I don’t find pluralism as such at all unacceptable, only the over-permissive account of it as given by Jorge’s co-creation hypothesis (CC), which claims that it does not “privilege” any particular spiritual system over the rest, or as you put it “there is no normative religion” within that hypothesis. This CC view is flat-out contradicted by his critical theory (CT) and its dissociation test, which puts forward a privileged “foundational” (i.e.normative) “embodied and integrative” system with which to evaluate all others.

CC asserts a normative-free pluralism. CT affirms a normative-organized pluralism. I go with the latter, although I round out the foundational system in important respects (as in response 3 above). This lack of coherence between CC and CT is not a huge issue. CC just needs radically reframing within the context of CT.

I very much share your difficulty with Jorge’s ontological pluralism. This ontological feature is for me another aspect of the over-permissiveness.

This opens up a big issue about the geography of a multidimensional physical-subtle-spiritual creation.

John

Re his pluralism being ‘unacceptable’, I guess it depends what we mean by ‘pluralism’. If Jorge were suggesting that his pluralism is democratic / egalitarian then there would be a problem because in the next breath he says that religions are not equal and should be ranked according to his criteria. However if his pluralism is simply a rejection of normativity, then there is no problem with some religious expressions being more truthful than others. In this sense his pluralism would not be over-permissive because he would simply be acknowledging that there are many religious expressions which to some degree express the divine mystery. I think he would also say that there are surely many expressions in religious garb which are entirely egoic fabrications and nothing to do with the divine mystery. So as I understand it his pluralism simply says 1) there is no normative religion therefore 2) there are many / more than one ‘true’ religions and 3) the ‘truth’ or lack thereof of any particular religious expression can be determined in a pragmatic way by reference to his ethical criteria.

Anyway on a different note I have a problem in understanding his ontological pluralism. Does this mean that the human has the power to create objectively existing worlds and realities, so that for example there is rebirth for those who believe in it but not for those who don’t, or that Advaitins dissolve in the sea of Brahman while Christians reside eternally in the Christian heaven? I can understand that the ultimate reality could be both dual and non-dual but I have difficulty in going further than this, that mutliple religious expressions are objectively true.

Ju

With regard to your two questions:

1. I am saying that when evaluated in the light of Jorge’s dissociation test, the pluralism affirmed by his co-creation hypothesis is too permissive.

2. I am saying that I broadly approve of the test, and so find the over-permissive pluralism unacceptable.

What do you think about it all?

John

Ok so are you saying that he can have either his ranking system or his liberal pluralism but not both? You say that you broadly approve of his ranking system so does it follow that you object to his liberal pluralism?

Thanks,

Ju

No, I don’t object to Jorge’s ranking. In fact I broadly agree with the way he ranks most spiritual systems in the light of his dissociation test. Indeed, I would extend the test to include an affirmation of relational spirituality. My point is simply that the radical and sweeping ranking employed by his critical theory is totally at odds with very liberal pluralism affirmed by his co-creation hypothesis.

You ask if I subscribe to a ranking system. I have a set of criteria I use to clarify my spiritual beliefs. I also use these criteria to evaluate the spiritual beliefs of others. And I use the spiritual beliefs of others to evaluate my criteria. My current criteria for a spiritual belief system are:

1. It affirms autonomous spirituality: authority resides in the internal monitor.

1. It affirms relational spirituality: the central locus of the spiritual is between persons and between persons and their worlds.

3. It affirms embodied spirituality: the primary energies of our embodiment reveal living spirit.

4. It affirms transcendent spirituality: everyday awareness is continuous with a vast backdrop of universal consciousness.

Beyond this, the basic question is about how I dialogue fruitfully with persons who have criteria different from my own.

Love

John

I guess that any ranking system will be hard to justify, but then having no ranking system has its own problems. Is your objection that Jorge’s ranking system is not justified or that he claims not to have a ranking system when he does, or both? Do you subscribe to any ranking system yourself?

