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?