Intention and Depth: 21st Century Spirituality Reloaded

ok Julian, i'll play Devil's advocate again :)

first of, my approach is neither defend nor disprove your points but to translate them in their “healthier' versions as best as i can.

1) That an African child dying of a rare form of Hepatitis could be “healed” by “gratitude rocks” from California.

if you just got duped into buying the rocks then hell no. but if you use the rocks as a tool to remind yourself to ooze with gratitude thoughts all the time, then it would have an impact on healing someone somewhere. but the impact of the healing would more likely be on YOU. this is also the concept of Tonglen. so i say use that rock for your tonglen practice.

2) That anyone, anywhere can “manifest parking spaces” with the power of their mind.

ok you got me. it's already hard enough bending spoons. but i say manifesting parking spaces is possible only if you have money to pay for valet :)

3) That oppressed minorities are “creating the reality” of hate crimes through their “negative thoughts” and could quit manifesting that reality if they thought more positively.

this statement should be reprhased like this: Oppressed minorities are also perpetrating the reality of hate crimes if they focus on their negative thoughts and act on them….

4) That those protesting the Iraq war (and indeed any injustice) are actually perpetuating it and should instead just focus on good thoughts to help create change.

depends on how people do the protesting. even terrorism is a form of protest–a very low form of protest. so it should go hand in hand. right thoughts + right way of protest.

5) That the wealthiest people in the world got that way because they know how to apply the secret of positive thought and that the poorest people in the world are that way because they think negatively.

partially true. a lot of wealthy people (especially those earned their wealth honestly) including business people, athletes, and artists apply positive thoughts and do visualization. they flow with what they're doing. and yes, negativity could make people more poor than they already are, because negative thoughts would depress them, affect their health, and bar them from accumulating the wealth that they deserve, materially, physically, mentally, emotionally, and spiritually.

~C

P.S. i have more good news for you Julian which would make you squirm or puke or whatever: The Secret will be on Oprah :)

Julian ~
Great to see/hear you.
Gorgeous presentation. Thank you.


Here's what struck me listening to you~


What I find disturbing about New Age spirituality in general, and movies like The Secret and What the Bleep specifically, is that they claim trancendence when at best, they are offering a sometimes rather dubious translation.

KW describes the two major roles of religion/spirituality as
translative and transcendent.

The first he describes as a horizontal movement.  The second, a vertical movement.

Translative religion/spirituality provides codes of ethics, ritual, ect. designed to give comfort and meaning to the individual - to help translate the individual's experience of the relative world.

Transcendent spirituality, on the other hand aims to move beyond the separate self altogether. Wilber says something to the affect of rather than providing meaning for the separate self, transcendence makes the separate self toast.

Pre/Trans Problem

In addition to prerational being elevated to transrational, it's common with the pre/trans fallacy for the translative to be elevated to transcendent. 

Wilber stresses the importance of translative spirituality. It plays a crucial role in people's lives.

Someone brought up the question of is a “new age” spirituality an improvement on mythic sky god spirituality?

In his blog Julian says,

“In my previous blog post I dismissed this position pretty strongly with the assertion that the Secret was stage appropriate for no-one, that in fact it represents a spiritual pathology rampant  in the broad, popular and influential New Age movement that actually distorts reality, mixes junk science with superficial philosophy, and effectively limits healthy stage-wise spiritual growth.”

Obviously one could argue that some ways of translating our experiences are healthier than others.  And I think we'll be seeing some more studies into what specific translative practices are most effective in certain areas.

Can we look at The Secret as translative?  As true but partial?

Siona offered this in her blog:

”What's good about The Secret? 

The Secret encourages the development of positive thinking, an internal locus of control, a sense of mastery over one's environment, visualization, and an appreciative and grateful attitude toward the world.

All these things, regardless of whether or not one believes in some magical reason behind them, are heavily correlated with an enjoyable, abundant, satisfying life; there are myriad psychological studies that indicate those people who feel that they are in control of how they respond to situations, and that their life circumstances are their own doing, are happier and more psychologically healthy than those who feel their lives are at the whim of uncontrollable circumstance. The illusion of control is a wonderful boost to happiness. Positive thinking, too, is a similar technique in creating a better life for oneself; optimists live longer, report having more satisfying relationships, and tend to be physically healthier than their pessimistic counterparts. Looking for what is positive in one's environment opens up doors to possibilities and keeps you looking for new opportunities for growth and change and success, while a negative attitude will shut you down and close your mind to these potentials. Visualization can do amazing things to the very structure of one's brain, helping to strengthen connections that will serve you well in the material world when it comes time to act, and encouraging the development of habitual responses that are conducive to happiness and success. And finally, practicing an attitude of appreciation and gratitude is a sure route to a more deeply satisfying life.”

