Integral theories

[joeshmoe]

Well, where do I begin?

Walking through a bookstore, a picture on a cover caught my eye. Now, they say, never judge a book by a cover, but the gimmick worked. A striking picture of a smart looking white guy with glasses and a shaved head. Plus, the title had chutzpa: "A Brief History of Everything" by Ken Wilber. Now, mind you, this was a few years before I ever heard of the C's and all.

Well, what a ride. Wilber seems the most well read person I've ever read. (Sorry Laura). Many subjects are covered, but what seems to have the most in common with this site are his levels of (human?) development. There are three main phases of: prepersonal, personal (what one might think as mature/adult), and transpersonal. From what I've studied in college psychology, the prepersonal and personal are rather orthodox. For example, Piaget has covered the prepersonal levels in children rather well.

Expanding on this, various studies of levels of development cover different ranges, from lowest to highest, e.g. Piaget covers all of prepersonal and beginning personal. However, Wilber noticed that across cultures, certain basic levels exists everywhere, even if only as potentials. Well, I think the C's densities fit in very well with most of these levels. Let's start with 3rd density. The way I see it, this would correspond personal levels. The 4th density would correspond to the first transpersonal level, what he calls the psychic level. Here, we no longer exclusively identify with what you might call our "self", but identify with all creation.

_http://wilber.shambhala.com/html/books/psych_model/psych_model2.cfm Quoting:

Briefly, the psychic state is a type of nature mysticism (where individuals report a phenomenological experience of being one with the entire natural-sensory world; e.g., Thoreau, Whitman. It is called "psychic," not because paranormal events occur--although evidence suggests that they sometimes do--but because it seems to be increasingly understood that what appeared to be a merely physical world is actually a psychophysical world, with conscious, psychic, or noetic capacities being an intrinsic part of the fabric of the universe, and this often results in an actual phenomenological experience of oneness with the natural world.

The 5th density is where we go to recycle, and would correspond to the next transpersonal level, the subtle. It is at this level that one is united with divine, or the source of the sensory-natural world. How you interpret divinity comes from you background. A Christian could interpret this a Jesus, a Buddhist may see this as a bliss body (whatever that is), etc.

The 6th density would correspond to the next transpersonal level, the causal. At this level, the world of forms completely drops out. This is pure consciousness. I find it interesting that the C's state that they are at the 6th density, and that learning is fun, and all that exists are lessons.

The 7th density would correspond to the last transpersonal level, the nondual. However, 'level' here may not be the right word. Here, consciousness and the world of forms are united, so you could say that this the be-all-and-end-all, uniting all levels.

Now, I wouldn't call Wilber The Next New Age Guru. He's been critical of the new age movements, actually. He finds much of it regressive (prepersonal). As he sees it, development to the transperonal always requires work.

Any comments? Bueller? Bueller?....

 

[Novelis]

Interesting, this is off on a slight tangent, but this reminds me of the time a few years ago when I went into a bookshop for no real reason apart from an inkling, I was looking around when I came across a picture of a lizard eye and a human eye, which happened to be David Icke's book "the children of the Matrix", and although now I am on a level far above that of Icke I believe, it was none the less what got me interested in this kind of stuff.
More interestingly, I was attracted to this book mainly because of the lizard, which corresponded to me specifically because I am thinking of a story involving a lizard man, arguably I wouldn't have ever got here if I didn't read Icke's book, or if I have had the inner drive to think of a story in the first place, Weird no?

 

[Guest]

Expanding on this, various studies of levels of development cover different ranges, from lowest to highest, e.g. Piaget covers all of prepersonal and beginning personal. However, Wilber noticed that across cultures, certain basic levels exists everywhere, even if only as potentials. Well, I think the C's densities fit in very well with most of these levels.

Ultimately, we have the Perennial Philosophy (PP) that forms a common thread through most traditions all over the world. Wilbur refers to this, I believe, and the C's material is part of it. It helps to compare and contrast different versions of the PP since one can see the same thing from different angles and get a more rounded view of it.

There are some aspects of Wilbur's philosophy that strike a difficult cord with me, however. It's been a while since I read anything from him, but he seems to color-code humanity in rather a harsh manner blaming all the wrongs in the world on the "green" people, who are too "compassionate". In fact, the guy strikes me as a bit of a fascist, although one with high intellectual acumen.

I used to read this magazine called Quest a while back, and there I liked his articles since they were philosphically oriented, and he seemed to have insight in that domain. When I recently looked at his website, however, where he expresses his political and social views, that's where I drew the above conclusions (my opinion, of course).

There are several sites dedicated to his work that googling Ken Wilber will reveal. Again, I drew my conclusions after getting into his writings, because at first it all made sense in theory, but when he actually came to the "what to do" portion, it seemed somehow...ideologically extreme.

 

[joeshmoe]

There are some aspects of Wilbur's philosophy that strike a difficult cord with me, however. It's been a while since I read anything from him, but he seems to color-code humanity in rather a harsh manner blaming all the wrongs in the world on the "green" people, who are too "compassionate". In fact, the guy strikes me as a bit of a fascist, although one with high intellectual acumen.

