Evolutionary Enlightenment takes another Postmodern Drubbing

Someone at Integral Life (a person I like and who is very intelligent on other issues) wrote a blog about evolutionary enlightenment. Recall any thread about Andrew Cohen you've read, aside from one or two here, perhaps, and you'll know what it was like.

The blogger has been arguing on another thread that there is no such thing as higher stages. 

At any rate, someone gleefully copied and pasted it back here at Gaia, another hotbed for postmodern drubbings, hoping for a two-forum feeding frenzy, apparently.

Sad that year after year a largely Indigo teaching, evolutionary enlightenment, gets cynical, postmodern drubbings on “integral” forums.

The irony is, the people responsible for these cynical drubbings could use evolutionary enlightenment more than anyone else! In fact, it is tailor made for them! No kidding!

But what can you do to help them understand?

People who do understand evolutionary enlightenment—people like Ken Wilber, Terry Patten, Hokai Sobol—may well have criticisms, but they are largely appreciative. They see what it is attempting to do and how it outstrips traditional enlightenment teachings in a few important, profound ways.

But try telling that to these “integral” fans, most of whom haven't even made an attempt to understand it.

The truth is that evolutionary enlightenment implements certain aspects of AQAL better than any other spiritual teachings—not every aspect of AQAL or ILP, but many of them. But does it matter to these critics?

If you followed their reasoning to its logical conclusion, not only is Andrew Cohen an ignorant idiot but Ken Wilber is as well, because he agrees with just about everything Andrew Cohen says in the guru-and-pandit series, and often compliments him.

But don't bother telling that to evolutionary enlightenment critics; they're not too interested in logic, or serious discussions.

Re: Evolutionary Enlightenment takes another Postmodern Drubbing

Evolutionary Enlightenment takes another Postmodern Drubbing
 
So what…who really cares? Indigo people should be soooo beyond this sort of thing. It would be like post-modern cuture being attacked by a tribe with blow darts, right? Why are you reacting? Need your feelings validated? :-) I mean why not just practice your Indigo teachings and show and tell us by example how Great they are? I would love to see an army of Indigo Enlightened beings  radiating blessings from their raindow bodies coming out of Andrew Cohen's compound. Sadly all I see is talk in his magazine for sale next to a plethora of New Age rags.

Re: Evolutionary Enlightenment takes another Postmodern Drubbing

Just for the sake of the truth. If people are going to make comments like that year in, year out they should eventually be called on it.

Re: Evolutionary Enlightenment takes another Postmodern Drubbing

And if particular people are being addressed, they should be addressed directly, so that they could respond and possibly logically address the issues.

Re: Evolutionary Enlightenment takes another Postmodern Drubbing

David, is this what's bugging you?

Re: Evolutionary Enlightenment takes another Postmodern Drubbing

I appreciate your post, David. It's amazing isn't it! Very good point on the Guru and Pandit thing. Why does Ken come out free from criticism, and the likes of AC demonized and laughed at? Very interesting.

There seems to be a massive difference from being a fan of books and theory, to actually living from the highest perspectives of such teachings, that people like Cohen, attempt to construct, and continually get slammed by doing so. Does Ken Wilber for example only involve himself in the Guru and Pandit dialogues because he wants to a) be popular and b) make money? I'd assume, it's because he values the perspectives, teachings and insights that his contemporary AC makes. So why is this so easy for 'integralites' to ignore and mock?

It's very depressing when rather than use imagination and creativity to engage issues in a dynamic way in these pod-wide threads of ours, that people feel so comfortable wallowing and jumping on other peoples bandwagons, rather than by finding out for themselves, just how much of a challenge it is to attempt to live from ones highest capacity.

David: The truth is that evolutionary enlightenment implements certain aspects
of AQAL better than any other spiritual teachings—not every aspect of
AQAL or ILP, but many of them. But does it matter to these critics?

No, it seems not. People are more comfortable in the territory of book clubs, or the landscape that is the most popular. So add a moustache and a few other easy to criticise features to the equation, and there you have it. Fodder for vultures who enjoy pulling apart things, not for the sake of healthy criticism, learning or even evolving or changing themselves, but because it helps them belong to something, among other things. Are people really that lost these days that they get off on doing this?

Andrew Cohen is a fine example of a living teacher who is easy to ridicule. When people are set to not give valid criticisms, you can only guess that it's because what he is saying triggers people beyond belief. So what's happened to the age old integral occasion when people would have the decency to check out those triggers, and see why they really feel hung up on this?

I've found his commentary and teachings especially interesting, along with Ken Wilbers, - aside from the breadth Ken gives to theory, mainly because of how they utilize some of the most profound insights of Sri Aurobindo (among many other things) who continues to be a fundamental catalyst and inspirational in my own personal development.

I don't understand how people can allow themselves to get so comfortable with slating something that they have no first hand experience of. It seems incredibly immature to me to mock current 'enlightenment' teachings, which are designed to be ultimately, a collaborative ongoing process, using insights of some of the most committed capable people alive.

Lisa

Re: Evolutionary Enlightenment takes another Postmodern Drubbing

Hi Lisa and David,

As one of the people who picked up the blog link when I saw it on Gaia and crossposted it to another pod, I would like to respond.

The blog fit perfectly into an already ongoing discussion in another pod where I am a member, where we were talking about the high price of enlightenment workshops and whether it was justified.

I also thought it was a clever take on Andrew Cohen's original Five Tenets,  which I appreciated because of having previously familiarised myself with them.

Without getting into the kinds of details that other threads here on Zaadz/Gaia have done concerning, I think we can agree that his approach is controversial, to say the least. Apparently, many have found it a very helpful path in their personal growth. Many have had serious problems with it. 

Similarly, many have found Wilber helpful, and many have critiques of his views.

If you followed their reasoning to its logical conclusion, not only is Andrew Cohen an ignorant idiot but Ken Wilber is as well, because he agrees with just about everything Andrew Cohen says in the guru-and-pandit series, and often compliments him.


It seems to me that that is a long way from pointing out that maybe enlightenment shouldn't be bought and sold in the marketplace. 


Maybe people haven't given his ideas a fair shake. Maybe those of us who are not sure about this approach should have the “first hand experience”. 

But maybe it's just humour, and not a full scale attack on Cohen and/or Wilber's methods. And maybe there are issues that need to be looked at.

Peace,

Nicole

 

Re: Evolutionary Enlightenment takes another Postmodern Drubbing

Hi Lisa

I have to confess to only skimming over your comment here first time. After they received such glowing praise from David I felt compelled to re-read it. Here are my thoughts.

Lisa: “It's very depressing when rather than use imagination and creativity to
engage issues in a dynamic way in these pod-wide threads of ours, that
people feel so comfortable wallowing and jumping on other peoples
bandwagons,…”

Not wanting to sound sarcastic but I actually found people's responses not at all wallowing, and in fact rather imaginative and creative. They weren't favourable or accepting of Andrew's way of operating, but they were creative.

“….rather than by finding out for themselves, just how much of
a challenge it is to attempt to live from ones highest capacity.” Sorry, but how can you know how much effort people are putting into “living from their highest capacity”? Are you assuming that if they really were doing so then they would inevitably agree with Andrew Cohen, and that by disagreeing with him it proves that such people are not living from their highest capacity?

Lisa: “When people are set to not give valid criticisms, you can only guess
that it's because what he is saying triggers people beyond belief. So
what's happened to the age old integral occasion when people would have
the decency to check out those triggers, and see why they really feel
hung up on this?“ 

How do you know that people have not looked at those triggers genuinely and deeply, and still come out the other end of it strongly disagreeing with Andrew? Again, are you assuming that if one really does the shadow work one couldn't possibly come out of it without agreeing with him?

I think there are plenty of valid criticisms of Andrew Cohen's work given on this thread so far. Disagreeing with him does not mean that one is triggered by him, or hung up on what he says, just that one disagrees with him. Again, are you assuming that unless one is aligned with his thinking then one is “less evolved”?

Lisa: “... because it helps them belong to something,”. Now, ordinarily, feeling a sense of belonging to something is not at all necessarily a bad thing, right? But I think I get your meaning when you use this phrase here, and it has a negative connotation, right? So if I understand you correctly then, I must say that, my own opinion is that Andrew has created his very own group of students who share this sense of “belonging to something”…i.e. those known as Evolutionaries, with a capital E, because they are …”special”.

What do you think about my observations and questions? Hoping to engage dynamically…! ;-)

james

Re: Evolutionary Enlightenment takes another Postmodern Drubbing

“Why are you reacting? Need your feelings validated?”
 
Exactly what I thought. This type of defense only gets switched on when one is actually in doubt about one's position.