She then goes on to point out what she finds troubling about the movie, be sure to check out the whole blog - a very good read imo.

So what I'm wondering is this:

Is it really appropriate to dismiss The New Age/secret/bleeps as “spiritual pathology”, or can we contextualize it as one form of translation?

I think we get into trouble when we dismiss translation as pathology simply because it's not transcendent - that's not its role.

If we give credence to the importance of translation and contextualize the different forms of it arising in culture then we can better look at them all and assign value to them.

From this place we can ask questions like,

What does healthy translation look like?

If we can stop pretending like transaltion is transcendence then we can make room for all of it and look at what works best for what.

-C4

Nice translations. I'm really a fan of “positive intention” in that as  a Buddhist I do practice “tonglen” and also “White Tara”. In these practices though, you have to be completely aware of all the dark energies, darkness, depression, shadow, ignorance, unhappiness, and endless suffering of all beings which also includes yourself. So, it's not entirely just a laser focus on just the “positive”. I think that is a huge difference in tonglen and “intention”  the Secret supports.

The next question though becomes the investigation of how do these “intentions” manifest in my relative experience and it becomes an opportunity to dig deeper.  If we simply look at our relative experience and see the “cause and effect” of the most mundane things like for example  “how am I connected to the internet and able to type and post my comments within seconds?” Following that trail of cause and effect inquiry leads me to various answers and on many different leveles. In this sense, It's a very superficial level of inquiry as well as a superficial conclusion to solely base it on “My Intention” as the Secret claims.

” I think that is a huge difference in tonglen and “intention”  the Secret supports.”

exactly. The Secret is only telling the happy side of the story. Tonglen is also about “inhaling” the suffering of others and not just “exahaling” positive healing thoughts. thanks for pointing that out.

Ai. I actually wrote a pretty lengthy response to your vlog, but somehow the comment was lost. I'll try again.

First off, great post, again, and thanks too to everyone still joining in this game. It's been massively fun.

Julian first:

I'm curious as to why you, personally, feel the need to disabuse people of their beliefs, and how you can seem so comfortable when it comes to invalidating the experiences of another person. Because sure: I'll grant you that there are some belief systems that more accurately track the way the world works. It'll grant that there are systems that will help us live more peacefully on the planet, as well as systems that will contribute to pain. Nonetheless, I do want to point out that my EXPERIENCE of my belief system is no more or less accurate than your experience of your belief system is, and no more or less accurate than the experience of the most die-hard New Age Dyer disciple is of her belief system. My beliefs may or may not be accurate, and may or may not fall in line with yours (or society at large), but my EXPERIENCE of them is as valid as anyone else's.  The content of my beliefs may be up for debate, but my experience - my belief in that belief - is a fact.

So why not start there? I likely chose my beliefs for the same reasons you choose yours. Let's look at where this conversation might get us. Because I have to ask  - and this was from your vlog -  how is Integral theory not a “pre-fabricated belief system designed to make you feel better?” ;) From where I sit it's a pretty nifty example of just that.

(That was a semi-tongue-in-cheek comment. But if you feel like taking it up, go right ahead. ;) )

A spiritual pathology? I could easily say that all spirituality (and all belief systems, for that matter) is pathological, an immortality project designed to keep us from facing the blunt fact that we are all just pieces of meat, running around on a small, delicate planet hurtling around a massive gaseous ball, and that, really, in the grand scheme of things, there is no greater meaning to our tiny human lives. ;) (Hence my earlier comment – that Integral theory was a marvelous means of making us feel better about all this …)

C4 and cree and Klare will have to wait … I'm running late to class. But thanks, again, for your own beautiful contributions. ~C? That heart of yours is extraordinary.

Great Stuff, Julian!  I judge excessive focus on the green children to be a pathology in and of itself.  It doesn't take an expert to see crazy.  Perhaps a glimps at a second teir pathology or a soercer's language trick.

