Integral Postmetaphysics, Simply Put: A Response to Julian

 

  With all due respect Balder

“Phenomena is a bridge to the real”

That is all REAL metaphysics has always postulated. Wilber's straw man post-metaphysics arguments I have identified and put in their proper perspective in my essays http://www.integralworld.net/

 

Bruce, this is great. I had wanted to get some of the subtler aspects of this, and this and your latest posts on Julian's blog have really delivered.

 

bruce this is so wonderful - thanks - what a compliment and an education.

i really appreciate the gesture and enjoy the filling in of perspectives.

you are an extraordinary thought-partner and i will always be grateful for you.

i completely get what you are saying but i still dont see how any of this applies to the realities that are discernible and provable via the three strands of science. those are not relative truths except in some super abstract sense and calling them so seems to a) leave it almost impossible to make value-judgments and b) opens the door to a lot of complete BS under the excuse that everything is relative and truth is unknowable c) it seems to ignore the reality of pathology.

so some questions for you:

1) given this particular stance/perspective - what can we say about schizophrenia and it's perception of reality - and even more generally what do we do with documents like the DSM?

2) if hamlet actually appears to be about a picnic at the beach to someone, does that mean this interpretation gets equal weight because who's to say what it “really means” anyway?

3) are there any statements at all under this model that could be said to be final? let's start from there - surely all things cant be relative because that's an absolute statement - good old performative contradiction, right? so what is there that is not relative besides the statement that all things are? is there not a continuum of relativity, or a tiered schema within which relativity increase the further away you get from the empirical?

empirical truths are not relative, even though they can only be seen from a particular worldview - if you have no feeling in your hand and put it on a hotplate it will burn your flesh off whether you can feel it or not. human beings cannot walk through walls. dogs do not write poetry.  can you acknowledge the indisputability of statements as  as basic as that and then start differentiating out from that baseline?

4) how does one allow for, acknowledge and indeed educate for differences in depth and truth and falsity.

5) how does one avoid the pitfall of labeling pathology as merely an “alternative perspective” - like hey who are we to say that psychopaths are interpreting the value of human life incorrectly i mean after all there's no such thing as a human, life, or value independent of a perspective - so how DARE we claim to know what is true and persecute someone else who has their own point of view?

my sense is that for the vast majority of both ordinary new age and integral new age spiritual folks this is where this kind of analysis goes. and quite honestly - i think that there are some very important truths i am trying to express in the simply put series that get short shrift from thiskind of thinking - especially by those who most need them!

who are we to say that the virgin birth is a metaphor - if it is true for some people in their worldview then it's true for them and there is no absolute truth about whether or not babies can be born with out sexual congress - ya know? (which of course is wishy washy nonsense…)

mostly i am left with the same response - this is fun as far as it goes - but it just seems to muddy up so many important areas and the benefits dont seem to outweigh the potential confusion and plain old BS that comes as a consequence.

the theory is profound, the expression elegant, the truth nuanced and beautiful - but it seems like really bad medicine for the dominant green and pathological green worldview if the intention is to a) integrate healthy rational and b) evolve to authentic integral….

what do you say to this?

i also btw categorically disagree with the notion that there is some kind of consoling shrinking from existential free-fall inherent in holding to certain provable, perennial, universal truths form the three modes of knowing - and i find it disturbing that you and others have compared that position to the distortions, denial and fantasy of magic and mythic concretized fantasy.

will you at least acknowledge here that these are of completely different orders?

 

Bruce and Julian

I jut want to say that imo your current dialoguing (sp?) both here and on Julian's blog, is of the deepest order, and for me is currently the most insightful writing to be found anywhere in the blogosphere.

You are doing all of us readers a big service by digging so deeply, and with such integrity, and in such a respectful yet direct style.

Please keep it up for all our sakes.

Thanks,
James

P.S. My 2 cents worth as an observer:
Bruce seems focussed on getting to the purest, most stripped-down & wide ranging definition possible of what constitutes “reality”, while perhaps uppermost in Julian's mind is whether or not the conclusions reached amount to”good medicine”. This seems to be a fundamental difference in your approaches.

 

“Integral Postmetaphysics.”  Count me in! 

I think you might find this out-of-print circa 1956 essay by Raimon Panikkar pertinent:

The Existential Phenomenology of Truth

 

Great stuff Bruce! Reading your posting helped me realize how I need to start bringing my views and outlooks to peak. And bring in a little eloquence when I write.

You summed your thoughts up very nicely though - emphasis on “summed”.

 

more questions:

1) empiricism - do you disagree that it is and always has been true that if a human being runs straight at a brick wall as fast as they can they will get hurt - in the context in which “hurt” means suffer damage to their flesh, bones and perhaps organs?

if you agree with this - is it a truth dependent on any “perspective?” or could it be honestly said to transcend or exist independent of one's wolrdview?

2) hermeneutics: human beings feel pain at the loss of a loved one and are deeply affected by trauma. when jonny was 4 his mother was killed by a criminal. whats more he saw it happen. now he is 25 and has always thought that he just dealt with it back then and is fine now - besides everything happens for a reason and it was all perfect and it doesnt help anyone to complain about what is, right? he calls this understanding “buddhist.”

but he lives a very self-destructive life and won't let himself depend on anyone or become too attached in any relationships. after a violent altercation in a bar he is told he has to be in therapy to avoid jail time.

through his psychotherapeutic process his therapist carefully guides him toward a universal truth that she intuitively understands - when his defenses finally start to come down he sobs uncontrollably, recognizes how deeply the loss of his mother affected him and curls up in a ball shivering as he remembers how afraid he felt.

the therapist is not surprised by this and is able to normalize it for him in such a way that he not only reintegrates parts of himself and his experience that he had split off, but as a result begins to act out his addictive self-destructive behaviours less and less and allows a couple of his friends to see his vulnerability more - he also starts to authentically feel his longing for an intimate beloved.

his therapist was able to be effective because she understands some non-relative hermeneutic truths about the human condition and the way the psyche deals with the reality of trauma, loss and suffering.

do you not agree that this perspective provides a kind of insight into truth that is not only good medicine for the actual definable human psyche, but helps resolve cognitive distortions and therefore allows a healthier relationship to reality to emerge?


3) ethics: mary is a psychopath, she has no empathy for others and believes it is fine to swindle older couples out of their life savings through a real estate scam she has cooked up and enacted in 5 states. also, when a man in his 70's figured out what she was doing and confronted her, she figured out the perfect murder by switching his medications around and making him take too much of one and too little of the other.

objectively we  understand that something is deeply wrong with mary's psyche and how it relates to other human beings. she has no empathy, feels no remorse and given the opportunity says she would do it all again.

are the labels sociopath and/or psychopath specifically dependent on a worldview for their TRUTH?

of course one would have to know those words and know what they mean - but if some one said no she's just normal and acting how we all would if we were honest and not repressed, would that not be incorrect in terms of the deeper more accurate insight into ethical behavior and its pathologies?

any spirituality, postmodern or integral that cannot answer these questions with some very pragmatic, grounded realism within the context of its expansive worldview has fallen prey to some form of nonsensical relativism or gotten entranced by some kind of philosophical sophistication that has abstracted itself out of relevance.

now lets not talk at cross purposes - play along for me and show me how your take on IMP can transcend yet include examples like these in a HEALTHY way.

 

I always enjoy these sorts of readings, then get lost when the comments get to such lengths that it almost seems like a pro-choicer debating a pro-lifer. Are you guys debating or trying to understand? Julian you seem to challenge something that in my simple mind could be solved by spending some time in nature - perhaps throwing some mushrooms in the mix and seeing what the universe (god/your higher self - WHATEVER they're ALL true and dependent on the lenses you bring forth that day/week/year/lifetime) tries to tell you - singularity should not be the goal here. And drowning/diluting should not be a tool worn proudly.

I get tired of worthwhile discussions getting drawn out to this degree. I'm done, including reading this discussion - it serves me no good. Bruce I'd be weary of what you get pulled into. This sounds more like someone trying to hold on, as best they can, to a mindframe that has solidified and been benefited from($) that won't take any other view to heart - or even entertain. You'll probably be able to handle it though.

Peace.

 

in other words my assertion is: in order for postmodernism or IMP to be healthy, to be true, to be good medicine, to be useful - it must have integrated the best of rationality and stay true to that even in it's expansive new worldview - or else it becomes merely irrational in it's application and therefore prone to distortions and falsehoods that make it actually bad medicine, unhealthy, and not useful.

how do you perceive this problem and propose a relationship to it for example in the predominantly new age readership of this here social networking site?

where the hell are teacup and elektroglide when i need them? jim, anyone….

hahahahahaha

 

“Beyond words, beyond semantics, lays innate truth, the blossom of sensuality, the succulent realm of experience. ”

-eternalnow

 

no i didnt - i will go right to it.

 

i have to say bruce - the two comments of agreement above make my point for me.

the popular spiritual new age worldview finds its misinterpretation of IMP much more appealing than having to go through the rational and existential work that makes IMP practical and healthy.

the result is zero forward movement and a strengthening of a perceived intellectual and integral basis for extreme relativist misapprehension of magic and mythic regression.

i almost think that the integral movement would do best to lead with stages of development and the pre/trans fallacy for the next few years and get everyone interested in integral up to speed on those pieces of theory before anything else.

 there is an odd utopian american cultural creative  fear of conflict that makes most popular integralism try to include everything as a truth - the problem is that really understanding stages of development, the four quads, category errors, three strands and especially the PTF actually stand in stark contrast to and point out massive distortions in the dominant new age worldview of people attracted to (and even unfortunately actively involved in - all the way up to the I-I staff) what is now called “integral theory.”

we are in trouble.

 

great stuff because:


a) i agree with most of what you are saying and find the language beautiful, the intention sincere, the intelligence indisputable (though we could argue about what “intelligence” is and whether or not anyone can say with any finallity who is intelligent..” - i still find it indisputable :O) and

b) because the assuming of the style of my simply put is not only flattering but also alllows for a coherence in our discussion and an attempt to speak clearly and succinctly…

its in the application, possible misapplication and to some extent a few the premises and conclusions that i think extreme relativism flags go up for me.

now i think we have different definitions of what extreme relativism is. so perhaps that would be a good place to sttart as we brainstorm on this stuff….

i do hope you find time to answer my questions - less from a place of proving that you dont mean what i am implying (becaause i dont think you do) and more as a way of acknowledging that it is a huge responsibility to offer such a counterintuitive and revolutionary paradigm and i think one should be extremely careful with its implications and follow them through. again the parallels with the new age are legion because its all about a supposed new paradigm in which all sorts of laws of physics, properties of consciousness, psychological and sociopoloitical truths are supposedly upended for various nonsensical reasons…now of course they have some reasons in IMP that sound just intellectually legit enough to support those seriously problematic falsehoods.

(i am so glad that jason is in the mix for precisely this reason…)

for me the relativism stops short of being extreme when it integrates/includes healthy rationality and doesnt throw it out of the window in the name of following some super abstract principle to its end.


show me how you do this in relationship to my examples and ones like them and i think we will be getting somewhere.

please do think about the readership of this website and the outreach of integral theory into the spiritual community at large and think about what is good medicine for the health of the spiral and let me know to what extent you agree with my point about that.

 

Why do my comments prove a point to you? I understand your concern, and honestly expected you to dislike that quote. It probably felt like another scapegoat cover it up with pretty flowers comment, when you feel you are onto something big. And I'm no stranger to taking on and challening what I believe to be disruptive conventional new age sentiment - I've written many emotional blogs challenging common place beliefs like the importance of us seeing each other as 1, etc etc…

Have you considered that there is no 1 truth, and that your energy is misguided? I say this because according to your statements, i'm a victim somehow. And Julian I most certainly am not. And my dear friends who believe they talk to spirit guides animal guides etc are truely having those experiences.

If your rationale waits until we can take a picture of this stuff, and you are a see it to believe it type person, then you will only ever be defending your position and having those who agree with you agree with you.

There are bigger problems facing our planet right now, and since you seem to have such a big impact and large friends list, and vocal mind, I do wish you could relax a little and go back and see why you felt so scorned by your time when you did indulge metaphysics.

You all use a lot of big words, and you probably most certainly look at me as an idiot. I have no problem taking that; 1) because i was an ass to you and 2) because your mind works very differently than mine.

I think intellect can be a means to something (something hopefully being the goal of your discussion here w/bruce) but it should not be a means to a means. It should lead you to somewhere that is open ended, not closed.

And even if you're on the right track, and we're all dumb and lost and wasting nrg that you feel can be better directed (which is how I honestly feel about you), then keep your focus on that rather then on this mentality that you are somehow trying to save people and re-wire their focus.

It should be clear now, that there are people on both sides of the fence with comparable intellect, thought & time to their ways of expressing and living life. Hopefully your process either is, or becomes one that grows and learns and thrives on humbleness. Not dogma.

 

balder - take your time bro - i hear ya - and we have tons of time to hash out these important and nuanced distinctions…

actually i liked that quote jason, though you may not have realized it -  it is entirely in line with what i have been saying.

zakkariya i liked your  quote even more and look forward to checking out your essays…

 

Bruce -

Kudos on the exploration of “reality” from a holistic viewpoint.  I'm still digesting the integral implications of the exploration.

Reality has dimension to it - and that the appearance and manifestation of reality may very well be subject to a single dimensional understanding, a multi-dimensional understanding, or an all-dimensional view of it.  But, alas, your explanation goes so much further than my simplistic sentence.

 

RIGHT! I also haven't seen much in the lines of quantum physics brought up here which adds an entirely new layer (or wrench depending on your perspective) to this discussion. This is being discussed from our dimension (akin to ants in their little mounds talking about labor ethics) and physics alone is entertaining a multitude of dimensions beyond the 3 we've come to know.

This really does involve the rabbit hole and that's the sort of discussion that's fun (and expanding) to discuss. Debate sucks. The end result of this thread is what? I'm still not clear.