If someone came up to me and started to criticize me about how Darwinian evolution is flawed, untrue, fallacious, etc, I wouldn't need to react emotionally, such as many atheist do. Why? It's an item worth thinking about.

“When you yourselves know: “These things are good; these things are not blamable; these things are praised by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness,” enter on and abide in them.'”

Re: Evolutionary Enlightenment takes another Postmodern Drubbing

Hi, David,

Since I was one person who copied one of Schalk's posts over to Gaia, I wanted to post my thoughts on this issue.  I found Schalk's post to be funny, which is why I shared it; but as I mentioned over on IL, I also admitted that his critique was partial and that, even if possibly on target in some ways, I didn't think it invalidated Cohen's teachings as a whole.

Schalk's post questioning stages (not just higher stages) came later, and it is not a position I agree with; I said as much in a response to him.  I'm not even sure he agrees with it.  He has been a proponent of evolutionary spirituality and the Integral stage model in the past, and I think he is just going through a period of re-evaluation, looking again at things he perhaps had initially taken as given or without investigating them fully.  For what it's worth, I think that's a healthy process, even if some of the initial questions lead you astray or get you temporarily tangled in a conceptual knot (which I think might be happening for him).

About so-called 'Integral people' questioning or not understanding evolutionary enlightenment, I'd like to know who specifically you're talking about.  But without knowing that (or the arguments those people have made), I'll give a general response:  I don't think the notion of 'evolutionary enlightenment' or spirituality should be treated as identical with Cohen's particular expression of it.  In other words, questioning Cohen's teachings is not the same as questioning 'evolutionary spirituality' altogether; I think Schalk was questioning Cohen's formulation rather than the basic idea.

One of Schalk's charges – that evolutionary spirituality, which claims that those who believe in it are at the 'leading edge of Kosmic evolution itself,' is even more hubristic than earlier human potential movements – is at least one worth considering, since even if it isn't entirely true, it still is an idea that has the potential to lead to ego-inflation or other issues.  On the one hand, yes, in general, the cosmological picture we have now does support the basic idea that human beings (the beings with the most advanced brains in the known universe) might indeed represent a leading edge of cosmic evolution (though life on other planets may be well 'ahead' of us).  But even if this is a valid perspective, it is another thing altogether to assert that those individuals who subscribe to a particular worldview or spiritual model are, in fact, at the leading edge of all human development ever (not to mention the development of the rest of the known universe).  Do you see the difference, or at least recognize the problem with making such a (ideologically driven) leap?

Best wishes,

B.

Re: Evolutionary Enlightenment takes another Postmodern Drubbing

Well, first, I love everyone on this thread, and this thread/post, among others, is, in part, an attempt at greater mutual understanding, friendship, and camaraderie. That's the context as I see it, along with the evolutionary one, of course.  :)

Bruce: And if particular people are being addressed, they should be addressed
directly, so that they could respond and possibly logically address the
issues.

But your post on the other pod contained my name, and I couldn't respond to it, could I? I would ask you to please bear that in mind.

It would be a mistake and a projection to think that I was responding just because my name was in the post, but if you had shown the care to edit it out I probably would have thought, “Well, he is doing it respectfully, just for a laugh, not trying to make a direct/indirect swipe, etc.”

It was definitely not just about the name, though that was one additional element; it was about the evolutionary context, truth, the continual projection and slagging (that's British, too, isn't it? :)) of Cohen without giving him any credit. I mean, on an integral pod we should do better, right?

Bruce, honestly, though I knew you might find it provocative, I did it in the hope of greater understanding and camaraderie in the future. And honestly, too, I think someday I will want to list your name next to Ken Wilber's, Hokai's, and Terry Patten's. And that would be a better way for your name to appear in the post, right?  :) Honestly, I wouldn't bother if I didn't think you do understand the stuff already but are only missing a little more appreciation for it.


Lisa, wow, what an amazing post! That is a work of art—a work of art, scholarship, and Big Heart all at the same time. That … is Indigo in understanding as well as aesthetics, morals, affect. Sorry for the color, everyone else.  :) It's just my way of expressing appreciation. Really, what a great post. I could really go on, but probably not everyone wants me to go on about it, so I will leave it at that.

I will have to excerpt a couple of things from Lisa's amazing post. This one is especially worth considering, I think:

Re: Evolutionary Enlightenment takes another Postmodern Drubbing

Thanks for your most kind words and generous appreciation there, David.

I like open vibe you've created in this thread, I hope it's utilized!

Lisa

Re: Evolutionary Enlightenment takes another Postmodern Drubbing

Thanks for your response, David. I was not primarily speaking to the IP thread but the thread in Fully Engaged in the games of life, over here.


Peace,


Nicole

Re: Evolutionary Enlightenment takes another Postmodern Drubbing

Hi David:
“Now I think you guys are both very brilliant, but I don't think you
would be saying this or in the same way if you had fully downloaded the
evolutionary perspective, as well as such relative features as the
deeper psychic, Eros, Optimizing Force, etc.

David, can you explain further what you mean by the concept of not “fully downloading the evolutionary perspective” and why this might not apply to Is and e's comments please? Does downloading the evolutionary perspective mean that one will inevitably agree with Ken and Andrew?

David: “In fact, you don't
have some of that stuff on your map at all but vigorously argue against
it, so I don't think you could do anything but respond the way you did.
In the spirit of integral methodological pluralism where everyone is
right, you also are right!  :)

Perhaps the reason they don't have it on their maps (if indeed that is the case!) is that they have taken on this perspective already, and in the end still disagree with you, and so no longer make useful reference to it on their maps? Sometimes it makes no sense to keep something on your map if, after considering it carefully, you have come to the conclusion that it is fundamentally flawed.

james


P.S.
Although this is perhaps going off at a broad tangent, I have a genuine question here, even though I am about to use  a controversial example to try to get to the bottom of it: In the spirit of integral methodological pluralism is everyone right? Is that really what it argues?

Can you please tell me what was right about Heinrich Himmler's perspective when spending a decade or so implementing “the final solution”? I am obviously missing something here.

(This is a genuine question. If someone would like to use a less emotive example from history or current affairs then I'd be happy to substitute my example. Also, if this question is just too broad for this thread then I'd be happy to ask the same question elsewhere within these islands).

james

Re: Evolutionary Enlightenment takes another Postmodern Drubbing

Hi Bruce,

We were posting at the same time. I hope my post answered at least some of your questions.

Since I was one person who copied one of Schalk's posts over to Gaia, I
wanted to post my thoughts on this issue.  I found Schalk's post to be
funny, which is why I shared it; but as I mentioned over on IL, I also
admitted that his critique was partial and that, even if possibly on
target in some ways, I didn't think it invalidated Cohen's teachings as
a whole.

Yes, I acknowledge all this.

For what it's worth, I think that's a healthy process, even if some of
the initial questions lead you astray or get you temporarily tangled in
a conceptual knot (which I think might be happening for him).

Yes, I also acknowledge this.


I'll give a general response:  I don't think the notion of
'evolutionary enlightenment' or spirituality should be treated as
identical with Cohen's particular expression of it.  In other words,
questioning Cohen's teachings is not the same as questioning
'evolutionary spirituality' altogether.

Yes, that's certainly true, and that would be an interesting discussion, but I don't recall anyone discussing that, or recalling that Ken Wilber is also an evolutionary spiritualist and that that's without a doubt the greatest influence on Cohen's evolutionary enightenment.

Evolutionary spirituality, which claims
that those who believe in it are at the 'leading edge of Kosmic
evolution itself,' is even more hubristic than earlier human potential
movements – is at least one worth considering.

Let's unpack this one a little. Where was this actually written in EnlightenNext literature? They speak about the deep-time context a lot, about human beings in general being at the cutting edge of evolution, which isn't even slightly hubristic but just a very simple statement of fact according to evolutionary theory.

There is the implication, of course, that they are seeing more perspectives than most other human beings, but there is good evidence that they are. There isn't anything inherently hubristic about that. I do think that hubris is a significant potential pitfall in that teaching, though, as it is for AQAL.

I am pretty familiar with those EN emails, so I would be pretty surprised if there were one as it had been quoted in that thread or even that they had made the explicit claim that evolutionaries were on the cutting edge of the cutting edge. I took that to be part improvisation, which some took to be a direct quote.

There was a guru and pandit that discussed third-tier as the cutting edge of the cutting edge (again there is evidence for it and it is a potential pitfall), but I never saw or heard that explicit claim, though it was there implicitly. As a student I proofread every email that went out of the place as well as most of them from each English-speaking center around the world, and I never saw that claim made explicitly.

I recall now hearing “we in the developed world” are at the leading edge and need to take responsibility, but I would be surprised if they made the explicit claim for themselves.


