Ascending and Descending through the Kosmos
At the end of one of Woody Allen’s three greatest films, Manhattan, Issac Davis (Allen) is lying on a couch in his apartment, mired in a typical Woody-esque existential crisis. In an attempt at self-therapy, Issac picks up a hand-held tape recorder and dictates his list of things that make life worth living:
Why is life worth living? It’s a very good question. Um… Well, There are certain things I guess that make it worthwhile. uh… Like what… okay… um… For me, uh… ooh… I would say… what, Groucho Marx, to name one thing… uh… um… and Willie Mays… and um… the 2nd movement of the Jupiter Symphony… and um… Louis Armstrong, recording of Potato Head Blues… um… Swedish movies, naturally… Sentimental Education by Flaubert… uh… Marlon Brando, Frank Sinatra… um… those incredible Apples and Pears by Cezanne… uh… the crabs at Sam Wo’s… uh… Tracy’s face…
Moved by the memory of Tracy’s face, Issac runs several blocks through the streets of Manhattan to find her, accompanied by the muscular strains of George Gershwin.
I dig this scene because, like Woody/Issac, I’m an unabashed “list maker,” and this scene from Manhattan plagiarizes one of my own favorite (and ongoing) lists: the Things-I-Want-To-Take-With-Me-To-The-Next-Life List — this song, that movie, this book, that person, this memory, that sports team, and so on. These are the physical, material things — Art, People, Nature, etc — that I don’t just love, but lurve, so much so that the experience penetrates and connects to something non-material or spiritual inside of me and makes me feel, to use the familiar LDS vernacular, a “burning in the bosom.”
I’ve since learned that when Woody and I wax rhapsodic about the material things we love, we are plugging into the age-old “Descending” tradition. Let me explain…
At the 2005 SLC Sunstone Symposium, I attended a session entitled “A Taste of Everything: Why We Read Ken Wilber (SL05274)” that introduced me to philosopher Ken Wilber’s “Integral Theory”. Intrigued by what I heard, I later read Ken Wilber’s A Brief History of Everything. Like reading James Fowler’s Stages of Faith, reading Wilber was an exciting experience, triggering several mini epiphanies, and providing me a new paradigm with which I could view both the physical and spiritual world. Let me offer a “taste” of Wilber by briefly defining “Kosmos,” “Ascending,” and “Descending.”
The Kosmos is Wilber’s term for “the patterned nature or process of all domains of existence, from matter to mind to God.” In other words, not merely the physical universe, but “the cosmos (or the physiosphere), the bios (or biosphere), the psyche (the noosphere), and the theos (the theosphere or divine domain).” Mormons, long comfortable with the idea of a physical world and an unseen spiritual world, will find that Wilber’s ideas relative to Kosmos complement, if not amplify, their existing Mormon worldview.
According to Wilber, humans attempt to define or comprehend the Kosmos, and more specifically, attempt to connect to the Spirit or the Divine in two distinct ways. As such, the world’s great spiritual traditions fall into two very different camps: Ascending and Descending.
The Ascending path is purely transcendental and otherworldly. It is usually puritanical, ascetic, yogic, and it tends to devalue or even deny the body, the senses, sexuality, the Earth, the flesh. It seeks its salvation in a kingdom not of this world… it is pessimistic about finding happiness in this world… it shuns time in favor of eternity…
The Descending path counsels just the opposite. It is this-worldly to the core… It celebrates the Earth, and the body, and the senses, and often sexuality. It even identifies Spirit with the sensory world… with manifestation, and sees in every sunrise, every moonrise, all the Spirit a person could ever want.
To Ascenders, descent is often viewed as illusory or even evil. Descenders, in contrast, are suspicious of anything transcendental and often view any sort of ascent as evil. Wilber expounds on a “two-thousand-year-old war” between the Ascenders and the Descenders:
In the West, from the time roughly of Augustine to Copernicus, we have a purely Ascending ideal, otherworldly to the core. Final salvation and liberation could not be found in this body, on this Earth, in this lifetime. I mean, your present life could be okay, but things got really interesting once you died. Once you went otherworldly.
But then with the rise of modernity and postmodernity, we see a complete and profound reversal – the Ascenders were out, the Descenders were in.
[Today,] the idea [is] that the sensory and empirical and material world is the only world there is. There are no higher or deeper potentials available to us – no higher transcendental stages of consciousness evolution, for example. There is merely what we can see with our senses or grasp with our hands. It is a world completely bereft of any sort of Ascending energy at all…
The irony of this so-called “war” is that the Ascending and Descending traditions are two sides of the same spiritual coin. The solution, of course, is to integrate both the Ascending and Descending forms of spirituality, to become “nondual,” but that takes us beyond the scope of this blog post.
So what does any of this have to do with Mormonism? John Kesler, a Salt Lake City attorney who is both a Latter-day Saint and an associate of Ken Wilber, was a panelist at both the 2005 Sunstone Symposium session referenced above, and again in the 2006 SLC Sunstone Symposium session entitled ”Integral Mormonism: Esoteric Perspectives of the Mormon Tradition (SLO6364).” At each session, Kesler makes the provocative statement that, with the possible exception of Tibetan Buddhism and Kashmir Shaivism, no faith tradition better integrates both the Ascending and Descending forms of spirituality better than Mormonism.
Possible Questions to answer below:
1.) Do you agree or disagree with John Kesler’s statement? Does Mormonism have a healthy balance of Ascending and Descending forms of spirituality? Why?
2.) How do you best connect with “Spirit”: by Ascending or Descending?
3.) What is your “Woody Allen Descending List” of things that make life worth living?
September 15th, 2006 at 10:55 am
(1) I think there are conflicting strains within modern LDS-ism, with regard to descending. On the one hand, LDS have Primary songs that celebrate the beauty of creation as a gift of deity. On the other hand, LDS have a very clear theme that this earth is “fallen” (whether in a moral sense, or as in some early teachings, a physical/locality sense). The latter idea conveys a perspective that things are NOT as they should be. At the same time, however, the LDS view of this earth’s creation cannot help but see the “telestial” status of this world as fully intended, given that the Fall was a planned—even necessary—event.
On the whole, however, I think Kesler is on target–at least with regard to Mormonism (as opposed to modern LDS-ism). Mormonism celebrates the temporal, the body, and yes, sexuality. One might suggest, however, that modern LDS-ism is changing in this viewpoint. For example, one church-published booklet, intended to help parents prepare their adult children for marriage, uses tactful language to advise that newlyweds should be careful not to have too much sex during their honeymoon , suggesting that such would be an improper or inappropriate emphasis. In short, I think Kesler is right, but that “healthy balance” is deteriorating.
(2) My most profound spiritual experiences have uniformly created a sense of “oneness” with everything around me. Is this a sense of bringing spirit down to earth, or earth up to spirit? I’m frankly not sure, though it seems more like the latter. At this point in my life, I would certainly say that my spirituality is one which Kesler would describe as descending–I find myself celebrating that which is around me, whether it be a sunset, or a little child’s laughter. I don’t find myself looking to “some other realm” for satisfaction.
(3) What makes life worth living? Ultimately, I would say it is our relationships with others—something Joseph Smith certainly focused on. Life becomes worth living as we find ways of expressing those relationships, whether it be emotional or physical. While there are many, many beautiful things in this life, I believe it’s fair to say that all of them are more beautiful—experienced more fully—via our relationships with others. Even the simple act of enjoying a good meal is enhanced by sharing that experience with a person we care about. What good are new discoveries, without others to share them with? I don’t think there is a single joy, a single accomplishment in life, that can be fully enjoyed without being able to share it with another person.
