Your spiritual development

[Thomas]

Hi Chris –

"I think that people start out either inventing, or more likely piecing together a personal mythos."

I have just started to dip my toe in the waters of Paul Ricoeur – I've been looking at 'post-mopdern Christianity' - and specifically I'm looking at Scripture as narrative, both Revealed and reflexive:

"Language contains within itself resources that allow it to be used creatively. Two important ways in which these resources come to light are (a) in the coining of metaphors and (b) in the fashoning of narratives. In The Rule of Metaphor, Ricoeur argues that there is a linguistic imagination that "generates and regenerates meaning through the living power of metaphoricity." For him, fresh metaphors, metaphors that have not been reduced to the commonplace, reveal a new way of seeing their referents. They creatively transform language. Thus they are not merely rhetorical ornaments. They have genuine cognitive import in their own right and are untranslatable without remainder into literal language. In a similar manner, as I will develop more fully below, acts of narrating create new plots and characters, thereby also producing new meanings. Thus to become aware of the metaphorical and narrative resources resident in language is to see that notwithstanding the many rules and codes that govern language usage, it is always able to be used to be inventive, to produce new meanings."
Paul Ricoeur (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
(my emphasis)

Any thoughts, comments, pointers would be welcome ...

Thomas

[Paladin]

Without getting tangled in a web of mentation, Peck's ideas while being somewhat biased toward mysticism do have some usefulness. For all we know or might guess, going beyond stage IV is where we all will end up eventually. Of course this supposes that there is the desire to do so. At whatever "stage" (and I'm not sure I even like that concept) we find ourselves in there is a tendency to defend it as a positionality. I think Thomas makes this point in the other thread on Eclectic spirituality in a most poignant way by saying what we lack is "humility"

I do rather like his assessment of the efficacy of being useful by being only one step ahead in being able to help others. Too lofty a positon isn't helpful as, much to my chagrin, I found in dealing with sponsee's in twelve step programs.

Even too complicated an approach to spirituality isn't necessary for growth and taking these stages as better than or less than is a mistake.
The Jesuit Anthony De mello uses this story to illustrate the point:

There was once an accomplished Theologian and missionary touring the south sea islands as a follow up to previous missions some years before. This man was well versed in all aspects of Christian scripture and philosophy. On one small island he found three brothers living together plying their trade as fishermen. "You seem a religious family" the Minister said "tell me, how do you pray?" The brothers looked at each other and the eldest said " when we pray we look to heaven and say 'you are three, we are three, have mercy on us!"
the erudite minister smiled at their naivette' and said " I think we can do better than that" and forthwith taught them the lords prayer, complete with commentary on its deep and hidden meanings.
That night as he rested on the deck of his small ship, gazing at the fading sun and feeling the glow of a good day's work, he spotted a light coming closer to the boat. Sure enough it was traveling over the water getting larger as it approached the ship. finally it was alongside and the fearful minister looked down to see all three brothers surrounded by a golden light walking on the water. They looked up at the minister, and said " Oh kind sir, in our stupidity we have forgotten the pretty prayer you gave us! will you tell us once again please?"
The minister looked down at them, almost tearfully and smiling said " When you pray, just say, you are three, we are three, have mercy on us!"

Peace

Mark

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

I would say that each individual has their own pattern of spiritual development, which may or may not conform to the two systems described in this thread.

Hi,

Well having ground my way through that little lot all I think I can say is: I agree. It was interesting in places but overall I was reminded of descriptions of astrological "types", if you write enough then some of it is bound to ring true.

s.

[Paladin]

The "Forer effect?"

[Snoopy]

I don't know. Hang on while I look it up!

[Snoopy]

Ah yes spot on! Shame someone got there already or we could call it the Snoopy effect.
(I know what you're saying: "wants to take all the credit - typical Pisces.")

s.

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Thomas

Hi Chris –

"I think that people start out either inventing, or more likely piecing together a personal mythos."

I have just started to dip my toe in the waters of Paul Ricoeur – I've been looking at 'post-mopdern Christianity' - and specifically I'm looking at Scripture as narrative, both Revealed and reflexive:

"Language contains within itself resources that allow it to be used creatively. Two important ways in which these resources come to light are (a) in the coining of metaphors and (b) in the fashoning of narratives. In The Rule of Metaphor, Ricoeur argues that there is a linguistic imagination that "generates and regenerates meaning through the living power of metaphoricity." For him, fresh metaphors, metaphors that have not been reduced to the commonplace, reveal a new way of seeing their referents. They creatively transform language. Thus they are not merely rhetorical ornaments. They have genuine cognitive import in their own right and are untranslatable without remainder into literal language. In a similar manner, as I will develop more fully below, acts of narrating create new plots and characters, thereby also producing new meanings. Thus to become aware of the metaphorical and narrative resources resident in language is to see that notwithstanding the many rules and codes that govern language usage, it is always able to be used to be inventive, to produce new meanings."
Paul Ricoeur (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
(my emphasis)

Any thoughts, comments, pointers would be welcome ...

