| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Coyote
Joined: 10 05 04
Posts: 2491
Location: Northwest
|
 Posted: 12/21/05, 7:03 pm Post subject: Then again |
  |
|
Something is reborn here all the time. If my essential beingness is not different from theirs, then perhaps there is some truth to reincarnation.
The problem, I think, is that idea that someone is going somewhere. That idea, which might be true in a metaphorical sense (i.e. one reaches the mountaintop of enlightenment, per se), is not true in other sense. So we could say that I'm going somewhere else by staying here... or I'm staying here by going somewhere else.
_________________
The only progress is the progression toward the realization of original sin. -Charles Baudelaire |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Coyote
Joined: 10 05 04
Posts: 2491
Location: Northwest
|
| Posted: 12/21/05, 8:56 pm Post subject: Agree with Gad, awesome post |
|
|
When a ``philosopher`` steps outside the circle of criticism, he is no longer a philosopher: he is either a Sophist or a showman.
_________________
The only progress is the progression toward the realization of original sin. -Charles Baudelaire |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Coyote
Joined: 10 05 04
Posts: 2491
Location: Northwest
|
| Posted: 12/21/05, 10:01 pm Post subject: The money-makers are about the same ilk as religios |
|
|
The religious ones are only a more refined version those who desire power via money; and I myself am a more refined version of the religio. Let's not delude ourselves with false modesty: next to artists and saints, philosophers are the most noble and refined version of powermongers. Quanta of power is all there is. I'm committed the pre-trans fallacy and I'm proud of it.
_________________
The only progress is the progression toward the realization of original sin. -Charles Baudelaire |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MarkDavid
Joined: 10 23 04
Posts: 577
|
| Posted: 12/23/05, 3:22 am Post subject: Re: the meditation card |
|
|
Hi Jim.
This is all fair enough. Ken is responsible for what his says and his ideas, but that doesn't mean one can't interpret a bit. My interpretation of Ken is that he laspes occasionally on his rigor and that you have to, to a certain extent, look for what gets the most attention and repetition.
I doubt that will be satisfactory to you. Whatever the case, you are probably more down for the debate than I am (perhaps always have been). I think I just occasionally enjoy spouting off.
At this point, I am feeling "I've heard it all" when it comes to objections and arguments--even good ones such as yours. There are only so many to go around. Occasionally I feel people get lopsided and it gets my dander up, but it's no big thing. Ultimately it doesn't matter much whether people love or hate Wilber or love or hate mediation or reincarnation. People have to gauge their own beds. They are the ones who have to lie in them.
Mark |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jim
Joined: 08 25 04
Posts: 1060
|
| Posted: 12/27/05, 6:14 pm Post subject: Re: the meditation card |
|
|
Hi Jon, Happy Holidays!
| Quote: | If two different people go to Macchu Picchu there are certain things they will automatically agree on, some things they will probably agree on, and some things they will disagree on. The split seems to be on general vs. particular, although it is more of a greyscale than black and white.
The Macchu Picchu analogy doesn't quite work for transpersonal experience, but it illustrates the basic point. |
Your analogy might work better for transpersonal experience if we add that the two people who go to Macchu Picchu independently explore a rarely visited "hidden" area that is only accessible through exceptional means. Then we can say that there are some things specifically related to their accessing this area that they may automatically agree on, some things they will probably agree on and some things they might disagree on.
Putting the analogy like that suffices to illustrate the basic point that I was trying to make, which has to do with standards of justification.
| Quote: | | I mean in some sense we don't even have to talk about transpersonal experience or meditative injunctions but just look at life: there is one thing that we can all agree on, and one thing only: something is going on. That's pretty much it. |
Of course we don't have to talk about transpersonal experience and meditative injunctions, but I was spinning off the questions Charles posed about what happens when people who have taken up the meditative injunction and who have toured the transpersonal bands disagree about specific matters related to exploration of those bands.
