The sacred role of Western civilization in global oneness (youtube, Peter Kingsley)

[Dover]

Kingsley is the author of, In The Dark Places Of Wisdom,
Reality, and other books that trace back and re-evaluate our true Western roots in mysticism, philosophy, etc.
He lectures widely and is sort of the equivalent of an Alex Haley (author of Roots) for digging up
our long buried Western roots in mysticism and philosophy and challenges long held interpretations of ancient texts and their significance in the unfolding of Western thought and spirituality.
Here's his homepage - http://www.peterkingsley.org/pages.cfm?ID=2


Peter Kingsley Interview
Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5NhfLP-FwpY

Pt.2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Dq3OSLN_dc&feature=related

OR

Complete Interview
http://video.aol.com/video-detail/peter-kingsley-complete-interview/3810531276

[Kind of Blue]

1. Thanks for the introduction to Kingsley, Dover.

It's really nice, first thing, to have substance to feed the mind. I will be viewing the videos throughout the morning. :)

[bigmonkey]

2. I feel like he needs to talk, equal to equal, with Ken Wilber.

Wilber, in my opinion, is doing yeoman work in uncovering the patterns in growth of consciousness, and does give a positive context for the development of rationality and logic.

[Dover]

5. Hi bigmonkey.

I'm not familiar with Wilber and his take on rationality and logic's place in our growth of consciousness. Can you share a little of that here?

Personally, (and I think Kingsley would agree) as I mentioned in my response to Kind Of Blue below,
I think that we are exactly on track as regards our spiritual journey, and that we needed the long process of devloping our left-brain/rational/logical masculine self as a step to a further integration of the masculine and feminine, which in turn will transcend both... a new third state of being. It's the trilogy and has been part of the esoteric/mystical teachings all along.

[bigmonkey]

9. I really like Wilber.

I'm not really a Wilberite, but I've studied his "Sex, Ecology, Spirituality" in a college-level class about 12 years ago. I've also read a preponderance of his other books, although not all. My own impression of his take on where we are agrees with what you've said, but he's also a champion of rationality as a necessary step. In that line he has a concept called the "Pre-Trans Fallacy", where he points out that some percentage of folks on a spiritual path mistake the stages of consciousness that precede rationality for the stages transcending it. It's seems a bit harsh to some people, but he's trying to wake people up to the necessity of both transcending and incuding rationality in the evolution of consciousness. I can sympathize with that.

I get the nagging feeling that there's a step he hasn't taken, but it may be just my limited understanding. After all, he has the nickname of "the smartest man in the Western Hemisphere!"

[Dover]

10. I just read a bit about his 'theories' on the wiki site

First impression...it made my head hurt. It's kind of that feeling that Kingsley described on the video about that harsh, painful endless writing on the chalkboard of disembodied theories (wish I could quote him exactly) that he experienced while in academia studying the classics, logic, etc.

I might find agreement with Wilbur on some subjects (such as the necessity of our culture having taken that particular fork in the road of ancient Greece), but my sense is that the 'step he hasn't taken' is experiential. In other words, is this an intellectual exercise for him or has he actually 'made contact'? Even the word 'theory' is indicative of an idea that has not yet been given life through experience. I don't feel he is speaking from heart knowledge, which would be in evidence were he to have stepped into that 'oneness' or even managed to integrate the feminine that he speaks about.

I get the sense that I might fall in line behind some of the criticisms that are also on the Wiki page, like this one:

William Irwin Thompson, who shares Wilber's admiration for Sri Aurobindo, Jean Gebser, and Eastern philosophy, has harshly criticized Wilber's theoretical approach and scholarly achievements. In his 1996 book Coming into Being: Texts and Artifacts in the Evolution of Consciousness, Thompson characterized Wilber's approach as "compulsive mappings and textbook categorizations" and as excessively objectifying and "masculinist".

--

And that's kind of interesting because I was wondering if Kind Of Blue was having a similar response
to Kingsley and thus her agitation. There certainly is a growing resistance to what is becoming known in our culture as 'the white male syndrome' which to me signifies a kind of colorless and souless intellect...an 'objectifying masculinist'.

My own experience with Kingsley is very different than that, as I feel he has taken 'the step' and it has guided his own journey, and fuelled a need to get to the bottom of the 'objectifying masculine', rationalist roots in our Western culture.
How could anyone in our contemporary culture recognize the incubation experience of these priest philosophers that lies enigmatically hidden (at least to our contemporary 'masculinist' culture) in their poetry and writings, were they not to have had at least a glimpse behind that veil themselves? It's been buried in plain sight for centuries.
Ultimately, for those who share similar experiences, the connection of that experience with these ancient mystics is like an encouraging sign post that says, "Yes, this path you are on IS the way...carry on."

