Who is Ken Wilber?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Wilber

And why do men cry when they read the last chapter of the book?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...cology,_Spirituality

I hope to have some insight about 850 pages from now. BBL...

Ken Wilber is the Guy who claims total enlightenment and sucked his Mom into his Cult. His Mom then wrote a scathing expose on him and his excesses. He was touted as being a superguru by many but is now being seen with some very clay feet.

Typical spiritually awakened guy who starts out with good intentions and helps people and ends up with a Harem, cult compound and loads of money.

Darin, I think you're mistaking Wilber with Andrew Cohen, here.

Your right, I am. Sorry. Kens the bald guy?

Ken's the bald guy with a million books, each with a million words.

A million really big words.

About silence!

You guys are cracking me up!

Here's an expose on things Wilberian:

http://www.strippingthegurus.c...echapters/wilber.asp

I'm not sure what to make of this, so I thought I'd run it by y'all. Sure he's a little goofy, but aren't we all?

Good link!

And don't forget this one.

Throw in a tad bit of guilt by association:

http://www.strippingthegurus.c...amplechapters/da.asp

http://www.strippingthegurus.c...chapters/trungpa.asp

Admitted, some of his best freinds, etc....

Still, if I ever hope to keep up with the likes of

Doctor Phil and johnboysian dialectic and rhetoric, I'm gonna have to read this, along with
Wilber's major influences, Aurobindo, Plotinus, and Maharshi.

You will be standing by with spiritual laxatives?

heterodoxy.org

Here's an expose on things Wilberian:

Interesting, MM. I think Wilbur is just another one of those "cult of personality" figures who has the kind of intelligence, charisma, chutzpah, and body of plausible ideas that attracts worshipers as much as it does students of his work (and this is probably exactly the way he likes it). That doesn�t mean any good ideas that he has lose value. But it does mean a good, healthy dose of "buyer beware." If one is looking for shortcuts, quick fixes, and demigods then Wilbur may be your man.

Click here for a review of some of Helminiak's critique of Wilber. Good stuff! Here's a snippet:

quote:

Mixing Religious Traditions

For Wilber the "absolute" is Mind, God, or Brahman, and all three are identified. On my understanding these three are far from equivalent�.

Brahman/Consciousness in the Perennial Philosophy
Discussion thus far has made clear that consciousness and God�as understood respectively in Buddhism and in the Western religions�are not identical. The final consideration is of Brahman, associated with Hinduism. Neither is Brahman to be identified with either consciousness or God, as understood in those other religions. According to the celebrated Hindu maxims, at the core of Wilber's perennial philosophy, "Thou art that" and "Atman is Brahman." That is, human mind or spirit or consciousness is the Absolute. This identification of consciousness and the Absolute is in clear contrast to the differentiated treatment of these two in the other religious traditions. Buddhism speaks of consciousness or Buddha nature but chooses not even to consider God. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam acknowledge conscious-ness and God but as two different realities. Hinduism identifies consciousness with God. Obviously, the latter is a very different understanding.

My point is simply that these are very different notions: consciousness, spirit, or Buddha nature; God; and Brahman. Yet Wilber has treated them as different formulations of one and the same thing�.

The 80-page chapter is worth the price of the book.

I might just read that book, Phil.

Helminiak is out of the closet and the priesthood. Good for him!

"The greatest living philosopher and social theorist." Well, he gets his picture taken with Cardinal Ratzinger. (Must be a German thing)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jurgen_Habermas

Is Wilber a crypto-Marxist and crypto-pacifist?

I'll get back to you.

Thank you always for your support and


namaste!!!

MM, I wouldn't know about Helminiak's politico-economic views, as I'm not aware of anything he's written along those lines. And, as you know, I don't completely agree with his views on homosexuality. They don't negate his basic teaching on spirituality, however, and, as we've noted, he's hardly out on a limb among Christian theologians in advocating a less harsh, condemnatory view of homosexuals.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/...views/helminiak.html

Helminiak is "finding out what the gay scene is all about" and "coming out."

Seeing that Ramana Maharshi has been a major influence on both Ken Wilber and David Hawkins, I am
also reading Talks with Ramana Maharshi and The Collected Works.

