Shalom Place Community Shalom Place Discussion Groups General Discussion Forums Christian Morality and Theology The teachings of Ken WilberGo | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply | |
| The teachings of Ken Wilber | Login/Join |
That's helpful, Phil and WC. I'm just trying to get a grasp on this stuff and I hope you find the same phenomenon that I do that when I have to explain stuff to a novice that it sharpens my thinking as well. Now, jumping from theory to practice, I need to ask you guys some advice. Please answer, if you can or feel like it, in the thread best suited for it. This isn't likely to be a protracted exchange so you might just want to take a stab at it here. Speaking of dreams and deep sleep, I wouldn't say that I am sleep deprived, but I would say that I very often have such vivid and energetic dreams (but almost never what you might call a nightmare) all through the night that I often wake up feeling like I've just run a marathon. This has been going on for at least four or five years � perhaps longer. It's not every night but it's often enough to feel like every night, if you know what I mean. It's not entirely unpleasant, although sometimes it's a bit draining. From my perspective, particularly considering the content, vividness and interesting symbology of the dreams (as opposed to pointless and random fluff), it seem like there's a great battle going on. I don't know of any other way to describe it. I'm not sure I want it to go away because, as I said, it feels like something that needs to be in play is in play, so I'd hate to interrupt some healthy process that might be 99% complete and just have to start it up again in a few years. Watcha think? | ||||
|
Brad, would you be willing to copy/paste your post on dreams above and start a thread on dreams somewhere? I don't think we've ever discussed that, and it would be a good topic to explore. | ||||
|
| <w.c.> |
Phil probably has in mind PG - rated dreams, Brad. | ||
|
Here's a thorough critique of Wilber's works. They document his different phases, some of which he now disowns, including his affiliation with transpersonal psychology, which he helped to establish. From the bottom link: Lots of good stuff in this critique. Give it a whirl. | ||||
|
Listening again to a tape series by Wilber that I bought sometime back on his 4-quadrant, integral psychology approach. Lots of brilliant insights and analyses, but he is so seriously in error in equating the causal state/witness consciousness with the divine. Time and again he makes this point, almost as though he is trying to convince himself that this is so. I'm not disputing his description of this state and its relation to dream and waking states, but it's far from obvious that witness consciousness is the divine. Still, there's no doubt that this is the state to which Buddhism and advaitan Hinduism tends, and that's been Wilber's formative "home." I know this state very well; indeed, it's something of a permanent realization for me. But it's not the divine, imo. Rather, it's "me," the spiritual self that I am, always present to the activities of consciousness . . . the awareness implicit in all acts of consciousness. So if I were to buy into Wilber's schema, I would have to conclude that "I am God," I, here, being my spiritual self. This is the error of the East, forum friends. They confound human spiritual consciousness with the divine, and that is a HUGE ERROR. Christianity has adequately accounted for this experience of the spiritual self in its metaphysical teaching (especially Bernard Lonergan's notion of the human spirit as reflective and non-reflective consciousness), and so it's not like Wilber is describing something we haven't already taken into account. He is making a valuable contribution in teaching how one can become more spiritually awakened (on a human level), but his confounding the human and divine presents the obvious danger that one could come to think that Wilber knows more about helping people come to realize the kind of union Christianity describes. What is totally lacking in Wilber's teaching is any sense that the divine as a transcendent being to whom one can relate. Doctrines like the Incarnation and Trinity are scarcely mentioned; relating to God as "other" seems to be viewed as something of an immature stage -- the reality being one relating to one's own spiritual self (how absurd). So many are enamored of Wilber, including prominent Christian teachers. Think long and hard about what you read and hear from this man, however, and re-frame it in the context I shared above. He does not know what Christianity is talking about . . . doesn't know that even for those awake at causal levels, relationship with the divine "other" goes on. What a major oversight! ----- See http://www.kheper.net/topics/W...t_of_Ken_Wilber.html for a good analysis of the cultic dynamics at work in "Wilberism." | ||||
|
See post above, if you just dropped to this one. ------ And now I see that Daniel Helminiak has published on his site his critique of Wilber's work. - http://www.visionsofdaniel.net/R&HSch4.htm It's the best one will come across, imo.
