Ken Wilber

Since Ken Wilber's work in this area is one of the inspirations behind this pod, I wanted (belatedly) to dedicate a thread to him as well. 

Here's one of his early introductions to “integral post-metaphysics” – from the introduction to the online excerpts from his forthcoming Karma and Kosmic Creativity.

~*~

”Integral Post-Metaphysics–and its corollary, integral methodological pluralism–is important, I believe, for many reasons. First and foremost, no system (spiritual or otherwise) that does not come to terms with modern Kantian and postmodern Heideggerian thought can hope to survive with any intellectual respectability (agree with them or disagree with them, they have to be addressed)–and that means all spirituality must be post-metaphysical in some sense. Second, as Einsteinian physics applied to objects moving slower than the speed of light collapses back into Newtonian physics, so an Integral Post-Metaphysics can generate all the essentials of premodern spiritual and metaphysical systems but without their now-discredited ontological baggage. This, to my mind, is the central contribution of an Integral Post-Metaphysics–it does not itself contain metaphysics, but it can generate metaphysics as one possible AQAL matrix configuration under the limit conditions of premodern cultures. That is, the AQAL matrix, when run using premodern parameters, collapses into the old metaphysics (as Einsteinian collapses into Newtonian, even though it itself is non-Newtonian). On the other hand, alter the holonic conditions of the matrix by adjusting it to the parameters of the postmodern world, and the metaphysics drops out entirely, even though there still remains an entire spectrum of consciousness, waves of development, evolution and involution, and a rainbow of awareness that runs unbroken from dust to Deity–but without relying on any pregiven, archetypal, or independently existing ontological structures, levels, planes, etc. In fact, the entire “great chain of being” disappears entirely from reality, but its essential features can be generated by the matrix if certain mythic-era assumptions are plugged into its parameters.
     Of course, some sort of “great chain of being” has been central to spiritual traditions from time immemorial, whether it appears in the general shamanic form as the existence of higher and lower worlds, the Neoplatonic version of levels of reality (e.g., the amazing Plotinus), the Taoist version of realms of being (e.g., Lieh Tzu), the Buddhist version of a spectrum of consciousness (e.g., the 8 vijnanas), or the Kabbalah sefirot–and down to today's newer wisdom traditions, from Aurobindo to Adi Da to Hameed Almaas. All of them, without exception, postulate the existence of levels or dimensions of reality or consciousness, including higher or wider or deeper dimensions of being and knowing–some sort of rainbow of existence, whose waves, levels, or bands possess an independent reality that can be accessed by sufficiently evolved or developed souls. In other words, they all postulate the existence of metaphysical realities–which is exactly what is challenged (and thoroughly rejected) by modern and postmodern currents.
     Therefore, what is required is a way to generate that essential rainbow of existence but without any metaphysical or ontological postulates. In other words, IF we can generate the essentials of a spiritual worldview without the metaphysical baggage, then we can generate a spiritual worldview that will survive in a modern and postmodern world. That, in any event, is one of the central aims of Integral Post-Metaphysics (and its practical application, called “integral methodological pluralism”), both of which will be outlined in these excerpts. If we can succeed in this endeavor, then all of those spiritual worldviews (from shamanism to Plotinus to Padmasambhava to Aurobindo) can be reanimated and utilized within a broader, non-metaphysical AQAL matrix, which can generate the same rainbow of existence but without the discredited metaphysical accoutrements, and thus one can still utilize their profound wisdom without succumbing to the devastating attacks of modern and postmodern currents.” 

Re: Ken Wilber

The following essay, from the Oxford Handbook of Science and Religion, contains a section on “Integral Religion” (beginning on page 17) which also provides an overview of Wilber's “Integral Postmetaphysical Spirituality.”

Toward a Comprehensive Integration of Science and Religion: A Post-metaphysical Approach, by Sean Esbjorn-Hargens and Ken Wilber

Re: Ken Wilber

The link starts page 524 and ends with 545. 

Re: Ken Wilber

Is the link not working for you?  When I click it, a 26-page PDF document opens.  The section on “Integral Religion” begins on the 17th page of the PDF document (not the number on the scanned page, which is pg. 537).