Best,

David

Re: Evolutionary Enlightenment takes another Postmodern Drubbing

Hi David

Bruce: “Evolutionary spirituality, which claims
that those who believe in it are at the 'leading edge of Kosmic
evolution itself,' is even more hubristic than earlier human potential
movements – is at least one worth considering”.

David: “Let's unpack this one a little. Where was this actually written in EnlightenNext literature?”

I found it here. ( My underlining below)

Early on in his article Andrew is putting forward a “totality of time and existence” type of framework: “I have no doubt that the evolutionary process—from the big bang to the present moment—is not merely a random, meaningless event. If one stands back and takes a good, hard look at the entire sweep of the process, all the way from its earliest beginnings, one can see undeniable direction and even, I dare say, purpose in its majestic unfolding. But who or what initiated that process? What energy or intelligence made the choice to take that first miraculous leap from formlessness to form, from nothing whatsoever to energy and light to matter to life to consciousness to self-reflective awareness? Such an audacious move, that instantaneous leap from nothing to the beginning of everything, could only have been made by a force that was nothing less than Godlike. That impulse, that evolutionary impulse, is what I call God. That same impulse is not separate from the most important part of each and every one of us, from our uniquely human drive to create and innovate and, most significantly, from our will to consciously evolve.”

And then he says:  “I’m convinced that the momentous enlightening leap that needs to be taken by those of us at the leading edge is the delicate and all-important transition from the mere intellectual and philosophical recognition that our cosmos and culture are evolving to the direct, felt, living experience of the energy and intelligence that is driving the entire process, vibrating in one’s very own heart and mind. It just makes sense that a spiritual path that would enable us to create the future in our own time would have to be based upon such a revelation.”

On re-reading the whole article, I still stick by my own paraphrasing of Andrew's central theme, which I stated on another thread: “I know the purpose of the entire universe and it culminates in…..my group and a small number of other groups of other like us”

Also, David, you said: “They speak about the deep-time context a lot, about human beings in general being at the cutting edge of evolution, which isn't even slightly hubristic but just a very simple statement of fact according to evolutionary theory.”

For me, if this statement or understanding were qualified with other statements such as “of course there is no way of being certain about this but…”  or  “at least as far as we know” or “at least in the known history of planet earth”.

But to have “no doubt” about one's current understanding of the purpose of the whole of the “incomprehensible span of fourteen billion years since the universe burst into being.”?!

I see no such qualifying statements in Andrew's piece, (nor even in evolutionary theory?!) hence my observation of hubris on his part.

It maybe that within evolutionary theory, and within Andrew's framework, it is taken as a given that of course we can know absolutely nothing about possible evolution on other planets, and of course any such statements only refer to the current known history of planet earth. In which case, fine, although in my opinion it would be better to make such statements clearly and overtly.

If such assumed qualifying statements do not generally apply here, and if we are to take Andrew's statements as outlined in this article at face value, then to me this really is hubris of truly universal proportions.

james

Re: Evolutionary Enlightenment takes another Postmodern Drubbing

“as well as such relative features as the deeper psychic, Eros, Optimizing Force, etc.”

Hi, David. What exactly do you mean by “relative” here?

There are relative truths, and then there are relative untruths. Just because you throw in the word relative before any concept doesn't make it valid, you know. For example, “Intelligent Design is relatively true!” doesn't somehow make it immune to criticism.

“Snow is white” is a relative truth. A person wearing yellow sunglasses proclaiming that “snow is yellow” is a relative untruth.

Re: Evolutionary Enlightenment takes another Postmodern Drubbing

Methinks somebody hit a nerve.

Let me get something I posted over on IP.  Just a sec.  It can be filed under the banner Enlightenment Marketing Mayhem. 

Beyond the perversities of spiritual pathway marketing, what has
consistently seemed to me perverse about spiritual teachings is they
look to me to conflate an outcome with a process (perversity 1), and
not just any process, of course, but my particular individual process
(perversity 2).  Let me explain.

A few years ago, I had an
experience before which none of these teachings made much sense to me—I
barely paid attention to them and considered them irrelevant; in fact,
I was internally opposed to them for reasons essential to the
experience I later had.  After that experience, they all essentially
made sense to me.  I got what they were talking about.  I read
Nisargadatta, yup, I get that.  I read Ramana, yup, get it.  Eckhart
Tolle made sense.  Etc.

I don't like talking about my
experiences as it can sound gauche.  But I want to make a point. 
Almost immediately upon having that experience a few years ago, which I
interpreted as a not inconsiderable growth in development, I realized
two things which relate to the perversities above:

1) The
transformation I experienced was stage specific, such that the
experience I had, the change I experienced, could not have been but for
the various stages of development that preceded it.  Those stages
included my turning away from spiritual teachings.  And to use the
dreaded ego language, those stages included, as an essential core
thread of development, the entirety of the growth of and into and
through stages of ego separation.

2) The sequence of my stages was hopelessly particular to who I was and am.

Most
spiritual teachers teach the equivalent of “you must drop your ego.” 
That's the wrong message for most people except those on the verge of
not needing a teacher!  What's more, it seems to me that depth of
realization correlates with degree of inner polarization (or such). 
Ever notice that the spontaneous spiritually awakened teachers were
suicidal or in some form quite extreme?  How does one reach heights
unless depths contrast sufficiently?

What's more, who can
prescribe what any given person might need as the most effective
learning to move that person into her or his next stage?  I can barely
tell what I need not to mention what someone else does.

Doubly hopeless.  I scratch my head.

Re: Evolutionary Enlightenment takes another Postmodern Drubbing

Presumably, the prescriber is the person doing the reading, work and understanding. Who picked up the book? Read the dose of Ramana? Grasped it? Threw it to the side, read Tolle, did the same, - all the time swirling and shuffling the interior into some sort of coherence. Afterall, no one forces us to make connection or contact with any such dharma realms.

Interesting what you say here, Tom:

Most spiritual teachers teach the equivalent of “you must drop your ego.” 
That's the wrong message for most people except those on the verge of
not needing a teacher! 
 
Yes, most people just require something to gloss over, and quick fixes. Something akin to a spiritual-Heroin hit. Some weekend workshops are awesome for that! But the ego thing, that's when it all gets severely dark and twisted and properly painful, and who wants to deal with that? Your right, who really wants to deal with that? I think legitimate stuff is not about making you feel good. Which 99.9% of stuff we see today floating about, really is about, at least in emphasis.
 
What's more, it seems to me that depth of
realization correlates with degree of inner polarization (or such). 
Ever notice that the spontaneous spiritually awakened teachers were
suicidal or in some form quite extreme?  How does one reach heights
unless depths contrast sufficiently?
 
I think this comes with seeing, really seeing and facing the depths and shallows of yourself. Nervous breakdowns and other such fragmenting processes are also good for getting hands dirty in the getting your-shit-together domain. It's a really great contemplative question though Tom, the one that asks:

 'How does one reach heights unless depths contrast sufficiently.'
 
I wonder if dharma to some extent, regardless of source, is these days treated more like reading novels, than anything more serious than that. A 'spiritual' pastime? I think that this plays back into this Cohen conundrum - and why people quickly dismiss and fail to use proper discernment, and face confusion separating the wheat from the chaff.
 
Lisa
 

Re: Evolutionary Enlightenment takes another Postmodern Drubbing

David: Just for the sake of the truth.

What truth? It goes both ways! Where are the Indigo Enlightened beings?

So traditionaly there is the idea of lineage. That a teaching and realization is past down from student to teacher. Who has Cohen or Wilber enlightened? Are either claiming they are enlightened? (Sorry if I remain skeptical) I mean Cohen should have an army of Indigo enlightened beings
flooding the planet? Heck since he is Indigo Enlightened, he should be able to traditionally enlighten people by the busload right? Maybe they are plotting their entrance onto the world scene in some grand fashion from his compound? Secondly the idea of enlightenment itself is rather passe. It does not pass post-modern analysis, that is, it is culturally bound. Which brings us to my last issue, where is the Indigo Culture (outside of the Guru and Pandit interviews) as Indigo Enlightenment needs a culture to have any meaning. So Indigo Enlightenment currently is a bunch of hot air. It sells books and magazines and gets new age types (or folks to lazy to investigate the
original teachings the Indigo teachers pilfered themselves) to spend their money on teachers and authors that need it. It's a business. And so it goes…

And it's quite true: Postmodern spirituality is all about how we feel, but deep spirituality is not. Freedom is not a feeling. Feelings, even blissful and peaceful feelings, are dukkha if we are identifying with them.
(We're discussing Cohen and evolutionary enlightenment in another thread… Well, this is indeed one of the amazing gifts he can give someone, to realize very deeply that deep spirituality is not about how you feel, though feelings, of course, are not unimportant. I think he does take that particular dharma to a new level.)