| ||||
|
Good point, w.c. It's times like that when the "rubber hits the road," as it were. - - - What's unconscionable and inexcusable to me is Wilber's dismissal of 4,000 years of Jewish religious thought, 2,000 years of Christian testimony, and 1,400 years of Islamic experience concerning human nature and the divine. You would think that the West had never thought about human consciousness and its attributes, nor reflected on the nature of the human spirit. He conveniently pigeonholes our theology and metaphysics as just so much Blue Meme "Mythic Membership" thinking, sometimes even coming across as hostile toward Western religions. Unbelievable! - - - I don't think it's unwarranted to say that Wilber's account is monistic and suffers from the same problems that all such systems of thought encounter. Ultimately, it turns out that there's no real distinction between creation and the divine nor between the human self and the divine consciousness, for example. | ||||
|
Hi w.c, I was so deeply touched and saddened by your post re "good death" for Buddhists. It brought back memories of working in a hospital doing death watches. I attended several Buddhists dieing and was aware of their incapabilities of holding their soul consciousness together as one unit during the dissolving in the death process. One even called out for Christ. I have read little of Ken but tremendously enjoyed an essay he wrote on geese. I could have added to this re their mating ritual being a great observer of the migrating Canadian geese in my village. The gander is programmed to be the boss in mating, nest building and where it is built, etc. They also mate for life. | ||||
|
| <Asher> |
Yeah, I liked this: "...in all those thousands of pages, there is hardly a page all together of direct quotes from Sri Aurobindo, very little that is direct commentary on his work, and the references are usually to a list of names, among which Sri Aurobindo is included. To give a typical example, from Integral Psychology (2000), "Like all truly great integral thinkers - from Aurobindo to Gebser to Whitehead to Baldwin to Habermas - he (Abraham Maslow) was a developmentalist." And so, one might well ask what actually remains of Sri Aurobindo after his ideas are incorporated, along with all of the other many sources that Wilber's genius has so skillfully worked into his voluminous synthesis... Rod Hemsell Ken Wilber and Sri Aurobindo: A Critical Perspective " One of the other things that I've noticed in his writings is how is skims over and reduces people like Foucault, Lacan etc. No where does he talk about the insights of Bhabha, Said and Spivak, or address how "race" and culture interact and obstruct spiritual formation. I find his system totalizing, fascist and in many ways reductive. If you want to get a better idea of the "unfinished project of modernism," I highly recommend the work of Habermas who looks at people like Foucault in a detailed way. I think Wilber identifies with Habermas, but you never see Habermas dialoguing with him. In fact, not many people dialogue with Wilber. In many ways, it is almost impossible to integrate various systems. The notion, for instance, of a "theory for everything" is Romantic to me. This may have to do with his lack of understanding what he calls the "psychic" realm: energies do not/rarely ever mix. You can have all the inter-faith dialogue in the world, but no system can be reduced, or mixed. It really creates confusion. Personally, some of the distinctions he makes are have been important to me, though. But advice: if you want to understand Aurobindo, go to his work. Same with Foucault and the others I mentioned. | ||
|
He's a synthesist, Asher, and so is more interested in the meta-levels out of which various authors speak than in the details of their perspectives. He readily acknowledges that there is often greater variation among perspectives within a level than there is between levels. So your point is well-taken about the importance of going directly to the primary sources, as you won't learn much about them from Wilber. I strongly suspect that he's read most of the authors he "categorizes," however. - - - So here's where I come out. There's much to be learned from Wilber, and his Four Quadrants, All Levels approach seems sound and holistic. That in itself is an important contribution as it provides a way to see how a wide range of disciplines inter-relate. Hell, it's flat-out brilliant, I'll give him that!  And so long as one keeps in mind that what he's really talking about is the emergence of human spiritual consciousness in its various modes of expression, then all is well. Ignore all his Vedantic blathering (not easy to do) about realizing one's innate divinity and he's not too bad, actually. Of course, subtracting the religious overtones and interpretations from his work strips them of much of the passionate energy comes through in his writings, and having your mind constantly re-interpreting Vedanta into a Christian metaphysical framework is tedious work. | ||||
