Spiritual Humanism & Gay Community: A Manifesto for Gay Liberation
In this article I invite the reader to a depth and breadth of philosophical reflection than is unusual for this forum. I hope that readers who accept the challenge of this invitation will be stimulated to think about themselves both as individuals and as a community in possibly new and transformative ways and thus be rewarded for the effort.
“For our own liberation and for the benefit of the world.”
We are all familiar with the term secular humanism, but far fewer people are familiar with spiritual humanism, a philosophy that acknowledges the common interests of human beings as important guidelines for understanding how we can best live together in this world (humanism), but at the same time affirms transpersonal levels of collective being and interconnectedness that provide a deeper rationale for ethical behavior. Spiritual humanism relies not on faith or doctrine but on direct spiritual experience as an important dimension of human potential. Spiritual humanism can open up transcendental possibilities for human development that can be generally termed enlightenment, liberation, or Self-realization.
So many in the gay community understandably reject religious authority. But in that context, what rationale remains for ethical behavior, for caring for one another rather than merely acquiring anything we desire by any means necessary? Why shouldn’t we fuck everyone we can, both literally and metaphorically, if we all just end up as dead meat anyway? Secular humanism and existentialism leave ethics up to individual choice, resulting in at best moral relativism that can easily devolve into rationalizing whatever we may want, consequences be damned.
Spiritual humanism, by contrast, provides a rationale for ethical behavior that secular humanism and existentialism do not. The metaphysical basis for mutual caring and morality is spiritual or essential Oneness that can be experienced directly as a fact through effective spiritual training.
Out of this revelation naturally flow the following two moral imperatives:
- Non-injury— the commitment to avoid intentional harm to anyone;
- Truthfulness—adherence to truth in thought, word, and deed as much as possible except when truthfulness violates the imperative of non-injury.
To injure another intentionally is ultimately is to injure oneself, which is an irrational choice that denies the deep reality of Oneness. Living truthfully means being grounded in reality. Truth=Beauty=God (or the Good) is an equation found in both South Asian and Greek philosophies, for Truth is the foundation of everything humans hold dear. Truthfulness is especially challenging for gay people because we often feel a need to hide our true gay identities to protect ourselves from derision and abuse by homophobes. A habit of hiding or lying about ourselves easily becomes a habit of lying to one another about HIV status or promising to call someone without ever meaning to do so. The virtues of truthfulness and non-injury are not achieved instantly, merely by willing them, but over time through self-discipline and practice, by making promises to ourselves and to others then actually keeping them. Sometimes the false personae we create to survive in a hostile world become so habitual, a person may require long-term psychotherapy or other deeply focused soul-searching to uncover the authentic self.
And equally important: What rationale do we gay-identified people have for forming or operating as a community? What specifically makes us a community? There are certainly those who deny that there is any such thing as a gay community except in name only, and I believe there is ample evidence that this is largely true. I think to answer these questions we have to consider more than just what being gay means, although this is an important consideration. We have to be ready to question the assumptions that underlie our entire civilization, the Protestant Puritan vision of human culture organized to encourage individuals to achieve as much financial success as possible while leaving others to fend for themselves. We need to question the assumptions about the role of individuals in society within a political system that has allowed millions in one of the richest nations in the world to suffer for want of adequate health care. We need to sensitize ourselves to the horrendous suffering powerful nation-states inflict on less powerful groups of people in the name of “freedom” and “democracy.” We need to consider not only our rights as individuals but also our responsibilities as members of a community.
I would like to suggest a rationale for gay community that encompasses the transnational, non-biological, spiritual nature of our kinship. Although being perceived as outsiders by mainstream society has disadvantages with which we are all aware to one degree or another, our outsider’s perspective confers some distinct advantages as well, enabling us more easily to think outside the box and challenge limiting assumptions that our het peers may not as easily perceive. Some have suggested that our outsider perspective accounts in part for our disproportional representation in creative and helping professions. Harry Hay, founder of the Mattachine Society and the Radical Faeries, suggested that we belong to a “third gender,” not-man-not-woman but a bridge between the other two genders, possessing characteristics of both plus something that partakes of the qualities of both and thus remains distinct. We exist in two worlds, one the world of hets and the other our uniquely gay world, and we can move effortlessly between these worlds. If we embrace the mystery of our special ability to bridge different worlds, we can realize and appreciate that gay consciousness is an expanded consciousness, more encompassing and therefore more liberated than het consciousness that sees the world in stark, black-and-white dualities of “this or that, male or female, het or gay.” Our gay consciousness reveals the more accurate perception of a rainbow spectrum of human potential, “het, gay, bisexual, pansexual, and transgender; male, female, and intersex; this, that, and that, too.” Homophobia hurts everyone by suppressing through shame natural, healthy expressions of affection between men especially, het or gay. I suggest that the work of expanding consciousness, in ourselves and in society, and thus becoming increasingly liberated from limitations both intrapsychic and social, is a worthy rationale for us to form and operate as a worldwide community. Gay liberation in a larger sense can mean liberation of humanity, too.
As active, conscious members of this community, therefore, we have two main responsibilities. One is to develop our own spiritual and ethical natures to the highest degree possible because these form the foundation of strength of character. We need consciously to develop ever-deeper awareness of who and what we are, and simultaneously cultivate and practice the virtues of non-injury and truthfulness. For many of us this process is impeded by internalized homophobia that keeps us convinced that we are less-than our het peers. We need to employ effective means to overcome these false, negative self-messages and embrace the fullness of our gay being. The means to accomplish this include gay-centered psychotherapy, support groups, spiritual gatherings of gay folk, artistic expressions, scholarly studies, political activism, and spiritual practices such as meditation, mindfulness, etc. Our other main responsibility is to serve our community, to use whatever talents or abilities we possess to help alleviate suffering and promote the spiritual and material well being of our fellow beings. In particular we have a responsibility to work for greater self-acceptance and human rights for our worldwide gay family. If there is any message in our experience of being a despised minority it is to realize that we must overcome our own racism, sexism, ageism, and homophobia so that we do not inflict on others the same abuse we have suffered. Our attitude in service should be to see self in the other, to make the whole world our own in accord with our own expanding consciousness that enables us to see common interests where the less enlightened see only ”others.“ Developing compassion is a natural product of expanding consciousness that grows organically from the deepest experiences of humankind, the experience of Oneness in diversity that prompts us to work to manifest the inner experience of Oneness in the outer world through the way we treat one another with respect, equality, and justice. I propose our motto to be, “For our own liberation and for the benefit of the world.”