This is simply how the dharma was first conceptualized. There is only 1 unconditioned “thing”. This is nothing new, though it may be new to you. And so you think it is cutting edge but that may be because you have not penetrated “traditional” dharma (whatever that is). Really all your criticisms of the traditional dharma revolve around the culture in which
it emerged from. So I don't see anything cutting edge with Evolutionary Enlightenment. To me it is merely a repackaging of old ideas in a new vernacular. Which is great, why make people slog thru old texts in foreign languages …but cutting edge…pluueezee…the cutting edge of a dull butter knife!!! The real cutting edge is where ANYONE is on the cusp of casting off the separation of self. The cutting edge has little to do with social movements that solidify selves.

In fact, you don't have some of that stuff on your map at all but vigorously argue against it, so I don't think you could do anything but respond the way you did.
 
Capitalizing words in a new spiritual vernacular does not a cutting edge make. You know, like I said before, tell us how Great your practices are from your experience. All else is hot air and grandstanding and a validation of your hurt identified feelings. This is an identified self talking here buddy and has little to do with cutting edge spirituality.

Re: Evolutionary Enlightenment takes another Postmodern Drubbing

Just speaking for myself, my distrust of Cohen does not have to do with his application of evolutionary insights and understanding to spirituality.  I am interested in that approach and I support it.  My reservations stem mostly from the controversy that continues to surround him, as attested to by a number of his former students; but also from his teachings, some of which I enjoy, but some of which seems 'weak' (or otherwise problematic) to me.

Re: Evolutionary Enlightenment takes another Postmodern Drubbing

Thanks for linking that, Bruce. I have always seen that Andrew has some SERIOUS shadow issues to deal with. Here are just some outtakes for people believing Mr Cohen is the greatest thing this planet has to offer.

* “frequently we lived in fear, and how criticism was always forcibly squelched”

* “she told me stories involving the use of physical force and abuse against students. She spoke of being ordered by Andrew to deliver “messages” to fellow students consisting of slapping the student in the face as hard as she could. She told me she had been ordered by Andrew to paint messages in blood-red paint on the walls of a student’s room at Foxhollow. She described to me the conversion of the spa at Foxhollow into a kind of psychological torture chamber.”

* “I learned of students having large “contributions” psychologically extorted from them. I heard how a student was required to sign a “gag order” agreement prohibiting him from publicly criticizing Andrew as a condition of having his “contribution” returned. I was told the story of community women prostrating in a freezing cold lake in the winter, some suffering dangerous exposure, as a symbol of their devotion and repentance for “women’s conditioning.””

* “I learned of a student being forced—against his will and his moral compunction—to engage in daily visits to prostitutes in Amsterdam for weeks on end as a kind of penance for past sexual indiscretions.”

* “I was told by a student how he was ordered to reveal to his estranged teenage daughter her mother’s infidelity that occurred many years in the past, in order to teach the daughter not to hold her mother, now a critical former student, in such high esteem.”

Re: Evolutionary Enlightenment takes another Postmodern Drubbing

Hi Dawid, yes, one does not garner those kinds of accusations without there being some truth to them.  I don't hear similar accusations regarding, say, Tolle or Ramana, etc.

Re: Evolutionary Enlightenment takes another Postmodern Drubbing

Can I offer the suggestion that evolutionary thinking has much to do and carries many parallel currents with postmodernism?  “Evolutionary,” in my mind, gives time a central role in theory.  A time-based understanding sees development and situatedness and context as indelible markers of any theory's contributions.  Yellow expresses development and situatedness in fuller form than that which gave birth to yellow, green, by appreciating the causative, contributory role of stage-specific processes.  In short, yellow appreciates evolution.

Postmodernism, if I can generalize, heeds the situated, contextual, time-based element of the knowing, developing process.  Of course, postmodernism's difficult turn, still not theoretically digested in spiritual culture, problematizes the static, projecting mind's tendency to posit givens outside one's experience, stage, context and level of development.  Cohen, IMO, has not digested this element of postmodernism (Wilber has to some degree, he's a better thinker), and it is here I would say Cohen is actually degrees anti-evolutionary and not on the cutting edge.

Re: Evolutionary Enlightenment takes another Postmodern Drubbing

Is: Hi, David. What exactly do you mean by “relative” here?

I was just meaning not inherently existing, impermanent.

I was just trying to avoid charges of reifying.  :) That is, I'm just making a distinction between those features/perspectives and emptiness, the absolute, etc., though, like everything else, they are not apart.


Is: A person wearing yellow sunglasses proclaiming that “snow is yellow” is a relative untruth.

Not necessarily!  :)


Tom: What's more, who can prescribe what any given person might need as the most effective learning to move that person into her or his next stage?  I can barely tell what I need not to mention what someone else does.

That's a very good point. Especially if you were just going to, say, put an ad in the paper, “Satsang Here!” You would get a whole rainbow of colors, types, levels of state training, lines, etc.

Whatever you said, just about, it would likely not be right for everyone. Even if you managed to get everyone from the same structure you'll still have masculine and feminine (likely a big difference in spiritual work), other type differences, line differences, and such.

And yes, I don't think anyone can really know what is most deeply authentic often until they are doing it. I like “guru within” teachings for that reason, but 1) that requires a pretty high structure; 2) many postmoderns have a culturally ingrained resistance to having a spiritual teacher, but that's actually one reason why they might be helped by some of them: to develop greater humility/autonomony.

As wrong as they can be, they still can save a person time. Consider the case of the wolf boy, raised by wolves in the forest, no books, gurus, or anything. I bet he would be a pretty good hunter of squirrels and rabbits, but I doubt he would be very evolved or awakened.



e: Which brings us to my last issue, where is the Indigo Culture (outside
of the Guru and Pandit interviews) as Indigo Enlightenment needs a
culture to have any meaning.

Ken has said that Indigo is the leading edge, so it would just a person here or there rather than a culture. And the higher the stage the more difficult they are to realize, not only because they are higher but because, according to the theory, the morphogenetic grooves are very shallow.

Ken describes Red and Amber grooves being as deep as the Grand Canyon, and Indigo is like a person dragging a stick across the sand at the top.

It's kind of like learning Chinese in the middle of Iowa—you'd be the only person speaking or trying to speak Chinese. That would make it more difficult to learn Chinese. Learning Indigo is like trying to learn Chinese in Iowa (living on a farm, not in a university, of course).

I suppose asking to see enlightened students is a legitimate question. You've heard Bjorn's stories of awakening? I think you probably do see some Indigo there; how stable it is is another question.

e: So Indigo Enlightenment currently is a bunch of hot air.

:) I wouldn't go that far. Wilber is a jnani with probably at least a Violet COG, at the very least Indigo. Cohen can definitely come through with some of that as well at times, and transmit it; you would have to go to a retreat with an open, respectful, beginner's mind to know.


e: And so you think it is cutting edge but …

Well, let me first explain what I said to Tom just a little. What I said was basically true, but Ken has also said that the feeling component of the causal is bliss. However, there is a difference between having an experience of that bliss (which is, “this bliss is happening to me”) and “identifying” as that, which is not identifying as anything personal, no personal self.

But where Cohen has added some good stuff is in the dynamic aspect of it, a comitment to a certain context and view through thick and thin. It has the potential of uprooting narcissism in a much bigger way than traditional dharma.

I am not saying it is perfect, but it may have the three faces of spirit going stronger than any other teaching (in theory).


Bruce: My reservations stem mostly from the controversy that continues to surround him …

When I first read this I thought, “Oh! Exciting! Some new dirt!”

But then when I clicked on the link I found the same blog, which closed down nearly five years ago and which hasn't been posted on since February 2005.

I am not saying that I think things are perfect there now or were perfect in 2005 (though I never lived there so couldn't ultimately make a judgement about that), but I think first of all we have to acknowledge that those stories took place around the turn of the millenium, and I haven't seen any new ones pop up on the web.

I'm not saying it's perfect, but I think it's better, much better probably, than it was. We have been over that on various forums, and I won't elaborate on that. I just think we should bear in mind that 1) they happened a long time ago, nearly ten years ago; 2) people evolve, especially those making the effort; 3) he didn't have the luxury of Wilber V when he started teaching (like many others).

I'm not going to defend those things in those blogs; they don't sound good to me. I would just like to add some more perspectives to get a more balanced view and one that makes sure we aren't projecting. Another important perspective is that I haven't read a single disaffected student (and I have read all those blogs) who seemed to understand what Cohen was saying, which is what he also says in his defense.

