Wilber and the Evolution Problem Part 2

Wilber and Evolution part 2

Now I have to disagree with aspects of Wilberian post metaphysics and his ideas of spiritual evolution or Evolutionary Enlightenment.

First, why enlightenment CANT be related to evolution?

Evolution is primarily about physical forms and their relationship with the world, and time.
Enlightenment is, and has always been understood as a timeless reality that has no beginning or end. It is a station of consciousness that has to be above and beyond time, and place. Of course it can be in time and place, but only recognizes it [time and place] as illusionary, or temporary.

Wilber’s ideas that enlightenment is subject to a scale of societal cultural relativity

Quoting Wilber

“When it comes to spiritual experience, we can see this very clearly. If you look, for example, at the spiritual experiences of the Western enlightened saints and sages, you find many accounts of angelic beings, or beings of light or luminosity, but you'll never find any saint or sage in the West describing an entity that has ten thousand arms. And yet that experience seems to be very common in Tibet. Tibetans might see the goddess Avalokitesvara with ten thousand arms appearing in their dreams all the time and think that is the actual form of God. It is the form of God in Tibet, but not in Germany.”

The above may be accurate, on one level, but Wilber doesn’t understand that the outer appearance of the God is unimportant to the real sage, since it is the underlying meaning of the outer appearance that matters, not the externals.

Wilber again:

WILBER: Indeed! The point is that these are authentic spiritual experiences, but they are culturally molded. And if somebody's taking their spiritual experience and saying, “This is universally true,” they're lying.

Here is where it is easy to refute Wilber’s straw man.
When he says or derides one who claims  something is universally true, he doesn’t understand that it is the inner meaning of the vision that is universally true, not the externals of it, which are only symbols, indeed molded by the cultural milieu of the visionary.

This all gets top the crux of Wilber’s basic error in his idea of enlightenment.

That is that it is based on some kind of scale that renders enlightenment to be a oneness with major states and structures at any given era.


Disregarding for now what Wilber means by “oneness” we can go right into the fallacy of this idea.

Wilber’s error is his extrapolation that since he believes states and structures evolve, therefore “enlightenment” has to evolve with it.
Wrong!

Enlightenment is a passive condition that is based on an inner perfection of structures indeed, but these structures are not the same ones Wilber is thinking of.
The ones he envisions are personality constructs or archetypes that form because of worldly experience; at best they can only reflect the condition of the subtler structures that are timeless, and far above experience.

In real life mysticism, enlightenment comes at the destruction of these personalities, or the aspirant seeing them for what they are. In Sufism this is known as Fana [annihilation] in Buddhism it is called Nirvana

Wilber understanding of Spiral Dynamics, or some might say mis-understanding of it, is what he is referring to when he talks about states and structures. But these things are in reality neither. They are evolving, or devolving personality constructs that indeed change, but are not real structures of any kind at all. Though they can be reflective of the human being in-tune with his own psyche and enviroment at any given time, they are not structures because of the fact that they are so subject to change. They are reflective of something deeper.


Of course he brushes this off with the idea of post metaphysics, and his understanding of “monological awareness” that he derides as un-scientific, therefore no longer valid in a post-metaphysical age. See Integral Spirituality page 248

Here Wilber, to please the scientist commits [ if I may indulge in religious terminology] a cardinal sin for a mystic, by degrading monological awareness, as if one is able to give ones own awareness to others to objectively view [ an impossibility] despite those  monks allowing themselves to be examined in meditation, like guinea pigs in an experiment.

Overall I believe post metaphysics is flawed in this regard and has become rigid in its ideas about spirituality,  the concept of enlightenment, and evolution as it relates to spirituality.

The antidote to this I think for IPM, is for Wilber to seperate the exoteric spirituality he lumps with the esoteric, and see that there is a wide difference in them  as night from day.

Re: Wilber and the Evolution Problem Part 2

Tom said:
“my posts above, outside of a few joking and sideline references, have nothing to do with psi.”

