Integral Time-Space-Knowledge

For the past three decades, beginning with the publication in the same year of Ken Wilber's (1977) Spectrum of Consciousness and Tarthang Tulku's (1977) Time, Space, and Knowledge, two visions of remarkable originality and integrative power have been unfolding side by side, with apparently little or no contact between them. But while their influence on each other has been negligible, their influence on contemporary intellectual culture has not been. Wilber's Integral philosophy is the inspiration behind such ambitious projects as Integral Institute and Integral University, and his books have been translated into twenty languages. Tarthang Tulku's TSK vision has had less of a cultural impact overall, but his books have been adopted for use in over 100 university courses and programs around the world, and have inspired scholarship in fields as diverse and numerous as those that grace the roster of Integral University.

Given the breadth and inclusiveness of these two visions, and in particular the remarkable integration of traditional, modern, and postmodern concerns that each achieves, it is surprising that little if anything has been written on the consonance of their perspectives, or on their potential to contribute to each other. My own interest in exploring their relationship began several years ago, as I was reflecting on Wilber's latest writings, particularly those that critics now classify as Wilber-5. Although I have been an active student of both visions for the past fifteen years, practicing TSK periodically while preparing for a career as an integral educator and writer, I had always kept them insulated from each other in my mind and had not considered comparing or integrating these visions until Wilber began to articulate the particulars of what he calls Integral Post-Metaphysics and Integral Methodological Pluralism. I believe these important new developments in his theory open the way for potentially fruitful interaction with TSK on a number of levels, and I have been exploring a number of them over the past few years.

Wilber claims that he has been thinking in post-metaphysical terms for the past ten to twenty years, but only recently has he begun to clearly articulate the features of this perspective. Early steps in this direction appear in Integral Psychology, where, drawing on related ideas in the work of biologist Rupert Sheldrake and philosopher Charles Peirce, among others, he suggests that the abiding levels of the Great Chain of Being might be better understood as Kosmic habits, established and stabilized over the course of evolutionary history, than as pre-given metaphysical realities.  Wilber elaborates on this basic idea in his recent writings in several novel ways, the most important of which involves the claim that the world is composed fundamentally of perspectives, not things or processes or even perceptions.

Wilber regards the development of a post-metaphysical perspective as a revolutionary, "abruptly original" aspect of his theory, and as absolutely essential to the viability of integral spirituality in the modern world. I share his conviction that such a development is important -- his passion in this regard is contagious, and the fruits of his own work in this area are impressive -- but I do not believe Wilber-5 represents the first thorough-going post-metaphysical spirituality to have emerged in our times. This honor is due, in my opinion, to the Time, Space, Knowledge vision, which, as a modern tradition of inquiry grounded in non-dual wisdom and sensitive to post-modern critical philosophy, has been breaking new ground for the past three decades.

Common Ground

A sympathetic survey of TSK and Integral Theory reveals a number of common concerns and approaches. I would like to highlight some of the important ones here. The first common feature is the one I have been discussing -- the common post-metaphysical orientation that first inspired me to take up a comparative study of the two traditions -- but the others also describe points of contact that invite further exploration:

• Post-metaphysical epistemology and ontology
• Inclusive vision open to interaction with all fields of knowledge and being
• Inquiry-centered methodologies
• Revelatory focus on fundamental aspects of experience
• Integrative orientation
• Non-dual spiritual perspective consonant with the great wisdom traditions
• Concern with human transformation and the betterment of society

Each of these areas could be explored in some detail.  In this entry, I want to talk more generally about the "status" of TSK as a living example of the sort of integral, post-metaphysical spirituality that Wilber champions in his recent works.  To do this, I will first respond to some of Wilber's criticisms of TSK, and then explore TSK as an "integral transformative practice."

Relative and Absolute Emancipation in TSK and Integral

Recently, I was fortunate to be able to participate in a conference call with Ken Wilber

sponsored by the Integral Spiritual Center.  During our conversation, I brought up my interest in TSK and my belief that it qualifies as a (post)-postmodern, post-metaphysical spiritual vehicle.  Ken agreed with me that it demonstrates awareness of postmodern thought and that it is freer of "metaphysical baggage" than many other traditions, but he also stressed that it has several shortcomings from an Integrally informed perspective:  Its three levels (of time, space, and knowledge -- e.g., 1st level Time, 2nd level Time, and Great Time, etc.) are not nearly comprehensive enough, and it exhibits virtually no knowledge of the existence or the relative value of structures of development and Kosmic evolution. 