|
| <Asher> |
Phil, yes he surely has read all the primary sources that he quotes. There is no doubt he is brilliant. My main problem with his approach is that it makes things much too simple for people. My feeling is that as you grow, your mind creates its own system. It intuitively senses out and finds theories and makes links. To create a whole system is kind of like saying: here's a spiritual system for mass consumption. It's much too easy and evolves in to a wishy washy Ken Wilber culture. When you interweave wisdom teachings like this, you tend to lose some of the original force behind them. This is not to say that nothing can be learned from his grand system. It seems to be an attempt to continue with a kind of totalizing approach of Rennaissance writers (extending "the Great Chain of Being.") But when you skim over key authors and engulf them into your system, you miss a lot. You gloss over postmodernity as though it barely exists. Or you add it on when it seems convenient. Aurobindo's system is unique to him. You can't really compare states, or equate them. I think we can agree on this much. You can say then that he used the Rennaisance concept of the Great Chain of Being and supplanted the one of the forces behind it (Christianity). i.e He is trying to return humanism to its hellenistic roots, in some sense. Would this be accurate, you think? He does mention Ekhart though. Still, although Christianity may be able to draw from his insights, Eckart is not really accepted in the Church Tradition, so I can see that it would be difficult to accept Wilber (in some sense). I still wonder why Keatings uses him. You can't take God seriously unless you begin to renounce the things of this world (even if you have millions of dollars, you can still be poor at heart). I dunno. The old traditions need to be redefined. That much is obvious. Not subsumed into other systems. Or equated with other systems. I'll probably change my mind about the previous paragraph later. Seriously though, how do you battle the materialism of culture without returning to a fundamentalist/radical position? This may be a question more pertinent to Islam, I understand. But there is a great hunger for God, for a pure experience of Him. There are authentic places of retreat, but the authentic culture of spirituality seems to be dying. | ||
|
http://www.nexuspub.com/journeys/integral.htm Wilber lives here, and is a local phenomenon for me. Here is a recent piece from a local holistic journal. Enjoy!  Wilber says that many percieve SES as an angry book, and many men have written saying that they cried during the last 50 pages. That might have something to do with what this generation of men have done to themselves to accomodate the green meme. I have not read the last 50 pages. I'll let you know if I cry. peace, mm <*)))))>< | ||||
|
I'll let you know if I cry. LOL! Which brings us to Asher's point about post-modernity: I don't think Wilber has skipped over it, as he pretty much equates it with Spiral Dynamics Green, about which Wilber has much to say. There has been a close integration between his teaching and Spiral Dynamics during the past few years. - see http://noosphere.cc/aqal.jpg But . . sure, there are other ways of looking at the unfolding of human consciousness. This one does pull a lot of things together and rings true about very much. He does mention Ekhart though. Still, although Christianity may be able to draw from his insights, Eckart is not really accepted in the Church Tradition, so I can see that it would be difficult to accept Wilber (in some sense). I still wonder why Keatings uses him. You can't take God seriously unless you begin to renounce the things of this world (even if you have millions of dollars, you can still be poor at heart). I dunno. The old traditions need to be redefined. That much is obvious. Not subsumed into other systems. Or equated with other systems. In my teaching on Spiral Dynamics, I point out the various levels of Christianity -- from Purple all the way to Turqoise. Christian faith can and does seem to manifest through all these structures, the second-tier (Yellow and Turquoise) providing for a mature and even mystical expression. I don't think the core Christian mysteries need to be scrapped, however. The Trinity is alive and well for Yellow and Turqoise Christians -- something the Wilber doesn't seem to know very much about. | ||||
|
| <Asher> |
