the next buddha will be

8/3/2019 The Next Buddha Will Be

1/14

Michel Bauwens

ABSTRACT. Religious and spir-

itual expression is always embed-

ded in societal structures. If social

structures are moving toward the

form of distributed networks, what

kind of evolution of spiritual expres-

sion can be expected? In this article,

the author describes the general societal

changes emerging and that he expects

to become more prevalent in the future.

He also examines to what degree these

changes will affect individual and col-

lective spiritual expression. The explana-

tion of the peer-to-peer dynamic aids

in understanding its application tospirituality. The author also discusses

concrete examples of spiritual move-

ments and initiatives that are spe-

cifically informed by peer-to-peer

values and practices.

Keywords: collective, individu-

al, peer-to-peer dynamic, spiritual

expression, spirituality

Emergence of the peer-to-peer

principle

Spiritual expression, and the reli-

gious organizational context in which it

occurs, is embedded in a social structure.

For example, tribal forms of religion

such as animism and shamanism do not

have elaborate hierarchical structures

because they arose in societal structures

that had fairly egalitarian, kinship-based

relations. In contrast, large organized

religions, which arose in hierarchically

based societies, have intricate hierarchi-

cal structures, monological conceptions

of truth, and expectations of obediencefrom their members. The Protestant Ref-

ormation and its offshoots took on many

democratic aspects that corresponded

with the rise of a new urban class under

merchant and industrial capitalism, and

the many offshoots of the New Age

movements have adopted contemporary

capitalist practices of paid workshops

The NextBuddha Will

Be a Collective:Spir i tualExpressionin the

Peer-to-PeerEra

3 4 R e V i s i o n VOL. 29 NO. 4


2/14

and trainings (i.e., making spiritual

experience a consumable commodity).

In this article, I argue that contemporary

society is evolving toward a dominance

of distributed networks with peer-to-

peer (P2P) based social relations and

that this will affect spiritual expression

in fundamental ways.

Human organizational formats can be

laid out as network structures, outlining

the relationships between members of a

community. A common network format

is hierarchical, in which relations and

actions are initiated from the center.

It is graphically represented by a star

or pyramid. Another common network

format is the decentralized network, in

which agents actions and relationships

are constrained by prior hubs. In decen-

tralized networks, power devolves to

different groups or entities that must

find a balance together, and agents gen-erally belong to the different decen-

tralized groups, which represent their

interests. Last, distributed networks are

graphically represented by the same

hub-and-spoke model, but they contain

a crucial differentiating characteristic.

In distributed networks there are hubs

(i.e., nodes with a higher density of con-

nections), and these hubs remain vol-

untary. This is similar to the difference

between taking a plane that is traveling

via a hub airportin which passengers

have no choice but to take the flight

path that has been decided by someoneelseand the freedom that passengers

have in a carin which they can pass

through the hub if they want, but they

can also decide to go around it.

My first contention is that distributed

networks are becoming a dominant for-

mat of human technological and organi-

zational frameworks. The Internet can be

thought of as a point-to-point or end-to-

end network. Emerging micromedia enti-

ties such as wikis and blogs allow many

human agents to express themselves

by passing former decentralized mass

media. Team-based, organized projectgroups are increasingly being used in

the workplace. In a distributed network,

the peers are free to connect and act, and

organizational characteristics emerge

from the choices of individuals.

The second framework I use is the

quaternary relational typology proposed

by anthropologist Alan Page Fiske, who

describes this extensively in his land-

mark treatise, Structures of Social Life:

The Four Elementary Forms of Human

Relations (1991). According to Fiske,

there are four main ways that humans

can relate to each other, and this typol-

ogy is valid across different cultures

and epochs as an underlying grammar.

Cultures and civilizations will choose

different combinations, but one format

is generally dominant.

Equality matching is the logic of the

gift economy, which was the dominant

format of the tribal era. According to

this logic, the person who gives obtains

prestige, and the person who receives

feels an obligation to return the favor so

the equality of the relationship can be

maintained. Tribal cultures have elabo-

rate ritualized and festive mechanisms

organized around the ideas of reciproc-

ity and symmetry that allow this processto happen.

The second relational logic is author-

ity ranking, which corresponds to the

human need to compare. This ranking

may be the result of birth, force, coer-

cion, nomination by a prior hierarchy,

credentials, or merit. Authority rank-

ing is the main logic of imperial and

tributary hierarchies such as the feudal

system that dominated human society

before the advent of capitalism and par-

liamentary democracy. Strong members

of society protect and provide for the

safety of the weak, who, in exchange,pay tribute. These societies were moved

by the concept of a life debt, from the

human to the divine order sustaining it

and from the mass of the living to the

representatives of that divine order, who

required tribute to extinguish that debt.

The organizing principle is centrality,

represented by kingship, and redistribu-

tion of resources by a hierarchy.

The third format is market pricing,

which is based on the neutral exchange

of comparable values. This is the logic

of the capitalist market system and the

impersonal relations on which its eco-nomic system is based.

Last, there is the logic of communal

shareholding, which is based on gen-

eralized or nonreciprocal exchange. In

this form of human relations, members

collectively and voluntarily contribute

to a common resource in exchange for

the free use of that resource. Examples

are medieval agricultural commons,

the mutualities of the labor move-

ment, and the theoretical notion of

communism used by Karl Marx (but

not the hierarchical authority ranking

practice of regimes that abusively use

this nomenclature).

There is a relationship between the

organizational triarchy and the quater-

nary relational grammar. The tribal era

was based on small, kinship-based dis-

tributed networks that had little rela-

tion to each other; imperial and feudal

regimes used the hierarchical formats,

and capitalist societies used mostly

decentralized political structures (e.g.,

the balance of power of democratic gov-

ernance) and competition between firms.

In contrast, current social structures are

increasingly moving toward manifold,

affinity-based distributed networks that

are interconnected on a global scale.Emergence of the peer-to-peer format

In the current historical configura-

tion, technological infrastructures often

take the form of a distributed network,

such as the point-to-point Internet, or

the generalized self-publishing features

of the Web, which allow any user to

produce and diffuse content. Human-

ity therefore has a technology with the

fundamental effect of allowing the glob-

al coordination of small teams, which

can now work on global projects based

on affinity. A well-known expressionof this phenomenon is the production

of the alternative computer operating

system Linux and the free, peer-edited

encyclopedia Wikipedia. More than one

billion connected people are engaged in

such collective projects, which produce

all kinds of social value. The alter-glo-

balization movement is one expression

of a movement borne out of such net-

works, which can globally organize and

mobilize without access to decentral-

ized mass media, using a wide variety of

micromedia resources.