Well aren't these “jokes” and “sideline references” the problem to begin with? Is the scientific community really dismissing serious evidence from quantum theory and biophotonics in favour of religious clinging to Newtonian concepts? First of all, I'm not so sure they actually do, but since I'm not a part of the scientific community I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are telling the truth which would then be: There are good evidence from quantum theory that suggests that the theory of evolution as understood by most, needs great revising.

I think there is a big difference between being conservative/traditionalist (i.e. don't change anything unless there is good reason to) and fanatic (don't change anything because I like it the way it is). But as I said, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume the behaviour is fanatic and not just careful. So why is the scientific community behaving fanatically and throwing out the integral baby with the metaphysical bathwater?

Several of you at this forum live in a country (USA) where people considering the Bible a scientific text about “evolution” are not considered crazy fanatics, but actually have enough support among the population to pose a serious threat to childrens opportunity to develop rational thinking at school. You guys at this forum are the ones who keep repeating that you have to be able to think rationally before you can think transrationally.

Imagine a person lecturing about the dangers of over-hygiene in the middle of the Black Death pandemic.

Re: Wilber and the Evolution Problem Part 2

Ti-Shu, for your information, Tom will be out of town for a week.  I believe he left this weekend.

I can't really speak on his behalf, but I imagine that he isn't saying that the “scientific community” is fanatically clinging to Newtonian concepts, en masse, since quantum theory is a pretty well established part of the scientific community.

About the problem of people in America regarding a traditional (and, in some ways, pre-rational) document as though it were a scientific treatise on evolution, you're preaching to the choir here.

Re: Wilber and the Evolution Problem Part 2

“I can't really speak on his behalf, but I imagine that he isn't saying that the “scientific community” is fanatically clinging to Newtonian concepts, en masse, since quantum theory is a pretty well established part of the scientific community.”

My bad…I should have written evolutionary biologists (or actually, whatever specific group that he and others were referring to in their criticism), not the scientific community as a whole. That is really not important for the point I was making.

“About the problem of people in America regarding a traditional (and, in some ways, pre-rational) document as though it were a scientific treatise on evolution, you're preaching to the choir here.”

Again, the point I was making was not “I don't agree with the Bible being a scientific document”. This I assumed you would all agree with, I assumed as you pointed out, that I was preaching to the choir. The actual point I was making was the following sentence:

“Imagine a person lecturing about the dangers of over-hygiene in the middle of the Black Death pandemic.”

What I was implying is that if one is to talk about quantum theory and evolution, they should take extra care in their choice of words, as the environment in which the discussion is being held is not a neutral one, but a prerational vs rational warzone. Wilbers use of the wing-metaphore has already been discussed and pointed out as a badly chosen one and I was pointing out that making non-obvious jokes about the implications of quantum non-locality is not a good move either. And I'm not surprised if “whatever” group of scientists are reacting defensively, given the environment they are in.

Re: Wilber and the Evolution Problem Part 2

Yes, I agree – language is important, and helping people simply master rational thinking, in our present climate, is perhaps the most urgent need. 

In this case, however, the “context” of the comments you're objecting to was a post by Tom to Nickeson, I believe; hardly the same thing as a public statement to Middle America – which, I totally agree, would require much more careful use of language.

Re: Wilber and the Evolution Problem Part 2

Hey Ti, people commonly miss information, or misconstrue meanings, or fail to discern relevance (obviousness), because they react.  Such reaction typically IME and IMO falls under the rubric of defensiveness, which is either the scourge or the place of growth depending on one's attitude.

Re: Wilber and the Evolution Problem Part 2

And one final reply to Ti.  The scientific community is a diverse group of people holding sometimes dramatically opposed positions.  Regarding evolution, Stephen J. Gould of Harvard, an evolutionist, spearheaded an initiative to get Edward O. Wilson, also an evolutionist, and a better one IMO, thrown out of Harvard for his views!  No comment needed.