 

for the record i think we are in some ways squarely in the middle of a venerable and perennial debate - that between analytic and contintal philosophy - which is sometimes broken down as being between bentham and coleridge…. the two conflicting questions/priorities are “is it true?” and “what does it mean?”

for me the proper function of integral theory with regard to philosophy is one of integrating these points of view and modes of inquiry with respect to their quadrant  locations…

so far the expression and application of IMP appears to overly-privilege the left hand quadrants in a highly problematic way - a way that at  times allows space for some pretty nonsensical conclusions that directly contradict right hand methodologies and their really solid contributions.

in the absence of some serious qualifiers and limitations these positions are properly understood as category errors.

so:

you said ” There is no single pre-given world that exists independently of all perspectives … only worldspaces enacted by sentient beings.”

this implies that if all sentient beings were somehow wiped of the face of the earth the earth itself would no longer be there. we have to be careful about subjective idealism as it is so close at hand with this stuff. sure the “earth” as it appears in a specific human worldspace is  a co-enacted creation of our consciousness/sensory equipment/mythology/philosophy etc… and sure from the perspective of a giant grasshopper the earth would not only not have that name, but would be represented in a radically different way in it's consciousness - but so what? this does not change the fact that the earth is there and what we can know about it empirically has been tested rigorously and proven via our ability to successfully interact with and manipulate the elements etc… were we all to disappear the earth as we know it would still be here - even though there would be no-one to perceive it thus…


you said:

“

The claim that there are “simple facts” which exist independently of worldviews and contextualizing perspectives, while an understandable attempt to provide firm grounding, is ironically a claim which is not adequately grounded because it fails to disclose (and does not consider relevant) the Kosmic address from which the claim is being made.”

ok - can human beings exist without oxygen for longer than 20 minutes? does it matter what worldview the human being has, what their kosmic address is or how they explain their own demise to themselves as REALITY comes crashing into their suffocating brain-damaged experience?

you said:

”

Phenomena are not merely interpretations or constructions of the subject.

Interpretations are constrained by objective dimensions of tetra-enacted worldspaces, so that not all interpretations are equally valid. 

While worldspaces (and their constitutive “objects”) shift and evolve and no particular worldspace can be considered foundational or absolute, and while all phenomena are in part constructs – a bear is not the “same thing” at all levels, to all observers – reality is not completely malleable nor does it simply “follow” the whims of its “interpreters.”  Whatever “it” is (there is no single “it” we can point to as definitive), the-occasion-we-call-bear will nevertheless maul babies, natives, postmodern English professors, and postmetaphysical yogis with equal abandon and equal result.”

fantastic! at last some sanity :O) this piece of the set of ideas i find quite beautiful and elegant.

you said:

”All things are relative to each other.”

1st of all i think this is basically a meaningnless statement and i challenge you to tell me what it means.

ok - so what is the always true statement that: if a human being runs as fast as they can at a brick wall they will experience injury - relative to? i think it is merely true to the best of our knowledge (no exceptions so far….) for every single human being (as well as all animals other animals) regardless of kosmic hoo ha.

what is the statement that :no-one can “manifest” checks in the mail by using badly misinterpreted quantum physics and creative visualization techniques - relative to?

i think this is merely a true statement about a nonsensical set of ideas and beliefs that are false no matter the worldview of who says or hears them…. do you seriously disagree?

”Extreme postmodernism …..  is … a flatland relativism which fails to recognize development, depth, and the co-constitutive roles of subjective, objective, and interobjective perspectives.”

this is very nice and part of what i meant in my genuine appreciative remarks above….

what do you think about including truth, falsity and pathology in your list - as when 99% of people jump on the its all relative bandwagon they generally think that means truth, falsity, health, pathology, sanity, craziness etc are suddenly all up for grabs and hey maybe, just maybe bad quantum physics translates into a really exciting new paradigm in which jesus is being channeled by the retiree downstairs and giving us a message from the kosmos about the coming integral age that begins in 2012. dial in your spirit guides and animal totems - rationality is out the window and magic is our birthright, haven't ya heard om nyo renge kyo and e=mc2.

please dont dismiss these concerns because of the over the top humorous expression of frustrated disdain that is part of my personality.

how do we include a lot of clarity about  pre/trans confusion, category errors and narcissistic subjective idealism as we include these really fun and profound layers of wilber V? - (which as you know i think need a loooooooot of work before they become a good addition to the existing corpus.)

 

 

Thanks Julian,. And thanks to you and my friend Balder. This rap is music to my ears, I am a lover[ among other loves, such as the lovely female beings of beauty and grace] of knowledge. Like a drunken sailor I grouse the philosophers stone until it shines bright or knocks me dull.

Though I must admit the quote was not from me, but of the lore of the Sufis

For as it is written

As a thief in the night

So Wilber, wherever ye art watch your head, for

one who looses the path either looses his head or his hat!

 

sorry dude!

just thinking aloud…

ummm honestly i would ask that you:

1)  craft a response that addresses an example from each of the empirical, hermeneutic, and ethical domains and shows clearly how you differentiate IMP In its application to these examples from both

a) extreme relativism and

b) the pre/trans/subjective idealist/bad quantum potential interpretations of the ubiquitous new age (which i know you think i harp on too much - but  is indeed the worldview that most needs the medicine of integral theory and that is most co-opting, distorting and misunderstanding it right now…)

i think in my ideal response you would give a sentence or three in response to my examples from each perspective - the healthy IMP, the extreme relativist misinterpretation and the nonsensical new age misinterpretation.

2) address the problem of denial around truth, falsity, pathology etc that is close at hand as people entertain these ideas.

3) talk about how to address the problem of IPM seeming to advocate abdication of rationality in a way that is prone to massive pre/trans confusion. how can IMP stand (as authentic  transrational  ALWAYS does ) on the shoulders of healthy rationality?

4) in your conclusion you might let me know what practical purpose IMP serves with regard to psycho-spiritual trasnformational/healing practice - seeing as this was the specific thread of my simply put series that you are responding to here.

specifically, my concern is that (just like the overly abstracted notions of the non-dual) IMP runs the risk of being just another thought toy that allows wilberites to imagine themselves (just by adopting the new “perspective”)  evolving to ever higher second and third tier addresses without doing the important foundational work of rational and existential initiation…and of applying rigorous critical thinking as to the application of  the cool new ideas and the mildly altered state they induce.

 

oops i kept saying IMP instead of IPM - but i think you know what i mean yea?

 

 

Everything needs a matrix to live in. This is not new stuff. Wilber's over redundant, abstruse ideas are nothing new.

He talks about levels of consciousness in hypothetical format, is not this myth of the given. Turquoise consciousness. Eco-systems are real only at turquoise consciousness!

Turquoise consciousness has no scientific basis in reality, then what does one call what Wilber is doing, but hypothetical posulating.

Then he claims phenomena has an address,[ address =altitude + perspective]   and says everything has an element in all quadrants, then how can actuality have a kosmic address in one quadrant?

Don't you see according to Wilber one cant quantify a perspective at all! But yet he does it.

How can a human exist at any time in one quadrant, therefore have an address? If he has existence in all quadrants?

And what exactly is existent in the quadrants that can be quantified as existing in any quadrant in order to determine its address? Ones soul? Spirit? Consciousness? Body?

The body exists in the UR and the interior in the UL so how can one determine an address?

This is a huge contradiction, and inconsistency in this theory one can drive a Mack truck through.

I have pointed out these inconsitencies numeroud times in IW without a peep from the great grand master of consciousness Ken WIlber.

ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT!

zAK

tHE REAL wYATT eARP!

 

 

I know, the Wilberians are going to say “you don't understand Wilber” You cant make out his big words, you only have an associated degree in electronics, and have got not one published book. How dare you challenge the Einstein of consciousness.

 

 

Now let us examine Wilber's ideas on enlightenment,

He says ”Enlightenment the realization of oneness with all major states and major structures that are in existence at any given time in history Page 248 of Integral Spirituality

To me this relegates enlightenment to a non-transcendent state. It therefore depends on stages of consciousness that change over time. Evolutionary enlightenment, Wilber, and Cohen's new watchword.

Wilber thinks that ancients were all low level ethnocentric sectarian thinkers, even Buddha and other saints to Wilber, were low level thinkers compared to the great ones of today.

I do not know, but all the saints I have studied from Rumi, Buddha, Pythagrious, Pantanjali, Ibn Arabi, and Hallaj and many more were not ethnocentric, sectarians. In fact many of then were persecuted for ideas and worldviews that would put the modern hippies to shame.

Buddha upended Hindu sectarian costumes. The Prophet Muhammad advocated the end to slavery. Jesus eschewed Jewish elitism. Rumi spoke about evolution 1000 years ago! I could go on and on, so what justifies Wilber's assertions in this regard?

Eventhough Wilber himself thinks 70 percent of today's consciousness is on a Nazi level. Then how can today's man be much different from the ancient man? If 70 percent of consciousness is Nazi like, then where are all these second tier-enlightened people?

First, Wilber's ontology is all incorrect as I pointed out in 3 essays. He mixes stages with stations, a huge error. A station is a permanent state of consciousness, a stage is subject to change. It is like comparing a muddy pond to the Atlantic Ocean. That error alone disqualifies Wilber from rendering an intelligent judgment about enlightenment.

Enlightenment is not a part of the continuum of stage levels of consciousness.

Now don't get me wrong I don't want to totally say Wilber is wrong, for I believe he has made a great contribution to Integral philosophy, metaphysics, but really think there is something pretty strange going on. His ideas are just to openly problematic, there are just too many errors in his philosophy and they are pretty blatant for intelligent people to accept. And that is what is strange, to say the least.

It just may be something going on beneath the surface here.

Anyway, I am going to bed.

Oh, one more thing, to my friend Balder.

I think you may have to go get some reinforcements!

Peace

 

that all makes perfect sense my friend. i am glad you have clarified all of this. this is pretty much my understanding of IPM except (consistently now)i dont find the conclusions are particularly exciting, practical or important - especially as regards what i am interested in. infact i find them to be somewhat beside the point and potentially obfuscating of several important (nay, crucial)  truths - but maybe this is just a matter of temprament that we differ on - which is not a bad thing.

also - i find it disturbing when this stuff:

a) turns into the new integral orthodoxy and
b) the policing of statements that are actually pretty darn reasonable out of adherence to a very abstract point - that then
c) unfortunately gives the appearance to an already confused new age influenced integral community that the BS “new paradigm” is being validated by the intellectual rigors of integral theory and brilliant minds such as yourself against meany rational types like me..

(it reminds me of my little exchange with jonny bardo on my pan's labyrinth review - i dont know if you followed that….)

also i do not see any of this as being in substantial conflict with my simply put series if one is being reasonable - especially with regard to spiritual practice and the way, way overlooked and denied (by the supposed “turquoise club”) existential/rational/centauric stage of growth.

also you have not responded to my examples as you have said you would - but i know its a busy day - so i can wait…. :O)

sweet dreams

oh and zakkaria - interesting comments, i love the tag line at the end - it feels like a hafiz poem…

 

Hi Bruce (Balder), hi Julian. I've followed some of the discussions the two of you have had going back many moons as well as recently and I appreciate that you continue to meet on a level playing field and discuss things in a civil manner.

An Australian philosopher named David Armstrong proposed what he called a truthmaker principle, which is basically that if an assertion about the world is true, there is something about the world that makes it true. There is nothing about the truthmaker principle that entails acceptance of what philosopher Wilfred Sellars called the myth of the given, and there is nothing about the truthmaker principle that is in conflict with constructive (as opposed to deconstructive) postmodernism (and the idea that we do not know reality “as it is” independent of our percepts and concepts).

It would seem that Ken Wilber accepts the truthmaker principle. He implies in One Taste that if any UFO abduction experiences are true “as ontology” rather than only “as phenomenology,” there should be evidence to bear this out. He says on his Kosmic Consciousness audio set that if predictive divination methods, such as predictive astrology, are to be taken seriously as methods that are capable of making accurate predictions about future events, empirical investigation of the predicted events should bear this out. And, although Wilber is on record as saying that he believes that reincarnation occurs, he has indicated that he understands that before one can say that it is true that reincarnation occurs, there must be stronger evidence in support of such an assertion than presently exists.

Wilber also appreciates that divination methods can function in ways that help individuals find their way into inner explorations that may open them to transpersonal phenomena and experiences. And he allows that in some cases, UFO abduction experiences may be harbingers of some kind of transpersonal breakthrough.

It is my impression that some of the disagreements that have arisen around some of what Julian has been saying at his blog have to do with “skillful means” where certain kinds of “New Age” beliefs are concerned, although there are obviously disagreements about much besides that.

I remember when Julan was writing about “The Secret” and the ideas of some guy whose name I don't recall, who was into “The Secret” and who had received some kind of positive acknowledgement from some Wilberian integral site or other. I was reminded of a discussion of the book The Celestine Prophecy that took place in What Is Enlightenment magazine some years ago (in the last century, I think). Some reviewers and readers thought The Celestine Prophecy was basically “translative” crap (though I don't recall that anyone actually used the word “translative”) while others suggested that while it was not quite on the level of Dzogchen or anything we might speak of in terms of “radical authentic transformation,” it was for many people a good starting place.

It is easy to see, I think, how having all these balls in the air can make discussions about some of this stuff difficult. One person might simply want to talk about whether or not our thoughts can affect events on a quantum level, while another person might think that it is more important to consider whether or not people who flirt with such ideas might benefit more by being open to such ideas (whether or not the ideas are true), or by applying reason or rational thought processes to the matter.

I suppose that if someone who was really uptight and who wore a pocket protector and seemed bereft of emotion and was a model of what somatic psychologists would consider a heavily armored individual began to flirt with the idea that maybe extraterrestrials “walk among us,” it might be better for them to continue in that direction than it would be for them to snap back into the mold of reason that they've been stuck in.

