Gaia: Integral Post-metaphysical Spirituality - Open Forum - Myth of the given

Re: Myth of the given

http://theurj.gaia.com — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 18:19:06 GMT

I've often made the same criticism of CG's upper stages. Wilber used to do the same by conflating the state-stages with the upper structure-stages, but he has since modified this in IS. It appears CG has yet to make the same modifications.

Commons, also of Harvard, has criticized CG for the same thing and his MHC has instead more clincally validated and mathmatically formulated post-conventional stage sans all the "spiritual" verbiage.

Re: Myth of the given

http://brucealderman.gaia.com — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 16:19:09 GMT

You make some good points, Kela. I don't think Suzanne's evaluative process is as silly or "flimsy" as you made it out to be, but I would agree that the upper stages she maps should not be regarded as inevitable. From an enactive point of view, maybe none of them are -- though there is a great deal of momentum behind the enactment of a number of the lower ones, which make them practically inevitable.

During a panel meeting at the Integral Theory conference, a couple panelists briefly discussed that they believed there were some "problems" with Cook-Greuter's model and that revisions were going to be necessary. They didn't mention what type of revisions, though.

Re: Myth of the given

http://kelamuni.gaia.com — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 16:07:02 GMT

About Cook-Greuter's test, I meant, have you seen it? Are you familiar with the criteria for evaluating responses?

I think Ms. Cook-Greuter is dreaming in techincolor. Several of her "categories" are derivative of traditional teachings -- Mahayana psychology in particular. This makes her scheme of "post-conventional stages" entirely arbitrary, value laden, and attached to a particualr context. I can't imagine any psychologist worth her salt taking her seriously. I don't care if she "went to Harvard." Harvard has a history of association with wingnuts, anyway (John Mack; Timothy Leary).

It's one thing to say, "this is our tradition and these are the stages of meditative development that we follow" and quite another to pick a particular map and then say, "these are THE stages that everyone passes through." She is seeing the world through a particular lens then attempting to universalize the lens.

And saying that these stages are "not apriori universal categories that have always existed" but "enacted stages" won't help here either, since to admit that they are "enacted" is to admit that their are entirely arbitrary, and to admit that they are arbitrary is to throw integral theory, which universalizes, out the window. Post-metaphysical integral theory can't have it both ways. The truth is not "somewhere between relativism and perennialism." That's like telling your wife that the truth is "somewhere between you and my mistress; I'd like a bit of both, please."

We've been down this path before. Basically, I draw the line at Kegan; even he projects a fair amount of value laden material into his theory.

Re: Myth of the given

http://holotrope.gaia.com — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 21:52:11 GMT

I agree with what you say about enlightenment. When someone (such as a ranking member of Wilber's organization) tells me that "Adyashanti" is "enlightened," but he has "never met an enlightened Jungian," what I hear is the equivalent of someone saying something like, "I think Pamela Anderson is a really hot babe and she turns me on, but Mischa Barton does nothing for me." Like, thanks for sharing your feelings with us, but, um, why is it that you speak about your feelings about various people as if you are discussing facts, like it's an objective fact that Steven Grey AKA "Adyashanti" is "enlightened"?

Re: Myth of the given

http://kelamuni.gaia.com — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 21:18:00 GMT

Mind Mirror was a commercial make of EEG machine.

I must have been on an anti-euhemerist kick when a wrote the Lightmind post. I think we were disussing myth at the time, and the kind of language we need to deal with the imaginal. At the time, I was beginning to think that the idea of enlightenment was a kind of myth, a story we tell ourselves, a story that can have a powerful influence upon us like any powerful myth, but also one that we should not deal with as we deal with objective facts.

The "footprints of enlightenment" is an allusion to the footprints of the ox.

Re: Myth of the given

http://brucealderman.gaia.com — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 21:11:22 GMT

About Cook-Greuter's test, I meant, have you seen it? Are you familiar with the criteria for evaluating responses? Evaluations are not made in the way you caricatured in your example.

Do you think Loevinger's test is similarly flawed? Cook-Greuter was a student of Loevinger and her test is modeled on Loevinger's.

Re: Myth of the given

http://kelamuni.gaia.com — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 21:06:22 GMT

Here, I meant charitable towards Jim and myself

OH! Well that's another story! OK, ya, I'm shooting from the hip. But on the other hand, some of my best written material comes right after you and Jim corner me.

Anyway, I want to research the papers on privileged access and see if the arguments there have any bearing.

cheers.

Re: Myth of the given

http://brucealderman.gaia.com — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 20:56:53 GMT

Here, I meant charitable towards Jim and myself, since you seemed to be saying that at least one of us was rushing to pass judgment without being informed first. But maybe you didn't mean that.