Instead of thinking of ourselves as a despised minority, we can cultivate the awareness of the blessings of gay identity and discover that we can offer our het peers help in overcoming their own limited ways of understanding themselves and others. In other words, we can help them develop a gay consciousness, and in doing so we, too, grow in compassion and wisdom. But first we have to heal and strengthen our own community and ourselves.
What I have written here is merely an outline of what I call spiritual humanism applied to gay identity and gay community. The means to build such a community already exist, but what has been lacking is an overarching, unifying rationale, a purpose worthy of our highest aspirations and embracing our amazing diversity. We are not yet truly and fully a community, but we can become one and a powerful one at that, if we are willing to shoulder our responsibilities and keep expanding our awareness of who we are and of what is possible for humankind.
Comments
Non-injury as a moral imperative is a minimum ethical principle. It does not preclude doing good to others. The problem with ”do gooders“ can be meddling in other's lives ”for their own good“ in ways that may violate the principle of non-injury. How dare anyone presume to know what is good for others, unless we are talking about parents or guardians being responsible for minor children under their care?
To be clear, do help others, if you are asked to do so, but be careful about offering help to adults if you are not especially trained or competent to render the help. An example of good intentions with a bad outcome would be the case of a good samaritan who lifts an accident victim in an effort to help and causes permanent spinal injury.
Fundamentalists may seek to save us gay ”sinners“ for our own good, but we all know how distasteful such ”help“ really is.
Therefore, at the very least, do no harm to others.
... my point is that a moral of "do no harm"...
... is not really a moral at all...
... as it can be sufficed by simply doing nothing...
... further...
... this very argument of non-interference...
... is contrary to community spirit...
... what should the motto be...
... "where we care enough to do nothing"?...
To practice non-injury is not, “doing nothing,” as you suggest—as if doing nothing were actually possible. Even sitting alone in a cave or sleeping in our room is doing something. Non-injury is a conscious, positive practice that requires us to be mindful of our thoughts, words, and deeds to avoid avoidable harm. To avoid burning fossil fuels, for example, is a positive step toward reversing global warming. Clearly, it is not, “doing nothing,” for avoiding burning fossil fuels means by implication utilizing other energy sources in their place.
”Ahimsa“ or non-injury is an ancient moral precept common to both Hinduism and Buddhism, considered in both the supreme virtue. It is profound and also subtle in its implications that become more apparent with expanding consciousness, for the more aware we become of our interconnectedness with others, the more we realize our potential to harm as well as to help.
You are quite correct that community building requires more than non-injury, but as I pointed out non-injury is a minimum moral requirement for building community. The practice of non-injury prevents destruction of inter-personal relationships upon which community depends and provides a practical basis for mutual respect, caring, and the development of trust.
In the second half of my essay I give some examples of positive actions we can take both to build our individual characters and to serve our community and thereby help nurture and build it.
An interesting article, William - thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts with us. I guess I identify as a secular humanist as I reject scientifically unproven assertions that there exists a supernatural or spiritual world. Human beings by their very nature are avaricious, selfish, power-hungry, grasping creatures with a potential for violence to get their own way (like most other animals). At the same time (before you cast me aside as an unreachable cynic) we have these damn brains and self-awareness that give us options to co-create communities of mutual benefit. We also have the capacity for compassion and kindness and the ability to think critically (an ability feared and attacked by religion and other authoriities over the history of humankind).
Developing an ethical credo -should one choose to do it rather than just follow sheep-like the exisiting ideologies - is a courageous and extremely challenging choice. Using our judgement in every situation rather than falling back on some inviolate To Do list of ethics is required. No one set of guidelines is appropriate in the dizzying complexity and variety of moral conundrums we face every day. As explored in the comments above, the notion of Do No Harm or Do Good are horribly intricate. Sometimes you have to do harm here to do good there. And the ultimate question of who is to decide WHAT is good overshadows all. The trick is to keep questioning, learning (e.g. I know not to move an accident victim) and THINKING.
"Spiritual humanism relies not on faith or doctrine but on direct spiritual experience"
Given that the most fundamental tenet of what you propose is fraught with inherent contradiction, it is doomed to fail. Anything and everything "spiritual" is necessarily defined solely on terms of faith.
"Secular humanism and existentialism leave ethics up to individual choice"
You exhibit, at best, a gross misunderstanding of what secular humanism and existentialism state. You are confusing the notion of "moral relativism" with the making of normative statements. Saying that there is no absolute value by which to compare human activity and value making is NOT the same as saying that ethics MUST be left to the individual. Both secular humanism and existentialism allow, and, some would argue, *require* intersubjective dialogue about how best the individual can live so as to 'maximize' his or her own life within a society. Methinks you also fail to understand the difference between "relativistic" and "solipsistic".
"I would like to suggest a rationale for gay community that encompasses the transnational, non-biological, spiritual nature of our kinship."
Ridiculous; a glaring contradiction. Sexual orientation is non-biological? Being gay is the ONLY thing establishing the community of your readers.
Provide me with but a single method by which to investigate this "spirit" you so freely talk about and then there'll be something to talk about. Like all else before you who believe in ineffable invisibles, you may have some neato and entirely fictional ideas...but they don't apply to the real physical world people, gay or not, live and die in.