A point from postmodernity (an interlude): lurching, leaping, flying; o to be mere gerund; no past, no future: what do you do in life: I ing "I ing" (The Sad Phoenician, 15) Some recent work on Wilber which can be found here: http://members.aol.com/jefriv/jeffmeyerhoffindex.html " My critique of Wilber�s synthesis begins with his methodology. I claim that he does not actually use his own method of orienting generalizations and I describe the actual method he uses in its stead. I further show why any such method is unworkable at all. In the philosophical section, I explicate Wilber�s unstated philosophical assumptions and show how they are both problematic in themselves and prejudiced against differing philosophical commitments which, because they contradict Wilber�s assumptions, are excluded from his inclusive synthesis. The bulk of the book examines his work in two ways. First, I make good on my claim that he does not actually use the method of orienting generalizations by providing the evidence that in each of the subject areas that Wilber discusses - the natural sciences, developmental psychology, social evolution, western history, postmodernism, mysticism - the orienting generalizations are highly debatable and have widely varying degrees of validity. By examining his sources such as Piaget, Habermas, Charles Taylor, Jacques Derrida, A.O. Lovejoy and the fields in which they participate, I show the extensive and contentious debates surrounding the supposedly already-agreed-upon knowledge that Wilber uses to construct his integral framework. Showing that the pillars of his integral framework are not the orienting generalizations of the major scientific disciplines is not the same as showing that they are false. So secondly, I examine the validity of the arguments Wilber derives from his sources in each of the major areas he discusses. The focus here is on the evidence for his assertions, the logic of his arguments and the assumptions and problems of evolutionary and developmental models. After demonstrating the problems with Wilber�s sources and arguments I then ask why Wilber constructs the system that he does. If it does not fit the facts and so does not derive its existence from what is the case, from where does it come? Using Wilber�s journals and other sources I examine the psychological causes of his particular take on reality and the psychological purposes it serves. This provides insight into how intellectual blind spots operate and what perspectives get left out of his synthesis as a result. I end with a defense of the integrity of our postmodern predicament in which we cannot hope to have a large-scale model of the kind Wilber attempts. If we fully appreciate the difficulty of this predicament we have the advantage of knowing where we stand intellectually. I also suggest an alternative use of spirituality for contemporary society. Buddhist philosophy and practice can be seen as a radical critique of our taken-for-granted way of being in contemporary capitalist society which can be made to mesh with a Marxian social critique . I describe how an East-West merger can be accomplished, not through positive system building, but through a negative critique of what passes for ordinary behavior, common sense and life as we know it." | ||
|
| <Asher> |
I liked these key issues especially: "My critique of Wilber�s synthesis begins with his methodology. I claim that he does not actually use his own method of orienting generalizations and I describe the actual method he uses in its stead. I further show why any such method is unworkable at all. In the philosophical section, I explicate Wilber�s unstated philosophical assumptions and show how they are both problematic in themselves and prejudiced against differing philosophical commitments which, because they contradict Wilber�s assumptions, are excluded from his inclusive synthesis." And the specific examples: "For example, Wilber uses Ferdinand de Saussure�s distinction between the signifier and the signified. No mention is made of Derrida�s critique of the distinction, nor other approaches to the sign which followed Saussure�s. It�s as if Wilber thinks that if a great thinker like Saussure says it, that�s validation enough. In another example, he spends a page building up the German philosopher Schelling as if his precocity, brilliance and influence has some bearing on whether what he said was true or false. The same is done with Jurgen Habermas, A. O. Lovejoy and Charles Taylor. It�s a curious pre-Enlightenment way of validating statements by reference to authority and is contrary to Wilber�s post-Enlightenment desire to rely on science as the arbiter of truth. Reputation replaces orienting generalizations because the method is unworkable." "The appeal to authority is not the only problem with Wilber�s scholarly method. He�s been criticized by others for the many missed ellipses and rearranged and unattributed quotes,# but the more important problem is with his usual method of argumentation. Anyone who reads a lot of academic writing develops straw man radar. The reader senses when the arguments attributed to the author�s opponents are being formulated weakly. With Wilber, weak formulations are the norm. What he typically does in SES is: refer to some general group of authors such as �the ecophilosophers� or �the multiculturists,� caricature some part of their views he doesn�t like, and then repeatedly �prove� that they are wrong about the point he�s fixed upon. While reading these pages one wonders who these people