What is the Nature of Inquiry?

Dear Jeff and Katherine,

Do you both not see that there is no inquiry in your dialog? You simply put forth your point of view and then look for agreement with it. That leaves no room for uncertainty or the fire and friction of creativity. The energy to learn disappears along with any real genuine interest. I have brought this to your attention before and either you are totally not interested in what is going on out here? Or you have no real facility in the dynamic of dialoging and inquiry. You just keep going back to your familiar comfortable format of authoritatively explaining, taking everyone’s offering and rearranging it to fit your point of view or premise. Its always healthier to be questioning rather than dogmatic.

Sincerely David,

..................................................

Dear David,

Thank you for your candor and care for the quality of the conversation that we have all embarked upon. It is true that you have pointed to the need to look at the nature of our inquiry in the past and it is indeed an important point of investigation for any of us who endeavor to evolve at the level of consciousness.

I do however disagree with your main premise – that “there is no inquiry in our dialog.” Before we could possibly agree upon such a sweeping comment we would have to be sure that we both meant the same thing by the word “inquiry.” And this, I feel, gets us to the heart of the matter. What is the nature of the inquiry that we are attempting to generate on our calls. Prompted by some of your early probing in this direction I have done some research into this whole question of inquiry.

The term inquiry is not as easy to nail down as it may appear. There are several definitions for the word and when we enter into the realm of philosophical or spiritual inquiry there seems to be an unlimited number of interpretations of those meanings. So even a preliminary investigation leads me to believe that getting clear about what the nature of this inquiry is will be very helpful to all of our development.

I wanted to start by presenting the broadest and most general definition of the word that I could find.

Inquiry – any process that has the aim of augmenting knowledge, resolving doubt, or solving a problem.

Using this definition we certainly have inquiry in our dialog, because many people have told me that as a result of our discussions they understand more about their experience of being a human being, they have less doubt about the meaning of their own life and some have even expressed the resolution of fundamental problems that have plagued them for years.

At other times you have stated that Katherine and I have an agenda, as you say above, “our own point of view,’ The implication being that having an agenda – a vested interest in the outcome of the dialog – negates the possibility of inquiry.

Katherine and I do have an agenda. We are trying to facilitate a more comprehensive and deep understanding of the perspective of Evolutionary Enlightenment in all of the listeners that join us for these calls. To achieve this end we assume a position of authority in relationship to this perspective based on the fifteen years that we have each devoted to it.

It is my opinion that if the outcome of an inquiry is meant to be evolutionary there would have to be directionality to the discussion. That means that something were being held up as the truth and then examined.

We have spent a great deal of time on our calls talking about the nature of the post-modern self. Our post-modern condition – yours and mine – doesn’t like to think that anyone knows any more about anything than we do. That tendency is most pronounced when the topic of inquiry is human life. We all feel that we are experts on human life and that no perspective is any higher than ours.

So we are all (me too) hyper-sensitive to any positions of authority taken in relationship to matters of this type. One of the things that Andrew Cohen has long tried to make clear in his work is that authority in these matters is crucial for development. If we do not have examples to aspire towards we invite what Ken Wilber has termed pluralistic flatland where every opinion is consider equally valid regardless of context. In my opinion, this is what leads to the negation of inquiry.

Another thing that I have been thinking about is the fact that it is commonly believed that inquiry is best fueled and informed by disagreement. In other words, when people inquire together it is the points of disagreement in their thinking that present the greatest possibility for growth, development and creativity. I certainly agree that points of disagreement can be powerful points of investication. I also believe that points of agreement are loaded with creative possibility.

In our discussions I can find examples of both – moments where disagreement has been the catalyst for higher understanding and also times when points of agreement moved us all to a deeper place. I don’t feel that looking for agreement in different points of view is inherently any less valid as a vehicle for true inquiry.

All these are outstanding departure points for further discussion and I for one would be interested in starting a separate dialogue devoted to a deeper understanding of them.

And yes, Katherine and I will continue to work to provide the best possible facilitation that we can every Thursday. We both realize that we have a lot of room for development and improvement – but then again, that is the whole point.

Thank you again for your sincerity,

Jeff