Thomas

I agree. Metaphors are tools by which we can express the interconnectedness and relationships we find. It is basically pattern recognition of a concept, just as scientific hypotheses and laws are pattern recognition of cause and effect. Just as scientific pattern recognition and testing can be employed to invent new things, metaphors can also be employed to invent new concepts, which can be tested, refined, and put into use.

[wil]

Originally Posted by Paladin

The "Forer effect?"

I like its other name, the Barnum effect...I love the sideshows.

[China Cat Sunflower]

Originally Posted by Thomas

Hi Chris –

"I think that people start out either inventing, or more likely piecing together a personal mythos."

I have just started to dip my toe in the waters of Paul Ricoeur – I've been looking at 'post-mopdern Christianity' - and specifically I'm looking at Scripture as narrative, both Revealed and reflexive:

"Language contains within itself resources that allow it to be used creatively. Two important ways in which these resources come to light are (a) in the coining of metaphors and (b) in the fashoning of narratives. In The Rule of Metaphor, Ricoeur argues that there is a linguistic imagination that "generates and regenerates meaning through the living power of metaphoricity." For him, fresh metaphors, metaphors that have not been reduced to the commonplace, reveal a new way of seeing their referents. They creatively transform language. Thus they are not merely rhetorical ornaments. They have genuine cognitive import in their own right and are untranslatable without remainder into literal language. In a similar manner, as I will develop more fully below, acts of narrating create new plots and characters, thereby also producing new meanings. Thus to become aware of the metaphorical and narrative resources resident in language is to see that notwithstanding the many rules and codes that govern language usage, it is always able to be used to be inventive, to produce new meanings."
Paul Ricoeur (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
(my emphasis)

Any thoughts, comments, pointers would be welcome ...

Thomas

I think you're probably a good klick ahead of me on most of this stuff Thomas. Here I was flogging away trying to vaguely exlain an idea I have, and you gave me a link to this material that completely illucidates what I was crawling towards. I sincerely appreciate that. It's a tremendous help, thank you!

I'm struggling to understand the nature and ramifications of postmodernity. It's not an easy thing to wrap my brain around. One thing about it, though, is that postmodern "philosophy", if you will, really has more to do directly with art and aesthetics than anything else. It's a way of answering the question: "how do I pose something so it appears unposed?" Or "how can we systemetize randomness?" Something like that (I'm flogging again). Then those principles are applied to other things like control structures and how mythos is created and preserved.

Thanks again for the terrific link. I'm going to have to mull this stuff over.

Chris

[Thomas]

Hi Chris –

Thanks again for the terrific link. I'm going to have to mull this stuff over.

You and me both!

My course tutor keeps dirercting me towards Postmodernism (that's the big issue for Catholic theology today) as I strive to write my essays in patristic vein. As my 'thing' was symbolism, it's a big key between the two.

Last night I went into central London to meet friends at a restaurant – a co-worker is emigrating to Australia on Sunday – so I took the 'subway' to Leicester Sq. The main road, Charing Cross Road, is all bookshops ... so I thought ... while I'm here ... and hit the philosophy sections ('anything by Paul Ricoeur?')

There's nothing quite so embarrasing as walking into a restaurant late, with a bulging bookshop bag in your hand!

Thomas

[Thomas]

Hi Seattlegal –

Sorry, been ignoring you a bit when responding to the 'Chris/Thomas mutual appreciation society' – liked the ideas on metaphor ... and other posts recently.

Thomas

[InLove]

Hi--

Well, I think that stage 1, of course, is necessarily "seeing through the eyes of a child". I also seriously consider that the stage of greatest understanding, no matter what number one assigns to it, and no matter how many stages one passes through in transit, is "seeing through the eyes of a child." Kind of like the minister and the fishermen you mentioned, Paladin.

InPeace,
InLove

[Cage]

A small child looks for guidence, and understands that w/o it they could be lost. It's not until we reach our teens that we become rebellious, and come to think we know better than our parents. I think Spiritual development can work the same way. Some keep a child like innocence and humility, while others get to the point where the resist further understanding, getting set in their ways, beliefs, traditions, etc..

I think we all need a foundation to build on, and something pure to guide, as growth never ends. (The eyes of a child)


Love,

[Ciel]

Would anyone here willingly give the keys of their car [ka] to a child?
Isn't it better to take responsibility for one's own actions as mature people with wide open eyes. Maturity is not without wonder. It has a lifetimes experience behind it, with incredible guidance if we open our eyes to see.

- c -

[InLove]

Hi Ciel--

No, I don't think anyone would willingly give their car keys to a child, except to look at them. A baby may examine them, but thankfully, the child doesn't drive.

InPeace,
InLove