felix dakat wrote:Moreno-- what a perceptive thoughtful insight. Yes initially the "get out of your mind and into your spirit" exhortation resonated as a means of transcending a problem of obsessive thought diminishing participation and appreciation of the spontaneous flow of life. But over time, for me, it became an implied criticism of verbalizing thoughts including reasonable ones. It became an intrusive command to shut up, stop thinking and conform with whatever the group was doing at the moment. On the minimalist side I would also point out, that given a hard theistic interpretation, "turning to one's spirit" would imply that one had the capacity for direct contact with the unitary personal creator of the universe. As an article of faith, I don't have a problem with that myself, but it makes a maximal claim that is unconvincing to some who might nonetheless benefit from participating in transcendence more modestly defined.
Sure, though I hopped in the middle of an exchange. Consider my post a tangent. I wasn't thinking of Spirit or monotheist God contacts. And I totally agree with the mindfuck use of 'get out of your mind'. There are a lot these kinds of admonitions, and not at all restricted to cults - those formally labelled as such. I think I may start a thread on that topic.
I have seen the maximal claim work for many people and then just seem to be a mind game with others. I will bring back the black box term. We can black box what the ego allows itself to merge with. It could be simply allowing more unconscious skills to be present. Instead of trying to logically work out where to run to to get under the footbally, we trust the intuition of the body/organism. perhaps when addressed a person in pain we merge with enter some connection with something beyond what science would say is the organism, and we say something that startles us and helps. did I really say that? Where did that come from? But in the context of the thread, we can black box the thread. Whatever the source - intution based on a role model we don't think of much anymore, God, nature spirituals, one's no longer living grandmother, whatever - it was beyond what we usually identify with as 'i'. I think with time one can actually learn to identify with more of the organism, but that's another issue.
A less tangential point is that for some people it works to have what others would call a hallucinated agency as the source.
Other people may work just fine by saying 'I am now in the Zone'.
Or 'I quieten my mind and stay open.'
But the point I am stressing is that how the individual conceives the beyond source may actually be necessary for them, but not for others. Here in this thread, we can black box it or call it transcendent. But I think it would be counterproductive to try to get everyone to use the same term. Some like their specific choices and trust the whole process as it is. Some can think *oh, it's really just a part of themselves* but still respecting another's choice seems important. We can dismiss it as a kind of placebo effect, but then....
the placebo effect is real, so again leaving them alone around how they define entities seems respectful and likely more epistemologically sound then the alternative anyway.
I mean, unless they said God told them to kill their kid. But if it helps them write, give advice, dance, play football, get insights into how they can improve or grow, look for solutions in new places, great, who cares if their terminology puts them outside our paradigm.