are and do they actually believe such simplistic things? Most of the time after pages of debate the reader never learns the names of Wilber�s opponents, the books they�ve written, nor reads a quote from them." This probably requires a great deal of fleshing out and probing into: "Hiding behind Wilber�s belief that all partial truths must fit together is the debatable assumption that all the partial truths correspond to one true world. If all the truths of all the sciences can form a coherent whole it is because they share something in common." "Yet the philosopher Nelson Goodman has made a strong argument that there are contradictory truths which cannot be assimilated into one coherent picture of the world." "Except for the occasional cooperative freshman, one cannot find anybody who says that two incompatible opinions on an important topic are equally good.�# This is why Wilber never quotes any of his so-called relativist opponents actually asserting the view. While Wilber never ceases to delight in chopping his straw man relativists down, the reader grows frustrated having to sit through such a self-serving display. The problem is, as Rorty says, that �such neat little dialectical strategies only work against lightly-sketched fictional characters.�# I referred to this weakness of argumentation as a problem, but it�s only a problem for those serious about argumentation. For Wilber it�s not problematic, but functional. By deploying his self-contradiction argument he can avoid the real difficulties that serious scholars present for his position." "On an even more fundamental philosophical level, Wilber assumes that all true statements should fit together. This assumption presupposes that all true statements share something in common, such as a connection to the world as it is in itself. But it�s clear that there are true statements that contradict each other and are not reconcilable by appeal to some larger more inclusive perspective." | ||
|
| <Asher> |
Actually, this is what I was feeling on a subtle level: at times, different religious truths can not be brought together/reconciled. At times, the conflation of radically different religious traditions is a wrong approach. What happens on a subtle level is that this conflation creates confusion. The same is true with integrating different systems of thought which have different underlying epistomological and ontological assumptions. What do you think? | ||
|
| <Asher> |
So what you're saying is that for "yellow and Turquoise Christians" and "lower" tiers, the whole picture is already there by virtue of the Trinity? That makes sense. It is a bit like my point on another thread of 99% of the issue is showing up in the "field". What one must understand, I think, is this subtle notion of initiation. Once one is initiated, by the trinity, or by some other authentic tradition, realization (integration of all the memes and beyond) is implicit. This means that any one at any stage of development is, to a certain extent, already arrived by virtue of this "initiation." That arrival will be different depending on the goal of the tradition. Which bring me back to questioning Wilber's subtle energy system. It does not seem to incorporate a notion of grace (is that your point?) which can penetrate through any congealed meme if faith is there.  | ||
|
| <Asher> |
"8. Turquoise: Holistic . Universal holistic system, holons/waves of integrative energies; unites feeling with knowledge; multiple levels interwoven into one conscious system. Universal order, but in a living, conscious fashion, not based on external rules (blue) or group bonds (green). A "grand unification" [a "theory of everything" or T.O.E.] is possible, in theory and in actuality. Sometimes involves the emergence of a new spirituality as a meshwork of all existence. Turquoise thinking uses the entire Spiral; sees multiple levels of interaction; detects harmonics, the mystical forces, and the pervasive flow-states that permeate any organization. 0.1% of the population, 1% of the power." Perhaps it is a green tendency in me, but where is Wilber getting his numbers from in these last lines? Anyway, does any one here have an understanding of the turquoise meme? I have so much problem with Wilber's system here, I can't express it...here. Mostly green issues. But I'm willing to find something in him, because I undestand the cultural impasse that we are in and I think this second tier idea is pivotal in answering...what next? My tendency would be to try to articulate and flesh out Delueze's idea of Nomadic...and that in itself could take on new textual forms...that move beyond AND INCLUDE the insights of postmodernism. Does this make sense to you all? I mean couldn't "blue" lead to this leap? I don't understand why Green is so pivotal here...sorry not being clear...I'm being lazy right now... Am I understanding Wilber correctly? The development of green is pivotal for this "quantum leap?" into second tier thinking? "With the completion of the