Ken Wilber and "..the fundamental absolute secret of the great traditions..." **

[Faith]

Hello everyone :)

What do you think or know about the biochemist, postmodern philosopher and consciousness scientist Ken Wilber (with view to this video)? What is his role in our 'Comédie humaine'? *

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BA8tDzK_kPI

Reading Wilber's book 'Eros, Kosmos, Logos' (original title: Sex, Ecology, Spirituality) about the integral concept of thinking, the holistic world view, the system and development of consciousness, have had a strong impact on me. (is that correct: 'have had'?) It sharpened the blurry path, that I found in my observations and my thoughts, the one that finally brought me here. I think I was sixteen or seventeen when I started thinking about those matters more seriously. I read the book when I was twenty. There were two things that fascinated me most: First, the difficult Buddhist path of hard work, mastering different meditative states in order to reach the state of enlightenment is actually about FAILING. The student will never reach that goal! He must fail. He must learn to fail, let it go. Ego, expectation and identification must be overcome first. When he is hopelessly devastated, giving up perfectly, he gets the chance to see in an objective and non-dualistic way (the fourth state, as Gurdjieff names it, isn't it?). Second, Finding the silent witness in yourself, the one that is just observing, the core, Iamness, the eye of the storm, as Wilber calls it, finding it by a difficult process of un-identifying with objects, including all parts of yourself. The eye of the storm is to be the start-point of our journey, he suggests in this particular book. Doesn't that sound familiar to you?

I just would like to know where to put him after all. :P





edit: added the 2 background infos below

* the great series written by Honoré de Balzac (1799–1850)

** title is a quote from Ken Wilber, that I corrected: 'great traditions', sorry :P

 

[Alana]

I never read anything of him but I watched the video you provided, and i felt that he was using a lot of unnecessary words to describe the process of self-observation; if that's his aim, i am not sure. At the same time, he made it appear easier than what it is. to me it sounded like he was saying that we are always There, we are always this Iamness, and we only need to observe when we stop being it. I am a bit tired, and might not really got what he is saying though

And what's with this video about him stopping his brainwaves? What would be the purpose of this for any so called teacher? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFFMtq5g8N4&NR=1&feature=fvwp

I haven't watched the whole thing, for some reason his voice doesn't appeal to my ears ;) Subjective, i know.

Ah, and Ken Wilber is also the promoter of Integral Art, and inspiration of Integral artists, one of which is Alex Grey -http://www.alexgrey.com/, who sells this drawing -http://shop.cosm.org/originaldrawingbyalexgrey.aspx for 900 dollars

Sorry for not being much help here. But you can do a search with his name in the forum, there appear to be various discussions about him.

 

[Bernhard]

I'm interested as well in what others think of Ken Wilber who have read his work. I read his book "The Spectrum of Consciousness" _http://www.amazon.com/Spectrum-Consciousness-Quest-Books/dp/0835606953 a while back. It's categorized as "Transpersonal Psychology". I also started to read "Sex, Ecology, Spirituality" around that time, but didn't finish it. It was too philosophical and "wordy" to me and not too practical, but this may also be based on my lack of understanding about his work in general. In other words, I can't make an accurate assessment of his work.
Here's his website: _http://www.kenwilber.com

He founded the Integral Institute and Movement

_http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_movement

_http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_Institute

The Integral Institute is a think-tank founded in 1998 by American mystic Ken Wilber. The purpose of the Institute is to gather and attempt to integrate the various viewpoints found in a number of major fields of knowledge. For example, the Integral Institute currently has a number of branches including Integral psychology, Integral business, Integral politics, Integral medicine, Integral education, Integral law and criminal justice, Integral art, and Integral spirituality. This attempt to integrate the knowledge base of a particular field is based on the notion that differing opinions are often true but partial versions of actual reality. Various schools of thought in a particular subject, then, rather than being winner-take-all competitors, are seen as unique but partial contributors to a more realistic or Integral whole. These schools of thought can be likened to the parable about the blind men standing around the elephant each describing what they feel - one feels the elephant's feet, one feels the ears, the trunk, etc. Integral theory, in a nutshell, says that these viewpoints can be integrated to create a more complete and accurate version of reality.