In my mind I differentiate between a few things: 1) His most formal teachings, those that are in his books, his models, his writings, on his website, most of what he says in his retreats; 2) those parts of his teachings I feel are a little out of his area of expertise or a little adventuresome theoretically; 3) his interpersonal work with students.

I'm not saying any of those categories are necessarily all bad at all; I'm just saying that if we want to have a clear discussion we need to differentiate carefully between them.

I'm not recommending anyone go live there (though I'm not not recommending it either); I'm just saying that the first category at least contains some important stuff. As Ken Wilber said in an introduction to one of his books, “Andrew Cohen is an important voice that needs to be heard.”


Is: shadow issues

I think evolutionary enlightenment (Cohen's) could use some talk about projection, disassociation, repression, reintegrating distal-I's, etc. That is pretty cutting edge work, and I'm not even convinced yet that I-I does a great job with them (I would be interested in anyone's take on that), but I think it would be very helpful. EE has something very complimentary to that but doesn't touch on those issues I mentioned that I am aware of aside from the “promise of perfection” teachings.


Tom: Of course, postmodernism's difficult turn, still not theoretically
digested in spiritual culture, problematizes the static, projecting
mind's tendency to posit givens outside one's experience, stage,
context and level of development.  Cohen, IMO, has not digested this
element of postmodernism (Wilber has to some degree, he's a better
thinker), and it is here I would say Cohen is actually degrees
anti-evolutionary and not on the cutting edge.

It's true that postmernism won't accept any givens or universal features and in some cases not even objective facts of any kind, but that's not integral; that's Green. Postmodernism's absolute claims, like everyone else's, will have to be dropped, though they will of course kick and scream, and some will never accept it that postmodernism isn't 100% correct.

I think Cohen probably understands that better than you think. He is one of those teachers (like most if not all of the I-I teachers) who use AQAL as their basic map.

Re: Evolutionary Enlightenment takes another Postmodern Drubbing

David: It's true that postmernism won't accept any givens or universal
features and in some cases not even objective facts of any kind, but
that's not integral; that's Green.

I don't agree with this characterization.  I don't think Cohen would either, from that link.

Re: Evolutionary Enlightenment takes another Postmodern Drubbing

When I first read this I thought, “Oh! Exciting! Some new dirt!”

Here's some new dirt: 

http://whatenlightenment.blogspot.com/2009_04_01_archive.html

Re: Evolutionary Enlightenment takes another Postmodern Drubbing

From one of the attestors:

I can personally attest to being instructed one time to go to Craig Hamilton and Carter Phipps, co-editors with me of Andrew’s magazine What Is Enlightenment?, shout an angry message, and slap them both, hard. Andrew emphasized that I must really mean it and hit them hard. I did this.

Re: Evolutionary Enlightenment takes another Postmodern Drubbing

David,

You proclaimed: Wilber is a jnani with probably at least a Violet COG, at the very least Indigo.



By whose standards?

Do you have the standing to make this judgment?

Are you his master telling him that he can go forth and teach in your lineage?

Did he pay you to write that? What's your price?



What if we don't color code. Can you say we are not beyond beyond?

Can you say we are not beyond the color coding cult?

Where is your proof?

By whose standards?



Define for us, “self-reification.”



S.



P.S. Why do you capitalize violet and indigo? They are not proper nouns.

Re: Evolutionary Enlightenment takes another Postmodern Drubbing

James: Not wanting to sound sarcastic but I actually found people's responses
not at all wallowing, and in fact rather imaginative and creative. They
weren't favourable or accepting of Andrew's way of operating, but they
were creative.

I can't share your opinion on this, James. That Lisa could see that there was indeed wallowing going on was one of the things I liked best about her piece.

Andrew Cohen once asked people in a retreat “to give up all negativity.” This is not an easy point to get.

It doesn't mean you can never make any negative remarks about an idea, far from it. He is talking about a commitment to evolution, a commitment to personal and collective growth, a commitment to learning, a radical sincerity, an end to cynicism.

Cynicism, you may know, is one of the postmodern diseases, another thing he talks about. It's a particular definition of cynicism: “Ah, I already know that! I know everything! Ah, that sucks! No, I don't need to learn anything about it; I already know it sucks! Of course it sucks! Everything really sucks but me! What? No, I don't need to actually study or look deeply into the matter, go to a retreat. You see, if I maintain this cynical attitude I can continue to be the self-concerned, self-indulgent narcissist that I am, and I can very clearly see that this is an easier way of living, less demanding, than the one Andrew Cohen is offering. So I'll just make a bunch of cynical jokes, and we'll all tell ourselves we're Turquoise and that there's no such thing as Indigo.”

I hope that gives you the general idea. As Ken has said, postmodernists don't feel the need to study a subject, do research, etc.—what's important is their feelings. Truth is entirely subjective, so whatever they feel is true, and there aren't any levels of development, so they're already on top!

Now, I don't mean to put anyone in that extreme, caricatured position; obviously it's all a little more complex than that, and I don't mean to stamp anyone with the color Green so thoroughly or anything, but that was just to give you the general idea. Everyone came to a conclusion, but no one knew what they were talking about. The conclusion, also, was about the least charitable they could come up with and also a little mean (as in mean green meme).

There was also a performative contradiction—he is so mean, so uncaring, so bad, has such a big shadow, when they were, in that very breath, exhibiting those same characteristics. By they, I just mean the worst of the Cohen critics generally—I am just trying to paint an extreme picture here to give you the idea, not characterize anyone in particular.

But when there's no attempt to learn, when uncharitable conclusions are reached without study, when there's nothing but cynical, uncaring jokes—yes, there is wallowing!

Please don't take this as any kind of a personal attack—I really wanted to convey a bit of AC's teaching with that. One of his great gifts can be found in there, if no one takes it personally, which is another subject of his teaching.


James: How do you know that people have not looked at those triggers genuinely and deeply?

Because if they had they would have to have admitted that they really don't know much or anything in some cases about the subject, whereas there was the unstudied already knowing (cynicism), often mean in defense of their value sphere, that typifies postmodern discourse. Please don't take this personally, James; I really like you a lot.

Also, there was no attempt to bring in any dissenting opinions, was there, in written form or in the form of posters who took an opposite view. If every side of the subject isn't fully explored and yet we come up with these harsh, cynical conclusions, I do believe the word wallowing does apply! :)

But I know very well, and I think it's clear from both of our posts, that our attempt is to shed light, not put down, to come to a greater harmony and understanding, not more polarization.



James: I must say that, my own opinion is that
Andrew has created his very own group of students who share this sense
of “belonging to something”…i.e. those known as Evolutionaries, with a
capital E, because they are …”special”.

Do you have anything more to base this on aside from a few emails that you interpreted in about the most uncharitable way you could manage?


James: David, can you explain further what you mean by the concept of not
“fully downloading the evolutionary perspective” and why this might not
apply to Is and e's comments please?

They were basically offering a one-quadrant interpretation, upper left. The reason I posted, according to that view, was that I was reactive, unsure of my opinions, etc. I didn't see more than one perspective considered in what they wrote.

With an evolutionary context fully downloaded, for one thing, one uses evolutionary perspectives around the four quadrants as a “moral compass”—those are Ken's words. There were two great guru-and-pandit discussions that dealt with this. Here are a couple of excerpts:

Re: Evolutionary Enlightenment takes another Postmodern Drubbing

Hi David

Thanks for the in-depth responses.

I think we're ok to agree to disagree about our understanding of the word wallowing…and I'm not sure I am completely at ease with the idea of “giving up negativity”…. but I do like your great description of the extreme cynical mindset. Very persuasive and insightful, thanks. Thanks also for the considerate wording ensuring I didn't take it personally. It's easy to take things the wrong way online.

And although this is not my main point, I must say that you seem to be responding in the same way that Lisa did, i.e. by making assumptions about the degree of understanding of those commenting:

David: Because if they had they would have to have admitted that they really
don't know much or anything in some cases about the subject, whereas
there was the unstudied already knowing (cynicism),

How do you know that the commentators know little or nothing about the subject or that their responses were unstudied?

James: I must say that, my own opinion is that
Andrew has created his very own group of students who share this sense
of “belonging to something”…i.e. those known as Evolutionaries, with a
capital E, because they are …”special”.

David: “Doyou have anything more to base this on aside from a few emails that you interpreted in about the most uncharitable way you could manage?”

I didn't “manage” to interpret them in any particular way - you seem to suggest it took some kind of deliberate effort on my part. But since you ask, yes. I have been watching video presentations of Andrew, reading all the recent (last 12 months) articles he and others write on Enlightennext, I read several blogs on Gaia written by those who have been or are close to him as students. I read many of the Guru - Pandit stuff, even articles by Andrew from 10 years ago in old UK New Age magazines. And alongside the admirable stuff he is doing, I keep getting the same nagging sense that he is …unaware of the possibility that his understanding may be lacking in any way.