But I've been around spiritual and transpersonal circles since the early 70's and I haven't encountered too many if any people like that. Instead I've encountered tons of people who are at no more risk of getting stuck in “the rational mind” than I am of being kidnapped by a gang of horny supermodels. As Morris Berman once put it, there are a lot of people who read books by authors like Deepak Chopra with titles like Escaping the Prison of the Intellect, and the problem is that many of them haven't made it into the “prison of the intellect” in the first place.

I think that it is just this kind of stage skipping that Julian is trying to address.

I come at this from a different angle than Julian. I don't think that everyone who is drawn to spiritual growth necessarily needs to cultivate critical thinking skills. I just wish that people who cannot demonstrate in plain language that they can engage in argumentation (argument as reason giving rather than argument as bickering) and think critically about issues that require critical thinking wouldn't cop the attitude that they are “beyond the rational” or “beyond reason” when it's pretty obvious that they haven't really gotten to “the rational.”

It's like the scene in Treasure of the Sierra Madre when Humphrey Bogart demands evidence that a group of men who are obviously bandits are really police as they claim. He asks them where their badges are, and their leader gets flustered and shouts, “We don't need to show you no stinking badges!” He says this because he and his men don't have any stinking badges to show. Just so, when some folks who make claims about the way the world is are asked to support their claims with reasons and evidence, they get flustered and say or imply that they don't need to give us no stinking reasons, “Because we are beyond reason and beyond the rational.” Right. Beam me back up, Scotty. ;-)

 

thanks for saying so - i do understand what you are saying - as far as i can tell - perfectly. i am asking those questions specifically to invite you into being clearer, making the kinds of distinctions that i think make this stuff meaningful and prevent the kinds of misinterpretations and sloppiness that i think the integral community is so prone to…

understanding what you are saying and agreeing with the way it has been applied say to my simply put series are not the same thing.

i dont find the central ideas confusing or beyond my understanding and haven't since i first read them…. i think if they are well expressed and carefully differentiated from subjective idealism and extreme relativism in their MGM form then they stand very well and are quite interesting and valid.

still i feel too - as i have since first seeing this stuff in Integral Spirituality - that this has not actually been well done. not by wilber, not by anyone else i have seen talk about it and so far not by you.

also letting me know indirectly about side conversations feels ( i am sure unintentionally) quite undermining/ganged up on - if others have things to say that they want me to hear - let them speak - if they want to speak to you privately - keep it to yourself.

yes i did see that you said you would say more later - thanks.

and yes i do still feel that what i am pointing out is being somewhat overlooked.

as is often the case when i take issue with people on the interpretation of some of this theory, i try to get the integral person to agree on some basic orientations in relationship to what the ideas  are demonstrably NOT saying as a way to get closer to what they ARE saying.

it is very relieving when someone actually comes straight out and agrees on the incorrectness of the nonsensical stuff as a way of establishing level footing - usually this does not happen though - whether we are talking about supposed integral interpretations of the secret, steve pavlina's nonsense, the pre/trans fallacy, the existence of a mythic level god,  or now IPM….. i  find this inability to agree on what the misinterpretations are and on what is clearly nonsensical a little perplexing.

whenever you have time this week i would find it really useful and think it would actually do integral theory a service if you would respond as i have asked clearly differentiating IPM from extreme relativism, subjective idealism and their new age bastardizations…

TO BE 100% CLEAR: i do not think that what you have written suggests explicitly that any of the examples i am giving you are disputable - i am asking how you reconcile these with what you are saying and how you think IPM can be presented in a way that doesnt leave it open to that misinterpretation.

 

Julian, with regard to differentiating between IMP and extreme relativism, I think the basic point is that in extreme relativism all relative truths are considered equal, and in IMP there is a hierarchy of relative truths. To make sure IMP isn't used to bolster extreme relativism, it should be emphasized that truth can be approximated, that there is a hierarchy of truths, and that there are different levels of vertical development that individual and collective holons pass through.

 

this is well said david. i still dont think it is unreasonable to have a heirarchy/continuum of truth claims - and i see “relativism” as “extreme” when it makes “everything” relative - except of course that self-contradicting absolute statement….. some things are plainly not relative and it seems to me that starting from the ground up in classic integral/developmental/holonic style that acknowledges quadrants and modes of knowing etc is a better way to go than slapping IPM and M o' t Gonto everything and policing any statements about truth as “subtle metaphysics” in the name of the new orthodoxy.

jim:

yup that guy was steve pavlina and i was the only voice in out little integral community who raised a big eyebrow at his assessment/celebration by the I-I's official newsletter as a supposedly turquoise blogger - until stuart davis and then wilber's personal assistant colin bigelow and then ken wilber himself  all agreed that this was a classic pre/trans mistake on the part of the Holons newsletter. His horribly insenstive narcissistic comments about having literally personally “manifested” the  VA Tech massacre (which he said technically wasnt one because that was merely a human “perception”) via some kind of numerological signficiance to his own life only solidifed this - yet still most if not all the I-I pod members on zaadz fought me tooth and nail on how i was being unfair and mean, stuart davis was being an angry inappropriate prick etc etc……. prettty nutty stuff. i blogged about it here.

by the same token i was the lone voice calling “the secret” for the absolute unadulterated BS it was while I-I pod members, prominent intebnral bloggers and even the founder of zaadz tried to tell me i was so woefully misunderstanding integral theory if i thought it was ever ok to say that something was not true - and that there were really important stage appropriate partial truths in the secret etc etc….. again it was great to get some validation and support from stuart davis here and from ken wilber here.

you said:

“Instead I've encountered tons of people who are at no more risk of getting stuck in “the rational mind” than I am of being kidnapped by a gang of horny supermodels. As Morris Berman once put it, there are a lot of people who read books by authors like Deepak Chopra with titles like Escaping the Prison of the Intellect, and the problem is that many of them haven't made it into the “prison of the intellect” in the first place.”

nice :O)

 

bruce, david etc re: the above comments. i am not saying that IPM is in any way equivalent to the secret or steve pavlinas clear (but still denied by many, many covert or unconsciously new age integralites)  PTF confusion. i am however saying that there are a few potholes in the integral community that the vast majority of people i talk to (and bruce i am not lumping you in here but i am holding you accountable in a way for helping to clear this confusion up and not perpetuate it) tend to fall into regarding the points i have been trying to make so far about truth, falsity, pathology, extreme relativism etc… i just did a preliminary blogpost listing some of these obstacles here.

it would mean so much to me if these concerns could be heard and perhaps even addressed without resorting to calling them “a merely rational crusade” (because without healthy rational the genuinely transrational is non-existent) or perhaps something along the lines of  “misguided first tier food fight vitriol against a necessary worldview”  (because there is such a thing as pathology and falsity even from  the viewpoint of the much-claimed-cause-i-read-it-in-a-book mythical SECOND TIER) or something that somehow clouds my ability to hear deeper truths. i think i am hearing quite well and am calling as usual for better distinctions so that these elegant theories can be as effective, good, true and beautiful as possible. i love you guys for being interested in that project - even when we disagree….

jim this part i think is really important as underlying grounding cables (anchored where?, well in reality unfortunately :O) for IPM and its nuanced observations:

”
An Australian philosopher named David Armstrong proposed what he called a truthmaker principle, which is basically that if an assertion about the world is true, there is something about the world that makes it true. There is nothing about the truthmaker principle that entails acceptance of what philosopher Wilfred Sellars called the myth of the given, and there is nothing about the truthmaker principle that is in conflict with constructive (as opposed to deconstructive) postmodernism (and the idea that we do not know reality “as it is” independent of our percepts and concepts).

It would seem that Ken Wilber accepts the truthmaker principle. He implies in One Taste that if any UFO abduction experiences are true “as ontology” rather than only “as phenomenology,” there should be evidence to bear this out. He says on his Kosmic Consciousness audio set that if predictive divination methods, such as predictive astrology, are to be taken seriously as methods that are capable of making accurate predictions about future events, empirical investigation of the predicted events should bear this out. And, although Wilber is on record as saying that he believes that reincarnation occurs, he has indicated that he understands that before one can say that it is true that reincarnation occurs, there must be stronger evidence in support of such an assertion than presently exists.”

very helpful - thanks!

bruce what say you to this?

 

bruce  - yes i hear you - i give you tons of credit every chance i can - sorry if that style of speech offends. please see it as me trying to make a point about a far extreme which you are welcome to then differentiate yourself from while acknowledging that potential problem…….while i try to be clear that my concerns are more about the community in general and he effect of these ideas when they are misinterpreted by others, i  do feel like the combined efforts of yourself, mushin, james and david in some ways felt like that kind of orthodox policing  on my simply put series…

perhaps using those terms is not skillful means though - but there is something i am trying to point out. does that make any sense to you?

and no - as i have said several times i think that what you are doing here is nuanced, elegant, beautiful and important too…

 

at the same time i do wonder what purpose it serves to take issue with statements about:

the universal human reality of suffering.

the relationship between choice and un-chosen circumstance.

on the basis of IPM.

who but a new age adherent would seriously take issue with the reality of old age sickness and death ( a la the buddha) as an invitation into grounded existential spirituality?

why would anyone familiar with wilbers PTF, grof's flight toward the light, welwoods spiritual bypassing, kornfield's work, psychotherapy and indeed the buddha's teaching deny that certain forms of spirituality are best understood as psychological defenses that distort reality in ways that fragment the psyche and limit consciousness?

saying so is not really a claim about ultimate reality (which of course integralites LOVE to make a la nonduality, the faces of god etc..) so much as it is an observation about degrees of distortion and what we see more clearly as we heal, grow, practice and deepen our awareness of certain truths of the human condition that have been so in some fundamental ways for at least hundreds if not thousands of years.

personally i am all for IPM in the areas where if feel it makes significant impact and challenges overt metaphysics - especially the stuff that gets a free pass in integral circles - the absolute, enlightenment, god, to some extent reincarnation and psi (which often opens the door into an elaborate metaphysical belief system about disembodied beings, a spirit world etc etc… i dont think that my simply put series is a good candidate for IPM deconstruction, except as the kind of problematic and confusing orthodoxy i am describing.

much of the flak i got was a response to the use of the word “reality” and while yours as usual were the most nuanced and interesting critiques, i am sure you will agree that there were a variety of kosmic addresses coming into play - all of which will take your sophisticated and convincing reasoning as evidence for their position….

 

 

All quiet on the western front.

Come on guys, I am getting board watching the election returns– Giuliani getting his but kicked. Let's get it on. This is like reading Plato vs Aristotle, or Ibn Arabi vs Avicenna, in their great philosophical debates.

Forget your families, and your jobs, and eating, this is more important, didn't Buddha leave his family and starve himself for knowledge.

Lets hear more!

 

I write this late at night (it's 3:14 am now, and I go to bed; so please forgive if it's not as clear as it could be - nevertheless I hope what comes acroos will somehow clarfy a few minor aspects.)
__________

Just a word on the flak you are getting, Julian. If you're shooting as much as you do - and I think I understand now why you are doing that - then where is what you demand of others in yourself?  (I come from the idea that someone who has a harshly critical style isn't supposed to complain. But I might be wrong in this.)

I think that you choose to understand it like this: ”while i try to be clear that my concerns are more about the community in general and he effect of these ideas when they are misinterpreted by others, i  do feel like the combined efforts of yourself, mushin, james and david in some ways felt like that kind of orthodox policing  on my simply put series…” because we (? maybe, I for sure) are not on a mission to beat some rational thinking into a bunch of flaky and sloppy New Agers and integralists, and you act as if those who are not with you are against you…

I gather from what you've been saying here that part of your harsh and judgemental statements have the purpose of getting brilliant thinkers unstuck, and involve them into an argument and make them render their arguments more clear and differentiated.
It's a strange method and easily misunderstood - as I tended (?) to do. It seems a bit like someone  wacking someone, “to beat some sense into them.” A method that can be said to have proven effective, if you take a certain perspective of desired results. But some of those who had the experience of “getting some sense beaten into them” maybe developed an aversion to that method …

—

And a few remarks about Integral and all of that. I am not well versed in that particular theory. Most of what I come up with, and have come up with in the past, is from what I eclectically gather from all over the place as it makes sense to what seems an important part of my life. So the statement that “everything is relative” that seems contradictory in itself in actuality is not so; it is only so to someone who believes that “everything” is some form of external or universal object that can stand on itself without relation to “everything else” —- Ahh, this is horrible!

I'll try again. What I want to express here is that the “interrelatedness of all experience” is
a way of making sense of a clearly intuited and sometimes felt “way of being”. And what Bruce so beautifully described in his blog above, and then in his lengthy answer in the comments here to me is making a lot of sense because it is not all that abstract, but actually resonates with my experience a lot - the way I make sense of it.

Yes, when I get hit by electrical current because I grip the wrong wire (recently happened, alas) my experience has nothing whatsoever to to with relativity at all. It's very, very real. Shockingly so!
But as soon as we open our mouth, or think consciously - speak in our mind - we are already removed from that particular experience and in another mode of experiencing. So one could say (and you could rip apart the statement), “Reality can only be experienced first hand; what we talk and think about is removed from reality at least one step - it is already a memory - and our talk is about the memory of an actual experience.” And then when we start talking about the way we make sense of the way we talk about reality we are removed at least two steps, and so on.
So this does not say anything about the existence or non-existence of a reality independent of anybody experiencing it. There is no way to know that reality - but that does not imply anything about its existence, yes or no.

Another aspect we haven't even touched upon is that our experience of reality is also the product of “all of us together”. I've learnt to relate to reality and the meaning of situations from the people around me. My memories are greatly influenced by what other people, who've had the experience with me, make of the experience - we read each other as we are relating our stories (which can make this purely textual medium so exasperating at times). So not only is reality what I make of it but it is much more what we make of it and what consequently then I make of it.

