A few weeks back I attended Andrew Cohen’s seminar for evolutionary spirituality. I wasn’t sure what to expect, having seen Cohen only once, about two years ago during Evolutionary Enlightenment day in Lenox. This seminar went from about 1-5pm, so I came in with an open mind and an empty cup, curious to see this spiritual teacher, and now recent author (his book, Evolutionary Spirituality, was published right around the time Occupy Wall Street began).
Cohen is part of a modern “tradition” that mingles spirituality with evolution. In popular culture, we often don’t hear about the two, together. But since the 19th century, starting with Darwin, there have been dozens of mystical teachers who incorporated evolution into their worldview, some more successful than others. Cohen finds kinship with Ken Wilber, an American thinker who ties all of these ideas to philosophers like Hegel, Teilhard de Chardin in the West, and Sri Aurobindo in the East. The two of them have been doing dialogues on spirituality for many years in Cohen’s magazine, EnlightenNext (formerly What is Enlightenment?) Cohen himself has become somewhat of an established spiritual writer. Following the publication of his book, Evolutionary Enlightenment, he has also become a writer on the Huffington Post alongside Deepak Chopra, Jean Houston, and others.
Now personally, I’ve been reading Ken Wilber and, subsequently, Teilhard de Chardin since undergrad. Mystical writers like Rudolf Steiner have fascinated me since, at least, high school. So I’ve always found myself navigating spiritual teachings and teachers in curiosity and, sometimes, kinship. Teilhard de Chardin, in particular, has a beautiful story. He was a Jesuit Priest who was silenced by the Catholic Church for his odd ideas about Christianity and evolution. Not to mention, he was a paleontologist. But I digress.
My girlfriend, Miri, and I arrived a few minutes late and quickly sat down towards the back of the room. We came in at a slow point in Cohen’s lecture. If I’m reading him right, he takes a little while to get going. Slow, gathered statements. Logical steps. A few awkward pauses. Then he finally takes off, rushing ahead with a flurry of ideas and opinions. When people asks questions, he comes to life. He seems to thrive when the audience engages him. He engages them back. Sometimes too strongly, cutting them off with his answer before the audience member finishes their question.
Let me see if I get his philosophy right. First off, he completely embraces a spiritual worldview. That is, a mystical one, where Spirit is everything. Everyone is one. We exist, even right now, in a “ground of being.” If we have the courage to, we can embrace this truth head-on and recognize it for who, and what we fundamentally are.
Second. The world evolves. That is, there’s what Cohen calls an “evolutionary impulse.” A drive that pushes the universe forward. You could call it a creative principle. Cohen tells us we can see proof of it in our impulse for, at a primal level, sex. The drive to procreate. On a “higher” level, it’s the drive to create, to expand, to develop. We all have this, says Cohen, and we can experience a kind of enlightenment with the evolutionary impulse, completely aligning with it. An evolutionary enlightenment. By aligning with this ever-creative, ever-developing, ever-expanding impulse, we are identifying with the other half of our true self. This is what he calls the Authentic Self.
Now, the audience asked a lot of good questions. This is where Cohen best articulated his worldview, and where he and I, at the same time, really differed.
One of the questions was regarding the current global crisis. Ecological devastation. Overpopulation. Technology run-amock. Cohen brushed this all off without a second thought. Why? Because, according to the scientists and technologists he’s reading, we’re making progress. As crazier as things are getting, things have never been better. As the artist, Stuart Davis, quipped,
“the higher that we climb, the more the ladder sways.”
There’s “proof of progress” Cohen told us, by the fact that the decline of violence has never been better than today. Steven Pinker’s Angels of our Better Nature is what he’s currently reading.
Someone asks him about the Mayan Calendar and 2012. Will there be a shift in consciousness? I wasn’t close to the stage, but I’m nearly sure he rolled his eyes. “Do you know what the Mayans did to their people?” He asked her. For Cohen, “savages” who brutally murdered their own people should not be trusted about secrets of the universe. He’s nearly sure they have little-to-nothing to offer about our future, let alone evolution.
Now, being Mexican myself, and originating in Southern Mexico, I am probably a little Aztec. Maybe even a little Mayan. I wasn’t sure if I should be insulted or not. After all, the Nazis were master scientists, and warfare in general is a testament to technological brilliance. Does this mean we should disregard Western culture?
Some admire Cohen’s boldness and brazen style, but I found this statement to be pretty careless for an allegedly compassionate and evolved spiritual teacher. To be fair, Cohen is not unique in this attitude. It’s pretty typical. Some people call it a Western bias, or hubris. That is, favoring reason over intuition, and literal truth over mythological or creative insight.