Regarding non-locality and its implications, one need only sample some physicists to understand that a range of opinions exist on what properly can be extrapolated from the fact and presently known details of non-locality.  For instance, take Menas Kafatos, an astronomer and physicist.  Kafatos, for his part, is about as physics as physicists get: PhD from MIT, university physics professor, published a couple hundred articles, published several books, the more expensive of which I wish I owned, etc.  Here's one thing he said regarding non-locality.  He is arguing that it is important that physicists develop a coherent theory incorporating, expanding and refining our understanding of the non-local universe, non-locality being the foundational principle of which he speaks:

It follows that, perhaps, foundational principles are more fundamental than physical theories.  Still, the foundational principles have to rely on a general model of existence and need to be developed in a systematic way.

The epistemological and ontological consequences are far-reaching, and imply a non-local, undivided reality which reveals itself in the physical universe through non-local correlations and which can be studied through complementary constructs or views of the universe.  Quantum theory and its implications open, therefore, the door for the thesis that the universe itself may be conscious (although this statement cannot be proven by the usual scientific method which separates object from subject or the observed from the observer).

Re: Wilber and the Evolution Problem Part 2

Geez,
I go off for a couple of days in celebration of carnality (dance festival) and this pod is already kilometers of posts ahead! You guys are fast! :)
“Hey Ti, people commonly miss information, or misconstrue meanings, or fail to discern relevance (obviousness), because they react.  Such reaction typically IME and IMO falls under the rubric of defensiveness, which is either the scourge or the place of growth depending on one's attitude.”
Sure, I got a bit carried away because I'm paranoid about being misinformed on such issues, sorry about that. But… there is bound to be more defensiveness when someone is actually confused. For instance it took me about 5 minutes of reading and rereading the above paragraph and I'm still not sure who you were referring to as being defensive. You weren't using the most obvious form (as in “Ti Shu, YOU are being defensive because…”) but some indirect vague form which made me think you might have referred to parts of the scientific community. Maybe I just interpreted it to refer to me because I'm being defensive..? Now, I admit I'm not the brightest penny in the fountain, but I'm not plain stupid either. If I'm having problems understanding any of this, I'm sure that goes for a big chunk of the rest of humanity as well. I don't think it's fair to assume everyone can read scientific journals. Now where's that “quantum theory implications on life, the universe and everything for dummies” glossy power point presentation?
Balder pointed out the difference between two friends posting (internal) jokes to eachother vs adressing Middle America. This was very relevant (useful) information for me. This made me reflect on the custom on this pod. You see, I assumed that a post on a public pod means you are adressing everybody who might read it, not individuals in particular, but actually you are using this pod in a more personal way than I am used to. Anyway, hopefully google wave or the like will make this easier in the future :)

Re: Wilber and the Evolution Problem Part 2

Zak wrote:  Wilber’s error is his extrapolation that since he believes states and structures evolve, therefore “enlightenment” has to evolve with it.
Wrong!

Have you looked at his Wilber-Combs lattice?  The “states” component is horizontal, indicating they are constant, not evolving.  Several of us here have criticized this model for this reason, but it is actually close to the view you are arguing for: Wilber's model maps the “intersection” of evolving forms and structures with timeless, eternal, spiritual states.  Here, the states – causal, nondual – do not change; but those individuals who access them do change, do evolve.

So, to the extent that enlightenment takes place “through” an individual who is situated in history and culture, there is a component, in Wilber's model, that is subject to evolution – the interpretation and expression of mystical states and experiences – but Wilber also argues that the “states themselves” are timeless, eternal.  That's why they're horizontal on his model: they're the metaphysical constants of his system.

Re: Wilber and the Evolution Problem Part 2

The above may be accurate, on one level, but Wilber doesn’t understand that the outer appearance of the God is unimportant to the real sage, since it is the underlying meaning of the outer appearance that matters, not the externals. 
In either case Bruce whether we talk about outer appearance or underlying meaning we are still speaking of a God that does not exist and from that aspect we evolve and our enlightenment evolves.  I am also wondering what you mean by enlightenment…I always think of enlightenment as “Dare to Know” – what do you think?
When he says or derides one who claims  something is universally true, he doesn’t understand that it is the inner meaning of the vision that is universally true, not the externals of it, which are only symbols, indeed molded by the cultural milieu of the visionary. 
Where does inner meaning come from?  Is that not molded by the culture?  Nothing is universally true because we cannot speak Absolute language – the language of the Absolute is only known through the senses.
 In real life mysticism, enlightenment comes at the destruction of these personalities, or the aspirant seeing them for what they are. In Sufism this is known as Fana [annihilation] in Buddhism it is called Nirvana 
I have some trouble with the above statement, I’m seeing enlightenment as a Knowing through my individual being which does evolve but annihilation is an end to the self and from my definition the end of enlightenment.  What Knows at this point is complete but still requires a translator and that individual is subject to articulation.