Sounds kinda what we're doing here, although I wonder if he covers all the topics that Laura has written about. Most likely not.
I haven't followed his work other than reading his first book and that's 12 years ago. :/

 

[Faith]

At the same time, he made it appear easier than what it is. to me it sounded like he was saying that we are always There, we are always this Iamness, and we only need to observe when we stop being it. I am a bit tired, and might not really got what he is saying though

He claims that this 'Iamness' would be basically a common state in every being and at every point in time. This pure self would be a collectively shared self and why not? Even the C's told us that menkind is a plurality of fragmented souls and if 'time' is an illusion of perception, then this might fit what Wilber says in the end of the video. He makes it appear easy, ok, but maybe it is easy, technically! Expectations and false understanding makes it complicated. That's how I understand it. By the way, many people make easy things complicated for the benefit of self-importance. That's why they are mistaking the tree for the (w)hole forest, so to speak. Here it might be the other way around :)

And what's with this video about him stopping his brainwaves? What would be the purpose of this for any so called teacher?

Hmm, it might be simply a measurable proof for self-control. Our science loves that. For them there is only measurable truth. They seem to only believe what the machines approve ;)

Alex Grey -http://www.alexgrey.com/, who sells this drawing -http://shop.cosm.org/originaldrawingbyalexgrey.aspx for 900 dollars

Yeah, same old, same old. Pricing is purely random and predatory. But the 'artist' has to live of something and he can't guarantee a regular income, no matter how deep and concentrated, how virtuous or objective his art might be. However, I don't like his art either. Looks sort of superficial to me

Sorry for not being much help here. But you can do a search with his name in the forum, there appear to be various discussions about him.

Every kind of response is helpfull, isn't it? Even if it's a bored one and why not? You have a reason for it, I'm sure. And thanks, I'm gonna check it out. :)

Sounds kinda what we're doing here, although I wonder if he covers all the topics that Laura has written about. Most likely not.
I haven't followed his work other than reading his first book and that's 12 years ago. :/

Laura is probably the only person on this planet right now, who did this in such a consequent way. But when I first heard from Laura and Gurdjieff, I was thinking: "Hmm, might be interesting. Sounds like Ken Wilber." In the book I read he also describes the integral efforts of combining the results of different knowledge disciplines (if that's the correct word?) like psychology and bio chemistry (might lead back to alchemy?): Verify and Falsify via networking. So Laura's efforts could be described as perfectly integral as well.

I am wondering if Wilber would feel compatible with Laura or Gurdjieff. I believe that he is basically on the right track, that he has found and understood pieces of the puzzle, but yet incomplete of course -- I don't know if there is a bug inside. He may be too identified with his own concept of being un-identified with any concept (which would be illustrated by his bald head) I am still wondering. But there is one thing I know for sure: He definitely helped me seeing the (w)holistic structure of our universe and my own silent witness. For me that is a fact. Maybe he just fails to mention the 'w' in front of the 'holistic', if you know, what i mean :/

 

[rofo6850]

I have read many Wilber’s books, they are well informed and very good, except the late, Boomeritis, which is a sad example of the extent people can go to validate his positions, no matter the cost.

This guy recently have received serious and important critics to his ideas, specially his political orientation, clearly aiming to corporate business and sometimes even justifying Bush exterior politics, of course “based” in a rather personal and flawed interpretation of a well known developmental psychological theory called Spiral Dynamics (SD), developed originally by Dr. Clare Graves.

Here you can find an excellent critic from one of the disciples of Dr Graves, Chris Cowan, to Wilber particular interpretation of SD.

http://www.spiraldynamics.org/documents/MGM_hyp.pdf

This guy has addressed well founded critics to some of his positions constructing a kind of elitism based on concepts of “superior development”, belonging to a kind of elite echelon, he calls “Second Tier” (concept borrowed from SD). He has not answered consistently a big part of the critics he has received, instead he has faced critics with a devaluatory attitude, trying to show that his critics were not qualified to the task because of “inferior development”. Of course this was not the case, the critics he received were and are pertinent and accurate.