Re: Ken Wilber

i found the section: “Integral Postmetaphysical Spirituality.” so I got it thanks!

Re: Ken Wilber

Thank you very much for the essay. I just had a quick look, but found the classification of the different sciences already very interesting and clarifying. 

Re: Ken Wilber

As I was reading all of this (not quite all) I started thinking about most of my discussions here and on IL, we could almost map out what one may say to a given question in regard to their level of development.  From this view all of those moments of revelation (perceived) have no creativity, insofar as they would fall into some category of meaning.  I am also wondering about how creativity would flourish when we look at things as belonging to such a structure.  I am sure this is incredibly naïve but revelation should be held as Mystery, doing so allows it to evolve.  I think that is what I find a little disturbing is when Science wants to explain it as a rational pattern for that level of development.  This may in fact apply just fine to the rational mind and rational spirituality but what happens when we reach transrational.  Ken says that transrational science uses meditation, is that true?

I do think that my view of science needs to change a bit, I think I may be looking at this with old-school thought.

Re: Ken Wilber

THX Balder;

I think we are in need of empirical studies using this sort of theoretical framework but as far as I know none of that has been done yet. As the field of transpersonal studies in the academy context is more or less absent here in Europe, so no wonder about this kind of view.

Some researchers in political and social theory domains are using Jürgen Habermas´s views on intersubjectivity and postmetaphysical thinking, but it is still at the mere essayistic level, not at the empirical alas, but in religious studies I haven´t seen anything of that sort

Re: Ken Wilber

I first encountered Ken Wilber after doing a web search (I kept hearing his name so decided to check it all out) and finding an integral discussion forum.  Unfortunately they all seemed to be talking in some sort of weird spy-language, substituting colour words for concepts.  I later realised this was Spiral Dynamics, so went away and learned that instead.  I understood it immediately and, for a few years, thought it was the best thing ever.  Gradually I came to see its limitations and grew to prefer Wilber's philosophy.

I bring all that up because for me it's still Wilber's greatest achievment.  Driving home the importance of development and related concepts, such as the pre-trans fallacy.  But eventually the novelty wears off as once-new ideas cease to seem revolutionary and just blend into the background of the obviius and the taken-for-granted.  When that happens, the flaws begin to stand out like a sore thumb.

People have different oppinions about what the flaws of Wilber's philosohy are.  For me, the main ones are the nauseating hyperbole, exageration and self-congratulatory rhetoric of the integral circle, and the blind acception of dual-aspect theory – something that no one else seems to care about, and that worries me.

Perhaps worst of all, however (at least for this forum), is his insistance on a sort of presence, or spirit/consciousness.  How can he claiim to believe that whilst thinking he's somehow answered Heideger?  Am I just not getting it?

Re: Ken Wilber

I have read your post several times and wondered how I might respond to this.  To begin with I don’t really see a conformity to that which one man namely Ken Wilber dictates because as far as I can tell he does not speak Absolute language and I am sure you must have heard it several hundred times that “it is a map and not the territory” What I hear Ken doing is relating a view, it is up to us to climb to that location and given our unique individuality; determine if that is the way we see it.  At this point we can then begin to discern whether or not we have the tools to see what someone else has seen or whether there is another way to see it.

 nauseating hyperbole, exageration and self-congratulatory rhetoric of the integral circle, and the blind acception of dual-aspect theory – something that no one else seems to care about, and that worries me.

I do see a lot of that but even those folks will soon discover that they have missed the point, someone will always come by just to knock them off their high-horse; it’s inevitable.  There is the possibility that those folks actually get an education from each other – maybe it’s not just who will look smarter but asking the question does it look like this to you?  I think in most cases I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt.  Ken certainly does not need me to defend him but how can he be blamed for the self proclaimed elistists.

I most definitely care about the dual-aspect theory because we are here to integrate and that is our most challenging aspect.  I see Ken as trying to include everything in his map and when something does not fit we get a Wilber-## modification, as far as I can tell this is a lifelong scenario.

Re: Ken Wilber

Hi Annie,

Just to be clear, by dual-aspect theory I mean the idea that “mnd” and “body” – however concieved – are two halves of a single substance (in AQAL, each holon has an interior and exterior, for example).  I thought I should mention that because people often think I mean something else.