"Talks is the living voice of the greatest sage of the twentieth century." - Ken Wilber

"What we find in the teachings of Sri Ramana is the purest of India... He is the whitest spot in a white space." - Carl Jung

High praise indeed!

"There is neither creation nor destruction,
Neither destiny nor freewill;
Neither path nor achievement;
This is the final truth." --Ramana Maharshi

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramana_Maharshi

Jesus said something else of course, about doing the will of the Father and loving God with all your heart, all your mind, all your soul and all your strength, but Maharshi's Talks merit a fair hearing, methinks.

Another heavy influence on Wilber's Integral Psychology is Sri Aurobindo.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sri_Aurobindo

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_Psychology

Like, dig it man, real heavy hep cat dadio!

caritas,

mm <*)))))><

quote:

"There is neither creation nor destruction,
Neither destiny nor freewill;
Neither path nor achievement;
This is the final truth." --Ramana Maharshi

At best he could say "There is probably neither creation nor destruction, There is probably neither destiny nor free will�", etc., etc. And then he would have to give his evidence for why this is so. Maybe then we would be convinced only of a possibly in connection to such statements�or maybe that such statements are very probable. But in either case, it would turn out that his evidence is going to be of a highly subjective nature. It seems to me such things usually are. We talk about "feeling God's presence" but we don't know for sure. It's our interpretation of things. You can meditate all day � even for years � and perhaps you'll hit a state of consciousness (which may or may not simply be artificial or the equivalent of a drug-induced state) that gives one the feeling the there is neither creation nor destruction, neither destiny nor free will, etc., etc. But it is just a feeling. Granted, our senses and thoughts are all we have to go on. It's all we ever have to go on, so it's not inherently bad that we use them to get, or try to get, deeper glimpses of reality. But we need more than just the pronouncement of someone who, frankly, if he was so wise to begin with, would not frame such pronouncements in the way they are without further proof or sound logic to back it up. The sheer force or bravado one throws behind such a pronouncement might convince or make disciples but it doesn't do much for the truth of the thing.

And I have to say that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. I am free, by the rules of the gurus, to make pronouncements based on impressions from my own mind, my own deep thoughts, and my own intuitions. For instance, I think the Buddha was a sound character with loads of common sense. And I think he was light on the guru B.S. factor (if he had it at all) that is so prevalent today (and probably was in the past as well). And my impressions and thoughts regarding the various deep truths running around today is that it is far more likely that Jesus is true and all this other "Neither path nor achievement�This is the final truth" is just someone's one-time impression while in some kind of an artificial trance. How can I possibly relate to something like that? How can I trust it? I guess the choice is to let go of one's mind and discernment ability and just decide one day to back the guy and hang out in airports handing out literature. But the case of Jesus is different. After all, apparently from day one Jesus was prepared to back up his statements with miracles. And if the Bible is a true account, he did. One can question the history, but not the integrity of the procedures (if you will) that Jesus adopted in those histories. These procedures didn't ask anyone to just take his word for it without any signs or proofs whatsoever. He gave them. Of course, today were much more in the situation analogous to the pronouncement from the gurus. We don't have the same kind of obvious miracle giving us proof. We must try to carefully discern what is god and what is not so that we don't carelessly latch onto things that aren't good and that aren't true. And that is the final truth.

In Christian theology, Jesus had access to omniscience. No surprises from Vedanta, Taoism, Confucious, Bhudda or quantum reality. If Jesus was present at the creation of superstrings, then he knows who or what is pulling them. Touche' Brad!

A quote from Huang Po (David Hawkins' highest calibration apart from Christ, Buddha & Krishna):

"Do not pretend that by meditation you are going to become Buddha. You have always been Buddha but have forgotten that simple fact. Hard is the meaning of this saying!"

Apophatic "unkowing" seems a good thing since a new writing on the slate of the mind can commence from this point. "The Kingdom of God is within you!" Hard is the meaning of this saying. Many who pursue the Davinci Code route are looking to get to this and claim Christ as "enlightened" or an avatar or Boddhisatva.

This can be confusing, even for believers since Jesus in one instance claimed his equality with God and at another time directed attention to the Father or to the Holy Spirit. This is hard to understand as is the "Ye are Gods" quote He used from the old testament. His example in humbly proclaiming his divinity at times may have been lost on Ramana Maharshi, who likely had the same King James as I.