Ken Wilber has been talking about transpersonal experience and meditative injunctions for nearly three decades because he agrees with William James as he quotes him in The Spectrum of Consciousness (1977): “our normal waking consciousness, rational consciousness as we call it, is but one special type of consciousness, whilst all about it, parted from it by the filmiest of screens, there lie potential forms of consciousness entirely different.”
| Quote: | | What that Something "is" or "means," or why it is or who created it...well, that's where we have the Tower of Babel. We're all interpreting that Something differently, we're all subscribing to different idea-packets of the World Soul (which as a formulation is one the idea-packets I am subscribing to). |
And as Wilber says, some interpretations are better than others, and he implies that the more horizontally and vertically developed one is, the more integral one's worldview, the better one's interpretations.
| Quote: | | Another angle on this is parenthood: you simply cannot know what it is like until you actually experience it. |
To “know what it is like” to actually experience parenthood is knowledge by acquaintance or familiarity. In the same sense, it's a truism that one cannot know what it is like to experience meditation unless one meditates, or what it is like to have transpersonal experiences unless one has transpersonal experiences.
| Quote: | | To summarize, I can agree with Wilber that there are certain things that are only revealed through doing the injunction--that just seems self-evident, like saying "You won't know how it feels to dunk a basketball until you learn to dunk a basketball." |
To know "how it feels" to dunk a basketball is knowledge by acquaintance or familiarity.
To "learn to dunk a basketball" is practical knowledge or know-how.
I'm not questioning those kinds of knowledge. What I'm questioning is if the "certain things that are only revealed through doing the injunction" include propositional knowledge, which is different than (though not independent from) knowledge by acquaintance and know-how.
An example of what someone might consider “revealed” propositional knowledge is the claim that human intentionality creates reality on a quantum level.
Or the claim that there exists an individual continuum of consciousness that carries on from one lifetime to the next, and which enters into the union of the sperm and egg and enables the zygote to grow into a fetus.
This is from a summary of a discussion of the week with Wilber at Integral Naked on the question, "Does Physics Prove God?":
The first question has to do directly with the relation of modern quantum physics and spirituality. In effect, does physics prove God, does the Tao find proof in quantum realities?
Answer [from Wilber]: "Categorically not. I don't know more confusion in the last thirty years than has come from quantum physics...."
Ken goes on to outline the...major confusions that have dominated the popular (mis)understanding of the relationship of physics and mysticism.
Your consciousness does not create electrons. ... Certain writers and theorists have thus suggested that human intentionality actually creates reality on a quantum level. The most popular version of this idea can be found in the movie What the Bleep Do We Know?!, in which we "qwaff" reality into existence.
Ken suggests this is both bad physics and bad mysticism. ... That belief requires...enormous self-infatuation and narcissism...and Ken goes into the possible psychology behind all of that.
I agree with Wilber. The suggestion that human intentionality creates reality on a quantum level is bad physics and bad mysticism.
Suppose Wilber has one of the people behind What the Bleep Do We Know?! (which I haven’t seen, so this is not intended as an editorial comment on the movie) as a guest on Integral Naked, and this person, who I'll call Dick, says, "As you know Ken, when you abide in One Taste it's obvious that human intentionality creates reality on a quantum level."
Wilber says, "Um, actually I don't know that, and either do you. That's bad physics and bad mysticism. You simply cannot justify that statement."
Dick says, "You can’t understand this through mere reason. The rational egoic measuring mind is terrified by what it cannot understand. My referents do not exist in the rational worldspace, and in order for you to be adequate to my referents, you must take up the injunction and successfully complete it. What I’m saying can only be understood from the post-post-postformal, meta-transrational realms. What I'm saying can only be understood by post-vision-logic.”
What’s wrong with Dick’s response?
1. Dick is attempting to evade epistemic responsibility.
2. Dick’s response is loaded with presuppositions that require further justification, such as the presupposition that Wilber isn’t adequate to Dick’s referents.
3. Dick’s response suggests that Dick is overly if not solely reliant upon subjective standards of justification.
4. Dick’s response is a transparent attempt to shift the burden of proof onto Wilber.
5. By shifting the focus from Wilber's challenge that Dick justify a knowledge claim to a focus on higher levels where argument, reason, and evidence supposedly do not apply, Dick attempts to exempt himself from having to justify his claim.
Sometimes some Wilber readers play cards like the meditation card, the mysticism card, the higher level card, and the vision-logic card for the same wrong reasons and in the same wrong ways that Dick plays these cards. That's a misuse and abuse of Wilber's epistemology. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Heru
Joined: 08 25 04
Posts: 1568
Location: The Misty Pacific Northwest
|
| Posted: 12/29/05, 4:03 am Post subject: Re: the meditation card |
|
|
Hi Jim,
Nice to hear from you, and well illustrated--I see and agree with the dilemma you point out. But what to do?
If Jack and Jill disagree about what is revealed through deep meditation, what can we do about it? I suppose, in the end, we have to come to our own conclusions, no? Or do we wait and see how much support Jack or Jill gets, and "believe" who gets the most votes?