Michel Bauwens is the founder of the Foundationfor Peer to Peer Alternatives, which researches thedirect social production of value through peer pro-duction, peer governance, and peer property. Thistranslates itself into the field of spirituality throughparticipatory formats of cooperative inquiry, whichreject a priori truths protected by hierarchicalestablishments. Mr. Bauwens can be contacted [email protected] 2007 Heldref Publications

SPRING2007 35


3/14

3 6 R e V i s i o n VOL. 29 NO. 4

In the business environment, diffuse

social innovation (i.e., innovation as an

emerging byproduct of networked com-

munities rather than internally funded,

entrepreneurial research and develop-

ment) is increasingly important, and

asymmetric competition is emerging

between for-benefit institutions based

on communities of peer producers,

which are successfully competing with

traditional for-profit companies. For-

profit companies are adapting and using

practices pioneered by such commu-

nities.1 These processes are similar to

when imperial slaveholders freed their

slaves into serfs and feudal lords spon-

sored merchants and entrepreneurs.

The P2P relational dynamic in dis-

tributed networks is creating three

(the now mostly defunct socialist sys-

tems) nor corporate hierarchies driven

by profit. It can therefore properly be

called a third mode of production.

Peer governance refers to techniques

used to resolve conflicts and manage

such projects, which are characterized

by the absence of prior hierarchy or rep-

resentational negotiations between stake-

holder groups. Because peer producers

operate in small groups but can coordi-

nate globally, they can use direct deci-

sion making by participants. Because

this is neither a classic hierarchy nor a

representational process of negotiation

between decentralized groups, it can also

be called a third mode of governance.

Peer property consists of the legal

and institutional formats that peer proj-

putting every change back in the com-

mon pool.

The circulation of the common is the

process whereby open and free raw mate-

rial is used as input for a participatory

process of production and governance,

which results in commons-oriented out-

put, which becomes open and free mate-

rial for a next round. Therefore, three

powerful social movements emerge, rep-

resenting the interests of emerging peer

producers and arising in practically all

social domains. These new movements

are organized around the promotion and

demand of three principles: (1) open and

free movements (e.g., the free software

movement, Open Yoga, Open Reiki), (2)

participatory movements (e.g., spiritu-

ally oriented peer circles), and (3) com-

mons-oriented movements.

P2P dynamics are not limited to the

production of economic value but canalso be used in every domain of human

life, including the common production of

spiritual knowledge. Before I explain the

latter, I review the general characteristics

of the new mode, which overturns almost

every premise of contemporary industrial

civilization. I then apply these character-

istics to the pursuit of spiritual experi-

ence or knowledge and examine how they

affect the organization of this pursuit.

Characteristics of peer production in

social and economic life

Examination of how peer productionprojects operate brings into focus many

reversals not only from the traditional

mode of operating corporate or public

institutions but also from nongovern-

mental organizations emanating from

civil society. At the root of the differ-

ent functioning of peer projects is the

concept ofequipotentiality, which was

defined by Jorge N. Ferrer, Ramon

V. Albareda, and Marina T. Romero

(2004) as meaning that human beings

are not ranked according to one crite-

rion or as a totality, but that they are

considered to consist of a multitude ofskills and capabilities, none of which

in itself is better than another. In the

context of a peer project, potential par-

ticipants are considered too complex a

mix of skills and experiences to predict

who can perform a certain task. The

solution is to divide any project in

the greatest possible array of modules,

Current social s t ructures are

increasingly moving toward

manifold, af f ini ty-based

distr ibuted networks that

are interconnected on a

global scale.

new social processes that respectively

represent production, governance, and

property. Peer production refers to the

ability to produce in common or to

share individual creative expression as

communities of peer producers. Pricing,

hierarchy, and democracy are differ-ent ways of allocating scarce resources,

and because peer production operates

in the immaterial sphere of content cre-

ation, characterized by marginal costs

of reproduction, it needs neither pricing

nor hierarchy to allocate such resources.

It is therefore a mode of production

that is driven by neither state planning

ects use to socially reproduce them-

selves and defend against private or

public appropriation. It uses collective

choice systems (e.g., rankings, ratings,

algorithms) that aim to prevent the crys-

tallization of a collective individual that

would rise out of the community anddominate it. It uses two main types

of common property against private

appropriation. Sharing licenses such as

the creative commons allow sovereign

individuals to determine the degree of

sharing of their creative material, and

commons licenses such as the general

public license carry the obligation of


4/14

SPRING2007 37

which can be carried out separately but

nevertheless coordinated as one proj-

ect. Participants can then self-select

their tasks without any a priori control

of their credentials (i.e., anticredential-

ism), giving rise to the mode of distrib-

uted production that differs from the

traditional division of labor.

Given that there is not an a priori

selection mechanism, how do members

ensure the quality of the groups work

and carry out a selection for perfor-

mance? They couple distributed control

with this distributed production. This

concept can be called communal vali-

dation and differs from the credentialist

peer-review process (e.g., in scientific

publishing). In addition, peer proj-

ects are characterized by holoptism, or

total transparency of the project, which

stands in contrast with the panoptism

of hierarchical projects (i.e., the avail-ability of information only to those

deemed to have a need to know, and

with only the top of the hierarchy hav-

ing a full view of the project). In con-

trast, peers have access both vertically

(the aims, the vision) and horizontally

(who does and did what) from their par-

ticular angle. Every change in code in

Linux or change of word in Wikipedia

is available for review and linked to a

recognized author. This method has a

stunning number of reversals from the

traditional way of performing tasks and

organizing work, yet the system is moreproductive in terms of performance,

more participative in governance, and

more distributive in terms of property

than are its rivals.

Equipotentiality, anticredentialism,

self-selection, communal validation,

and holoptism are key characteristics

of the P2P mode of producing the com-

mon. Unlike the industrial mode of pro-

duction, which applies feudal hierarchi-

cal modes to organization and is mostly

fit for producing economic value, and

unlike the democratic mode of gover-

nance, which applies only to the politi-cal realm, the P2P mode of production

and governance can be applied to every

human domain, and this is a radical

advance in terms of participation. Self-

governed communities are now pos-

sible, not only in economic and political

projects but also in the construction of

collective spiritual knowledge.

The new participatory spirituality,

or the peer production of spiritual

knowledge

New value constellations

Before I elaborate more concretely

on how peer-production characteristics

apply in the spiritual realm, I stress that

a new P2P spirituality is not only the

result of an objective new way of doing

things (i.e., a new spiritual outgrowth of

a new material basis); it is the result of

deep changes in human consciousness,

some of which have already occurred

and some of which are still occurring,

all of them affecting many people. Some

of these changes occurred before the

emergence of the new P2P logic, some

as a result of its emergence, and others

the result of the continued use of P2P

tools, which inevitably change the form

of human consciousness, as does everytool. Broadly speaking, I argue that P2P

logic is the outgrowth of deep changes

in ontology (ways of being), epistemol-

ogy (ways of knowing), and axiology

(value constellations).