From his writings and presentations, he does not seem to entertain the possibility that he may be “wrong”. He does not seem to entertain the possibility that there may be other planets out there, or even other dimensions, which are “further up the spiral”. Or that perhaps there is actually no such thing as “The Spiral” at all and its just a human mind creation.


Yes, David you are right that I exaggerated my language re. my initial “cutting edge” paraphrasing, and yes that exaggeration led to an unfair characterization. My apologies. And yet he does say “we at the leading edge”….and I do think by that he is referring to his own group of students and those sympathetic to him.

And to be a little more specific, when I quoted the word “Evolutionaries” I was assuming that it referred to Andrew Cohen's students plus others sympathetic to his work, e.g. Ken Wilber. That was my understanding when using that term in both of my attempts, on separate comments in this thread, at paraphrasing the essence of what came across to me.


David: “It's a pretty standard idea in evolutionary spirituality to think that
human beings are on the cutting edge and that the most evolved human
beings are going to have to take responsibility for the future.”It's a pretty standard idea in evolutionary spirituality to think that
human beings are on the cutting edge and that the most evolved human
beings are going to have to take responsibility for the future. You can
check out this really cool Brian Swimme video  for more on that.

Here is a quote from the video: “Humans have never been called upon to produce ideas at the level of planetary creativity.”

I understand that that sounds hubristic from the perspective of some worldviews.

Wow, that was the nicest put down I've ever received! ;-)

But I must say, to me there is quite a difference between saying “Humans have never been called upon to produce ideas at the level of planetary creativity.” and “we at the leading edge…” in terms of the hubris involved.

Also, it may be a standard idea in evolutionary spirituality that human beings are at the cutting edge, but when it is coupled with references to having no doubt about one's understanding of the meaning and evolution of the entire universe, of which one is the leading edge, then standard thinking or not, I question it.

I also understand that this may sound unevolved from the perspective of some worldviews ;-)

james

Re: Evolutionary Enlightenment takes another Postmodern Drubbing

David: Andrew Cohen once asked people in a retreat “to give up all negativity.”

Including emptiness?

Re: Evolutionary Enlightenment takes another Postmodern Drubbing

Tom, I forgot to include your post, sorry—were you still talking about emptiness and eros givens in the above post? That was what I was going to ask you, because I wasn't sure.

I think you were, given this one.

As for the last question, for Cohen at least, and I think Wilber, emptiness definitely isn't a negative thing. It sounds negative, and I believe it is a little negative in some Buddhist schools whether they deny it or not (not all certainly, and I'm not referring to prasangikas or madhyamakas).

It's just a word to hang on something that's beyond all conceptions, and the reasons Wilber chooses that word is partially because he thinks it is a more accurate description than absolute subjectivity, and he probably also thinks it is helpful dharmically to call it that.

Re: Evolutionary Enlightenment takes another Postmodern Drubbing

<br /><br />

Hi,

I will answer a couple of questions that haven’t been touched upon, James.  




Okay, let’s play with this wallowing ballpark a bit more. My
feeling is still this:

When people use a type of humor to smash something apart that is outside their
area of knowledge, and it is at the expense of something that’s trying to
stretch it’s limits, using the most frequent common denominator of human
bonding: negativity (as David
illustrated nicely in his post) that’s not creative. And it’s passively
aggressive to the max. Metaphors of throwing Christians to the Lions are
springing to mind. I am being extreme, but the reason for that, is that I
detest the great ease with which this type of humor, the worst type, the cruelest,
which is laced with contempt, is so thoughtlessly grooved into.
 
This is wallowing. Imagine something you can relate to more,
lets take RAM appreciators for example, those types who really do ‘do the work’
– for all its personal strife & complexity that will ensue during that
process. If those types, who genuinely get off their asses for a living, listened
to a similar line of reasoning like the one we see here with AC casual slating,
something akin to, ‘Ahhh, dark night of the soul’ ‘what a pile of horse shit,’ ‘what
a top marketing ploy,’ ‘sucking in all of the vulnerable people’ ‘practicum’s’ ‘what
a complete rip off.’ Of course RAM appreciators would be fully right to defend
such negativity. Because they’ve found something that works for them, that
gives them a way in to some radical self honesty, something that gives them
more integrity as people. They know first hand. They’ve come to an
understanding in and with their lives that, ‘doing the work’ reaps rewards.

I have full respect for that, which
is why I would exercise caution in ridiculing that which I know nothing about,
even if it was just for fun. It would ultimately undermine the value in RAM’s
teachings/work for example, which clearly does help particular people transform
themselves. I just used RAM as a little example to get my point across, and because he is so popular makes this a
perfectly incongruent example. This is not of course saying don’t criticize. It’s
just distinguishing between criticizing and sacrificing.
 
 
Are you assuming that
if they really were doing so then they would inevitably agree with Andrew
Cohen, and that by disagreeing with him it proves that such people are not
living from their highest capacity?
 
Not whatsoever. As I said above, it may however mean that
they refrain from making particularly final
closed judgments about that which they are not experienced. It’s not a field
that is limited to this Cohen conundrum. I have watched for example Balder
defend Krishnamurti elsewhere, many moons ago, for this same reason. Presumably,
that Krishnamurti’s teachings at some point were pertinent to his development
and understanding. There comes a time when casual criticisms, people repeating
each other, just mooching onto bandwagons, is just pure laziness to look
further into that which rings their bells like a town crier.  






Lisa: “... because it helps them belong to something,”.
 
James: Now, ordinarily, feeling a sense of
belonging to something is not at all necessarily a bad thing, right? But I
think I get your meaning when you use this phrase here, and it has a negative
connotation, right? So if I understand you correctly then, I must say that, my
own opinion is that Andrew has created his very own group of students who share
this sense of “belonging to something”…i.e. those known as Evolutionaries, with
a capital E, because they are …”special”.




Yes, I don’t doubt it, I am sure ‘belonging’ is alive and
kicking, among any such ‘Evolutionaries.’ I actually had a good laugh while
talking to one of the London based
Andrew Cohen students a while back about this notion. It’s not like its Star
Trek and folk are forging ahead with lazer beaming weapons in their hands
(though that would be well cool! Along with nations of Is’s BOT-brothers &
sister-bodhisattva’s!). Belonging is one thing, groups sacrificing though is
quite another. ;) Which is what we collectively do when we chew something up
and spit it out without due care and attention. There you have it, my truthful
opinion!


What do you think about my observations
and questions? Hoping to engage dynamically…! ;-)




I think they are fantastico maximo James. Great points,
& post!
 
Lisa

Re: Evolutionary Enlightenment takes another Postmodern Drubbing

Lisa, just to be clear here. I don't get how anyone can claim Enlightenment (selflessness) and act like a rude little self. Anything that person will say will be suspect to me. Now I am not criticizing David or you or your practice or traditions or whatever. I have been a bit sarcastic but always in a playful teasing manner. I would rather not talk about any of this stuff if it means 2 of my dearest friends here are hurt or think they are being ridiculed. But a teacher that claims the highest human potential but acts differently is open to criticism and good dose of skeptical doubt. For me it is not about being triggered or spiteful or envious etc. It is about walking the talk. We have to hold our spiritual teachers to a higher standard (and yes forgive them too). We put regular school teachers in prison for what some of these yahoo's do to their students!

Re: Evolutionary Enlightenment takes another Postmodern Drubbing

Hi Lisa

Thanks for the in-depth, considered responses!

Despite not sharing yours (and David's) understanding of the word “wallowing”, I really appreciated your hypothetical example of the dismissal of, say, RAM's work in a similar way to how you feel Cohen is being dismissed by some readers. It clarified things for me and also showed a gut level response from you about how fed up you are with this kind of attitude. Cool!

Now I am not here to justify cynical criticism (or wallowing?), and I recognise you feel strongly about this form of criticism, but I do think in response you have jumped to several assumptions which may not be correct, i.e. - your suggestions that those making the comments are being triggered by Andrew, or that they should do more shadow work on themselves.

And you seem to reply to my question as to whether you are indeed making such assumptions with….well…another assumption. :-)

James: “Are you assuming that if they really were doing so then they would inevitably agree with Andrew Cohen, and that by disagreeing with him it proves that such people are not living from their highest capacity?”
 
Lisa: “Not whatsoever. As I said above, it may however mean that
they refrain from making particularly final closed judgments about that which they are not experienced.”

Again why are you assuming they have no experience in the areas that Andrew is talking about?