September 15th, 2006 at 1:28 pm
Hi Matt,
It is shocking to read someone quote you - as you did me above - and wonder: “did I really say that?” I suppose I did because this is my sense of it; of the inclusion of ascending and descending in at least the ideal spiritual practice of Mormonism.
On the other hand in the ascending side, the highest meditative traditions include two or so modalities of mysticism which Mormonism doesn’t in my experience or study: causal and non-dual. The other two basic modalites are nature and diety mysticism, or as I call them relational and physical mysticism, which can be equated roughly with the mysticism that results in prophecy and revelation respectively. With regard to physical and relational mysticism we don’t have a lot in the way of established relevant meditative and contemplative practices, although strongly encouraged by for instance by Presidents McKay and Lee. So we have some frontiers of acending practice in the Mormon tradition very complementary to our current practices and yet not yet fully explored. I am making an effort to open those frontiers.
The interesting Paradox of Nick’s comment about feeling a oneness with the physical world and wondering if that is “descending” spirituality, is that the first great transpersonal ascending experience of mysticism is nature or physical mysticism, which is an experience of oneness with the all physical manifestation, such as what experiencing a sunset can trigger. That may seem descended in its connection to this world, but the descended experience has more to do with celebrating the - sometimes even worshiping - the material and the sensual and nature rather than the experience of oneness, which is a characteristic of the ascending.
In the restored gospel one way we negotiate through this is an another profound integral perspective rare in regligioius traditions, which is to transcend and include. The “natural man”, that is one whose motivations are driven by the carnal,etc., is an enemy to God, but if one’s physicality is transcended in higher awareness but still included in its proper context - i.e. sexuality - there is no aspect of our make up that is a problem. Everything is there for a life afirming even spiritual purpose. (our physicality is not in any way inherently evil) So for instance sexuality can be an incredible experience of pleasure and sensuality, but that is also the drive to engage in shared physical acts in their proper context which yields the most divine of human gifts, the power of creation.
John
September 16th, 2006 at 8:45 am
John, I’m excited to see you comment here. Reading Matt’s post, I was about to take you to task for the comparison of Mormonism to Tibetan Buddhism and Kashmir Shaivism, but I was happily surprised to see that you clarified some of the things yourself!
I’m reasonably familiar with Wilber’s work, and I’ve seen some of your contributions through forums like the Integral Spiritual Center. I’ve long been impressed that you see such a compatibility between Mormonism and Ken’s views of spirituality. I’d love for them to be compatibile, but I must admit I’ve found more shortcomings than strengths looking at Mormonism through an Integral lens. Your observation that the Mormon tradition does not seem to extend to causal or nondual mysticism mirrors my own thoughts. I see that as a serious flaw, though. Can we even think of Mormonism as an adequate tradition for today’s spiritual seekers without that depth? I remember a meeting with Rabbi Marc Gafni where he mentioned that although he was slightly jealous that other traditions (like Buddhism) had more fully developed mystical traditions, he (mostly) tried to retain the spiritual perspective of his own Kabbalistic roots instead of making some kind of “conversion”; even if his tradition’s path was perhaps less direct, at least there was one, and there’s value in embracing your own tradition and culture. Applying that thinking to my own situation, I find the lack of a deep spiritual tradition disappointing. I’d put up with an LDS mystical practice even if it came with a lot of extra baggage in order to remain within my own tradition. The thing is, I just don’t see one at all. I’m impressed that you consider these “frontiers of ascending practice” exciting. I find the dearth a bit deflating. Have you had much of what you’d think of as success in pushing the forntiers of Mormonism itself? Or is it mostly exploring things that aren’t necessarily incompatible with Mormonism as a sort of optional add-on for those who are interested? (By the way, have you, or has anyone else, done any (even semi-)formal work looking into an “Integral Mormonism” in general? I’d love to take a look at and even contribute to any efforts that have been made on that front.)
Whew. Sorry this is so long. But to return to one of Matt’s questions about a “healthy balance of Ascending and Descending forms of spirituality,” I have mixed feelings. I already expressed some concerns about the Church’s Ascending spirituality, and I’ve got plenty about the Descending side, too. I think Nick’s point about not-entirely healthy attitudes on sex is a good one. John’s point that sexuality is (talking about “the ideal spiritual practice of Mormonism,” as he said) there to be experienced in all its sensual pleasure is fine for married people with healthy sexual relationships, but on the other hand that leaves a lot of people out of luck on that front. As far as the balance of the two, there may, actually, be something to be said about Mormonism combining them better than many religions, but—to put it in the terms Ken uses in his new book Integral Spirituality—I think that speaks more to the problematic pre-modern monological roots of most religions from which the Church is comparatively freer—but not entirely free—than to any particular strength of the Church in doing so.
That said (and this whole self-indulgent comment has really been a long disclaimer for this one point), what I love about embracing and experiencing the Divine in the Descending as explained by Wilber is finding beauty and meaning in gritty, earthy, even badly-behaved experiences. Celebrating the enjoyment that comes from sharing a night with hundreds of drunk, rabid fans at a punk concert; laughing at and otherwise enjoying off-color jokes or sensual movies; realizing that sex doesn’t have to be some transcendent Spiritual experience all the time—sometimes you just want a good f***. All of these experiences are also manifestations of the Divine, so be present and enjoy them.
September 17th, 2006 at 12:38 pm
Thanks for posting here, John. For those of you who are interested, John is involved in all kinds of exciting endeavors related to Integral Theory and beyond. There is a nice little introduction to many of the groups and initiatives he is involved in here: http://www.bigmind.org/bigmind_board_jk.html
I agree with John’s interpretation of Nick’s “oneness with nature” seemingly reflecting both the ascending and descending ideals. A purely monological descended view of nature according to Wilber is this: “There is no translogical Spirit, and no dialogical mind; there is just monological nature. Surface nature, mononature, the world of sensory and material forms…” which Wilber considers the “God” or “Goddess” of the modern and postmodern world. A purely descended view is that the oneness Nick feels is just brain waves, the result of thousands or millions of years of evolution.
Logan, I enjoyed your thoughts as well. Like you, I see some significant hurdles in Mormon Theology, and/or Culture, that seem to hinder one’s ability to Ascend and Descend to the really exciting levels. If the Kosmos is a ladder, and maximum Ascendancy is 100, and maximum Descendancy is 0, it seems like Mormonism allows one to climb up and down the ladder between 30 and 70, but a glass ceiling and glass floor prevent one from ascending or descending any further than that, unless one steps outside of correlated Mormonism. I’m being called to lunch, but I hope to comment on this idea a little later…
September 17th, 2006 at 3:30 pm
I would love to hear from any of you what might be a few “toeholds” that LDS doctrine and practice might offer for a true Integral Mormonism to find any purchase. Call it a failure of my imagination - I’m scratching my head where this would even begin. I’m not trying to be provocative - I just don’t see it.
September 17th, 2006 at 5:25 pm
Whew, Adam, you got straight to the point, didn’t you?
Essentially, though, I’m trying to ask the same question. I’m trying to withold judgment, but at first glance I don’t see any “toeholds” myself. Speaking about contemplative spirituality in particular, as far as I know—and I’d love to be shown otherwise—there are no deep meditiative practices (sitting in the celestial room, anyone?), no language describing spiritual states (although something I heard today made me think that you could impose “gross,” “subtle,” and “causal” on “telestial,” “terrestial,” and “celestial”—an interesting idea), and no tradition of people who seem to have had mystical experiences.
And borrowing the practices and language from other traditions seems to run into the problem that the Church is very top-down. The organization and society is exteremly resistant to individual voices pressing for change (but I’m still dying to hear how John Kesler has been making out!). There’s certainly no mechanism for that to happen—we don’t have different orders of monks who are allowed some degree of autonomy to develop their own kinds of practices, for example.