A little anecdote will illustrate well. When my son was around five we were on a walk in the park. He fell and hurt his knee. It was bleeding. Immediatly he looked at me and I said admiringly, “Wow! What a smack that was! You're a brave runner!” It still hurt but he wasn't crying (I had not told him not to! But he apparently didn't feel like that would be fitting.), and a minute later he was running again and enjoying the day, and I was amazed.
A few weeks later an almost identical situation. Only this time his mother was there and he looked at her to see what she felt about his reality. She was immediatly in a “O my poor darling” mode and so he cried at length, and she comforted him. And then we had a great day together. And again I was amazed.
Those situations taught me a lot. Both our responses were not pre-meditated. Neither was his. Reality was co-created, and to some extend I would say that it was true even for the experience of pain.

So this whole relativism that you are so upset about, upset enough to greatly exaggerate it's shortcomings, is quite a good description of 'facts' as they are co-created by everybody involved in realities in which people are involved.

The famous Zen question, “Does a tree falling in a wood where nobody is around make a sound?” is a good one. It points to the fact that any statement to the truth or falsehood is irrelevant. And I don't really know why you, Julian, are so insistent upon wanting a statement to the truth or falsity of existence without sentient beings around. It cannot be determinde, and even if it yould, what's the use? Reality relates, and it therefor makes sense to say that “everything is relative”. And yes, this seems to be universally applicable, and the logical contradiction - if that is one - doesn't bother me a bit.

____

So I see you in what is almost a jihad against an enemy that I hardly meet where I live - but I have been to the Bay area recently and did meet some very interesting people inclined to believe far out things, and I have been explaining that particular flavor of believing such things in that way by a basic USAmerican hysteric tendency that I feel is part of your heritage over there; not that we don't have that kind of naivité over here, and peaceniks can get pretty violent here when their worldview is not take seriously serious, but there is a really crazy reality created over there that we simply have not.

So by saying things that I find important I suddenly find myself in the midst of jihad because you see me as part of this group of your chosen enemies, or at least you feel that my views are helping them to not surrender to your far better arguments (and most of them are, as long as you guard against your tendency of putting them in harsh or denigrating words).
And in what you write to Bruce often is similar; you feel that his well written arguments for his particular rendering of post-metaphysics, which you also find brilliant (but not to the point; which is strange to me, as in a dialogue both parties can freely put in new points they deem important) are really ammunition for your enemy; and I'm sure it's not the people you deem enemy but their faulty views.

Nevertheless, so this is not misunderstood, I do enjoy the results of this dispute. And I can therefor honor your style as it has for some part brought this into being; at least, it hasn't hindered it too much ;)  And also I would say, you really call for a lot of the flak that you have complained - a little - about.

 

mushin its all about the ideas and what they mean - i have no interest in jihad, violence, beating anyone into anything etc…. sorry it comes across that way.

i understand what you are saying in yoru above comment and agree with it in the sense that you mean it.

i am not taking exception to criticism or harshness at all - i am taking exception to what seems unreasonable, ungrounded and easily misinterpretable.

what you often hear is me taking exception to integral theory becoming the smarter than average wing of the silly new age movement, and inviting influential voices like balder's to not unwittingly perpetuate that - sorry if this offends some unwritten law about appropriate discourse….i think we are doing fine with our discussion though.

but beyond taking exception to things - i am just plain interested in the ideas and what they do and dont mean and how true they are - its a personality type. wadda ya gonna do?!

yes i do feel that there are powerful and useful insights from integral theory that not only help to make sense of some perplexing issues but also can help alleviate suffering, deepen awareness and move the spiritual community in a healthier driection - am i passionate about this? you bet! am i persistent and detailed in my attempts to show where it hink this can you and does go wrong? absolutely - am i into some kind of jihadist zealotry? come onnnnnn!

have i seen the results of the pathological new age regressive perspective in my community for the last 15 years?  oh yeah!

does this frustrate me because there are genuinely effective and sane tools available and because spirituality does not have to be the domain of wingnut nonsense? mm hmm….

for me as for most voices in this discussion (including yours), spirituality is an extension of intellectual, psychological and embodied inquiry - i am passionate about that.

i am interested in truth - and i am glad you enjoy the fruits of these discussions - i do too!

 

 

“Does a tree falling in a wood where nobody is around make a sound?”

It will make a sound, the same way you don't know whether anyone is around to hear it.

 

 

To Balder

Some points:

The three strands of knowing, vigorously applied in multiple perspective-dimensions (subjective, objective, intersubjective, and interobjective), leads to the insight (if it has not already been grasped) that the world we inhabit is not simply a ‘given' one - it is an enacted one.  And further, that there is not just one ‘world' we inhabit; we regularly traverse multiple, overlapping phenomenal worlds or ‘spaces' and think nothing of it.  This is one reason why I emphasized the word, worldspace, in my opening blog.  It points to the dynamic, enacted nature of the ‘phenomenal spaces' called forth by the ‘three strands of knowing' in multiple perspective-dimensions.

The problem with this statement is that you don't identify what is knowing in any of these worlds. What is we? Also you have [ or Wilber has] mis-identified the nature of these worlds in my opinion.

I tell you no one can just abide in the soul. Or the mind, or the body. The question arises, what is abiding in what?

These “world spaces” are cultural energy interactions, that become regularized through experience, thereby creating conditioned  relative” facts” Culture is “enacted” through interactions of personalities, through first, second, and third person regularized interactions.

I am waiting for the punch line: TELL ME SOMETHING WE DON'T KNOW!

You are telling us merely how many different ways one can get wet.

The can go out in the rain

They can go out in the snow

They can get wet from a car splashing water on them

They can get pissed on

They can piss on themselvesf etc etc etc

Zak, I think you have every right to challenge Wilber (or me, or anyone), but I do not think some of the holes you are pointing out aren't necessarily there. What does this mean?

You do mean “are necessarily there” I hope

If not, then we have a real problem!

Also, what prompts you to say such a thing as “I have a right to criticize Wilber, or you?

Isn't this intersubjectively presumed?

I do commend you for your representation of AQAL.

One last question, though

Is Wilber is a sophist?

Julian, some simple points:

 I have not read all of your posts, but it occurs to me you are agreeing with Wilber's “facts” that's something I don't do, in my critique. I point out Wilber's non-facts from my perspective. I believe he creates straw men,  and straw facts to knock down. Or a better analogy is, I believe he carves up puzzle pieces to fit where he wants them to fit, and not where they actually belong. Imagine what happens to the picture of the entire puzzle?

He doesn't necessarily do this out of ignorance, or malice, but because he wants to be consistent with his “facts.” But the house of cards falls down when you examine his “facts” and see they are not real facts.

Excuse me for dealing with Wilber, rather than Balder. For my first teacher taught me this:

When you have a problem. Take it to the source.

Your perspective of dispute seems to accept his “facts.”  Maybe I am wrong here, since I didn't read everything.

I DO AGREE THAT WHAT Balder describes is very normal mid-level postmodern ideas; nothing new,  paritcularly lofty just said in an abstruse way.  Though I personally believe that AQAL has great potential, and that WIlber, and guys like Balder make great contributions to knowledge, and inspire seeking knowledge.

Wilber to me doesn't even completely understand the ramifications of his own theories!

For example, his intersubjective networks, is in-fact pointing towards pre-destination, whether he acknowledges it, or knows it or not.

 

more gushing praise from me i'm afraid… ;-)

mushin: loved the directness of your late nighter to julian
julian: loved the openness of your response to mushin

now onto bruce's …

 

Hi Bruce and Julian. The last paragraph of Bruce's most recent comment to Julian reads:

On somewhat of a side note, but relative to what you've brought up in other more recent posts, I want to suggest that, if your aim is to address and instruct Green, New Age folks, then using language that sounds pre-postmodern in its tone - that gives the impression that you are speaking from a ‘naïve representationalist' platform - will likely get in the way.  This in no way means giving up rationality or good, straightforward argumentation, but it does involve something of a shift in perspective.

On a related but side note to what Bruce says here, I want to make a general comment about the use of rhetoric, and I'll begin with a quote.

In his book Metaphysics, Peter van Inwagen, who teaches philosophy at Notre Dame, presents the following scenario: Alice, a student enrolled in a philosophy course, “has always believed that she has an immortal soul,” but, says Van Inwagen, “Alfred, her instructor, believes – as I do – that people do not have immortal souls.”

It is possible that Alfred will treat his position as an instructor in the course as a platform to make fun of the idea that there are immortal souls. When it comes to affecting student’ opinions, this is a remarkably effective procedure. But Alice should not be impressed: that someone finds an idea ridiculous is not a reason to reject it.

It is possible that Alfred will treat the thesis that there are no immortal souls as an established fact, as something that all educated people believe. This, too, is a very effective procedure for affecting students’ opinions. Again, however, Alice should not be impressed. …

It is possible that Alfred will give reasons for believing that there are no immortal souls. He will define his terms, make relevant distinctions, cite various scientific facts, and, finally, use these terms, distinctions, and facts as the basis for one or more arguments for the conclusion that there can be no immortal souls. Here, at last, is something that Alice’s intellect can go to work on.

What van Inwagen is basically saying is that persuasive rhetoric is no substitute for argument (argument as reason giving as opposed to argument as bickering). Yet persuasive rhetoric is very powerful, and for many people it is much more powerful than argument.

Whenever we hear someone substituting preaching to the choir and/or using terms of abuse, persuader words, emotive language, jargon, emphatic assertion, and hyperbole for reasons and evidence, we are hearing persuasive rhetoric. As van Inwagen indicates, it can be very effective. But it doesn't help anyone develop cognitively, it doesn't help anyone think more clearly about the issues in question, and it reinforces the habit of mind that Buddhists speak of in terms of afflictive emotion. (From a neuropsychological perspective I would say that persuasive rhetoric is all about appealing to the amygdala or emotional brain instead of the neocortical structures. I bet that we could hook a bunch of people up to brain imaging equipment as they are addressed by various speakers, and that we would see more areas of their brains lighting up when they are subjected to persuasive rhetoric than when they are asked to consider reasons and evidence in support of a speaker's views.)

Obviously, there are times when we just want to express our feelings and speak passionately about things we feel strongly about, and in order to do that we need to use emotive language. But we may do that at the risk of alienating those who don't share our views.

I appreciated your (Bruce) blog post on Raimundo Panikkar's work, and I appreciated some time back when you mentioned him at this website. I discovered him around the same time you (Bruce) did, around 4 years ago. I think that the “integral movement” (and everyone else) needs to work on moving beyond polarizing dynamics, and I think that Panikkar's ideas on interfaith dialague can help with that as can Habermas's ideas on moving toward what he calls undistorted communication. I think this can be done without sacrificing our passion, and without sliding into kneejerk “political correctness.” But it's a process that requires a lot of cooperation, time, and effort.

One of the areas I have struggled with the most around this is when I hear others resorting to speech that I consider potentially polarizing and alienating, and in reaction I attack them with the same kind of rhetoric that I won't accept from them. This is how polarizing dynamics work. It's a vicious cycle.

 

  Balder wrote:

There is no single pre-given world that exists independently of all perspectives … only worldspaces enacted by sentient beings.

Believe it or not, this idea agrees with my ellipse spiritual cosmology. In the ellipse system, this world is a world “enacted” by a huge inter-dimensional being through the invocation of the essence structure[ Garden of Eden] We are just those beings reflections that come along according to his/her imagination. http://perfectcircle.gaia.com/

I don't know whether Wilber knows what he claims to know but this statement in my view is somewhat  true.

 

Jim

I found your latest comment really helpful and profound. Loved the examples from Peter van Inwagen's book and the neuropsychological distinction between appealing to the emotional brain cf. cognitive development.

Thanks

 

Bruce

In a response to Julian you said:
This follows only if you subscribe to a physicalist perspective which sees 'interiority' (sentience, awareness, whatever we want to call it) as a product of wholly physical parts which are considered primary – if you believe, in other words, that for most the the Universe's history, there were only right-hand quadrants.  If you do not accept this, if you think it is more likely that interiority “goes all the way down,” as I do, then there is no point in the history of the Kosmos which is wholly devoid of 'interior' resonance or perspectives.  There are different ways to model this – panpsychism, Wilberian or Bohmian pan-semiotics, the time-space-knowledge vision, etc.

I am a relative novice in understanding Wilberian / Integral philosophy & terminology, but my understanding is that interiority is a product of wholly physical parts which are considered primary – and that for most of this planet's history, there were only right-hand quadrants. 

This understanding is based on what Wilber says about the development of holons - take away the organs & there are are no primates, take away the cells there are no organs, take away the molecules there are no cells, take away the atoms… etc. So yes, for me in my understanding right now, the physical is primary.

Can you let me know your thoughts more fully on any view that sees differently to this, or better still more details on your personal view on it, when you have time? What does it really  mean for interiority “to go all the way down”?

Thanks James

P.S. I'm unfamiliar with Bohmian or Wilberian pan-semiotics. In fact I can barely hang on to what those terms actually mean! ;) Can you point me in the direction of  relevant texts?

 

Bruce said:  All things are relative to each other.

Julian replied:  1st of all i think this is basically a meaningnless statement and i challenge you to tell me what it means.

I explained this in my previous post.  Do you still think it is a meaningless statement?


Bruce, is this partially along the lines of the Buddhist notion of dependant origination that you are speaking? Let me know if this is basically the notion of dependant origination, though I will put it in evolutionary terms, and whether what you are saying is different: say, before the Big Bang, there is some unified whole–then there is the Big Bang and suddenly the world of multiplicity. But things weren't entirely separated, they are still interconnected. Sort of like there is Unity and then the world of perspectives, there is Unity and the world of objects, and like all perspectives arise in relationship so do the objects. Kind of like if you imagine a married couple that has to spend some time apart, physically they will be apart, but emotionally still together, so still connected in some way. Something like that?