But we know the problem with that approach!
Perhaps then, and again, the only way to really judge truth for ourselves is to do the injunction. Go to Macchu Picchu, even that secret chamber. And we might agree with Jack or with Jill, or neither, but does it make either of them wrong? Not necessarily--nor does it make them right. But does this mean that the extreme postmodernists are right, that we are all equally right, islands to ourselves, both king and kingdom? How could that be when we all exist within the same context? In other words, even if we are all islands unto ourselves, we all "swim" in the same ocean, and are connected thusly...so that doesn't work either, some universal principles apply, if only by virtue of our interconnectivity.
So we're back to this: how can we know? Perhaps that is a position of great power to be in: unknowingness. Perhaps we can explore further from there.
_________________
Quotes of the Day (or, Only on the Ken Wilber Forum):
"I am a fan of quality gibberish..." ~Theos
"do you see my rumi quote as passive-aggressive?" ~ Sunya |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Heru
Joined: 08 25 04
Posts: 1568
Location: The Misty Pacific Northwest
|
| Posted: 12/29/05, 4:17 am Post subject: Addendum |
|
|
Another problem I see here, which I forgot to mention in the previous post, is the possibility that "Dick" is right. What if Dick is right? And what if he isn't lying when he says that what he is talking about is not rationally provable, nor truly rationally communicable?
Let's play with numbers. Let's say Dick has realized levels 1-7 and Harry has realized levels 1-6. Anything Dick says about level 7 will be translated by Harry into the "languages" of any and all of levels 1-6, which is all that Harry can possibly know. This is well illustrated with Wilber in numerous contexts, but deserves mention here, in this way. Harry might be pissed at Dick, and perhaps rightly so; and certainly Dick has some responsibility to "translate down" his level 7 apprehensions in level 6 or lower language. But is it truly possible? Not really, not fully. And Harry will NOT "get it" until he has his own level 7 apprehensions. Period. There is no way around this. And as long as Harry is asking for a level 6 explanation or proof or logical argument of what level 7 is or is not about, he is missing the point.
_________________
Quotes of the Day (or, Only on the Ken Wilber Forum):
"I am a fan of quality gibberish..." ~Theos
"do you see my rumi quote as passive-aggressive?" ~ Sunya |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jim
Joined: 08 25 04
Posts: 1060
|
| Posted: 12/29/05, 12:40 pm Post subject: Re: the meditation card |
|
|
| Quote: | | If Jack and Jill disagree about what is revealed through deep meditation, what can we do about it? I suppose, in the end, we have to come to our own conclusions, no? Or do we wait and see how much support Jack or Jill gets, and "believe" who gets the most votes? |
My question is what happens when Jack and Jill have both taken up the injunction, and they disagree over matters of propositional knowledge, and they are both interested in discussing their differences. I'm asking how Jack and Jill discuss their differences, not how spectators might "vote" about Jack and Jill's differences.
| Quote: | | Another problem I see here, which I forgot to mention in the previous post, is the possibility that "Dick" is right. What if Dick is right? And what if he isn't lying when he says that what he is talking about is not rationally provable, nor truly rationally communicable? |
Why would anyone make a propositionally contentful utterance about something that is neither rationally provable nor rationally communicable? Why would someone make a rational argument, using reason, for something that doesn't depend on reason?
| Quote: | | Let's play with numbers. Let's say Dick has realized levels 1-7 and Harry has realized levels 1-6. Anything Dick says about level 7 will be translated by Harry into the "languages" of any and all of levels 1-6, which is all that Harry can possibly know. This is well illustrated with Wilber in numerous contexts, but deserves mention here, in this way. Harry might be pissed at Dick, and perhaps rightly so; and certainly Dick has some responsibility to "translate down" his level 7 apprehensions in level 6 or lower language. But is it truly possible? Not really, not fully. And Harry will NOT "get it" until he has his own level 7 apprehensions. Period. There is no way around this. And as long as Harry is asking for a level 6 explanation or proof or logical argument of what level 7 is or is not about, he is missing the point. |
This is a two-way street; Harry is missing the point by asking for logical proof of something that doesn't depend on logic or reason, and Dick is missing the point by making rational, propositionally contentful utterances about something that doesn't depend on logic or reason.
| Quote: | | Let's say Dick has realized levels 1-7 and Harry has realized levels 1-6. |
Or let's that and say that Dick has realized levels 1-6 and Harry has realized levels 1-7, but Dick thinks he has realized levels 1-7 and he thinks Harry has realized levels 1-6.
