“If all the roads end up in dead ends, you will be shown the secret paths no one will comprehend.”

Technorati Tags: poetry, Rumi, spirituality

Two more responses to the “Trinity” poem. Don writes:

Joe, I’ve always been a little uncomfortable with the involution part of KW’s integral theory since it is something that is inferred rather than observed. Note that in places he has said that involution did not happen in time. I guess I’m unclear how that could be. Also I would be happier if the theory were, at least in part, falsible, i.e. if it made predictions about things not yet known, which could then be tested and, if the experiment did not turn out as predicted, which would negate the theory. (Of course the idea of “falsibility” is not itself falsible, so that concept is a basic assumption, albeit one that pertains to everything within science.)

To which ralph opines:

don, read ’soulfully gay’. it’ll give you a lot better idea, not only where he’s coming from, but what he is attempting to do with this addition to aqal. ralph

Ralph continues in another email to the list:

i wasn’t going to say anymore because i haven’t yet digested it myself, but how can one remain silent at the dawning of a new day, even if one has little idea what it may bring? wilber has described–i can’t remember where–telos as a certain tilt to the kosmos, also called eros, pulling us towards Unity, to use a term of joe’s. i’ve always felt uncomfortable about this because it seems to reduce our role in this kosmic play to wisely surrendering to this tilt, or foolishly resisting it. and i’m constantly having to ask myself ‘why am i being so foolish?’ after all, i know what the wise thing to do is. why do i have to be so perverse? having glimpsed joe’s answer, my first reaction is ‘of course! what he’s explicitly pointing out to us has been there all along in what ken has been saying and doing, but only implicitly.

i’m reminded of fred kofman’s going to wilber with a question about the twently tenets of SES. he was troubled by ‘thanatos’ being posited as the complement to ‘eros’. why not ‘agape’? excellent question, because, in fact, ‘agape’ does seem to me to play the role of the primary complement to ‘eros’ in SES. wilber just failed to make this explicit. same thing here, i believe.

both the guru and the pandit talk about a duty, a responsibility they have in regard to the evolution of the kosmos, i.e. to the workings of eros. but they are motivated, in carrying out this duty, in reaching out to all of us, by agape. there does indeed seem to be a telos at work here, and joe has explicitly identified it.

this is really huge. it means we are pulled, not by none, not by one, but by two teli (or whatever the plural of telos is). the integral approach is, of course, to include both in our reckoning. this is definitely a much more interesting kosmic play than heretofore imagined. and, as wilber indicates in the latest chapter from the terrorist trilogy, the negative complements, ‘thanatos’ and ‘phobos’, of ‘eros’and ‘agape’ also need to be taken into account. our view of the play is only getting more interesting, more inclusive of what was already going on, anyway.

Here’s a dictionary that says the plural of telos is teloi, so I’m going with it.

“Trinity” is offered not as a falsifiable theory, but as a prose poem. It is an invitation to imagination and exploration and wonder. If you feel comfortable doing so, write about it. Create a responsive poem. Create a falsifiable theory of it, or explore what a falsibiable theory might look like. As the poet, I cannot offer any one definitive interpretation. The poem’s meaning is multifaceted, and includes the response of the community of readers.

I will say, however, that Ralph is correct that there is a connection between the twin teloi of Spirit–involution and evolution–and the explorations in my book, Soulfully Gay. I won’t say any more at this time so as not to spoil any plot points, but I will note that in my opinion the last 19 pages of the book begin to spell out what involution looks like. And yes, like Wilber, I would concur that involution cannot really be perceived within the continuum of time. That part’s in the book, too.

Unfortunately, I am not able to provide a falsifiable injunction for involution such as “Step 1. Step outside of space and time. Step 2. Look about you.” It just wouldn’t be wise to do so, even if I thought it was that simple. Instead, I have offered my book as an account of my own experiences, and those who read the book and are comfortable drawing parallels to their own experience can begin asking some fruitful questions and, perhaps, imagining what the proper set of injunctions might be to falsify the notion that involution has a telos, if such a thing is imaginable.

One possible set of injunctions for confirming the truth of “Trinity” leaps to mind immediately! “Step 1. Be born as Joe Perez in September, 1969. Step 2. Write a journal called ‘Soulfully Gay’ in 2003 and 2004. Step 3. Have the experiences resulting in “Trinity” in 2004 and describe them as they happened. Step 4. Send the manuscript of your journal to Ken Wilber.” etc., etc. LOL.

Warning: asking “How can I falsify a theory of involution?” is a difficult inquiry. The answers to such a question might be as troublesome, and the explorations as uncomfortable, as attempting to answer such a hypothetical question as, “Why would God send his only begotten son to be crucified on a Cross? How can I prove that such an act was necessary or unnecessary?” We are really treading into the realm of the great stories and great symbols and mysteries here.

Technorati Tags: involution, poetry

A poem by Thich Nhat Hahn

I am the 12 year old girl, refugee on a boat, who throws herself into the ocean after being raped by a sea pirate.

And I am the pirate, my heart not yet capable of seeing and loving.