In terms of ontology, there is a deep

change concerning the vision of the

human, which has been prepared by a

long string of contemporary thinkers.

Despite the current neoliberal domi-

nance in establishment politics and eco-

nomics, the old idea at the basis of

market capitalist society and of demo-

cratic liberal order has been profoundlychallenged. The conception that people

are all separate individuals needing to

be socialized through institutions and

acting out of personal utility is being

replaced by visions that stress the con-

nectedness of people. Individuals are

always already connected with peers,

and that is how they mediate their rela-

tionships with institutions. It is no longer

a matter of institutions and corporations

broadcasting or managing masses of

isolated individuals; it is partly a matter

of a change of consciousness but also a

result of having a communication tech-nology that connects people. The annual

trust barometer of the Edelman public

relations firm found a dramatic change

from trust in institutions to trust in peo-

ple just like you (i.e., peers; Edelman

2007). This new vision of connected-

ness gives rise not to a generalized altru-

ism, but to a vision that social systems

must be designed so that personal inter-

est can converge with collective inter-

ests. These principles are embedded in

the new generation of social software

and social networks. Cooperative indi-

vidualism is an apt description of this

new mentality, which is most perva-

sive in the newest generation of young

adults, the digital natives or Millenial

Generation (i.e., those who turned 20 in

the year 2000 and after) who grew up

with the Internet and collective gaming

and for whom sharing is a default state

(Groen and Boschma 2006).

In terms of epistemology, concep-

tions of an objective material universe

that can be known from a single objec-

tive framework or perspective have sys-

tematically been undermined by post-

modern philosophers (and earlier, with

Marx noting the deformations through

the social unconscious and SigmundFreud noting that the personal uncon-

scious meant that people are not the

masters of their own houses). They

have argued that there is no absolute

framework, but only elements in a sys-

tem that can be defined only in rela-

tion to one another. The hierarchical

card catalog, which implies that there

is one way of knowing the world, led to

first decentralized databases that could

be queried through different facets and

then to completely distributed folkson-

omies, collaborative tagging systems.

In these new distributed systems ofknowledge, every individual frames his

or her own world but has access to how

other individuals have framed the same

knowledge objects and all other objects

in their own accessible tagging systems.

Independent researchers and scholars

can now peer into each others minds

and frameworks, implying that there is

not one way to interpret reality, but an

infinite number of singular worldviews.

Truth, then, becomes a matter of inte-

grating, encountering, and exchanging

with others and their worldviews, so as

to look at the world and its subjects andobjects from a variety of viewpoints,

each illuminating reality in a different

way. Tensions and paradoxes that arise

can be confronted through dialogue.

Certain types of knowledge, such as

physical sciences, still use tradition-

al methodologies, but the human and

social sciences are influenced by these


5/14

3 8 R e V i s i o n VOL. 29 NO. 4

new attitudes, which govern how many

individuals make sense of their world.

In terms of axiology, or new value

systems, I have already described the

new emerging cooperative individu-

alism, but the world of peer produc-

tion and governance itself gives rise to

new types of social movements, which

adhere to three different but interrelated

paradigms, which are also value sys-

tems: (1) the open and free paradigm,

which desires that human knowledge be

freely sharable and modifiable; (2) the

participatory paradigm, which asks for

a maximum extension of the number of

contributors, each according to his abil-

ity; and (3) the commons-oriented para-

digm, which wants to produce directly

for use value (not exchange value) and

wants the results to be shared. It is hard

to say how many people share the full

scale of these new values, but theirnumber is growing, and the number of

movements and initiatives that can be

catalogued in this way is growing expo-

nentially. These new values and move-

ments correspond to the reproduction

cycle of the new social system of peer

production, governance, and property.

No peer production is possible with-

out the availability of open and free

raw material with which to work (input

side); this raw material is then used par-

ticipatively (process side); and the result

of the common work is then protected

through the use of commons-orientedinstitutions and legal forms (the output

side). The output side effectively creates

new open and free material that can be

used to perpetuate the cycle.

General characteristics of

participatory spirituality

What does this all mean for the emer-

gence of new forms of spirituality, in

terms of both personal experience and

new social formats for organizing spiri-

tual life?

There is overwhelming evidence thatthe evolution of consciousness is march-ing on, moving from collective living,where the individual was totally embed-ded in the life patterns of the collective;through a gradual, often painful, processof individuation, with the emphasis onthe will and sovereignty of the individ-ual; to what is emerging in our time: aconscious return to collectivism whereindividuated, or self-actualised, individu-

als voluntarilyand temporarilypooltheir consciousness in a search for theelusive collective intelligence which canhelp us to overcome the stupendous chal-lenges now facing us as a species as aconsequence of how our developmentaltrajectory has manifested on the physicalplane thus far. . . . So human evolution hassomething to do with human conscious-

ness awakening first to itself, then to itsown evolution and to a recognition andfinally an embodied experience of theways in which we are organically partof a larger whole. As we enter this newstage of individual/collective awakening,individuals are being increasingly calledto practice the new life-form composed ofgroups of individuated individuals merg-ing their collective intelligence.2

Next, I review the changes resulting

from the new ontological, epistemo-

logical, and axiological positioning and

from the principles of peer production

and examine how they can be applied to

the production of spiritual knowledge.

If people accept the new ontologi-

cal and epistemological convictions that

there are no absolute reference points

or frameworks and is no objective real-

ity, can they still accept fixed cosmol-

ogies and religions? If people accept

that knowing is a matter of co-creation

with other humans and holding different

frameworks and that approaching truth

is a matter of confronting those differ-

ences in frameworks and how they illu-

minate realities in different ways, can

they still accept fixed methodologiesand pathways, which lead to inevitable

conclusions about the truth? Or would

they expect co-created truth to be open-

ended? If people want to act and live

according to the peer principle of equal

worth of all persons, can they accept

the deep-seated rankism of traditional

approaches to religion? In all likeli-

hood, new forms of spirituality will

have the open, free, participatory, and

commons-oriented aspects that emerg-

ing P2P forms of consciousness want to

appear in the world.

An open and free approach to spiritu-ality would not likely accept proprietary

approaches to spiritual knowledge. It

would expect that the code and texts are

freely approachable and even modifi-

able. It would not accept the copyright

protections of spiritual texts nor their

unavailability. The pathways to spiri-

tual experiencing would be not hidden

from sight, but publicly available. The

methodologies would be available for

trial and experimentation. A participato-

ry approach would mean that everyone

would be invited to participate in the

spiritual search, without a priori selec-

tion, and that the threshold of such par-

ticipation would be kept as low as pos-

sible. Appropriate methodologies would

be available for different levels of expe-

rience. A commons-oriented approach

would lead to co-created knowledge to

be available in a common pool on which

others can build and confront.