And let's say that Dick believes in reincarnation and Harry doesn't, and they've both taken up the injunction and they've both had the same apprhensions which Dick interprets to mean that reincarnation is a reality but which to Harry are not evidence of reincarnation but are only evidence that it's possible for deep meditators to have apprehensions that can be interpreted to mean that reincarnation is a reality.
I say they should agree to discuss the topic as much as possible on the level of argument, reason, and evidence, without dragging levels into the discussion, and if they don't think it''s possible for them to do that, then I think they should agree to disagree without dragging yet more non-falsifiable claims about levels into the discussion. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Heru
Joined: 08 25 04
Posts: 1568
Location: The Misty Pacific Northwest
|
| Posted: 12/30/05, 2:48 am Post subject: Re: the meditation card |
|
|
| Jim wrote: |
Why would anyone make a propositionally contentful utterance about something that is neither rationally provable nor rationally communicable? Why would someone make a rational argument, using reason, for something that doesn't depend on reason? |
I am not as much talking about total lack of rational communication or proof, but partial lack. I wrote "not truly rationally communicable," which you left out the key word: truly. Or fully. For example, it is a solid logical proof that if Dick has realized levels 1-7 and Harry levels 1-6 then Harry won't be able to grok level 7, or anything Dick says about it, beyond what Harry knows (1-6). Right? Now Dick can learn to skillfully communicate level 7 apprehensions in language that is better suited for levels 1-6, but they will not "truly" fit the level 7 apprehension.
| Quote: | This is a two-way street; Harry is missing the point by asking for logical proof of something that doesn't depend on logic or reason, and Dick is missing the point by making rational, propositionally contentful utterances about something that doesn't depend on logic or reason.
|
But why can't Dick talk about level 7 in level 6 language, while pointing to the fact that level 6 language is inherently reductionistic and not truly adequate to the task?
| Quote: | | Or let's that and say that Dick has realized levels 1-6 and Harry has realized levels 1-7, but Dick thinks he has realized levels 1-7 and he thinks Harry has realized levels 1-6. |
That's always possible, but beside the point, maybe? But it does illustrate the ever-present "gap" in rock-solid knowing about such things.
| Quote: | And let's say that Dick believes in reincarnation and Harry doesn't, and they've both taken up the injunction and they've both had the same apprhensions which Dick interprets to mean that reincarnation is a reality but which to Harry are not evidence of reincarnation but are only evidence that it's possible for deep meditators to have apprehensions that can be interpreted to mean that reincarnation is a reality.
I say they should agree to discuss the topic as much as possible on the level of argument, reason, and evidence, without dragging levels into the discussion, and if they don't think it''s possible for them to do that, then I think they should agree to disagree without dragging yet more non-falsifiable claims about levels into the discussion. |
Well if they both acknowledge and believe in the existence of levels or gradients of consciousness, why shouldn't they include that within the discussion? According to Wilber, for example, levels are cut out sometime between orange and green vmemes and then reintroduced (with a vengeance!) with the dawn of 2nd tier, yellow. So if two people are at yellow, they would agree to the existence of levels, thus would include them within such a discussion. But if one didn't believe in levels--at least as relative gradients of "apparent" consciousness ala the color spectrum--they would be declaring themselves pre-yellow, at least within that specific context, and along the relevant cognitive-oriented lines. At least according to Wilber!
Perhaps that is related to what you are talking about, and the problem with such discussion?
But I do agree with you, or with what I hear implied, that it is a conversation ender and mainly just hubristic ballyhoo to back something up by saying "I see level 7, while you don't," or to automatically chalk any difference in opinion to be an issue of levels. On the other hand, can we truly discuss this in a meaningly way without at least acknowledging the possibility of levels, at least if we want to come to some kind of greater, integrative understanding?
_________________
Quotes of the Day (or, Only on the Ken Wilber Forum):
"I am a fan of quality gibberish..." ~Theos
"do you see my rumi quote as passive-aggressive?" ~ Sunya |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jim
Joined: 08 25 04
Posts: 1060
|
| Posted: 12/30/05, 12:40 pm Post subject: Re: the meditation card |
|
|
In my first post in this thread I quoted what a couple of Integral Naked Members were saying: | Quote: | How come we never see any debate in the clips? Or at least disagreement?
It's not just that at an integral level debate stops because we can recognize all truths, as this forum is a good example. Is there another reason?
