Any Ken Wilber Bums?

[Karl]

As I said, my knowledge of Wilber's philosophy is rather incomplete. But I think he (like some other advaita philosophers) is cutting a lot of corners regarding spiritual development. Its aim is NOT a blending with the undifferentiated sea of consciousness. That would be regressive. Rather, an entity reunites with original divinity by manifesting this divinity itself - by becoming a divine creator itself, eventually. "The drop may sometimes understand that it is in the ocean, but rarely does it realize that the ocean is also in itself."

Because he isn't actually spiritual at all. His philosophy is Mystic muscle and he is using eastern spiritual doctrine as a lure. As adherents go up through his categories of thinking, they are unwittingly participating in his actual philosophy. He is a very clever manipulator and will hook those who are looking to find something they can believe in.

 

Uniting mystic muscle and mystic spiritual is very clearly mysticism itself. So, if a manipulator begins on the common ground of mystic belief as typified by Buddhism, it's fairly easy to move the subject towards the real goal. The ace here is to create categories of reward for the initiate which they will attempt to ascend-that is also common in hynotism. It's necessary to both lead and pace the subject by mirroring their experience and then moving them towards the next step. A therapist/hypnotist is only interested in improving the clients condition, but Wilber is using the technique for his own aims. It's a great way to build a cult following in the same way Scientology became a powerful and lucrative business for L. Ron Hubbard and Blatsvy Theosophical cult. The initiate will be led through a series of controlled steps which lock them into the programme and make them almost impervious to de-programming.

 

There was a time when I came to think that if people were not smart enough not to fall for these things and seemed to be more than happy to play along, that maybe I should take advantage of a very successful business model myself. I hadn't realised that I was in the same philosophical ditch in which pragmatism meant morals could be twisted, if not ditched entirely. At least I still had the sense to know it was wrong on some level, even if I didn't know why it was wrong. Now I see why.

Edited February 13, 2016 by Karl

[RigdzinTrinley]

I'm in auroville and Pondicherry right now

 

Read sri aurobindo for heavens sake!

 

"The life divine" and read about aurobindo - one of the greatest beings alive recently, part Gandhi part ramana maharshi part rabindranath Tagore

 

I read 50pages and am still digesting it

 

Ok, I read where he wrote it next to his grave as well

 

If you want to read a real titan then read aurobindo

 

And yes it is real, such urgency in his words my oh my - no time for bullshit

 

Now for wilber don't judge the book by its cover, meet him and talk to him

 

Its hard to judge from so far away.... In my experience that would be mere intellectualism as well

 

Love

[ralis]

I'm in auroville and Pondicherry right now

Read sri aurobindo for heavens sake!

"The life divine" and read about aurobindo - one of the greatest beings alive recently, part Gandhi part ramana maharshi part rabindranath Tagore

I read 50pages and am still digesting it

Ok, I read where he wrote it next to his grave as well

If you want to read a real titan then read aurobindo

And yes it is real, such urgency in his words my oh my - no time for bullshit

Now for wilber don't judge the book by its cover, meet him and talk to him

Its hard to judge from so far away.... In my experience that would be mere intellectualism as well

Love

 

Wilber was influenced by Aurobindo and The Mother.

[RigdzinTrinley]

That's sure as its light during daytime brother ralis

[Karl]

This is what Wilber is all about:

 

 

https://integrallife.com/join

 

 

A charlatan businessman selling snake oil to the needy. He sits at the top and ministers to his flock. Is Kens IOS programme (and be very wary of cultists that are into programming human minds) scientifically evaluated ? No, of course it isn't, it's just another self improvement folly by which Ken hopes to get rich.

 

When we were kids we used to buy super hero comics on which there was always a back page with X Ray specs and a spring exerciser to turn you into man mountain. As a kid you are expected to fall for this BS, but as an adult you should be applying logic and reason to see through these scams. Bloody hell, wake up and smell the BS.

Edited February 14, 2016 by Karl

[RigdzinTrinley]

Sure brother Karl

 

Smell the BS

[RigdzinTrinley]

Its mighty great that you polished your sword so well - congratulations

 

If you only use it to cut through "other" and never self, then you missed the point

 

If you cut through self thoroughly other will vanish by itself

 

The sword having nothing to cut anymore can be finally at peace

 

Or just stay a nihilist

 

love

 

Mind I feel should serve heart and not stomp on others hearts

 

May I say with respect and fearing the consequences

 

What a useless sword you wield

Edited February 15, 2016 by RigdzinTrinley

[RigdzinTrinley]

Edit: Im mighty bored and out of here, so Just forget about it

Edited February 15, 2016 by RigdzinTrinley

[Karl]

Its mighty great that you polished your sword so well - congratulations

If you only use it to cut through "other" and never self, then you missed the point

If you cut through self thoroughly other will vanish by itself

The sword having nothing to cut anymore can be finally at peace

Or just stay a nihilist

love

Mind I feel should serve heart and not stomp on others hearts

May I say with respect and fearing the consequences

What a useless sword you wield

 

People can choose to do whatever they wish I can't stop them. I can only expose what's behind the door, they must choose to walk through it or to walk away from it.