RM said that the most important Christian scriptures were, "Be still and know that I am God"
and "I am that I am." So, becoming God through the process of self inquiry is the entire end point of his thought, and through "The Spirit of Evolution, pretty much where Wilber is headed as well. At least that is what I'm getting so far...

Wilber is a very learned man. The references are mind-boggling. The entire book drives toward this
post-postmodern "centauric," "vision-logic" and
planetary consciousness. He seems to have arrived at this independently of spiral dynamics, as there is no mention of it in 850 pages. His interest in
spiral dynamics came after writing SES! Wow, that really is something, since the need for "second tier" consciousness is the whole point of the book. I can hardly wait for volume II of the Kosmos trilogy, which Wilber says is already written and coming "soon."

Maharshi strike me as an Asian Walter Cronkite with pronouncements of "-And that's the way it is!"

iamwhatiam@popeye.net

So, becoming God through the process of self inquiry is the entire end point of his thought, and through "The Spirit of Evolution, pretty much where Wilber is headed as well. At least that is what I'm getting so far...

When one looks at the wonder of human beings, at what we can do, at just the fact that we ARE, it's not sacrilegious to be in awe, to notice our god-like qualities. But I wonder if people skip straight toward trying to be God because they can't seem to find the true power of being themselves. Too much misery in this world is caused by not accepting both the incredibleness of who we are and the limitations of who we are. If we are too meek, and expect the same from others, then we may be hostile toward those who truly shine in their incredible human qualities. If though, through heady experience with those qualities, we forget we are but a single heartbeat from death, we begin to treat anything meek or humble with hostility for it reminds us of that other truth of our natures.

"Do not pretend that by meditation you are going to become Buddha. You have always been Buddha but have forgotten that simple fact. Hard is the meaning of this saying!"

Apophatic "unkowing" seems a good thing since a new writing on the slate of the mind can commence from this point. "The Kingdom of God is within you!" Hard is the meaning of this saying.

Yes, I think unknowing is a very good thing indeed. At some point, if we are to consider ourselves fully human, and at least partially individuated, we must step back and take notice that we are a collection of haphazard and sometimes arbitrary beliefs. One might drive on the right side of the road in one part of the world and on the left in another, etc. But because this is so, I think it's a severe mistake to believe that all the beliefs we have collected are haphazard and arbitrary, that there is nothing that is true, that everything is relative. That, as far as I can tell, is the central tenet of Eastern spirituality. There is certainly a truth to that, but as to why they stop there, why they inflate this one little insight (as good as it may be) into an entire philosophy and religion is news to me.

If Jesus was present at the creation of superstrings, then he knows who or what is pulling them.

LOL. That's a great line, MM.

Wow, that really is something, since the need for "second tier" consciousness is the whole point of the book.

Either that (second tier consciousness), or people should just NOT stop thinking once they reach the age of 25, or whatever. I know people (and goodness, I�m probably one of them) who are saying essentially the same things they were saying thirty years ago. There is no change. They simply find ever new ways to deepen the rut of their beliefs and thereby, I guess, add further solidity to them, at least in their own minds. It's great if some people can achieve some type of higher consciousness. But I think the secret is to just use the one we've got.

Phil,

Helminiak's stages of spiritual development appear on a chart back on page 209 of Integral Psychology.
Wilber lists them as conformist, conscientious conformist, conscientious, compassionate and cosmic.
They roughly correspond to Fowler's stages from 2) mythic literal, 3) conventional, 4) individual- reflexive, 5) conjunctive faith and 6) universalizing faith. Another couple of dozen psycho-spiritual and philosophical schemes are interpereted by Wilber in this book, which was written 5 years after SES.

Seems that he left out the Zen ox-herding pictures... Hmmm...

Find this quote and attribution on a previous SP thread and win a prize (TBA): Ken Wilber swallows oceans whole. Is it fair to ask him to bring back a lobster? Or maybe something smaller, like an oyster's pearl?

Ken Wilber has done more than almost any modern thinker to spread the
insight that human epistemology, properly considered, is not just empirical,
not just rational, not just practical, not just prudential, not just
aesthetical. This is also to suggest that it is not just rational, not just
pre-, supra-, post- or non-rational, but also extrarational.