Re: Wilber and the Evolution Problem Part 2

Just FYI, Annie, the quotes you are responding to are from a post by Zak, not by me (Bruce).

Re: Wilber and the Evolution Problem Part 2

Sorry Bruce, I guess I missed a step!

Re: Wilber and the Evolution Problem Part 2

In response to Annie
Annie said:
I have some trouble with the above statement, I’m seeing enlightenment as a Knowing through my individual being which does evolve but annihilation is an end to the self and from my definition the end of enlightenment. What Knows at this point is complete but still requires a translator and that individual is subject to articulation.

Zak
Enlightenment is a term that approximates the technical terms that come from systems like Buddhism and Sufism. Annihilation doesn’t mean destruction of the self, but  recognizing that the “self” as  a series of shifting personalities is a veil to realizing enlightenment. Nirvana means extinguish, as Fana means annihilation, but this is not a literal annihilation, or extinguishing of the self, just the inner realization of what a personality is, and what the real self is.
For example, Buddha’s not self doctrine is in reality, a not-personality doctrine.
Personalities are temporal conditionings of the mind, the REAL self is not temporal according to mystical theory.

In other words, there is a secondary self [ personality(s)] and a primary self that is our true [ divine ] nature

Also, enlightenment is not only knowing, but being, and seeing

Re: Wilber and the Evolution Problem Part 2

Finally, a precise, coherent, & workable description of what this term is.

Clearly, Zak has ethically demonstrated all aspects of it by knowing, being & seeing…

Re: Wilber and the Evolution Problem Part 2

Don't worry Bruce, I am use to being,
the invisible man!
Anyway, you might want to read pages, 129, 130 and 248 in IS.

Annie, I will have a word to say regarding your post later, I hope.

Re: Wilber and the Evolution Problem Part 2

On another forum, I once suggested that the WC lattice might be usefully seen as a triangle, so that the lower structures have the states closer together, and the higher ones differrentiate them more.

I havn't thought about this recently and don't know if it's worth anything, but I also don't feel comfortable with states as givens.

Re: Wilber and the Evolution Problem Part 2

Zak, I can’t say I really disagree with anything you have said I just think that the word enlightenment is a bit misleading.  I am speaking from a perspective that has experienced Emptiness and is currently working on form and from here to call personality a veil seems destructive.  I like the concept of the marriage of Emptiness and Form (more of the Christian tradition) but from what I understand about Buddhism it is much the same way.  I always think of the Dahlia Lama and imo he epitomizes this marriage.  I also think there is yet another step that is the step to no-self, this is what I am pointing to that makes the word enlightenment irrelevant – I would rather call this “unknowing” more feeling and experiencing.   

I think what seems most important is that we have some kind of vision or picture as to where we are heading, that vision often times depicts the requirements of our journey.  Holding that vision requires a lot of development and as far as I can tell it all takes place in AQAL.

Re: Wilber and the Evolution Problem Part 2

Zak, I can’t say I really disagree with anything you have said I just think that the word enlightenment is a bit misleading. 
 
I am not really into disagreeing or agreeing one way or the other. I just offer my experience and perspective.
 
I am speaking from a perspective that has experienced Emptiness and is currently working on form and from here to call personality a veil seems destructive. 
 
That which you are “working on” is your personality. Again I repeat: the word annihilation and extinguish [that sounds destructive to you] are only metaphors for the transformation of the personality. Like a child developing into an adult. The childhood personality is no longer there as we development into adulthood. We don’t have to say it was destroyed.
 