Is it important for our culture to recognize its roots in mysticism? I think it is, AND I also find
it fascinating. Is it essential for our individual spiritual journey? Perhaps for some, but the writings are primarily a means of encouragement to continue on a path that develops the connection with the Divine that is available to all of us.

[bigmonkey]

17. Wilber is a curious mix.

I have the feeling that something is missing in his viewpoint, but I don't know how to characterize it. I don't think that he can be characterized as in line with the "white male syndrome," but how exactly he differs from that is something that hurts the brain to think about. He has very extensive bona fides in the experiential realm.

It's his whole point that the next step is neither the old "white male syndrome" pattern, nor the now-becoming-old pattern of rejecting and reacting to the "white male syndrome," but is something further that transcends and includes the positive that came with both the "syndrome" and the valid criticisms of it that have followed. He's very aware of the "objectifying masculine" influence, the "disembodied ego."

Aargh, I'm stymied right now trying to come up with something helpful to say.

[Kind of Blue]

7. Hey, Bigmonkey! I wiki'ed Ken Wilber.

I would love to hear that discussion between Kingsley and Wilber, where they agree and disagree. That would be downright fascinating :popcorn::popcorn::popcorn:

[Kind of Blue]

3. Based only on two videos, I guess what bothers me

about Kingsley is in his attempt to develop (explain, produce?) Western Civilization's sacred role, he seemingly chooses to ignore whole swathes of history leading up to Western Civilization. He seems to actually start WC or philosophy at 2,500years ago, when beyond doubt WC's history (Greek history) is well connected to Eygpt (well established and at least 2,000years before Greece came into being as a civilization), and where it was a requisite for Greeks to study to become a Master in mysteries, science, geometry, astronomy, logic, et cetera. My dates may be off but by the time Greece finally colonized Egypt, Egypt was already ancient.

And we can list the scholars, Thales (according to Proclus) Greece's first scholar to Egypt encouraged his student Pythagoras to study there. Pythagoras spent spent 22years in Egypt studying (found this in the Neoplatonic philosopher Jamblichus' "Life of Pythagoras"). Herodotus even accuses Pythagoras of plain and simple theft of his theorem, while Jamblichus wrote that every line of theorem comes from Egypt.

I could go on and on. But Kingsley's statements like, the idea of oneness "just happened to be there," or "brought from another world," he leaves out the vast Egyptian cosmogony that his very idol, Parmenides, "borrows." If from another world he means Egypt then I buy it. There's even the tradition that Parmenides invented logic while living on a rock, in no other place than Egypt. Even the very form of Christian Gnosis I'm studying was inspired by Egyptian cosmogony.

It seems to me Kingsley's attempt at gloabaloness, is separation from the very idea of oneness, because to him until there is a grounding in WC sacred tradition, he cannot relate to other sacred traditions because until then it's just talk and not real connection to oneness.

I find astounding not even touching on the sacred tradition(s) already in Europe: the Celts of Western Europe and the Germanic tribes of Northern Europe. I just can't imagine they appreciated having their civilization and sacred origins and traditions dismantled by the Greco/Roman concept of civilization, Kingsley now says is Western Civlization. I think his concepts are going to eventually lead to lively debate and further exploration of the ancient world. And for that, I appreciate his discourse.

[Dover]

4. Hi Kind of Blue!.

Some terrific questions and points!

I so appreciate your thoughtful response. I love digging into esoteric material and especially with someone who is not afraid to wade into new territory (or authors) as well. I admit I am feeling a bit inhibited by the necessity to type rather than to simply converse on this complex subject, as I fear it could get pretty lengthy and stifle the free flow of thought. I’ll try to keep it as short as possible, and will do my best to respond to the questions and points you have brought up.

I'm no expert on the Greeks, but came to Kingsley's writings via a friend who felt they might be of interest due to my studies and experiences with dreams and 'incubation'.
And indeed he was right. Kingsley's findings immediately rang true for me, like finding some long lost missing piece to a puzzle. That is not to suggest he's right about everything, but then I'm certainly no historian or scholar so am not in a position to engage in a discussion of his accuracy. But I feel he's got a lot right and that he too is coming to this subject via a similar experientially-based sense of truth which has allowed him to recognize and re-interpret the latent significance of these philosopher-priests within the context of our spiritual and cultural roots.