Thank you for your comments. I am sympathetic with your skepticism, being naturally skeptical myself, and I am somewhat unhopeful that anything I can say will sway you, given the dismissive tone of your comments. However, for any reader who might be a bit less convinced of my idiocy than you seem to be I will attempt to answer some of your criticisms.
Contrary to your assumption that anything spiritual must be based solely on faith, I point you to the Perennial Philosophy, as Aldous Huxley used the term. To undergo the psychological disciplines, such as meditation and mindfulness, that can prepare one for direct spiritual experience requires the “minimum working hypothesis” that such experience is possible. You may choose to call that hypothesis “faith,” if you like, but if you are intellectually honest, you would have to admit your disbelief is a species of faith, too, and subject to doubt. Huxley gives numerous examples in his book entitled THE PERENNIAL PHILOSOPHY to justify forming a minimum working hypothesis about the possibility of spiritual experience and the efficacy of certain forms of mental training to attain it for anyone except those who blindly disbelieve in the possibility of anything spiritual with the same intensity of those who blindly believe in religious dogmas. Blind belief and blind disbelief are both inimical to the spirit of true science. To admit you don't know something (yet) but to keep an open mind about the possibility is scientific agnosticism. To say you or I do not and cannot know or experience any particular thing is unscientific faith.
There is a significant percentage of people in the world who blindly disbelieve in the lunar landings accomplished by the Apollo Mission. Photos and films taken on the moon do not convince them, for after all these images can easily and convincingly be faked in movies. However, I would be willing to bet a large sum of money that nothing anyone could say about faked photos or films or special effects in movies could convince an Apollo astronaut who has walked on the moon that his experience is a fabrication or delusion. Those who have faith in the possibility of walking on the moon might be inspired to prepare themselves for such an experience by going through the difficult training required to become an astronaut. Those who consider even the possibility of walking on the moon a ridiculous, impossible illusion of gullible sci-fi fans would never bother to undertake the disciplines and remain ignorant.
This is somewhat analogous to the example of spiritual experience because, like walking on the moon or even merely orbiting the earth in a space vehicle, direct spiritual experience is admittedly rare and largely unknown even to those who claim to be spiritual or religious.
I say it is somewhat analogous because true spiritual experience eliminates all doubt for the psychonauts of inner space, while a reasonable person of scientific bent would have to admit at least in theory that the Apollo space missions and moon landing could have been some kind of government conspiracy to establish the technological supremacy of the United States in the one-up-man-ship of the Cold-War era.
Being of a rational bent myself, I can admit that an experience had by few yet claimed by many is worthy of some doubt by reasonable persons. Unwilling to subscribe to the dogma of disbelief, however, I would want to acquaint myself with the accounts of spiritual experience to see if there is ample evidence of the possibility of such experience to justify a minimum working hypothesis, and if I am sufficiently convinced that the possibility exists, I might be moved to test my working hypothesis by undergoing the disciplines myself to see what, if anything, they achieve in the spirit of open-minded scientific inquiry.
Another problem with the analogy is that any sensory experience mediated by the mind and senses, i.e., any objectively observable phenomenon, is subject to the distortion and delusion that often occur in even ordinary experiences. If I am deeply engrossed in a movie or conversation, and someone calls my name, I might not be aware of that fact. Science tells me that sound waves from the call had to have entered my ear and produced a vibration in the eardrum by the simple laws of Newtonian physics, but if my attention is elsewhere, my conscious mind might not register the experience. I might even vehemently deny that the person said anything at all, so convinced am I of my own experience, and the person who called me might as vehemently call me a liar or hearing defective. Only a third party witnessing this event might be able to convince us both that my name had been called and I was understandably unresponsive, but even then there is room for doubt.
My point is that reasonable doubt neither proves nor disproves anything. Calling someone a liar or deaf because he didn't hear his name when it seems he should have serves no rational purpose, as momentarily satisfying as it might feel emotionally.
True spiritual experience is called “direct” or “unmediated” because it is clear to the experiencer beyond a shadow of doubt that the senses and mind were not involved in it, and therefore it is not subject to misperception or delusion. The reason this is clear to the psychonaut is somewhat the same as the reason the Apollo astronaut is convinced of his moon walk, i.e., he gains a unique perspective on our world unattainable any other way. But the psychonaut's experience is even more convincing to himself than the astronaut's because he experiences a shift to an identity that exists outside of the whole construct of individuality that is based in and dependent on the processes of mind and senses.
Simply saying either you believe or don't believe the psychonaut says more about you than it does about him.
One of the key insights provided by quantum physics is that what we observe is unavoidably conditioned by the observer. Fritjof Capra, the physicist who authored THE TAO OF PHYSICS: AN EXPLORATION OF THE PARALLELS BETWEEN MODERN SCIENCE AND EASTERN MYSTICISM, concluded that the next frontier of physics, of understanding the observable world, would have to be a more thorough understanding of the observer himself. It is precisely this science, the exploration of the nature of Self, that is the specialty of mystics, the psychonauts of the world.
Furthermore, Chicken Milk (?!), you conflate gay identity with sexual orientation, a common error. Although sexual orientation is no doubt an important component of gay identity, they are not the same thing. Many men in the world have sex with men but never develop a gay identity. A gay identity is developed through a process of introspection and acknowledgement of an inner experience that is at odds with the common experience of most people. Gay identity is the fruit of psychological growth won through inner struggle, while sexual orientation seems more-or-less effortless and unconscious. To understand what I mean by this I direct you to my essay “Gay Love as a Spiritual Path,” which you can access at http://www.gaytantra.org/introessay.html. A gay man is defined more by his capacity and willingness to love another man than by his feelings or expressions of sexual attraction merely. Our ignorant critics, however, would have us believe that our gay being is “only about sex.” It is a sad truism that many of us buy into this dehumanizing propaganda and think less of ourselves and of one another as a result.