Green children are pure sweetness spread very thinly over a very deep and rotting mass of shitty slime and conspiracy.  Not only shall they suffer the fires of judgement, they shall also be called to take a look at what no longer serves them.

One essential truth I choose to embrace about the tiers of the tears is not everone will make it to so called second teir and not everyone can go to third tear even if they've stepped one foot in the river.  This is a cyclic process. 

Let's relax and compassionately tell these children to go fuck themselves.  Let's go about our more important and timely work.  Yeah, it might trigger some abandonment issues but everyone has work to do.  The thing about the thang is that once people climb out of their feeble little shells of atonist bullshit love god slime they'll see how much work is to be done at higher waves and octaves or octawaves of unfolding.  

Let's call out the myth and use their tools to trump.  This obstacle will not be solved by talking to these children.  They need to be shown and told what to do and what not to do.  This directive is as deep as the core and as bright as the stars.   It's not about me, it's about all of us and all of this that is.  We the Lords and Gods de la tier di tears B funner, sexier, crunk, more demanding, and ecstatic.  Fuck First Tier.  Pure Conscious Love 888

I B.

“describe to me a spiritual pathology that you feel is appropriate to define as such.”

oh, here's one: abusive gurus and deluded mystics. arguably, i think they're more dangerous thanThe Secret because they tarnish the noble path to self-realization and leads people to the dark side of cult mentality, and worse, they create pathological religions.

and if i am to take Richard Dawkins' stance, faith and belief in God is already a pathology.

now describe to me an integral (or second-tier) pathology? :)

Love the Secret Shindig!  Great banter… you guys are helping me flesh out, ponder and add discernment to my newbie understandings of KW and SD.  Not in a place to contribute, but wanted to shout out  “thanks, I'm enjoying the workout”.  (As a practitioner, thanks Klare for the powerful distinction with tonglen and the secret).  xo

Teenie,

No problem, always enjoy sharing what little I do know. :-)

Julian.

(Heh. I love this stuff. Thanks for keepin' on.)

Yes. Yes - and.

And most people function in the world based on faith and magic. We take as doctrine what we read about science; we accept, wholly, the technology that goes into our computers and cars and plumbing and electrical systems. But how many people actually, rationally, understand all this? How many people can tell you how a parallel circuit works, or how their refrigerator keeps things cold, or how the optical device in their mouse functions?

For instance, I'm making a mildly fermented tea right now. I know a little of the processes that involve the yeast that eat the sugars that produce the alcohol that causes the fizz, but if you asked me, really, I'd have to confess that I've never seen a 'yeast.' I have a decent background in chemistry, but I've never seen an alcohol molecule, either. At some level, I'm forced to leave over to those who, according to my best judgment, appear to be experts, and assume that they know what they're talking about. But I could well, well be mislead. (And here's another question: at what point would my skepticism about the 'truth' of these scientific assertions become irrational or paranoid?)

What about you? How much empirical science have you done? Or do you, like most of us, take it on faith, based on a few college (or high school) level chemistry classes and what you read in various books by supposed experts? I'm not asking for a defense of the scientific method – I'm only pointing out the hypocrisy of demanding others to ask questions of their belief systems without first wholly (wholly!) examining your own world. Until last year, Pluto was a planet.  Now it's not. Score one for the social construction of reality. ;)

Anyway. Let me take up ~C4's role of Devil's Advocate, here.

If you want to talk about the dangers of New Age thinking, why not talk about the dangers of rationality? I have had friends die on highways because they believed that their cars would protect them. I have had family members catch life-threatening iatrogenic diseases at the very hospitals that promised them health. I know that millions of individuals are crippled by medication each year, and that accidents related to pharmaceutical prescriptions are the forth leading cause of death in the US. I know that our “reason” led us to firebomb somewhere between between 800000 and 1000000 Japanese civilians in World War II. I don't think New Age thinking has led people to decide that slaughtering thousands is a good idea. Maybe I'm wrong, but when you look at the death tallies of let's-get-things-done reason versus New Age manifesting, I think the latter is a mite more safe.

So to rephrase:

The entire rationalistic “worldview and its dominant memes are one big defense structure that distort reality, prevent psychological awareness, and limit spiritual growth, all while masquerading as the opposite … These bad ideas and misplaced faiths cause immense suffering and confusion.”