During the call, Ken made a distinction that I hadn't heard him make before, but which I found useful:  he talked about two modes of emancipation, the relative and absolute.  Of course, this is an echo of the two truths of Buddhism, but he tied it in to Western and Eastern "liberation" projects, respectively.  The West sees that relative development is valuable in itself -- that even for the limited self, there is a false self and a true one; there can be dysfunction and atrophy in egoic growth and psychological development, that there are more or less functional and authentic ways to "be" a self in the world.  The East values absolute emancipation, moving beyond form and structure -- a movement which could, on its own, simply leave the world behind; but which, if it resists renouncing samsara, can infuse the relative world with depth and an open clarity.  The Integral project is to encourage both, and an Integral politics would "hold space" for both and nurture them equally.

I mention this distinction (which I think is great) because Wilber was suggesting that TSK, along with Buddhism and other traditional paths, downplays or is even unaware of the value of relative emancipation.  He told me that I should be very careful in my "celebration" of TSK as a post-metaphysical vehicle, making sure not to read more into it than is really there.  I think that's a good warning, and I take it to heart.

I certainly agree with Ken that TSK's three levels are hardly adequate to describe the very many levels of vertical, structural development open to human beings.  They are not intended to be used as an exhaustive description of the possibilities open to human beings, of course, but as prompts to sharpen inquiry, and invitations (in Integral terms) to "deepen" in state development, from dual to nondual.  As such, they are not opposed to finer distinctions which may be -- and in Integral, beautifully are -- drawn; they may stand, as modes of "absolute emancipation," in partnership with "relative emancipation," moving in mutually enriching loops.

TTulku

In my opinion, this potential is actually already acknowledged and encouraged within TSK.  I did not get into this in the phone call, because I wanted to get on to my question rather than quibble with Ken, but I believe that Tarthang Tulku actually describes this mutually enriching relationship in a number of places -- and in so doing, demonstrates an AQAL awareness of the relative, structural, evolutionary, culturally bounded lines of development that Wilber suggests he lacks.  If you are interested, you can read an excerpt from the second book in the TSK series, Love of Knowledge, along with my commentary on it, here.

TSK is not intended to be a theory or even a map, which certainly distinguishes it from Wilber's Integral Theory.  But while Integral Theory as a whole focuses more on "mapping" and integrating multiple already-existing disciplines and perspectives, it also offers its own approach to transformation, and it is from the perspective of this approach that I think Wilber was leveling his criticism of TSK (and most other contemplative vehicles of transformation, such as Buddhism or Hinduism).  I only found part of his criticism to be on the mark with regard to TSK, which is why I am writing about this here -- to explore the criticism, and to show why I think some aspects of it do not apply to the TSK vision.

An Integral Critique of TSK

Here's the criticism in a nutshell:  Most contemplative vehicles focus on some form of nondual realization, which may involve the dissolution or recontextualization of the "self" or ego such that it is no longer identified with or considered to be separate from Being.  These traditions typically use phenomenological or other forms of first-person inquiry -- bare attention to our immediate experience, watching thought and the movement of energy, coming to see the "emptiness" of the self and other, opening to Being in its timeless presence, etc.  According to Wilber, these are all supremely valuable practices; they may even lead to the realization of absolute emancipation, in his terms.  But here's where his argument comes in:  some dimensions of our experience and our conditioning are not open to phenomenological awareness.  

These dimensions have to be discovered and explored using other methods of inquiry -- methods which are usually ignored by contemplative, phenomenologically oriented vehicles.  For instance, certain things such as cultural conditioning or psychological stages of development cannot be unearthed by bare attention, and therefore may continue working in the background (as unexamined presuppositions) even after we have opened our experience up and come to some degree of nondual realization.  If practitioners of a contemplative vehicle are unaware of these other methods of inquiry (such as those developed by the social sciences), they may continue indefinitely without unearthing or really dealing with the subtle conditioning imposed by these unrecognized, sometimes unconscious structures.