In this site you will see an ongoing debate and critics to his work.

www.integralworld.net

In particular there is an excellent critical book written by Jeff Meyerhoff, criticizing his attitudes and even his theoretical conclusions and research, that seems to ultimately hold a kind of superiority of Western culture and civilization over other cultures and people of the world.

http://www.integralworld.net/meyerhoff-ba-toc.html

I recommend to read specially chapters 9 and 10 where the author proposes a different and very interesting path and try to explain Wilber’s elections based on his Wilber's own psychological traits, no doubt a very interesting approach. The rest is rather technical and refers to details of Wilber's theoretical approach, which Meyerhoff states is rather problematic.

Regarding his psychological and esoteric insight he seems to have a serious issue with the Jungian path, that of facing our own shadow and doing a severe critic on ourselves. He rejects fiercely what Jungian researchers and some transpersonal psychologists call “the dark night of the soul”, precisely the painful path of facing ourselves, our programs, mistakes, our very shadow.

He has shown an alarming inability to receive critics. His internal circle, as well as the very structure and organization of his Integral Institute, has shown signs of cultish behaviour, the guy seems to have became a kind of guru. Indeed a sad fact, because his first books were very good, for example: “The Spectrum of Consciousness”,“The Three Eyes of Knowledge” or “The Eye of the Spirit”.

 

[rofo6850]

I will copy an extract of Meyerhoff chapter 9 regarding a different path to knowledge and to approaching reality. IMO it is very interesting and could do the desired synthesis of postmodernism (and its sometimes rejected relativity) and a consistent path of acquiring knowledge to find a rather elusive truth and reality.

http://www.integralworld.net/meyerhoff-ba-9.html

Wilber believes that one characteristic of the postmodern era is the proliferation of multiple and conflicting perspectives on the world. Carrying this postmodern perspectivism too far leads to a pernicious, self-contradictory relativism because no perspective can claim ultimate authority. The result is an inability to rank perspectives according to their validity. It is the shadow side of the "contextualism" which Wilber sees as one of the important contributions of postmodern thinking.

His solution is an integral transcendence and inclusion of this seemingly irreconcilable multiplicity of perspectives. Wilber's purported transcendence and inclusion of perspectives is accomplished through the use of a reason-transcending mode of thinking and being called vision-logic. Vision-logic is a further cognitive stage beyond reason - in academia called the postformal stage - in which the limits of postmodern reason are transcended by a new mode of thinking/being. Vision-logic requires an experiential shift, but it is not only a mystical transcendence of thinking, since its product is, most prominently, discursive; Wilber's system being one example.

A crucial difference between Wilber's position and mine is that I don't believe that vision-logic is a new mode of cognition. Wilber describes historical developmental changes in modes of knowing from mythic faith to modern rationality to postmodern vision-logic. While I agree that there are fundamental differences between faith and reason as modes of knowing, I do not agree that there is a fundamental difference between rationality and vision-logic.[1] As described in Chapter 3, since there is no new criterion of judging validity between reason and vision-logic, there is no fundamental difference in the knowledge they produce. To say there is no difference in the mode of knowing is not to say that there is no difference in the content of knowledge between rationality, as conceived here, and vision-logic. Vision-logic describes a thinking that attempts to synthesize diverse fields of knowledge into coherent systems, but the evaluation of these systems is still done in the usual, rational way.

I offer a different approach to the postmodern multiplicity of perspectives. Instead of trying, as has been tried many times throughout intellectual history, to make all of knowledge cohere, we should accept the ultimate irreconcilability of diverse perspectives and inquire into its nature. I describe a new area of inquiry and method of investigation that uses the postmodern reinterpretation of the constructed character of knowledge to show how acknowledging the limits of reason opens a door to another type of inquiry beyond reason. This inquiry forces reason to integrate its suppressed shadow-side in opposition to which it constitutes itself. I will justify doing this type of inquiry and provide illustrations of it. We will see that it is both a mode of knowledge acquisition and self-development, similar in this way to Buddhism and ancient Western philosophical practices of the self. The validity of this approach is supplemented by recent work in cognitive science and psychological research which show the crucial role that emotions and the unconscious play in perception, belief and knowledge creation.

Meyerhoff goes on providing illustrations and justifications to his ideas. Of particular interest to me is the fact that this approach seems to integrate knowledge acquisition and self-development, maybe suggesting a way to show how knowledge can contribute to being. Also it seems to integrate Buddhism and Jungian approaches, as well as ancient Western philosophical practices of the self (maybe the ancient Gnostic approach). It echoes what I have concluded of my Jung readings and research; what I have found is that what he calls reason is not what we usually understand in the West as intellectually informed process of thinking, instead he seems to be talking of an integration of intellect and emotional contents, maybe what Mouravieff called "higher intellectual center".

