Transpersonal Psychology: Invitation to Dialogue

[Michael Mooney]

lemit:

Your response was a surprise pleasant beyond my fondest hopes. Thank you. May you cultivate your humility as you cultivate your land. And may they both bear ample fruit.

Thank you!
I must tell you, however, that I do not aspire or intend to "cultivate (my) humility." I do not consider humility a virtue but rather one of those socially conditioned programs mentioned above... an obstacle to true freedom.

Further I must remind you that one who aspires to be the most humble is ironically striving to be admired for that humility... and the 'winner' of such a 'humility contest' is the least honest and humble.

One person's blessing (like yours above) is another's curse. I do not share your values/morality in this regard.
But thanks again for your benevolent intent.
Michael.

[Michael Mooney]

Originally Posted by lawcat

I do not blame you for posting your IQ, or rubbing it in people's face. If that is how they perceive, that is their problem. I personally find IQ waving funny and immature, but not annoying.

Truth exists, but it needs to be brought to light. How we go about it is important. I think Freeztar asked for more politness in stating your truth. However, there is no objective standard for that.

I got rejected here for stating that science is ignorant of humanity, because it rejects the need of humanity for freedom of religion. Yet, science claims to be objective and humane. Religion exists regardless of perception, and science is all about questioning perception. The two have no need to attack each other.

If it is transpersonal psychology that requires getting beyond oneself, I am all for it. Science must get over itself, and its feeling of superiority in all fields of life.

I agree that the two have no need to attack each other.

from my post 13 in "Re: Reconciling science and religion: doomed to fail" thread":

"Religion" per se is about beliefs, based on doctrines which "program" the minds of the believer much like robots.
Spiritual awakening is another animal altogether....

I "believe" that science and mystic realization, as above, will one day find common ground and learn to "play well together"... as long as "creationism" doesn't persist in calling itself science!
(I,m half mystic and half lay scientist, and these aspects have coalesced well within... not at war in any sense.)... the dynamic creation of cosmos is an always ongoing project... always "a work in progress." (The key may be found in the "intelligence" between entangled particles in quantum physics... or in how "remote viewing" works... tho still very controversial. Check out "The Intention Experiment"... author escaping memory at the moment.

The IQ thing contrasts my practice of radical honesty and by belief that humility is not a virtue with the common cultural values to the contrary. "Waiving it and rubbing it in peoples' faces?" I care not at all whether you share my values in this matter. And the moderators and others in my spacetime thread were constantly treating me as if I were stupid... still were last i looked... and I added another post in reply.

Michael

[pamela]

Michael, I do not believe that anyone here thinks you are stupid, much less have treated you thus. With or without the knowledge of your IQ, your posts have reflected intelligence. It may be a little difficult for some to understand your consciousness and ontological assertions, not every one thinks the way you do.
If you do not find that humility is a virtue, then do you feel that superiority is? Is that why you refer to I in real-I-zation?

[Michael Mooney]

Pamela:

If you do not find that humility is a virtue, then do you feel that superiority is? Is that why you refer to I in real-I-zation?

Personal virtues are all illusions created by ethnocentric/ religious cultural/moral conditioning. Obviously it is absolutely "immoral" to intentionally harm another person, for instance. But "humility" and "superiority" are really just moral values and judgments assigned by each culture, and they vary drastically cross-culturally.

I refer to the capital "I" in "real-I-zation" as the one true Identity in all, which is only 'realized' after ego is either surrendered... usually through some kind of intentional spiritual discipline of ego-surrender or through circumstances through which the ego/false-identity gives up in total despair of the meaning of life... as sought by the despairing seeker.

After the "I, Me, Mine" finally disintegrates (totally!, leaving a void!) the Universal Identity is automatically realized as the Reality which the illusion of personal identity had always obscured. Reality is what is left after the illusion disappears.

Michael

[maddog]

Michael,

I have got to admit that I have enjoyed reading this thread, and that I have a bit better
sense of the "real" you. I like what I see. Sorry if I brought about another version in
other threads.