As regards the long lineage of the esoteric traditions, I don’t think Kingsley is suggesting that it began in Greece or that the ‘other worldly’ knowledge brought forth by these Greek/Italian priest/philosophers was ‘new’ or existed in a void. Knowledge, both practical and esoteric was passed down within the priesthoods and between cultures. However each generation of priests brings something new, appropriate to their particular time into the world albeit based on timeless natural and divine laws that belong to no one and everyone. One of the things that was passed down among the priests was a technique for contacting, experientially, the Divine so as to be better channels for this knowledge and hence they became seed men/women.

One of these practices or techniques was incubation, which usually took place in caves (to achieve ‘hesychia’ – stillness/silence), and does indeed harken back to Egypt, Persia and beyond as best we can trace it.
This and other techniques and teachings that were taught to initiates were, for all intents and purposes, 'lost' and/or buried for the most part during the splintering off and eventual long reign of ‘reason’ and logic that has shaped our culture
(although in actuality incubation and other mystical/pagan practices did manage to linger on here and there within certain Christian churches and other religious orders). And so, when these practices that were essential to learning how to connect with the Divine and the 'knowledge' that was received were essentially gutted along with the cohesiveness of the spiritual community within the culture and the influence of its priesthood, so too was the heart of our spirituality torn from our chests...a head without a heart.

And this left-brain, masculine rationality that became dominant also ignored or sent underground all the other forms of mysticism/magical/nature religions within the West. As a result, many Westerners have turned to other nonWestern sources to fill the gaping hole in their hearts that longs for and requires a direct and experiential connection to the Divine. Kingsley himself has been influenced by Sufism. So he’s not shunning or undermining the significance of other spiritual sources in the development of Western spirituality, but is basically tracing the demise of their influence and all sources of mysticism in the West to this split during the Greek period. I believe what he is saying is that we don’t HAVE to look to other nonWestern sources for our spititual roots. They are right here, and always have been, if only we will look for them amidst the historic rubble, but more importantly within. He also says they are in large part feminine.
So that is what he’s doing. In going back to one Philosopher that from the vantage of our Westernized thinking was renowned as the ‘father of logic’, he discovers that the truth (found in the details of archeological finds and language re-interpretation ) is quite different. And he explores how this rewriting of history and re-routing of our true spiritual origins was quite deliberately accomplished at the hands of people such as Plato. Won’t go into that here, but it’s fascinating.

He also finds that the messages and knowledge that these mystic philosophers channeled from their journeys to ‘other worlds’ through the practice of these various techniques, were not illogical at all but very practical cornerstones for building our culture. They weren’t fantasy, but became the basis for the laws and structuring of our Western society. While there are certainly OTHER cultural and spiritual roots in the West, I think what came out of Greece was/is overwhelmingly the one which wound up being the underpinning superstructure upon which Western culture is built…for better or worse. And I think Kingsley is saying that much of the knowledge and wisdom offered by these great priest/philosophers was thwarted or stripped of it’s essence in favor of it’s form...which has resulted in a sort of hollowness at the heart of our culture.

So just as we as individuals cannot fully BE in relationship with another until we know ourselves, he’s saying that the West cannot integrate itself within the greater spiritual community without first realizing our root self…and experiencing the ‘oneness’ rather than understanding it only through our intellect.

I personally believe that the development of the left-brained, logical part of us was necessary and part of the divine plan for our development as humans and spiritual beings…what Jung called ‘individuation’.

Although Kingsley tends to scold the West for the superficial and dogmatic spiritual box or ‘cage’ we’ve built ourselves into and that historic split in favor of a logic devoid of it’s essence that got us off track, my guess is that he also sees its purpose in the larger scheme of things. He describes quite beautifully (in the book,In The Dark Places of Wisdom) how this narrow path of intellect/logic as we’ve defined it, has and can only lead to a dead end...but one we must come to in order to transcend it. And he suggests that ultimately it is the integration of the rational masculine intellect and the imaginative, receptive, intuitive, feminine that indeed leads to that third thing which transcends both. And in fact there is nowhere else to go, lest we endlessly circle round and round caught up in dualism at the mouth of this portal without stepping through.