Its funny, I always found Wilber anti-fascist. I haven't read a lot of his work concerning the Spiral Dynamics/colors stuff. However, I would like to say that his holcarchy is often confused with hierarchy. The former is a nesting paradigm, while the latter is used by power structures, such as fascism.
As to blaming people who are too "compassionate", this needs to be explored. What Wilber seems to be saying about people in the late personal (worldcenter,centauric) is that while they are more developed than what came before, their nature is so accepting that they forget from whence they came. For instance, these people say they accept all ideas as equally valid, but can never quite say why this cannot include the KKK or the Nazis. In this respect, "green" people can be naive anti-fascists.
Also, this seems to have parellels with the C's work. 1) These people often are bent on sending 'love and light' in a way. 2) Evidence from the higher levels of development can discovered by the scientific method, only its a first person exploration instead of in third person.

 

[Guest]

Like I said, his formal writings seemed well organized and intellectually sound, but some of his interviews and more practical plans seemed a bit cold to me. In theory the "green" association with "love and light" types is true, but he seemed to me to extend it beyond to any empathic association. I'll have to look at it all again since it's been over a year since my last contact with KW material.

Perhaps "fascist" is an imprecise term based on a gut-response. I guess "cold" would be another word, and it is the intuitive residue of my impression that was more thought out at the time I was reading his Internet material. He does have quite a following, however, and it seems a lot of financial support as well, so it's worth looking into.

 

[joeshmoe]

Although I enjoy Wilber, there is a dearth of practice that he offers which I find fustrating. However, one he did offer was a Buddhist medidation that seemed pure compassion.
As for the financial support, could you tell me what you know? Thanks.
BTW, my KW reading is probably an older KW. I think he's now KW5, and I've read mostly KW3 - KW4.

 

[Guest]

As for the financial support, could you tell me what you know? Thanks.

Here is a link where you can see for yourself: _http://www.kenwilber.com/KW_News/news_Home.html

He has a major institute going, a university and is at least a partner in a lucritive publishing firm. He also is very mainstream regarding those he considers some of "the world’s greatest living teachers, all of whom are sympathetic to the Integral approach". I am not being overtly critical of the man, whose teachings in the abstract are difficult to question, just cautious.

I guess the his prior KW stages were more traditionally related to Buddhism, while his later views are more unique. He mentions for example Larry Wachowski (The Matrix), Michael Crichton (Jurassic Park), George Lucas (Star Wars), Bill Clinton, Tony Robbins all being "great teachers", and I really don't consider any of them as such in any context.

I guess to get a sense of what I am saying you have to look away from the content of the theory into the context of the character promoting it. Like I said, I need to look at his stuff, but I don't have that much of an inclination to get into an indepth study of it to the extent of trying to take it apart. It's more a matter of available time than anything else. That's why what I express is in terms of caution instead of criticism. The man is quite intellectually sharp and obviously charismatic, but something in the tone of some of his (especially later) writings just doesn't sit well with me. I spent a few weeks dedicated to getting into his sites, reading everything I could before I came to that conclusion, which surprised me because his earlier stuff seemed pretty straightforward from the Buddhist point of view.

His psychological theories, traditional mystics (like Sri Aurobindo) that he endorsed and some of his meditations also came across pretty well. It's his approach to social reform, and the fact that he pretty much endorses the establishment take on things (in the sense that he does not admit to deliberate undermining of the social structure by any minority portion of it), that made me suspicious along with that certain coldness I felt.

Anyway, check his latest stuff out when you can. Different things ring differently with different people. And one doesn't have to agree with everything presented in order to benefit from anyone's insight.

 

[joeshmoe]

Thanks for the link.

As for the list of 'teachers', I see them in two ways. In the traditional sense of a teacher, it seems bogus. In a Buddhist sense, they seem like they could be great teachers. I read that the Dali Lama teaches that those who bother you teach you things about yourself.
Also, I got a different take on hit political outlook. In reading "The Marriage of Sense and Soul : Integrating Science and Religion" him main thrust in politicts seemed to be that there should be no creed other than giving people the freedom to find there greatest level of development. Sounded like classical liberalism.

 

[Guest]

Also, I got a different take on hit political outlook. In reading "The Marriage of Sense and Soul : Integrating Science and Religion" him main thrust in politicts seemed to be that there should be no creed other than giving people the freedom to find there greatest level of development. Sounded like classical liberalism.

Yes it does. But again in the abstract he always sounds good. I guess he should be read that way. When he talks about how the government should act or not act, it sounds different, especially when he claims yellow people should run things, or something to that effect. I'm tempted to start digging into this guy again, but I already did it before and came to my conclusions after a lot of thought. He's addmitedly got a lot of material. I kind of deleted the content of those conclusions from memory to make space for other things and am left with the gut-sense of it.

As for the teachers, maybe he does mean "teachers" in the Dalai Lama sense, but somehow I don't know...I guess you'll have to check him out from his KW5 material.

 

[joeshmoe]

I haven't logged on in a long time. I remembered a keyword in this post in order to find my login. Having done so, and rereading this stuff, I have to tell you something. I've
heard a snippet of Wilber being interviewed. The funny thing is, he came across as not cold, but more life a surfer duuuude. What a hoot!

 

[Faith]

Hello joeshmoe.

I would agree with you that Ken Wilbers work has much in common with the whole Laura-complex. I remember the last chapter of Eros, Cosmos, Logos. How I remember it its about finding your own silent witness through desintegrating bodyparts, feelings, thoughts and even the process of doing this as well. It seems to me that this is pretty much the same as the self-observation-technique that is part of the forth-way-programm. Unfortunately I lost this book. I think I need to find it again in order to post both descriptions of the technique so that we can compare them. That might be interesting.