Evolutionary Panentheism

[earl]

Netscape Search, (see 2007 conference summary in evolutionary metaphysics section 'cause it doesn't seem to link directly).

Found it interesting that the theoretical speculators of human potential at Esalen are now directly utilizing the theological term panentheism in their current thinking. Earl

 

[Paladin]

Considering the integral nature of their work it seems right on time

What do you think this means Earl?

 

[earl]

Of course, the Esalen gang has always taken it as a given that "Divinity/Spirit" underlies form/materiality. It's just interesting to me that they are incorporating a term that originally had been a particular theistic approach to envisioning God. Not all of those utilizing that term, however, also utilize any overt mention of God per se. Their Center for Theory and Research-the site link I posted-also has links to some of their associated research & theorizing aside from evolutionary metaphysics. Interestingly, 1 of their interests is in survival of consciousness beyond physical death. But that makes sense to me as an associated interest given that it ties into their overall interest in following the expanse of consciousness beyond the limited confines of form and the materialist view so often prevalent in modern society. earl

 

[Paladin]

I'm amused sometimes by the line "survival of consciousness beyond physical death"
Please note, I'm not making fun of all the hard work, far from it! But from a certain perspective it really is quite funny and nonsensical, like a fun little saying a child might invent to amuse themselves.
Kind of like, I wonder if electricity continues after I turn off the radio?
From this perspective, humans aren't transmitters, they are relay stations.

 

[earl]

I'm amused sometimes by the line "survival of consciousness beyond physical death"
Please note, I'm not making fun of all the hard work, far from it! But from a certain perspective it really is quite funny and nonsensical, like a fun little saying a child might invent to amuse themselves.
Kind of like, I wonder if electricity continues after I turn off the radio?
From this perspective, humans aren't transmitters, they are relay stations.

Perhaps not a bad analogy, Paladin-roughly analogizing consciousness to electricity and our body-minds as "relay stations." Certainly, in my view the body-mind is not the transmitter of such. All that research is just for the folks left in the room whose bulbs still seem to be emitting the "light" and want to know where it went. Does such research add anything of value to the living? Afterall, that's the only reason to do it. Don't know but I'd assume that, if such research leads to a different, more spiritually-based view of reality by the rest of us dim bulbs in the room, perhaps there would be some positive outcomes of that. earl

 

[nativeastral]

interesting link, paradigms take a long time for that gestalt shift to be 'relayed'

[cf 'great reversal' 500BC ]Netscape Search

and hundreth monkey effect [o the wonders of cognitive science ]

 

[Paladin]

Perhaps not a bad analogy, Paladin-roughly analogizing consciousness to electricity and our body-minds as "relay stations." Certainly, in my view the body-mind is not the transmitter of such. All that research is just for the folks left in the room whose bulbs still seem to be emitting the "light" and want to know where it went. Does such research add anything of value to the living? Afterall, that's the only reason to do it. Don't know but I'd assume that, if such research leads to a different, more spiritually-based view of reality by the rest of us dim bulbs in the room, perhaps there would be some positive outcomes of that. earl

I think all the hard work of organizations like this are much needed, everyone approaches actuality in a different way. I think Huston Smith used to judge spiritual paths by looking at altered traits rather than altered states.

 

[Nick_A]

Netscape Search, (see 2007 conference summary in evolutionary metaphysics section 'cause it doesn't seem to link directly).

Found it interesting that the theoretical speculators of human potential at Esalen are now directly utilizing the theological term panentheism in their current thinking. Earl

If God is outside of time and space and the source of creation, it is the right word. Is there a better word?

 

[Nick_A]

Perhaps not a bad analogy, Paladin-roughly analogizing consciousness to electricity and our body-minds as "relay stations." Certainly, in my view the body-mind is not the transmitter of such. All that research is just for the folks left in the room whose bulbs still seem to be emitting the "light" and want to know where it went. Does such research add anything of value to the living? Afterall, that's the only reason to do it. Don't know but I'd assume that, if such research leads to a different, more spiritually-based view of reality by the rest of us dim bulbs in the room, perhaps there would be some positive outcomes of that. earl

Consciousness may survive after physical death. The trouble is that only a few have consciousness capable of this survival so for us the question is just philosophical speculation.

 

[earl]

Consciousness may survive after physical death. The trouble is that only a few have consciousness capable of this survival so for us the question is just philosophical speculation.

And what bit of research or anecdotal accounts do you base that supposition on Nick? earl

 

[Nick_A]

And what bit of research or anecdotal accounts do you base that supposition on Nick? earl

"Pear seeds grow into pear trees, nut seeds into nut trees, and God-seed into God." Meister Eckhart

Normally this fragile seed within us is just aborted from lack of conscious nourishment so it just dissipates. The result of the physical body is dust to dust. However for some that seed can begin to grow enabling one to evolve towards becoming himself and participate in what you call Evolutionary Pantheism.