 

It is you who is the Nihlist. You exchange reason for pragmatism. As if it is impossible to decide prior to participation wether something will work for you or not.

 

Who is it that stands at the school gate promising drugs that will give you a good time and making fun of those that try to stop the others ? Don't mind them he says, they are squares, not cool, you ignore the bores and come and TRY.

 

You, can't you see he's fooled you all

Yes he's here again can't you see he's fooled you all

Share his peace

Sign the lease

He's a supersonic scientist

He's the guaranteed eternal sanctuary man

Look, look into my mouth he cries

And all you children lost down many paths

I bet my life you'll walk inside

Hand in hand

Gland in gland

With a spoonful of miracle

He's the guaranteed eternal sanctuary man

We will rock you rock you little snake

We will keep you safe and warm

 

My sword is reason, it cuts for me only.

[RigdzinTrinley]

Nice answer Karl,

 

You know I just like to know what people are about, and I think we all are about very similar things essentially, its just different paths taken.

 

Some like to sharpen their sword to a very high degree, its fine with me - I certainly like to play chess with nagarjuna, he's dead on a physical level but his reasoning is still mighty and fun to work with on a deeeep level.

Wilber for me has the feel of easy digestible coca cola perennial philosophy, that's good - no offence I feel his grids are interesting - some people need and want that. I don't know if he is a cult leader, but then everybody is in some kind of cult or another (just labeled differently)

 

When I met with nagarjuna I could do nothing but bow down and say - this is far beyond me... Still tying to figure him out actually

 

So I like reason as part of spirituality, I need to feel sharpness from a teacher or I'm bored but then - others like symbols and big emotion and whatever else works to move them to move on...

 

The wonderful daoists on the forum seem to like gardening

 

Its all good

[Karl]

I would describe a cult as an irrational ideology. Now, if you subscribe to the pragmatist view that nothing is really knowable with any certainty, or that what is true for you isn't necessarily true for me, then it's likely that you will apportion cultism to everything and of course by that theory everything is equally good. There are no goods and bads for a pragmatist, if one thing doesn't work, then try another.

 

Well reality holds that some branches in a tree are weaker than others and we can determine which are the weaker by experience. So, if we climb a tree we stick to the strong branches in order that we achieve our goal and survive. If we abide by the pragmatists rule, then, still we might survive, but our chances of failure are proportionately a lot greater. Things really aren't all good and we can learn to distinguish the bad. What's more, our survival and happiness depends on choosing wisely.

Edited February 15, 2016 by Karl

[Karl]

Quoted for posterity.

Well, agreed it is a piece of circular logic. :-) so, edited for posterity.

Edited February 15, 2016 by Karl

[RigdzinTrinley]

Karl I have no time to discuss the two truth doctrine with you, but I agree with all you said. There are good and bad cults I'm part of the worst, but I'm slowly coming to terms with it and sobering up

 

But you do misunderstand nagarjuna and his heirs, if you don't understand how they posit the two truths

 

I would never denegrade the relative aspect of growth, beings suffering (mine included), social injustice and so on

 

Also from my travels I know what I can do with this body before it breaks - and then don't do that. From there I can "guess" at least what others might need or want (mostly I'm wrong - but with good communication, others will at least know I'm there for them, and I sincerely try to be there for others.... Its tough, because I'm an egomaniac, ask my girlfriend )

 

Suffering needs to be faced its real - and experienced as real and intimately connected to "me" on a relative level

 

The relative is all about connectivity and relations (for me at least)

 

Well the ultimate? Maybe another time

 

Also I don't know western philosophical terms

 

Please do explain "pragmatism" - I get your point, I think, but would like some more explanation

[RigdzinTrinley]

Also I want to add:

 

I'm trying to have no POV of my own, but then the scriptures say only the Buddha has overcome all views

 

So now what I can do is listen to others point of view, challenge my point of view and grow

 

Or just treasure my point of view and stagnate

 