Re: Ken Wilber

Thanks, your right I didn't understand your meaning but I can still stand by my comment. :-)

Re: Ken Wilber

Annie: … and when something does not fit we get a Wilber-## modification, as far as I can tell this is a lifelong scenario.


Yes, and going a little further in what seems likely to me, revision will never end.  For my part, I sense a (touch?) of arrogance, not to mention intellectual sloppiness, in language such as in his book title “History of Everything.”  In fact, Wilber's hyperbole, which tends to convey grand intellect on the march, feels to me to arise from the same source as his Everything language, All quadrants, All lines, All levels, etc., which is to say: “tiny part in a sea of unknowing” doesn't garner quite the same attention from his intended audience as the grand AllEverythingTranscendent.

Re: Ken Wilber

Tom,

I appreciate your comments but I’m at the “no shit” stage and have yet to evolve to the “sounds like shit” stage, I personally think it will take most people 10-20 years to really hear what Ken is saying.  You know I have heard all the talk regarding this cult that we belong to, some say intellectual groupies but I come from the Catholic Church where adherence to church dogma is a requirement; believe me this is nothing like that.  You can’t find a post where there is not a Ken Wilber bashing going on, it seems rather unpopular in most circles to be a fan – I could be delusional but I can’t accept things on face value they have to be experientially true for me.  For me, I am in the right place and I am most grateful to all of you.

Re: Ken Wilber

Hey Annie,

I have often Critiqued Wilber, but on the other hand, I have written, because I believe it, some very glowing words about Ken Wilber’s contribution to spirituality.

I never would  criticize anyone without offering my input on how they could improve, by my understanding. Also, I try never to use abusive words
 [ though I have not always lived up to this] and dispute in a positive spirit.

The positive side of his work, IMO, far exceeds what I believe are problems with his theories. Also, in that vein, I agree with the majority of his philosophy, though I do have issues that I hope I have in the right spirit presented to those who follow him.

Some of his contributions that I appreciate:
For example, he single-handedly is bringing many people to the serious study of spirituality,, and the seeking of higher knowledge. In our world of so much ignorance that alone is a great contribution.

Also, his ideas  cut across sectarian ethno-centricity on the most part, as much as a Western man can do. This, in our troubled world is a very positive thing and that is an awesome contribution to the world, on all levels.

Finally, on the most part, although I have had issues with some of his followers
 [ ask Balder about Integral Naked] I have through interfacing with Wilber’s students, come to appreciate the many wonderful and good people, Like Bruce/ Balder, who are loyal to him and his philosophy. They are great people, as our those on this POD!

In the end, however we agree or disagree on his work, I consider myself a friend and ally of the Intergal Movement, and particularly those that follow Wilber.

I think you can benefit from studying his work tremendously

Blessings
Zak

Re: Ken Wilber

Zak, again I appreciate your comments and I agree that it is exactly these types of discussions that we have that both reinforce our own ideas and also challenge us to dive deeper.  In this forum I should hold my opinion lightly – so it becomes a stepping-stone to reach a new understanding.  Interpreting any contrary opinion as anything but a gift would be missing the point.  So yes, bring it on…express yourself in whatever ways you find appropriate and I will try to receive you as gift.

It seems to me that our primary purpose in belonging to this community is in testing and integrating Ken’s theories, my focus has been the Spiritual aspects but that is rather short sighted if I see it as Religious.  This I think is the greatest gift that I can explore here.

Re: Ken Wilber

Annie I am not into ” So yes, bring it on”
I am just into making Wilber correct!

Re: Ken Wilber

That must be nice…are you into that?