How would the concrete principles

of peer productionequipotentiality,

self-selection, communal validation,

and holoptismapply to the production

of spiritual knowledge? Equipotential-

ity suggests that people should judge

others not according to one purported

essence (e.g., as a spiritual master oran enlightened being), but as a wide

mixture of different skills and abilities,

none of which elevate that person to a

higher human status. Rather, the skill

of any social system is to draw the best

from all individuals so they can engage

their skills and passion to a task of their

choosing. One possible interpretation

of this principle is that enlightenment

or spiritual mastery is only one particu-

lar skill, a particular technique of con-

sciousness. It is important, it deserves

respect, and others can learn from it.

However, as a great sportsperson orartist is not necessarily overall a better

human being, neither is a spiritual mas-

ter. Furthermore, guidance from such a

master must be specific: an invitation

for practice and experience, a witness-

ing on his part, but not a fixed authority

on the lives of followers. Individuals

are free to explore this guidance, but the

individual and the communities are still

in charge of building collective spiritual

freedom without an a priori fixed path.

The corollary of self-selection and

communal validation is also clear. No

spiritual path can be imposed; individu-als freely choose the particular injunc-

tions they want to follow or with which

they want to experiment. Nor are indi-

viduals or communities bound to tradi-

tion, although they can choose to work

with a particular framework. In a glo-

balized context, conscious of the vari-

ous frameworks available, the search for


6/14

SPRING2007 39

The search for spir i tual truth may entail

aspects of a contributory spir i tuality, in

which the individual, informed about the

specific frameworks, can choose between

a wide variety of psychotechnologies in a

quest to f ind which combination of practices

and insights is the most bef i t t ing of his

or her needs and capabil i t ies.

spiritual truth may entail aspects of a

contributory spirituality, in which the

individual, informed about the specific

frameworks, can choose between a wide

variety of psychotechnologies in a quest

to find which combination of practices

and insights is the most befitting of his

or her needs and capabilities. As Fer-

rer (2001) argued, not only is there no

single path, not only are there no mul-

tiple paths to a similar goal or achieve-

ment, the goal itself is the fruit of the

co-creation of searchers and their com-

munities. Individuals have approached

their quest in this way in the past few

decades, particularly those termed cul-

tural creatives by Paul H. Ray and

Developments in theory: Participatory

and relational spirituality approaches

by Jorge Ferrer and John Heron

John Heron makes a strong case for a

relational approach to spirituality:

[T]he spirituality of persons is developedand revealed primarily in their relations

with other persons. If you regard spiritualityprimarily as the fruit of individual practices,such as meditative attainment, then you canhave the gross anomaly of a spiritual per-son who is an interpersonal oppressor, andthe possibility of spiritual traditions thatare oppression-prone. If you regard spiritu-ality as centrally about liberating relationsbetween people, then a new era of partici-pative religion opens up, and this calls for aradical restructuring and reappraisal of tra-

(5) It is focused on worthwhile practicalpurposes that promote a flourishing human-ity-cum-ecosystem; that is, it is rooted in anextended doctrine of rights with regard tosocial and ecological liberation.

(6) It embraces peer-to-peer, participatoryforms of decision-making. The latter inparticular can be seen as a core disciplinein relational spirituality, burning up a lotof the privatized ego. Participatory deci-sion-making involves the integration ofautonomy (deciding for oneself), co-oper-ation (deciding with others) and hierarchy(deciding for others). As the bedrock ofrelational spirituality, I return to it at theend of the paper.

(7) It honours the gradual emergence anddevelopment of peer-to-peer forms ofassociation and practice, in every walk of

ditional spiritual maps and routes. Certainlythere are important individualistic modes ofdevelopment that do not necessarily directlyinvolve engagement with other people, suchas contemplative competence, and physi-cal fitness. But these are secondary andsupportive of those that do, and are in turnenhanced by co-inquiry with others.

On this overall view, spirituality is locat-ed in the interpersonal heart of the humancondition where people co-operate toexplore meaning, build relationship andmanifest creativity through collaborativeaction inquiry into multi-modal integra-tion and consummation.3

Among the characteristics of such rela-

tional spirituality, Heron outlines how

related it is to the P2P forms.

life, in industry, in knowledge generation,in religion, and many more.

(8) It affirms the role of both initiatinghierarchy, and spontaneously surfacingand rotating hierarchy among the peers,in such emergence.3

Heron does not deny the individual

aspects of spirituality, but he stresses

that they are secondary to their expres-sion in the first form (i.e., the relational

expression of it).

Herons eighth characteristic mer-

its development, as it more precisely

defines the relationship between auton-

omy, hierarchy, and cooperation:

[L]iving spirit manifests as a dynamicinterplay between autonomy, hierarchy

S. R. Anderson (2001). When there is

no coercion, it seems natural that people

choose to approach their spiritual life.

The principle of communal validation

suggests that people may unite in groups

or peer circles, decide in common on

certain exploratory paths, and exchange

their experiences. Last, holoptism sug-

gests a new openness in the contents,practices, and goals of the different

systems and suggests that esoteric will

no longer mean secret or unavailable,

only different equipotential capacities

to reach certain levels of experience and

skill. This idea is not farfetched, given

that most esoteric material is now avail-

able either in print or online.


7/14

4 0 R e V i s i o n VOL. 29 NO. 4

and co-operation. It emerges throughautonomous people each of whom canidentify their own idiosyncratic trueneeds and interests; each of whom canalso think hierarchically in terms of whatvalues promote the true needs and inter-ests of the whole community; and each ofwhom can co-operate withthat is, listento, engage with, and negotiate agreed

decisions withtheir peers, celebratingdiversity and difference as integral to gen-uine unity. Hierarchy here is the creativeleadership which seeks to promote thevalues of autonomy and co-operation in apeer to peer association. Such leadership,as in the free software movement men-tioned earlier, is exercised in two ways.First, by the one or more people whotake initiatives to set up such an associa-tion. And second, once the association isup and running, as spontaneous rotatingleadership among the peers, when anyonetakes initiatives that further enhance theautonomy and co-operation of other par-ticipating members.3

Ferrers Revisioning Transpersonal

Theory (2001) is the key classic to have

reformulated a participatory vision of

spirituality from the tradition of transper-

sonal psychology. He deconstructs the

nonrelational biases of transpersonal

psychology and reconstructs a new

vision based on participation. Howev-

er, he did not emphasize the relational

aspects of participatory spirituality. He

stresses the importance of relational

spiritual work in later work that deals

with more practical, less philosophi-

cal issues than Revisioning Transper-sonal Theory (e.g., Ferrer, Romero, and

Albareda 2005). In talks and confer-

ences, Ferrer has introduced the idea

of participatory spirituality in terms of

three forms of co-creation: (1) intrap-

ersonal co-creation (i.e., of the various

human dimensions working together

creatively as a team), (2) interpersonal

co-creation (i.e., of human beings work-

ing together as peers in solidarity and

mutual respect), and (3) transpersonal

co-creation (i.e., of both human dimen-

sions and collaborative human beings

interacting with the Mystery in the co-creation of spiritual insights, practic-

es, expanded forms of liberation, and

spiritual worlds). Congruence exists

between Herons ideas and Ferrers sec-

ond aspect of co-creation.

