Posted by johnboy on August 18, 19100 at 10:58:49:
1) To the extent that human behavioral ecology reveals a complementarity of human bimodal consciousness, what is the adaptive significance of using one mode more than another? In other words, what is the adaptive significance of a biased mode of perception?
2) Clearly, the rational-analytical-linguistic-active mode is an adaptation for an organism's mastery over the environment, crucial for biological survival. The nonrational-nonanalytical-nonlinguistic-passive mode is an adaptation (biological also) for creative and intuitive problem-solving and for fostering intimacy in interpersonal relationships; nondiscursive forms of meditation also have stress reduction benefits.
3) Both modes of consciousness are natural endowments of humanity. Since both modes can convey truth or deception, pain or pleasure, to the organism, both modes can involve learning. That learning involved in
mastering the environment is so necessary for biological survival that a bias toward the rational-active mode of consciousness would seem to be an
adaptation selected by organismic evolution. Any bias toward the nonrational-passive mode would seem to be a result of cultural evolution.
4) Most radical shifts in bias toward the nonrational-passive mode in individuals are undoubtedly cultural in origin. Different cultures have supported "bias-shifts" in varying degrees.
5) There are obvious advantages in the nurturance and affirmation of both modes of consciousness. The nonrational-passive mode can convey the truth
about our solidarity with one another, with nature and with the cosmos. The rational-active mode masterfully can commit resources to compassionate action
on behalf of one another, our planet, our multiverse. Are the modes, otherwise, value-neutral?
6) Bimodal Topics for discussion (and there are modalities within the modalities)
When/Where/How (see list below) are the modes isomorphic with reality?
When/Where/How have the modes evolved biologically or culturally?
What were the selection pressures and what were the surviving adaptations?
These modes aren't just hermeneutical or mere interpretive cognitive exercises but involve raw perception and sometimes radical (and permanent) epistemological shifts.
trophotropic vs ergotropic
apophatic vs kataphatic
nondualistic vs dualistic epistemology
receptivity vs activity
intuitive vs rational
creativity vs strategizing and decision-making
pathology is schizophrenia vs obsessive/compulsive?
growth and development is integrative
conjunctive awareness vs disjunctive awareness
holistic operators vs causal operators
logical causes vs efficient causes
heaps vs grains of sand
spatial vs temporal
alpha & theta waves vs beta waves
relaxed muscle tone vs increased muscle tension
nonlingual vs linguistic
nondiscursive vs discursive
noetic clarity, creative synthesis & intuitive leaps vs narrowed attentional
field, engaged intention and analysis
ineffable vs verbal
passive vs active
truth/deception in both modes
pleasure/pain in both modes (ergo, learning?)
does not vs does discriminate, filter, analyze or describe sensory input
no control vs control of soma/psyche/environment
deautomatization vs automatization of habituations
reconciling vs polarizing/dichotomizing/atomizing
nonrational vs rational
preconscious/inner world vs conscious/outer world enters awareness
mastery of internal vs external environment
experience of unity vs separateness
intense affective vs cognitive experience
sense or lack thereof of holiness/sacred
non-self vs ego/self
perceptual expansion vs contraction
reconciling/tolerable vs intolerable of paradox
phenomenological vs scientific
7) This is a gross oversimplification of the complex problem of consciousness. I intend it as a heuristic device which points toward the possibility of a nontheistic religious naturalist approach to reality, an approach which can be nurtured by altered states of consciousness.
8) It would seem that this heuristic might also be instructive for the theistic approaches to reality that they might not vest false ultimacy in mystical states which, as alternative submodalities of consciousness, are natural endowments of humanity and transculturally ubiquitous. Avoidance of idolatry thus might often involve necessary distinctions between truth statements which are metaphorical versus anagogical versus unitive, between causal processes which are efficient versus logical, between observations and conclusions which are phenomenological versus scientific, etc Caveat: Many times, idolatry is too strong a word to use because some confusion comes merely from poor discernment which, nonetheless, can result in our "getting out in front of God" with our own agenda.
9) Another confusion (which can be seriosuly consequential) might be that which involves the distinctions, in formative contemplative spirituality, between acquired/active contemplation (a form of meditation) and infused/passive contemplation. Shifts in bias, from one mode of consciousness to another, from one perceptual mode to another, or even from the seeking of some balance between the two modes, can
be transient or permanent, spontaneous or carefully cultivated/trained.
In cultivation, certain meditative prayer forms are considered useful in preparing the psychic-somatic ground for sanjuanist contemplation and it is
here that directors may need to properly discern between psychological and spiritual growth dynamics (eg. unloading of the unconscious, schizophrenia, etc). It should be quite clear from the
above-considerations that much happens in the natural realm that can be confused with the spiritual realm, notwithstanding our appreciation that the realms overlap, intertwine and can go hand in glove. These two dynamics, the psychological and spiritual, certainly work hand in hand and are both gifts
from God. So, too, all prayer is a gift. Still, the distinction between psychological integration and spiritual growth dynamics seems to be worthwhile because, if for no other reason, sometimes the work to be accomplished in our ongoing healing, growth and development requires the stewardship/oversight of the
counseling professions rather than the ministry of spiritual direction. This is not to say these dynamics can not take place contemporaneously but only to
suggest that they will involve a spiritual director, on one hand, and possibly a counseling professional, on the other. Also, just as the sanjuanist formative spirituality of the carmelite tradition would prompt the above-described distinctions, so too, ignatian discernment processes would seem to support the need for similar distinctions: are we dealing with
consolation or desolation, from the world, the self, the diabolical or the Spirit?
These distinctions are important because, once made, they have very concrete consequences for our prayer life and for our life of action. Perhaps it is because, at times, such distinctions can be so problematical, that there is a body of spiritual wisdom that suggests we ignore epiphenomena,
whatever their origin, and stay the course of faith, hope and love: "Let us desire and spend our time in prayer not so much to seek consolations but to
gain the strength to serve" or "The water is for the flowers!" ---my rough paraphrases of Teresa of Avila.
We must not ignore phenomena which are difficult to integrate, which involve serious mood swings, which mimic functional psychoses, etc but should seek the help of trained counselors and medical doctors/psychiatrists.
Finally, we shouldn't look at authentic spiritual gifts or mystical states, however extraordinary or consoling, as signs of holiness. Gifts of the Spirit for the individual or community, charismatic or mystical, sacramental or psychological, are unmerited and given to us as stewards. They are no "seal of approval" authenticating anyone's prophetic role. It is when you witness the "fruits of the Spirit", that I suggest you think E.F. Hutton, for more is caught than is ever taught.