The dangers of surrounding oneself with people who hold the same opinions and values are well known. |
| Quote: | | I've never been happy with all the back-patting and hobnobbing that constitutes most of the interviews. Never mind debate, how about some true dialogue? Engage a critic once in awhile or someone who doesn't think in terms of AQAL and memes. |
Then I said: By way of example we might ask how Wilber might discuss reincarnation with a "meditatively experienced" individual "who doesn’t think in terms of AQAL and memes” and who unlike Wilber, doesn't think reincarnation is a reality.
But you are posing questions in terms of Wilber's "AQAL and memes" system: | Quote: | | Well if they both acknowledge and believe in the existence of levels or gradients of consciousness, why shouldn't they include that within the discussion? According to Wilber, for example, levels are cut out sometime between orange and green vmemes and then reintroduced (with a vengeance!) with the dawn of 2nd tier, yellow. So if two people are at yellow, they would agree to the existence of levels, thus would include them within such a discussion. But if one didn't believe in levels--at least as relative gradients of "apparent" consciousness ala the color spectrum--they would be declaring themselves pre-yellow, at least within that specific context, and along the relevant cognitive-oriented lines. At least according to Wilber! |
That's fine for two people who are into Wilber's "AQAL and memes" system.
You talk about "pre-yellow." Scientologists talk about "pre-OT." OT is the acronym for the "Operational Thetan" level. Talking about "pre-OT" and "OT" is great for Scientologists, and talking about "pre-yellow" and "The dawn of 2nd tier" is great for Wilberians.
It should be possible to discuss all kinds of things without any referencen whatsoever to Ken Wilber's "Integral Operating System" and "Integral Theory of Everything."
Robin Kornman, a Buddhist who I've met several times who was very close with Trungpa, interviewed Wilber and asked him about a Buddhist "who doesn't use other systems of self-development or self-transformation." Kornman asked Wilber if such a Buddhist would need Wilber's system, and Wilber said, "You don't. Unless you happen to find it interesting, or fun, or engaging. Then you'll do it just to do it. The Buddhist teachings don't specifically cover Mexican cooking either, but you still might like to take that up."
That's a good, honest, and factually true answer: You don't need Wilber's system unless you happen to find it as least as interesting, or fun, or engaging as Mexican cooking.
So to go back to another question I posed in my first post: Let's say that Integral Institute or Integral University does a research project and they find two people, one a Wilberian (a Wilber student) and one who is not a Wilberian (someone who doesn't find Wilber's IOS at least as interesting, or fun, or engaging as Mexican cooking, and who doesn't think in terms of "AQAL and memes"), and they test them to determine where they are at "veritically" and "horizontally."
And the test results show that these people are operating at the same veritical and horizontal levels. Horizontally, they test the same in all lines, waves, and streams.
But they are two physically different human beings, and one of them is into Wilber's system and the other isn't.
My question is very simple: Is it possible that they could disagree on things such as reincarnation, biological evolution, involution, subtle energies, paranormal phenomena, and questions about consciousness?
That's a rhetorical question, of course. I think that anyone who would answer in the negative has turned Wilber's "IOS" into a Matrix for their mind, and may be beyond hope. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Heru
Joined: 08 25 04
Posts: 1568
Location: The Misty Pacific Northwest
|
| Posted: 12/30/05, 6:08 pm Post subject: Isn't there a middle ground? |
|
|
...A middle ground, that is, between a Wilberian and a non-Wilberian, or someone who can think in terms of vmemes and AQAL but isn't limited to it? Isn't that the ideal?
It seems to me you are setting up a dichotomy that need not exist: Believers and Non-believers.
But I agree with your rhetorical question, and I do think it is "possible to discuss all kinds of things without any referencen whatsoever to Ken Wilber's "Integral Operating System" and "Integral Theory of Everything."" And I do see the problem of "cultism," but find that the lines drawn around a cult are not only created by those within, but those without.
I don't see why we need to remove Wilber from the discussion, or cannot use his theories and concepts within a toolkit among others (especially on the KW Forum!), which is why I advocate a middle ground where we can use Wilber's theories--among others--to discuss these issues, but don't hold them as absolute or the final word.
One final note: a lot of the Wilber terminology isn't really only "Wilberian," at least what it refers to, as most of what Wilber is talking about has been discussed by others, whether it is levels, lines, even the quadrants. So if we are talking in terms of levels of development, we are talking about something that appears in one form or another in many many systems, cultures, traditions, etc, to the point where levels are near-universal or at least common enough so that we don't have to relegate them to being "Wilberian."