About Wilber's Mind Mirror, I'm not sure why you think I was saying that...? I said I didn't regard it as proof of anything, in itself. I just said that such "readings" shouldn't be dismissed as meaningless, either. We don't know what they mean, yet. I'm aware of a number of cases where long-time meditators have exhibited notably different EEG signatures. This is possibly a significant finding, but in my opinion, it's far too early to say what that significance is.

Re: Myth of the given

http://holotrope.gaia.com — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 20:51:31 GMT

I don't consider Wilber's playing with an EEG machine serious research.

I'm not familiar with Mind Mirror.

Prominent among serious researchers in the US are Richard Davison, Jon Kabat-Zinn, and Herbert Benson. I met Benson circa 2000 and he told me that he does not meditate and that the reason he does not meditate is because it would bias his research. Davison and Kabat-Zinn do meditate and IMO they do come across as apologists for meditation at times, but I think they expose their research to enough peer review and include sufficient checks and balances in their research that the impact of any biases they have are minimized. (I still laugh about an interview of Kabat-Zinn and his wife after they co-authored a book on "mindful parenting." The interviewer asked Kabat-Zinn's wife how she thought meditation practice helped her be a more mindful parent, and there was uncomfortable silence. Finally, Kabat-Zinn responded for his wife, saying, "Um, she doesn't meditate.")

Re: Myth of the given

http://kelamuni.gaia.com — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 20:44:22 GMT

I'm simply calling into question certain things that I find potentially problematic. I'm admittedly shooting from the hip to see where it gets me. But I feel these are hunches that could probably be substantiated.

I'm generally a charitible reader of things like books of philosophy, but I think that in the present case, given the material I'm dealing with, that it is beholden upon me to be skeptical outright from the start. The onus, as far as I am concerned, is on integral psychologists to present a sound and convincing case. And as far as I can tell, they haven't, except to themselves, and this is because, I would say, their thinking and evidence is circular.

On charitibility: consider the example of people who suggest that aliens are visiting the planet. Occassionally, I hear from someone that I'm not being "open minded" when I dismiss the possibility that aliens are visiting the planet. For some, "being open" to the possibiliity that aliens have visited the planet is indicative of "trans-rational" thinking. Personally, I don't it is. I think it's evidence of just plain naivete. To some extent, I find some of the claims made by transpersonal and integral theorists, claims that have been culed from tradition and dressed up in modern language, to be approaching the claims of the UFO enthusiasts. For this reason, I don't feel the necessity to be charitible; I feel the need to be skeptical, to call them on each and every move.

On the Mind Mirror example: So, you are saying that you believe Ken when he says that his Mind Mirror proves that he's enlightened (at least according to his own definition)? I thought it was a clear example of the principle that certain kinds of "evidence" can count as "proof" for whatever we want.

As for Ms. Cook's test, I'm surprised that someone hasn't come along and pointed out the circularity of its results And I don't think we need some kind of "knowledge by acquaintance" of the test, to have undergone it ourselves, to pass judgement on it. In my area, I evaluate testing procedures all the time without having to "do the test myself."

Re: Myth of the given

http://brucealderman.gaia.com — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 20:18:51 GMT

That sounds good, Kela. And that makes me want to soften what I just said in my last post! I really do want to look at these issues, not simply defend a fixed position.

But I'll tell you one thing: I'm tired of having to navigate all this psychic smog generated by Lightmind! I never participated there! In my conversations here, I keep bumping up against all kinds of stuff that was said there, and it's wearing me out! :-)

Re: Myth of the given

http://brucealderman.gaia.com — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 20:14:07 GMT

Kela, it doesn't seem you're being very charitable in your thinking here. I have not attempted to "pass judgment" on the privileged access argument; I have asked you for clarification of your own position, so that we could better explore these questions. Like Jim, I may agree with a number of your criticisms, but I need to know what they are first. Similarly, Jim hasn't "passed judgment" without bothering to inform himself either. So, I'm not sure who you're jousting with, but it's not us.

And I use this language because it seems you're also jousting at straw men in your other recent post. Have you actually taken Cook-Greuter's test? I know you probably meant your example to be humorous, but you've presented a caricature that doesn't actually help your case. About Wilber's "stopping his brain wave" video, I certainly wouldn't regard that as a "study" or proof of anything. But neither would I say that we can draw no meaningful conclusions from such demonstrations.

Re: Myth of the given

http://kelamuni.gaia.com — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 20:12:24 GMT

Move forward, yes of course. ;-) Though, sometimes feel that putting the required effort into it might not pay off. I'm not referring to you specifically, Bruce. You're an open person. But in debates with people at the old Lightmind it often felt like I was hitting my head against a slab of concrete, that all I ever got was a kind of defensiveness and never an openness to the possibilty that yoga may have its limits.