I can’t speak for everyone, but the ironic thing is, many evolutionary mystics like Sri Aurobindo, Owen Barfield, Rudolf Steiner, and even Jean Gebser, at least recognized that ancient consciousness was not inferior to our own. Just different. That is to say, waking reality isn’t all there is to who we are.
All in all, I thought the seminar was both challenging and frustrating.The evolutionary worldview is deeply compelling to me. So why weigh it down with the myth of progress? At least to me anyway, progress is not linear. It goes in loops and spirals. It moves up and down. In and out. It’s rhythmic and organic. Just like growing up. We have progress, sure, but we also go backwards sometimes. We even can stagnate. When we get to a scale as large as the whole human race, how much more complex must it get?
Most importantly, I wonder how sensitive we can be? How empathetic are we to a real world crisis and suffering, if we are so content with technological and social progress? Because the crisis is no myth! Our compassion has to evolve with scientific progress. Is it?
During the break, I had a lovely conversation with the artist, Alex Grey. He had a good question for Andrew: becoming aware of this “evolutionary impulse,” how should we act? Should artists do art for art’s sake, or challenge themselves to live up to this higher principle? The break ended on a high note, where we thought that this art was a way to encounter the evolutionary impulse. We come in contact with it, seeking to understand it. Art relates us to the mystery of our own becoming.
I’m beginning to think that the imagination is, as it ever was, the greatest medium of the evolutionary impulse, and the way we can truly bring forth a new culture.
Towards the end of the talk, many young members of the audience asked Andrew about creating a new culture. “You have to be totally committed,” he told us. We know. At least, I think we do. We want to. More than the boomer generation, I believe we are ready for change and want to see it happen, somehow.
So now what? That question was left unanswered. But for me, that’s up to us to figure out.
Footnotes:
Here’s a video of Andrew Cohen talking about the “Proof of Progress”
Cohen’s article on the Huffpost. You can see that his spirituality definitely favors a more technological and scientific worldview. Which is fine. But not complete enough for me!
I’ve got plenty of commentary on Andrew Cohen’s inspiration. The evolutionary impulse is a lot like Henri Bergson’s “Elan vital.” Bergson wrote a book a century ago titled Creative Evolution, which went on to deeply inspire Teilhard de Chardin. Around the same time, a century ago, Sri Aurobindo had a series of mystical experiences and began writing The Life Divine, a massive text detailing his spiritual-evolutionary synthesis.
If you are new to evolutionary spirituality, the community is currently expanding itself in many areas, and has a few broad traditions. There is Ken Wilber in Colorado and his version of Integral Theory. Then there is the California Institute of Integral Studies, which has many interesting scholars living there who have contributed a lot to spiritual and cultural studies. On the East Coast, there is EnlightenNext in Lenox, MA with Andrew Cohen.
Carter Phipps, senior editor for EnlightenNext is coming out with a book this June, titled Evolutionaries. You can check out the first chapter on his website.
I appreciate your writing Jeremy. I find it interesting that you seem to have focused on points that Andrew made, that rubbed you the wrong way. Was there anything that he said that perhaps opened you up, moved and inspired you? What would this blog look like if you picked those points and connected them to your pre-existing knowledge? And it might be interesting to ask.. well, which part of you was rubbed the wrong way, and what is really at the root of that?
It’s always been interesting to me that people tend to approach spiritual teachers as oracles, and not spiritual teachers. Andrew is a spiritual teacher, and supports the work of a myriad of thinkers, philosophers, scientists, etc who are coming up with solutions to todays challenges in a very positive framework – but Andrew isn’t writing books about systems theory and the architecture of systemic solutions… it’s about spirit and how spirit moves through humanity and what that is and how it works. I wonder if people listened to Andrew with hopes to learn more about those subjects and deepen their understanding of it through his expertise, instead of criticizing him for not pretending to know everything about everything, if they would hear him differently.
In terms of progress, doesn’t spiral dynamics specifically point toward an understanding where we can see that as consciousness evolves, as does culture? Now that we understand how the narcissism inherent in green culture creates road blocks to true solutions and collaborations, isn’t it positive to be some of the rare people that understand of what culture within a yellow meme would look like? Wouldn’t that be positive? Doesn’t that mean things are moving forward for the better? And if you look at the spiral, isn’t it clear that things in fact have gotten better and better for people as the rights of the individual have solidified with consciousness’ further individuation? From what I understand, it does – although it doesn’t always feel like it :)
Hi Jeremy! You’ve got a few good questions for me here. If I were to flip the article on its head and focus more on the positive, I’d say Cohen’s general optimism for the future was something I resonated with. His idea about what that is, is very different from mine, but the spirit of what he’s conveying is something I appreciate and even get co-inspired with from time to time. Like I mentioned in the article, too, I enjoyed it when he talked personally about his spirituality. He was impassioned but not authoritarian about it. For the most part at least.