Sheesh. Sorry to be so negative. I guess I’m just saying that I suspect Adam is right. I’d love to see some possible way to add a contemplative facet (and that’s just for starters) to Mormonism—as I said in an earlier comment, I could even live with a fair amount of baggage and growing pains. I just don’t know if there’s a way to get it going.
September 17th, 2006 at 6:43 pm
Adam, the session ”Integral Mormonism: Esoteric Perspectives of the Mormon Tradition (SLO6364)” attempts to do just that. I think John Kesler is to be commended for attempting to expand Mormonism or accomodate it with an Integral worldview; and for working to give Mormons new perspectives and techniques (meditation, etc.) from Eastern religions or Integral philosophies with which to enlarge or jumpstart their spirituality.
Mormonism’s concepts of intelligence (spirit) and matter; of a spirit world and physical world; of ostensibly embracing “truth” wherever it is found; of receiving personal revelation; of respecting the body as a gift from God, to be used within boundaries in descended ways (sex, exercise, eating food), the eternal nature of spirit (or the ultimate nondual recognition that emptiness, consciousness is present all along), etc…. all have elements of Integral Theory. Unlike many Moderns and Post-Moderns, I think Mormonism recognizes Wilber’s four quadrants: 1.) upper left Interior-Individual (Intentional); 2.) lower left Interior-Collective (Cultural); 3.) upper right Exterior-Individual (Behavioral); 4.) lower right Exterior-Collective (Social).
Having said that, like many fundamentalist religions, Mormonism is weighted heavily to the lower left Interior-Collective quadrant as the ultimate arbiter of truth. God speaks ultimate truth through the leaders of His Institution. If truth comes through an individual via the upper right quadrant that contradicts truth as defined by the Institution, then it is discounted as false. The same could be said of truth coming via the right hand quadrants, where science, medicine, history, etc., reside. Mormonism is too ethnocentric, too worried about preserving its priesthood authority to be truly Integral. As such, Mormon culture has a center of gravity that acts like a magnet on individual spiritual development. If you are below that center of gravity, it tends to pull you up; but if you are above that center of gravity (i.e. breaking out of the ethnocentric view to a worldcentric view) the cultural center of gravity pulls you down. This is partially what I meant when I said one could only ascend and descend on the 0-to-100 “spiritual ladder” from 30-to-70. I fear that as long as Mormonism maintains its “only true Church” stance (and all it implies… women’s neutered role in exercising spiritual gifts, power weilded via self-defining and self-sustaining authorities and hierarchies, ultimate truth coming through one man or group of men, and on and on…) — the “only true Church” being the ultimate form of ethnocentrism — then I don’t see how a True-Believing Mormon (TBM) can become truly Integral unless s/he takes a very expansive and metaphoric view of Mormonism, and supplements it heavily with ideas and practices from other disciplines. Having done that, I wonder if that person can still be called a TBM?
September 17th, 2006 at 7:36 pm
Actually, I think a better idea of a spiritual or Kosmos “ladder” is two ladders, one ascending and one descending, both going from 0 to 100, with “0″ representing no ascention or descention, and 100 representing maximum ascention or descention. Of course, once you become nondual, you recognize that the two ladders are really one ladder, so back to one ladder…
In any case, the idea isn’t that one can climb up and down the ladder from 30 to 70, but that one can only climb so high on either ladder before one bumps his or her head against a correlated or orthodox glass ceiling.
Another thought…
Like Fowler, Wilber recognizes stages of development. For faith development (Fowler), one that is at a natural stage 3, he or she can easily acheive some kind of “maximum faith” within Mormonism. Beyond Stage 3 you’ll be swimming against the tide.
Wilber recognizes 9 stages (or fulcrums). It is important to recognize that a person can have peak spritiual experiences at each stage of development or consciousness. In other wordes, at certain stages in a person’s life it is normal to experience peak spirituality in what Wilber sometimes calls “flatland religion.” So up the ladder you climb. You recognize new fulcrums and its a 1-2-3 process, you “identify, dis-identy, integrate; or embed, transcend, include” each new worldview or level of consciousness. At some point you may climb past your spiritual community’s center of gravity and you’ll either have to 1.) continue climbing and leave behind the community; 2.) deny and retreat; or 3.) continue climbing but maintain community ties, living a kind of double life. The second two options result in a kind of pathology — #2 being more serious than #3 — or the creation of a “false self.”
Regarding this “false self,” Wilber says:
The false self — at whatever level — might simply remain in charge for a lifetime, as the individual limps through a life of internal insincerity. More often than not, however, the false self will at some point collapse under its own suffocating weight — there is a “break-down” — and the individual is then faced with several choices: rest and recover and then resume the same false-self trajectory; drug the dilemma out of awareness; behaviorally reinforce actions that avoid the problem; or take up an investigation into the life of the lie, usually with a therapist who will help you interpret your interior intentions more truthfully.
The “false self” takes endless forms. Gays probably understand this “false self” as well as anyone. But I think the phenomenon certainly includes those spiritually or physically stuck in a rigid faith tradition.
September 17th, 2006 at 8:22 pm
Well, Matt, the problem with discussing this Integral stuff is that there are so many facets to the discussion it’s hard to address them all, but I’ll give it a shot with a few.
First, I agree 100% that John is to be commended for working to introduce so many ideas to Mormon audiences. I think I’ve even been saying that. And as I know I’ve said, I really, really want to hear more about that. I’ll check out that podcast, and if there’s anything more formal out there, somebody please direct me to it.
Also, I’m glad you clarified your ladder analogy; I was about to say something similar in my previous comment but I got sidetracked. =)
I agree with pretty much everything you said about Mormonism defering everything to the LL-quadrant institutional decrees. I’m not so sure I buy a lot of your stretching of Mormonism onto an Integral framework, though.
Is “embracing truth wherever we find it” anything more than lip service? Statements like “bring all the truth you have, and let us add to it” seem closer to the practical reality. Having respect for our bodies is kind of misleading, I think, too. For Mormons our earthly bodies are rather suspect and need to be kept under close supervision. Wilber, on the other hand, when I’ve been in meetings with him is likely to say things like “I hope you’re experiencing all the pleasures of this life—and I hope some of that includes finding yourself half-naked and using street drugs.” Maybe there’s some sort of relation between the Mormon view of the flesh and the Integral one, but it seems pretty distant to me. I also think it’s very, very generous of you to equate the Mormon view of the “eternal nature of spirit” with “the ultimate nondual recognition that emptiness, consciousness is present all along.” Is that really a recognition that makes sense to Mormons? If you can make an argument that Mormon theology allows for experiencing God in the first person, I’d love to hear it, but the fact that God has an actual body makes that rather problematic, in my view. Although Mormon doctrine and Ken Wilber both talk about “Spirit,” from my reading they have significantly different meanings. Mormon spirits start off as intelligences and develop into gods. Wilber’s Spirit is the ultimate Oneness. I don’t know. Talk me into it.
I do like how you point out that LDS theology provides for a distinction between spirit and matter and the physical world and the spiritual world. Although crude, it is reminiscent of the progression from gross to subtle to causal to nondual bodies. Interesting point.
(Almost done haggling Integral Theory, Matt—this is fun!) Also, what do you mean when you say that “Wilber recognizes 9 stages (or fulcrums)”? Nine stages of what? Wilber’s all about several different developmental lines and the notion that the number of stages is largely arbitrary—it all depends on how you slice it. (Oh, and when you quote Wilber, would you please give references? There’s a good chance I’ve got the books you’re quoting from.)