_________________
Quotes of the Day (or, Only on the Ken Wilber Forum):
"I am a fan of quality gibberish..." ~Theos
"do you see my rumi quote as passive-aggressive?" ~ Sunya |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jim
Joined: 08 25 04
Posts: 1060
|
| Posted: 12/30/05, 9:58 pm Post subject: Re: Isn't there a middle ground? |
|
|
Hi Jon, Happy New Year! Also, thanks for posting the link to a picture of your radiant daughter! What a joy!
| Quote: | Isn't there a middle ground?
...A middle ground, that is, between a Wilberian and a non-Wilberian, or someone who can think in terms of vmemes and AQAL but isn't limited to it? Isn't that the ideal? |
No, that's your ideal.
But we're getting far afield of the questions I initially posed in this thread.
| Quote: | | It seems to me you are setting up a dichotomy that need not exist: Believers and Non-believers. |
There are people who are into Wilber and there are people who are not into Wilber, and that's a fact, not something I'm "setting up." It's also a fact, which you've acknowledged, that some of the people who are into Wilber's work are "Believers."
I'm not suggesting that all Wilber students are "Believers" or "true believers." My questions are designed to show how a Wilber student who is a true believer might think.
Here's the example I gave: | Quote: | Let's say that Integral Institute or Integral University does a research project and they find two people, one a Wilberian (a Wilber student) and one who is not a Wilberian (someone who doesn't find Wilber's IOS at least as interesting, or fun, or engaging as Mexican cooking, and who doesn't think in terms of "AQAL and memes"), and they test them to determine where they are at "veritically" and "horizontally."
And the test results show that these people are operating at the same veritical and horizontal levels. Horizontally, they test the same in all lines, waves, and streams.
But they are two physically different human beings, and one of them is into Wilber's system and the other isn't.
My question is very simple: Is it possible that they could disagree on things such as reincarnation, biological evolution, involution, subtle energies, paranormal phenomena, and questions about consciousness? |
The true believer's answer to the question is no, it's not possible. That's a working definition of a true believer for whom Wilber's system is not an "Integral Operating System" but an automatically self-referential fixed belief system rooted in epistemic infallibilism.
This isn't about you or me or this forum or how we should communicate here. I'm just posing a rhetorical question, based on general observations over time, to be applied on an "if the shoe fits" basis.
| Quote: | | ...a lot of the Wilber terminology isn't really only "Wilberian," at least what it refers to, as most of what Wilber is talking about has been discussed by others, whether it is levels, lines, even the quadrants. So if we are talking in terms of levels of development, we are talking about something that appears in one form or another in many many systems, cultures, traditions, etc, to the point where levels are near-universal or at least common enough so that we don't have to relegate them to being "Wilberian." |
Wilber assimilates other systems into his synthesis, and then he uses those systems in accord with his model and his epistemology. This process changes the original systems into Wilberian systems.
Here's an example:
Alan Wallace says that according to the “closure principle” that is generally accepted by modern science, “the physical world is ‘causally closed’ – that is, there are no causal influences on physical events besides other physical events.”
"In other words, nothing impinges upon the physical universe that is not itself composed of elementary particles or has energy or mass. There are no other influences in the physical world."
During a two-part conversation between Wallace and Ken Wilber featured at Integral Naked, Wilber said, “There are at least three different ways to approach the closure problem. The non-approach is ‘That’s just it, nothing to say.’ That’s such a pigheaded response. First of all, it’s like why on earth, if you look at evolution itself, why does it keep winding itself up in these orders of complexity? The closure principle doesn't explain why dirt gets up and starts writing poetry. It’s incomprehensible to me that somebody can actually look at you with a straight face and say something like that. Nonetheless, there are a lot of them out there at Jane Loevinger’s stage five and they all seem to believe it.”
Wilber complains about the pigheadness of others, and in the same breath he models pigheadedness by suggesting that disagreeing with him about the closure principle is evidence that someone is at Jane Loevinger's stage five. He may be joking but he's not just joking. He really thinks like this, and this is an example of how he uses (or misuses) other systems in his system.
It's appropriate that he calls his system an "operating system," for like Microsoft operating systems, it tends to monopolize, shut out competition, and function best in self-referential loops.
In any case, Happy New Year to you and yours! 
- Jim |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Heru
Joined: 08 25 04
Posts: 1568
Location: The Misty Pacific Northwest
|
| Posted: 12/31/05, 1:24 am Post subject: Re: Isn't there a middle ground? |
|
|
| Jim wrote: | ....Isn't there a middle ground?