I like the concept of the marriage of Emptiness and Form (more of the Christian tradition) but from what I understand about Buddhism it is much the same way.  I always think of the Dahlia Lama and imo he epitomizes this marriage. .
 
Spirit with matter.  The transcendent spirit does not or can’t evolve; it is personality that evolves; to understanding its emptiness.
 
I think what seems most important is that we have some kind of vision or picture as to where we are heading, that vision often times depicts the requirements of our journey.  Holding that vision requires a lot of development and as far as I can tell it all takes place in AQAL.
 
Vision is faith. Faith that our spiritual view (AQAL is a very legitimate one IMO amongst many) will work to develop and transform us.
 
I also think there is yet another step that is the step to no-self, this is what I am pointing to that makes the word enlightenment irrelevant – I would rather call this “unknowing” more feeling and experiencing
 
Enlightenment, in a spiritual sense, is just a western term that approximates the word Buddhi
The no-self is realizing the “emptiness “of personally. Once that’s done nothing but God – reality - remains
This is done, among other processes, by merging ones temporal personality with a transcendent one, thereby extinguishing the temporal [illusionary] one.
Jesus said “I and the father are one”
Muhammad said: “He who knows himself knows his Lord
Buddha said: “When over the river, discard the boat”

Re: Wilber and the Evolution Problem Part 2

Zak, What about Non-Duality would not Form be Divine and hence evolve.  Jesus was fully Human and fully Divine have you ever considered the humanity or personality to be Divine in itself? 

The transcendent spirit does not or can’t evolve; it is personality that evolves; to understanding its emptiness.

This sounds like personality is doing its own thing – is this a separate structure that comes to realize emptiness?  What could possible evolve in the understanding of emptiness, is it not in understanding Form?

I enjoy this dialogue and I hope you are not getting annoyed – it helps me in reformulating some things. 

Re: Wilber and the Evolution Problem Part 2

 Zak, What about Non-Duality would not Form be Divine and hence evolve. 
 
Interesting,
First, to answer that question, one must decide what the meaning of divine is.
My meaning, enumerated in my book, is that “Divine” is feeling, and or consciousness.
As for non-duality, I interpret that to be basically the understanding that everything is God ultimately, nothing is separate from God. This is Ibn Arabi’s [Unity of Being] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sufi_metaphysics#Wahdat_al-Wujud
There are two aspects to this concept that deal with:
God in development, all humans
And God as the existential timeless, unchanging reality, that “God” in development reaches for through [all of us humans] experience.
(Wilber might refer to this [God in Development] as involution)
“Evolving has nothing to do with it, per se, since to evolve, ultimately means change. To development means to “change towards something. There is a difference. Anything created will evolve, but the question is what is it ultimately evolving to, and what is behind its evolving.
 
Jesus was fully human and fully divine have you ever considered the humanity or personality to be Divine in itself? 
 
The Jesus, “Fully Human” is “God” in development, all of us included.
The Divine, is the timeless transcendent, unchanging spirit, which to me is ultimately a certain feeling, or consciousness.
 
The allegory of him dying through crucifixion, then becoming God is a metaphor for the transformation of “Jesus” to the divine.
That’s not to say all have to be crucified, but that it involves struggle to develop.
 
Annie  quoting zak
 “The transcendent spirit does not or can’t evolve; it is personality that evolves; to understanding its emptiness.”
 
Annie
This sounds like personality is doing its own thing – is this a separate structure that comes to realize emptiness?  What could possible evolve in the understanding of emptiness, is it not in understanding Form?
 
Zak
Personality is bound in the developmental cycle of Buddha’s “suffering matrix” It can evolve or change all kinds of ways, up or down. The cycle of creation, he calls it. To reach enlightenment, remember, he advises to break that cycle.
Personality evolves through living in the interactive world. When one takes up a spiritual path they put on the cloak of a spiritual personality in the form of a spiritual archetype: Jesus, Moses, Muhammad, Buddha, etc… I think it was Rumi who said: ” Seek the Jesus in you”
That is an attempt to override the secondary personality derived from the world, to cultivate one that can deal or merge with the transcendent, timeless God, known as Enlightenment.  Though according to some mystical theory even the spiritual archetype has to be extinguished since that is also a personality, though a higher one than the mundane ones we are all familiar with.
I enjoy this dialogue and I hope you are not getting annoyed – it helps me in reformulating some things. 
So do I, of course I am not annoyed. Our search for knowledge is the noblest pursuits.
It’s all about sharing our knowledge and perspectives.
 