Okay. Back to relating this to the LDS experience. I find what you say about the possibility that “you’ll be swimming against the tide” no matter what when you get to a certain level interesting. And do I understand you right—are you suggesting that Ken would say that it’s ultimately unauthentic to do anything but “continue climbing and leave behind the community”? That’s pretty daunting. Not exactly what I want to hear, but it’s what I fear.
September 17th, 2006 at 9:19 pm
I’m enjoying the exchange as well, Logan.
Your understanding and exposure to Integral Theory is no doubt greater than mine. As I stated in the original blog entry, I’ve only just recently read my first Wilber book. Everything I’ve quoted is from A Brief History of Everything. I’ll include page numbers if I quote him again. I’m sure I’ve mangled some terms and definitions along the way. I agree, it is difficult to discuss given all of the facets. I’ll fully admit that many of my examples of Mormonism being Intgeral are a stretch. John Kesler could probably wax more eloquent on Mormonism’s Integral components than I can. I have more questions than answers. In the end, I think people take from religion or any belief system what they want. As such, I can understand why some people “see” certain Mormon beliefs as fully Integral, and others do not.
In any case, I’m a Wilber tyro. For now, I’ve greatly appreciated the way he has integrated so many disciplines, especially his map of the four quadrants, and his ideas relative to “spirit”. If you feel like it, e-mail me offline (see address at bio section). I’ve got a few additional questions for you, but hate to bore SunstoneBlog readers with too much esoteric stuff…
September 18th, 2006 at 6:19 am
Matt, I know a decent amount of Integral Theory, but I’m not an expert (there’s so much!) and I could be interpreting things incorrectly myself.
I’m sorry if I’ve been a bit heavy-handed, too. I feel a lot of frustration with the Church on this subject and I’m sorry if that has come out too much. Regardless, you’re probably right that this discussion would probably be best taken elsewhere. (But let the record show that I did try to answer your question in my first comment; this isn’t pure threadjack. =) )
I think I’ll listen to that podcast and then email you later on today.
Cheers.
September 19th, 2006 at 8:25 am
Dude, Matt. Check your email, for crying out loud!
September 19th, 2006 at 9:12 pm
Hi Everyone
Sorry that I dropped out of the conversation for a few days. If you still take a look at this I am happy to re-engage, but may disappear for days at a time - just a function of my time, travel schedules, etc.
Logan, just because you say that you have heard Ken Wilber encourage such things as an evening of riotous drinking, drugs and casual sexual activity, doesn’t mean that this perspective is more integral or superior than many others. The deeper spiritual practices result in a person being clear about being entirely “appropriate” in the moment, through egoless wisdom and unlimited compassion - which we in the Church might characterize as being guided by the Holy Ghost. I love Ken as a dear friend, and even as incredibly brilliant as he is, I have differences of opinion with him in some important respects. And he expects that from friends and colleagues. One arena of difference of opinion then has to do with what ideal human behavior looks like in some respects, such as interrelational environements.
I don’t think that it is a fluke that I have been asked to go the Integral Institute in November and lead a staff retreat, as they struggle to move into Phase II of the Institute. There is something that I carry in my demeanor and sensibilities which I attribute to being close to the Spirit (at least sometimes), which is appreciated at II. I frankly think for instance that in the long run those who behave modestly, respect their bodies and treat sexuality as deeply sacred with experience greater fruits in their lives.
Since you are looking at the podcast of my talk, why don’t you chose a topic, and lets discuss. As you know, I hold that the deepest patterns of the Mormon tradition are integral and beyond. I am on the lecture, fireside, etc circuit talking about that. That is not to say the the developmental center of gravity in the Church, that is, its culture is that high, and there is much that goes on that is ethnocentric and “translated” accordingly.
One thing to clarify about the Mormon tradition not having establised causal and non-dual practices, is that these are “state” experiences that do not necesarrily reflect higher structure stage development. For instance Zen masters blessed the kamikazi pilots on the way to ram their fascists planes into American ships. There are a number of modalities of practice which create transformation over time. One is what the Hindus call “karma” practice, that is the practice of “doing”. Mormons specialize in that, as we all know. For instance at Elder Maxwell’s funeral, when President Monson stated as the highest complement that Elder Maxwell had comepletely lost his ego in the service of his fellow man, he was saying something very powerful about the “small self” having essentially disappeared in Elder Maxwell. I doubt Elder Maxwell had causal and non-dual practices, but he is one of the most highly evolved people I have ever known, I knew him well for 30 years.
In any case I am not trying to be some mindless apologist for the Church, and am happy to discuss any topic, There are some topics that I can’t be very helpful or optimistic. But I am doing my best to bring integral awareness and practices into the Church, which in large part is highlighting the integral underpinnings that are already there.
In addition, I am practicing and teaching integral life and spiritual practices outside of the Church, no holds barred, including the big mind process in which I am one of a handfull of people certified by Genpo Roshi to do that. None of this is contray to Church teaching in my opinion.
Hope to keep up the conversation.
John
John
September 20th, 2006 at 10:28 am
Good to see you’re still out there, John. Logan and I have exchanged a couple of e-mails. I’d also questioned him about Ken’s statement about “half-naked and using street drugs,” wondering if Ken had said it in jest because it didn’t seem very Integral to me, at least not the “street drugs” part. I’m all for experiencing many things in life, but something as potentially harmful and addictive as street drugs seemed the antithesis of an integral and healthy mind, body, and spirit. Logan’s response was that he thought Ken’s comment was mostly a joke… I think Logan included the exaggerated quote to illustrate that we need not fear enjoying certain aspects of “descending,” a common anxiety of many people with strong religious views. In any case, I think its good to get this disclaimer on the record because Wilber’s ideas are too important and exciting for Mormons (or anyone) to be compromised by such a misunderstanding. For example, had I heard someone say Ken espoused such ideas I probably would not have read his excellent book. I hope to keep the conversation going. I’m sure Logan has some ideas he’d like to kick around, and maybe Adam and/or others do as well.
September 20th, 2006 at 11:48 am
John, I appreciate your returning. I’ve got lots of things I’d like to discuss with you, but I’ll try and keep it somewhat focused here so it doesn’t get out of hand.
First, let me say that I’m sorry to throw out a “street drugs” reference carelessly. I don’t mean to represent Ken as advocating “such things as an evening of riotous drinking, drugs and casual sexual activity.” Matt gave a good explanation of what I was getting at, and I should have been more mindful of the audience, I think. In any case, that’s not a point that’s on the top of my list.
One thing I wonder about is the level on which causal and nondual state-training really are compatible with LDS practice. Not that I have to tell you this, but one of the best things about Big Mind is its lack of dogma—that fact that you don’t have to “believe” anything to use it makes it at least potentially compatible with the teachings of other faiths and traditions. But isn’t the very idea of nondual mysticism somewhat problematic in light of LDS doctrine? To some extent it seems that the existence of causal and nondual states at all does some damage to the LDS view of the universe, or at least to popular understandings of it. How can we experince God in the first person if he has an actual body? And by finding other ways of experiencing the Divine than through the Church, aren’t we starting to undermine the Church’s claim to being “the one true Church”? Why are things like Priesthood authority and Temple covenants necessary to our relationship with God?
Also, when you say, “there is something that I carry in my demeanor and sensibilities which I attribute to being close to the Spirit,” how would you describe “being close to the Spirit” in Integral terminology? One of the great things about Ken’s work is that it allows a much more precise analysis of spirituality than our blunt catch-all term “the Spirit.” I think there’s something really cool in aspects of what we call the Spirit, but we also sometimes conflate it with emotion, a sense of euphoria in conformity to social norms, etc. I’d love to hear where the Spirit (speaking of it in the best possible sense) fits into the framework.
In the interest of keeping the discussion manageable, I’ll stop there. I’d love to hear your thoughts.