For what it's worth, I don't have reservations about Andrew because of his moustache(!) nor his presentation style nor because some past students have reported supposedly outrageous behaviour.

What I am trying to get to the bottom of is whether or not you or other readers see any degree of hubris in the article by Andrew I linked to, or indeed in his general teachings. That's the reason I chipped in on the other thread in the first place. Because often, when I read his work or read blog entries by his students, I repeatedly get the sense that he is essentially saying: ” I know the purpose of the universe, I understand the evolutionary process, and it culminates in us Evolutionaries”.

Do you see Andrew saying this in his teachings? I see Ken saying it to some extent about integral too but I don't see how it's justified by either of them. I also got the same sense when reading the recent marketing blurb from Robb Smith about one of the big forthcoming integral gatherings which several Gaians commented on with distaste.

Robb Smith said (my underlining): “This is a very special pre-invitation to join us as we embark on a 5-year journey to explore, practice and share humanity’s first world spirituality at the leading edge of evolution.

This groundbreaking gathering will be led by the world’s leading lineage holders from every major spiritual tradition and represents the flagship event for the spiritual community worldwide.”

I didn't go looking for these comments with a fine tooth comb, determined to be cynical. This choice of language jumped out at me. Just as Andrew's did when he talks about having “no doubt” about the purpose of the evolution of the universe, and that he and his students and readers are “at the leading edge” of it. These were his choice of words. How can anyone claim to be at the leading edge of evolution when there is so much in the Cosmos / Kosmos we know so little about?

Just as the human eye can percieve only a faction of the full range of electromagnetic radiation, the current range of human understanding is also a fraction on an infinite spectrum, isn't it?  So why use language that suggests one understands the entire course of evolution like Andrew does in that article, and then put oneself at the forefront of it. Is it really any wonder that many readers don't react positively to the hubris that suggests?

james

Re: Evolutionary Enlightenment takes another Postmodern Drubbing

Actually, I personally have a thing with AC's moustache.  It's …. like …. moustachy, you know?  I want my guru on my t-shirt, which for me these days has to be D&G, cause it's so mod, and if AC's gonna some day be my guru, D&G just don't go with a stache, though I might be into Alexander McQueen by that time.  Let me see, Queen and stache, Queen and stache … oh, I'm getting ahead of myself.  Whoa!  Holy wayyy out of the present, Batman!  Silly me, and sillier still: how can “I” be ahead of “my” self??  Slipped out of enlightenment there for sure!

I'm not sure what the stache says about AC's methods or level of development, but I'd be the last to say moustaches don't count for anything in these matters!

Re: Evolutionary Enlightenment takes another Postmodern Drubbing

James,

You asked: So why use language that suggests one understands the entire course of evolution like Andrew does in that article, and then put oneself at the
forefront of it(?).

The answer is the same as to the famous question, why does a dog lick his balls?

Because he can.

Cohen lives in a country where one is free to say such things. He lives
in a country where such statements are expected by the spiritually
hollow seeker looking to be filled at someone else's pumping station.
He lives in a country that invented the kind of evangelism that's
Cohen's trade. It is the USA and if one is pushing a spiritual product
there, that is how it is done to the best effect…buy a piece of media
and pitch the product. And the wonderful part is that the hollow
feeling seeker is just as free to follow. I certainly have no right to
interfere with that relationship. And I am certainly not going to
challenge Cohen on anything he says because it is all metaphysical and
only assailable from its own context, a context for which I have
negative interest as I have a negative interest in trying to punch
holes in any other billow of blue smoke. (Wilber is a horse of a
different merry-go-round because he tries to tell us how things are
working here on the ground rather than just plugging the taste of their
particular pie in the sky.)

Now for the past few months I've heard talk of Evolutionary
Enlightenment, but I didn't pay much attention to who or how because I
have listened to talk of This Enlightenment and That Enlightenment and
Whatever Enlightenment for the last 40 years; they come and go up and
down the workshop circuit and burn out and fall off. Nothing changes
much. I've known seekers who have been seeking for longer than most of
the kids on the pod have been alive. They have embraced This and That
and Whatever and I have seen no more change in them than if they had
been reading nothing more than Popular Mechanics since they were all
16. I just thought Evo. Enlite is the next new vogue religious shtick
for the Spiritual but Not Religious Religion. bfd, sos. Then David
posted his complaint that began this thread so I decided to study up. I
watched Cohen vids and read stuff and tied it back into Wilber's pitch.
It is so American, so Christian off-shoot heresy. So American
Transcendental…

Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote this 173 years ago:

“So shall we come to look at the world with new eyes. It shall answer
the endless inquiry of the intellect, — What is truth? and of the
affections, — What is good? by yielding itself passive to the educated
Will. … Build, therefore, your own world. As fast as you conform your
life to the pure idea in your mind, that will unfold its great
proportions. A correspondent revolution in things will attend the
influx of the spirit.”

Emerson started losing his mind about a decade after Darwin published
his dangerous idea. Just think what would have happened if he had lived
his full life in Darwin's day–Ken and Andy wouldn't be evolutionaries,
they would be genuflecting Emersonians.

Yours in the spirit of Diogenes,

SN

Re: Evolutionary Enlightenment takes another Postmodern Drubbing

Masterful.  Gets my vote for post of the year.

I notice you didn't say anything about the moustache?

Re: Evolutionary Enlightenment takes another Postmodern Drubbing

Thanks for the vote Tom. And what is there to say about the mustache?
Schlock?
S.

Re: Evolutionary Enlightenment takes another Postmodern Drubbing

Wilber is a horse of a different merry-go-round because he tries to tell us how things are working here on the ground rather than just plugging the taste of their
particular pie in the sky.

:-)

Re: Evolutionary Enlightenment takes another Postmodern Drubbing

Hi Nickeson,

very interesting take. I followed the whole buzz and public communication of enlightenment, evolution and emergence the last 40 years too. In Germany. In all of its cycles.

Practiced meditation within 2 communties and teachings and agree that the specific evangelizing you describe is genuinley an American way.

Follwing the transcendentalists whom I appreicate greatly.

These guys, f.e . Emerson have a huge and international and diverse fellowership. Even Tom peters praises him and German management author Reinhold Sprenger who told me in personal email some years age that he refuses to read Wilber as this guy would be too arrogant for him:):)

The whole communication about these things is more careful, critical and limited to specific circles. When a buddhism expert like Prof Michael von Brück, Pater Willigis Jäger who is Chriustian and Zen Buddhist are discussing in Media like German 3SAt ( A TV station with lots of cultural themes) they sound like social workers or careful rationally Protestants:):)

And though the Wilber circles -I participated very actively from 1999- 2003 -have extended their activity so a signifcant degree- the Amrican style ala KW and AC cannot be duplicated here.

And why should it? European spirituality is expressing itself in another way and more in cultural contexts.

I like however the Guru Pandit conversations. Any talk about so called third tier, that means building a stage beyond worldcentric consciousness needs more exact documentation, exploration and clear distinctions. I am still awaiting Andrews new book he announced in March 2008. Which would bring this transparency….

Evolutionary Enlightenement needs far more inspection in the specfic contexts of the respective cultures. And very concrete 1st person reports from those who claim to be at the cutting edge.

Greetings,
Albert

Re: Evolutionary Enlightenment takes another Postmodern Drubbing

Reinhard Sprenger

Michael von Brück

The link to the article of von Brück seems to be broken. Will see if I find it again..

Re: Evolutionary Enlightenment takes another Postmodern Drubbing

Try this one:

Religions Today

Re: Evolutionary Enlightenment takes another Postmodern Drubbing

Hi James, e,

I really do appreciate what you've both had to say there. Yes, you picked up nicely on my gut feeling there, James. And as far as communication goes, e, I think there is a deeper care involved in ALL, not always fully apparent. I do think it would be most interesting to see where we groove from here. Taking questions and reasoning of all into account. So I am going to do the right thing, and sip tea and ponder this more.

Thank you,
Lisa

Re: Evolutionary Enlightenment takes another Postmodern Drubbing

e: But a teacher that claims the highest human potential but acts
differently is open to criticism and good dose of skeptical doubt. For
me it is not about being triggered or spiteful or envious etc. It is
about walking the talk. We have to hold our spiritual teachers to a
higher standard.

Yes, this is quite true; there are some legitimate questions.

I think we have to be careful when we do make criticisms, however, not to demonstrate those same qualities that we are criticizing.

It's at those times when we have to be most sure we aren't applying double standards, sacrificing or putting down for a quick energy boost, playing power games, forgetting to take different types into consideration, criticizing for a lack of care without showing care ourselves, etc.


James: How do you know that the commentators know little or nothing about the subject or that their responses were unstudied?