On this relative level of structural evolution and conditioning, there may be many stages of cognitive, egoic, emotional, values, or cultural development which are not acknowledged or paid much attention by phenomenologically oriented transformative vehicles.  This is why Wilber says he finds TSK's three levels to be limited -- the levels indicate a deepening of experience towards the nondual, but they do not account for (or adequately "map") the relative structural levels of development that have been charted by folks like Piaget, Kohlberg, Gebser, and others.

I agree with Wilber that TSK's three levels do not really account for these things, in themselves.  They are not even intended to, in my opinion.  But Wilber also says that TSK exhibits virtually no awareness of the relative structures explored and mapped by many modern researchers in different disciplines -- the many layers of structural, social, cultural, and linguistic conditioning which influence perception (without being directly, phenomenologically available to it), and I disagree with this assessment.  I think TSK demonstrates both awareness of a number of important postmodern philosophical perspectives (see pp. 83-85 in Time, Space, and Knowledge for an example), and also clearly describes all of the dimensions of our conditioning that have been especially well disclosed by modern research (as I believe the chapter I referenced above illustrates).

In Integral Spirituality, Wilber points out that contemplative vehicles and the contemplative fruits they yield depend in large part upon right View for their effectiveness and completeness.  Wilber argues that a truly integral spiritual tradition must exhibit knowledge of and appreciation for multiple perspectives (from at least 8 zones), and be capable of integrating them within its overall View.  This doesn't mean that a practitioner of a (post)-postmodern, truly Integral spiritual tradition must master all the complex methodologies of all the major human paradigms to be worthy of the name.  It means that the tradition (and the practitioners within the tradition) must at least be generally knowledgeable of all of these perspective-dimensions and have a way of integrating their insights, on some level, into spiritual life and practice.

In his chapter on the Shadow in IS, and elsewhere, Wilber argues that integral spirituality must acknowledge (and work with) the 3 Ss:  states, stages, and shadow.  Contemplative traditions have historically concentrated on state training, and TSK's emphasis on realization of 2nd and 3rd level time-space-knowledge is a new formulation of this same general movement.  It is what makes it a contemplative vision.  But TSK also recognizes "temporal" stage-structures, describing (in some TSK books and also in a companion book, Knowledge of Freedom, which deals mainly with Knowledge and touches more lightly on Time and Space) multiple stages of development in individual life and in culture and history.  For instance, in Knowledge of Freedom, Tarthang Tulku claims there are at least 9 stages we pass through before reaching (conventional) maturity.  He argues that each stage involves different ways of experiencing and understanding, with attendant strengths and problems at each level.  Further, he argues that unresolved issues at any stage often go underground, becoming hidden "narratives" and limiting presuppositions which influence and often undermine our functioning at higher levels.  The "shadow" in TSK is described primarily in terms of these hidden narratives, beliefs, and feelings, which structure the ongoing "presentation" of the self in time.  Some of these patterns are available to direct observation, but others elude it (according to TSK) and must be uncovered with other forms of inquiry.

TSK describes both individual and collective "shadow" (though it doesn't use that word).  In addition to the narratives, beliefs, and emotional constellations that work under the surface in individuals, societies (and individuals within them) are subject to what TSK describes as "collective knowledge."  This is the accumulated weight of patterns and structures of knowledge in history, which typically constrain knowing, but which can be turned (with practice and open inquiry) into resources for growth and transformation.  This transformation is facilitated, in part, by the recognition of the central role of interpretation in experience, at all levels.  (Several TSK books have chapters devoted to this issue).

In the remainder of this entry, I want to describe how the TSK vision, as a whole, relates to (and fulfills the requirements of) an Integral Life Practice.  To this end, I will discuss each of the ILP "modules" recommended by Integral Institute.

Body:  TSK features a number of physical practices which energize, explore, and open the body and the senses.  It asks practitioners of the vision to inquire into and challenge our experiences of, and our deep presuppositions about, embodiment -- its nature, its limitations, its potentials, etc.  In addition to the handful of practices which may be found in the TSK books, TSK practitioners (myself included) often also practice Kum Nye yoga, a complementary yoga and self-massage system taught by Tarthang Tulku. 