September 20th, 2006 at 11:51 pm
Hi Matt,
On the other hand Ken really does have a very different view of drugs and sexual activity than I and most Mormons do that amounts to a fundamental disagreement. We may tend to be too narrow and parochial, but my sense of it is that he is in a very different place than at least I am in this regard.
Developmentally there are rules, then principles, then relying on the Spirit, which determine appropriateness, and being guided by the Spirit can be, I believe, much more flexible in terms of being appropriate in the moment. Many church standards are grounded in rules, but I think the rules create good first steps, which we all hopefully can grow beyond in a transcend and include manner as we move into maturity. I realize that you can only get so far with this approach in the Church currently, but that is clearly the esoteric underpinning of the exoteric doctrine.
Hi Logan,
I have approached meditation in the realms of the four main modalities of mysticism as aspects of development of conscioiusness and awareness, rather than in the context of Buddhist or even Zen dogma (ie doctrines and teachings). Being a meditator and big mind practitioner, as I am, does not speak to the reality or nature of God. Or one might say from an LDS perspective that since the definition of God reflects the ultimate evolution of the human being, then if we find ways to achieve the most refined levels of awarenss and being, we are becoming more like God. Mormons are about the only diestic believers who have a concept of God as a highly evolved human being, who can then legitimately take the above position. Bottom line, explore all truth, experience the highest, most comprehensive and integral awareness and being.
D&C 35:2 - I think it is - which indicates something along the lines that “we each should be one with the Son, who is one with the Father who is one with the Son that we may all be one”, is a classic statement of an expression of unity of awreness. If some ultimate reality can be viewed from the non-dual perspective that all is one (and nothing), that does not negate the reality of percepton in the realm of the relative world that there are separate beings who for instance allow their separate physical selves to be vessels of Spirit. Interestingly enough I have found Ken and all Zen Masters I know to believe in a pre-existence and post existence. Of course Mormons have a mini version of this, what might be called reincarnation.
I lead big mind facilitation, which takes you to a place where it is so clear that awareness is grounded in not knowing, in knowing nothing, but out of that causal awareness paradoxically comes the non-egoic transcendent wisdom, which enables one to have really universal discriminating awareness. It is only by knowing nothing (i.e. being locked into no pre-supositions) that allows one to be absolutely clear in one’s discriminating awareness, or as we might say being radically open in the moment to the guidance of the Spirit.
I have by the way recently convinced Ken to stop using in Integral Institute materials and workshops, the first, second and third perspectives or experiences of “God”, and rather talk about the first second and third person perspectives of Spirit. This is what he does in his books. Beyond mysticism which is the ascending path of core modalities of achieving unity with Spirit or the divine, Transcendent Wisdom is first person of divine awareness, Transcendent Compassion is second person of divine relationality and basic life energy or in LDS vocabularly, the light of Christ, is the third person of being in and through all things.
In any case I don’t think that most really mature Mormons conflate emotions and the Spirit as you seem to indicate. On the other hand,I think that Ken’s quadrant perrspectives and AQAL framework are a great service to the world and to helping Mormons become for instance more discriminating about all sorts of things including modalities of the Spirit. But I will say personally that being a vehicle of Spirit on ocassion, when this has been my experience, I have had a capacity for divine first person Awareness, divine second person Compassion and divine third person Presence.
Clearly I am glossing over a lot of stuff here, Logan, but the point I want to make is that I don’t find the deepest and most integral of spiritual practices contradictory to the deeper patterns of the Mormon Spiritual Field as I call it - which tends to be “translated” at much lower levels of comprehensiion and expression. Do I believe that one’s structure stage level of development conditions how one experiences and “translates” the Divine. Yes I do, but I can accept the Church teachings because they so clearly to me reflect the esoteric patterns, the integral underpinning of the Mormon spiritual field
I will check back the first of next week. I will be traveling as of tomorrow.
John
September 21st, 2006 at 6:13 am
John, thanks for your response. I know you’re extremely busy and I appreciate the time and effort you’re putting into this discussion. One day it would be nice to have a chance to really go deep into some of this stuff instead of “glossing over” it, the way it seems to have been done at the Sunstone Symposium and here blogging. That’s probably just a limitiation of the two media being used, though. Maybe one day we’ll have a better forum for digging deeply.
That said, you gave some very good answers, John. Having read your response and slept on the question of just what problems I see with an Integral Mormonism (or “Mormon Spiritual Field”—sounds interesting), I realize that what you have been (very patiently) doing is showing that Mormonism is compatible with Integral thinking. Before this conversation, once I saw that (1) there was no Mormon tradition of causal or nondual mysiticism, and (2) the climate is very ethnocentric, I’d find myself discouraged at the whole thing, thinking the two were virtually insurmountable. Then here you come and admit both those problems and keep pressing forward. I’m left feeling like I’ve got beefs with the idea of Integral Mormonism, but you’ve basically demurred to both of my concerns, and I’m left feeling the need to argue but not having anything to argue about!
Not that this is a bad thing. In fact, I’m forced to admit—and I’m happy to come to this conclusion, really!—that Mormonism is, in fact, spiritually and theologically compatible with an Integral view.
Yet I’m somehow not completely satisfied. And I think it’s because of my experience of being in the Church. I feel like the Church is, as Ken would say, a pathological holon, i.e., a whole/part that thinks it’s a whole. I’ve got a list as long as my arm about the practical consequences of this, which we don’t need to get into here. But this is a problem for two reasons: (1) it creates a toxic environment for those not at an ethnocentric worldview (maybe I’m just too pluralistic—I don’t know), and (2) it’s extremely disappointing that the Church is so far behind many other traditions in altitude and state-training. These issues are related, and I guess this isn’t necessarily an Integral question. I’m really asking, I suppose, how do you engage fully and presently in the Church when there are so many pathological aspects—especially when such important parts of your practice and worldview (I’ve got in mind advanced state-training and the AQAL framework) come from outside the Church—the Church that claims to include all truth? That’s what I’m really having a hard time with.
September 24th, 2006 at 9:25 pm
Hi Logan,
Perhaps we could get on the phone sometime, and chat in more depth. Or do you live in northern Utah? We could meet for lunch
I would say though that particularly the early Church leaders including Joseph Smith went out of their way to say that Mormonism is not some box full of dogmas, but rather is an open system - open to truth wherever it might be found in any tradition. Joseph F. Smith said this many times. There continue to be a scattering of such quotes, and it is not unusual in my experience in ward gospel doctrine classes to hear this type of statement, with no opposition.
The way President Hinkley tends to frame the Chruch’s truth claims is not who is right and who is wrong, but whether the Church might provide some additional truth which might out contextualize other incredible truth in every tradition. This is an integral level comment.
Being open to the evolution of doctrine and approach through revelation is an implicit opening to reflecting developmental maturity over time - ie we translate spiritual material consistent with our level of consciousness. My point again is to emphasize the “spiritual field” openned up by Joseph Smith that is so rich and multi-faceted.
My experience in the Church is that it is profoundly spiritually helpful to most people, is great for raising families and forming community, provides at least an implicit path for mature members to continue to evolve in terms of consciousness and care.
The people who have the greatest challenge in my experience are those developmentally who move into pluralist post modernism and beyond. And for sure Logan, I see you struggling in this arena.
In any case my commitment is to spend the years I have left to do the best I can, to explore AQAL grounded opportunities to open the tradition to its full potential - as well as engage in and explore integral life and spiritual practice without limits.
John
September 27th, 2006 at 11:10 am
Thanks again for participating here, John. I agree with your assessment that “those developmentally who move into pluralist post modernism and beyond” have a difficult time finding a strong foothold in the Church. I think that description sums up much of the Sunstone community.