;)

And when it comes to second-tier pathology …I don't know. To my mind, there's something pathological about the whole Integral project of salvation.

And PS.  For the record, I was pretty serious about that first comment in my last post. And I do think I've come to, as you put it, spiritual grips with that 'Beckersian' perspective. When push comes to shove, I'm a squooshy little meatball. And when shove comes to – well, something harder – I'm gonna die.. If you've discovered something otherwise, great, but I've meditated and sat and inquired my little tush off and that's all I've learned. This is all good fun, this bantering about consciousness and teleology, but in the grand scheme of things? I don't know. It all matters just terribly. ;)

good point on “dangers of rationality”, Siona :)

well, in my experience, people who dig New Age are less dangerous than fundamentalistic rationalists and fundamentalistic believers in (insert you favorite religion here). the examples Julian gave are extreme examples of people who are at different stage of psychological development. i'd argue that those people would fall on the same trap whether they believe in New Age or Christianity, or Buddhism, or Islam, and whatnot, because the issue is the way they translate their worldviews.

so using an SD lingo: it's not the New Age idea that's causing the problem but it's the colors of thinking of people who are embracing the New Age idea. so i don't see New Age as GREEN or PURPLE or YELLOW per se, what i see is GREEN, PURPLE, or YELLOW thinking using the New Age lens. big difference.

the challenge of so-called integral thinkers is not to lump everything under the first-tier belt and get lost in labelling. Ken Wilber had eloquently argued about this on the pre-trans fallacy and spirituality that transforms essays, and Boomeritis. they did it for me already. so i'd rather not parrot the bald dude.

but as the artist Common said: “Preaching turns off people… When you want to deliver the message, let it live through example. Don't beat people over the head with it. It's like eating healthy food—you want it to taste good. You can't just give them a meal with no flavor. You've got to add that sauce.”

my sauce is playing the role of devil's advocate ;)

~C

Julian-

I really enjoyed this Vlog.  As you went along I found myself going, “Yes, agreed, yes, uh-huh, yep.”  I get a totally different sense of what you're about in the Vlog.  I haven't read all of what's going on in this debate but of course it helps no one to say “it isn't spiritual” to question the validity of The Secret or what it purports.  It's most valid to question the movie and it's contents.  Inquiry is crucial.  It will, however, lead to different conclusions for different people.  Again your Vlog was an insightful experience.

In your blog, however, it's like witnessing another person, another side, and maybe that just because your visage and voice are absent or I'm just as Green as they come.  I'm missing the man behind the message as in the Vlog.  I feel there is a labeling, a judgment, that has this credible, vast, sharp, brilliant, intellectual cast around it but it's still just a cold hard rational vivisection of ideas you subjectively deem regressive pathology.

I mean it is your subjectivity isn't it?  You are a bodyworker, yoga teacher, healer, Integralist and more with in depth experience in these subjects and environs.  You've seen the fallacious and the Trans-rational in the so-called Spiritual Community, right?  You see where The Secret and the narcissistic “magical thinking” it advances actually kills people.  That is your experience, your subjectivity.

My subjectivity on the other hand sees The Secret with its partial truths showing a lot of Narcissists, myself included, how to change and take charge of their thoughts - use their magical thinking to find another avenue, a broader, vaster avenue.  My subjectivity tells me that the intelligence of the individual will determine whether or not one will go down the path of pre-rational, rational, or trans-rational using the contents of The Secret.  My subjectivity also agreed with the contents of your 21^stSpirituality Vlog.  And it's not at all paradoxical to me.  I know, I know - it's pluralistic.

All the narcissistic trappings, marketing, and sophomoric vignettes aside  - isn't there a truth to the power of changing your thoughts (a rather strong point in the movie)?  From a purely psychological standpoint, it's truthful isn't?  Isn't that one of the functions of 12-step programs and of therapy?  Seeing a greater context…that too is what Integral theory is - a greater context.  Right?

I'm sure this is utterly Green of me but I feel as though I could see the pre-rational, rational, and trans-rational in all five points of the movie you find fallacious and pathological.  My conclusions from my inquiry are obviously different from yours.  The Secret is not stage appropriate…according to your subjectivity but not mine. 