Best,

David

 

great conversation guys!

jim i would love to hear more on how you feel bruce and i can enact the kind of communication you are suggesting and about where the rhetorical tone/style is getting in the way.

bruce, i am enjoying your answers, thank you!

i think we may still be talking at cross purposes because our passions differ - which is fine…

that said i may be the one needlessly harping on something that you find beside the point on your blog now - but hey what are friends for!? :O)

i still  remain fairly clear in the intention of my simply put series and the usefulness of making the kinds of distinctions i am making.

i do not think those distinctions are helped by IPM as you are presenting it - i think they are  hindered. this does not mean that in the larger sense IPM as you are presenting it is not valid, interesting or that it is confusing to me intellectually. i understand the essence of what you are saying.

so i think we get into the interesting territory of how perspectives get effectively layered into each other and how theory relates to practice.

my series and actually most of my work concerns itself with a kind of buddhist/psychotherapeutic/yogic-meditative/mind-body model that looks at how very specific key experiential initiations can occur.

these initiations have to do with becoming more embodied, recognizing the psychic reservoir of repressed emotions and unconscious material that is held in the body, discovering a relationship to what the yogis call prana, the chinese call chi and the neo-reichians called orgone or bioenergy, and discovering a grounded spirituality that is about embracing and developing our minds, bodies and hearts while tending to the shadow work and exploring what becomes possible as energy is liberated, consciousness expands and the heart is less defended.

as such this kind of work is rooted in a pretty direct set of distinctions around dissociation or embodied presence, psychological denial or authenticity, defensive beliefs or spiritual honesty, and concerns itself with a philosophy that exists in direct relationship to a practice methodology.

a large part of this can be understood as what wilber used to call the centauric or existential  level of personal development. my perspective, as i think you know is that until the centauric stage has been addressed and experienced as a pretty serious transformational process - one in which the rational gaze is turned unflinchingly on the kind of metaphysics i have been talking about, a psychoanalytic type awareness has been developed in relationship to one's process and defensive forms of spiritual belief, a deconstructive analysis has been enacted on social and cultural conditioning and the function of religion as part of that matrix - that until this process has been engaged via an effective set of practices that reveal certain truths in contrast to certain untruths, what is now called second tier and what used to be merely the transpersonal stages in the old models cannot be effectively approached without pretty big PTF problems, dissociative tendencies and fun but somewhat ungrounded abstraction.

so for me:

the PTF
stages of development
the four quadrants
the three strands of science

remain core wilberian contributions to a meaningful 21st century spirituality that i think create a context for a very expansive view - precisely because they address such ubiquitous mistakes and create the possibility for clarity where there is such common confusion.

the ptf because, well, it helps one to be clear on the difference between pre and trans rational experiences, beliefs, ideas, worldviews.

stages of development because you cant have the ptf without them and they are at the heart of so many of the psychospiritual theories that are being woven together.

the four quadrants because they help (amongst many other wonderful things) in being able to see how subjects are related by first seeing how they are distinctly different - therefore properly applied they help us to identify category errors.

the the strands of science because they further clarify and relate different truth claims from each of the quadrants and put them in perspective.

my sense is that the nascent integral community - and this has been my experience all the way up into say the editor of holons newsletter, certain folks on the admin and teaching staff, other integral folks i have met out in the non-cyber world, at I-I as well as bloggers and pod posters here - still do not have a clear sense of how to apply these core pieces of theory, and in many, many cases where this clarity is missing the new age worldview with its magical thinking, unexamined metaphysics and extreme relativism sits squarely in its place.

i think this is one of the central problems that stands in the way of integral theory being more widely accepted by the intellectual and academic communites, being an effective practice methodology, addressing and transforming the community it is speaking to and differentiating itself from the largely unquestioned new age worldview that runs through it.

so having said all that my concerns remain about how IPM is applied and how healthy versions of green are integrated into integral theory by a community that is still very much caught in a lot of unhealthy green regression.

some of the ways to address this problem that you have suggested are very encouraging and i agree with you completely that soemthing like IPM should definitely not be discarded because some people will misinterpret it - but at the same time we have a big responsibility in helping to head those misinterpretations off at the pass….

for my money its a matter of the order in which these various layers of theory and practice are integrated and in a laissez faire kind of open ended communtiy like this that is almost impossible to legislate.

 

 

Julian

I've been quietly but enthusiastically following along with this thread.  I've reached my limit for dropping appreciative seeds here, and I've left more than a few on several of your blog entries.  My facility with Integral Theory matches my abilities with Spanish – I understand it better than I speak it.  

In any event, I admit to having had concern over your seeming to take Balder's view as extreme relativism, but you seem to have tempered that and clearly articulated your motivation and position.  So I really just wanted to sincerely thank you (and Balder) for your high level exchanges, and also the others who have contributed.  Great job guys!

Best,

David

 

thanks davidu - no i most certainly do not think b is expressing extreme relativism and i have been trying to collaborate in my oppositional way with having these important truths be expressed/integrated  in a way that cannot be interpreted as such….

its like the buddhist concept of the “near enemy” - the near enemy of compassion is pity for example. the near enemy of IPM is extreme relativism.

 

Bruce
Thanks very much for the references, and the wilber quote. This is all very dense and abstract for me so i'll be taking my time and doing plenty more reading in the coming….years…. decades…!

Julian
Your response to Bruce above is I think one of your clearest expositions about where you are coming from, and how you see your work fitting into a wide-ranging devleopmental context. Thanks.

 

Thanks for the kind response Balder.  I had made the post, and then saw what appeared to me to be somewhat similar things written elsewhere, so I thought it would serve the dialogue to delete it.  From your encouragement, here are the main points again.

The main thing that seems to be being debated/discussed here is differentiating between extreme relativism and IMP.  I think the critical factor as discussed by you and a few other people is discriminating wisdom that comes from being advanced to a second tier altitude.  This allows someone to make distinctions such as between healthy and unhealthy versions of a particular stage (a translation-related distinction), and to assess from what altitude a statement came from with healthy versions of higher altitudes being able to see and express more truth (a transformation-related distinction).  This doesn't contradict that every perspective comes from a worldview, but it does give the tools to “adequate” individuals to make necessary judgements and thus avoid an extreme relativistic mush.  I hope that helps add some clarity.

In terms of your style Julian, I can see where Balder and others are coming from.  Since you asked for feedback, I'll be happy to offer some, although I don't want to be seen as ganging up on you and thus would not have stated this otherwise.  Mainly, I recommend checking out Fred Kofman's “Conscious Business” particular the parts on the paradigms of the learner versus controller/knower; Fred is the best integral communicator I am aware of and I have learned a ton from that book - most of what he teaches falls under the category of easy to understand, but incredibly hard to do.  Also, although it would take some time to do this especially in this format, one approach to show that you understand another person's perspective is to restate the other person's ideas in different words and ask them for confirmation instead of stating that you understand it.  From the comments you made above, I really doubted that you understood what Balder was saying although you were stating that you were.  Even if you did understand what the other person was saying, checking in with them to restate their perspective can help them feel heard, which is very important, and can help give that person an opportunity to get at what they were really trying to say if their initial delivery was unclear.  This approach also helps avoid the current situation between you and Balder where you both seem to be talking past each other.  But, this approach does take more time and is more conducive to talking in person or on the phone.  I hope you find that helpful and would be happy to clarify any points.

All the best, Elijah

 

let me do some more specific responding when i get another moment bruce.

 

  
Here is a part from my essay, Wilber 5, and metaphysics from Integral World:, written in May 2007

This is from the section:
POST METAPHYSICS?

Wilber: from an interview by his publisher:

“
The following endnotes are taken from Integral Psychology .
 
Wilber:

They point up, once again, my belief that we need to move from a metaphysical approach (which assumes that numerous planes or levels of reality exist in a radically independent fashion from the consciousness that knows them) and move toward a much more critical approach (which investigates the structures of the subject that knows the object, or in this case, that knows the levels of reality). In the following notes, I try to make two major points: (1) we can no longer conceive planes or levels of reality as entirely pre-existing, pre-given ontological structures;”

Zak writes:

What is Wilber's point here? “Which assumes that numerous planes or levels of reality exist in a radically independent fashion from the consciousness that knows them” Sure they exist not only in the advanced mystic as a reality [something he concedes] but in all as non tapped reality, or dormant reality. So what's the big thing Wilber? Additionally metaphysical classical theory does postulate through the Hermetic maxim As above So Below, that these plains and levels indeed do have a separate existence from individual microcosms in the realm of the macrocosm. Is this what he objects to?

The states he refers to are subjective in the sense that any individual who reaches “high consciousness” or enlightenment has access to these states (while others in their lesser development stages may not have access to these states at any given time) through the essence body structure, but the structure itself is an objective reality universal to all humans, but only accessible to the restored balanced consciousness or high consciousness of one who has tapped this divine subtlety . Wilber repeats this below, but this common metaphysical understanding is traditional in metaphysics, so what point is Wilber making?

Wilber again:

“2) we can, however, continue to refer to ontologically real levels of reality, but only if they are conceived as fundamentally codependent on the consciousness that perceives and co-creates them.”

Zak again:

Does a child who has not yet arrived at puberty, and therefore not experienced its wonder, negate this reality?

Additionally the concept of co-creation is on the face of it an incorrect notion. It has no basis in reality as Wilber could understand so he has no right to say it!

Wilber's points seem to be redundant sophistry, not at all novel, or profound.

His points are accurate to some degree but nothing new and well within comprehension of traditional metaphysics. Is this what he basis post- metaphysics on?

Wilber:

This allows us to retain planes, levels, or realms of reality as separate and quasi-independent variables, but only by realizing that those levels of reality are internally related to levels of consciousness, and that if a particular human consciousness does not perceive a realm, that realm can exist only because it is a realm of consciousness held in Spirit (a Spirit that human consciousness itself can directly realize in satori or enlightenment). This dramatically shifts independent levels of reality known by a priori metaphysical speculation, to levels of consciousness known by direct experience (and hence open to continual criticism and refinement via deep science, research, and investigation)–the shift, that is, from metaphysical to post metaphysical spirituality.”

Zak

The last part of this statement is meaningless, [as well as ridiculous from the standpoint of metaphysics, since this deep science he refers to can never understand the attainments of the sage from the standpoint of science as it exists today] in fact the entire statement is sophistry. Though it is relatively accurate, although not particularly relevant to anything-, because certainly metaphysics has always referred to high states and inter-dimensional travel as the attributes of the sage, something not accessible to the ordinary human of mundane consciousness.

 

 

Remember, and don't ever forget. I am the fastest draw in the west, and the east!

Zak

The real Wyatt Earp

 

balder suffice it to say that you have suitably fleshed and rounded out what you are saying in a way that covers much of what i was asking you to do.

i dont think there is much to be gained by my repeating back to you what you have said about context, enactment, theory-laden pperspectives etc to show that i do grasp what you are saying - i do, and these ideas have always made sense to me although their application and differentiating them clearly from their “near enemy” misinterpretations has always popped up as a big red flag for me.

we may disagree at what point relativism becomes extreme.

we may be going at the same problem from different (perhaps complementary) angles, or we may just be talking about different things…

how do i think specifically that IPM may be a hindrance to the existential/centauric/rational mind-body inquiry i am most interested in and think is an important precursor to healthy transpersonal/second tier?

well i feel like i have already said so  much. did you see what i said about perhaps this having to do with the order in which perspectives are layered into each other?

i am saying that until the insights are experienced for their deeply transformational power around intellectual/critical thinking truthfulness, psychologically defensive spiritual beliefs,  a depth relationship to the unconscious and disowned shadow emotions, and an embodied, grounded spirituality - that many transrational ideas be they postmodernism, nonduality, integral methodological pluralism etc, run the risk of being interpreted in pre/trans fallacious ways.

so as such i am saying that in my simply put series the short statements accompanied by meditation instructions that i was offering are concerned with a kind of initiatory process into the experiential insights i am describing above, and the heady relativism of IPM suggests too soon that those truths are merely “perspectives”.

for me this is the danger of relativism in relationship to practice - be the question one of empiricism, hermeneutics, or ethics - if one is not already established in healthy orange and/or the existential/critical thinking/psychodynamic insights, then IPM may seem to suggest that the truths recognized at that stage are equally valuable as and equally valid to the pathology and distortions that are being transcended/healed/grown through in this important transition.

again i think that until truth and falsity, pathology and health, solid ethical, empirical and hermeneutic development has been stabilized, the expansion of perspective into the radical postmodernism of IPM can be harmful. i think that much of what was said on the simply put thread creates the impression for someone who doesn't know better (like maybe our perfectly timed MGM visitor ) that the distinctions i was making are arbitrary, not grounded in anything and that popular alternative perspectives have equal wight (instead of recognizing their errors):  like say everything happening for a cosmic reason (including children being abused or maimed in war etc..) us choosing all of our life experiences in some metaphysical sense (again including tragedy, addiction, catastrophe etc) and all truths being relative in that extreme way that is obviously nonsensical and completely un-nuanced. i was directly challenging those distortions and offering alternative ways of getting more truthful through inquiry and contemplation - and i think that the IPM challenges you offered could hinder that process.

as a related example think about how a dissociated trauma survivor who believes in angels and spirit guides is really drawn to non-dual teachings and sitting in satsang with “enlightened” teachers who explain that there is no-one suffering anyway and nothing has ever happened, and anyway its always already perfect when you drop the ego….

now these insights are good ones, but what that seeker needs is actually someone really grounded and psychologically aware to help guide them into engaging their pain, healing their trauma and becoming more grounded and integrated before they attempt the far peaks of esoteric vedanta.

this is what originally drew me to wilbers work - the notion that therapists and spiritual teachers could skillfully integrate these different tools and insights from different stages of development and apply them effectively to where each person may be stuck…

does that make sense?

you said:

“This follows only if you subscribe to a physicalist perspective which sees 'interiority' (sentience, awareness, whatever we want to call it) as a product of wholly physical parts which are considered primary – if you believe, in other words, that for most the the Universe's history, there were only right-hand quadrants.  If you do not accept this, if you think it is more likely that interiority “goes all the way down,” as I do, then there is no point in the history of the Kosmos which is wholly devoid of 'interior' resonance or perspectives.  There are different ways to model this – panpsychism, Wilberian or Bohmian pan-semiotics, the time-space-knowledge vision, etc.