I have only read a couple of books by Ken Wilber, so only have a limited experience of
him. I have done meditation and also martial arts. A lot of this has had an impact on
my melding the body and spirit.

As I said elsewhere, I have leanings towards the Gnostic frame of thinking over generic
Christian religions. I feel personally "touched" by God as I also feel personally connected
to everyone and the universe.

If you don't mind, I may check in here from time to time to read up on this thread.

Later and have a great day.

maddog

[Michael Mooney]

OK... Who are you and what have you done with maddog?
Michael

[maddog]

Originally Posted by Michael Mooney

OK... Who are you and what have you done with maddog?
Michael

Oh, we're being funny now....

maddog

[pamela]

Originally Posted by michael

I refer to the capital "I" in "real-I-zation" as the one true Identity in all, which is only 'realized' after ego is either surrendered... usually through some kind of intentional spiritual discipline of ego-surrender or through circumstances through which the ego/false-identity gives up in total despair of the meaning of life... as sought by the despairing seeker.

what pray tell, are the characteristics of the one true Identity?

After the "I, Me, Mine" finally disintegrates (totally!, leaving a void!) the Universal Identity is automatically realized as the Reality which the illusion of personal identity had always obscured. Reality is what is left after the illusion disappears.

this is unrealistic. Where i can see at times being able to set self aside and its desires, to totally lose self and be void, is impossible. Is it self preservation to run when the lion attacks, or is it human animal instinct? are these offspring mine, and hence my responsibility to care for them? Would you simply reduce me to animal kind or a mere shell of a human whose mind is bereft?Or
would you have me to lose myself in order to become you or your collective soul?

[enorbet2]

It is impossible to argue with the fact that we are not separate from the Universe since nobody knows of anything separate from this Universe. So, yes, truth does exist and at it's most basic form it is Identity, "A" is "A". That is self-evident truth. It has been further said that "we are the Universe experiencing itself" and as stated that is self-evident also since it does not imply in any way that we are the only entities experiencing. It may imply that the Universe as a whole is incapable of experience but that is an assumption based on extremely limited data as well as processing power. Like it or not we are stuck with our tools and their limitations of working with what we know and what we can know with just a little imagination and extrapolation to test and define the cutting edge. This would seem to require a point-of-view since the first glimmer of experience is self-identification even if it only first takes place as gratification of the requirements for continued survival.

I maintain that it is not provable, let alone self-evident, that

1) Science is ignorant of humanity - I think Science exactly recognizes humanity's strengths and limitations by working out a systematic, testable method by which to know ourselves and the Universe, what we are apparently here to do.

2) Science rejects humanity's need for freedom of anything - Science requires freedom.

3) Religion exists apart from perception - unless someone knows something about whale, porpoise, or alien intelligence that even implies religion let alone proves it (this doesn't even address the hundreds of millions of years of lifeforms that show evidence of perception but no evidence of religion), it's simply unverifiable or false.... or entirely egocentric. Hmmmm? Paradox?

4) Science has feelings of superiority - Science has feelings?

5) Science must get over itself - If it ain't broke, it doesn't need to be scrapped, or apologize, especially when so easily upgraded.

It is especially not provable that there is any Higher Truth, Supreme Identity, nor any value to surrendering one's ego, one's sense of self-identity the very thing that gives one the point of view to survive and learn without depending on some "enlightened" guru to hand it to you pre-digested since "surrendering" history so often shows is a progressuin from "to the Higher Truth" through "to my Truth" to finally end at "to me". One may have the best intentions but if you abandon what works in the reality in which you presently live, you may find yourself in that egoless state you seek when you discorporate. Why not deal with that when you come to it, should there be a "you" and should you be able to deal with anything?

[Eclogite]

I need a definition of radical honesty before I can digest your other words without emotion. Honesty seems to me to be close to an absolute. Qualifying it, especially with a buzz word such as radical, is redolent of agenda pushing in its worst sense. Perhaps your reply can persuade me their is value in your application of the word.