I admit it's intimidating and nearly impossible to defend The Secret against another's subjectivity, which includes a theory to which I'm not studied.  I also admit much of my “critical thinking” is devoted to providing for and protecting my wife and children, and now the well being of my foster children.  Maslow, Piaget, and Wilber definitely take a backseat to The Little Mermaid, The Lion King, and date night with my wife.  You wouldn't believe how much critical thinking goes into wiping the butt of my 18 month old when you're out of Diaper rash crème and his tushie is pinking up.  How to be thorough but soft?  It's a mindfield!  LOL!!

Someone emailed me This Rense.com article saying I might like the author's writing style!
Eh, it's okay. ;D
Kidding!
I love it Julian.
Way to go, Rense.com has a massive readership (and kickin' Google PR!).
Reach the people outside The Choir!
xo
cree

ROD,

hehehe. I really enjoyed your entry because not much critical thinking goes into taking care of my little nephew either. Although I might be doing lots of it when I'm thinking about what it's like to be 1 years old and trying to figure things out in the world.

ok…here it goes…do we consider statistics and probability science?…well, then, i would have to say that the parking space thing (julian…you're gonna have a field day with this one…)…i have experienced highly improbable results…highly improbable…simply from believing…and i choose to believe in the possibility of everything (having faith only in the mystery as it unfolds with the grace and relentlessness of time)…this is me…it is my living science experiment…subjective, yes, but it is my experience so how could it not be…i mean, science itself is even based on a lot of subjectivity that if i still had some of the articles from a sociology class i took a few years ago, i could better articulate/reference…and the scientific method is only the best thing we have so far…anyhow, i would not apply my beliefs to the prevention of catching AIDS or whatnot, but this is because that is not me…i do not think that the information or beliefs or any of this is in and of itself wrong or pathological…but as it becomes interpreted by less discerning individuals and in their resulting behaviors, it becomes a definite reason for concern…but there we return to the whole meme thing and how one intereprets The Secret rather than The Secret being the actual problem…

Julian-

I, for one, certainly meant no shrugging off in regard to the loss of your friends.  I do, however, have to take your word on what took their lives and I don't doubt your conclusions.  That is what I meant by your experience.  I haven't experienced that.

I often make jokes but this is no laughing matter.

I respect the importance of their stories and your experience entering this discussion.  Since not properly expressed before, please except my sympathies and compassion for your loss.  Again, I value the relevance to this debate.

And I offer no protection from critique.  Carry on, please.

What constitutes 'reasonable' and 'ordinary'? What counts as extraordinary? What's not extraordinary about the fact that, according to science, we're mostly empty space? What's not extraordinary about the fact that we're on a big, spherical rock, hurtling around a gaseous orb? Doesn't that sounds strange to you? Where's YOUR skepticism? ;)

In any case, the sort of things we take as scientific truths now I have no doubt will be laughed at in the future (presuming we survive). To clarify: my point wasn't that I know my tea won't kill me - I've made the stuff before - but rather, that I take it on faith that such things as alcohol molecules and tiny cellular organisms even exist; again, I've never seen one. I've just read a lot of textbooks. In any case, I don't think rationality OR irrationality is more dangerous; both can be deadly and both can be safe.

One of Robert McNamara's life lessons was “rationality won't save us.” The man was (arguably) responsible for the deaths of millions. I presume he knows what he's talking about.

Blaming the wars today on religion is, to my mind, a naive error. Do you really think our country is in Iraq because of Bush's religious beliefs? Bush doesn't have a home church; he drops in on services but doesn't have his own congregation. I find a far more compelling argument to be that the majority of wars being fought in this world are wars of economics and miserable inequity – not religion. Desperate and oppressed people will certainly rally around faith, but it flat out doesn't follow that faith is the cause of their upset. I don't want to get into the politics of Iraq - though I'm happy to move this conversation in that direction - but it seems obvious to my mind that blaming wars on religious thinking is sorely misguided.

And when it comes to an oppression of reasonableness … have you heard the term 'double-bind'? Reason is at the nexus of this situation; if you talk to any woman or any racial minority I have no doubt they'll be able to explain this one to you. Reason can be massively oppressive. And if your argument continues - you claim wars are fought based on either religious beliefs, or allegiance to “something equally irrational,” and that these are anathema to reason - you'd have to conclude that it's always irrational to go war, no? ;)

Yet more people were killed in World War II than all prior wars in history combined.