In the case of the ex-istence of the Earth as an object in a particular worldspace (and as a discrete object in space), there are not many perspectives – historically – in which it has appeared as it now appears to modern humans.  But from our current perspective, yes, we can legitimately say that it was 'there' (in an unrecognized way) even before particular biological life forms appeared – as long as we recognize that the 'it' to which we refer is the-earth-as-we-see-it, a relative perspective which is being retro-read into the past.  Whatever 'the Earth' is in its totality (the imagined composite of the infinite perspectives that can be taken on it), it has 'intrinsic features' which will 'stand forth' in a similar way, that will be enacted, whenever beings like us take a perspective on it.”

again i think this is fun stuff but for me it is sort of the frothy edge of integral theory and i dont find it particularly necessary or useful - there are a lot of leaps and counterintuitive assumptions there that i think are very hard to prove.

one of my criticisms of integral theory is this grandiose need to be a literal grand theory of everything that has to take positions like this that look kind of ludicrous outside of the turquoise club.

 

Thank you, Bruce. I will ponder that. I am a little too sleepless at the moment to ponder it very deeply.

I love the subtleties of this stuff; I'm glad we're having this discussion, or rather, Bruce is sharing with us. :)  Of course, some of it is just for integral mavens, but there's probably a way to translate it into something workable for people. It seems to me if we just understand that it's turtles (holons) all the way up, turtles all the way down, we see there's no arriving at an ultimate relative truth, and yet each new, emerging truth in either direction will have a finer point than the one before.

I especially like the last bit about intrinsic features standing forth in a similar way.
 
I'm reminded of the way people who speak different languages, and even those who speak the same language, will describe and write the barking of a dog, even the barking of the same dog, in different ways. Some say “bark”; some say “ruff”; some say “arf” etc.

 

cool bruce i think this is shaking out nicely and we are understanding eachother well.

excellent sparring with you.

listen if there is some area of IPM or anything else related you still think i am misunderstanding or failing to grasp - please feel free to school me - i would be happy to consider the specifics.

also i think the absence of critical thinking skills and attending to shadow work is much more the rule than the exception…ESPECIALLY in the spiritual community.

 

ahhh you are right we have gotten to a great place and i appreciate both your honest frustrated response and your truly beautiful follow up. i feel very heard an acknowledged in this last response and am relieved to find our substantial common ground.

i hear your frustration b - i didnt mean that as barbed, but it was dismissive. sorry man!

 i did say  a lot in those last few lines though and mostly directed it at integral theory trying to complete a grandiose project, not at you.

you are right about my self-educated inadequacies and in fact i have openly said to you that i lack some of that background and have invited (pretty open endedly) in that last post that you school me on what you think i am missing…..

i am not that drawn to the various sophisticated integral arguments from design, primacy of consciousness,  holons all the way down type of speculative theorizing - precisely because i think it aligns itself with a set of metaphysics that i find mind-bendingly fun but problematic and unnecessary.

for me this is part of the orthodox “belief system” component of “integralism” and being a “wilberite” that makes me quite uncomfortable. frankly i think this may be one of integral achilles heels and may come from the same place that endorsing adi da and andrew cohen came from - that boomer fascination with ultimate truths in the form of enlightened gurus, exotic philosophies or grand theories of god the universe consciousness and everything else that matters… i think this sets a dangerous precedent that many are following.

and for the record i do not try to present myself as straight up integral (whatever that means in the ever evolving set of theories and marketing campaigns) but reference my other influences pretty constantly, whether its sam harris or stan grof or jack kornfield, all of whom wilber has differences of opinion with…. so all o' y'all raise your collective eyebrows no more - the longer i stick around the more i realize i am someone who loves a lot of wilber's work (and has a lot of ideas about how to interpret and apply it)  but am not aligned with the thinking  of the majority of people who self-identify as “integral.”

vive la conversation! debate is essential..

that said  agree with the man that most of the criticism out there is very poor and that he done a marvelous job creating a framework that the rest of us can keep expanding upon, testing out and evolving over time.

i am inspired, captivated by, poetic about eros and the wonder of the evolutionary process (i think jim actually stated this very well in his comments on he previous thread) but do not feel compelled to make some of the leaps necessary to go along with what i quoted back to you…leaps that entail the interiority of say black holes or supernovas or the planet before organisms emerged. leaps that i think are about trying to make reality conform to theory rather than the other way around.

now the fact that i dont find that interesting doesnt mean i dont salute those who do and await the evidence they will bring back from those exotic travels. its different (because of my sometimes ill-advised and unstrategic disdain) but related to - the subject of past lives, psi etc…. i am not interested in that journey but wholeheartedly believe that people who are should dive deep into it and bring their findings to the world because the implications would be outrageous if any of it turned out to be provable and mappable in undeniable ways…

lastly let me just say i think that part of the problem here is the embarrassment of riches that is kens work - he covers so much and draws on so much that its easy for 10 different people to have ten different pictures of what integral theory says based on ten different temperaments and backgrounds…..


i am so sorry that my personality, passion and tone of argument consistently gives the impression that i believe that only my background and picture have any value - i will keep working on this!

thanks for the always amazing discussion.


peace

 

Julian, in light of your last comment to Bruce I can say that the only criticism I have of your rhetoric is that you sometimes come across as dismissive of views you disagree with (as you acknowledge in your comment to Bruce regarding a particular instance). That's not wrong or bad, but I have a pragmatic reason for preferring a different approach: I don't want people to be dismissive of views that I have that they don't agree with. If I say that I believe that x is true and someone responds by saying, “The belief that x is true is orange” or “Sure, a lot of people believe that x is true, and they're all flatland materialists,” the conversation is over before it has a chance to begin. And if I respond to someone who says they believe that y is true by saying something like, “People who need to believe that y is true are avoiding facing the raw naked howing existential truth” or “The belief that y is true is a magical-mythical pre-rational New Age view,” I can hardly expect them to listen to me any further.

 

got it.

in your excellent communicating how do you get around that tendency jim?

 

“Cant we all just get along?”

Rodney King, after he got his head cracked

Who knows what he said before he got beat up by a bunch of cops.

I guessed he learned something


Speaking to people according to their understanding [or in this milieu] their stage level, helps.

And if you cant deduce anothers  level, be careful.

Or

Amongst snakes, be a snake, if you know how to hisp.

All discourses like this peter out, eventually. What we should understand is that they are only a preliminary thing. A ground of inspiration, and understanding, to search further for balance, truth, and knowledge.

The real paradigm of the age is not post-modernism, or integralism, but people at the leading edge of knowledge seeking a closer relationship with capacities to change.

This is the essence of the merging of science with spirituality.

In this environment, two things will happen:

One: there will those claiming to have produced an easier methodology to change, therefore fulfilling the epoch's paradigm.

Two: there will be those refuting these claims.

The important thing is for the claimers to  produce genuine change in themselves before claiming their postulates work. If they cannot do this they should remain in the realm of the philosopher theorists and wait for one who utilizes the theory to transmute something in themselves.  To do otherwise is like a man given medicine by a doctor, and rather than taking the medicine, debates with others that the medicine works..

This is difficult in metaphysics, philosophy and psychology because any and most methodologies from these fields of knowledge take a long time to affect change, therefore instant gratification is usually out of the question.

This mild debate [the debaters should be praised for their decorum and civil discourse] is reflecting the two above phenomena.

Remember this:

The worker is hidden in the workshop

The workshop is life. The work is self-observation, the worker is all of us, and the goal is change-the first step back to the divine.

So lets all go to work!

 

Yee Ha, another Wyatt Herb…go Zak……
And yes, i've been following every word of this discussion….great stuff!
I'm going to offer my observation on Julian's style(for what it's worth). 
Bro J. sometimes it seems like you want to annihilate the whole bloody spiral!lol Well, at least those you perceive to be at more junior levels of development. Furthermore, sometimes you do come across as the Evangelist of Integral theory and practice. Perhaps the things we most dislike in others is a blind-spot in ourselves? Having said all that, you do have an unlikely ally here as i agree with so much of what you say even if your tone does sometimes  come across as Falwell like!lolGod luv ya buddy……….

 

thanks…. i think, andrew.

 

Hi Julian. You say, “in your excellent communicating how do you get around that tendency [to be dismissive of views I disagree with] jim?”

Thanks, but I don't feel like my communication excels. I've said and written a lot of things that I regret. For decades loved ones told me that I tend to be hypercritical and negative about a lot of things and I tried every which way to resist and deny that feedback, and sometimes I would try to rationalize it. Now (finally) it's just something I try to be aware of.

I often have to take time to cool down before I post something to the web. I often have to edit my writing to delete stuff that is phrased in a way that I would consider dismissive if it were directed to me. This depends on my goal, of course. If my goal is just to vent, then I may not care if some readers feel put off by my tone. But if my goal is to help create a space for mutual exchange, then I try to consider how someone on the other end might feel when reading what I write.

 

Balder,
You said above: “I may blog about this further.  It seems like a good subject to discuss… ie. to responsibly explore different models and postulate which one seems strongest, based on the current knowledge to date and a critical awareness of alternative models.

Go for it Brother!  I offer seeds  :-D

 

Hi Bruce. It does seem like a good subject to discuss. I can't wait!

I want to say something about the term “metaphysics.” There are courses in metaphysics offered by many institutions of higher learning, including Oxford, Stanford, MIT, Harvard, and Notre Dame. Here is a description of an introductory course in metaphysics currently on offer at Oxford:

Introduction: what is metaphysics? An introduction to the distinctive character of metaphysical questions: the history of the idea of metaphysics, understood as the most general and abstract inquiry into the nature of reality.

Existence: what is existence? What is it to exist? People disagree about what exists; but how can we understand this disagreement? Are there things which do not exist?

Universals and particulars: in addition to particular objects and events, our world seems to contain general or universal features of things, like their colours and their shapes. Is this an illusion or does the world really contain such features, known as ‘universals’?

Realism and idealism: does the world exist independently of our minds? Realism is the view that it does; idealism is the view that reality is mind-dependent. Are any features of the world mind-dependent?

The freedom of the will: we think our actions and decisions are free, or up to us, but this idea seems to be in conflict with the apparent fact that everything which happens is determined by what happens before it (this is known as ‘determinism’). Does determinism imply that free will is an illusion, or are free will and determinism really compatible after all?

Cause and effect: what is it for one thing to cause another, or to make something happen? Is there more to cause and effect than the mere regularity of things happening after one another? If so, is causation a physical process, or is mental causation also possible?

The nature of time and space: what are time and space? Is there no more to them than the temporal and spatial relations which hold between events and objects? Or should they rather be conceived as the ‘containers’ in which things exist and events occur? Are the past, present and future genuine aspects of reality, or are they merely ‘subjective’ features of our experience of time?

The textbook for the Oxford course is Metaphysics: A Guide and Anthology by Tim Crane and Katalin Farkas. In their introduction, they write:

The question of what metaphysics is is as hard to answer as the question of what science is, or of what art is; and we will not attempt to answer it here. If we were forced to provide an answer to the question 'what is metaphysics?', the best we could do is paraphrase a famous remark of Wilfrid Sellars: it is an attempt to understand how things, in the most general sense of that word, hang together, in the most general sense of that word.

Wilfrid Sellars is of course the person who coined the term “Myth of the Given” which Wilber has gotten so much mileage out of.

I mention all this because I have noted a tendency among some Wilber readers to use the terms “metaphysics” and “metaphysical” as if these terms refer to something that some people (such as people who consider themselves to be “second-tier” or “third-tier”) are beyond. I have heard Wilber readers say things like, “That's metaphysical” in reference to someone else's position on a given issue, as if saying “That's metaphysical” is a value judgment.

I don't get how you are using the term “metaphysics” in your above comment. I am familiar with Wilber's use of the term, and I consider his use of the term idiosyncratic, to say the least. His work is rife with statements that contemporary analytical philosophers would consider metaphysical, without that implying any value judgment. David Chalmer's views on consciousness, which Wilber is on record as being quite sympathetic with, are metaphysical, as are the views of Christian de Quincey, David Ray Griffin, Jaegwon Kim, John Searle, and everyone else who writes about the subject. When Wilber says that interiors go all the way down, he is making a statement that contemporary analytical philosophers would recognize as a metaphysical position. I realize that Wilber borrows the term “post-metaphysics” from Habermas, but simply saying that one's views are “post-metaphysical” doesn't make it so.

I'll end with a quote from philosopher John Heil's book From An Ontological Point of View (ontology being a branch of metaphysics just as philosophy of mind is a branch of metaphysics):

The twentieth-century was not kind to metaphysics. In the English-speaking world, metaphysics was deflated by neo-Kantians, logical positivists, logical empiricists, as well as by philosophers who regarded the study of ordinary language as a fitting replacement for traditional philosophical pursuits. Elsewhere, philosophers promoting phenomenology, hermeneutics, and existentialist and deconstructionist creeds showed themselves equally disdainful of tradition. Metaphysical talk was replaced by talk about metaphysical talk…

Attempts to keep philosophy aloof from metaphysics are largely self-defeating. Whether we approve or not, the world has an ontology.

 

Thanks for your response, Bruce, it's very clarifying and I agree (as do many contemporary philosophers) that when we make general statements about the nature of existence (metaphysical statements) we do well to hold our pronouncements in a provisional way.

At some point I will post something(s) related to philosophy of mind (and the hard problem of consciousness and mind-body problem, etc.) to my blog here, and I will let you know when I do.