Re: Ken Wilber

   Bruce, Isn't Ken's contribution something like helping us to see truths according to frames of reference? If we take that phrase, “frame of reference” and make FoR, then we could say “this or that notion is true FoR that model or perspective. It is both true (has a certain amount of functionality within the frame of reference and according to the sets of operations within that particular frame of reference) and not necessarily true from some other frames of reference. Truth is relative, but not a lie.      Isn't that one of the mental evolution points we are trying to grow up to?  The realization that where our head, or mind set, is is part of the “truth”?    We seem to be learning about what I have called (in the book I have now completed - The Marketing of Virtue: Allsberg Rising) “the master tool”. The master tool is the tool that makes all other tools and mental constructs or models. It is the mind itself. We are becoming aware of our own minds. 
    Learning to be aware of the tool as it projects itself into ideas can be very important in helping us all once again function together, rather than having purely arbitrary, solopsistic, perceptions which all compete with each other. We don't have to throw the baby of “truth” out with the bathwater of mental relativity. 
    And this kind of self awareness of where our head (mind) is seems to be a step toward wholness - one of the main goals of most religions, if not the main goal. We really can't be whole until we are aware of our mental perspectives, and can sort of walk around our “selves” (our minds) as though we were spirits astraly projected around our “selves” at the same time we are constructing ourselves and being ourselves in a regular mind/thinking sort of way (horozontal mind which works within the frame of reference). This seeing of the mind allows us to grasp the master tool, rather than the tool taking us for a walk like a big dog taking its owner for a walk. 
  Once we can grasp the master tool, then we are also free to direct our experience - to have a new kind of intentionality which we lacked when we were not grasping the mind-as-a-whole, the master tool. We can direct our experiences here and there, and, for the first time, be truely “proactive” (as Stephen Covey would say), rather than being only reactive to the stimuli parading before us. Out of an awareness of where our head is, we gain the possibility of controlled experience - not squelched experience deadened by thought, but directed experience which dances with new direct experiences. 
   Lately, I see the evolution mind in terms of the 3 stages in the bible: the garden (direct experience), the tree of knowledge of good and evil and other dichotomous, mutually exclusive, knowledge/thoughts (indirect experience), and now Ken and others help us move toward the Tree of Life (directed experience, which is rich like the garden, yet directable according to our intended enactments, our functional knowings). In the tree of life stage, we can will to wholeness without killing the wholeness (We kill it in the Tree of Knowledge… stage).


   The above was my way of trying to wrap my head around the complexities of whatever it is Ken was saying above. I probably merely put forward my own awkward complexities, in the form of neoligisms and other poetically made-up verbalisms.  But it is an earnest, and honest, try. 
   If you could make any sense of what I just said (or tried to say), would you mind comparing it with what Ken was saying above? Do any of my points match Ken's line of thought above? I ask you because of your scholarship of the various philosophical terms Ken used in that introductory statement. I tried my own statement as a means to understand, rather than simply dismissing Ken's above introduction as (what first appeared to me to be) intellectual gobbledy goop. 
   There must be some way to break this stuff down for average people to actually understand and to begin to use. His contributions are significant, if they can be used by someone other than those in Integral Life. To me, there is too much indirectness of experience in some of Ken's writings, too many techinical thoughts, for me to want to chew on his ideas. It seems like an awfully big cud, with a lot of fibers that my stomach just can't stomach at times. 
   Having said that, is there anyway to get my own cud of thoughts to Ken's publishers or book agents? Mine may be just as difficult for others to digest (only my downfall would be idiosyncracy rather than over-intellectualization), but the ideas seem to be going in much the same direction as IPM. Or at least I think they are. 
  Would you be adverse to reading my book, and giving feedback? You are well-read, and seem to tolerate non-expert attempts at potentially meaningful new Frames of Reference - such as my book. In the book, I tried to focus on applying spiritual ideas (consented-upon “principles”) in a fictional model community called “Allsberg”. I would love to see what you think of my attempt. Registration of Copyright at the US Copyright Office is pending, so don't worry about safety of the work. 
  I'll send you a personal message. 
                                                                      Darrell
                                                          

Re: Ken Wilber

Thanks, Bruce for agreeing to give my book a look-over. I create more than I discern, so any clarifying feedback can help. Hopefully, there is some decent discernment along with the creative new ideas in the book, but I can no longer completely trust my judgement on that. I am too close, too invested, and too forgetful, to objectively discern the book. Many authors do, in fact, talk about how important it is to have a “first reader” (or, I assume, a second, third, fourth, as well). In terms of intellectual assessment of the content, you are my first reader. I have a couple of other readers who may read it with different perspectives, according to their own gifts, but you are my “philosophical first reader”. 
               Thanks,    Darrell