Re: Wilber and the Evolution Problem Part 2

Thank you Zak, that was indeed helpful!

Re: Wilber and the Evolution Problem Part 2

This parable may serve to further highlight the point I am trying to make:
The story of the man who spent years seeking ultimate truth and finally reached the throne of God and knocked at the door.
“Behind the holy entrance he heard a voice: “Who is it?
He answered “IT IS GEORGE”
“Go away” came the reply
He then went through more years of search and again approached the door of ultimate truth, and knocked.
“Who is it” replied a voice behind the door.
“IT IS I” said George
　
“Go away” came the reply behind the door of truth
George left and again continued his search for truth for many more years until he staggered back to the door of reality and knocked again
“Who is it” replied someone behind the door
“IT IS THOU” he said, and was let into the door of ultimate truth
Commentary:
Now where is “evolution” in this story?
Is it the hard long work on the path to truth for George?
The punch line informs us that to know God one must, in a sense, become God.
Twice when George approached the threshold of truth, first as George, and then as I, he was refused entrance. What does that imply?

Re: Wilber and the Evolution Problem Part 2

Continuing on for further understanding on this subject and the refutation of IPM and its  notions of Evolutionary Enlightenment, we must delve into the meaning of enlightenment a bit further. Buddha’s ideas of the extinguishing of the cycle of [life and death] understood down to the quantum thinking level, or mental plane [the level where Nirvana and Fana is manifested ( enlightenment) in the mechanics of thinking and mentation] is all what is relevant regarding enlightenment. It is, as Pantanjali points out, a battle of thinking essentially, unrelated to any physical forms, or structures related to the body, or abstract ideas of AQAL and “structures” within spiral dynamics theory. Pantanjali and other Yogi mystics all agree that the spirit is veiled by this overloaded thinking and mental activity that springs forth from the real “devil” of the mind, which is the minds inclination to indoctrination and conditioning, the source of the life and death cycle of Buddha. This proposition IMO wipes out any notion that enlightenment is based on any ideas of being one with form, or historical evolving ethical structures emanating from stages of ethics [spiral dynamic integral postulations] and Wilber-like notions of developmental stages. Certainly, as I have pointed out on many occasions, developmental cycles are related to the seekers success to a great degree, but this phenomenon is far and beyond unrelated to evolution. Being one with structures epochly is related to energy output, that is relevant to the monological status of enlightenment. These structures What does have relevance to evolution, as regarding the metaphysical phenomena of human spirituality, is something related to enlightenment of humans on an exoteric macrocosmic level: that is something we can call EVOLUTIONARY INTELLEGENCE (EI) which can be defined as: A term for God in history, who knows the needs of the evolving human, and consequently through revelation guides man through varying epochs. This in my view is an evolutionary spiritual reality  and is related to evolution only in a back handed way, regarding the complexity of human inter-action and experience. Finally, I will only concede that enlightenment is related to change. Of course change is related to evolution existentially since evolution involves change by its nature. Also the concept of involution is involved with all of this, but involution is a\one mystery that IPM doesn’t even remotely have an understanding about, since it has totally rejected mythology that holds the secret of involution outside of post-metaphysics. This though is outside of evolution. This is so because the spiritual scientist like Wilber, and those who follow him, don’t realize that evolution is related to creation, therefore its very nature one can postulate, based on Buddha’s idea of the illusory aspect of creation,  is if anything anathema to enlightenment, or one of its most formidable veils.    