Jeffrey J. Kripal (2005) noted the

important political implications of Fer-

rers ideas:

Ferrers participatory vision and its turnfrom subjective experience to proces-sual event possesses some fairly radicalpolitical implications. Within it, a peren-nialist hierarchical monarchy (the ruleof the One through the great chain ofBeing) that locates all real truth in thefeudal past (or, at the very least, in somepresent hierarchical culture) has been

superseded by a quite radical participa-tory democracy in which the Real revealsitself not in the Great Man, Perfect Saintor God-King (or the Perennialist Scholar)but in radical relation and the sacred pres-ent. Consequently, the religious life isnot about returning to some golden ageof scripture or metaphysical absolute; itis about co-creating new revelations inthe present, always, of course, in criticalinteraction with the past. Such a practiceis dynamic, uncertain, and yet hopefulatikkun-like theurgical healing of the worldand of God. (Kripal 2005)

I now quote from a critique of Fer-

rer by Kripal, because even though he

uses different concepts, he confirms the

equipotentiality principle. This princi-

ple affirms that mystical skills are only

one set of skills, they do not position

that person as being absolutely above

another, and spiritual skills are not equal

to other skills, such as ethical ones.

Ferrer . . . ultimately adopts a very posi-tive assessment of the traditions ethicalstatus, suggesting in effect that the reli-gions have been more successful in find-ing common moral ground than doctrinalor metaphysical agreement, and that mosttraditions have called for (if never faith-

fully or fully enacted) a transcendence ofdualistic self-centeredness or narcissism.It is here that I must become suspicious.Though Ferrer himself is refreshingly freeof this particular logic (it is really moreof a rhetoric), it is quite easy and quitecommon in the transpersonal literatureto argue for the essential moral nature ofmystical experience by being very care-ful about whom one bestows the (quitemodern) title mystic. It is an entirelycircular argument, of course: One sim-ply declares (because one believes) thatmysticism is moral, then one lists fromliterally tens of thousands (millions?) ofpossible recorded cases a few, maybe a

few dozen, exemplars who happen to fitones moral standards (or better, whosehistorical description is sketchy enoughto hide any and all evidence that wouldfrustrate those standards), and, voil, onehas proven that mysticism is indeedmoral. Any charismatic figure or saintthat violates ones normsand there willalways be a very large, loudly scream-ing crowd hereone simply labels notreally a mystic or conveniently ignores

altogether. Put differently, it is the con-structed category of mysticism itselfthat mutually constructs a moral mysti-cism, not the historical evidence, whichis always and everywhere immeasurablymore ambivalent. Ferrer, as is evidentin such moments as his thought experi-ment with the Theravada retreat, seesright through most of this. He knows

perfectly well that perennialism simplydoes not correspond to the historical data.What he does not perhaps see so clearly isthat a moral perennialism sneaks throughthe back door of his own conclusions.Thus, whereas he rightly rejects all talkof a common core, he can neverthelessspeak of a common Ocean of Emancipa-tion that all the contemplative traditionsapproach from their different ontologicalshores.

Kripal (2005) concludes:

Ferrer argues that we must realize thatour goal can never be simply the recoveryor reproduction of some past sense of the

sacred, for we cannot ignore that mostreligious traditions are still beset not onlyby intolerant exclusivist and absolutisttendencies, but also by patriarchy, author-itarianism, dogmatism, conservatism,transcendentalism, body-denial, sexualrepression, and hierarchical institutions.Put simply, the contemplative traditionsof the past have too often functioned aselaborate and sacralized techniques fordissociating consciousness.

Once again, I think this is exactly wherewe need to be, with a privileging of theethical over the mystical and an insistenceon human wholeness as human holiness.I would only want to further radicalize

Ferrers vision by underscoring how her-meneutical it is, that is, how it functionsas a creative re-visioning and reform-ing of the past instead of as a simplereproduction of or fundamentalist fantasyabout some nonexistent golden age. Putdifferently, in my view, there is no sharedOcean of Emancipation in the history ofreligions. Indeed, from many of our ownmodern perspectives, the waters of thepast are barely potable, as what most ofthe contemplative traditions have meantby emancipation or salvation is not atall what we would like to imply by thoseterms today. It is, after all, frightfully easyto be emancipated from the world or tobecome one with a deity or ontologicalabsolute and leave all the worlds gross-ly unjust social structures and practices(racism, gender injustice, homophobia,religious bigotry, colonialism, caste, classdivision, environmental degradation, etc.)comfortably in place.

I add an important conclusion to this

critique: the shift toward relational and

participatory spirituality also necessarily


8/14

SPRING2007 41

has a negative moment (i.e., a phase of

critique against any and all forms of

spiritual authoritarianism).

Theoretical evolution toward rela-

tional and participatory forms of spiri-

tuality has not stood still. Bruce Alder-

man, in a summary essay, describes the

new trend toward exploring intersub-

jectivity through personal and interper-

sonal forms of inquiry.4 He describes

Christian De Quinceys books, Radi-

cal Nature: Rediscovering the Soul of

Matter (2002) and Radical Knowing:

Understanding Consciousness through

Relationship (2005); the deep, mysti-

cal intersubjective work of Beatrice

Butreau; and the radical nature of the

inquiries by the approach of Tartangh

Tulku (1978).

The primacy of relationality and the

collective field

The modern articulation of individu-

ality, based on an autonomous self in a

society that he himself creates through

the social contract, has been changing

in postmodernity. Gilbert Simondon,

a French philosopher of technology,

argued that it was typical for moder-

nity to extract the individual dimension

of every aspect of reality or of things

and processes that are also related.

What is needed to renew thought, he

argued, was not to go back to premod-

ern holism, but to systematically build

on the proposition that everything is

related while retaining the achievements

of modern thought (i.e., the central-

ity of individuality). Thus, individuality

is seen as constituted by relations and

from relations.

The proposition that the individual

is now seen as always and already part

of various social fieldsas a singular

composite being no longer in need of

socialization but, rather, in need of indi-

viduationis one of the main achieve-

ments of postmodern thought. Atomistic

individualism is rejected in favor of the

view of a relational self, a new balance

between individual agency and collec-

tive communion.

