In einer anthroposophischen Diskussionsrunde bei Facebook schrieb Mzungu Mrefu einen Beitrag zu spirituellem Vermeidungsverhalten als Problem- auch in anthroposophischen Zusammenhängen. Er selbst hat es äußerlich erlebt als typische über- ernsthafte Verstocktheit, die ein ängstliches Inneres verbergen soll, in der sich tiefes Misstrauen gegen alles spiegelt, was man mehr oder weniger deutlich als „das Böse“ ansieht.
Ken Wilber nennt - so Mrefu- dieses Problem „Boomeritis“. Man kann es als häufige Schattenseite spiritueller Bewegungen seit den 60ern ansehen. Es handelt sich um eine Unkenntnis der eigenen Hintergründe, bei der man sich selbst auf einem positiven Weg innerer Entwicklung sieht, aber dadurch unberührbar wird, dass man sich abgrenzt gegenüber vorgeblich weniger entwickelten Kreisen, die einem sowieso nicht folgen können. (..) Vor allem übersieht man gern, dass jemand spirituell entwickelt sein mag, aber in emotionaler Hinsicht ein Kind, oder in einer intellektuellen Selbstbeschränkung egozentrischer oder nationalistischer Art. (..)
Ich habe erst allmählich gelernt, dass die einzige relevante Erkennbarkeit wirklicher Spiritualität nur im Moment liegen kann, in sozialer Interaktion- je mehr Menschen ich, aus den unterschiedlichsten Weltsichten heraus - verstehen kann, desto mehr erkenne ich auch mich selbst - als Brückenbauer, als Lernender anderer „Sprachen“. (..) Es kommt eben darauf an, die eigenen Sicherheiten aufzugeben, an denen man fest hält. Das Spirituelle kommt manchmal sehr ungewohnt daher- manchmal in einer Art und Weise, die eine Million Kilometer von dem entfernt ist, was man von einer spirituellen Person erwarten würde. (..) Die moralische Entwicklung, die Rudolf Steiner von seinen Schüler erwartet hatte, kann man nirgends sehen. Das ist aber ein generelles Problem. (..)
Hier der ganze Text:
"Spiritual bypassing in the Anthroposophical circles I have experienced seems to outwardly manifest as stuckness, over-seriousness and power-play, and inwardly as a fear and distrust for things that have been relegated to the 'all bad box'<however subtly, and it can be real subtle...>
Ken Wilber in integral philosophy (Which Masters is highly familiar with) calls it boomeritus, a shadow side of the post-modern era which started in the 60's. A lack of checking out one's backyard, compounded by the feeling that ones is on a positive path of (vertical) spiritual development and therefore somehow immune to that which one perceives as arising within circles who 'don't understand because they aren't spiritual' and such like.
The integral model makes the important point that there's different 'lines' of development - cognitive, emotional <shadow awareness>, physical, musical, spiritual, and if one bunches cognitive <study>, spiritual <awareness> and emotional <shadow work> in one thing of one's 'path', it's easy to bypass the fact that one may be spiritually developed but emotionally regressive, or cognitively less developed (for example in an ego-centric or nation-centric view).
Also, he posits that you will interpret spiritual experience according to one's level of cognitive development, which is I think a good point too.
Wilber's philosophy is a very useful and important one, though it has masses of cases of spiritual bypassing too, and after having gone through some valuable, no essential developments with its aid, I can also say that I had to free myself from it.
With my liberation, I have the view that the only validation for spiritual perceiving, and knowing, is in the moment, and through others, and the more people I can bridge with from totally different worldviews, the better I can understand my own - and this involves building bridges, getting to know other 'languages'<metaphysical or literal> - in other words a setting aside of any certainties I might hold, and understanding that what is truly spiritual comes in the most astoundingly diverse array of 'packages', many of which would at first glance seem a million miles away from something that a 'spiritually developed' person might do/be/make.
A lot resides in whether one views spiritual development as something 'vertical'<which Ken Wilber ultimately does, as there is in some respects truth to this, in terms of developments that have enough general resonances with which to be mapped>
Steiner's way round was to really assert that 'for every one step in spiritual development there must be a corresponding 3 steps in moral development', but it seems that may have been missed a lot of the time.
But this isn't a blame game, like I said, there's plenty of examples of SB elsewhere.
This vertical spirituality perhaps stems from cultural shadow - something Jung spoke of towards the end of his life - and like all shadows, it can't initially be seen from within. Steiner could not have seen some of the phenomena that are visible today, partly because of the water under the bridge since then, and partly because culture (European) was more isolated than it is today. But every shadow also has a light, and it is the intellectual/dialectic element that also broke us free from superstition and immature mythic thinking, so it can't be rejected as something 'bad'. But it must be seen for what it is - a construction of constructs <inc metaphysical ones>
The western cultural shadow of thinking one is more developed than another - however 'enlightened', will I think always lead to deathness, if it comes from the illusionary perception of separation.
