Am I the only one?

GnosisMan,

I really enjoyed this dialogue and thought Andrew articulated well the force of Evolution and Eros. He uses words like ecstatic urgency and cosmic unfolding to qualify that which has no direct correlation to our immediate surroundings. If we can fathom something within our own awareness that might temporarily satiate the impulse, it only leads to anxiety when words fail while seeking its depth.

While we talk about the “We Space” we are appropriately setting the context for development and creativity to flourish but on the other hand as Andrew stated; we (individually) must take responsibility. Assuming our own dominant monad at the cost of our ego…if you understand this correctly. Our dominant monad operates as an individual but is not gratified through our individual ego. Rather our needs and desires are subject to the collective in ways that are not filtered through our own reason. We flow within this stream, we steer according to an individual who has assimilated a systemic view, while picking and choosing according to factors that are Kosmic in construction. What this entails initially is deconstruction, once we are stripped and lay naked in the chaos of dichotomy, we now must find our way back without the support of a single subject but one that needs to maintain a purposeful direction.

It is more than I can imagine, and yet I did not hear any solutions, but because he knew the dilemma he must be addressing the same ground that IMO moves in the right direction.

There are unlimited amount of ways to channel the truth. The one that resonates more on our personal mental body results in better understanding. 

If we try to compare these ways, we will just end up in a mental trap of judgemental comparison. (Of course, we can compare them, if we want to be trapped. Maybe, we actually need to be trapped until we open our minds.)

Choose one that suits you the most and be happy with it... until you get bored. You'll be blessed if you never get bored. Unfortunately, I eventually get bored with some of those outstanding souls that you consider coming out of their experiences. No matter where they are coming from, if we learn nothing new from them, our monkey-minds get bored - even with those amazing and blissful jnanah states of joy and peace that come in deep meditation, we do get bored with them, eventually. That's the nature of evolution of our spirit - we get bored if we don't move up.

To be honest, I loved Andrew's presentation. It resonated on my mental body. Your statement about him not coming from his experience hurts my ear. I am really sorry that you don't hear him.

But it's okay - it's all about our individual boundaries where we get stuck: we either don't get it or get bored. What comes just into our range resonates and makes our hearts (or brains - in case of Andrew) sing. Let them all be!

I love Andrew!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

--

HOMO SUM

humani nihil a me alienum puto

You are not the only one - I´m also having a challenge keeping my attention on Andrews words. I'd figure I was missing the perspective of actually being there in person - and not getting all the subtle communication "usually" present in such a we-space. He trances me out very quickly - which I've found usually means I've hit seemingly limitations in my understanding. So I'm gonna search deeper into this....watch it again and again, make transcriptions and ehmmmm well to be continued..

--

I seek to Know in order to Serve

Hi All,
First off let me just say THANK YOU greatly for all your replies. I read each one attentively and with sincere interest in your perspectives. I'm glad to be here at Integral Life and that all of you spent time replying at length to my question. So much was shared in this blog, it’s hard to replying to it all but I’ll start with the following...

When Micheal Muller said that it's not about arguing with someone about what truth is but instead together building a new picture of the future, I agree and Integral is by far at the forefront in addressing it. However, and since I'm still learning at Integral Life and especially from your valuable comments, along comes Andrew who expresses spirituality and enlightenment in very different ways than Integral.

So when he says, for instance, that the ecstatic urgency is the creative drive to give rise to that which is new, hey, I’m all for expressing a whole new level of consciousness and awareness but what Andrew talked about in this video, while insightful and inspiring to many, was far too big to wrap my head around (others in this blog share my sentiment). Adding to this, I have to admit I was just not receptive to Andrew considering I had (and continue to have) an urgency of my own here on earth that's not necessarily ecstatic. It's more like dealing -head on-with the immediacy of that which affects me right here and right now. Namely, aspects of my ego that impairs my emotional and creative potential. If I could afford an hour of integral psychotherapy daily for a month or so, I would do it in a heartbeat. I’m presently in psychotherapy and even though it helps, it’s not integral. So to make up for it, I avidly read, write, and seek out those who speak on a more profound level -but at the same time have their feet on the ground. This is not to say that Andrew does not, rather, this particular talk felt more to me as a close approximation to a grand theory of evolution and consciousness that is not an ecstatic urgency for me right now. I have the same predicament with Micheal Beckwith and Marc Gafni. When I hear them expound their perspectives on, say, spirituality, Eros, and God, I’m simply not able to engage with them. Not to offend them, but they comes across to me as new age philosophy that takes off like a rocket into the cosmos but leaves me behind with Krishnamurti, Ganagi, and Eckhart Tolle. Tolle, for instance, talks about the aspect of pain body http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4aUjLiLiriA and, to me, he’s addressing an issue that is tangible psychologically and emotionally; I can see it in myself and work with it. This is the stuff I want to know because it deals with the immediacy of my inner conflicts.