And, um. For the record, I know we're just playing; I think you're right and and that true compassion does demand some degree of reason – but I think that any adult, in this day and age, has sufficient reasonable capacity to be truly compassionate.

Because I also think, conversely, that reason in no way guarantees compassion, and most 'rationality' is really faith-based thinking masquerading as scientific thought. Even well-educated, intelligent people are notoriously poor at reasoning. To my mind, again, what is more important than learning better reasoning strategies - most of which bottom out in absurdities; I don't know whether you've ever taken logic, but it's not encouraging ;) - is learning to live together, fairly and compassionately and sensitively. We all already have more than enough reasoning to manage this. I don't think it takes a genius to play nice.

Or maybe it does. ;)

Likewise, Julian. As I said, this has been fun, and on the whole I'm in agreement with you. I still don't think it's religion that's the heart of the problem, but people's irrational need to defend their beliefs (be they religious or scientific or aesthetic or ideological); still, I think we share a mind on the co-emergence and interconnectivity of all manner of conditions when it comes to war and violence.

(Speaking, again, as someone with a background in psychology, I'm more convinced by Gilligan than Kohlberg, whose work was androcentric; I find the former's ethics of care more compelling than the ethic of justice Kohlberg holds to. Too, there's a breadth of research now that the arguments of rationalist psychologists could have been after-the-fact rationalizations of intuitive choices. But yes, I'm quite familiar with Kohlberg.)

I'll end soon, but I wanted to bring up one final point. Wilber has written that “what most defines vision-logic at any stage is simply its capacity for systems thinking.”

What's funny about this statement of his is that children are intuitive systems thinkers; it's actually a relatively easy matter to get 'unschooled' children (over the age of 9 or so) to understand the interconnections and interrelatedness of different phenomenon. They get the interdisciplinary, “everything is connected” approach that's drummed out of us in institutionalized settings. (And no - this isn't some fuzzy, magic concept; in classes where systems theory is 'taught,' students build computer simulations of systems dynamics so that they might observe the behavior of the system over different time frames and under different conditions. Then, they can come to make predictions and understand the different roles that various factors in a system might play. It's a more holistic, and, to my mind, more accurate, way of understanding the world.) So what can I say? I'd love to see this nurtured in people. The world (including the psychology and 'spirituality' of human beings) is more complicated than our simplistic linear models would have us believe, so why not encourage the emergence of compassion through this, rather than some linear, step-wise fashion? Why not model this understanding?

I don't know. It makes sense to me.

;)

julian…i am eager to read what you have to say about line drawing and the subjects you listed above…i am a line drawer about drawing lines…so now stuck once more in the paradox of reality that provides the existential ground from which i suffer, tell me…now what?…i just ask this as a person that understands maybe half of the big words and concepts you all toss around…i still have a lot of books to read before i can truely engage with this exchange, but i appreciate the inclusion anyhow…i know that parking spot manifestation is ridiculous, but i am still unwilling to let go of the desire to believe in something…to let it go is to have to feel emotions i am not yet ready to experience and i am blessed enough to have lots of love and support in my life…so what i am saying is that i think that i represent many of those people that the secret appeals to…although many lack the love and support to really face their demons…whats a better alternative?…we live in a quick fix society…take a pill…feel better…watch a video…feel better…most people are not ready to sit and face their shadow…how are they (this might include me) to be reached in a more spiritually correct way when the fear is so great?…i see this as the great basis for all this inquiry, but i am seeing more egos in battle than answers obtained (not that intelligent banter/discussion is in any way wrong…egos battle…its only natural)…but we need answers…answers the secret might totally incorrectly address, but they are addressing them so of course it is being eaten up…so whats a better alternative…i want answers, folks…now…if i can;t have my parking spots, then what will replace that void?…quick fix…give it to me. (i am sort of being extreme in this, but like i said, i am representing the ones the secret does appeal to, while at the same time recognizing how much it misrepresents the Truth)…

I wouldn't necessarily say that “All Religions is problematic” or the source of all the world's problems.  I also don't think that “religious institutions” are the sources of problems of belief, because you can say that religion has been the cause of other situations arising  and some of them have benefited socities directly and indirectly.
Personally, I think there's been a huge mistake on interpreting religion as well as a mismosh of beliefs as well as teachings and then calling it religion as a whole.
What I think needs to happen is taking a closer look at the more obvious mistakes in religious beliefs. Such as the the belief in “magic” and its associationg to material reality.