 

[earl]

Normally this fragile seed within us is just aborted from lack of conscious nourishment so it just dissipates. The result of the physical body is dust to dust. However for some that seed can begin to grow enabling one to evolve towards becoming himself and participate in what you call Evolutionary Pantheism.

I fail to see what this comment has to do with your previous one and still hadn't answered my question re research or anecdotal evidence Nick. earl

 

[Nick_A]

I fail to see what this comment has to do with your previous one and still hadn't answered my question re research or anecdotal evidence Nick. earl

My two comments

Consciousness may survive after physical death. The trouble is that only a few have consciousness capable of this survival so for us the question is just philosophical speculation.

Normally this fragile seed within us is just aborted from lack of conscious nourishment so it just dissipates. The result of the physical body is dust to dust. However for some that seed can begin to grow enabling one to evolve towards becoming himself and participate in what you call Evolutionary Pantheism.

All this means is that if consciousness survives for us after death, it does so as an aspect of a developing soul no longer needing the physical body. Since only a few have a developing seed of the soul, there is no place for consciousness to continue.

This isn't something science can verify since consciousness is experiential. Once a person has experienced it in the beginning they lose it. When it returns we experience the difference.

You can sit at the computer and practice a simple experiement in self awareness just by referring to yourself as "it." When you say that IT is sitting at the computer rather then I, then sometimes you can experience the separation between I and IT. It is a beginning of conscious self awareness that nourishes the seed of the soul.

To do justice to these ideas requires the right setting without the need to argue. This is just a basic idea. You either feel worth in it or you don't so how others have dealt with it isn't the issue here.

 

[nativeastral]

am finding the site very interesting in the converging of evolution, science and religious philosophies towards a more realistic paradigm of understanding. lt seems apt to use panentheism [rather then loaded g#d talk for the ultimate under/overlying source of all] as it has a history of enlightened thinkers who sought to think outside the box within the box of our existence. its the sort of information and ideas that needs to be spread widely.

 

[Netti-Netti]

The term "Evolutionary Panentheism" seems redundant. The process of Creation can be seen as moving toward a higher level of organization. Creation is purposeful and G-d's ongoing involvement with Creation is also purposeful. At a personal level, the attitude of faith is at least in part a willingness to trust this process combined with a willingness to discover how new situations are actually opportunities to learn what I need to learn before I can take the next step.

 

[nativeastral]

The term "Evolutionary Panentheism" seems redundant. The process of Creation can be seen as moving toward a higher level of organization. Creation is purposeful and G-d's ongoing involvement with Creation is also purposeful. At a personal level, the attitude of faith is at least in part a willingness to trust this process combined with a willingness to discover how new situations are actually opportunities to learn what I need to learn before I can take the next step.

l think youve just described 'evolutionary pan en theism'!
how can it be redundant if it never really 'got off the ground'?
it includes immanence and transcendence [unlike pantheism].
g#d is a 'loaded' term which people argue over incessantly.
l think a lot of the younger generation will embrace this concept more than 'g#d' and 'religion'. Perhaps 'evolutionary spirituality' then?

 

[path_of_one]

I am curious about the concept of God in/through the evolutionary process as opposed to being the Creator/Driver of it. Panentheism, as I understand it, could refer to a Creator-God that is both outside of Its creation and within it. Or it could refer to an Entity, to Being-ness Itself, that is the creative process and is within the resultant creation.

It's not the same thing. I once saw God as Somebody who created stuff using evolution. After a particular experience I had, I saw God as a process of being that is inherently creative and evolutionary. That is, creating and evolving isn't something God does, but something God is. That might be old hat to someone else, I don't know, but it was really an eye opener for me.

In that way, God is not just something that is in me, nor am I a "part of God" or "becoming God" but... it's hard to describe... hopefully you can see where I'm going with this. It is more like I can become aware that I can live in a way that contributes life to this Being-ness, this One-ness, that is God and is really me. When I grow and learn and develop, it is the heart of being one with God and all beings around me. Likewise when I create stuff- be it art, these notes here, or a thought or emotion within myself.