Interestingly enough, I find some similiarities between your expansive view of Mormon theology and Rob’s (who posts comments around here) “Reform Mormon” view of Mormon theology. Obviously, you both have opposite views on the usefulness of the current institutional Church, but you both see answers in the vast “’spiritual field’ openned up by Joseph Smith that is so rich and multi-faceted.” (Read, for example, Rob’s comment #4 in the “Dear God, America Calling” blog post.)
I’m excited to see what kinds of inroads you can make with AQAL opportunities in the Church in the many years you have left. Hope you’ll continue to use Sunstone as one of those opportunities.
September 27th, 2006 at 12:05 pm
John, I appreciate the invitation to talk. Unfortunately, I’m clear across the country in New York. I’d love to talk on the phone sometime, though. Feel free to email me to set it up: loganbobo at gmail dot com.
Also, I’m currently reading Integral Spirituality, and it uses some of the concepts and language you’re talking about here. In fact, it’s even answered some of the questions I had when this post started. It’s like you and Ken are tag-teaming me!
Talking about the whole Mormon spiritual field as a wisdom tradition is, I must say, quite intriguing. Particularly the explicit potential for expanding knowledge. The Church I grew up in and experience today seems to be construing the field much more narrowly—in practice, at least. One interesting morsel I read last night was when Ken said that we don’t need to give up our spiritual path, except probably for any claims of exclusivity. My experience in the Church is such that I hear very little that is not exclusivity or closely derived from exclusivity. My dad, when I talk about it with him, doesn’t have such a problem with this—he says his aggregate Church experience is just different from mine. To him, the instances of exclusivity of Truth being emphasized above Truth itself seem like aberrations, while to me they represent the majority of what I see. Perhaps having more experience (and maturity?) in the Church would be good for my perspective.
What can I say about my pluralistic streak? I like to think I’ve got some integral strands developing, but I just find the present conditions frustrating. There are some very rigid structures that keep the level of discourse largely ethnocentric. Still, I have my doubts that a second-tier value system alone would solve my problems.
Anyway, thanks again for the conversation!
September 30th, 2006 at 6:11 pm
Matt,
I agree that Rob’s expansive view of mormon theology is similar to mine in many ways as far as I can tell.
In any cae, I tend to find that if there is a strong thread of a theological postion in the Church that hasn’t been specifically abandoned by the Church, one can still talk about it, teach it explore it, even if that is not found in the mainstream discourse for the most part.
And with regard to JS’s later radical theology, over the past few years, Elder Oaks has reapeatedly made statements about the importance of who you are and are becoming is as important if not more important than who what you believe. He impresses the importance of everyone become a prophet and revelator. This is all about people on the path to divinity.
Logan,
I will connect through email to line up a phone call. I look forward to visiting.
John
October 2nd, 2006 at 10:40 am
Hey everybody, looking at this ascending and descending business makes me tired! Why are there no feminine or FEELING voices in this discussion? NOT ONE FEMALE respondent! And why does Wilber, et al, give such short shrift to Carl Jung?
When, at Matt’s invitation, I first looked at this ongoing exchange beyond Matt’s opener a couple of weeks ago only the first comments that were there, but they made my head ache. Probably because I didn’t understand what Matt, Nick, John or Logan were talking about. Or maybe it was really my heart that hurt! I checked your exchange out again this morning and it still made my head ache. I still couldn’t understand much but I didn’t FEEL like giving it much attention. My prejudice is obviously showing.
WHY???
It’s because THINKING continues to dominate everything in these blogs and I don’t like it. It feels sterile, out of touch with the feminine, wholeness and sensuality (descending?). It’s not worth the energy it takes to take your THINKING (ascending?) seriously. Our Mormon culture has been so puritanical in its ascending piety! Let me challenge this arrangement. How about a balance here between THINKING and FEELING? Consider the image of the compass. Put THINKING at North and FEELING at South. In Jungian terms (sorry to ignore Wilber and Kesler for the moment) THINKING (rational) and FEELING (emotional) are the judgment or decision making functions. (I’m deliberately leaving out the perceptual functions for now to keep this simple.) In this arrangement (and in our culture and society in general) FEELING is simply not considered the equal of THINKING when it comes to making legitimate decisions or judgments. (That’s why the priesthood stays all male!)
THAT IS OUR PROBLEM!!
Now, how about rotating this N-S axis 90 degrees so that THINKING is at the East (or Right Hand) position and FEELING is at the West (or Left Hand) position. We have an E-W axis. These decision-making functions are now on a horizontal par with each other such that both functions are considered equal in making judgments. OK, so what do they decide about? Well, they decide on what either perceives, which is consists of noticing what is arising from one’s interior or exterior. If it’s from the exterior, we use our SENSATION (fives senses) function. It it’s from the interior, we use our INTUITION (spirit?).
Originally, when THINKING – FEELING was the N-S axis, the SENSATION – INTUITION functions were at the East and West positions, respectively, but then with the 90 degree rotation to the right, INTUITION has now risen to the North (leadership) position putting SENSATION at the South position. Now we have some meaningful balance!
Consider the original Star Trek crew as an ideal representation of this arrangement. Captain Kirk (intuitive leader) is now at North, Mr. Spock (thinker) is at East (RHS), Dr. McCoy (the compassionate healer) is at West (LHS), and good old Scotty (sensation–the nuts and bolts guy) is at South. There was a TEAM that was ideally balanced!
EXCEPT, there were no women in that leadership! That had to come in later generations as they got more integral! Too bad the Salt Lake LDS leadership can’t take a page from the RDLS experience! My local SP thinks the RLDS destroyed themselves in trying to integrate the feminine. He simply doesn’t get it. He’s stuck in his head.
Now, suppose we begin to “get it” by allowing ourselves to bring in some dreams to consider. Take them seriously and let our collective imagination flower. I assert that Good News, i.e., enlightenment and transformation would be at hand.
What say any of you?
October 2nd, 2006 at 12:46 pm
I had a dream about six months ago where i was flying my family into the city. We were in an open cockpit airplane. Just as we got near the city, I realized that I hadn’t done maintenance on the plane in years. Hadn’t even filled up the gas tank. I was afraid it would fall right out from under us.
But we made it. I took it into a garage and could tell I was never going to get it back again. I wondered how we would get home.
October 2nd, 2006 at 12:53 pm
Another dream.
I’m with my family in a forested, but inhabited area. I realize that night is coming and that we have to get inside. We come to a house. Just across the street are about half a dozen women. They’re gray and emaciated, and all of them are tied by thier necks to poles.
I realize that these are the ghosts of women killed by hanging and that if we can show some empathy for them, they will let us use the house. So my wife and I fall to our knees, gasping and choking and clawing at the air. The women let us in the house.
Problem is, there’s a meeting going on inside. It’s like a mix between a Masonic and an Alcoholics Anonymous meeting. So we look for a way out. I find a door that leads down and we take it.
We go down some very steep stairs, and in the room below I can see huge grotesque dead animals and fish. One in particular is like a cross between a moray eel and a barracuda. It’s very difficult to get through all this. I realize that we’ve come into a crazed artist’s studio (think Buffalo Bill from Silence of the Lambs) and that I don’t want my young son to see what he’s made. So I cover his eyes as we make our way through. But I look down and realize I’ve covered his mouth instead.
October 2nd, 2006 at 1:10 pm
Anon (#22), it probably looks likes there’s more “thinking” going on here than there is.
None of these Integral concepts are difficult, but if one isn’t familiar with the terminology it can seem kind of arcane. One of the things I like about Wilber’s Integral Theory is that it dismisses the over-reliance on thinking-only as “flatland.” There is an equally strong “feeling” thread in the work I’ve read. He also quotes from Jung and a host of other men and women who have contributed to human understanding. Integral Theory takes the best from philosophy, religion, science, etc. and maps the ideas in ways that blend, not divide.