It does seem that our culture has been kind of wandering around, rudderless, like orphans who are 'fatherless', searching for that connection and guidance or tutelage of those
who might, in a more cohesive spiritually-based culture, take us under their wing. If so, then it is kind of remarkable that we seem to be finding our way despite this setback.
I see many in our culture reaching for that ‘oneness’ , a direct connection with the Divine, in their exploration of our roots in Paganism/Mysticism/Shamanism, in the practice of yoga, meditation, flotation, trance, etc. Our soul's longing is leading us toward a balancing of the masculine and feminine and beyond that to a more transcendent state that we might call enlightenment. And I feel that we have had and continue to have ‘priests’ and guides among and within us that have kept this knowledge and practice alive, and which becomes more and more accessible as we grow in consciousness. It’s as though it is encoded in our DNA and embedded in our soul’s purpose like the journey of a Monarch butterfly.

And this shift seems to be happening simultaneous with the demise of those aspects of our culture that are purely of the masculine intellect , and that suppress the feminine and discourage a more direct relationship to the Divine. In fact, it is evidence of the direction of this shift as our emerging reality can no longer support the old one.

As I’ve said before, I feel it is nothing short of a polar shift in consciousness.

[Kind of Blue]

6. Hey, Dover! First of all, I have to say Thank You.

I admit that I was worried about your reaction over my agitation with Kingsley. Well, because I really respect your thoughts, and discourses such as these have a way of falling apart, so I generally stay away from them. But these are the very talks that's necessary in furthering Oneness.

I literally thrill at the idea of Kingsley bringing back incubating. I recently read a review of a book titled The Practice of Dream Healing: Bringing Ancient Greek Mysteries into Modern Medicine by Edward Tick, Ph.D., based on Asklepios and his healing sanctuaries (I guess caves), whereby the ailing would go into incubation and either be healed or get direct knowledge for healing from a god.

Coming from a non-Western Africoid/Islamo-Christo :rofl: heritage, I take it for granted that Oneness is basically a veritable smorgasbord of the various guises of Spirit: Paganism to Islam to Christianity. (These heritages have helped me immensely in reconciling the beauty and ravages of Western Civilization). So my worldview is that all native peoples, including Europeans, have their own indigenous traditions and practices that realizes the inner journey, seeing ourselves as a single experience.

I guess I just resist Kingsley's idea that the true Western roots of Oneness are based in Greek philosophy. And, for lack of a better word, to me it's not fair to leave out the spiritualism and shamanism of the Druids, the spiritual quest of the myth of the Graal inspiring the Arthurian story, the myth of Rama (a true connection of Indo-European origin), the stone circles found throughout Western Europe, runes, sacred labyrinths, all before Greek philosophy and Christianity, and just as valid as Egyptian cosmogony.

I hail Kingsley for bringing back the mysticism of Greek philosophers and his honest attempt of unifying the masculine and feminine principles of Spirit, and I definitely feel the shift in consciousness. I also appreciate his direct experience and hope he is one of the priests unifying Western Civilization into feeling a part of Oneness. But something inside speaks to me, as you well put it, about the "wandering around, rudderless, like orphans who are 'fatherless', searching for that connection and guidance or tutelage of those who might, in a more cohesive spiritually-based culture take us under their wing," that Kingsley is moving the native people of Western Civilization further away from their own stuff been there since time immemorial.

Just my feelings and I hope that I'm wrong. All I know is that I've got to read his book!

[Dover]

8. Hey Kind Of Blue

I sensed your agitation but didn't feel it frivolous or ego generated, but rather engaged and engaging.
And I respect your thoughts and responses as well. We are indeed a smorgasbord of cultures, traditions, beliefs, perspectives and experiences and I just love sitting at that table, conversing and sharing in the feast!

I am wondering if part of your agitation was triggered by the whole white male authority stuff that
discussion of the Greeks might give rise to, and authored by a male who might be tossed into that same category?

Also, I am a little unclear about one of your statements and wonder if you might restate it so I can better understand:
"Kingsley is moving the native people of Western Civilization further away from their own stuff been there since time immemorial.
I'm not sure who you mean by 'native' people, and what their 'stuff' is, and where you think Kingsley
is ultimately moving people.

I will be curious if, after reading Kingsley you still interpret his message this way:
" I guess I just resist Kingsley's idea that the true Western roots of Oneness are based in Greek philosophy."