“my short answer is that reality-based resources are better in several ways than fantasy, addiction, or distraction-based resources, y'know?

so we need spiritual tools that help us to develop reality-based resources and give us faith in real things - love, creativity, honest communication, inquiry, learning, as well as an experiential sense of compassion, presence, energy.

we also need as much popular zeitgeist built around the spiritually mature idea of working with your dissapointments and moments of recognizing where you have no power as we have around ideas of empowerment and positivity….”

…i hear ya julian…but where the fast fix video for this one?…(yes, sarcasm, but a bit of curiosity regarding those that are not ready to put in more time then it takes to watch the secret, ya know?)

Philosophically, I think people limit their knowledge by making quick generalizations and also not testing them but continue to assert them without a deep interest in inquiring other thinkers and other minds.  Thus, I really believe in dialetics and engaging our minds with others.

A great example is dogmatism. Pure dogmatism for me is not listening or looking at someone else's point of view, because it does have merit and concern for the “truth”.

In most cases  and from my own experience, generally when people discuss things openly, they somehow come to similar conclusions based on the exchange.

So, I'm really digging this exchange.
Ok got to go protest now at City Hall. Later Yogis and Yoginis.

@cree: ”Transcendent spirituality, on the other hand aims to move beyond the separate self altogether. Wilber says something to the affect of rather than providing meaning for the separate self, transcendence makes the separate self toast.”

@siona: “And when it comes to second-tier pathology …I don't know. To my mind, there's something pathological about the whole Integral project of salvation.”

Hmmm, transcendence doesn't make the separate self toast. Nothing gets toasted! It's all wholly butter ;-)

Anyhow, you simply see through and realize that there ain't any 'seams' so that gee whiz there is no Evelyn existing apart from separate peoples and separate things and separate places, etc.

Has anyone contemplated that all these - Julian's musings/vlog, The Secret, my comments, whatever appears arising in the world - are simply the great plentitude of diversity of the Self in form spontaneously colluding with its Self?

Greetings. Nice topic.
I'de like to first say that I agree there is way too much wishy-washy attitudes on one end, and way too much skepticism from contemporary science on the other.
Not all new agers are the same however, and I wouldn't pigeon hole them all into being naive head in the clouds people. After all, what exactly defines someone as being a new ager? Anyone into integral theory is helping bring in a new age of spirituality ide say, so we fit the definition ourselves.

Anyway, so heres my critique to julian and his points. I went about it very dryly, but hey, thats how critial thinking works… i write differnetly when writing to inspire or what not.
———–
Your claims about The Secret / Law of Attraction have been very less than optimally critical. A critical stance to the idea, before analysis, should be one of impartial open mindedness. In other words, disbelief in either direction of false or true. If you reach a conclusion, you should support it with some logic.
If you start your premise with the pretense that it is all nonesense, then your not gonna have unbiased results. I also think that 1-5 were written in your own oversimplifed, taken out of context, way and that you un-reasonably failed to adress c4's more balanced revision, which I think changes things quite a bit.

The law of attraction is not no recent new age wave(or not ONLY I should say). It is indeed ancient and prevalent.
There are so many believers and books written on it. To be critical, one needs to expiriment on their own to see if its true , and research and find what results others have had, and base your observations on more than just the one movie. (The reason you need to research more sources is, in part, because you might simply FAIL to manifest, not because law of attraction is false, but because you didn't go about utilizing the law properly…after all, one has to really believe and other such rules)

You have pointed out examples of it supposebly not working…but finding it not work doesn't prove that it never works.
Also, who knows if they were actually following the law of attraction properly? Superficial surface thoughts obviously won't change ones reality…and judigng from what I have read, you seem to equate the whole idea to only superficial thoughts.
The law of attraction actually reaches far beyond only thinking… it has to do with energy and vibration…if ones thoughts are used only to supprese and avoid ones already existing negative vibrations/energy then one won't get more positive results…and its delusive and pathological (so it CAN be a pathology, but not necessarily ALWAYS), if one actually has indepth thoughts and penetrate deep into the subconscoius, one can alter their habits, their energy, their whole way of life.
And, needless to say, if one changes their attitude and beliefs etc, ones actions will change, since actions stem from thoughts and feelings. Who does something without a thought/feeling behind it?
The placebo effect and other expeirements have shown this to be true, so at very least its known to be true that thoughts affect our reality directly by affecting our mind, body and actions.
Whether our thoughts/feelings actually have a metaphysical magnatism is a different realm to be expirimented with.
I personally have expirimented…..i'll go ahead and articulate one of the expiriments here.