"You may choose to call that hypothesis “faith,” if you like, but if you are intellectually honest, you would have to admit your disbelief is a species of faith, too, and subject to doubt."
no. faith is belief in the validity of claims and/or knowledge that either lie outside the bounds of human experience or are defined as unknowable. it makes no sense to say that I have faith in skepticism. an honest skeptic questions everything, even the notion that everything must be questioned. I acknowledge that faith plays a role in all epistemologies (e.g., I have faith in the fact the world genuinely exists). but your entire argument is based on the most common flaw evident in all "spiritual" debates: that your mental experiences (which are purely biological) are evidence sufficient to "prove" the existence of something nonphysical (spirit).
that is a fallacy. existence is not an attribute.
one does not prove the existence of anything. one must assume existence and then prove attributes of a thing. you are ASSUMING the existence of said "spirit" but utterly failing to describe a single attribute of that spirit aside from purely biological phenomena (which is not spiritual). you desire to form kinship and enhance community based on a logical fallacy; needless to say, that's never going to work. tossing out New Age-ish platitudes by the paragraph doesn't change the fact that the most fundamental tenet of what you propose is based on error.
and yes, I'm dismissive. what you propose is no more grounded in reality than the infamous pink unicorn or the the bloodthirsty fairy tales of Christianity.
"True spiritual experience is called “direct” or “unmediated” because it is clear to the experiencer beyond a shadow of doubt that the senses and mind were not involved in it"
how do you not see the direct contradiction in this sentence? one cannot experience something without experiencing it with their senses; what you claim is a biological impossibility.
recommendations: Steven Pinker's 'The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature' and Douglas Hofstadter's 'I Am A Strange Loop'. they address these issues far more expertly than I can.
I can only invite you to do what is necessary to walk on the moon and see for yourself if it is possible or not. If you insist that space travel is impossible for humans despite copious anecdotal evidence to the contrary, there is no rational argument to persuade you anymore than one can persuade any fundamentalist through reason.
I saw self-styled atheist Sam Harris, author of THE END OF FAITH AND LETTER TO A CHRISTIAN NATION, interviewed on a recent episode of “Real Time with Bill Maher.” (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-harris) I was favorably impressed by his undogmatic, rational approach to challenging religious faith. However, in the interview he also stated his interest in the possibility of personal development suggested by historical examples of extraordinary individuals such as Buddha and Jesus and stated that it could be useful to study such persons scientifically to determine how we all might develop our capacities for wisdom and compassion. His stance is perfectly in accord with my suggestions for how we can develop ourselves as individuals and as a community.
It is unimportant to me whether one thinks in terms of spirituality or psychology. What is important to take away from my article, in my opinion, is my conclusion that it is through self-development to liberate ourselves and others combined with selfless service that we will advance ourselves as individuals and as a community.
"If you insist that space travel is impossible for humans despite copious anecdotal evidence to the contrary, there is no rational argument to persuade you anymore than one can persuade any fundamentalist through reason."
you have it precisely backwards. you're the one making claims that cannot be demonstrated, even in principle. I'm trying to point out that what you are claiming has nothing to do with the real world at all and is simply nothing more than a set of well meant but specious ideas. I do not insist that what has already happened is impossible; I am, however, insisting that you provide but a single method by which to investigate these vagaries of spirit you so readily reference. you cannot do it. no one can. no one has ever been able to though many have tried throughout the course of human history. why? because it's not real. what you want to base kinship on is a fairy tale. a neato one at that but a fairy tale nonetheless. (and if you are right, it's one of the most important discoveries in human history...).
"His stance is perfectly in accord with my suggestions for how we can develop ourselves as individuals and as a community."
no, it's not. at all. Sam Harris is one of the most unwavering opponents of any sort of supernatural thinking I've ever read. he would certainly not begrudge you the willingness to explore what you have proposed, but he would assiduously deny that your claims about spirit and spirituality had any validity in the real world. he would describe them precisely as I do: fairy tales. there is as much validity in what you claim as there is for Jerry Falwell's claim that Hurricane Katrina was the result of tolerating homosexuality. both are completely devoid of content aside from a self-serving belief that fits facts to belief after the fact.
I know I sound like nothing more than a big word spouting arsehole... but I think that ideas about spirituality being real are just as much a poison as is AIDS denial. consolation via faith of any means is abhorrent.
Saying spirituality doesn't exist just because it can't easily be measured is fallacious.
There are many subjective internal states, like happiness, anger, fear, or joy, that cannot be easily observed with science, but yet are real things. As psychology advances, we are finding that many of these spiritual states do correspond to actual "measurable" changes in brain waves, neurochemistry, and the like.
To me it seems you suffer from the biases caused by those raised in most monotheistic religions - the Church, et al, have taken away the practice of mysticism from the masses and focused mostly on social control and dogma.
I respect William's beliefs, and spiritual experience is a fact of life; some people have more of a propensity for this type of experience than others, and it can be cultivated in many ways--being in nature, meditation, athletic activities, psychedelic substances, and yes, even through sex. But absolutely not true that a humanist or atheist has no reason to be a loving, moral person--empathy towards others, altruism are hard-wired in humans and other primates, and some of the most loving and caring people I've known have been non-religious/spiritual. Likewise, I've known some exceptional people who have pursued spiritual development--and others who have done so without being any less selfish or neurotic than anyone else. So, enough with the dogma--there are many roads to being a decent person, gay or non-gay.
"Doctors have also found, that those of their patients that pray, actually heal faster than those who don't, how do you explain that?"
this is patently false. every single double blind and controlled experiment concerning prayer and healing has revealed absolutely no correlation between prayer and faster or better healing.
http://chem.tufts.edu/tufts-ssa/PrayerHealing.html
http://www.csicop.org/sb/show/science_of_prayer
http://ffrf.org/fttoday/1999/May99/lancet.html
So, actually, not so much, Chicken Milk.