Thanks,

Ju

In the first position, he puts forward a participatory solution to the problem of religious diversity: he contends that the different spiritual systems are the outcome of a process of “participatory co-creation” between humans and the mystery. He affirms that this participatory approach “eschews the dogmatism and competitiveness involved in privileging any particular tradition over the rest”. He says that “if we choose to see the various spiritual ultimates…as creative transformations of an undetermined mystery, then the conflict over claims of alternative religious truths vanishes like a mirage”. The participatory turn will put an end to diverse spiritual systems “each believing that their truth is more complete or final, and that their path is the only or most effective one”. The turn will affirm, support and explain “the rich variety of incompatible spiritual ultimates”.

The above assertions are, however, undone by the second position, in which he presents a participatory critical theory which seeks to “evaluate religions”. He promotes two tests “to assess the validity of spiritual truths”. Then he proposes, in applying these tests, “the ideal of a reciprocal and symmetrical encounter among traditions”. This suggests there is no absolute ranking among them, rather they “are likely to be both ‘higher’ and ‘lower’ in relation to one another, but in different regards”. However, in the next few paragraphs he forgets this symmetrical ideal and uses one of the tests, the “dissociation test”, to rank “most” religious systems in what appears to be an absolute way, privileging those that rank higher over those that rank lower. Thus he says that “most religious traditions would not rank too highly in terms of the dissociation test”, and extends this low ranking to “most…present contemplative endeavours”. He argues that the main limitation of most past and present spiritual systems is a “generalized spiritual bias” in favour “of dissociated ways of knowing—ways that emerge predominantly from accessing certain forms of transcendent consciousness but in disconnection from more immanent spiritual sources”. In short, most past and present spiritualities lack the breadth of the integrative-embodied, transcendent-immanent ways of spiritual knowing to which he is committed.

Jorge privileges his own enacted spiritual system quite explicitly in his assertion that “the embodied and integrative impetus of the participatory turn is foundational for the development of a participatory critical theory of religion”. He portrays his “foundational” system as follows: “when our somatic and vital worlds are invited to participate in our spiritual lives, making our sense of identity permeable to not only transcendent awareness but also immanent spiritual energies, then body and world become spiritually significant realities that are recognized as crucial for human and cosmic spiritual fruition”. This privileged system is used as a basic (“foundational”) standard for assessing “the validity of spiritual truths” of all other systems past and present, with the result that “most” of them are found wanting. Their truths are less complete: they reflect the transcendent, but fall short on the immanent.

At the end of his article Jorge still asserts, in my view incoherently, that his participatory approach “recognizes the plausibility of a multiplicity of spiritual truths and religious worlds while offering grounds for the critical appraisal of dissociative, repressive, and/or oppressive religious expressions, beliefs and practices”. But this supposed “plausibility” is called in question by the absence of any supporting evidence. For there is, by his own analysis, no multiplicity of spiritual truths that pass his dissociation test. Moreover there are very few spiritualities, if any, that do: indeed he says he applies the test “to highlight the historical rarity of a fully embodied or integrative spirituality”. Nor does he give any actual rare examples of this “fully embodied or integrative spirituality”. So from the standpoint of the his foundational spirituality, there is no de facto multiplicity of spiritual truths, no “rich variety of incompatible spiritual ultimates”, at all. His participatory critical theory has wiped out the wide-ranging spiritual pluralism affirmed and supported by his participatory co-creation-with-the-mystery theory. At best the pluralism remains as a low-level diversity afflicted by dissociated enactments yielding incomplete spiritual truths.

In short, Jorge’s meta-theory affirming symmetrical religious pluralism is itself dissociated in two respects. (1) It is dissociated from owning the full ranking implications of his own dissociation test, which applies his own foundational spiritual system as a standard for evaluating most other past and present spiritual systems, and (2) it is not grounded in any cited evidence supporting his view that his privileged “fully embodied or integrative spirituality” will yield symmetrical pluralism. It is simply too early to say what kind or degree of spiritual diversity his foundational spirituality will deliver, but presumably it will necessarily be a diversity contained within his foundational norms.