nondual awareness, nondual consciousness, epistemic virtue, epistemic warrant, existential actionability, live option, normative justifications, probabilistic, justified true belief, faith, pragmatic semiotic realism http://www.scribd.com/johnboy_philothea

1. quote:
Originally posted by Phil: Nondual consciousness cannot
establish as truth . . .
[johnboy clipped Phil's list of creedal, doctrinal &
discipline questions] These are all important questions, some
moreso than others, and the Christian community has had to
clarify their meaning(s) on many occasions. In almost every
case, nondual insight has had very little contribution to make
to the outcome.
I agree with Phil, Dominicus.
Perhaps you mean nondual insight as narrowly defined as an
extraordinary enlightenment-like experience, but I interpret
that experience as differing in degree, not kind, from other
more ordinary nondual experiences (per Andy Newberg's research
and reflections). Under any circumstances, nondual approaches,
which are nonpropostional, would not be expected to contribute
creedal propositions, which are supra-rational (super-
reasonable), but such nonrational approaches are,
nevertheless, indispensable axiologically as affective
attunements, which turn our attention to that (Whom, or even
womb) which ultimately concerns us, shaping the end(s) we live
for, making us in the image of Whom (or what) we desire.
We don't want to buy into Wilber's category error and respond
to his alleged hege- monism by countering that the dualistic
appproach is, itself, necessary and sufficient. Rather, we
dismiss the false dichotomy and embrace an authentic
integralism, which recognizes that both contribute distinct
aspects to every human value-realization, as we are embodied
pre-rationally, non-rationally, rationally and supra-
rationally (faith).
In fact, in arriving at creedal and doctrinal formulations,
the community first engaged in post-experiential reflection
ensuing from practices (liturgical, devotional, communal and
moral), whereby their desires were thus formed in community,
whereupon certain behaviors were found to conform,
normatively, in realizing the associated values. Nondual
approaches thus, typically, lead the way, as there is a
mystical core to organized religions. From primary encounters
with truth, creed is then articulated toward the end of
sharing it. From primary encounters with beauty, rituals are
then cultivated toward the end of celebrating it. From primary
encounters with goodness, codes are then elaborated toward the
end of preserving it. From primary encounters with love,
community is formed toward the end of sustaining it.
quote:
Originally posted by Phil:
One extreme conclusion to draw would be that, because
nondual knowing does not/cannot resolve these issues, then
they are thus unimportant, irrelevant, "dualistic" in concern,
1

2. and, hence, a distraction to the true goal of Christ's
message, which is nondual mysticism. That seems to be a
position I hear articulated in one way or another by various
writers today.
Hege-monism and imperialist dualism are two peas in the same
false dichotomy pod, which, when planted, makes for a bad
epistemic weed.
quote:
Originally posted by Phil:
What do you all think of this?
I'll leave that question hanging, and will reflect on this
with you in the days ahead, but I do invite your response to
this position.
Jim Arraj wrote: "In an intentional nonduality, I don't have
the same nature as God, but I can become like God through
knowledge and love. Therefore, the way is open for me to try
to know and love as much as possible." Here he was
distinguishing between an ontological and intentional
nonduality. But he went further: "No matter how 'metaphysical'
much of Buddhist and Hindu literature appears to be, I don't
think they are talking in the same ontological way [as Thomas
Aquinas]." And that, also, sounds very right-headed to me, for
their focus often seems to be much more soteriological , much
less ontological (only with vague implications not robust
metaphysics). I discussed above how a polydoxic perspective
suggests that different soteriological (let's say, healing )
trajectories might vary as one primarily engages God as
ground, contingency (and/) or relation. This is also to
suggest that we should not, therefore, facilely conflate our
conceptions of hindu karuna, christian agape and buddhist
bodhicitta , for they would likely be differently textured,
affectively, thus performed and enfleshed, variously (to
borrow John Thatamanil 's phraseology and insights).
Notwithstanding these important distinctions, the nondual
approach does seem to afford one, East or West, an affective
attunement, which certainly transvalues our interpersonal
attunements. The approach, itself, and the intensity of its
ensuing experiences are engaged along a broad spectrum of
experiences and deep continuum of intensities. Few, East or
West, engage what neuroscientists have metabolically mapped as
thoroughgoing experiences of absolute unitary being (whether
Enlightenment or mystical contemplation), but most experience
some level of affective attunement and practice, to some
extent, karuna, agape or bodhicitta (even if not in the so-
called unitive way, many not even in the illuminative way, for
that matter).
2

3. Both East and West, though, engage what are essentially
nondual approaches, which, along with dualistic approaches,
are integral to human value-realizations. Neither approach,
alone, is sufficient; both are necessary. Dualistic approaches
primarily engage positions , while nondual approaches
primarily engage dispositions . Dualistic approaches primarily
engage being intelligent, reasonable & responsible, while
nondual approaches primarily engage being attentive & in love.
Dualistic approaches primarily engage problem-solving
realities, while nondual approaches primarily engage
relational realities.
In our encounter of other believers, initially, our discussion
will necessarily involve a consideration of methods, practices
and experiences and not, rather, belief systems, conclusions
and propositions. What emerges, then, will not always be in
the form of arguments (creeds, for example) in the strict
sense.
Instead, we are discovering a convergence that is more so of
nonpropositional nature.
This is to say that this convergence does not articulate, for
example, a new narrative arch of a distinctly descriptive,
normative or speculative nature, which would be a cosmological
enterprise. Rather, this convergence has an axiological
trajectory, which is to say that it fosters a harmonic
resonance of an evaluative, interpretive or existential
nature.
Interpretively, we are coming away with a deepened sense of
solidarity. Evaluatively, we share a profound sense of
compassion.
Our conversation, at first, will be less about positions and
more about dispositions, about being disposed to a Deep
Awareness, Deep Solidarity, Deep Compassion, Deep Humility,
Deep Worship, Deep Justice, Deep Ecology and Deep Community.
That these realities will play out in our lives we are
confidently assured. How they will play out is something we
explore in humility and civility with all people of goodwill.
At first, ours will foremost be shared axiology,
interpretively and evaluatively, of what we deeply desire and
deeply value. We can share practices that shape, form,
cultivate and celebrate these desires and values. We believe
that, one day, this will lead also to a shared cosmology,
descriptively and normatively, consistent with the best
science and best
philosophy.
quote:
Your life is shaped by the end you live for. You are made
in the image of what you desire.
Thomas Merton
3