other things, they would drive without interactions in the mush. This is not the whole/wholeness I mean.
"Spinoza was by descent a Jew; and it is upon the whole
the Oriental way of seeing things, according to which the nature
of the finite world seems frail and transient, that has found
ist intellectual expression in his system. This Oriental view
of the unity of substance certainly gives the basis for all real
further development. Still it is not the final idea. It is marked
by the absence of the principle of the Western world, the principle
of individuality, which first appeared under a philosophic
shape, contempoaneously with Spinoza, in the Monadology of Leibnitz."
(Hegel, Encyclop. § 151 addition, Engl. cit. in: http://werple.net.au/~andy/actualit.htm).
We have to unite - analogous to Ken Wilber - the opposites:
and Individuality, not to "attempt to eradicate one of the
opposites" (Excerpt from Wilber´s "No boundaries"
by C. Doppler).
A mail from me to Steve K. and the Cc-group (21.4.1997)
... The text of AM de Lange about Smuts "holism AND creativeness
of nature" likes me
Maybe said: Its "Materie" (German word which not means stuff, but all Not-in-consiousness-being). All "Materie"forms emerge from other "Materie"forms and so on. (consciousness is a Materie-form too!) From Nothing comes Nothing.
Hegel uses other categories. All "somethings" comes from Nothing and goes into Nothing. We need permanence - and that permanence is Essence. This is a philosophical opinion. Its better than mixing physics and ideology. If the permanence would be the quantum-vacuum, this physical thing would be the Essence of universe! It is mechanical materialism!
But I have doubts because many spiritualists (esoteric) remove the physical (!) quantum-vacuum-energy to "consciousness-field". And than the human essence is identically with quantum-being and nothing other.
I dont refuse universal connections. But I think, they are more complex than a "simple" physical field of vacuum-quants. (I am a physicist. I have calculated the arising of quants in the early universe. I know the topic...) All my work is to find connections (therefore I love hypertexts, also in my WWW-project). I am fascinated to relationships, connections and so on. I try to connect serveral opinions by searching their common essence, I try to connect living and thinking and so on...
"Dialectic" is searching connections. Philosophy is thinking about connections. Life is connecting. Spiritual life and practise is another form of it, I accept.
(In our discussion in Jena there was One who said: "We cant change the society, but I want to be happy. Therefore I and my friends are meditating and forgot the real world in our spiritual consciousness." I canīt accept this opinion FOR ME (for him it may be well). )
And I dont think that spirituality is the "highest" opinion. (We had in socialist countries a "highest" opinion).
Excuse me, I cant explain more carefully in English.
Thanks to Martin G. for some corrections...!
Please refer as well to (in English):