Amorous relationships is another issues of urgency for me and in this respect Andrew came through with flying colors http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fx0x3_QJYEc I mean, you can see in the video those in attendance were raising eyebrows and truly resonating -from their own experience- with what Andrew was saying regarding our ill conceived and conditioned belief in romantic relationships that impairs greater self awareness. At the end of the clip he said,
 

“if you are trying to hold on to something static with another individual in order to derive some sense of security your creative impulse will be squelched by the desire to be together in what is perceived to be or what is imagined to be a secure context”

I really enjoy listening to Andrew in this clip because he confirmed my own experiences in amorous relationships and how self limiting they were. It looks as if Andrew is talking here to his audience as if they are in grade school but considering the psychological complexity of what Andrew is addressing, I can see why he keeps things simple: how do you disentrall others from the primordial feelings of security and attachment instilled in them by this deep seated myth of amorous love that was -and continues to be- spoon fed into us from the novel and entertainment industry? From my own discordant experiences of unrequited love, and as painful as the last one was, it finally hit me! I was fortunate in disentralling myself not only from the myth of romantic love, but others followed: those concocted by politics, religion, psychiatry, and our educational system. Now I know what John Kennedy meant when he said

The great enemy of the truth is very often not the deliberate, contrived, and dishonest—but the myth: persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Too often we hold fast to the clichés of our forebears. We subject all facts to a prefabricated set of interpretations. We enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought. Mythology distracts us everywhere—in government as in business, in politics as in economics, in foreign affairs as in domestic affairs.

So when Andrew says that we can be deceived by what is perceived to be or what is imagined to be a secure context how do we know that what Andrew is saying in his talk about the meaning of enlightenment that we are not taking it on as another form of secure context? Faith works in mysterious covert ways and often not in our favor.
Don’t know about you guys, but having been severely hurt by unrequited love, I learned one important lesson: idealizing anyone, any idea, philosophy, or guru can creep up on you in such subtle ways that it inevitably prevents you from realizing that the person you idealize, the person you love, or the ideas you are enamored with are human, all too human. When we find ourselves too enamored with an idea or person, it blurs the distinction between the idea presented to you and how much faith you put into it. Between who your loved one really is and who you imagine him or her to be.

I'd say this applies to anyone we idealize. Whether it's our parents, our children, family, Obama, and Andrew is certainly no exception. He appeals to the best of our spiritual side and I find some of his talks as inspiring as anyone else. However, it's always a good thing to have some healthy sense of skepticism towards anyone whom we idealize. Rita pointed out that my statements about Andrew not coming from his own spiritual experience hurts her ears. Well Rita, I truly understand your concern and I hope this blog will clarify to you and others that I’m not out to get Andrew or anyone else for that matter. While some individuals on this blog shared their first hand experience directly with Andrew and were considerably disappointed by him, I’d say it’s most likely true but I like to think of it as the human side of Andrew. Hence I need only to remind myself of my own shortcomings. So all I can do is listen to him and take his perspectives on by keeping my idealism firmly on the ground -so to speak. It's been said that if you don't want to be disillusioned, you ought not to have illusions in the first place.

Well, I really would like to write further on this and other matters but it took me an entire day just to write this; I’m a slow writer. Though I will write further about this in the near future, hopefully.

Hi All,

I've been reading the recent post with great interests and it's a bit discouraging to hear about Andrew's past -not just here but it other web sites as well. So this just goes to prove we ought to have a healthy dose of skepticism. Especially when it comes to philosophies and theories that attempt to define what is reality no matter how noble the attempt may be.

In this respect, Kevin mentioned about the Sedona method that is suppose to help us with a greater reality by sheding pent up negative emotions. I've seen Hale Dwoskin's film about it and I've been writing up my take on it that I'll have posted soon. I also mention Tony Robbins and The Secret  which hale was part of.

I'm almost done and I'd like your feedback on it...