...A middle ground, that is, between a Wilberian and a non-Wilberian, or someone who can think in terms of vmemes and AQAL but isn't limited to it? Isn't that the ideal?....
No, that's your ideal. |
Is it only my ideal, merely a matter of (my) opinion, of subjectivity? Or is there a dialectical logic at work here? It seems that the middle ground that I'm positing is a superior, even "more evolved," position than the hypothetical Wilberian or non-Wilberian (or pro- or con-) as it, well, transcends and includes both!
| Quote: | | There are people who are into Wilber and there are people who are not into Wilber, and that's a fact, not something I'm "setting up." It's also a fact, which you've acknowledged, that some of the people who are into Wilber's work are "Believers." |
What you are setting up, as I see it, is a pro- and con- stance, when I see a majority being somewhere inbetween.
| Quote: | | I'm not suggesting that all Wilber students are "Believers" or "true believers." My questions are designed to show how a Wilber student who is a true believer might think. |
OK, and I agree that as far as I can tell there is a contingency around Wilber--shaven heads and all--of Wilberian true believers. That's hardly novel. But yeah, this is part of what turns me off about Integral Institute (which I've discussed in another post). But what percentage of "people who are into Wilber" are these folk?
| Quote: | My question is very simple: Is it possible that they could disagree on things such as reincarnation, biological evolution, involution, subtle energies, paranormal phenomena, and questions about consciousness?
...The true believer's answer to the question is no, it's not possible. That's a working definition of a true believer for whom Wilber's system is not an "Integral Operating System" but an automatically self-referential fixed belief system rooted in epistemic infallibilism. |
This seems to apply to any system of thought, any ideology or set of beliefs, and is universal in that we all see the world through our own, personalized, self-referential system.
| Quote: | | This isn't about you or me or this forum or how we should communicate here. I'm just posing a rhetorical question, based on general observations over time, to be applied on an "if the shoe fits" basis. |
So you're using Wilber & Co as an example of cultism?
| Quote: | Wilber assimilates other systems into his synthesis, and then he uses those systems in accord with his model and his epistemology. This process changes the original systems into Wilberian systems.
Here's an example:
Alan Wallace says that according to the “closure principle” that is generally accepted by modern science, “the physical world is ‘causally closed’ – that is, there are no causal influences on physical events besides other physical events.”
"In other words, nothing impinges upon the physical universe that is not itself composed of elementary particles or has energy or mass. There are no other influences in the physical world."
During a two-part conversation between Wallace and Ken Wilber featured at Integral Naked, Wilber said, “There are at least three different ways to approach the closure problem. The non-approach is ‘That’s just it, nothing to say.’ That’s such a pigheaded response. First of all, it’s like why on earth, if you look at evolution itself, why does it keep winding itself up in these orders of complexity? The closure principle doesn't explain why dirt gets up and starts writing poetry. It’s incomprehensible to me that somebody can actually look at you with a straight face and say something like that. Nonetheless, there are a lot of them out there at Jane Loevinger’s stage five and they all seem to believe it.”
Wilber complains about the pigheadness of others, and in the same breath he models pigheadedness by suggesting that disagreeing with him about the closure principle is evidence that someone is at Jane Loevinger's stage five. He may be joking but he's not just joking. He really thinks like this, and this is an example of how he uses (or misuses) other systems in his system. |
I disagree with your take on this, at least partially. I don't think he is "suggesting that disagreeing with him...is evidence that someone is at [x-stage]." I think he's saying that holding x-view on something equates with being at x-stage; that, in the example you gave, the closure principle itself is a construct of stage five thinking (within Loevinger's system).
The distinction is crucial, imo.
| Quote: | | It's appropriate that he calls his system an "operating system," for like Microsoft operating systems, it tends to monopolize, shut out competition, and function best in self-referential loops. |
I'm guessing you prefer Macs 
But it really depends upon how you use a system, which is why I think talking about more than the hypothetical (or actual) Wilberian True Believers is important; otherwise we do what you do just here: equate "operating system" with "Microsoft operating systems," as if the former is automatically the latter. Of course you're not outright saying that, but the implication is there, and you subtly turn the first into the latter, which is turning a broad and relatively neutral idea into a specific and more malignant one.
It is not dissimilar to saying all technology is inherently harmful because some kinds of technology are harmful, or used in harmful ways. Maybe you've just had a bad experience with "technology"?