For me I never loose my POV in all of this - because I strive to abandon all POV, so challenging my POV through another's POV (listening), I can learn

 

Learning is infinite, and one is never bored

[Karl]

Also I want to add:

I'm trying to have no POV of my own, but then the scriptures say only the Buddha has overcome all views

So now what I can do is listen to others point of view, challenge my point of view and grow

Or just treasure my point of view and stagnate

For me I never loose my POV in all of this - because I strive to abandon all POV, so challenging my POV through another's POV (listening), I can learn

Learning is infinite, and one is never bored

AP has nailed pragmatism with both those quotes. Indeed, your current view is pragmatic, because it does not aim for the truth, it says that all views should be challenged. This is the maxim "question everything" which is entirely open ended and thus entirely pragmatic. That's not to say that question ones views and those of others is incorrect-quite the opposite-but the objective point of view is that truth can be known directly by the application of reason and logic. It's important to differentiate here because that statement can lead into logical positivism/empiricism in the sense that everything is logic. That's the belief of the Mystics of muscle who are empiric pragmatists, unlike Buddhists who are spiritual pragmatists (and I have discovered to be far easier to discuss things with than muscle Mystics who are close to impossible ).

 

Objectivist philosophy doesn't say that everything can be known, it says some things can be known, others are axiomatic and others will/might/can be discovered through scientific empiric study based on philosophic principle and inductive conceptual leaps. We can rely on what our senses tell us through our conscious perceptions, but we must apply reason to understand the precepts we are sensing and conceptualise them, test and integrate against other concepts by deduction and induction, then apply the scientific method for a more refined analysis/definition.

 

So, it's good to challenge ones point of view, but that does not imply ones point of view is wrong and should therefore remain flexible. To take this back on topic-if every view is flexible, then the question for the pragmatist' is why not TRY Wilber's spiral dynamics as its just as likely to work as anything elseThat's pragmatism. Try it because the truth isn't knowable, the only truth is the continuation of a never ending quest to discover the truth.

Edited February 16, 2016 by Karl

[Nikolai1]

Hi Michael

 

I agree with Nikolai about Ken Wilber being a great thinker. He doesn't provide all the answers as far as I'm concerned, and neither does anybody else. 

Of course he claims to provide a fuller system that anyone else has to date.  What do you think gets left out?

[Michael Sternbach]

Hi Michael

 

Of course he claims to provide a fuller system that anyone else has to date. What do you think gets left out?

 

Most of all, there is no mention of a multidimensional spiritual cosmos. A framework that is taken for granted in virtually all the spiritual traditions across the cultures, as well as by Hermeticists, Theosophists, Anthroposophists, Jane Robert's Seth, and so fourth. So Wilber's work is far from universal, at least to the extent that I know it.

[Perceiver]

Most important book i ever read was by ken wilber. Brief history of everything. Forever grateful for that one. Changed my life. Made me feel hope.

 

Cheers out there

[RigdzinTrinley]

AP has nailed pragmatism with both those quotes. Indeed, your current view is pragmatic, because it does not aim for the truth, it says that all views should be challenged. This is the maxim "question everything" which is entirely open ended and thus entirely pragmatic. That's not to say that question ones views and those of others is incorrect-quite the opposite-but the objective point of view is that truth can be known directly by the application of reason and logic. It's important to differentiate here because that statement can lead into logical positivism/empiricism in the sense that everything is logic. That's the belief of the Mystics of muscle who are empiric pragmatists, unlike Buddhists who are spiritual pragmatists (and I have discovered to be far easier to discuss things with than muscle Mystics who are close to impossible ).

 

Objectivist philosophy doesn't say that everything can be known, it says some things can be known, others are axiomatic and others will/might/can be discovered through scientific empiric study based on philosophic principle and inductive conceptual leaps. We can rely on what our senses tell us through our conscious perceptions, but we must apply reason to understand the precepts we are sensing and conceptualise them, test and integrate against other concepts by deduction and induction, then apply the scientific method for a more refined analysis/definition.

 

So, it's good to challenge ones point of view, but that does not imply ones point of view is wrong and should therefore remain flexible. To take this back on topic-if every view is flexible, then the question for the pragmatist' is why not TRY Wilber's spiral dynamics as its just as likely to work as anything elseThat's pragmatism. Try it because the truth isn't knowable, the only truth is the continuation of a never ending quest to discover the truth.