Best wishes to you as well,

Jim

 

 

Jim brings up a good point:

I think this will eventually just add to confusion about what metaphysics is.

In addition, a pejorative feeling towards it by Integralists.

It may be that Wilber began to feel aversion towards  metaphysics at one point in his seeking, and I PM is an unconscious expression of this.

Balder wrote:

The prevailing materialist/physicalist paradigms should not be taken simply as given or inevitable.  There are very real problems - very real “leaps” that are required - if you start from a position which considers matter as primary and interiority or consciousness as derivative, as a product of wholly insentient, “interiorless” processes.  The hard problem is called a hard problem for a reason:  there is nothing “in” the base physical universe, as we have defined it, that should logically or causally lead to the emergence of anything like interiority, consciousness, experience, etc, no matter how complex the configuration of matter.  Complex organizational configurations of matter could logically lead to emergent orders of insentient information (like computer coding), perhaps, but there is no logical reason insentient, wholly objective “bits” should ever “add up” to interiority or experience or feeling.  It takes just the sort of leap that you accused me of making - and just the sort of “making reality conform to theory” maneuvering as well.

This hard problem I think will be hard to solve as long as these philosophers are devoid of the rudiments of metaphysical theory.

For example. A basic error of Wilber,  and these others you mention is that they don't understand the difference between a level, and a dimension.

Wilber's Quadrants are not multi-dimensional; they are multi-level– literally, or technically. They are not multidimensional.

A world doesn't have different dimensions it has different levels. These levels are somewhat dimensional, but only in an UR sense.

The greater reality of all worlds, something that is difficult to quantify, is multi-dimensional. In these different dimensions, people CANT see each other. If I am in dimension 1, and you in dimension 2, then we cant see each other, UNLESS, we both get to an outer dimensional world together-UR. But even then are UL state will be unique to each other.

This is the reason metaphysicians don't even bother to refute Wilber, because his ideas are  so  out of focus[ though they do have potential, once and if Wilber ever perfects his understanding of them] regarding IPM. This is so, because of the above.

Mystics CANT communicate their monological state to people in this world who don't have the same capacity as them or access to the same inner dimensions.

It just can't be done. They are in a different dimension inwardly.

 

Interesting last comments, Zakariyya. Your response to Wilber's levels is similar to my own since my study of Rudolf Steiner–one of those metaphysicians that Wilber writes off–has deepened. My sense is that Wilber's “level outlook” is rather one-dimensional, that it is based in a kind of cognitive crystallization: an extension of the rational into, or subsuming of (“transcending and including”), the transrational.

There is a problem when we insist that the transrational must be based in the rational: the transrational ends up getting subtly subverted by the rational. This is what Steiner would call Ahrimanic consciousness, or what Gene Roddenberry fictionalized as the Borg in Star Trek. In some ways I see “Integral Post-Metaphysics” as this sort of maneuver in that it reduces the great metaphysical traditions to a kind of cardboard cut-out version, then burns it as an effigy to the great god Materialism. My growing sense is that Wilber has done this with the wisdom traditions of humanity and subtly transmuted them into a kind of materialistic religion, where even transpersonal consciousness can be measured on an EEG machine.

Maybe I'm being a bit extreme, but there is a lot at stake, no?

 

Hi Balder,
Just to clarify, when I use the term “post-metaphysics” I am specifically talking about Wilber's usage of it, as I believe it is a term that he used first (yes?). But I will read over what you have written–I've only just begun to tackle this monster thread through skimming–and get back to you on that.

Regards, J

 

 

To Johny Bardo:

I think your post was great. You framed the issues precisely, not at all extreme.

To Balder:

Your last post to Jim was written brilliantly. You are an exceptional writer. I wonder why Wilber doesn't put you in the top level of II[ probably because you are too independent minded] at least as a writer.

Anyway

You wrote

I appreciated the encouragement you offered in your last post, and agree that neither postmodernism nor postmetaphysics is the be-all, end-all.  Most certainly not.  For me, postmetaphysics is a useful and important “lens,” in a number of ways, but it does not circumscribe or limit love of knowledge in all its dimensions.  However, with regard to your last post, when you mention “metaphysical theory” (and Wilber not understanding it), I feel you may be thinking of something quite different by “metaphysics” than Wilber is.  Because a number of your criticisms do not seem to directly address what I understand Wilber's position to be.  Also, when you say that Wilber doesn't understand stations (in relation to states and stages), how do you think his notion of permanent state-stages compares to stations?   

Explain  that to me I have my own ideas on this that may agree with his. In fact I use the term, station state on occasion.  

I think though, that generally he is mis-applying his insights concerning certain levels of metaphysics. The only way to frame this critique in my opinion, is expressing it in terms of him having a deficient understanding of it. This is beyond disagreeing on something, in that Wilber's PM, does devalue metaphysics, whether he, or you, want to acknowledge that or not. Particularly his view on enlightenment I find problematic.

Metaphysics is the source of all religion, exoteric, and esoteric. Therefore it is a broad field. I think Wilber doesn't understand completely advanced esoteric metaphysics. That would be a more precise way of putting this.

I base this on Wilber's view of enlightenment, and his, what I view as an error, putting stations- he merely classifies as a continuum of stages, with stations.

I regard this as not just a disagreement, because correct view of these issues is fundamental to advanced metaphysics, therefore anyone with a skewed notion of this, in my view, is a symptom of misunderstanding metaphysical theory.

I dont completely diragree with WIlbers insights, in fact I thing many are brilliant. For example on the issue of Intersubjectivity  I think this is a great contribution to knowledge.

I also agree that perspectivism is a correct insight but think the way he applies it to metaphysics is incorrect.

.

If you have things that contradict his recently written ideas, I would be glad to see them. I have seen Wilber say in other places[ WIE for instance] things that to me contradict some of his ideas in IS.

 

Ouch!  I just had a wicked brain-cramp after reading through all this stuff!

“Simply put” my ass!

Thanks Julian for inviting me to join the conversation – an excellent one, if somewhat convoluted.  Julian, you seem to have a real knack for getting spirited dialogues going, and I'm just blown away by the skill and quality of dialogue from the likes of Balder, Jim and Mushin.  

It's daunting, at this point, to attempt to add to the discussion, as it's difficult to determine what the discussion is essentially about.  The original posts seem to be attempts to articulate the essential aspects of a 21st Century Integral Spirituality.  I've been banging my head against that wall for years.  Without consensus as to what “Integral” or “spiritual” means, dialogues of this sort are doomed to frustration.  Of course, as you've all continued to push the conversation deeper, you've been forced to clarify these assumptions more and more. 

In Wilberian language, it seems Julian's position can be summed up thusly:  

“until the centauric stage has been addressed and experienced as a pretty serious transformational process (…), what is now called second tier and what used to be merely the transpersonal stages in the old models cannot be effectively approached”

And I pretty much agree, as I expressed when we all got together for the Integrative Spirituality/Grounded Perspectives thing.  As a practical minded guy, both in my personal and professional endeavors, I am only interested in the practical/experiential dimensions of Integral Theory, namely ITP or ILP.  Everyone here seems to agree that some version of ITP is a good thing, and perhaps we feel that if this idea could gain acceptance in the mainstream, the world would be a better place.  And here's where it becomes important how we package a so-called “Integral Approach,” and what language we choose to use when describing it.  

In my opinion, the baton was dropped somewhere in the field of Transpersonal Psychology.  Guys like Maslow set us up perfectly to bring the study of spiritual experience into the mainstream of academic psychology.  The first great move was in creating the term “transpersonal” as a replacement for the loaded and useless “spiritual.”  The crucial mistake was catering to the New Age, which led to endless confusion and dilution, and to the departure of the field's strongest voice, Mr. Wilber.  

I mention all this, because I think it's worth going back and picking up that baton.  A re-articulation of Transpersonal Psychology would answer the call, I think, of a 21st Century approach the “Spirituality.”  Guys like Sam Harris and Ken Wilber would have common ground upon which to dialogue, as the language of psychology is understood by scientists, and most lay folk too.  The language of Integral, however, is all about “Spirit.”  That's the whole foundation.  And it's the language of “Spirit,” I think, that kills all chance of an effective understanding of the transpersonal dimension of human experience.

Whatever “metaphysics” is, all this Integral Theory certainly SOUNDS LIKE metaphysics, and thus will be tuned out by most people, people who are SIMPLY looking for effective ways to deal with daily life.  If there is such a thing as second-tier or integral, the important thing is to BE it.  And BEING it certainly has nothing to do with metaphysics.  

I would love to see Wilber and others of us who fancy ourselves integral or second tier to address, respond to, and write about real issues facing us in our daily lives, and to do so without using the language of AQAL jargon or of spirituality [I try to do this on my blog].  If an “Integral Spirituality” can not be expressed in common sense terms, then perhaps we need to back up and find out what we CAN express in common sense terms, and go from there.

Now I'm just babbling.  OOOh, I feel another cramp coming on… 

 

Kelamuni comments on Balder's post on Integral Post Metaphysics here.

 

OK Balder, I gave a deeper reading (twice, actually) of your initial post and find nothing substantial to disagree with. Actually, I like how you frame integral post-metaphysics as not being anti-metaphysical, but rather re-situates metaphysics without the need of “the given.” But, at least as far as your initial post goes, you don't seem to deny the possibility of pre-existing realms or “worldspaces.” Something to ponder is the question of whether any non-human beings exist, have existed before humans, and what sort of worldspaces they enacted. Perhaps we exist within such a worldspace? This is purely speculative, of course, but may provide an alternate interpretation of gods and angels and such.

 

 

This is not necessarily a response to the last post

Integral Spirituality is a good thing, but I believe it is misapplied in this new age scenario. This is not the place to go into this, because it is too complex,[ I plan a major essay on this soon] and nuanced, but I will only say here, that the path of the spirit is already laid out before us. Anything new in spirituality can only improve humans experience in the LL and LR quadrants; that is our social and moral interactions. We do not need anything NEW in the LL -exoteric theory, and or esoteric fundamental theory, anything novel should be aligned with the traditional understandings, not against it, as Wilber is subtly doing.

My spiritual cosmology-the Ellipse theory– is totally aligned with traditional metaphysics and only goes a layer deeper, and enhances it. Wilber on the other hand in my opinion confuses the situation with AQAL-IMP.

 I am a voice crying in the wilderness because few confront Wilberism from a metaphysical standpoint. [Mr. Alan Kavel, is another] This is so because of the commercialism in metaphysics, and the fact that we are in the bronze age of spirituality.

Wilber also rarely confronts critique from this perspective, because he knows he is on thin ice. He concerns himself with the criticism from the perspective of the scientific mystics in the Integral movement. This should tell us much about Wilbesr agenda.

Integral Spirituality real strength is in its idea of uniting people behind the fact that all religion is generally the same, just different in nomenclature. This idea should reach humanity concerning race, and politics eventually. To attempt to start all over with metaphysics and create another cult is the way this movement is going. In this case, it is failing to become a nutrient to society and just turning into another detached movement, unfortunately, with elitist tendencies. Wilber is not the only one guilty here, I see many in the Integral milieu going the way of separation rather than integration. All this may be unavoidable because of the fallen nature of man, but a degree of faith is to speak out against unfortunate turns in the panorama of human consciousness.

More on this later

 

Balder,
Thanks for entertaining my somewhat off-topic ramblings.
I have not heard of Elias Capriles, but I'll check him out.  I'm relieved to hear that you are teaching a course in Transpersonal Psychology and that you've been thinking about how to revision the field.  Now I can kick back and let you handle the situation! 
I've been reading articles posted on John Davis' site .  Have you read Harris Friedman's Toward Developing Psychology as a Scientific Field?  Interesting stuff.
Good counter-points about language and common sense.  I agree.

 

PART ONE:

hey blogging brothers in the cyberspace logos! great to see the conversation raging on!

thanks jim for the quotes from the oxford metaphysics course above. i find that what i was doing in simply put was challenging commonly held spiritual positions on exactly those questions.

i was doing so  on the grounds that certain commonly held spiritual positions on those questions  where understandable as defensive rationalizations against a painful yet honest, mature, liberating and healing contact with reality.

by reality i meant the universal non-subjective features of human life - the reality of death, old age and sickness (after the buddha), the reality of victimization, unfairness, poverty etc..

what i was doing was providing a series of statements that were food for contemplative awareness intended to awaken the heart and clarify awareness as to the human condition.

i was pointing out that adopting consoling metaphysical ideas about why reality is the way it is, or that suggest that reality may perhaps (against all evidence) be something else - is demonstrably a kind of psychological defense mechanism that should not properly be understood as “spiritual” in the sense that spirituality is (at least in part) concerned with what is true - and because what is true helps us to then discern what might be beautiful  and what might be good.

psychological defense mechanisms are understood specifically with regard to how we relate to reality - and i dont think this is in any way negated by IPM or any other philosophical or spiritual set of ideas if they are grounded and honest.  any disagreements?

i was doing this because i think that this sort of inquiring activity related to this very specific and commonly indicated kind of metaphysics (as defined by the passages jim quoted) is one powerful way to begin the initiation into the centauric/existential/rational spiritual awareness that is a precursor to the mystic transrational transpersonal or genuine second tier stages.

i was suggesting that this is an initiation that very few have been through because it requires the three key elements that i am always mentioning (inquiry based practice, shadow work and strong critical thinking) that are in somewhat short supply in the spiritual community at large.

the thing you all found me reacting to was what i frequently feel is the attempt to suggest that from a turquoise or second tier or in this case integral postmetaphysical perspective - these kinds of rational existential truths are relativised and in some cases negated, transcended or seen to actually be partially false. i dont think this is in any way the case. any disagreement?

this goes back to the old argument that began the end of my interest in the zaadz I-I pod about the pre/trans fallacy in which it is generally thought (in a way that i find massively confused) that transrationality revokes rather than adds to rational consciousness. this is incorrect. any disagreement?

so (in the current dialog)  i then went into a set of examples to create some solid ground from which to start the conversation - examples that have to do with death, gravity, molecular structure, etc… all of which created the impression that i did not understand what integral postmetaphysics is. but i do understand - IPM has to do with the radical realization that we can never be free of contexts and perspectives, with one possible conclusion being that nothing can ever be objectively said about reality. (for example my statements about say the reality of suffering, old age, death and chaos.) for me this is an extreme reading that results in various nonsensical positions, where a more nuanced reading would be more useful.

however, what i have been concerned with in my response is really two things:

1) to try and agree on some acceptable limitations on this relativism so it is not extreme. (hence my basic examples)

2) to try and differentiate what i will perhaps call ordinary metaphysics (the table is solid, men are not immortal) from spiritual metaphysics (children who died in the battle of fallujah chose that destiny.)