Ken's integral approach has much to say to modern formative spirituality. He
warns us not to confuse the pre- and trans- rationalities by either
elevating or reducing one to the other (his pre-trans fallacy). He cautions
against absolutizing any of these different approaches to reality (hence, no
fideism but no scientism either).

In the past, Wilber self-corrected from his own pre-trans fallacies. I
eagerly anticipate Integral Spirituality [due out in Aug 2006) and hope he will self-correct again
on some additional fallacies that have great import for the human spiritual
journey.

In my view, Wilber has not taken his own counsel regarding not absolutizing
any given approach to reality. Apparently, he has unwittingly absolutized
the nonrational, in general, and nonduality, in particular. He does this by
privileging the phenomenal state of nondual awareness, annointing the
ontological structure of nondual consciousness and by assigning the highest
level of consciousness development to nonduality.

This is an extrarationality but it is not an authentic transrationality,
which is grounded in the empirical, rational and practical approaches to
reality in an hierarchical manner. Ken is apparently troubled by any
heirarchical relating of these rationalities because, in his view, such
schemas necessarily imply an absolutism. I think that, if he would simply draw the
proper distinction between primacy, enjoyed by the empirical, and autonomy,
enjoyed by none of the approaches, this problem would resolve itself for
him.


Primacy in an epistemological hierarchy leaves neither the primal element nor any other
distinguishable elements of that hierarchy in a position to solely determine one's
view of reality but, rather, allows each element to properly influence one's
view of reality, thus constituting a transrationality, properly considered.

Wilber, paradoxically, ends up absolutizing a nonrational moment (nonduality) in the integral act of human knowing, mischaracterizing it as ultimately determinative of one's account of reality when, in reality, it is but one of many contributing influnces.

Only such a "grounded" extrarationality, where the empirical enjoys primacy, can truly be an authentic
transrationality. Otherwise, once imported into formative spirituality and
systematic theology, such extrarationalities devolve into age-old
gnosticisms and modern day fideisms, which are no real antidote to the
insidious fundamentalisms that plague our human family in this new
millenium, whether the enlightenment fundamentalism of scientism or the
religious fundamentalisms that arise in so many of our otherwise great
traditions.

I think this level of formal critique is very much needed, JB, and I'm glad you've re-visited this thread.

You note:

quote:

Apparently, he has unwittingly absolutized
the nonrational, in general, and nonduality, in particular. He does this by
privileging the phenomenal state of nondual awareness, annointing the
ontological structure of nondual consciousness and by assigning the highest
level of consciousness development to nonduality.

I don't know about "unwittingly," as there's much about his approach that seems an implicit evangelization for Wilber's own preferred religious/spiritual tradition. I've wondered, too, how a state of consciousness (non-duality) becomes morphed into a stage of development -- what empirical evidence there is for this. While there's much to like about 4QAL, where it's all going beyond what empiricism can support is another matter.

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
[qb] I've wondered, too, how a state of consciousness (non-duality) becomes morphed into a stage of development -- what empirical evidence there is for this. While there's much to like about 4QAL, where it's all going beyond what empiricism can support is another matter. [/qb]

The empirical evidence to counter this view is already available. Science was stillborn in cultures that absolutized nondual thinking.

The great thing about 4QAL is that it is such a comprehensive architectonic that it makes for both a great heuristic device, providing placeholders for discussion, and a good foil, against which one may deepen their understanding of metaphysics and epistemology, in general, and their own, in particular. Wilber has done a great service by constructing this creative master template and by popularizing these types of discussions. His intuition is also guided in the proper direction insofar as he takes an over against stance against philosophical naturalism and affirms spiritual realities. The problem is that his correct conclusions are sometimes founded on erroneous premises and it is very important that those get corrected.

1) He is right in that we shouldn't absolutize different aspects, but then he absolutizes nonduality.

2) He is right in that we are integral beings but then he fragments knowledge into 4 realms, when, actually, our act of knowing is singular and integral with distinguishable moments hierarchically related.

3) He is right in seeing some relationship between the aspects of knowing and the aspects of the un/known but he improperly and facilely equates the exigencies of the knower to the nature of the known, too closely associating epistemology and ontology when, in fact, we cannot be certain, presently, how much of the unknown may be inaccessible in principle vs how much is just beyond our methodological constraints.