Re: Wilber and the Evolution Problem Part 2

Zak, are you familiar with the Heart Sutra, which states that “form is emptiness; emtpiness is form”?  If so, do you disagree with that perspective?  (As a Sufi, not a Buddhist, I expect you might.)  In any event, Wilber bases his notion of evolutionary enlightenment, in part, upon the Buddhist understanding that emptiness is form, and adds the modern insight that form is evolving.  Emptiness in Wilber's view does not evolve, but “empty form” does. 

Anyway, I am not sure why you say a couple of the things you do in your post.  I'm not defending all of Wilber's views here, but I do think it's important to correctly represent them.  In this case, I don't know why you say that IPM knows nothing of involution, since the notion of the involution of timeless Spirit is foundational to Wilber's view of cosmogenesis; and further, I don't see how you can say that Wilber doesn't understand that evolution is related to creation, since in the opinion of many of his readers and critics, his view is essentially a sort of “integral evolutionary creationism.”  He calls his story of involutionary, creative Spirit a “useful myth,” so he acknowledges its mythological nature and seeks to maintain it “outside” of the demands of a strict post-metaphysical or emprical-scientific perspective.

In other words, Wilber expresses and advocates virtually every idea you accuse him of knowing nothing about.

Re: Wilber and the Evolution Problem Part 2

Zak, are you familiar with the Heart Sutra, which states that “form is emptiness; emtpiness is form”?　 If so, do you disagree with that perspective?　 (As a Sufi, not a Buddhist, I expect you might.)　
　
I agree with the form is emptiness and emptiness is form aphorism.
Simply because everything, including spirit, is a form of form, and emptiness, or invisibility to some is not emptiness, but form to them.

In any event, Wilber bases his notion of evolutionary enlightenment, in part, upon the Buddhist　understanding that emptiness is form, and adds the modern insight that　form is evolving.　 Emptiness in Wilber's view does not evolve, but “empty form” does.　

I must point out, that many including Wilber leaves out an important element in this equation that refute his notion
That is that EVOLUTION is relative to CREATION! Not form pe rse. The equation that emptiness is form and form is emptiness is only a statement of fact that everything, including spirit, has its degree of physicality.
Now Ken Wilber extrapolates one equation [emptiness = from] and concludes that Form therefore must evolve in some fashion, therefore enlightenment evolves because it is form to some degree. This IMO is illogical because one equation does not lead to the other necessarily.
The proof in this is that Creation is left out of the equation in Wilber’s conclusions regarding evolution and enlightenment. That is the key to evolution, not form. In other words certain forms evolve in the context of creation, therefore evolve. Tthe kind of form that divine spirit is though, IMO, does not evolve because it is uncreated.
So essentially, Wilber’s notion is IMO Cleary wrong on those two nuances of metaphysics, he either leaves out deliberately, or through ignorance: that is EVOLUTION as it relates to CREATION, and the concept of the UNCREATED, as it is related to enlightenment.

Anyway, I am not sure why you say a couple of the things you do in your post.　 I'm not defending all of　Wilber's views here, but I do think it's important to correctly represent them.　 In this case, I don't know why you say that IPM knows nothing of involution, since the notion of the involution of timeless Spirit is foundational to Wilber's view of cosmogenesis;

I wrote an essay on Integral World “The Myth of the Given and the Forgotten” where I outline his marginalization of mythology. I refer you to that essay. Also, as for the concept of involution, it is mystical mythology that elucidates its metaphysics that some modern spirituals inside and outside of IPM reject. In other words involution is the fall of man.
　

and further, I don't see how you can say that Wilber doesn't understand that evolution is related to creation, since in the opinion of many of his readers and critics, his view is essentially a sort of “integral evolutionary creationism.”　 He calls his story of involutionary, creative Spirit a “useful myth,” so he acknowledges its mythological nature and seeks to maintain it “outside” of the demands of a strict post-metaphysical or emprical-scientific　perspective.