Well then I would say Pragmatism is far from the buddhas and nagarjunas enlightened view of dependent origination/emptiness

 

Truth can be known, reality or the suchness of reality can be known through meditating on the correct view (that would be the lab experiment to check if the philosophy is working or not)

 

And that view is much deeper then "all views are relative - question everything" and if one looks into the great debates in India, neither the Buddhist schools nor the nayayika, samkhya, jains etc. ever approached the biscuits with an attitude like: "everything is relative so everything should work". I guess they wouldn't be pragmatist then?

 

But I don't know those terms to well...

 

Anyway I have to say I'm too lazy to work out how madhyamika fits into the western philosophical world - I let the buddhologists do that

[Karl]

Well then I would say Pragmatism is far from the buddhas and nagarjunas enlightened view of dependent origination/emptiness

Truth can be known, reality or the suchness of reality can be known through meditating on the correct view (that would be the lab experiment to check if the philosophy is working or not)

And that view is much deeper then "all views are relative - question everything" and if one looks into the great debates in India, neither the Buddhist schools nor the nayayika, samkhya, jains etc. ever approached the biscuits with an attitude like: "everything is relative so everything should work". I guess they wouldn't be pragmatist then?

But I don't know those terms to well...

Anyway I have to say I'm too lazy to work out how madhyamika fits into the western philosophical world - I let the buddhologists do that

They weren't pragmatic, they were spiritual Mystics (truth is revelation-intrincisism). It's the combination of Wilbers pragmatic, relativism (muscle Mystics) and eastern spiritual mysticism which is the attraction. What's worse is the relativist philosophy he has chosen is one of the worst-in that it pushes the idea of the Neitzcshian (a mystic irrationalism) superman, which can be achieved through mystic states of meditation.

 

It's so obvious-but people want to believe and so they set aside reason as their guide to truth because pragmatism doesn't require it. The Eastern Mystics have a similar philosophy in that knowledge is possible, but not through reason, but by meditation, exercise, abstention and sutra.

 

Aquinas did something similar in Catholicism. The difference was that Aquinas tried to objectively prove the existence of God. He combined mysticism (western style) with Aristotles power of logic. In effect he was trying to prove scientifically and logically that God was relevant and that reason supported that conclusion.

 

Wilbers even produces a helpful chart to gauge ones progress towards superman status. This parellels the eastern Mystics belief in a gradual self improvement and so reinforces it.

 

Nickolai is even beginning to put people into Wilbers coloured boxes and to to see his own place amongst them. This ranking is typical of the Indian Caste system, something that carried well in Platos Greece.

Edited February 25, 2016 by Karl

[Nikolai1]

 

Most of all, there is no mention of a multidimensional spiritual cosmos. A framework that is taken for granted in virtually all the spiritual traditions across the cultures, as well as by Hermeticists, Theosophists, Anthroposophists, Jane Robert's Seth, and so fourth. So Wilber's work is far from universal, at least to the extent that I know it.

Yes, I just read his magnum opus Sex, Ecology,Spirituality and there is no mention of this stuff really.  

 

Another area where he seems to have little to say is in the occult or the paranormal.  Magical thinking, so thought creating reality, is a thinking style he attributes to children and early humans.  He considers it to be a confusion that we as individuals grow out of, and which the human race has evolved out of.

 

The insights of Jung on this matter he considers to be fallacious.  He accuses him of the pre/trans fallacy - where pre-rational states are mistaken for post-rational 'spiritual' states.

 

I think you are quite right that Wilber is basically an advaitin, and takes that common Advaitin position that what happens in the story must abide by the laws of the story (eg science) and that we cannot intervene in ways that are new and creative.

[Nikolai1]

Karl

 

Nickolai is even beginning to put people into Wilbers coloured boxes and to to see his own place amongst them. This ranking is typical of the Indian Caste system, something that carried well in Platos Greece. 

If a caste system is viewed as rigid and ordained by God, then Wilber is certainly not guilty of this.  He does position people at levels of development, but views people as always striving to evolve beyond where they currently are.

 

One of the most common critcisms of him is that he uses hierachies that are quite out of fashion in the post-modern age.  To this he counters that hierarchies are inevitable in all thought.  There is always the truer the better the stronger in any position, even relativism.

[Karl]

Karl

 

 

If a caste system is viewed as rigid and ordained by God, then Wilber is certainly not guilty of this.  He does position people at levels of development, but views people as always striving to evolve beyond where they currently are.

 

One of the most common critcisms of him is that he uses hierachies that are quite out of fashion in the post-modern age.  To this he counters that hierarchies are inevitable in all thought.  There is always the truer the better the stronger in any position, even relativism.