That’s the part I liked. I also appreciated his sense of mystery and intelligence surrounding evolution. This is where I also start with my own spirituality, regarding the evolutionary process. The “root” of what rubbed me the wrong way is my appreciation for this. I enjoyed one part of what he says, but then he also ends up having other parts of the teaching that are completely disagreeable to my sense of this evolutionary mysticism.
Walt Whitman wrote, “dismiss what insults your soul,” so to be honest. It was my soul. The inner poet in me. The depths of my own spirit which is “insulted” or “rubbed” the wrong way. This is perplexing, because at the surface Cohen is certainly saying things similar to my own muses like Teilhard de Chardin or Sri Aurobindo. Perhaps it is more of the poet or mystic in me, which is struggling to make room for a more rationalized mysticism for “contemporary” culture. I wish to understand evolution as openly as possible. I approach it like an artist. Letting it speak to me, rather than portraying it one way or another. Like Alex Grey mentioned, it is a profound mystery, this evolutionary impulse. I believe approaching Spirit and Soul as the artist does, as the initiate does, is a profoundly important way to transform society today. I am sure you can probably find what I am saying in Cohen’s teaching somewhere. Perhaps it is simply the way he approaches these subtler, nuanced and imaginative dimensions that I find to be too alien to my own artist sensitivities. I am exploring this question currently in my research. This month I’ve been planning on diving into the evolutionary enlightenment worldview, re-reading Cohen and brushing up on Wilber, as well as the luminaries, to really explore this new teaching and figure out what I am articulating that is so different–or maybe not so different after all.
For the time being, I sense in Cohen’s spirituality both a profound recognition of the depths of what he calls the evolutionary impulse, but also a troubling appropriation of it by the waking, egoic mind. This is not the same thing as saying he somehow not living up to his teaching of living beyond ego. By “ego” I mean a specific kind of waking awareness. The same kind that Jean Gebser called “mental-rational,” and is the dominant quality of mind in technological and scientific culture. What’s missing, to me, is the sensitivity that the artist, alchemist, or indigenous consciousness can bring. I don’t want to use academic-speak to talk about this. I am just sensing a lack of appropriate intuitive and relational qualities in Cohen that are, I believe, essential components of this new consciousness.
In my own worldview, the evolutionary process is beautifully chaotic. It is more like the alchemical process of dissolution and coagulation. Each “union” precipitates a death. The alchemical process goes in fits and starts. The psyche evolves in circadian rhythms. The key to understanding my frustration lies not in that Andrew is a spiritual teacher, but his teaching regarding evolution. To me, the evolution of consciousness is not about becoming something we are not. It is becoming who we are. If we believe that this lies in a better future, we are literally splitting off fragments of our psyche into an imagined (literally, projected) future. The future is indeed wonderful. For me, it is more like the Jungian process of the Self, which over a lifetime learns to assert itself, to organize the chaotic psyche and allow the ego to mature into a house for the Self, the Soul. The different human ages of cultural evolution represent a collective psychic process and emergence of Wholeness. Dissolution and reunion. Intensifying up the spiral of history until the World Soul is revealed and brought to the forefront. In the individual’s case, I resonate with Aurobindo’s Psychic Being, the wisdom and intelligence of a thousand lifetimes, coming to the forefront of one’s life. Living from that deeper self.
I hope this helps clarify where I am, in regards to Cohen’s teaching. This may help paint a better image of my own “soul” as it differs from Cohen’s worldview. Maybe it doesn’t though. Could you clarify? I would love to hear more regarding this.
Sincerely,
Jer
Hey, Jeremy/shamansun — Just an aside. I’ve enjoyed this reply to t’other Jeremy very much, not least because your iteration of your own stance re evolution reinforces eloquently what I am hearing so far in the e-course mentioned below, and most of all because it matches my own: that feels really great! Two threads of the tapestry of my new exploration weaving into my own deep awareness already: sweet.