This happened several years ago when I was a teenager, and has to do with manifesting pizza….=)        one of my first experiences with it
Me and my step-brow were discussing in the living room, the idea of manifesting.
We thought, with very unbiased curiosity, why not try it out?
We noticed a pizza advertisement on top of a nearby magazine.
Ok, lets see if we can manifest pizza, we thought.
we didn't spend strenuous time visualizing and so forth, we just had an optomistic expirimental intention for it to happen.
In not too much time, my mom came through the living room and said “hey guys, wanna order pizza?”
Now, at first, this sounds like…. an easy coincidence… but heres the thing.
I literally can't remember my parents EVER ordering pizza, except at that time. Sure, it probably did happen a couple times that i'm failing to remember because they werent significant experiences, but im at least certain if they did, it was upon rare occasion. They always would buy their pizza frozen. (this is only ONE example, my same brother has had far more fantastical experiences…)

Heres another thing, even if there isn't metaphysical magnatism, another possibility to be critically consideres is that these sorts of events could be caused by ESP. she may have picked up on our desire telepathically.
So this means, you have another, very researched and popular idea to take on in order to reach an honest answer as to whether the law of attraction has any validity at all.

I'de also like to mention, according to the law, randy won't get his proof because he is manifesting for himself a reality without these sort of occurances. He has the vibration probably of most of the skeptical scientific community behind him.

Hi Julian, great thread, and I enjoyed your vblog post. I will take this opportunity to put in my 2 cents worth, tho.

First, I am entirely in agreement with you that spirituality must be approached with dilligence and with rigorous intellectual clarity, much of which is gradually learning the limits of our minds. Along with opening our hearts, we enter onto the path of wisdom, paying attention and developing as acurate a map of the territory as is possible. Yet the mind is a very small part of all that is, comes out of it, and ultimately it becomes exceedingly clear that it is utterly incapable of comprehending that from which it arises. At some point, the quest to hone the mind reaches its logical conclusion, and we are forced to go beyond it or stagnate.

I think your focus on a “21st Century Spirituality” obscures what I think is an important consideration, that the situation we face is truly timeless, as the mystery that you state must be inquired into is beyond time. In asking what is true, we inevitably come to the question of what, exactly, is asking. This is the point at which it is finally necessary to allow what that is to awaken fully into our awareness. You quite correctly, IMO, see the futility of asserting that “everyone's opinion is equally valid,” and that there are some fundamental truths. If that's so, and if we are to be able to experience them, then we must somehow be innately able to do so. This truth must be deeply part of who we are.

The non-dual teachers uniformly say, and have said since the early Vedas and the time of the Buddha, etc., that when we make the inquiry you advocate fearlessly and with integrity, particularly into what we are, we will discover that there is absolutely no “me” at the center, and will encounter directly the alive, formless one life that was always there waiting for awareness to invite it in. Then we unequivocally discover what we don't know, that “our” thoughts and opinions pertain to an ENTIRELY IMAGINARY me. I now catch myself thinking something like “well, I believe (fill in the blank),” and I have to stop and say, whoa, just a minute, who is this “I?” The psychologizing has its place in that one comes to intimately understand the structural nature of the imaginary self, its tendencies to protect itself, to justify its necessity in our lives, to identify itself with half-baked opinions, etc. But in the end, this understanding basically serves as a notification that we have to get out of the opinions and the story and turn our awareness to that which is already awake.

This is not “New Age-ism” or fantasy in least. Not that those things are “wrong” either - I think that nebulous, wishful quasi-spirituality are probably a step up from, say, “that old tyme religion. They have their place on a developmental spiral, but, ironically, the ego doesn't make itself any more real by refining its beliefs about the nature of reality or of the deep self. It can't get better by adding more concepts and experiences to it already voluminous baggage. The struggle of the imaginary self has to be seen through and through, and then what is not imaginary shines forth, and is not subject to question and analysis by the mind. It is entirely self-authenticating. When we surrender to it there is no doubt.