I have had the advantage of reading his books, and my interpretation is a bit different. I don't think he's suggesting that the Greeks are the only source of oneness for the West, dismissing other influences. I think he's saying that all feminine-based mystical influences suffered due to the shift toward rationalism/logic that had become separated from its Divine source. So, in essence,
for a long time Western culture lost its ability to experience that oneness from any and all sources that fell under the influence of this left-brained masculine development. In that sense he is chastizing the Greeks. So the influence of the Druids, or the Native American culture, were systematically ignored, undermined or destroyed. But he doesn't see the Greek philosophers (or at least those who resisted the split into rationalism) from the limited perspective of our current understanding...as the epitomy of the white male intellectual, pontificating on human morality, etc. Many were priests and mystics whose practices were ancient and perhaps very similar to the Druids.

The teachings of the mystics and shamans of all cultures, all seem to share in practices, rituals and other traditions designed to bring us closer to that experience of oneness....or some might call it nondualism. And I think Kingsley is saying that despite our inclination to embrace our Greek
roots as the bastion of logic and rational thought, that we've been living on a foundation of lies
about these roots. The Western world is also based in mysticism and the feminine, and we must
recognize and embrace that reality. In that sense I think he is doing for the white mainly European
Western culture what Alex Haley did for African Americans, but even more broadly he is helping to recover the feminine mystical part of ourselves that has been locked in the closet of our psyches where it has become our shadow.

Of course it's impossible to know how Western culture might have developed had we not met that particular fork in the road that led us off into a long-lived age of rationalism/logic and left-brained development. But rationalism has finally lost its grip as we have tired of hitting that same wall again and again with our hollow chests to no avail. And as a result we have seen a rebirth of the more feminine-based traditions. And even empirically-based sciences have hit that wall. So, in a sense, we've acknowledged the lie and are returning to our roots - by "our" I mean the greater spriritual family rather than a narrowly defined heritage.


I don't think Kingsley or anyone else is leading so much as affirming and/or validating this shift,
and perhaps resurrecting some of the ancient ways and tools to assist in the process and perhaps in
the 'remembering' of an ancient foundation that rests beneath all of us that has begun to stir again,
like the awakening of a long-dormant volcano.

So, I feel we are fuelled by and following our own spiritual instincts and longings for reconnection with the Divine, and in myriad ways.

[Kind of Blue]

11. WHOOPS! I did it again. Wrongly posted. Please ignore.

[Kind of Blue]

12. Hey, Dover! I'll try to answer as best I can.

"I am wondering if part of your agitation was triggered by the whole white male authority stuff that discussion of the Greeks might give rise to, and authored by a male who might be tossed into that same category?"
Not really. I think the trigger for me is that there are so many traditions already there in the West (I'm speaking mainly of Europe), as I mentioned earlier that are indigenous to the people before Greek or Eastern philosophies. For sure the culture of rationalism has dominated, stripped of the feminine principle, but still those earlier traditions remain.
And another trigger may have been the title of the post as I listened to Kingsley. It's finally struck me in listening again that he says the "sacred tradition," the "spiritual tradition" at the root. So I think "sacred role," as part of the post's title, kept bugging me as he left out a huge chunk of history, as well as "a mutual recognition of sacred traditions," based on the condition of understanding Greek shamanism.

"Also, I am a little unclear about one of your statements and wonder if you might restate it so I can better understand:
"Kingsley is moving the native people of Western Civilization further away from their own stuff been there since time immemorial.I'm not sure who you mean by 'native' people, and what their 'stuff' is, and where you think Kingsley
is ultimately moving people."
Well, by stuff and native people, the native people of Europe; the Celts, the Picts, the Anglos, the Saxons, the Brits. What I mean by stuff: the spiritualism and shamanism of the Druids, the spiritual quest of the myth of the Graal inspiring the Arthurian story, the myth of Rama (a true connection of Indo-European origin), the stone circles found throughout Western Europe, runes, sacred labyrinths.

"I will be curious if, after reading Kingsley you still interpret his message this way: I guess I just resist Kingsley's idea that the true Western roots of Oneness are based in Greek philosophy."
Yeah, me too :) I just think the concept of oneness was, has been, and will be ever present. And the movement is toward Oneness whether Kingsley had this experience or not. But it is refreshing that this scholar of ancient Greek philosophy is taking on a big job of at once being a Parmenidian and shaking up modern ancient philosophers.