I am member of the politburo, with plenty of power in my hands, and I am the man who has to pay his ”debt of blood” to my people, dying slowly in a forced labor camp.

My joy is like spring, so warm it makes flowers bloom in all walks of life.

My pain is like a river of tears, so full it fills up the four oceans.

Please call me by my true names, so I can hear all my cries and my laughs at once, so I can see that my joy and pain are one.

Please call me by my true names so I can wake up,

and so the door of my heart can be open the door of compassion.

Technorati Tags: nonduality, poetry

Something:
this or that thing.
If I were to say:
‘I know something interesting,’
but you know only
it is both part
and whole.

Anything:
Something whatsoever.
If you were to ask:
‘Do you know anything interesting?’
you suppose only
to inquire of any part
of any whole.

Nothing:
No thing, not even
anything. If we were to sit
in silence, hearing nothingness,
we suppose only
it’s not part
of any whole.

Everything:
Every damn thing,
particular or aggregate, of a total.
We listen to each
Everyness, isn’t it always
the same whole
of every part?

Technorati Tags: holons, Joe Perez, poetry, spirituality

I. Reality comprises things or processes,
wholes within wholes, each a unique holon.

II. A thing’s drive to preserve itself
is called agency: the masculine principle.

III. A thing’s drive to adapt itself
is called communion: the feminine principle.

IV. A thing’s drive to transcend itself
is called heterophilia: telos of evolution.

V. A thing’s drive to dissolve itself
is called homophilia: telos of involution.

VI. Occasions arise; such moments of time
are emergent potentials of all holons.

VII. Things emerge in holarchies; they’re occasions
that include but transcend their previous.

VIII. Lower things set possibilities; the higher sets
achievable potentials of the lower.

IX. Higher levels include greater numbers of levels
within the holarchy: its depth.

X. The number of things on any level
of holarchy defines its span.

XI. Successive levels of evolution produce
greater depth of Omega and less span.

XII. Greater depth of a thing implies a greater
degree of its consciousness.

XIII. Destroy any thing, and destroy all things
above it and nothing below.

XIV. Evolution is not purely random. Telos, life’s
goal, gives reality its directionality.

XV. Evolution becomes ever more sophisticated.
It reveals the further reaches of complexity.

XVI. Evolution becomes more diverse. It reveals further
layers of differentiation and integration.

XVII. Evolution becomes more defined and structured.
It reveals further dynamics of organization.

XVIII. The purpose of evolution becomes increasingly
clear, complex, and subtle: the Omega.

XIX. Every thing knows implicitly the incompleteness
or uncertainty (IOU) of all things.

XX. The indeterminacy and partiality of every thing
is redeemed by its Everyness.

XXI. Involution is not purely random. Telos gives
Everyness its hidden, paradoxical directionality.

XXII. Involution becomes more fundamental. It reveals
new modes of simplicity and fullness.

XXIII. Involution becomes more unified and corporate.
It shows increasing undifferentiation and indistiction.

XXIV. Involution becomes more nuanced and subtle.
It increases its texture and sensitivity.

XXV. The purpose of involution becomes increasingly
mysterious and unfathomable: the Alpha.

XXVI. All things receive a receipt for IOU
from the Alpha and Omega.

XXVII. All things arise in the occasion
of acknowledging their receipt for IOU.

XXVIII. Destroy any thing and add to the
increasing telos Alpha and Omega.

IXXX. The greater span of a thing,
the greater its degree of Alpha.

XXX. In time, the unity of Alpha and Omega
is greater than Everyness.

Technorati Tags: Christianity, holons, integral, Joe Perez, Ken Wilber, poetry, theory

Originally posted: 2007. The following poem is adapted from Soulfully Gay (Integral Books/Shambhala, 2007).

The Two Directions of Love

Love is not merely an emotion. Love is another name for the soul’s archetypal desire to be reunited with Divinity, Alpha and Omega, and the actions that are manifested as a result of that desire. In other words, love is another name for two archetypal directions of all reality. Love describes the process by which the soul reunites with Divinity.

There are two archetypal ways of loving: self-transcending and self-dissolving. In self-dissolving ways of loving, the self seeks to be reunited with the Alpha in inner-directed ways. Self-transcending ways of loving seek to be reunited with the Omega in outer-directed ways. There are actually an infinite variety of ways of loving, but it’s helpful to start talking about just two.

Gayness and straightness are each, in their purest archetypal forms, expressions of the two archetypal ways of loving. Gayness is another name for the self-dissolving form of loving: the desire to love in inner-directed ways, and the actions that spring from that desire. The movement toward Alpha. Another name for gayness is homophilia, or love of the same or similar.

Straightness is the self-transcending form: the desire to love in outer-directed ways, and the actions that spring from that desire. The movement toward Omega. Another name for straightness is heterophilia, or love of the self for other or the seemingly different. Heterophilia is the love of Divinity in otherness, and homophilia is self-love, or receptivity to Divine love in sameness.

Technorati Tags: agape, homophilia, homosexuality, love, poetry, Soulfully Gay