green meme, human consciousness is poised for a quantum jump into "second-tier thinking." Clare Graves referred to this as a "momentous leap," where "a chasm of unbelievable depth of meaning is crossed." In essence, with second-tier consciousness, one can think both vertically and horizontally, using both hierarchies and heterarchies (both ranking and linking). One can therefore, for the first time, vividly grasp the entire spectrum of interior development , and thus see that each level, each meme, each wave is crucially important for the health of the overall Spiral." Leaping around here, my apologies...Sat Prem's description seems a lot less obscure than this. Blah. Tired of systems. Wanting to sleep. Wanting to dream of the Nomadic as a traveller to the stars...culture as the point where one works through to reach spirit...culture fragmenting...but new destinations in the mind, heart and soul...so I like this Nomadic idea: "Nomad: In 1000 Plateaus, Deleuze gives a lengthy characterization of nomad art. Nomad arts mobilize material and forces instead of matter and form. Traditional art, being law oriented, strives to establish constants and, by means of unchanging forms, to discipline and control a supposedly unruly matter. Nomad arts, on the other hand, strive to put variables in a state of constant variation. Nomadic art is never prepared in advance, nor is it homogenized. It is rather a "vehicle of singularities which constitutes the form of the content. As for expression, instead of being formal, it is as inseparable from the pertinent characteristics, which constitute that matter of the expression." Deleuze, faithful to his principle of transcendental empiricism, commends the techniques of iconic isolation that turns representational work into "matters of fact" and prevents their becoming situated inside a network of intelligible relations outside of the work itself, e.g., the suggestion of an encyclopedia through the alphabetization of a biographeme. It is not the expression or the content of a work of art that captures Deleuze's attention. It is the form of the expression and the form of the content, the parallels established between the two and the resonance of their association. Deleuze describes this as finding something "between" as opposed to binary distinctions, e.g., the biographeme and the windows and the philosophy rather than "that is a biographeme; that is a window; that is philosophy. And a truly nomadic work would combine these things for a "becoming biographeme window philosophy" though it is most nomadic to leave that up to the viewer. The viewer orientation is not constant but changes and the eye of the viewer must transcend traditional perception to open the way for other perceptions. "There is no visual model for points of reference that would make them interchangeable and unite them...they are tied to any number of observers who may be qualified as "monads" but are instead nomads entertaining tactile relations amongst themselves." [Deleuze, 1000 Plateaus]. Nomadic art and the biographeme and the window and the philosophy, find their way "along the edges" into traditional forms to dislocate and disrupt traditional perceptions and formats and academic papers." Applying this to an understanding culture as Nomadic, not homogenous. Moving through Mmembership consciousness to reach this second tier with the help of the wisdom traditions. Complex identities. What to do? So this notion of the Nomad, I heart. From in between, one lives 2 cultures and the tension creates the thrust to break through the whole mythic membership consciousness...because each destabilizes the other...opening to above, to heart, to community, to love...this is the way I have learned - mostly on my own...little help from Bhabha who never went beyond the in between. Must find this space if you are constituted by two cultural identities...and so this is the way through...needs much fleshing out, of course. But I wouldn't call it transpersonal postmodernism...must keep thinking. Find a way to sing this...Nomad. One gets exhausted by the notion of fixed cultural identity...true tradition grows from this. So much decends...from above when one is on the verge...of a cliff. You can't subscribe to any system...can use them to help you, no rules, must understand yourself. Know thyself, first. Know yourself, first naval gazing, then turns into hatred, then to love. Because you were made that way...the other was always singing YOU...singing...yes, music, instead of walls...between you. This is why Mary sang in your naval, the song of forgiveness...for all to finally forgive...not these truth commissions....but forgive oneself, the internalized gaze...is where Mary appeared. Strange, I think. That Mary would appear there in her mantle of blue...one could say it was a stroke of luck...but I can't help but this think this tension between created the possibility for a leap...now everything is strange and the world is no longer obscure, or unclear as it was. Something shifts... | ||