A third step is a necessary comple-

ment and advance to postmodern

thought: to be uncontent with a recogni-

tion of individuality and its foundationin relationality and to recognize the

level of the collective (i.e., the field in

which the relationships occur). If one

sees only relationships, he forgets about

the whole, which is society itself and its

subfields. Society is more than the sum

of its relationship parts. Society sets

up a protocol in which these relation-

ships can occur; it forms the agents in

their subjectivity and consists of norms

that enable or disable certain relation-

ships. There are agents, relationships,

and fields. To integrate the subjective

element of human intentionality, it is

necessary to introduce a fourth element:

the object of the sociality.

Human agents never relate only in

the abstract; agents always relate around

an object in a concrete fashion. Swarm-

ing insects do not seem to have such an

object; they follow instructions and sig-

nals without a view of the whole, unlike

mammals. For example, bands of wolves

congregate around the object of the prey.

The object energizes relationships and

mobilizes action. Humans can have more

abstract objects that are located in a tem-

poral future, such as an object of desire.

They perform the object in their minds

and activate themselves to realize the

desire individually or collectively. P2P

projects organize themselves around

such a common project. My P2P theory

is an attempt to create an object that caninspire social and political change.

In sum, for a comprehensive view of

the collective, it is customary to distin-

guish (1) the totality of relations, (2) the

field in which these relations operate,

up to the macrofield of society, which

establishes the protocol of what is pos-

sible and not, and (3) the object of the

relationship (object-oriented sociality;

i.e., the preformed ideal that inspires the

common action). This turn to the collec-

tive that the emergence of P2P represents

does not present a loss of individuality or

individualism. Rather, it transcends andincludes individualism and collectivism

in a new unity that I call cooperative

individualism. The cooperativity is not

necessarily intentional (i.e., the result of

conscious altruism) but is constitutive of

being, and the best applications of P2P

are based on this idea. Similar to Adam

Smiths theory of the invisible hand, the

best designed collaborative systems take

advantage of the self-interest of the users,

turning it into collective benefit.

This recognition distinguishes trans-

formative P2P conceptions from regres-

sive interpretations harking back to pre-modern communion. This distinction is

well expressed by Charlene Spretnak,

cited by Heron in a debate with the

conception of an inclusional self by Ted

Lumley of http://goodshare.org:

Regarding the ecological/cosmologicalsense of uniqueness coupled with inter-subjectivity and interbeing . . . one can

The proposition that the individual

is now seen as always and already

part of various social fieldsas a

singular composite being no

longer in need of socialization

but, rather, in need of

individuationis one of the main

achievements of postmodern

thought.


9/14

4 2 R e V i s i o n VOL. 29 NO. 4

accurately speak of the autonomy of anindividual only by incorporating a senseof the dynamic web of relationships thatare constitutive for that being at a givenmoment. (T. Lumley, personal communi-cation, May 2005)

The balance is moving toward the col-

lective. However, if new forms of col-

lectivism recognize individuality andeven individualism, they are not merely

individualist in nature; they are not col-

lective individuals. Rather, the new col-

lective expresses itself in the creation of

the common. The collective is no longer

the local holistic and oppressive com-

munity, and it is no longer the contrac-

tually based society with its institutions,

which are now also seen as oppressive.

The new commons is not a unified and

transcendent collective individual, but a

collection of a large number of singular

projects constituting a multitude.

This change in ontology and epis-

temologyin ways of feeling and

being and of knowing and apprehend-

ing the worldhas been prefigured

among social scientists and philoso-

phers, including people in the hard sci-

ences such as physics and biology. An

important change is the overthrow of

the Cartesian subjectobject split. The

individual self no longer looks at the

world as an object. Because postmo-

dernity has established that the indi-

vidual is composed and traversed by

numerous social fields (e.g., power, theunconscious, class relations, gender)

and because the individual has become

aware of this, the subject is now seen

(after death as an essence and a his-

torical construct had been announced

by Michel Foucault) as a perpetual pro-

cess of becoming (subjectivation). The

individuals knowing is now subjec-

tiveobjective, and truth building has

been transformed from objective and

monoperspectival to multiperspectival.

This individual operates not in a dead

space of objects, but in a network of

flows. Space is dynamic, perpetuallyco-created by the actions of individuals

and in P2P processes, where the digital

noosphere is an extraordinary medium

for generating signals emanating from

this dynamic space. The individuals in

peer groups, which are thus not tran-

scendent collective individuals, are in a

constant adaptive behavior. Thus, P2P

is global from the start; individualism

is incorporated into its practice. It is

an expression not of globalization, the

worldwide system of domination, but of

globality, the growing interconnected-

ness of human relationships.

P2P is to be regarded as a new form

of social exchange, creating its equiva-

lent form of subjectivation and reflect-

ing the new forms of subjectivation.

P2P, interpreted here as a positive and

normative ethos that is implicit in the

logic of its practice, though it rejects

the ideology of individualism, does not

endanger the achievements of the mod-

ern individual in terms of the desire

and achievement of personal autonomy

or authenticity. It is no transcendent

power that demands sacrifice of self;

it is fully immanent. Participants are

not giving up anything, and unlike in

contractual vision, which is fictitiousin any case, participation is entirely

voluntary. Thus, it reflects an expan-

sion of ethics: the desire to create,

share, and produce something useful.

The individual who joins a P2P project

puts his being, unadulterated, in the

service of the construction of a com-

mon resource. Concern for the narrow

group, intersubjective relations, and

the whole social field surrounding it

are implicit.

How does a successful P2P project

operate, in terms of reconciling the indi-

vidual and the collective? Imagine a

successful meeting of minds: individual

ideas are confronted and changed in the

process through free association borne

of the encounter with other intelligenc-

es. Thus, eventually a common idea

emerges that has integrated the differ-

ences, not subsumed them. Participants

do not feel they have made concessions

or compromises, but they feel that the

new common integration is based on

their ideas. There has been no minor-

ity that has succumbed to the majority.

There has been no representation or loss

of difference.

An important philosophical change

has been the abandonment of the unify-

ing universalism of the Enlightenment.

Universality was to be attained by striv-

ing for unity and by the transcendence

of representation of political power.

This unity meant sacrifice of differ-

ence. Today, the new epistemologicaland ontological requirement that P2P

reflects is not abstract universalism, but

the concrete universality of a commons

that has not sacrificed difference. This is

the truth expressed by the new concept

of multitude, developed by Toni Negri.5

P2P is predicated not on representation

and unity, but on the full expression of

difference.

These insights and developments are

being expressed by contemporary spiri-

tual practitioners as well. What kind of

changes can be expected in the expres-

sion of spirituality?

Today, t he n ew epi stemologi cal

and ontological requirement

that P2P ref lects is not abstract

universalism, but the concrete

universali ty of a commons that

has not sacr i f iced di f ference.


