Please Log in to Vote.

1 out of 1 members found this useful.

What is a modern God?

Posted October 30th, 2010 by Samuel Tornqvist

if I understand correctly, rational thinking is partly a reaction to mythic thinking. (Or you could say Orange reacting to Blue).

There is more to any stage obviously, but there seem to be a lot of “getting rid of stuff” any time we take another step on the stage-ladder. It seems to me that what Orange throws out (with the bath-water) is religion.

So what replaces this religion-void now? What kind of God replaces/translates the old one? Atheism seems like a cover only; a title is filling up the void of religion with just another theory but it does not seem clear to me what that theory/belief really means.

The God of Dawkins

I have to be honest and say that I have not read too much of Dawkins but I have heard a lot of him lately, seen some interviews and read a little on the net. What is interesting to me, even though I don’t agree with him in general, is his view of the world. What does he think about the meaning of life, as a symbol for modernism, whithout getting caught up in the reaction/getting rid of stuff-discussion. (Sure, read the book, I know. But I would like to hear more here too...)

He seems to talk about nature as the greatest thing on earth and that we should appreciate the world for what it is, seeing it for what it really is. (slightly paraphrasing here of course)
How can we enjoy the world without having a bunch of “Father-figures” in the clouds, casting judgements onto us?

Has Dawkins never considered the mystery or the beauty of what is happening now as spirituality? I understand he does not want to use spiritual concepts. Ok, but how does a modern-thinker describe the “it” if they are allowed to go deep enough, especially in a personal way.

The problem arises instantly if I ask the question “what does spirituality mean to you?” because the wording is kind of “bad” and I get mostly a reaction rather than an opening. How could I ask a question that is modern-sensitive in the interest of finding out what a person believes?

Letting someone be where they are at

I guess it interests me because I really want to understand what the world means to healthy orange and I would like to be able to talk about spirituality with orange without mentioning the “forbidden words”. I guess I am interested in making different memes talk their talk, still being where they are at and letting them explore a little more without getting too caught up in the stereotypes. Is this possible?

I have a group with both green and orange members and I often see a big “halt” in the discussion when the topic leans slightly towards spirituality, at least for orange.

 

Any insights or thoughts?
Cheers!

Please Log in to Vote.

1 out of 1 members found this useful.

hey

Posted October 31st, 2010 by kbd2005

i definitely AGREE that orange is a reaction to blue (actually called Amber now...).  i think this is because for a long time amber was so dysfunctional and repressive that evolution became a priority and a way to balance out the sexual repression and repression of self-assertion and aggression the church imposed on people.  so in a way, maybe G-O-D works in mysterious ways.  maybe by creating so much suffering She was forcing people to evolve...

i was raised in a predominately Christian background and i felt the mood as repressive and marginalizing.  Amber hasn't been healthy in a really long time.  i think if amber was healthy, it wouldn't take so long for people to move through it and more people who are stuck in it wouldn't feel so threatened by orange.  then again, if orange was healthy and wasn't manipulating the environment for materialistic gain and wealth...well, things would just be a lot...HEALTHIER. 

what Ken says is that the objective is to get to second-tier.  he says that second tier can see and interact appropriately with the whole spectrum.  they can heal splits where they occur in each individual.  they go up and down the spiral like Mario the plumber, fixing leaky pipes and unplugging clogged holes.  I like Ken a lot.  he's like an organ in the body of Christ instead of a cell.  he has proved to be a great guide and pandit for a great many people and given them the tools to fix themselves on a wade range of issues.  i am his dedicated student and hope to go to Integral Institute some day.

but to answer your question...what is a modern God?  i don't know.  i can tell you what it is not.  it is not adhering to a belief system.  it is not a god in the sky.  it is not something to be feared.  it is not part of group-thought but is highly individual, though i'm not discounting healthy group-thought (or Unity Consciousness) nor am i discounting hierarchies.  the fact is some people have had to leave the sky god behind.  they no longer see consciousness in terms of following exterior rules and roles.  they have left a version of god behind that is repressive in order to be left alone in the dark for awhile to find a god that is actually within themselves.  these are my thoughts on god.  i don't want to get too complicated because i myself still have attachments to the mythic.

in fact, just today i was writing about how i tend to empathize with the "my country right or wrong" people.  they have so much fear and anxiety.  i feel for them because their system of belief is collapsing every day.  i miss the U.S.A. chants because i know they'll never happen again.  but that's ok.  we're all in this together.

one final thought: there is nothing inherently wrong with mythic religion.  healthy mythic religions serves as a conveyor belt to higher structures.  it serves as a conveyor belt to true spiritual understanding of Christ.  but unhealthy mythic religion has caused a huge shit storm in all arenas of life. 

i love Christ.  i always will.  but i had to let go of the church and the believers a long time ago.  they simply were too unhealthy for me and for me were bad for my soul.

hope this helps!

kel