First of all, I wouldn't characterize them that way generally at all. For example, I think the remarks about self-acceptance are very good ones. I think that's an important thing to integrate and could probably be emphasized and developed more in evolutionary enlightenment.

Also, I think the whole thing could be rehung in terms of self-acceptance, including the acceptance of what I believe is our inherent drive to improve things, acceptance of our own higher discrimination, etc.

But, to answer your question, this is just the latest of many discussions about the subject, so we know what each other's experience with the material is.


James: I read many of the Guru - Pandit stuff, even articles by Andrew from 10
years ago in old UK New Age magazines. And alongside the admirable
stuff he is doing, I keep getting the same nagging sense that he is
…unaware of the possibility that his understanding may be lacking in
any way.

You've obviously made an effort to study the subject, so sorry if I didn't give you enough credit for that. However, if you looked into it more I think you would see that he is quite aware aware that he may not know some important things. For example, here is a brief excerpt from Embracing Heaven & Earth:

Re: Evolutionary Enlightenment takes another Postmodern Drubbing

I think we have to be careful when we do make criticisms, however, not
to demonstrate those same qualities that we are criticizing.


LOL, who here is trying to shag their students or psychologically or
physically abuse anyone or fleece people out of their hard earned money? If
this was any other arena this would be called a con game. But here we tolerate
it…for what… ‘crazy wisdom’? Well at least one of the words apply. ‘Criticism
is never a harm and is always a benefit.’

Re: Evolutionary Enlightenment takes another Postmodern Drubbing

The stories don't sound good to me at all. I also think that what happens in such communities should be in accordance with the law of the land, as Tom suggested.

I don't see how physical attacks could be transformative in the way that we discuss around here. It seems to be a relic from certain premodern enlightenment schools, though it probably continues in Tibet and Japan today.

However, I don't see what's new about any of this. A newspaper decided to make an issue of it recently; that's the only thing that's new. The stories are old, the same stories written again for the newspaper.

If the things written in the stories are true and they continue, I think it is an issue. However, it's not like Jonestown in Guyana—people are free to go; no one is being held there with a gun or a crossbow.

If such things do continue to occur, however, then I think it would be fair to inform people of it upon entering the community, not before they establish ties, break old ties, make an investment in time, money, etc.

However, just for a little perspective, more brutal things happen in hockey games, right? A lot of things that happen in NHL hockey games would land a person in jail if done outside of a game (occasionally a player has been charged with something), but because it's within the game and people know what they are getting into it we don't say it's against the law; we call it sport.

Bruce has said he thinks there may be a place for Rinzai-style enlightenment schools. If there should be a place for them, people should know what they are getting into, like hockey players know what they are getting into.

Tom, you did take that quote out of context a little, though. The incident doesn't sound transformative to me, but you left out a few qualifying sentences, such as, “I would say that slapping and physical assaults were pretty infrequent… . I would not say it was something formal students came to expect. Perhaps it was more for the …  three to seven most senior students who led Andrew's communities.”

As I said earlier, though, I think it would be best to differentiate between the most formal, written teachings and the guru/interpersonal work. I value the more formal, public part of evolutionary enlightenment for the contribution it makes to evolutionary spirituality in the tradition of Aurobindo, Wilber, Almaas, and a few others.

Re: Evolutionary Enlightenment takes another Postmodern Drubbing

Bruce has said he thinks there may be a place for Rinzai-style enlightenment schools. If there should be a place for them, people should know what they are getting into, like hockey players know what they are getting into.

Hockey games are for fun and entertainment.

It is pretty much an accepted fact that negative reinforcement does not work. Whether it is training animals or humans. Surely an “Indigo” guru would know this.

Re: Evolutionary Enlightenment takes another Postmodern Drubbing

e: It is pretty much an accepted fact that negative reinforcement does not work. Whether it is training animals or humans.

That's interesting. It might well be true. Would you care to elaborate on that? Also, I'm not exactly sure what you mean by “negative reinforcement.”

I'm certainly not arguing that physical attacks are transformative; I don't see any use for it at all in that context. Perhaps it was useful in 12th century Tibet where you had a bunch of wild Red monks in a Red culture and maybe an Amber teacher, but I don't see that there would be any place for it now.

e: Surely an “Indigo” guru would know this.

A couple of points:

1) If someone awakens to a higher structure, like Indigo or any other, 100% of their responses will not be from that structure. In the beginning, just a small percentage would be. Whatever our structural COG is now, once and awhile we go beyond that and hit the next stage. The tricky thing about that is, though, that as much as we are convinced we are in a higher structure in that moment we will be quite confused about whether it was higher or lower or horizontal or whatnot when we fall out of it and back to the lower structure. We really can't see the higher structure clearly at all—if we could we would be at that higher structure.

Later maybe 60% of your COG will be in the higher structure, and you can call the higher structure your COG, but still 40% will be below that. It also wouldn't mean that you would be 60% at that structure along every line. Maybe you would have control issues on the interpersonal line and you would be Indigo, Indigo, Indigo, then in a pivotal, challenging interpersonal situation—crash! Amber!

2) But in the case of pre-Wilber V spiritual teachers there's an added element of not being all that clear on what's up and what's down. I don't think Adi Da's teaching career, for example, would be anything like it was if Wilber had preceeded it. At any rate, it's an understandable error that a pre-Wilber V teacher would look at traditional guru-student relationships to learn how it's done, and I don't think physically attacking students was out of the ordinary in Tibetan Buddhism, for example (Marpa, Milarepa, etc.).

Even today in that part of the world, in enlightenment circles, such physical attacks are considered a possibility in the guru-student relationship:

Re: Evolutionary Enlightenment takes another Postmodern Drubbing

Reinforcement

–

I think it's a premodern relic, though.

Agreed, AC was acting pre-modern. :-)

Re: Evolutionary Enlightenment takes another Postmodern Drubbing

Hi Albert,

The Amrican style ala KW and AC cannot be duplicated here.

And why should it? European spirituality is expressing itself in another way and more in cultural contexts.


Why couldn't American models be duplicated in Europe, and what is different about European models?

Re: Evolutionary Enlightenment takes another Postmodern Drubbing

Hi David,

its about European menatlity in all areas of life.

Check this early 2000 report from Brian van der Horst. its subjective and very, very partial but deserves some asttention:

The Euro Report: Around the World with Ken Wilber

There he says:

“Oddly enough, in Europe, where people are more inclined to say “If it's a beautiful idea, then it must work,”  in contrast to the  American orientation, of “If it works, then it must be a good idea, ” the Europeans familiar with these models are putting the cognitive tools of KW to action relatively quickly”
 
Now we have 2009.
 
Everything will emerge here in specific forms. Never be duplicated. As lots of American motivation gurus have experienced already.
 
See the Dutch Center for HUman Emergence.
 
I envision a German one too. Though lots of Wilber centric study circles and consultants, coaches etc. are working with AQAL concepts no final pattern of integral prototypical infrastructure can be detected.
 
Everything will grow here according to the specifics of German, Dutch, Denish , French etx. cultural conditions.
 
And leadership in these countries will merge from within. No American franchise givers and franchisees will do it:):)
 
Though resonances, yes.
 
 

Re: Evolutionary Enlightenment takes another Postmodern Drubbing

Albert, yes.  And don't forget the American business orientation which defines “if it works” in no small part by market share it attracted or can attract.

Re: Evolutionary Enlightenment takes another Postmodern Drubbing

Tom, absolutely:):)

Example is evolution of PC industry. Some foundations were laid in Germany and Europe, however it was the rapid and offensive marketing of the new technology which made the difference.

Another example would be the Apollo program. Lead by Wernher von Braun. V2 experiments in Penemünde and other basics of rocket science in Germany produced know how. It was a mix of PR skills, sales talent of von Braun and the poltical intention of president Kennedy which initiated it.

So it will be very interesting to watch in next decades the specific evolution of the edge in Europe , NOrth America and world. I spoke frequently with Russ Volckmann/ILR -his father came from Germany -about Europe and USA. We had strong consensus about lots of points.

Tomorrow I am invited to the take off event of European Leadership Academy. A friend is the founder who is engaged in integral coaching for leaders for lots of time. He told me that 90 Percent of Leadership Literature comes from USA. Only 10 Percent from Europe.

This point alone indicates a different understanding of some points. And of course, especially in Germany the things are very complex. I am working for a special issue of Integral leadership Review for a Germany Special:):) which will be published in 1/2010.

So the vmemetic landscape of Europe and its cultural and psychic patterns are specific. And right now I am only speaking about Western Europe with alignemtn to the UK (which has a unique twitter position between Continental Europe and USA)

European Integration towards Eastern Europe and South East Europe is another thing.

So, viva le differences:):)