The Institute of Noetic Sciences, founded by Dr. Edgar Mitchell (the astronaut) has compiled a fairly large bibliography of such studies, distant and otherwise. You can see that here: http://www.noetic.org/research/dh/biblio/DH_Bibliography.pdf
Marilyn Schlitz, PhD, and William Braud, PhD, also wrote an original research article on the subject: http://www.noetics.org/research/dh/research/DistantIntentionality.pdf
I've sat by quietly here while you've used snide reductionist biologically-determinist arguments to attack a fairly moderate proposition for ethical behavior that takes into account a transpersonal reality that might exist outside of your ego.
You can keep being solipistically self-congratulatory in your smug anti-spiritualism, but don't try to masquerade as being an honest skeptic. As Herbert Spencer, the great evolutionist, once wrote: "There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance – that principle is contempt prior to investigation." Investigate your own personal spiritual phenomena; until you've done that, you really have no standing to comment further.
Truthfulness is especially challenging for gay people because we often feel a need to hide our true gay identities to protect ourselves from derision and abuse by homophobes. A habit of hiding or lying about ourselves easily becomes a habit of lying to one another about HIV status or promising to call someone without ever meaning to do so. : thanks a lot
Well, now I'm not going to argue, but there are more studies than either of us have seen.
But I will say this, Spirituality is something that chooses you, if you have no experience then your right in your opinion, it simply does not exist for you. Kinda like ghosts, you won't believe they exist unless you've seen them for yourself....otherwise you can't say they don't exist just becuse you've not seen any.
Culture obviously plays a role in our beliefs or non belief's, personally, it works for me and apparently others as well, and thats really what it comes down to here. I personally had an experience that can't be explained other than by something outside of our understanding.
I think if you find your selve in some sort of a absolute dire life and death situation and theres nothing you can do, then in the very last minute something happens that you have no explaination for, you find faith in such. I've had some remarkable things happen in my life...
I couldn't deny such if I wanted to, it would be denial at this point in of my life.
I was just listening to a sound recording of Harry Hay (1912-2003) and his lover John Burnside
(1916-2008) made at the Second Radical Faerie Gathering (August 11-15, 1980), shortly before I joined up. He talks about many of the issues raised here, and also how our experience of relating as gay men subject-to-subject, as opposed to subject-to-object which is the default for heteros, gives us a leg upon ethical behavior, since we realize the "Strong Golden Rule:" what you do to others you *are* doing to yourself.
I am a physicist and philosophical materialist, with no need for nonmaterial spirits (or "spooks" as Einstein called them). I much prefer the Buddhist, non-theistic point of view, which, once you divorce it from cultural beliefs like reincarnation, comes down to an effective form of depth psychology focused on "what are the roots of unhappiness?" which has the answer, attachment and aversion, which is succinct in theory, but a lifetime of learning to practice.
For all information on the faeries, the mother of all sites is http://www.radfae.org
Blessed Be
þ (Thorn) a/k/a Artwit f/k/a Marvelous Persimmon
William,
The best idiots are the bold idiots. I very much enjoy your writing, and the resultant sparring with intellectual twits provides much amusement. I'm still a bit lost about what you mean by direct spiritual experience, and would appreciate it if you could elaborate on the concept. I mean, is it anything like what a fundamentalist means when he says 'God spoke to me about thus-and-such'? I have a hunch I'm missing some subtleties, and I acknowledge I may be using a very poor example.
Atheism, alas, is as much a faith as any other. Flannery O'Connor addressed this in her novel 'Wise Blood'. Sometimes it is the emotional truth which speaks louder than a scientific or philosophical truth.
And if I were truly a collection of biological responses, mere chemical reactions, I wouldn't be the man I am. Besides, Steven Pinker is a charlatan. (If, as he supposes in his book, ''The Language Instinct', that children require no instruction in their language because the child is somehow destined to learn it sufficiently for his own needs (and thus, language requires no maintenance of proper grammar or spelling), then why did he bother writing it in such a comprehensive style, with no outlandish spelling or grammatical errors? Was he trying to communicate something? *gasp*)
Chicken Milk writes, "faith is belief in the validity of claims and/or knowledge that either lie outside the bounds of human experience or are defined as unknowable. it makes no sense to say that I have faith in skepticism. an honest skeptic questions everything, even the notion that everything must be questioned." Uh, no. Faith isn't a belief of any sort. Faith is a variety of knowledge. A good skeptic would understand this; a wicked skeptic points to his skepticism and says, "Look at me -- I'm a skeptic!" If, as you wish, to traffic in doubt, by all means, traffic in doubt. But don't confuse doubt with dismissal. (Heck, even the arid science of mathematics is based on a bunch of assumptions, i.e. articles of faith. If you doubt me, crack open Whitehead and Russell's 'Principia Mathematica'.)
Chicken Milk, you have your own fairy tales. Omitting them makes it easier for you to refer to Christianity as vicious, but it also makes you look like a coward.
Deke
Thank you, Deke, for your, as ever, thoughtful response. You asked about what I mean by direct spiritual experience, and I want to answer your question as clearly as I can.
As I mentioned in one of my responses to Chicken Milk, direct experience is unmediated by the mind and senses. This kind of experience is impossible to explain adequately to anyone who hasn't had it because the experience takes one outside of one's normal, strong identification with the body-mind complex, that is out of the identity that experiences the world from the perspective of a seemingly distinct and separate individual self. It is for this reason, also, that the experience is so utterly convincing.
I'll give an example to try to convey what I mean.