PS
While enjoying this article on Beans and Struts today, Jeremy J, and thinking of your commentary on Cohen, lo and behold, said commentary is highlighted in the middle —
bet you already know that. So cool when things weave together; I’d better pay attention.
http://beamsandstruts.com/bits-a-pieces/item/916-notes-on-existentialism#comment4007
Hey aretesr45, thanks for letting me know about this! Trevor really laid down a terrific critic and overview of the changing paradigms within the larger, integral paradigm itself. As I’ve been saying for a while, the shift/revolution in consciousness is articulated by everyone and owned by no-one in particular. That is, we are all experimenting with particular “manifestations” of this new consciousness. Some are romanticisms. Others are visions that are truly revolutionary. Still others are “in between.” Speaking of the new in the language of the old. As it may be clear by Trevor’s articulation, I believe that Ken Wilber’s integral vision is in the language of modernism, not post-modernism and certainly not post-postmodernism.
To be honest, I have doubts whether a truly Planetary (as a categorical term) worldview is possible via the theory of a single person. Let alone an intellectual system. The transformation must be deeper than that. It must reach more people. Be spoken to, and from, more people. We can’t expect this to happen if we are not speaking to the hearts and minds of the everyday person. Not watered down intellectual theory. Not watered down metaphysics or mythos. But a true, living spirit. A true living mythos. The reinvigoration of the world. Holistic thinking. This requires, demands a collective network of minds working together in an emergent worldview that grows from the bottom up. No doubt the evolutionary and integral world views are part of this. But we should be cautious. Quite cautious. It is tempting to believe we spearhead this worldview, when in truth I believe there are many “spearheads.” They grow more like a rhizome, whose emergent quality requires a, well, honestly, more “green” appreciation of world transformation.
Anyhow, this goes back to the idea that “progress” etc. are all modernist myths which live on via techno-culture and the myth of progress seems to re-appear in more pervasive ways. Remember, these are myths. Creative constructions, built out of a series of “facts” about what’s going on. Maybe statistics. But the problem with this kind of thinking is that it is only one form of progress. It is relative to the perspective of the viewer. The person who sees a frame of reference, such as a linear time. From another perspective, progress is also steps away from a worldview, or consciousness, which is vastly different and not merely “inferior” or “earlier” than our own. I am firmly against this form of mythos when used strictly by itself as an operating system, or principle, worldview. Progress is non-linear. It goes in fits and starts and circles and cycles.
Anyhow! Thanks again for bringing this to my attention. Happy reading! More articles are coming soon…
Thanks for reading.
-Jer
Make that reference to you — in the middle of author Trevor Malkinson’s follow-up in the comments section.
Also I love (LOVE) love what you and Alex spoke about. I would actually really like to talk to you about that more – what I’m reading here, is the first time I’ve actually heard that point articulated. I think we should somehow go somewhere with that. Let’s connect – Jeremy F :)
Real quick, regarding that. Here is a poem I did over a year ago, probably containing what I said in those long paragraphs in a much briefer, creative form.
OK, let’s connect sometime! I’m not always in the city, but send me a message on FB. This is what I am most interested in too, regarding the evolutionary impulse and the act of evolution/creation/novelty/ and imagination, as they all seem to be interpenetrating themes of our existence here on little Earth.
Thank you for this impression, Fascinating to hear your take on a man I’ve heard of but know little about. As a newcomer to the current (and huge?) movement for enhancing human evolution, I’m currently beginning a 9-week e-course with one of its gently-speaking proponents, Craig Hamilton. We’ve barely begun week two, in an international class of over 1000 individuals from about 50 nations: already it’s astonishing to see how the web engenders an outreach that I assume could not have been matched by the earlier thinkers in this area, especially centuries ago. Don’t sense yet how the course will go(excuse me, how it will evolve) amongst us, yet I am deeply intrigued by all this material and where it might lead us as a species. Of course, the diversity of our class-community of 1,000 deserves a study in itself. I’m learning to be patient and tolerant with people who seem to me to respond with dandelion fluff rather than words, and with those who have something to prove — always value in challenging my own Inner Judge Judy.
By the way, what you say about how art clicks on our hyperlink to the evolutionary impulse does fit with what I have discoverd so far, and this course purports to guide us to find our own practical applications of what we learn. Thus, as an inveterate learner, I’m committed to giving it my dedicated best. … So far, so cool!
Hey there! Thanks for leaving your feedback!
Also, I’d be interested to hear more about your experiences with Craig Hamilton. I’ve heard of him but I’ve never really given him a listen. Let’s keep in touch. Maybe you’d be interested in writing something about your experiences thus-far?