|
Wilber himself has suggested that all of his ideas are experimental, and that others will improve upon it over time. Inter-religious dialogue seems very important now to the survival of the species, and Bede Griffiths and others have leaped at the hope integral, AQUAL thought may offer. I'm in my diapers with yellow. It's only been forming up during the last year and a half for me, but I learned of it seven years ago. Wilber has been pushing off from green for a couple of decades now, and I hope to learn from him how to do this. I'm finding that pushing as deeply as I can into green can provoke a strong reaction to the logical fallacies and inconsistencies, the hypocrisy of green. As I marched on Denver's capitol with about 800 anti- war protesters today, and listened to speeches from anti-corporate, anti-globalization activists, Black Muslims, environmentalists, socialists, Black Flag anarchists, Native Americans, Veterans for Peace, immigrant's rights activists, Amnesty International and Rastafarians. In a very general way, they are all very correct about democracy's future being in very precarious straights in these troubled times. On that, I agree wholeheartedly, and it is becoming painfully obvious that something has gone very, very wrong. Wilber rightly points out that all of the victim groups add up to 433% of the population.  David Hawkins calibrates Political Correctness at 190. Integrity begins at 200. PC won't work in it's present form. It's an easy target. The answer lies in growth to the Second Tier, which certain spiritual practices and biology/God appear to be facilitating, but 49 out of 50 people aren't going to get yellow, or think globally, or venture beyond self interest and mythic views, including mythic green. The past will continue into the present and future, with civil rights, the Earth, and community (Wilber's "Descended Grid") competing with corporate capitalism, most Christians and Muslims, and militarism (Wilber's "Ascended Grid") for at least another century. Gandhi said to be the change you wish to see in the world. This seems to me consistent with Jesus. I'll leave the activism to those who are called. A few yellow meme people could do a great deal of good, having ten times the energy of green! I hope we do not develop the means to reach into outer space, until we do alot more growing up. | ||||
|
| <Asher> |
hahaha. nice response, mm. i'm pretty much with you on your thinking. i think that this is interesting for green memers like myself: "With the completion of the green meme, human consciousness is poised for a quantum jump into "second-tier thinking." Clare Graves referred to this as a "momentous leap," where "a chasm of unbelievable depth of meaning is crossed." In essence, with second-tier consciousness, one can think both vertically and horizontally, using both hierarchies and heterarchies (both ranking and linking). One can therefore, for the first time, vividly grasp the entire spectrum of interior development , and thus see that each level, each meme, each wave is crucially important for the health of the overall Spiral." i'm sure a lot of postmodernists will reach this without subscribing to wilber...hopefully they'll find new ways to contextualize their religion and re-develop a very personal relationship with it. yes, to the recoil of the logical faculties. that's one reason why i went back to school. to push myself to think. and i mean that. i have to push myself, because the mind usually automatically moves into silence...and i don't think that's very heathy for healing and developing relationships. ps. i can see now how some wilberites are blue...not green like meeeeee. and you.  | ||
|
"With the completion of the green meme." I'm doing some remedial green meme and perhaps advanced green meme work. I was listening to a corporate personnel director speaking of struggles and challenges with diversity in the workplace. She describes her self as an atheist (orange). She is able to mediate between various factions, i.e., gay people and fundamentalists, without taking sides. (orange/green) She is able to please upper management. (orange) She used to be a union member (green), but now works for management. (orange) She has the ablility to balance these interests. I don't think she is quite yellow, but the balancing act which likely takes place in personnel departments all over may produce enough pressure to make the leap to yellow. I see the same thing in local politics and we may see some yellow in places like Denver and Toronto. Did you know that Fahrenheit 9/11 performed 79% better than expected in Toronto? Lotsa green up there... Poised for a leap into second tier? | ||||
|
| <Asher> |