In other words, Wilber expresses and advocates virtually every idea you accuse him of knowing nothing about.
I really wish that were the case, for that would make one of us one smart son of a bitch!
Of course in other words, I am not really familiar with Weber’s ideas, is what you are saying. That of course could be the case, but I don’t think so, as regards my precise critique of his views of enlightenment. Remember that is the point here.
Again I wish that were the case
To answer your statement I have to make reference to my above statement on creation and evolution. That is precisely where I point out where he may have gone wrong as relates to his concept of enlightenment. You are not tuning in on the nuances of my critique. You are applying his general ideas to my very specific criticisms, therefore you are not really answering them, only using the idea that he himself often uses by claiming others don’t really understand him or are distorting his ideas.

The questions that need to be dealt with as I enumerated above, have never been answered by Wilber, or any of his followers at all regarding the issues I challenge him with. At least you have attempted to answer them my good friend Balder, but I think you have not precisely dealt with the issues I raise regarding ENLIGHTENMENT, UNCREATED SPIRIT, AND
EVOLUTION, AND CREATION that when examined closely refute his notions of Evolutionary enlightenment IMO.

　

Re: Wilber and the Evolution Problem Part 2

Zak, do you think it would be possible for an early human, like a Cro-Magnon man, to experience enlightenment?**  If so, would there be any difference between him, as an enlightened human being expressing himself and acting in the world, and, say, a person who became enlightened in the Buddha's day – or between both of those individuals and a modern human being with deep knowledge and integrated understanding of our latest philosophical, psychological, scientific, and other advances?  In what ways would they be different, if at all?  In what ways would they be the same? 

(In Wilber's SDi language: Would there any difference at all – in terms of understanding, expression, and behavior – between enlightened Beige-Magenta, Amber, and Green or Yellow individuals?  Does the historical / developmental 'condition' of the individual influence how 'enlightenment' shows up in any way?)




** There are good reasons to argue that a Cro-Magnon probably could not be “enlightened,” in our sense of the word, but I'm ignoring that likelihood for the sake of the drama of the question!

Re: Wilber and the Evolution Problem Part 2

　Zak, do you think it would be possible for an early human, like a Cro-Magnon man, to experience enlightenment?**
 
Bruce, my idea of Evolutionary Intelligence covers your Cro-Magnon example.
You should give it some thought.
But to answer your question, I do think any human even Cro-Magnons, who although may be thought as primitive, still have a mature enough mind, heart, spirit and soul to experience enlightenment.There are, in fact differences in Enlightenment, as Wilber, and yourself are saying, but that difference is unrelated to ENLIGHTENMENT. For example, King Solomon and the Prophet Shuab were both enlightened, BUT King Solomon was a King, and Shuab a Sheppard.
　
　
“If so, would there be any difference between him, as an enlightened human being expressing himself and acting in the world, and, say, a person who became enlightened in the Buddha's day – or between both of those individuals and a modern human being with deep knowledge and integrated understanding of our latest philosophical, psychological, scientific, and other advances? In what ways would they be different, if at all? In what ways would they be the same? “

　
This statement: is the crux of the matter.
And my simple answer is that this
would have no affect on the enlightened beings. Modernity has not an iota of affect on the science of enlightenment, because enlightenment deals with the essential structures of the being: mind, heart, soul, and body. Not any SDI “stages” that are to SD exponents, evolutionary.
　
　
　
In Wilber's SDi language: Would there any differencet all – in terms of understanding, expression, and behavior – between enlightened Beige-Magenta, Amber, and Green or Yellow individuals? Does the historical / developmental 'condition' of the individual influence how 'enlightenment' shows up in any way?)

Certainly modern people, on any of those levels to the lowest to the highest will be more sophisticated, worldly, and intellectually astute, than one who lived 2000 years ago but that has not an iota of affect on the science of enlightenment, that, again I repeat, deals with the condition of the primary inner structures of humans that transcend those stages. The SDI ideas, in which I have much respect for, are very valuable on a psychological and social level, and can be merged with the ideas of moral and ethical standards in spirituality, but I really don’t accept the premise of the idea that these memes affect directly the state of enlightenment, qualitatively, or quantitatively. Though they can be a barometer for any gauging of the developmental aspect relating to ethics, that is very relative to spirituality.
Also, we must consider the fact that those in Buddha’s time were not illiterate idiots. In fact many of the ancients were sophisticated, educated, and more knowledgeable than we realize.