It’s inspiring to hear that Hamilton’s community boasts 1000 or so members, worldwide. This is an interesting phenomenon and sign of our digital, interconnected times. In what ways is Hamilton promoting a shift, or development in consciousness? In what was do you see the community utilizing their strengths, such as interconnectivity across the globe, for a shift in culture?
Anyway, thanks for stopping by and looking forward to hearing more from you. Glad you received my article well and gleaned a thing or two from it. We try to post related, evolutionary themed articles and artwork here!
Will gladly keep you apprised when I get further into — or even past — the 9-week e-course with Craig H. Thanks for inviting me to do so. It’s too soon for me to have more than the very sketchiest opinion ( that’s very positive at present), and of course my ‘judgment’ will itself evolve (grin!) as the weeks go by. It IS demanding, yet can be taken flexibly for those who need to do that.
So far, I find that what one sees at the promo page for the course and what one hears in the free lecture is borne up. Here’s the url, fyi:
http://integralenlightenment.com/online-course/free-online-class/
Onwards to do my Reflections ‘homework’ on what we’ve learned and applied so far!
Thanks for an interesting report on Andrew’s public teaching. Also interesting that you should call him “an allegedly compassionate and evolved spiritual teacher”. I’m not sure anyone has every accused Andrew of being compassionate. He has a well earner reputation for “tough love” and is fond of saying that love is never unconditional.
His comments on the pre-modern Mayans are pretty much in line with much of his public teaching. In private he’s still deeply attached to the pre-modern idea of the guru (the guru principle as he calls it). His core students have to take vows to obey him, nothing much happens in his organization or his students’ lives without his approval. The dissonance between his authoritarian stance as a guru and his public teaching of evolutionary liberation is intense, so he doesn’t talk about it much.
If you go back to another public teaching, spend some time watching his students. You can tell a lot about a teacher by seeing how his students behave around him.
Hey George, thanks for sharing your reflections about Andrew Cohen!
Well to start, I have friends within the community and they have made this claim. I guess you could also call it “tough compassion.” I’m not much of a fan of this method or teaching style, but I decided not to get into it for the article. It would end up being much longer and in-depth. For that, I’m working on a new article to be published in a month or two. It’s going to be an in-depth exploration of evolutionary enlightenment as it pertains to my own personal studies and world view.
You’re right regarding Andrew’s comments about the Maya, and it’s interesting that you juxtaposed this with his attachment to the Guru model of teaching, which is as traditional as it gets. Maybe that’s his claim to fame in this regard: mixing the old and the new together. The problem is that there are contradictions in this style, where one aspect of the old is bashed where the other is propped up. I suspect certain underlying problems with this approach, ones that belittle the non-rational modes of consciousness in favor of a waking ego, propped up at the top of reality and in control of its destiny.
Regarding your comments on the way Andrew runs his organization, I really don’t know what to say. I’ve heard these claims before. I’ve also heard he’s gotten much better over the years and his style and approach has softened with regards to control over his students. But after doing a good deal of research and speaking with many people, I remain cautious toward’s Cohen and don’t feel comfortable endorsing him, personally or officially through this website. To me, he remains a controversial figure in the integral/evolutionary community. Interesting, for sure, especially as of late with his new media campaign and wave of talks with “big” figures like Deepak Chopra, Arianna Huffington, and Howard Bloom. How far he’ll go? I’m not sure.
I’ve received mixed reception from Andrew’s students after posting this blog. Some were angry, others more probing. Honestly, my worldview is so different than Cohen’s that it’s understandable there was some negative backlash.
A big dimension of Cohen’s teaching is inspired (maybe not taken directly from, but definitely influenced in profound ways) Ken Wilber’s evolutionary philosophy. While he’s not an integral spiritual teacher, per se, he is totally with Ken about evolutionary spirituality, and has largely adopted the ideological concepts behind integral theory, holons, etc. Hence the condescension towards the Maya for their “pre-rational” mysticism. The only “legitimate” mysticism lies ahead, in the linear spectrum, at transrational. It’s almost needless to say that I don’t believe this is good way to understand premodern consciousness, let alone spirituality.
Jeremy your observations about Cohen resonate with my own. As for my views on spiritual evolution, I suspect the spiritual evolution of the Universe will occur with or without human involvement. It is our choice (and privilege) to align ourselves with that inexorable progress and, potentially, contribute to it with our consciousness. At present, I suspect we have a lot of work to do – individually and collectively – to assert a coherent and positive participation; at this point atavism seems just as likely an outcome as advancement for our species. Again, it remains our choice. May we all be vigilant.