As for your “dreams” in your last paragraph, it appears that Stephen Carter has accepted your challenge and run with it. I wonder what Wilber, or your Star Trek Team would do with Stephen’s dreams?
October 2nd, 2006 at 1:24 pm
Stephen (#24),
I was in that dream too!!! I was sitting in the back, left-hand corner of that Masonic/AA meeting wondering what the heck I’d gotten myself into. (It was doubly frustrating because a few friends and family members were also present, but they seemed to be eating it up.) Then I saw you enter with your family and head downstairs. I thought, “There goes Stephen Carter… he usually knows where he’s going,” and determined right then to follow you. Half-way down the dark staircase I started to regret my decision. “Where is this staircase going?” I thought, “the Masonic/AA people upstairs might not be my bag, but at least they’re friendly.” Next thing I knew I was face-to-face with that moray-eel/baracuda beast. I instinctively reached up to cover my mouth because I knew I was about to scream. Instead, I covered my eyes. My unmuffled scream woke me up. I never made it through the house of horrors? I’m curious if you made it? And if so, what did you find?
October 3rd, 2006 at 11:11 am
OK, guys, I’m “Annonymous”–that was an unintended oversight. I thought I’d put my ID on #22 before pushing the “send” button.
About Steven’s and Matt’s dreams above: THANKS FOR TAKING UP THE CHALLENGE! It looks like there are two dreamers and three dreams, one of which overlaps another. (VERY interesting!)
I have two suggestions for dream work techniques: FIRST is a simple, quick RH perspective called the CREEI Process. It looks mainly at the dynamics or structure of a dream and NOT at its meaning. SECOND is from a LH perspective called Dream Yoga or “deep listening”, which gets to the subjective meaning of a dream. It is much more rigorous and transformative than the first technique
Let’s start with the simple CREEI technique. Its working hypothesis is “Dreams are pictures of feelings that parallel waking life.”:
a. Dreamer gives each of his dreams a one or two word name or title.
b. Dreamer answers the 12 CREEI questions, which questions can be applied to ANY dream (or any outer event). All questions are designed to be answered “yes”, “no” or “not sure”.
I’ll start with Stephen’s first dream just to show how it works. (Incidentally, this also shows how anyone can “score” the dream event–or outer event–of anyone else.) My provisional title is “Risky Flight”. Stephen can add his own title, if we want to keep track of these dreams for future reference, which I do as routine practise.
In each dream scene:
1. Is the scene Clear? (Can you describe it clearly?)
2. Is your Role proactive or responsive? (Rather than absent, passive or reactive.)
3. Is your Emotional energy (passion) high?
4. Are you fully Expressing your emotion?
5. Are you Interacting with others? (Rather than withdrawing or being alone.)
6. Is the scene complete or resolved? (Is there a sense of closure?)
7. Is it pleasant? Does it include satisfaction, joy, beauty, aesthetics and/or abundance?
8. Are you secure? (Do you feel safe?)
9. Do you have a sense of healthy self-esteem or self-worth?
10. Are you being your authentic present self? (Rather than pretending.)
11. Are you becoming all that you can be? Are you on the path towards self-actualizing? (Rather than procrastinating.)
12. Are you beloving of all beings? (Do they experience their own beauty in your presense?)
Note: The term CREEI is an acronym taken from the first letter of the key words in the first five questions above.
Here is my score for “Risky Flight”. Stephen might score it a little differently. This was my best guess.
1. Yes
2. Yes
3. Yes
4. No
5. No
6. No
7. No
8. No
9. Not sure
10. Not sure
11. Not sure
12. No
I have found that there are typically four basic dream patterns: Transformative; Motivational; Anticipatory; and Traumatic. A dream with all “yes” answers (which is rare) is what I would call a “transformative” (confirming, comforting) pattern. It is an ideal pattern of INTRA-personal balance. What one looks for in applying CREEI is which questions answer “no” or “don’t know”. These are indicators of where the imbalances are. If there are many “no” answers, one can often single out the most important “no” (the ring leader) to begin to work with. It is a good place to begin applying the creative, transformative process, which can be done in many ways, such as writing a poem or crafting a story.
This first dream above (#23) scores “Anticipatory traumatic”. It suggests some heavy stuff that Stephen might want help with from knowleable and wise friends or professionals. That is, it’s probably too heavy for him to carry or try to process alone. Stephen was gutsy to put it out here in public. But, we caring friends can help. Whatever is the true meaning of the dream, Stephen, himself, is the ultimate authority–no one else! The rest of us can respond from our own centers such as “here’s my impression” or “this is what I think”, etc., as long as we take responsibilty for our own experience and don’t try to impose our own interpretations on Stephen. If our responses have any value for him, he will have an “aha” of recognition, which is is a typical inner indicator from within the dreamer that he has “got it”.
Here are the ten assumptions for the CREEI Process:
1. May be applied to any event, whether dreaming or waking.
2. Content need not be disclosed (a safety mechanism).
3. Non interpretive.
4. Non judgmental
5. No such thing as a bad or meaningless dream.
6. Working hypothesis: “Dreams are images from the heart that reflect waking life”.
7. All dreams are of equal value, whether fragmentary or lucid.
8. Dreams always contain new information.
9. Dreams are personal metaphors, thus the dreamer is the ultimate interpretive authority.
10. Peace and joy exist (can be found) in any event.
My suggestion for Stephen on this dream is to rework it–using the images of the dream without trying to second guess them or even worry about their ultimate meaning–such that the reworked version would score “transformative”. It will take a lot of work, since there are so many “no” or “don’t know” answers. But if he can manage to do this, that inner work will pay off big time.
Peace and joy to you, brother Stephen! Let us know what happens.
October 3rd, 2006 at 11:52 am
Stephen (#24), this dream looks super important for you! Perhaps you could refer to it as “The Dead”. I would recommend you take a look at my friend Joseph Dillard’s “Dream Yoga” technique to get at deeper dimensions of the dream. [See: ] He will ask you to interview many of the non-human elements in the dream.
If you want to do a CREEI analysis first, you might break the dream down into its separate scenes (with their own subtitles) and process each scene individually. Often you can see trends in the dream dynamics that weren’t apparent at a first examination.
Let me know what you find and if you have further questions.
Eugene
October 3rd, 2006 at 11:56 am
Stephen, it looks like my reference to Joe Dillard’s Dream Yoga got chapped. See DreamYoga.com.
October 4th, 2006 at 2:19 pm
Eugene,
Thank you for that thoughtful walk through the CREEI process. Dreams are indeed fascinating. I have to admit that I’ve never analyzed my dreams to any extent, other than to occaisionally repeat them to a friend or family member for brief discussion. Most of my dreams seem to have parallels to anxieties I suffer from while awake. It would be fun to apply the CREEI process to the next vivid dream that I can actually remember. Thanks again for participating here.
October 4th, 2006 at 5:12 pm
Matt, your dream (#26) seems loaded to me. And how fascinating that it seems to merge with Stephen’s! If that were my dream I would imagine myself facing that morey eel/barracuda beast and asking it what it wanted. You might be surprised what it would reveal to you! I say this because one of my most important long ago (November 1964) dreams involved a killer whale that I had caught thinking it was a prize marlin. My dad was driving the car and I pulled the beast in on top of me in the trunk, thinking it was dead. Well, it wasn’t and soon it was trying to break through the flimsy covering I’d put over it and threatening me. Or so I thought. So I pushed it out of the car onto the pavement as the car, still driven by my dad, continued on its way. I tell you this because I’ve only recently applied Dream Yoga to that dream from today’s perspective and was surprised to learn that the Orca had an important warning for me, which I ingnored back then. By the following year my outer life had gone into a complete upheaval. If I was heeded the orca’s warning, instead of blindly fearing and ignoring it, I can’t wonder what alternate decisions I would have made back then.