4) As it is, he reports NO methodological constraints.

5) His theory cannot be tested, in principle, because of the way he defines his terms and predicates his metaphysical realities. It is tautological and simply reports back results from logical argument that are already embedded in his premises. "You do not see reality like me becauase you are ignorant due to a lower state of consciousness." This is not explanatory adequacy but question begging.

6) Once you get to considerations re: postformal consciousness, falsification is precluded and empirical testing is not available, in principle.

Helminiak's critique a la Lonergan is spot on but requires the type of popularization and market penetration enjoyed by Wilber.

I think I posted all this in the wrong place. Everyone should see this thread.

JB, see http://www.kheper.net/topics/W...t_of_Ken_Wilber.html which makes many of the points you're bringing up. Our Theology forum thread on Wilber has lots of other links.

Even more basic in my own critique is the not-so-implied notion that causal consciousness is the Divine Spirit itself. Here, it seems to me, whatever else one might wish to say about Wilber's schema, he is using language that more properly belongs to religion than psychology or philosophy. As I've listened to his tapes and read his books, again and again he speaks of this level, which is contrasted with the astral and gross levels (Hindu terminology; Westerners know astral as psychological, and gross as physical/physiological) and described as pure spiritual awareness, non-dual consciousness, etc. Sometimes it sounds like he's speaking of pure spiritual human consciousness, but others, as noted above, clearly suggests the divine. Helminiak takes him to task for this conflation/confounding, which is no trivial matter, when you get down to it.

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
[qb]
Even more basic in my own critique is the not-so-implied notion that causal consciousness is the Divine Spirit itself. Here, it seems to me, whatever else one might wish to say about Wilber's schema, he is using language that more properly belongs to religion than psychology or philosophy. [/qb]

The philosophical naturalists conflate methodological naturalism with metaphysics, then color their interpretations of reality with this materialist monist premise. Wilber conflates a natural theology of monism with metaphysics, then colors his interpretations of reality with this idealist monist premise. These systems can be constructed congruent with the scientific findings of the empirical realm, and with logical self-consistentcy in the rational realm and then defended with pragmatic and moral and aesthetical appeals in the evaluative realms. Their conclusions are embedded in their definitions and premises, so they are tautological and can provide a question begging interpretation for any encounter with reality. Tautologies may or may not be true but they add no new information and provide very little explanatory adequacy, except perhaps by building heuristic devices for talking points.

These two systems can be compared to other metaphysical systems, like any number of approaches that Christians use to articulate their faith. Our so-called "proofs" of God's existence are also congruent with empirical findings and logically self-consistent, rationally. And we can make pragmatic and moral and aesthetical appeals, too, and do. Our structure is also tautological and question begging and adds little new information. It also provides a system that colors all of our interpretations of reality. I think its practical appeals, the rational consistency and the empirical congruence combine to deliver the most compelling hermeneutic ever visited on humankind.

And we call this hermeneutic our religion, our faith. And whatever else one might wish to say about Wilber's schema, he is using language that more properly belongs to religion and so are the scientistic, philosophical naturalists.

You are thus entirely correct in that Wilber has gone beyond the positivistic and philosophic to the theistic and theotic, only I use the term "theotic" loosely here because his ideas regarding divinization are SO radically different from our own. His ideas, properly considered, translate into the conclusion that, as Marion says so well even in error, deification merely means recognizing the innate divinity we already have. Spiritual ascesis for them is the equivalent of opening your eyes. For those infected with wilberitis, all of developmental psychology and formative spirituality is directed toward exercises in awareness. For us poor clods, we've got to go through all those lonerganian conversions which make claims on the commitment of our time, talent, treasure and technology resources to action. An authentic teresian vision includes the view, vis a vis contemplation, that the water is for the flowers. An authentic sanjuanian ascent up Mt. Carmel is not about gaining noetic clarity but about falling in love, not that we see a dichotomy, only to say we experience a relationality, which is but a figment of the truly unitive to Wilber. This is not something to argue about precisely since it is faith-based. And THAT's what makes Wilber's hermeneutic bullet-proof: it isn't just psychology or science but, rather, a religion, cultic at that.

pax!
jb