The dream state seems very real to a person who is dreaming. Dreams may contain people, animals, buildings, mountains, and oceans, etc., and dreams usually also involve various plots from the terrifying to the sublime, not unlike the waking state. Even fantastical events, like flying through the air, or having the body of some other kind of being, seem utterly real to the dreamer during the dream. It is only from the perspective of the waking state, however, that one can say, ”It was just a dream.“ The feeling from the waking state about dreams is that they are unreal, or at least that they possess a reality subordinate to the waking state. They usually dissipate quickly on waking, and many people rarely, if ever, remember their dreams unless they cultivate the habit.
Now, suppose you could reenter a dream you just had in which you had various friends with whom you were having a conversation. If you could retain or regain memory of the waking state while dreaming, what is called lucid dreaming, you could, theoretically try to explain to your friends in the dream that their world and even their existence is a kind of fairy tale, to borrow Chicken Milk's term, a transient shadow world that will evaporate when you awaken.
But what if they asked you for proof of the waking state? You would be at a loss to prove or even explain it to them, and the very notion may seem absurd from the perspective of the waking state. They might ridicule you for suggesting their world and they themselves were mere figments of random firing synapses in your brain. They would surely deny that their existence could be any less real than yours. And they could never accompany you into the waking state to share your experiences there.
In this example both the dreamer and the one who awakens experience the respective dream and waking worlds through the prism of individuality, so to speak. In both cases you are you, even when you are seemingly someone else. This kind of shift in identity can also happen in psychedelic experiences, and this has led to the equation of drug-induced states with the ”egoless“ states mystics report. Mystics who have had both mystical and psychedelic experiences report that they are fundamentally different while at the same time admitting that the very same description, the same words can correctly be applied to attempt to explain both. Words can only convey so much.
The enlightenment experience is therefore analogous to waking from the dream of this world into a more comprehensive experience of reality. You know it is ”higher“ than the waking state, to use a spatial metaphor, in the same way you know the waking state is ”higher“ than the dream state once you awaken. However, it is even more convincing than waking from a dream, because instead of shifting from one individual identity in one world to another in the waking world, you awaken into an existence that is the sum total of all identities, past, present, and future, and everything else besides quite beyond the capacity of humans to imagine. It is for this reason the Hindus called this Brahman, “The Vast,” and that other hyperbolic language is often used to try to express the utter astonishment of this shift in perspective.
Coming down from an enlightenment experience is analogous to reentering a recurrent dream. One may be moved to share one's new-found knowledge, but few in the dream will be interested, and more will ridicule you or consider you crazy. Silence is often the safer and simpler choice.
I think I get it, William. Egolessness is certainly a prerequisite for a spiritual experience. Personally, I never found anything in the psychedelic experience that even remotely resembled egolessness.
One is reminded of a quatrain by Angelus Silesius:
O God, whose boundless love and joy
Are present Everywhere
Cannot come to visit you
Unless you are not there.
Thanks again for the elaboration.
Deke
LOL, yep there goes that sporatic spelling of mine again, but so what, no big deal, Dick, (eye's rolling) lol.
Examples of experience
When I moved back from NYC and rented an apt that was on the 1st fl, I felt it would be ok since I couldn't reach the windows myself at 6'10, from the outside, an unusually high basement. It has french windows in the bedroom as well as the livingroom; the focal points of the rooms, I wondered why the radiators didn't have covers to finish them off right.
I had been living there for three yrs., occasionally considering making my own, but every time quickly dashing that notion. So, one day the guy across the hall was evicted and left his furniture stacked outside under my livingroom window.
One night as I returned home from work, I noticed something behind the neighboring indentical bldg., a radiator cover standing on it's side 6ft tall, couldn't miss it, I knew it would fit on either radiator bedroom or livingroom, I chose the livingroom and arranged two crystal vases on either side of it, perfect! This was Friday night.
That following Sunday going into the dusk of evening, I was snoozing a bit before I was to go out to dinner with my lover. I heard the horizontal blinds clinking against the vases; thought nothing of it in my slumber, but then I heard a heavy thud, I knew it was one of those heavy vases falling onto the wood floor. I jumped up naked as the day I was born and ran into the livingroom to see some crackhead had obviously climbed onto the furniture stacked outside under the livingroom window and peeked into the wide open widows and thought no one was home, he punched in the screen and his torso was inside already. I punched him twice in the back of the head knocking him out cold, tied him up called the cops.
Coincidence? I think don't think so, in the space of like thirty six hours, this cover coming into my possesion after thinking about getting covers for three years? Even the cops thought and said, "I think you just experienced something like divinity; divine-intervention, you must have friends in some very high places."
Another example.....
I was in my mid-twenties when I had applied for my first credit card with a department store Daytons/Target affiliates, turned down twice previously, the old catch 22 when starting out.
The thrid time, I actually dreampt about it, a premonition, I knew what that temporary card would look like and my limit at either department store. I needed a witness so I called up a friend of mine and said "lets go and get my credit card, his reply was, "they already turned you down twice." I told him about the dream I just had and that I needed him to witness something first hand.
Off we went, even the time of day and weather, just like in the dream! I filled out my application, told the girl at the window what the card would look like and what my begining balance would be, she just shrugged and said "come back in thirty." We grabbed a bite to eat; my treat. We went back as instructed, the girl at the window just looked at me so strangely "how did you know?" I told you, the dream I just had about an hour ago" my friend said, "what are you, a witch or something?" No, its something I've obviously inherited, my mothers like that too.
Another example...
This was frightening as hell! I was a house mate of two women, one a lesbian, both about 6yrs older. My bedroom was in the basement with half-moon windows, at night you can't even see your own hands in front of your face, lol, in my case, palms anyway.
It was 11pm and going to bed, turned off the lights lay down, when all of the sudden, this outline of a male figure appeared, darker than night. I should mention though, the house that I grew up in, we regularly saw such things as well as our friends that would be over watching tv late at night, it never approached anyone before though to my knowledge so there was no fear; just in awe of it.