10/14

SPRING2007 43

Case studies

Commons-oriented approaches

Heron specifically integrates the P2P

concept of the commons in his spiritual

worldview through his recognition of

and call for a global integral-spiritual

commons.

By integral spirituality I mean, at thevery least, a spirituality that is manifest infull embodiment, in relationship and inter-connectedness, in mutuality and sharing,in autonomous creativity, and in full accessto multidimensional meanings.

By global commons I mean a world-wide space to which anyone on the plan-et has rights of access, and which isa worldwide forum for communicationbetween everyone who claims their rightsof access. The cyberspace of the internetis such a global commons.

Cyberspace itself is fully embodied in thedynamic relation between humans and

the planetary network of computers; it isa space generated by interconnectedness;it is premised on the full and unfetteredmutuality of sharing information; it isan unlimited space for the expression ofautonomous creativity; and its providesaccess for all to a vast range of multidi-mensional meanings.

It is in this sense that I call the internet,i.e. cyberspace, a global integral-spiritualcommons. It has the properties and poten-tial of an integral-spiritual space. The factthat such a space can be used for vulgaror corrupt purposes does not, in my view,detract from its inherent integral-spiritualstatus, in the same way that the spiritual

status of free will is not in any way under-mined by the abuse of free will. It is pre-cisely that continuity of status, whateverwe do with the gift, that sooner or latercalls us to a liberating and creative useof the gift.6

Working the We field through peer

circles

Mushin J. Shilling is a spiritu-

al teacher who has expressed these

insights spiritually by changing his

behavior from teacher to spiritual facil-

itator and mentor. He expresses the

discovery of the We as part of the story

of his conversion to a leader concerned

with helping others achieve autonomy

within cooperation:

So it is very beautiful and makes deepsense that obviously this space is notempty at all; it is flowing over with theWe that embraces all. And as I said, theWe is making itself felt, understood, intu-ited all over this globe and is manifesting

in many different waysas people want-ing to cooperate, to collaborate, to be incommunity and communion, seeing thatthe time of heroes (central suns) is defi-nitely over, the time for the saviors andlone leaders that could set things rightagain. The world and its problems havebecome so complex that we can onlyhope to find adequate answers in circles

of very different people where we canmeet eye to eye and heart to heartin asort of collective leadership maybe. Andthis is underfoot already on a worldwidescale. The place here would not suffice tomention all the initiatives that are goingon all over the world. Yet, this is oneaspect of We manifesting.

Another aspect is the sense of spiritual orsoul families or clans finding each otheragain across countries and continents.It is as if we have chosen ages ago tocome together in this critical time on theplanet to be midwives to what is wantingto emerge. Whatever may be the casewe do recognize each other and there is

an immediate connection beyond words,even beyond understanding; all we do isaccept it.

A third aspect manifests through what hasbeen called the Circle Being, manifestingas a higher order of being together withan incredible coherence that draws in theindividuals participating. This certainly isWe, being highly coherent.7

The development of intersubjective

facilitation

As the consciousness of relationality

and the collective We field has gained

currency, tools and practices have

been developed that allow individuals

to grow within it. Some of the better

known are Bohmian Dialogue, Herons

co-operative inquiry, and Steven Wirths

Contemplative Dialogue. These stand in

contrast with individual spiritual growth

approaches that mostly ignored the rela-

tional and collective fields.

A description of Bohmian Dialogue

by Alderman illustrates one of this

new breed of group-based facilitation

techniques:

In Bohmian dialogue, one strives to be

mindful of the movement of thought inseveral dimensions simultaneously: as thesubjective thoughts and felts that arise atany given moment; as the objective mani-festation of sensations and contractions inthe body; as the gestures and body lan-guage of members in the group; as the par-ticular content of the discussion at hand; asthe patterns of interaction and conflict thatemerge over time (not only in one session,but over multiple sessions); as the conven-

tions and rules which may inhibit the flowof dialogue; and so on. In the beginning,this is a rather difficult practice. But oneapproaches it simply: starting from a posi-tion of open listening and letting dialogueunfold in the space of awareness that thegroup establishes. Certain deeply heldbeliefs, presuppositions, unwritten rules,fears and insecurities, and so on, will grad-

ually make themselves manifest throughthis process, as perceptions of individualsin the group fail to line up and variousconflicts emerge. These implicit beliefs,these forms of psychological and culturalconditioning, are not readily apparent inthe practice of solitary meditation; but inBohmian contemplative dialogue, particu-larly if it is sustained over a period of daysor weeks, these patterns will emerge overtime in the intersubjective field and can becognized and processed by the group as awhole (or privately by individuals after aparticular session has concluded).

Bohm contends (and I can confirm) thatsustained practice of this form of dia-

logue, particularly if certain ground rulesare followed, can lead not only to theemergence of insight for individuals inthe group, but to a sort of collective intel-ligence that manifests in between partici-pantsa creative flow of awareness andinspiration that can guide the group todeeper and deeper levels of understandingand communion. The unconscious con-ventions and habits of thought, the condi-tioning which usually drives our reactionsand our social negotiations, opens onto aliving field of responsive intelligenceinBohms terms, the birth of group intelli-gence out of the largely unconscious fieldof group think.8

Chaos religions on the Internet

Remi Sussan, the author of a book

on posthuman utopias (2005), is also

knowledgeable about the new forms

religion is taking in and through the

Internet. She writes,

During the last two decades has appeareda new trend of occultism that, in manyways reverse common characteristics ofthe traditional esoteric doctrines. Occult-ism emphasizes secrecy, the new occultistswill do everything in the open; occultismis based on hierarchical systems, grades;new occultists will laugh at hierarchy,

prefer disorder to order; occultism claimto be a wisdom coming from an distantpast, a theologia prisca; new occultistsdont hesitate to assume their modernity,and blur the frontier between religionand imagination by using images comingfrom the pop culture: Mr Spock, Buffythe Vampire Slayer, or even Bugs Bunny.

Known under the various names of chaosmagick, pop magic, postmodern magic,


11/14

4 4 R e V i s i o n VOL. 29 NO. 4

this current is in fact the deconstructionof traditional esoteric thought. It is alsoone of the first egalitarian, non-authori-tarian spiritual movements. The emphasisput on chaos in this movement tendsto prove that it is not only hierarchicalspirituality that is questioned, but reallythe very notion of order.9

One of the latest manifestations of thattrend is the Ultraculture movement, pro-

moted by Jason Louv of http://www

.disinfo.com.

[It is] a cultural movement based aroundthe mass interest in magic and the con-cordent need to apply it to improving ourthoroughly disturbed world.

Ultraculture specifically means two things:

1) It is the name of a social network-ing system. Specifically, the idea behindUltraculture is to apply the Indymediamodel to magic, and establish open city-based scenes based around mailing listsand web pages where people can link upwith people in their area interested inmagic, esotericism, consciousness evolu-tion, etc., discuss it in terms of how itapplies to both their own experiences andtheir communities, and then determinetheir level of activity and involvementwithin that growing network.