Mind:  TSK primarily emphasizes open inquiry and taking multiple perspectives; it also recommends mental training and study.  TSK often works by asking students to logically examine and deconstruct "commonsense" beliefs about the nature of our "given" experience, an inquiry which is facilitated by exercises which encourage us to reverse or otherwise expose and open conventional (unquestioned) structures of perception and cognition.  In one of the books, Tarthang Tulku also lays out the beginnings of a TSK Geometry (which "maps" the play of focal settings in time and space), which practitioners use as part of their inquiry, but which, I believe, can and should be even further developed.  (I am interested in exploring the relationship of TSK's geometry to Integral math.)

Spirit:  TSK's contemplative emphasis is on transitioning from conventional, first-level perspectives to deeper, second- and third-level time-space-knowledge perspectives (which correspond to causal and nondual realizations).  TSK does not often use conventional "spiritual" language, but the vision of Great Time-Space-Knowledge it invites and evokes is particularly consonant with the insights of Zen, Dzogchen, and Highest Yoga Tantra.

Shadow:  TSK offers a number of cognitive therapy-like practices and inquiries, as I mentioned above, which explore the hidden narrative structures of the self -- exposing, analyzing, and opening/transforming limiting presuppositions and other forms of conditioning.  To accomplish this, it encourages practitioners to inquire into the deep structures of narratives and historical patterns of experience, rather than just the immediate phenomenological presentations that are the object of focus of Zone 1 meditations.  (The founding story, according to TSK, is "I am here," which itself is a particular, though limited, configuration of time-space-knowledge:  I (knowledge/knowingness) AM (time) HERE (space).)

Ethics:  TSK does not offer any explicit practices or teachings for ethical development.  However, TSK teachings do contend that the "course" it follows -- of opening limiting positions and being able to adopt multiple perspectives -- will lead naturally to a flowering of love and compassion.

Sex:  TSK also does not offer any sexual practices.  Again, however, its basic teachings and perspectives -- which include deepening our capacity for appreciation and intimacy -- can be naturally extended to sexual relationships.

Work:  Work is a very important component of Tarthang Tulku's teachings -- see his Skillful Means and Mastering Successful Work books, for instance -- and TSK practitioners often also study these works, the principles of which are quite compatible with TSK.  The TSK books and practices address certain ways of functioning, the transformation of which facilitates working more efficiently and effectively -- a fact which has been noted by a number of writers in the TSK tradition.  (See Steve Randall, Ron Purser, and Alfonso Montuori for examples).  As TT says, "We have a responsibility to work, to exercise our talents and abilities, to contribute our energy to life."

Emotions:  TSK has a number of exercises for inquiring into, opening or thawing, and transmuting emotions and feelings.  Further related exercises are offered in Kum Nye and Knowledge of Freedom.

Relationships:  TSK does not offer practices tailored specifically for relationships, but seeks to cultivate qualities which can contribute to healthy, deepened relationship and increased intimacy -- understanding reactivity, loosening self-contraction and challenging the basis of self-centered thinking, learning to adopt multiple perspectives, bringing compassion and appreciation into all our encounters, etc.

My essential argument here is that TSK, as a Vision (e.g., a View), does exhibit knowledge of and appreciation for an AQAL range of perspectives, and provides practices for working with a number of them.  I further claim (and Wilber agrees) that TSK offers a postmodern/postmetaphysical understanding of reality, which makes it relatively freer of metaphysical baggage than many traditional religions.  However, I also recognize that TSK addresses a number of the perspectives that AQAL maps in a rather general way -- pointing readers to them as fruitful areas of inquiry but without a great deal of specificity -- and that the Integral model can add a helpful wealth of detail and granularity to the TSK perspective.

On the other hand, TSK has a number of unique features which I have not mentioned here -- perspectives which I think can complement and "add" to the Integral project.  It would probably be just as fruitful to look at Integral from the point of view of TSK.  I haven't done that in this entry, simply because I imagine members of this site are more familiar with Integral than TSK, but I may take that approach in subsequent essays.  For now, I hope I have been successful in making the case for deeper study of TSK in Integral circles, as an example of a modern spiritual vehicle which embodies, or at least approaches, the ideals of Integral postmetaphysical, postmodern spirituality.

~*~

The two images in this blog are from the Nikon Smallworld gallery, which features some stunning examples of microphotography.  I use these images in keeping with the frequent use of microphotography in the TSK literature.  Microphotos by Jerry A. Gleason and Dr. Jacques Lefebvre Pedro Barrios.