 

Plato had a caste system that did not require a God. The system he advocates already exists despite God. The English class system didn't require it. The intellectual/political system doesn't require it.

 

There are no hierarchies in thought. You either use reason effectively, or you do not. If your philosophy does not include reason as the premier determinate of human survival then it must logically accede to some other method. There are two; one says that true knowledge is only available through religion/mystic practice and is intrinsically derived-that you must do nothing except to practice/prayer/still the mind and this knowledge will come to you. The other says that there are no absolutes, that everything is in the process of change and therefore reason has no place. That one just does whatever seems correct by intuition, whim or emotion and if that doesn't work, then try something else. One thing is not any better than another thing. The world is a pragmatic place.

 

Wilber combines these two alternates. He advocates that sacrifice to others is not the way forward-as it woukd with Kant/Hegel-that instead, others must be sacrificed-metaphorically-for the superman to gain his hierarchical position. This is the philosophy you advocate-you say so explicitly. Wilber uses the Eastern mystic order as the pathway to attainment that's all that differs from pure Neitzcshian philosophy. This is really the philosophy of Nazi Germany and the blond Superman- except, instead of sacrificing self to state, the sacrifice is state to self. You become God in your own play, but you don't call it God, but some hierarchical colour of thinking which proves this attainment of superiority over others. God does not ordain it, but you do through the philosophical keyhole.

 

 

[Nikolai1]

Karl

 

There are no hierarchies in thought. You either use reason effectively, or you do not.

That is therefore a two-tier hierarchy.

 

Wilber details many lines of development but gives the most attention to the cognitive line.  Aristotelian logic he equates with the blue/orange level of development, and it seems you are at this level.  On this site you get a great deal of feedback from those operating at the green or yellow levels, but you are unable to comprehend that level of logic.  It is literally invisible to you because of the consraints you place.

 

Wilber gives an example between those operating at the blue level (which is conventional, mythic, based on authority) and the orange (where the notion of fallability comes in)

 

The blue will say that, according to the Bible, the world was created in six days.

The orange says 'what about the fossil record?'

The blue says - 'yes that was created on the fifth day'.

 

The blue cognitve style is to assume an absolute authority (eg the Bible) as the predicate on which all truth is drived.

The orange is more fluid, and allows for new information.  Authority becomes hypothesis, but the truth is still out there to be discovered...and we get closer each day.

 

You notice though that the blue is totally incapable of seeing the orange view until it has relaxed its belief on the infallibility of the Bible.  This painful, disorientating movement is rare after we have reached a certain age.  We have created a whole system around us by this point which keeps us positioned.

 

The move from orange to green comes when we start to doubt the 'out thereness' of a world that our orange hypotheses approximate.  Each hypothesis becomes logically equivalent to the next.  We see that deduction, this revered process, depends very much on arbitrary unexamined predicates which are hangovers from our blue phase.

 

Yellow thinking is when the orange and green merge.  Logically everything is still equivalent, but in any given moment there is an optimum act. Our actions may seem contradictory because they are not based on a cognitively held heuristic.  They are based on the unique requirements of the moment. Identifying what this is is post-logical, post-rational.  It is often metaphorcially called 'living from the heart'.  Because yellow involves a whole different way of an apprasing reality, it is referred to as a leap to a higher 'second tier'.

Edited February 25, 2016 by Nikolai1

[Michael Sternbach]

Yes, I just read his magnum opus Sex, Ecology,Spirituality and there is no mention of this stuff really.  

 

Another area where he seems to have little to say is in the occult or the paranormal.  Magical thinking, so thought creating reality, is a thinking style he attributes to children and early humans.  He considers it to be a confusion that we as individuals grow out of, and which the human race has evolved out of.

 

The insights of Jung on this matter he considers to be fallacious.  He accuses him of the pre/trans fallacy - where pre-rational states are mistaken for post-rational 'spiritual' states.

 

It is imo absolutely incorrect to consider "magical thinking" in toto as immature. Pre/trans fallacies certainly exist in this regard, but this is a topic that demands much differentiation.

 

It is true that Jung never clarified whether the archetypes are primitive instinctual energies or transcendent spiritual influences. This is not surprising, because they manifest as both.

 

I think you are quite right that Wilber is basically an advaitin, and takes that common Advaitin position that what happens in the story must abide by the laws of the story (eg science) and that we cannot intervene in ways that are new and creative.

 

Perhaps his position is close to the one taken by certain Buddhist schools which consider metaphysical questions as irrelevant? However, many seekers do have such questions, and I would say, for good reasons. This refutes any claims Wilber may be making as to offering a "full" system.