Kurt on whether it’s “individual” or “collective”– as always, its both

Regarding the Miner, Wright etc. thread, as one of my root Advaita teachers said “thank God for the option ‘all of the above'”.   Please see also what I say at the bottom re: “convergent players” and “parallel players”.

The same Wayne Teasdale that said those things about individuals (Tim Miner’s post) also said that the Interspiritual Age would require institutions, structures, organization etc.  etc. to support, carry and express it (Mystic Heart p. 248) .   So, whether using the Bible, the Koran, or On the Origin of Species, it’s an academic generality that one can select “proof-texts” of all kinds for this point or that….. so “no harm done”.   I guess whatever stirs the conversation is useful.

An emergent Association or Network is a natural arising.  If it doesn’t arise out of our natural, already-existing, association (sensu lato [Latin for “in the largest sense” it already exists!]) it will arise thru some other group or association (and such groups in fact already exist too).  I think what our emergent association has been trying to do is make sure there is an actual association or network firmly rooted in the lineages and visions  of the early pioneers of interspirituality… many among us, as you know– especially so that it might not be overly (or even negatively) co-opted by others less connected to that seminal vision.  That was also the reason for writing a book like The Coming Interspiritual Age.  It doesn’t pretend to “speak for” any of those pioneers.  It just tries to lay out a broad landscape for what this growing vision may mean.

Like it or not people come to apparent “sources” to ask their questions, so many many persons express the need for this emergent “core” to define itself more and, in that way, to be of help.

I like that some among us are beginning to identify two kinds of natural “players”.  Both are realities and both are probably needed as well.  It appears there are “convergent players”– those naturally wanting to form collectives, a mutual consciousness, and work together in non-hierarchical groups and circles.  There are other who are more “parallel players”, people more naturally called to “do their own thing”, be “leaders” and lead groups of “their own”, etc.  Obviously both exist, and obviously both are in the mix re: where all this is going.  My prediction is that convergent players will succeed in creating experiments in non-hierarchical and collective leadership and direction– it’s a natural part of the evolution.  Meantime, parallel players will also make important contributions– which might not have been possible if they had melded in with others.

The two are both apparent in biological evolution… the collective operates through “population genetics”– bell curves defined by ever-changing statistical “means”; the other operates thru “the selfish gene” and what is called “founder effect or genetic drift”.

It will be very interesting to see how this plays out in the arising of what we are now calling “interspirituality”, “trans-traditional spirituality”, and/or emergent “universal spirituality”.

Enjoy the process!

best and love

kurt