no, i didn't know that about F 9/11, mm. i remember the theatre being packed, though it seems to be a time where canadians are asserting their identity in relation to the US. much like freud's notion of differentiation on a macro level, this necessarily involves a time of cynicism (adolescence) as canadians define their self in relation to US. one critic, linda hutcheon, suggests that canada is the first postmodern country! an early and immature development of green, but this is by no means the only identity in canada. i wouldn't say that leftist canadians are poised for a leap by virtue of being green. many greeners are simply deluded by this notion of multicultualism or live in a notion that their society is just. more radical greens are trying to implement a truly anti racist multicultualism. i wouldn't suggest that these people are poised for a leap, either. i think it's when green relativity starts to restructure itself on an emergent, historically specific ethical system, that green can begin to move into yellow. for greens, ethics becomes context specific. but there are certain universal trends that can be intuited! and green fluidity really begins to translate in a form of empathy which then restructures the vertical system so it can become clear. in this way, a new notion of individual and social ethics will emerge that is both universal and context bound. this makes possible a leap, i would think.  | ||
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...al_justice_activists I like the name of this band: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propagandhi Busy beavers from The Great White North. I don't know much about these green meme people, except Naomi Klein, who I have discovered recently, and Catherine Doherty, a major modern (postmodern)? mystic. Postmodern politics and packed cinema houses...hhhmmm... We had 50,000 march against immigration reform last Saturday without a single arrest. The police were unprepared and it seems to have organized below the Thin Blue Line's radar. Which social justice activists might I find interesting? Have you met some of them? peace, mm <*))))>< p.s. I'm looking into Christian anarchism. Jesus turning over the tables of the moneychangers, etc. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phillip_Berrigan I know alot of spiritual guys named Phillip. | ||||
|
| <Asher> |
hi mm, currently im not involved in activism. im simply doing an indepth study of facinating issues such as diaspora, transnational identities etc. these issues, i'm looking at by examining how time and identities are connected. this may mean that i will have to go "back" to phenomenology. kant is still not behind us. deconstruction is extremely important in order to understand the self and understand the layers of social discourse. finally, without deconstruction, i don't think that we can go deep enough into consciousness. deconstruction cognitively translates into self reflexivity. but we must not end there, we have to deconstruct in order to recover lost histories (subaltern studies). on a micro level this may mean recovering "lost" identities...this has spiritual and ethical implications that will change our lives if we remain open to being destabilized into the only true stability, the divine beloved. this is my interpretation of deconstruction. when we recover lost histories (is history ever recovered? or simply a counter narrative offered to replace a nationalist history?) we move into a new kind of time-space. we hold contradictory times...this tension is important for a leap, in my opinion. but people must study deconstruction from a deep level and actually translate that discursive practice to self-reflection, self-observation. i don't know any movements and i would be reluctant to be involved with anything at this time, besides something like the subaltern studies group. this may be a dream, but it's a worthwhile one if it directly effects my life. i think everything should evolve out of our lives, mm. gramsci had the notion of an organic intellectual. every thing emerging from self, we begin to see our lives in endless contexts. it is those contexts which we must focus on to recover parts of our misplaced histories, on a macro and micro level. this is the direction i'm heading and it will mean a re exploration of how phenomenelogical processes are politically inscribed, even the refined states of intuition still exist within multiple contexts. aurobindo has an interesting understanding of jesus turning over the tables, which i quite like - even if i can't agree with it completely. i won't share it here...but it's worth keeping an eye out for. i've never heard of christian anarchism, but i would read deeply into your reactive stance before engaging...??? perhaps. thanks for hanging out, buddy. | ||
|
| Powered by Social Strata | Page 1 2 3 4 5 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
Shalom Place Community Shalom Place Discussion Groups General Discussion Forums Christian Morality and Theology The teachings of Ken Wilber | View $GS_USERNAME's Public Profile |
| Add $GS_USERNAME to my Buddies |
| Add $GS_USERNAME to my Ignore List |
| Invite $GS_USERNAME to a Private Topic |
| View Recent Posts by $GS_USERNAME |
| Notify me of New Posts by $GS_USERNAME |