I'd like to research the topic a little and see what I can come up with.

Re: Myth of the given

http://kelamuni.gaia.com — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 20:02:58 GMT

On privileged access: there is a string of articles on the subject given in the research site I linked a while back. Maybe we could look at some of the arguments given in them before we pass judgment?

Re: Myth of the given

http://kelamuni.gaia.com — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 19:48:40 GMT

Hi Jim and Bruce,

Well, I can certainly dig up some exact examples of what I mean if you like.

Off the top of my head, are there not "questionaires" that attempt to gauge whether someone is "yellow" or "touquioise" in their "thinking," depending on the kind of answers they give?

Questioner: "Is light a particle or a wave?"
Respondant: "Both."
At this point, the examiner writes in his notebook, "Exhibits both/and thinking. This person is clearly at the vision-logic stage of human development."

As for for the "footprints of enightenment," I can think of no better example than from the Acharya himself, Sri Sri Kenji Maharaj. What I have in mind is the famous video of Ken tooling around with his Mind-Mirror machine, entering "nirvikalpa samadhi at will," and so on.

At one point in the video, Ken notes that the machine is showing that he is emitting delta waves alongside the usual beta waves that are indicative of the waking state. Delta waves are usually associated with the state of deep dreamless sleep. But certain people, he notes, emit delta waves alongside beta waves while in the waking state. Often, this is indicative of brain damage. [!] But he offers us another interpretation as per his own case: delta wave emission in the waking state can also be evidence of that someone is "witnessing." In other words, people who emit delta waves in the waking state are in a "continual state of witnessing." In other words, Sri Sri Kenji Maharaj is an enlightened master, and his Mind-Mirror indicates this fact.

How convenient.

I remember when the Mind Mirror first came out. We had a pair of transpersonal psychologists on campus and they bought a pair of the machines for research. At an open house for the Psych department, one of the profs noticed that he was emitting delta waves. Various other people tried the gizmo on, including myself. Eventually, an attractive young woman came along and the machine showed that she too was emitting delta waves in the waking state. At this point, the prof began to make a fuss about her, noting of course, that he too emitted delta waves in the waking state. He then offered his own theory: "I think," he said, "that people who emit delta waves in the waking state are deeply in touch with the universe at an intuitive level." Sure, I thought to myself. And he'll have her up in his office within the hour.

Basically, such things can mean whatever you want them to mean.

Re: Myth of the given

http://holotrope.gaia.com — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 19:00:56 GMT

I'm not clear what Kela's contesting either. I might agree with him; but I can't know until I get a clearer sense of what he's contesting.

I'm not familiar with any studies or "studies" that purport to show that meditation leads to a "'higher' mode of knowing," but that doesn't mean that such studies do not exist. But if they do, I'd like an example.

I recall Kela saying --- and I'll direct this to Kela --- hi Kela, on the old Wilber forum you once said: No doubt the various meditative technologies have something to teach to the field of contemporary cognitive science. But to me, looking for the "footprints" of enlightenment in the brain is a bit like the euhemerist project of searching for Noah's Ark in the mountains of Anatolia, or the radio carbon dating of the shroud of Turin.

I wondered then and still wonder who is doing research that involves looking for the "footprints" of enlightenment in the brain? Researchers do study changes in the brains of musicians and meditators, etc., but I have never heard of anyone looking for the "footprints" of enlightenment in the brain. Any examples?

- Jim

Re: Myth of the given

http://brucealderman.gaia.com — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 18:42:11 GMT

I said move forward! :-) But we can move on, instead, if you're not interested in addressing this yourself.

Re: Myth of the given

http://brucealderman.gaia.com — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 18:38:51 GMT

My addendum is that I think the privileged access argument may be a red herring, but I can't tell at this point, because I am not entirely clear what you are contesting.

Re: Myth of the given

http://kelamuni.gaia.com — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 18:34:20 GMT

I just think that such critiques need not simply to be addressed but actually seriously considered and confronted head on. I don't feel that there have been many honest attempts to deal with such issues head on, that, more often than not, we get an apologetic defence of tradition. I think that this is a major drawback of being a believer, a follower of a contemplative tradition, and at the same time attempting to do (purportedly) unbiased research.

Yes, we can move on, if you like.

Re: Myth of the given

http://kelamuni.gaia.com — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 18:27:54 GMT

As an addendum, I'm not entirely convinced by "studies" done by integral or transpersonal psychologists that attempt to gauge "cognitive changes," particulary changes that indicate "alternative" or "higher" modes of knowing. To me, such studies are a bit like Republican "internal reviews," such as internal inquiries into whether or not the party misappropriated funds, etc. (A rather distasteful comparison, perhaps, but it makes the point.)