Peace. Don’t fear the beast. It can’t kill you!
October 4th, 2006 at 9:33 pm
Those dreams I wrote up aren’t the recurring ones. Neither did they particularly effect me.
The dream that does that is the recurring dream of the crashing airplane.
The first one was a huge black jet, like those stealth jets from the 80s. But they’re always different. I’m never on them. I’m always on the ground. I see the plane fly overheard and then I hear an explosion. When the dreams began (about two years ago) I never saw the crash. But recently, I have been seeing them crash. Also recently during these dreams, I’ve remembered that I’ve had dreams about crashing planes and am amazed that here, in real life, it’s actually happening.
The dreams haven’t bled over into my real life. I’m not afraid of flying at all.
But something seems to be crashing.
And speaking of CREEI #6 “Is the scene complete or resolved? (Is there a sense of closure?)” Just last night I had a dream that took place in three discernable acts. I’ve never had a dream like that before, but it was amazing. I kind of feel like one of those people that begins dreaming in a language they’ve been studying for a long time.
October 4th, 2006 at 9:51 pm
Eugene,
Thanks for that brief course in dream interpretation. I appreciate that it probably took you a bit of time to write that comment. I’ve always liked talking about dreams. I like how unabashedly metaphorical they are. I like the idea that i could be talking about something about me that is completely perverse and socially unacceptable when I tell someone about a dream I’ve had. But I can say it all because it’s so deeply couched in metaphor that no one will recognize it. Call me a covert exhibitionist.
I do have one questionish thing about the CREEI method. It seems that its main goal is to use dreams to achieve some sort of inner harmony, and that disturbing feelings should be taken as indicators of disharmony.
In a way, I agree. However, in normal life I am drawn to disturbing stuff. I like Edward Gorey’s illustrations, I like gothic thrillers, I like the Brothers Quay and Jan Svankmajer. I like William Blake.
So in a way, disturbing elements attract me. I’m not interested in peace in my dreams so much as the creative assemblage of tension. For example, though the dead beasts in the downstairs room were awful, I was intrigued by them as well. Also, I was interested to see what the crazed artist had created, but I was more worried that my son didn’t have the critical faculties to deal with the images.
I don’t know if my particular proclivities have a name in the theories you’ve been describing. But what interests me is moving to new levels of tension, rather than achieving peace.
I’ve only encountered absolute dread in my dreams a few times. The kind of dread that overpowers me rather than intrigues me. One of them I’ve been overcoming recently by deliberately crashing into the frightening places. But recently another one has popped up. It’s pretty archetypal. It is a small, boarded up door in the basement of a house my family lives in (in the dream, that is). My father had built the room behind it. I thought I could go in, but when I got near it I knew that whatever was in there … sheesh, I’ve tried to write this about three times now. I have no idea how to describe it. Evil doesn’t work, because it wasn’t a universal evil. Poison seems closer. A poison specifically concocted for me. I associated a deep acid green with it, though the room (little more than a crawl space) was completely black.
I didn’t know when whatever was in that room would emerge, but I ran out of the house knowing I would never go back in. I was afraid it would consume the entire house, and my family, along with me.
This is a disturbing dream to me, because, in normal life, I don’t believe in evil. I don’t believe that there is a situation or a being one cannot approach if one can approach them skillfully. But this presence had absolute reign over me. So I’m tempted to interpret it more literally than is probably wise. It’s still so close that trying to make it into a metaphor just doesn’t work.
Do you charge your regular fee for these online sessions?
October 5th, 2006 at 12:31 pm
Stephen, about Comment #32:
I hope you are recording your dreams and keeping track of times and dates and locations. I find these kinds of anchor places to be very useful in getting at inner meaning and outer significance, sometimes many years later. I’ll come back to your reoccuring theme after the following paragraph.
But first, when you say your first two dreams mentioned in Comments #23 and #24 did not “particularly affect” you, I presume you mean that they did not seem all that important to you. Is that so? If you will review my 10 CREEI assumptions, all dreams are considered of equal value, even though their emotional impact might be different. What I’m getting at is to caution you not to dismiss their significance too soon. They are worth more attention.
About reoccuring dreams. Yes, I agree they typically get more of the dreamer’s attention, merely by demanding more of the dreamer’s attention. Obviously something in the dreamer wants to get conscious and the dreamer is not yet getting it. When the dreamer does finally “get it” (typically with an “aha”), the dreamer will not have that kind of dream again. In my experience with my own reoccuring themes and those of others, it is useful to compare not only the reoccuring theme, but the specific DIFFERENCES between apparent reoccuring dreams. The dream is presenting new information to you and is focusing on it in the slight differences between the reoccuring themes. That refers to CREEI assumption 8, that dreams ALWAYS contain NEW information, reoccuring or not. Those differences usually contain the most useful clues.
For example, one reoccuring theme in your dream is airplanes. But the airplanes are not the same. Some are small, like in Comment #23, some large, some miliary, some not. Yes? Why the different types of craft might be a question worth musing on or even writing about. Let your speculation go wherever it will. Then the crashes vary. Some are far away, some close by. You are never in them, are you? Why? It’s worth doing what my friend JD calls a “dreamage” to reprogram your dream maker self to give you better clues to what is trying to come up into your awareness, just before returning to sleep. Again, see his dreamyoga.com site. He will help you interview the various elements in your dreams, since every single aspect of a dream is an aspect of yourself and has a unique purpose for being there.
Your own soul is the creator of the dream and is placing its creations before you for your enlightenment. I submit that your dreams ARE “bleeding” into your real life, but you aren’t yet conscious of how that manifests. Perhaps that’s what lies behind the “crashes”? Something is trying to crash through your unconsciousness. Yes? They are coming closer and closer.
October 5th, 2006 at 9:22 pm
Stephen, re your #33.
I don’t charge these days. It’s my gift to my spiritual kin. Back in the early 90s, before I was whacked in Ventura, I had been building a CREEI Institute. Most of my seminar participants were Mormon and women. I suspect that that was one reason the Ventura SP moved so ruthlessly in getting rid of me. The seminars were having a major transforming effect on the virtually everyone attending, two of which were a high councilman and his wife. I suspect the SP (a professional deputy sheriff) felt threatened with loss of power.
One small but significant correction in your first paragraph: CREEI deliberately does NOT interpret dreams. It analyzes them. The dreamer is always the interpreter although CREEI teaches the dreamer how to recognize a true interpretation.
“Covert exhibitionist”. I like it! One of my erst-while mentors once disgustedly called me “unfailing exhibitionist”. We’re obviously soul brothers, brother!
Regarding your question about CREEi goals. Rather than “harmony” it’s balance. Developing intra-personal balance. If you like dissonance and the tension that goes with it, then that’s part of your idea of balance. It’s spiritual health we’re talking about here. My little technique does not claim to be a master healer, merely a quick indicator of imbalance places to give the dreamer a focus to meditate or apply his creativity. There are many other techniques and therapies that are far more powerful healers than mine. CREEI’s advantage is that it is quick, simple, direct and self-evident.
Give me a call sometime and let’s discuss the CREEI scan. It offers one a quick look at a life-time of dreams and how they track external life trends and relationships. Two examples I offer to seminar participants are those of Wiford Woodruff (a prolific dreamer who faithfully recorded his over his entire lifetime) and atheist psychiatrist Jewess Helen Schucman (A Course in Miracles) the summer just prior to her receiving the course. Jesus comes to her in her dreams to show her how to ready herself for major priestess service!)