PART TWO:

the unspoken impression i was reacting to (which i dont think is bruce's position, but which i think is the position of many wilberites and one that he may be unwittingly supporting) i will now phrase as a question to bruce:

were you a) saying that integral postmetaphysics trumps the kind of rational existential position i was taking in relationship to defensive spiritual metaphysics and are you therefore saying b) that the metaphysical assertions i was debunking are rendered possibly true by IPM?

that is the impression that is created for me and that is what i think the majority of integral folks i have talked to over the past 18 months kind of hope is true - that turquoise consciousness or IPM  , or IMP or non-duality - something, anything, some brave new sophisticated set of ideas somehow turns the rational worldview on its head and resuscitates the dead body of magic and mythic reality - but with a cool sounding integral postmodern language..

i have honestly found this to be the case since i started bringing up the pre/trans fallacy 18 months ago and even back then bruce it felt like you were countering pre/trans analysis with IPM and MOG - as the threads progressed, right?

i understand and respect your passion for these pieces of theory and i get that they are part of a long standing inquiry process of your own - i think what i have needed in order to be able to hear what you are saying is some differentiating - yet when i try to ask for that it comes across as me conflating the issues.

i am not - i am asking you to differentiate them.

so my challenge to you my learned and respected brother (or anyone else up to the theoretical task) is this:

write a piece that includes both IPM and pre/trans fallacy ideas and situates them in a developmental context that is comfortable defining truth, falsity and pathology.

that will be an amazing achievement and give us a great opportunity for discussion!

 

 

Just two of your points I wish to deal with:

You wrote:

the thing you all found me reacting to was what i frequently feel is the attempt to suggest that from a turquoise or second tier or in this case integral postmetaphysical perspective - these kinds of rational existential truths are relativised and in some cases negated, transcended or seen to actually be partially false. i dont think this is in any way the case. any disagreement?

this goes back to the old argument that began the end of my interest in the zaadz I-I pod about the pre/trans fallacy in which it is generally thought (in a way that i find massively confused) that transrationality revokes rather than adds to rational consciousness. this is incorrect. any disagreement?

Zak writes:
No, I agree that II ZAADZ IS WRONG
:Rationality is a personal thing, [or sanity,] certainly an important aspect of any spiritual quest. It is what the exoteric aspect of any spiritual system aims at. But in the case of the esoteric the mystical aphorism ” be in the world but not of it” comes into play.

To be in tune with the ” rational” world is not always rational!

Julian:
was doing this because i think that this sort of inquiring activity related to this very specific and commonly indicated kind of metaphysics (as defined by the passages jim quoted) is one powerful way to begin the initiation into the centauric/existential/rational spiritual awareness that is a precursor to the mystic transrational transpersonal or genuine second tier stages.

Zak
The only thing wrong with this is that it is not true. “into the centauric/existential/rational spiritual awareness” is not always the precursor to “transpersonal awareness” that's one thing wrong with Wilber's theories.

It is a step in the right direction, but only in a mechanical sense, only a general directional sense. It may bring one to the water, but if they cant see it, or know how to drink, they cant drink it.

Stations of consciousness work on another level outside of our “rational” existence.

Most people who have been enlightened say this, this is not from me.

The aphorism that supports this says:

One cant catch the gazelle by running after it, but the only way to catch it is to run after it”

Julian:
so (in the current dialog)  i then went into a set of examples to create some solid ground from which to start the conversation - examples that have to do with death, gravity, molecular structure, etc… all of which created the impression that i did not understand what integral postmetaphysics is. but i do understand - IPM has to do with the radical realization that we can never be free of contexts and perspectives, with one possible conclusion being that nothing can ever be objectively said about reality. (for example my statements about say the reality of suffering, old age, death and chaos.) for me this is an extreme reading that results in various nonsensical positions, where a more nuanced reading would be more useful.

Zak:

This notion by the Wilberians is easily refuted, ”

Julian
“IPM has to do with the radical realization that we can never be free of contexts and perspectives, with one possible conclusion being that nothing can ever be objectively said about realit”y

Zak
Just ask Wilber. What is inside his  perspectives, and contexts That can never be free of them?

The postulate out of GENUINE metaphysics is that advanced awareness is way outside of these perspectives! It has to be, in order to see the perspectives.

Wilber's notion that perspectives override perception is reversely true

Perception overrides everything, including perspectives. 

That which is confined in Wilber's ” perspectives” is indeed relative, but awareness transcends it, and correct awareness transcends it even more.

Even Wilber's incorrect awareness transcends his perspectives, it is only that his incorrect awareness is so incorect, he cant see this?

 

Julian, first of all, thanks for engaging with this stuff because it helps everyone get clearer on these things.

  

by reality i meant the universal non-subjective features of human life - the reality of death, old age and sickness (after the buddha), the reality of victimization, unfairness, poverty etc..

Some of these I can't really argue with, but to say absolutely, conclusively that nothing survives the death of the body is not scientific, in my opinion. This view simply ignores a lot of data that is suggestive of some “life” after “death.” What we do find as we go up the spiral is that people gain more and more “construct awareness”–they become aware of the body (they realize they're not the body); they become aware of the ego (they realize they're not the ego); they became aware of the subtle body (they realize they're not the subtle body). It looks more and more possible, as one goes up, that something does continue after “death” because they're increasingly disidentifying with that which dies. And of course, in addition to that, there is the suggestive data of OBE, NDE, etc. Good reasons to at least be open to the possibility that something survives “death.”


“this goes back to the old argument that began the end of my interest in the zaadz I-I pod about the pre/trans fallacy in which it is generally thought (in a way that i find massively confused) that transrationality revokes rather than adds to rational consciousness. this is incorrect. any disagreement?”

I basically agree with you there, but we have to remember that with each new stage the old stages will be put into a new perspective and not every thing about them will survive. Certain parts of the stage that has just been transcended will be marginalized or even negated. For example, a lot of the good values of Amber–such as loyatly, fidelity, telling the truth–survive into Orange, but of course the myth does not. But because the myth is entirely negated and relegated to the land of story books, it does not necessarily follow that the personal will is Lord of the land. There is also a subtle will, a causal will, a nondual will, all of which Orange rationality is not familiar with. To call the nondual will “God” is confusing because it's the same word that Amber uses for the mythic God, but it does not mean that these people have necessarily resurrected magic or mythic thinking. It may look Amber or magic on the surface, but it may be Turquoise or even higher below the surface.

David

 

david!!!!  :O) where in the above comments have i said that nothing survives after death? where in the simply put series did i say nothing survives after death?

i enjoy your mind, find your comments coherent, thoughtful and interesting, enjoy your impeccable personality my friend.

we just have a couple points of difference on what we think it is reasonable to believe.

you are right. i think it is more than likely that nothing survives after death. i think it is an extraordinary claim that anything survives death and that claim requires extraordinary evidence. i have yet to see that evidence but when it arrives i will be fascinated and it will change everything about life as we know it - everything!

but i have said that to you plenty of times now and i think we have a real difference in how we interpret the notion of “the burden of proof.”

however i have not been actively arguing for the position that nothing survives after death as i think that is a waste of time.

i have not said that nothing survives after death -  i have said though that we have a huge fear of death as we know it and that we use a lot of contructed metaphysics that try to soothe that fear - and that instead facing that fear is perhaps a more spiritually authentic and grounded thing to do.

there may well be life after death - there may well be reincarnation and a spirit world and ghosts and demons and angels and a heaven etc…. but as yet we have no reason to reasonably believe the elaborate metaphysical cosmology that assumes all of these as given and mostly functions as  a psychological defense against the fear of death.

going through the existential rational initiation in whcih one surrenders those kinds of beliefs is i think extremely liberating and invigorating - if on the pother side of that it turns out that there is actually life after death - great!

 

Of course there is life after death; we're here and alife, aren't we?

Yes, something of us, you and me and others, further exists after passing through the transition from coherent :) functioning to non-functioning as an entity in meat-space (because there is lots of critters that live on in our bodies); so if there is anything that goes on it must be not part of, or really in the body in the first place: It brings up all the difficulties of a soul independent of the body (or spirit, independent of the body).

So then how does 'it' (soul, spirit) stick to the body, for stick it must? (The famed 'silver cord' is just replacing the question, because then: how and where does that stick to the body?) How is it able to influence the actions of the body? And most of all, how does i restrict itself to the bandwidth of the body's senses and their peculiarities?

I think the ideas of “survival after death” really come from a time where we believed in “things” and “objects”, and that we know anything about what “I” is - taking it as a thing and not a continual process - and all of that.
To even begin toi answer the question of reincarnation (becoming flesh again) we need to answer the questions that are raised by incarnation (becoming flesh) and the spirit/body dualism it poses.

Regarding the memories of 'past lives' - when I read my diaries from my youth (35 years ago), I know it must be me and I do have some mental images that come up when reading, and I do identify with them saying, “This was me”, but really feel that? I don't. This is in many ways a strange youth…
I have had memories of a past life, or so it felt when I had them. This doesn't say much. I also know of some pretty amazing things where past life memory coincides with archeological discovery after the memory appeared, which are very suggestive, as they say.
So the best, I feel, we can confidently say is that we do have access to knowledge (seeing and hearing and intuiting, for instance) that we cannot account of with present models of reality. But to then use a very ancient model like reincarnation… is like using astrology to explain some unexplainable phenomena of astronomy, or to use alchemy to explain some of the riddles of chemistry.

 

Thank you very much, Julian. I really appreciate that, and the feeling is very mutual: it's been great interacting with you, and I love the energy, heart, clarity, and rigor you always bring to these discussions.

And yes we do differ on a few things (while largely agreeing, I believe), but without those differences we wouldn't even have a discussion, so let's be grateful for our differences … 

 

“david!!!!  :O) where in the above comments have i said that nothing survives after death? where in the simply put series did i say nothing survives after death?”

Nowhere, perhaps, but you were thinking it!!!! Death was on the list of realities …
 

You're right, it does begin to be a waste of time after a certain point, and I also think you're right about being careful not to cover up the fear of death and that we should inquire into it, that it would not be helpful spiritually to avoid that fear. But that can work both ways, I think: it could also be unhelpful spiritually to conclude that nothing continues after death–it could encourage identification with that which dies, for one thing, and also close the mind on an issue that we don't have conclusive evidence for one way or the other.

Being open to the idea of reincarnation could actually be a helpful bridge to more transpersonal identifications, if only because it puts a person into an open, inquiring frame of mind, a beginner's mind. Of course if one actually believes in it without evidence the mind would also close or conclude without justification, and I've probably been guilty of this, so this is one reason I have appreciated your views on this.

With first tier, of course, the idea of heaven and hell or reincarnation is helpful in reigning in Red. I don't know where we would be without stuff like that–I feel a lot of people are checked in their behavior out of fear of hell or being reincarnated as an insect or something. So those myths, if that's all that they are, do play a helpful role in and of themselves. But what if those myths are just crude understandings of some sort of natural law along the lines of karma or you reap what you sow, etc.? Do you believe such a thing exists?

 

 

These ” crude” understanding are ALL based on cosmic law.

As above so below: Hermes

The macrocosm reflects the microcosm, as well as the inward reflects the outward

Or the meeting of heaven-above [ lofty thought] and  earth- below [ earthly thought]

Seek knowledge though it be in China: Muhammad. China here is a code word for concentration

Me and the Father are one: Jesus. The father is a metaphor for mystical transcendent science, not God!

Over the river discard the boat: Buddha. This means went you reach the station of awakening [ Buddha Nature] one no longer needs the vehicle of  mystical science.

Heaven and hell is the wrong Dichotomy. Heaven means lofty thought.

The more accurate dichotomy is paradise and hell, from the Arabic Jinnah  [Garden] to the corrupt Garden the Arabic word for hell [Jahanum] These words are derived from the word Jan, that means to conceal

Hell is from paradise

It just goes to show us how far the real mystical sciences has been corrupted, and ignorance is widespread, and why the post-modern man has rejected ancient wisdom, to his peril!

 

 

I agree Balder, I only ask for preciseness in identifying the rotten fruit from the trees. I am one of the most ardent speakers against what I call sky-god “believers” who have been the worst of the worst in distorting metaphysics-religion.

In fact, I have praised you and the Wilberians often for the concentration you have inspired on questing traditional metaphysics-religion-mysticism.

I just have a legitimate disagreement with certain nuances [to use Julian's favorite word.] that this questioning is taking.. [don't throw the baby out with the bathwater, type thing for one.]

It is no big thing really. I am a positive critic of Wilberianism, because I recognize his [and your genious] and contribution to inspiring the concentration on the interiors that eventually I think will have immense value.

I also agree with you and see no harm in this process as Julian [potentially] sees about people misusing AQAL-IMP, who might need psychotherapy instead of extrapolating or indulging in AQAL. Wilber does practice “speaking to people according to their understanding” Also you cant blame people for developing certain levels of thought, and people misunderstanding it, and misusing it. If we were to worry about that then we would hardly develop advanced thought.