Well this time it slowly approached me like it was floating, from the right side at the foot of the bed to the leftside middle side of it and it only briefly got the chance to sit on my waterbed as it began to move like waterbeds do when theres weight applied! I was just paralized with absolute fear, I couldn't move or speak, but in my mind I just screamed, "get thee out of here,
for the Lord Jesus is my savior!" It vanished, just as it appeared!
Pan forward about 8 months, I had moved out into my own place when coming home from a shift as a computer oper., working from 7pm-7am. Came home to watch the talk shows one morning, on the (Sally Jesse Raphael) show, there was this woman whom was hooker until she had this same experience, only it spoke to her; whereas it never got the chance with me.
She said it told her what she would have to do to gain wealth beyond her wildest dreams! That's when she became a Christian. I never considered myself to be however, because I'm gay, but Spiritual; just aware of things outside the norm.
As far as the "light" side of Sprituality, I think if your ego or bias of whatever form; smugness, conceitedness, hatefulness, self-perfection is in the way, it's well beyond your comprehension. I've tossed all of these things inexchange for something bigger better, more complete, I'm gonna make mistakes, I can laugh at myself. It's about getting beyound yourself that matters in reaching/obtaining the growth of Spirituality... I've given myself up to it. Thats called faith of whatever fate may await me based in experience and hindsight/reflection. I know the outcome will be for the best, theres a lesson in it that will ultimately benefit me, wisdom or otherwise.
Yes, I'm really brave; more than you know, intimidation of any sort is just not my thing. Thanks for the compliment, Dick, I know I walk and talk, survive and sometimes live amoung the dark/evil and lost souls of this earth, always clawing at me, hating/despising me, challenging me because of the blessings/gifts I possess... because of the shortcomings of their own dark souls.
Science isn't the way to discover or find it (shit here I go again, lol, stepping on toes) these are European notions, man, assuming your on the same level of such "intelligence" that you can figure all of it out, I understand the questioning "why" of it, as a much better approach if you are honestly looking for it.
The "positivity/light" of it is there for you like an unseen parent, you should find out what it means/is to you, personally, this is my just my way of looking at it, you don't have to. It allows you to fall down, but expects you to get right back up again, just like a good and nurturing parent, preparing you, teaching you many things about life, imparting wisdom,
a way to cope.
I do agree with the guy who said that seemingly most gay people, whom (I personally think nature created to control the human population) have no belief systems, thats unfortunate, perhaps, but there are some great atheists out there as well, guess we're all chosen for something in some way, shape or fashion.
Locksly(Wooly)
"Faith isn't a belief of any sort. Faith is a variety of knowledge."
another patent untruth. as related to this discussion, faith is nothing more than belief.
faith:
- BELIEF that is not based on proof
- BELIEF in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion
- BELIEF in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
- a system of religious BELIEF
find me but a single example of faith as it relates to supernaturalism (such as what this entire article is about) that is "a variety of knowledge" and NOT simply belief. just one. if you can find it, you'll be the first human being ever to do so.
Chicken Milk writes:
"another patent untruth. as related to this discussion, faith is nothing more than belief."
I gave you an example; you chose to ignore it. Once again: our system of mathematics is based on assumptions. These assumptions are extensively chronicled in Whitehead and Russell's 'Principia Mathematica'. Thus, if it is possible for an entire science to exist based on assumptions, is it possible for a religious faith to be based on assumptions. Mathematics is its own proof of its assumptions; similarly, belief is its own proof. BTW, Russell discovered a particular paradox when writing the 'Principia'; I won't detail it here, but that same paradox indeed relates to faith in spiritual practices.
Deke
I'm a gay person, I'm neither an atheist nor someone who subscribes to "orthodox" theism, and I know a whole LOT of gay people who are not atheists. I seem to have attracted a great many of them into my life. Maybe that's because I find the ones who aren't atheists to be less obnoxious than the ones who are.
If as you claim faith is belief that is not based on proof
How can you then claim that you have no faith. Don't you believe/have faith that God doesn't exist.
This atheist thought I find often illogical and inane
hmmmmmmmm does that make me not gay then? I wonder
This sounds a lot like feminist and queer theory.
One problem I see with this "enlightened" pseudo-religious stuff is that the end goal for social change is all in one's head. "If I'm more enlightened than you, my moral purity can outrank yours." There's more to it than just hypocrisy. We as a society need to look at class, too. "To injure another intentionally is ultimately is to injure oneself, which is an irrational choice that denies the deep reality of Oneness." But what about violence that we're aware of and unaware of? What about wars? What about the US being responsible for killing millions and millions of people just in the past couple decades? What about our productive system; Capitalism? Do you understand the structural violence that's entailed in that?
Buddhism/Oneness/whatever shit is selfish until real change is on the agenda and actually acted upon.
Quite correct. Excellent question. There is surely no more ambiguous word in the English language than “spiritual,“ and there are surely as many opinions about the definition as there are definers.
Most of Western philosophy is based on philosophical dualism, the notion that reality consists of two, mutually exclusive categories. Traditionally these have been termed matter & spirit, matter & mind, and matter & energy. Einstein demolished Western dualism with the equation E=M, energy=matter, bringing Western science into agreement with Eastern philosophical non-dualism, the idea that reality, though appearing dualistic is fundamentally not so.
So, if there is one fundamental reality, what would that be? In Hindu Vedanta philosophy that is called Cit (pronounced chit), Consciousness. This is not consciousness versus unconsciousness as conceived in Western psychology, but rather the very principle and fact of awareness implicit in being itself. As Carl Jung pointed out all of our experiences happen in the field he called Psyche, and therefore all experience is psychological. We imagine there is an outer world and an inner world, when we define the limits of our being as the dimensions of our physical body. In fact outer and inner are conventions of thought. There is only Consciousness assuming all the forms we think we perceive, whether through the senses or in the mind, as in dreams and imagination.