The problem we have, is that all of our language, and so conception, is dialectic, meaning constructed, so whether we go the anti-intellectual side <which is where spiritual bypassing resides>, or the over-intellectual side, we are still caught in dualism."
Ken Wilber nennt - so Mrefu- dieses Problem „Boomeritis“. Man kann es als häufige Schattenseite spiritueller Bewegungen seit den 60ern ansehen. Es handelt sich um eine Unkenntnis der eigenen Hintergründe, bei der man sich selbst auf einem positiven Weg innerer Entwicklung sieht, aber dadurch unberührbar wird, dass man sich abgrenzt gegenüber vorgeblich weniger entwickelten Kreisen, die einem sowieso nicht folgen können. (..) Vor allem übersieht man gern, dass jemand spirituell entwickelt sein mag, aber in emotionaler Hinsicht ein Kind, oder in einer intellektuellen Selbstbeschränkung egozentrischer oder nationalistischer Art. (..)
Ich habe erst allmählich gelernt, dass die einzige relevante Erkennbarkeit wirklicher Spiritualität nur im Moment liegen kann, in sozialer Interaktion- je mehr Menschen ich, aus den unterschiedlichsten Weltsichten heraus - verstehen kann, desto mehr erkenne ich auch mich selbst - als Brückenbauer, als Lernender anderer „Sprachen“. (..) Es kommt eben darauf an, die eigenen Sicherheiten aufzugeben, an denen man fest hält. Das Spirituelle kommt manchmal sehr ungewohnt daher- manchmal in einer Art und Weise, die eine Million Kilometer von dem entfernt ist, was man von einer spirituellen Person erwarten würde. (..) Die moralische Entwicklung, die Rudolf Steiner von seinen Schüler erwartet hatte, kann man nirgends sehen. Das ist aber ein generelles Problem. (..)
Hier der ganze Text:
"Spiritual bypassing in the Anthroposophical circles I have experienced seems to outwardly manifest as stuckness, over-seriousness and power-play, and inwardly as a fear and distrust for things that have been relegated to the 'all bad box'<however subtly, and it can be real subtle...>
Ken Wilber in integral philosophy (Which Masters is highly familiar with) calls it boomeritus, a shadow side of the post-modern era which started in the 60's. A lack of checking out one's backyard, compounded by the feeling that ones is on a positive path of (vertical) spiritual development and therefore somehow immune to that which one perceives as arising within circles who 'don't understand because they aren't spiritual' and such like.
The integral model makes the important point that there's different 'lines' of development - cognitive, emotional <shadow awareness>, physical, musical, spiritual, and if one bunches cognitive <study>, spiritual <awareness> and emotional <shadow work> in one thing of one's 'path', it's easy to bypass the fact that one may be spiritually developed but emotionally regressive, or cognitively less developed (for example in an ego-centric or nation-centric view).
Also, he posits that you will interpret spiritual experience according to one's level of cognitive development, which is I think a good point too.
Wilber's philosophy is a very useful and important one, though it has masses of cases of spiritual bypassing too, and after having gone through some valuable, no essential developments with its aid, I can also say that I had to free myself from it.
With my liberation, I have the view that the only validation for spiritual perceiving, and knowing, is in the moment, and through others, and the more people I can bridge with from totally different worldviews, the better I can understand my own - and this involves building bridges, getting to know other 'languages'<metaphysical or literal> - in other words a setting aside of any certainties I might hold, and understanding that what is truly spiritual comes in the most astoundingly diverse array of 'packages', many of which would at first glance seem a million miles away from something that a 'spiritually developed' person might do/be/make.
A lot resides in whether one views spiritual development as something 'vertical'<which Ken Wilber ultimately does, as there is in some respects truth to this, in terms of developments that have enough general resonances with which to be mapped>
Steiner's way round was to really assert that 'for every one step in spiritual development there must be a corresponding 3 steps in moral development', but it seems that may have been missed a lot of the time.
But this isn't a blame game, like I said, there's plenty of examples of SB elsewhere.
This vertical spirituality perhaps stems from cultural shadow - something Jung spoke of towards the end of his life - and like all shadows, it can't initially be seen from within. Steiner could not have seen some of the phenomena that are visible today, partly because of the water under the bridge since then, and partly because culture (European) was more isolated than it is today. But every shadow also has a light, and it is the intellectual/dialectic element that also broke us free from superstition and immature mythic thinking, so it can't be rejected as something 'bad'. But it must be seen for what it is - a construction of constructs <inc metaphysical ones>
The western cultural shadow of thinking one is more developed than another - however 'enlightened', will I think always lead to deathness, if it comes from the illusionary perception of separation.
The problem we have, is that all of our language, and so conception, is dialectic, meaning constructed, so whether we go the anti-intellectual side <which is where spiritual bypassing resides>, or the over-intellectual side, we are still caught in dualism."