_________________
Quotes of the Day (or, Only on the Ken Wilber Forum):
"I am a fan of quality gibberish..." ~Theos
"do you see my rumi quote as passive-aggressive?" ~ Sunya |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jim
Joined: 08 25 04
Posts: 1060
|
| Posted: 12/31/05, 8:52 am Post subject: Re: Isn't there a middle ground? |
|
|
....Isn't there a middle ground?
...A middle ground, that is, between a Wilberian and a non-Wilberian, or someone who can think in terms of vmemes and AQAL but isn't limited to it? Isn't that the ideal?....
No, that's your ideal.
| Quote: | | Is it only my ideal, merely a matter of (my) opinion, of subjectivity? Or is there a dialectical logic at work here? It seems that the middle ground that I'm positing is a superior, even "more evolved," position than the hypothetical Wilberian or non-Wilberian (or pro- or con-) as it, well, transcends and includes both! |
It's not my ideal to think in terms of "vmemes and AQAL." It's not the ideal of billions of people. You said, "Isn't that the ideal?" No, it's not "the ideal." It's your ideal. It's not mine.
The categories Wilberian and non-Wilberian as I used them are not pro and con. As I used the terms, a Wilberian is someone who is into Wilber's work, and a non-Wilberian is anyone who isn't, including the billions who've never heard of it.
he models pigheadedness by suggesting that disagreeing with him about the closure principle is evidence that someone is at Jane Loevinger's stage five. He may be joking but he's not just joking. He really thinks like this, and this is an example of how he uses (or misuses) other systems in his system.
| Quote: |
I disagree with your take on this, at least partially. I don't think he is "suggesting that disagreeing with him...is evidence that someone is at [x-stage]." I think he's saying that holding x-view on something equates with being at x-stage; that, in the example you gave, the closure principle itself is a construct of stage five thinking (within Loevinger's system).
The distinction is crucial, imo. |
The distinction is irrelevant, because if Wilber honestly believes that disagreeing with him is evidence that someone is at a stage below his, he's a fool, and if Wilber honestly believes that the closure principle itself is "a construct of stage five thinking" within Loevinger's stages of ego development, he's a fool. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Heru
Joined: 08 25 04
Posts: 1568
Location: The Misty Pacific Northwest
|
| Posted: 12/31/05, 12:48 pm Post subject: Re: Isn't there a middle ground? |
|
|
| Jim wrote: | | It's not my ideal to think in terms of "vmemes and AQAL." It's not the ideal of billions of people. You said, "Isn't that the ideal?" No, it's not "the ideal." It's your ideal. It's not mine. |
That's not at all what I'm saying, that it is "my ideal to think in terms of vmemes and AQAL." I was referring to the middle ground between being a believer or non-believer. I'm talking about people who are familiar with Wilber's work--not the billions of people who aren't (which seems to be a new take on your part, as the implication seemed otherwise previously). So I'm saying it is ideal, if you are familiar with him and care about such things (consciousness studies, psychology, spiritual evolution, etc), to neither be a firm believer in everything he says or a "dis-believer." That is, I believe that his work, within the field of psycho-spirituality, bears taking seriously. And that we don't need to categorize people into being believers or non-believers, that there are many shades of grey.
| Quote: | | The distinction is irrelevant, because if Wilber honestly believes that disagreeing with him is evidence that someone is at a stage below his, he's a fool, and if Wilber honestly believes that the closure principle itself is "a construct of stage five thinking" within Loevinger's stages of ego development, he's a fool. |
But that is your interpretation of what he said and says, Jim; I don't read him as saying the first (that disagreeing with him is evidence that someone is at a stage below his). Perhaps sometimes that is the case, or there is a "taste" of that, but I think what he said was pretty clearly the latter, which you also say is foolish. But there you are doing exactly what you accuse him of doing! Saying that Wilber (or anyone) who believes that the closure principle itself is a construct of stage five thinking is a "fool." How is that not the exact same thing you are accusing him of doing?
And why is saying that the closure principle--or any concept or idea--is a product or mental construct of stage five thinking (or any level) foolish? Do you disagree that, according to the theory of levels of consciousness, different concepts are derived from different levels or mind-spaces? Or do you disagree with levels altogether?
_________________
Quotes of the Day (or, Only on the Ken Wilber Forum):
"I am a fan of quality gibberish..." ~Theos
"do you see my rumi quote as passive-aggressive?" ~ Sunya |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2006 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