Ultraculture is NOT another magicalorder, group or hierarchy, nor is it justanother discussion forum; in this capacityit is only a social connecting system onboth a local and global scale. Occultismhas traditionally been the pursuit of theOutsider figure; Ultraculture then aimsto situate magic more firmly as an activity

of communities.

9

Open source religions

Open source religion is another form

of contemporary expression that consid-

ers spiritual knowledge to be the collec-

tive property of humanity, thus needing

to be available in open source form that

can be freely and co-creatively modified

and adopted by various individuals and

communities.

Open source religions attempt to employopen source methodologies in the cre-ation of religious belief systems. As

such, their systems of beliefs are createdthrough a continuous process of refine-ment and dialogue among the believ-ers themselves. In comparison to tradi-tional religionswhich are consideredauthoritarian, hierarchical, and changeresistantthey emphasize participation,self-determination, decentralization, andevolution. Followers see themselves aspart of a more generalized open sourcemovement, which does not limit itself to

software, but applies the same principlesto other organized, group efforts to createhuman artifacts.10

This Wikipedia article provides exam-

ples, including the unsuccessful attempt

by Douglass Rushkoff to create a pro-

cess for an Open Source Judaism.

Toward a contributory spiritualityThese examples show that the three

emerging paradigm shiftsopen and

free, participatory, and the commons

are felt through contemporary spiritual

practices. They suggest a new approach

to spirituality that I call contributory

spirituality. This approach considers

that each tradition is a set of injunctions

set from within a specific framework

and that can disclose different facets of

reality. This framework may be influ-

enced by a set of values (e.g., patriar-

chy, exclusive truth doctrines) that may

be rejected today, but it also contains

psychospiritual practices that disclose

truths about humanitys relationship with

the universe. Discovering spiritual truth,

then, requires at least a partial exposure

to these differential methods of truth

discovery within a comparative frame-

work, but it also requires intersubjective

feedback, so it is a quest that cannot be

undertaken alone, but with others on

the same path. Tradition is thereby not

rejected but critically experienced and

evaluated. The modern spiritual practi-

tioner can hold himself to a particulartradition but not feel confined by it. He

or she can create spiritual inquiry circles

that approach the different traditions

with an open mind and experience them

individually and collectively, in which

different individual experiences can be

exchanged. In this way, a new collec-

tive body of spiritual experiences is

created that is continuously co-created

by the inquiring spiritual communities

and individuals. The outcome of that

process will be a co-created reality that

is unpredictable and will create new,

as yet unpredictable spiritual formats.But one thing is certain: it will be an

open, participatory approach leading to

a commons of spiritual knowledge from

which all humanity can draw.

NOTES

1. This article is not the right context inwhich to explain such trends in detail. How-

ever, interested readers should see the Website of The Foundation for P2P Alternativesat http://www.p2pfoundation.net/The_Foundation_for_P2P_Alternatives.

2. Why the next Buddha will be a collec-tive, posted May 14, 2007, on Helen Titch-en Beeths personal Web site. http://yeshe.zaadz.com/blog/2007/5/why_the_next_buddha_will_be_a_collective (accessed Sep-

tember 11, 2007).3. Relational Spirituality, from TheFoundation for P2P Alternatives Web site.http://www.p2pfoundation.net/Relational_Spirituality (accessed June 22, 2007).

4. Nondual Community: The Flower-ing of Intersubjectivity (Part 1), posted May28, 2007, on Bruce Aldermans personalWeb site. http://brucealderman.zaadz.com/blog/2007/5/nondual_community_the_flowering_of_intersubjectivity_part_1 (accessedJune 25, 2007).

5. Pour une definition ontologique dela multitude [For an ontological definitionof the multitude], from Multitudes. http://multitudes.samizdat.net/Pour-une-definition-ontologique-de.html (accessed October

24, 2007).6. Global Integral-Spiri tual Com-

mons, from The Foundation for P2P Alter-natives Web site. http://www.p2pfoundation.net/Global_Integral-Spiritual_Commons(accessed June 22, 2007).

7. We are the next Buddha, postedMay 15, 2007, on Mushin J. Shillings per-sonal Web site. http://www.mushin.eu/en/blog/2007/05/15/we-are-the-next-buddha/(accessed June 22, 2007).

8. Steps Towards Integral Deep Dia-logue, Part 2, posted May 20, 2007, onBruce Aldermans personal Web site. http://brucealderman.zaadz.com/blog/2007/5/steps_towards_integral_deep_dialogue_

part_2 (accessed October 24, 2007).9. P2P Occultism, from The Founda-

tion for P2P Alternatives Web site. http://www.p2pfoundation.net/P2P_Occultism(accessed June 22, 2007).

10. Open source religion, from Wiki-pedia, The Free Encyclopedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source_religion (accessed June 22, 2007).

REFERENCES

De Quincey, C. 2002. Radical nature: Rediscovering the soul of matter.Montpelier, VT: Invisible Cities Press.

. 2005. Radical knowing:

Understanding consciousness throughrelationship. Bethel, ME: Park StreetPress.

Edelman, R. 2007, January 27. The Me2revolution . http://www.edelman.com/speak_up/blog/archives/2006/01/index.html (accessed October 22, 2007).

Ferrer, J. N. 2001.Revisioning transpersonaltheory: A participatory vision of humanspirituality. Albany: State University ofNew York Press.


12/14

SPRING2007 45

Ferrer, J. N., R. V. Albareda, and M. T.Romero. 2004. Embodied participationin the mystery: Implications for theindividual, interpersonal relationships,and society. ReVision 27 (1): 1017.

Ferrer, J. N., M. T. Romero, and R. V. Albareda.2005. Integral transformative education:A participatory proposal. Journal ofTransformative Education 10 (3): 30630.

Fiske, A. P. 1991. Structures of social life:The four elementary forms of humanrelations. New York: Free Press.

Groen, I., and J. Boschma. 2006. GeneratieEinstein [Generation Einstein]. Rotterdam,Netherlands: Pearson Education.

Kripal, J. J. 2005. In the spirit of Hermes:Reflections on the work of Jorge N. Ferrer.Tikkun 18: http://www.tikkun.org.

Ray, P. H., and S. R. Anderson. 2001. Thecultural creatives: How 50 million peopleare changing the world. New York: ThreeRivers Press.

Sussan, R. 2005.Les utopies posthumaines:Contre-culture, cyberculture, culture du

chaos[Posthuman utopias: Counterculture,cyberculture, chaos culture]. Paris:Omniscience.

Tulku, T. 1978. Time, space, and knowledge: A new vision of reality. Berkeley, CA:Dharma Publications.


13/14


14/14

the next buddha will be

Documents