So, to answer your question: Spirit=Consciousness. Spiritual in this context means anything pertaining to the acknowledgment and exploration of Consciousness, i.e., the quest for Self-Knowledge.
"Spirit" is that part of the energetic multiverse that pervades, but also transcends, standard mental functioning (i.e., cognitions) and matter as commonly perceived, and that operates in the superconscious state, not entirely engulfed by the individual ego-self. In other words, in human beings, "spirit" is the transpersonal part of ourselves -- the part that taps into the collective unconscious and operates more at the frequency of the intelligent energy that connects us all at a subtle level, rather than only at the outward and grosser levels of observable physics or behavioral action.
Hello my name is Merle Dean Shamblin and I would like to be your new friend. I sure could use somebody to chat with. I am a 48 year old long haul truck driver who currently lives in Weatherford Oklahoma. Dec 8th 1960 I was born in Fairview Oklahoma. Moved to Caddo and Washita counties where I attended school at Colony Hydro and Weatherford. My parents Malvin and Wanda Shamblin were cotton and peanut farmers. Dad died in 99 from lung cancer. Graduated from SWOSU with a business degree. My two sisters are LaDonna Hubert and Malva Burrahm. Dennis is my brother. I have been a truck driver for 15 years and have driven 2 million paid miles. I have received many safe driving awards over the years. I am single and have never been married. I have a wide range of interests and am pretty much an open book. Currently I drive a 2006 Freightliner for a major carrier. I dont go to Canada very often. I dont have a dedicated route so I run the entire lower 48. I enjoy reading cinema music sports travel etc. seeking gay travel buddies. merleshamblin@live.com
Cheers
Pretty slick, I like the attention to detail :p
I watched this 5 times in a row, i couldn't get enough of it!!! Beautiful!
http://www.mapley.info
Any one with an interest in private, respectful inquiry regarding the model/image of self, Universe and my place in it, God as image in whose likeness I find myself (regardless of gender or persuasion), the reason for my being here of each unique and indispensable individual that speaks free of the elements of oppression, tyrany and despotism, please write me at nachitzin@yahoo.com. I find this forum far to limited by the academic arguements formed from old and manipulative formation. Arguements that betray the collective images and models passed on as if authentic by rullers and religions outside of which this dialogue needs to take place. This is about all of the totallity of diversity which is sliced off by those who would have us believe that we are less. A conversation that deals with the specifics of all of these not only opens up to more but frees and liberates the individual from the task of minding anyone's business but 'my' own in such a clear and simple way as to make a huge difference where each is at, by how I become in the world. I welcome with open arms even one who has learened how to listen for the questions that teach beyond what they know.
A dialogue in the language of the News Paper that can be understood by all. A conversation bereft of debating skills that play intellectually in the philodsophical model seemingly without end. A conversation that can stay in the now free of the judgments that pull dialogue into the past or the future. I seek such company, Lu
I had a desire to make my organization, nevertheless I did not have enough of money to do it. Thank goodness my mate recommended to use the <a href="http://bestfinance-blog.com/topics/business-loans">business loans</a>. Thus I took the credit loan and realized my old dream.
About Age Appropriate
Age Appropriate is an interactive blog for Daddies and the men, hunters, and bears that love them. Covering everything from sex and dating to pop culture and nightlife, Age Appropriate keeps the daddy dialogue open and honest. Think of us as a daily supplement to help keep your hunt as enjoyable, entertaining, and enticing as the catch itself.
Recent Blog Posts
For blog issues, contact us at editor@daddyhunt.com.
Archive
- September 2008 (2)
- November 2008 (23)
- December 2008 (26)
- January 2009 (14)
- February 2009 (5)
- March 2009 (3)
- April 2009 (3)
- May 2009 (3)
- June 2009 (3)
- July 2009 (2)
- August 2009 (2)
- September 2009 (1)
- October 2009 (3)
- November 2009 (3)
- December 2009 (5)
- January 2010 (3)
- February 2010 (2)
- March 2010 (6)
- April 2010 (7)
- May 2010 (5)
- June 2010 (9)
- July 2010 (11)
- August 2010 (15)
- September 2010 (21)
- October 2010 (13)
- November 2010 (16)
- December 2010 (18)
- January 2011 (11)
- February 2011 (10)
- March 2011 (15)
- April 2011 (18)
- May 2011 (10)
- June 2011 (19)
- July 2011 (16)
- August 2011 (15)
- September 2011 (13)
- October 2011 (11)
- November 2011 (9)
- December 2011 (11)
- January 2012 (10)
- February 2012 (15)
- March 2012 (11)
- April 2012 (9)
- May 2012 (10)
- June 2012 (10)
- July 2012 (7)
- August 2012 (6)
- September 2012 (7)
- October 2012 (4)
- November 2012 (5)
- December 2012 (4)
- January 2013 (5)
- February 2013 (6)
- March 2013 (8)
- April 2013 (13)
- May 2013 (7)
... enjoyed the article immensely...
... not that i necessarily agree with all points...
... but it is encouraging that you seem...
... to recognize...
... a need to move beyond mere sexual identity...
... as basis for community...
... but it also seems...
... this ambiguous "effective spiritual training"...
... unto a factual experience of "essential oneness"...
... falls a bit short in the resulting moral imperatives...
... it simply is not enough...
... to not seek to do harm to one another...
... a truer character is born...
... of actively seeking to do good for one another...
... and in that end...
... i am finding that i have no primary "gay identity"...
... and while i may focus on my sexual identity...
... to resolve issues that impact my greater nature...
... i do not in my meditations and subsequent ministrations...
... seek out how i can be the best gay person i can be...
... but only the best person i can be...
... may the face of heaven smile on you all...
laeth