There seems to be the key, personal integration and making conscious unconscious personal traits, emotional development and facing our shadow in the form of the multiple conditioning and programs that runs inside us.

 

[anart]

He claims that this 'Iamness' would be basically a common state in every being and at every point in time. This pure self would be a collectively shared self and why not?

floetus, it's usually much wiser to ask 'why?' than to ask 'why not?. It's wiser to ask 'why is this valid?' 'sez who?' - rather than just accepting things because you can make them fit a current understanding. fwiw.

 

[ana]

http://www.integralworld.net/meyerhoff-ba-9.html

I offer a different approach to the postmodern multiplicity of perspectives. Instead of trying, as has been tried many times throughout intellectual history, to make all of knowledge cohere, we should accept the ultimate irreconcilability of diverse perspectives and inquire into its nature. I describe a new area of inquiry and method of investigation that uses the postmodern reinterpretation of the constructed character of knowledge to show how acknowledging the limits of reason opens a door to another type of inquiry beyond reason. This inquiry forces reason to integrate its suppressed shadow-side in opposition to which it constitutes itself. I will justify doing this type of inquiry and provide illustrations of it. We will see that it is both a mode of knowledge acquisition and self-development, similar in this way to Buddhism and ancient Western philosophical practices of the self. The validity of this approach is supplemented by recent work in cognitive science and psychological research which show the crucial role that emotions and the unconscious play in perception, belief and knowledge creation.

The problem with this osit, is that one can't just say ok I'm going to accept the fact that reason as I understand it has its own limits, you can't do that because in order to transcend the limits you need to experiment the limits, to be able to see your own participation in the existence of each limitation. The hability to do it may be the result of evolution of consciussness and not of believes, because this is nothing more than a believe untill you do really SEE it.


There are no shortcuts in the path of true knowledge :)

 

[rofo6850]

The problem with this osit, is that one can't just say ok I'm going to accept the fact that reason as I understand it has its own limits, you can't do that because in order to transcend the limits you need to experiment the limits, to be able to see your own participation in the existence of each limitation. The hability to do it may be the result of evolution of consciussness and not of believes, because this is nothing more than a believe untill you do really SEE it.

Evolution of consciousness means in this case self-exploration, insight, until we can actually see where what we believe is reason really is belief anchored in deep emotional needs about the nature of the world we live. This is what Meyerhoff is saying and it agrees with the ancient traditions of self development. Paradoxically, the attainment of objectivity would mean to acknowledge the deep subjective roots of what we believe and take for reason. This is what Jung proposes as integration, recognizing the emotional component of our thinking process, at least IMO. He is talking of a process of self exploration and finding the deep and emotionally informed beliefs, not of an evolution of beliefs.

You really SEE it when you identify it in yourself. Until that moment you accept the kind of belief that provides you with the kind of reality you emotionally need to exist to be comfortable. That's why you can see the whole paraphernalia of beliefs that exist in the world, some truly bizarre and completely refuted by facts.

The clue of the limits of reason is well explained by Meyerhoff:

Yet a curious thing has occurred as Western thinkers have employed reason to determine true knowledge. Reason-users find that they can and do come to irresolvable rational disagreements.[2] Yet if reason-users share both a method of inquiry and a world, then shouldn't they be able to come to agreement about all issues, at least in principle? Shouldn't their rational procedures and the corrective effect of reality lead them all to the one truth? Popular expression like "try to be objective," "do the right thing" and "be reasonable" perpetuate the impression that there is, at least ideally, one objective, right thing found by using reason. In academia and in everyday life there is a largely unexamined presupposition that there is a or one way in which things are. Those who are "right" know it or are closer to it and those who are wrong are further from it. But when this presupposition is examined, we find it to be very elusive; reason gives out and the ideal evaporates. Foucault evocatively described this goal of inquiry as, that "shimmering mirage" of truth.[3]

This should be enough to show a rational thinker that something is wrong with this picture of reason, at leat the Western paradigma. His insight is very interesting and shows some valuable truths.

