politics in action

[Connie Miller]

Ok... When Ed invited us to share any information on the pineal gland, I never thought it would begin a discussion like this. I simply sent some of the information I had been gathering for my book to share with others. I did not say I believed it or not, in fact I do not know how much is true, but what I do know is that we need to leave room for the mystery in our lives. Each time we try to label and defiine something, it opens us up to comparisons and judgements -( mine is better than your definition, etc)- not that definitions are not necessary, but this feeds the ego. 

 Ed you shared such a deeply moving and personal experience with us. Thank you.  
Pahnke and Richards (1972 identify nine core characteristics of mystical experiences...When we have mystical experiences we experience certain qualitites..Compare these to the qualities of a transcendent experience.
1. unity: internal (?the usual sense of individuality falls away?) or external (?one?s identity merges with the sensory world in recognition of an underlying oneness?)

2. noetic quality of experience: direct insight into the nature of being, accompanied by the certainty that such knowledge is truly real and not delusion

3. transcendence of space and time: the experience of time and space shifting their usual parameters

4. sense of sacredness: a nonrational, intuitive, quiet response to inspiring realities

5. deeply felt positive mood: feelings of joy, love, blessedness, bliss, peace

6. paradoxicality: experience of unity of opposites is felt to be true in spite of violating normal logical principles

7. ineffability: the inability to adequately express the experience in everyday language

8. transiency: the transient nature of the experience relative to the apparent permanence of everyday consciousness

9. positive change of attitude or behavior resulting from having had the experienceCsikszentmihalyi.

These experiences can be called a ?flow?: a joyous and creative total involvement with life. His research has shown that these experiences occur to people in the course of many surprisingly commonplace activities: working, dancing, climbing a mountain, gardening. For some people, inner anxiety and self-consciousness disappear when they become deeply engaged in such pursuits. These are all states of being ?What slips below the threshold of awareness,? he says, ?is the concept of self, the information we use to represent to ourselves who we are? (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990, p. xi). Csikszentmihalyi also has found evidence of a range of experiences in which people?s identities seem to merge with something else - a sailor with his boat, a violinist with her instrument, or a director with his protagonist.This is where there is a loss of self awareness and these are what cannot be described in words. so, let's allow room for the mystery in our lives...does this excite me, yes.


.Connie Miller TEP, LPC. NCC 
http://www.souldrama.com/ 
The International Institute of Souldrama 
620 Shore Rd 
Spring Lake Heights 
NJ 07762 USA 

1-800-821-9919 

-----Original Message-----
From: Adam Blatner [mailto:ablatner at verizon.net]
Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2009 01:52 PM
To: 'Ivo Banaco'
Cc: list at grouptalkweb.org
Subject: politics in action

Dear Ivo and grouptalk,
 Of course dialogue and interchange is (in the largest sense of the term) politics, which may also be considered the art of the possible. 

 I've been just recently reading David Bohm & F. David Peat's book, Science, order, and creativity. 1987, Bantam New Age. Very supportive of Moreno's ideals, without knowing about him.

 I was reminded of the archetypal functions of the "puer" (Latin for boy, referring to the spirit of innocent youth) and its creative tension with the "senex" (Latin for elder, referring to the spirit of cautious experience). 

 In the interchange between Ed and me, for example, he is right in inviting us to explore creatively---as is Connie. I caution only that I would prefer a bit less over-enthusiasm in the nature of the claims made, such as confusing myth with fact. I prefer a middle ground of new ideas to be modified by some qualification, such as "in this context," or "to speak figuratively, not literally," and so forth. I experience discourse that lacks qualifications as misleading and/or arrogant. Yet with what seems to me to be a mild reservation, I really do want to encourage creative ideas. 

 A middle ground is the region of play. Again that qualification applies, the "What if?" attitude. I'm all for our playing in action, in dialogue, exploring---because the beauty of play is that there is some tentativeness to it. Even a "I've got an idea, lets..." is framed within a context in which (with kids, at least) an objection isn't necessarily to be judged as "rigidity" or "you're no fun" but rather as an invitation to modify the original idea. "Okay, then, let's also ... " There's room to maneuver and no one is making final judgments---and there are even levels of the kinds of reality that are being addressed---play or "objective" reality. 

 That's one of my objection to parts of new age discourse: There's a tendency to act by some folks as if we know what we are talking about, in some final, ultimate way. I've talked to the higher angels (this part is playful and figurative!) and they've told me that as many discoveries and paradigm shifts that have happened in the last three hundred years will happen again in the next three hundred years, so it might be presumptious to come to more than provisional conclusions. 

 Now, more to your point about political fight: Do I understand, though, that this is the point of your message---to recognize that it is better to identify more sharply where there is disagreement? If so, I agree.

 However, to characterize it as a fight comes across a little harsh, because in my mind it is no more angry or hostile or fighting than my wife and I discussing where we should place a picture on a wall as we decorate our house---a little higher, lower, maybe on that wall instead? Now in fact, this is political---there is a continuing process of exploring whose idea is better, mixed with other political moves---i.e., tact, diplomacy, appreciations for areas of agreement, etc. 

 What do you think? Warmly, Adam



 ----- Original Message ----- 
From:Ivo Banaco
To:Peter Howie
Cc:Group talk Listserv
Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2009 6:36 AM
Subject: Re: PINEAL GLAND (2)


Dear Peter, Adam, Connie, Ed and all, 

Let's awaken up the implicit here. Let us not pretend that this recent dynamic exchange of e-mails doesn't exist. This is politics in-action in the Group talk list. At least I feel in this way, I don't know if anybody feel the same. I am only speaking for myself. There is nothing wrong with "political arguments", what is wrong, in my opinion, is letting the implicit stay there, not generating an explicit output.


What I am trying to say in objective terms and in a reconstructive fashion is: Ed starts a tread with a certain topic: Pineal Gland. To use again Hegel's thesis and antithesis terms we had the first reply of Connie using a more spiritual emphasis (the thesis) to make sense of the topic and a more "rational" response of Adam (antithesis). 


If this happens to be a good description of that dynamic, what followed next was a "political fight" in the best sense of the word. But let us assume that, genuinely and directly, and not pretend that this isn't happening. At least in "real" politics, albeit all the bad things in it, they have political parties, constant dialectical arguments, making their differences crystal clear. 


For me, this last e-mail of Peter (whom I don't know but it doesn't inhibit me to engage with him an intellectual argument), with due respect, doesn't say virtually nothing unless for supporting Adam's answer. Or to put it differently, it has a lot of content (and a good one I must say), but the material is used in an implicit way, in a political correctness that I must admit annoys me sometimes. What do you, Peter, are defending in this topic, I mean clearly, and not from your comfort zone? just that "the pineal is well and truly in the dark". Are you saying that it's not possible to say more about it? 


With care and good intentions,
Ivo