To me, it's a journey of moving beyond my view of God as a person like my temporary, egoic self that does stuff toward an openness to God being very non-anthropomorphic, a great mystery to be experienced but never fully understood. The interesting thing to me is that when I thought of God as a Being that did stuff- created things through evolution, for example, or loved us, or what have you- my purpose was quite unclear and uncertain. What was the point of me, of my life? It seemed like a lot of suffering for little gain, and I personally could not accept the point being to get to heaven or somesuch, which seemed rather limited and self-centered. Once I thought of God as Being Itself- creativity, evolution, love/compassion, etc. as forces that manifest in and through all beings and ultimately are One- my purpose was clear. I was to embody the best of Being, giving up my self to be a vessel for Self Itself, for Being, for Love. The afterlife became pretty much irrelevant, an interesting tangent rather than a primary goal. And suffering became opportunity.

It is not that God isn't personal, but that I recognize the personal God is a co-creation of my own mind/spirit and the Divine to suit my needs for comfort and so forth. I am not yet ready to let go of this comfort completely, just as I have not yet unfolded into a pure state of Being that is beyond my temporary self. But it excites me to be aware of these two different realms of being. To me, that is indication that I am moving toward the capacity to let go of myself more consistently and become more consciously a part of that panentheistic reality.

 

[Avi]

I liked the idea of evolutionary panenthesim when I first started thinking about it, but here is the description on the Esalen webpage. I have some concerns about the notion of the “ world-transcendent Being or Divinity” and the “occult worlds”.

More reading will be needed.

It is important to note in this context that we are not attempting a broad "consilience" of the sciences, social sciences and humanities in the manner of Esalen's recent conferences on evolutionary theory, which brought together atheists, agnostics, and mystics. Instead we are assembling thinkers who fully recognize: 1. the reality of a world-transcendent Being or Divinity; 2. unseen or occult worlds of consciousness and energy (however conceived or articulated in symbol and doctrine); and 3. the scientifically revealed facts of our evolving universe. And, most importantly, we are doing this to create an integral synthesis that embraces all of these realities within an overarching vision, or metaphysics, that is not dogmatic but nevertheless represents a thought-movement, Weltanschauung, or school of philosophy that illuminates and advances an evolutionary panentheism adequate to our age.

 

[earl]

I liked the idea of evolutionary panenthesim when I first started thinking about it, but here is the description on the Esalen webpage. I have some concerns about the notion of the “ world-transcendent Being or Divinity” and the “occult worlds”.

More reading will be needed.

What are your concerns? earl

 

[lunamoth]

I am curious about the concept of God in/through the evolutionary process as opposed to being the Creator/Driver of it. Panentheism, as I understand it, could refer to a Creator-God that is both outside of Its creation and within it. Or it could refer to an Entity, to Being-ness Itself, that is the creative process and is within the resultant creation.

It's not the same thing. I once saw God as Somebody who created stuff using evolution. After a particular experience I had, I saw God as a process of being that is inherently creative and evolutionary. That is, creating and evolving isn't something God does, but something God is. That might be old hat to someone else, I don't know, but it was really an eye opener for me.

In that way, God is not just something that is in me, nor am I a "part of God" or "becoming God" but... it's hard to describe... hopefully you can see where I'm going with this. It is more like I can become aware that I can live in a way that contributes life to this Being-ness, this One-ness, that is God and is really me. When I grow and learn and develop, it is the heart of being one with God and all beings around me. Likewise when I create stuff- be it art, these notes here, or a thought or emotion within myself.

To me, it's a journey of moving beyond my view of God as a person like my temporary, egoic self that does stuff toward an openness to God being very non-anthropomorphic, a great mystery to be experienced but never fully understood. The interesting thing to me is that when I thought of God as a Being that did stuff- created things through evolution, for example, or loved us, or what have you- my purpose was quite unclear and uncertain. What was the point of me, of my life? It seemed like a lot of suffering for little gain, and I personally could not accept the point being to get to heaven or somesuch, which seemed rather limited and self-centered. Once I thought of God as Being Itself- creativity, evolution, love/compassion, etc. as forces that manifest in and through all beings and ultimately are One- my purpose was clear. I was to embody the best of Being, giving up my self to be a vessel for Self Itself, for Being, for Love. The afterlife became pretty much irrelevant, an interesting tangent rather than a primary goal. And suffering became opportunity.

It is not that God isn't personal, but that I recognize the personal God is a co-creation of my own mind/spirit and the Divine to suit my needs for comfort and so forth. I am not yet ready to let go of this comfort completely, just as I have not yet unfolded into a pure state of Being that is beyond my temporary self. But it excites me to be aware of these two different realms of being. To me, that is indication that I am moving toward the capacity to let go of myself more consistently and become more consciously a part of that panentheistic reality.

Great post Path and the second paragraph especially rings my bells, as I think at least part of the story is that God creates in the eternal moment which exists in the fleeting present (if that makes sense), not like someone who wound up the machine and then stepped back, or only steps in to tweak.

But I don't think we need to strive toward 'growing past' God as Person, because that's an important part of it too.