 

[rofo6850]

At the conclusions of the chapter Meyerhoff says:

Neglecting important parts of belief and knowledge creation has costs, because that which is neglected will have its say through indirect means. To paraphrase Jung, when our shadow is not made conscious, it becomes our fate.

Well, Jung cite speaks for itself. The insane search for purity in a religious zealot brings exactly the opposite result he is looking for, he does more and more damage to himself and others as his fanaticism and desire for purity grows. This is simply because he failed to see his own darkness, flee from it and projected unto others. The result is violence and destruction, as history can attest.

 

[ana]

The problem with this osit, is that one can't just say ok I'm going to accept the fact that reason as I understand it has its own limits, you can't do that because in order to transcend the limits you need to experiment the limits, to be able to see your own participation in the existence of each limitation. The hability to do it may be the result of evolution of consciussness and not of believes, because this is nothing more than a believe untill you do really SEE it.

Evolution of consciousness means in this case self-exploration, insight, until we can actually see where what we believe is reason really is belief anchored in deep emotional needs about the nature of the world we live. This is what Meyerhoff is saying and it agrees with the ancient traditions of self development. Paradoxically, the attainment of objectivity would mean to acknowledge the deep subjective roots of what we believe and take for reason. This is what Jung proposes as integration, recognizing the emotional component of our thinking process, at least IMO. He is talking of a process of self exploration and finding the deep and emotionally informed beliefs, not of an evolution of beliefs.

You really SEE it when you identify it in yourself. Until that moment you accept the kind of belief that provides you with the kind of reality you emotionally need to exist to be comfortable. That's why you can see the whole paraphernalia of beliefs that exist in the world, some truly bizarre and completely refuted by facts.

The clue of the limits of reason is well explained by Meyerhoff:

Yet a curious thing has occurred as Western thinkers have employed reason to determine true knowledge. Reason-users find that they can and do come to irresolvable rational disagreements.[2] Yet if reason-users share both a method of inquiry and a world, then shouldn't they be able to come to agreement about all issues, at least in principle? Shouldn't their rational procedures and the corrective effect of reality lead them all to the one truth? Popular expression like "try to be objective," "do the right thing" and "be reasonable" perpetuate the impression that there is, at least ideally, one objective, right thing found by using reason. In academia and in everyday life there is a largely unexamined presupposition that there is a or one way in which things are. Those who are "right" know it or are closer to it and those who are wrong are further from it. But when this presupposition is examined, we find it to be very elusive; reason gives out and the ideal evaporates. Foucault evocatively described this goal of inquiry as, that "shimmering mirage" of truth.[3]

This should be enough to show a rational thinker that something is wrong with this picture of reason, at leat the Western paradigma. His insight is very interesting and shows some valuable truths.

Sorry, I don't see the contradiction with what I wrote above.

 

[Faith]

floetus, it's usually much wiser to ask 'why?' than to ask 'why not?. It's wiser to ask 'why is this valid?' 'sez who?' - rather than just accepting things because you can make them fit a current understanding. fwiw.

Good point! I'll keep that in mind. My comment is a bit sloppy. Maybe there is also a bit rest-identification left. I was used to regard Wilber's work as the philosopher's stone, taught me many things. Today I try to keep an appropriate distance towards any theory but still... :P you know...

Every kind of response is helpfull, isn't it? Even if it's a bored one and why not? You have a reason for it, I'm sure. And thanks, I'm gonna check it out. :)

FRAK Ja, ok... there seems to be a little balancing issue here! I must be carefull not to blow 'keeping the distance' out of all proportions. I don't want to become one of these nice and smiling zombi's: "You are right and you are right, everyone is right, because everyone has reasons". Even if this might be true for machines without self-controll, vectored by outer forces -- I don't want to be one!

 

[rofo6850]

Sorry, I don't see the contradiction with what I wrote above.

Ana, there is no contradiction.

In the line of your argument I was simply showing that it is indeed possible to realize the limits of reason with a simple reasoning, the existence of irresolvable rational disagreements. It is a rational argument.

The other path involves certain insight and open-mindedness, to realize that you hold "sacred" beliefs and the why's. This is a little more difficult, it depends on the subject. Of course if you are not disposed to self-inspection the rational argument would result in no more than a curiosity.

 

[ana]

Oh!, thanks for clarifying