I believe you that he does not suggest it in his book that the Greeks are the only source of oneness in the West. But in his interview it really sounds that way to me. For instance he says, "When we discover in the West our sacred tradition, this sacred tradition I've been talking about, that lies at the origins of Western Civilization, of Western science and Western thinking, once we have a firm grounding, a footing in our own Western sacred tradition, then we can relate to other sacred traditions." I've just found this to be false. Perhaps Kingsley needed it in order to relate but I've dealt with too many people whether Black, White, Asian, or combination of, who are able to relate based on their inherited traditions, or because an aspect of the smorgasbord hit a cord within them. For instance, my mom's shaman is a woman of Northern European descent whose calling is to an African tradition. And she's fantastic in her philosophy, her diligent study and practice, and her insights and intuition are always bang on. She amazes me because the culture is not inherently hers. She's just one example. To me, Kingsley is adding to the already beautiful mix.

As far as Alex Haley, his ground breaking work was not unfamiliar to African-American scholars or people. There were many, many already uncovering the fallacies about African history and the diaspora way before Haley's Roots; just as I think the sacred feminine is already there in White Western European cultures.

Really, Dover, I admit that I do approach some books with pre-conceived notions but I still read them because I want to understand. Maybe it will change my life, maybe I'll totally throw it across the room when finished, or maybe I'll just gain a lot more knowledge and settle my feeling about Kingsley that's just based on a 12minute interview, that in my estimation may not really do him justice to people like me who question his premise.

[Dover]

13. Well, at the very least the book will make good kindling...

for a ritual fire! :P

I completely agree with your recognition of other cultural/spiritual influences, but I do think we
take for granted that they were always active and had an influence on the West from its inception. I'm sure they were kept alive in small pockets here and there, however I think their revival within a somewhat mainstream way is more a contemporary thing.
The foundations of Western culture were not built upon the Druids, the Celts, etc. anymore than
our American culture is built around the Native Americans. If they had been given a more prominent influence we wouldn't be where we are as a culture or spiritually. It's kind of fun to imagine how different we might be had we not built upon a Greco-Roman model that developed on a foundation of rationalism and stuck around for so long. Heck, even our capitol buildings celebrate these principles of 'order'.

Kingsley isn't being exclusive of the other sources. He's saying, like it or not, these are our primary roots and so lets look at them more closely and in doing so acknowledge the true spiritual mystical tradition that initially informed the knowledge that came out of that period. And don't we all feel this missing piece?

We have come a long way baby, and so perhaps it's hard to identify with the full impact the Greeks
had on our civilization now. And Kingsley may have absolutely nothing to offer you relative to
your own unique spiritual journey. I, on the other hand, felt an immediate affinity with the experiences he describes of some of these philosopher/priests due not only to my own experiences but also at some deep and remote place within me. So it's not purely an intellectual pursuit for me. It's a confirmation of a truth I already 'knew' but hadn't made completely conscious. In fact that is usually why I gravitate to certain books and subjects...because it resonates on some deep level and awakens dormant things in me. I have absolutely no interest in things that only manage to engage my intellect (which is probably why I can't identify with Wilbur's theories...at least not at first glance). It has to move me at the heart level.

Anyhoo....I really enjoyed this conversation! If you do decide to read the book then maybe we can
continue where we've left off.

:hug:

[Kind of Blue]

14. I'd love to!

Continue the conversation that is after reading his book(s). I've got to read him because he does engage my intellect. And it's funny, but Wilbur intrigues me on a heart level, so he's another to add to the mix. This has been a good, good conversation because as much as we're progressing towards Oneness, it's been fascinating and enlightening for me to relate one-on-one to you who Kingsley has deeply touched. Because you're right that he doesn't speak to me in the same way, but he is touching others people hearts, how can I not stand firmly behind him since, though we may be on different paths, we're moving in the same direction?

Big Love to you and :hug: back at you!

[villager]

15. Part 2 really kicks your ass...

...and Kingsley lays it out. Man, I'm already feeling too distracted/Not Fully Present even writing this! ;-)

I was introduced to Kinsley via this forum - was it you, Dover? Someone posted a link some months (a year?) back, about a conference call he was having, where you could dial in and join the fray. It was great -- we talked about tricksters and shamans, etc.

As a Sunday school teacher in a synagogue, I'm always looking, along my own particular path, for those remnants of mystic seers, the aforementioned tricksters, the goddess side of the Divine -- all of which need to be reclaimed and reintegrated (as they do in all current Western "traditions...")

Thanks for posting!

[Dover]

16. Hi Villager!

I'd forgotten about that phone discussion. I've never listened in to a conference call like that before. It was fascinating to hear those two guys discuss this stuff.

It is interesting that these Greek priest/philosopher's made several references to Goddesses in their 'other worldly' experiences, who led them through it.

Glad you enjoyed the videos. I also liked Part 2 best.

:hi: