Any Ken Wilber Bums?

[ilumairen]

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.

 

[Nikolai1]

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.

Obviously he has written so much that he might have addressed this elsewhere, so I'd be interested if there is anyone here who thinks we misrepresent him.

 

Wilber does include 'thought creates reality' in his system.  He just considers it to be an archaic viewpoint, which is basically erroneous.  He sees it in children at the phase when they imagine that the 'moon follows them when they go out walking at night'.  Magical thinking, he says, is what happens when we are strongly egocentric - that is, we can't distinguish the world 'out there' from the self.  As the self becomes a stronger, more distinct entity we are able to be less egocentric...all this comes from Piaget.

 

My own view is that our sense of self starts to become cosmic.  We start to experience feelings of agency in matters that make no sense to normal individual existence.  But these feelings of agency can't be assumed to be the indiviual's (as in solipsism) but are rather seen as the Divine's also.  Our own self is also not self.  Pre-rational magical thinking doesn't have this double-view.  The world is one's own and centred on one's self purely.

 

I think another thing about the post-rational phase is that we experience it both ways.  Yes, we have moments where our thought creates reality, but we also have moments where our will is entirely in abeyance and we feel utterly surrendered to a higher power.  Both of these states happen, and because of that, we can't identify with either as being a fixed world-view.  Those who are pre-rational magical are convinced, utterly convinced, that reality is dependent on their own individual thinking (or that of their designated creators).  

 

In societies that anthroplogists have studied in recent times, this split view is represented by the ordinary person who doesn't have cosmic powers, and the shaman who does.  And even the shaman must 'go out of themselves' in order to access these powers of reality creation.

 

In post-rational magic, the Self concept is broad enough to consciously hold all of these together and not get carried away.

[Nikolai1]

Does anybody on this thread have any idea of Wilber's views on clairvoyance, divination and other siddhis or occult arts?

[Karl]

It is not a two tier hierarchy because in any given moment anyone is free to use reason and to use it badly, or well. That is the power of independent thought and our relationship as existent beings in an existent universe. We have free choice over what we can do, but there are absolutes which we cannot change.

 

Aristotlian logic is just a tool of organised methodological cognition, it isn't a philosophy in itself. You are judging by your own philosophical understanding and arriving at an invalid conclusion. Your conclusion is unsound because your premesis are incorrect. You have made the assumption that my philosophy is based around Aristotlian logic, which it isn't. I've repeated numerous times that

Existence is identity; consciousness is identification. These are axiomatic twins of which one is the corollary of the other.

 

Wilber is a mystic, but he is a sophisticated mystic. He would not fall for such a banale mysticism as Christian fundementality because it easy to disprove. He won't deny logic or reason because he knows that would mean he could hold no philosophy at all, but he attempts to jack them down his colour scale as merely primal faculties that are a part of some greater wilberian truth. This stuff appeals to intellectuals, the cleverer you are, the better it works.

Edited February 25, 2016 by Karl

[Brian]

Karl

 

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'.

Karl and I had an interesting conversation some months back in which I suggested it might be time for him to explore branches of logic beyond Aristotelian, that term logic is an excellent starting point but expanding his exploration into areas like propositional logic and predicate calculus (as examples) would provide a more rounded and nuanced understanding. The fact that logical systems are referred to with zeroth-order, first-order, second-order & higher-order terminology certainly suggests a hierarchical structure, doesn't it?

 

BTW, my suggestion was rejected as unnecessary and the systems deemed overly mathematical.

[Karl]

Because it works. I'm sure that a multi axis digital milling machine is a brilliant piece of advanced machinery, but it's based on a chisel. I find I'm competent with a chisel, the multi axis machine only adds complexity even if it does the same job faster.

 

Hierachy of logic ;-) nice try batman but I'm not biting.

 

 

[Brian]

 

Because it works. I'm sure that a multi axis digital milling machine is a brilliant piece of advanced machinery, but it's based on a chisel. I find I'm competent with a chisel, the multi axis machine only adds complexity even if it does the same job faster.Hierachy of logic ;-) nice try batman but I'm not biting.

Curiously, I used to program about a dozen of them -- part chisel, part drill, part saw, part sandpaper, part measuring stick, part brush & vacuum cleaner. Very versatile and efficient tools if you put in the energy & hard work to learn how to use them. Expensive dust makers if you don't.

[Karl]

Curiously, I used to program about a dozen of them -- part chisel, part drill, part saw, part sandpaper, part measuring stick, part brush & vacuum cleaner. Very versatile and efficient tools if you put in the energy & hard work to learn how to use them. Expensive dust makers if you don't.

 

There is some very trick equipment around these days. I came across a company building artificial ears one atom at a time in order to copy the exact skin detail and texture.

[Michael Sternbach]

Obviously he has written so much that he might have addressed this elsewhere, so I'd be interested if there is anyone here who thinks we misrepresent him.

Me too.

 

Wilber does include 'thought creates reality' in his system. He just considers it to be an archaic viewpoint, which is basically erroneous. He sees it in children at the phase when they imagine that the 'moon follows them when they go out walking at night'. Magical thinking, he says, is what happens when we are strongly egocentric - that is, we can't distinguish the world 'out there' from the self. As the self becomes a stronger, more distinct entity we are able to be less egocentric...all this comes from Piaget.

I wasn't aware that Piaget was a major influence on Wilber, but this interests me because Piaget was a close friend of my grandfather's.

 

Of course, the concept that we create our own reality from our thoughts is a basic assumption of the Seth books and is in keeping with other esoteric teachings as well. However, we are talking about an advanced concept which is indeed interpreted in naive and unreflected ways by many a "New Ager."

 

My own view is that our sense of self starts to become cosmic. We start to experience feelings of agency in matters that make no sense to normal individual existence. But these feelings of agency can't be assumed to be the indiviual's (as in solipsism) but are rather seen as the Divine's also. Our own self is also not self. Pre-rational magical thinking doesn't have this double-view. The world is one's own and centred on one's self purely.

Yes, these people tend to believe that the creation of one's personal reality is happenin on an egoic level. Thus they see themselves as being in total conscious control of their life experiences. This a problematic view, to be sure.

 

I think another thing about the post-rational phase is that we experience it both ways. Yes, we have moments where our thought creates reality, but we also have moments where our will is entirely in abeyance and we feel utterly surrendered to a higher power. Both of these states happen, and because of that, we can't identify with either as being a fixed world-view. Those who are pre-rational magical are convinced, utterly convinced, that reality is dependent on their own individual thinking (or that of their designated creators).

 

In societies that anthroplogists have studied in recent times, this split view is represented by the ordinary person who doesn't have cosmic powers, and the shaman who does. And even the shaman must 'go out of themselves' in order to access these powers of reality creation.

Yes. While Seth insists that we all are creating our own reality - and therefore unconsciously all are "shamans" or "magicians" - there is no doubt that some individuals excel at this insofar they are particularly powerful and conscious in this regard.

 

In post-rational magic, the Self concept is broad enough to consciously hold all of these together and not get carried away.

Yes, it's all about having a balanced and integrated view.

[Nikolai1]

Michael

 

I wasn't aware that Piaget was a major influence on Wilber, but this interests me because Piaget was a close friend of my grandfather's.

Wow that's interesting! Yes, Piaget is a massive influence on Wilber, one of the major influences.  He does of course go beyond Piaget, who saw the final state of cognitive development to be Formal Operations.

 

However, we are talking about an advanced concept which is indeed interpreted in naive and unreflected ways by many a "New Ager."

Yes, quite early on in The Nature of Personal Reality Seth warns not to mistake the self he talks about with our usual ego.  The self that creates is a much broader self, and must be realised through practice.  if we don't realise this higher self we have only the smaller self to work with.  

 

This basic point runs throughout Wilber's writings.  The level higher to where we are at is 'invisible', 'inconceivable'.  It is as if shrouded in total darkness. 

 

 While Seth insists that we all are creating our own reality - and therefore unconsciously all are "shamans" or "magicians" - there is no doubt that some individuals excel at this insofar they are particularly powerful andconscious in this regard.

Seth considers modern doctors to serve this function in our society.  They are not fully conscious, however, because they reject their own suggestive or hypnotic role in the healing and attribute it all to the medicine, which they belive in as ardently as the patient.  Likewise the shaman must practice some kind of ecstasis in order to channel their higher functions of Self - they can't seem to do it with their ordinary, day-to-day persona.  I would say that Jane Roberts was the same in this regard.

[Michael Sternbach]

Michael

 

Wow that's interesting! Yes, Piaget is a massive influence on Wilber, one of the major influences.  He does of course go beyond Piaget, who saw the final state of cognitive development to be Formal Operations.

 

Could you give an example of that?

 

Yes, quite early on in The Nature of Personal Reality Seth warns not to mistake the self he talks about with our usual ego.  The self that creates is a much broader self, and must be realised through practice.  if we don't realise this higher self we have only the smaller self to work with.  

 

Seth emphasizes that much of the psychological contents that create our experience is unconscious although it can be raised into consciousness. And yes, not only what is "below" but also what is "above" our conscious mind can be made conscious.

 

This basic point runs throughout Wilber's writings.  The level higher to where we are at is 'invisible', 'inconceivable'.  It is as if shrouded in total darkness.

 

Generally, that is true, but it doesn't have to be (stay) that way.

 

Seth considers modern doctors to serve this function in our society.  They are not fully conscious, however, because they reject their own suggestive or hypnotic role in the healing and attribute it all to the medicine, which they belive in as ardently as the patient.

 

Good observation there. Belief seems to be the one master key.

 

 Likewise the shaman must practice some kind of ecstasis in order to channel their higher functions of Self - they can't seem to do it with their ordinary, day-to-day persona.

 

Yes, a common denominator also across magical traditions.

 

 I would say that Jane Roberts was the same in this regard.

 

Yes, she maintained that Seth as he presented himself was not completely separate from her. I think this is generally the case with channellers. Was she tuning into pure information fields then, some kind of spiritual Internet? Or is Seth a kind of multidimensional individual that Roberts connected to? What about the Archetypes in general - entities like Seth are definitely of an archetypical nature. Our comprehension of these things is very limited, in keeping with our level of spiritual awareness.

 

[Nikolai1]

Hi Michael

 

Could you give an example of that?

Piaget's penultimate stage was concrete operational, which is basically conventional.  Truth is taken from the authority whether in the form of the 'expert' (as in a priest) or the words of some infallibly true scripture (like the Bible).  Logical argument could ensue and it used authority to provide the axioms, or predicates.

 

To move into formal operations, which was Piaget's final stage, there has to be some ability to think about our thinking (called metacognition).  We therefore come open to the fact that the Bible may not be infallibly true, and that it was just the opinion of the everyday person who wrote it.  Formal operations requires the skill to think about, assess and compare alternative intellectual notions in order to settle on the truest one or best.

 

The stage beyond this is called vision-logic where more and more we are capable of seeing alternative viewpoints.  At first we see alternatives in those things that are least essential, for example we might see that English table manners are not superior to the Indian's - its just a matter of culture.  Post-modern culture is dominated by vision-logic thinking at this level.  To approach higher levels of vision-logic we start to see that fundamental ontological categories as being only provisonally true.  For example, we can see quite clearly that time and timelessness (eternity) are one and the same thing.  

 

As we lose the ability to assume that our cognitions are able to infallibly reflect 'out there' reality, our suppostion of said reality reduces.  We no longer imagine ourselves as a thinker, thinking.  Our thoughts present themselves as finished products - intuitions.  As is always the case, intuition always had its roots in former levels - for example, it is by intuition that we are able to formulate the questions that we then emprically 'test'.

 

Vision-logic only becomes conspicuous in advanced spiritual wisdom tradtions. Zen teachings enunciate it very clearly. Piaget seemed not to suspect it, perhaps because it is extremely rare.  For Piaget, his final stage (formal operations) was not met by the majority of the population and it is perhaps reasonable to assume it to be the end point of human cognition.

[Nikolai1]

I have found Wilber's thoughts on the film What the Bleep...?, which is a kind of manifesto for 'you create your own reality'  He said:

 

I'm sorry to be so harsh about this, because clearly the intentions are decent; but this is exactly the kind of tripe that gives mysticism and spirituality a staggeringly bad name among real scientists, all postmodernists, and anyone who can read without moving their lips.

 

It is definitely conspicuous that he doesn't give any mention of siddhis, either way, in his main books.  They certainly present theoretical problems, and politically he would find himself totally dismissed by the intellectual establishment (which he clearly wishes to impress).  

[Michael Sternbach]

Hi Nikolai,

 

I find your post informative and thought provoking. It does lead me to certain questions.

 

Hi Michael

 

Piaget's penultimate stage was concrete operational, which is basically conventional.  Truth is taken from the authority whether in the form of the 'expert' (as in a priest) or the words of some infallibly true scripture (like the Bible).  Logical argument could ensue and it used authority to provide the axioms, or predicates.

 

To move into formal operations, which was Piaget's final stage, there has to be some ability to think about our thinking (called metacognition).  We therefore come open to the fact that the Bible may not be infallibly true, and that it was just the opinion of the everyday person who wrote it.  Formal operations requires the skill to think about, assess and compare alternative intellectual notions in order to settle on the truest one or best.

 

The stage beyond this is called vision-logic where more and more we are capable of seeing alternative viewpoints.

 

How are the two different from each other then?

 

 At first we see alternatives in those things that are least essential, for example we might see that English table manners are not superior to the Indian's - its just a matter of culture.  Post-modern culture is dominated by vision-logic thinking at this level.  To approach higher levels of vision-logic we start to see that fundamental ontological categories as being only provisonally true.  For example, we can see quite clearly that time and timelessness (eternity) are one and the same thing.  

 

As we lose the ability to assume that our cognitions are able to infallibly reflect 'out there' reality, our suppostion of said reality reduces.  We no longer imagine ourselves as a thinker, thinking.  Our thoughts present themselves as finished products - intuitions.

 

I would agree that thinking ideally progresses from being analytical to being more synthetical and intuitive, yet thinking it  remains. Ime, it would be more accurate to say that the answers come to us intuitively.

 

 As is always the case, intuition always had its roots in former levels - for example, it is by intuition that we are able to formulate the questions that we then emprically 'test'.

 

Not sure what you are trying to say here. Intuition is based on "parallel computing" of information stored in our mind (which the linear conscious mind can't follow), and (usually unconscious) psychic perceptions.

 

Vision-logic only becomes conspicuous in advanced spiritual wisdom tradtions. Zen teachings enunciate it very clearly. Piaget seemed not to suspect it, perhaps because it is extremely rare.  For Piaget, his final stage (formal operations) was not met by the majority of the population and it is perhaps reasonable to assume it to be the end point of human cognition.

[Michael Sternbach]

I have found Wilber's thoughts on the film What the Bleep...?, which is a kind of manifesto for 'you create your own reality'  He said:

 

Sad to hear that he commented so negatively on a beautiful movie that inspired so many. More and more I tend to think of him as a top heavy meddler, all in all - besides some valid insights he undoubtedly has.

 

I quite enjoyed his commentary on the Matrix movies though, included on a special edition of the trilogy in my possession. Perhaps I should watch those DVDs again.

 

It is definitely conspicuous that he doesn't give any mention of siddhis, either way, in his main books.  They certainly present theoretical problems, and politically he would find himself totally dismissed by the intellectual establishment (which he clearly wishes to impress).  

 

Well, I am aware that Zen Buddhism, for instance, look at this differently, but to me, siddhis are not problems but natural abilities that can be of great value, even though they are undeveloped or suppressed in most.

 

I am not really aware of Wilber's political views, other than that "everybody is correct in some regard." His reputation in the academic establishment is certainly not very good, that's mostly because they consider him a "New Age philosopher" - but their evaluation by itself doesn't speak against him, from my perspective.

[Nikolai1]

Hi Michael

 

How are the two different from each other then?

Yes, the reason they sounded the same is because movement from formop to vision logic happens gardually.  But in formop we see different perspectives, but we still retain the belief that one of this correct and the other incorrect.  And once we have determined which is which we have unearthed a universal truth about the world

 

In vision logic we lose this belief more and more.  Perspectives are always, of necessity, provisional.  They do not and cannot correspond to a world 'out there' because the existence of that world is itself jist another persective.  Truth is something therefore that 'fits' the flow of events.  It might fit to today but not tomorrow. Like you correctly stated, there is no thinking - there is only the appropriate thought in that moment.

 

I would agree that thinking ideally progresses from being analytical to being more synthetical and intuitive, yet thinking it  remains. Ime, it would be more accurate to say that the answers come to us intuitively.

Exactly! Hence the term vision-logic.  We are not thinking and we are not thinkers - we are just the emptiness into which thoughts come...like visons.  Wilber does emphasise a lot the fact that vision-logic is not possible for those who have not experienced what he calls the 'satori'. Only with this glimpse of awareness will our identifies shift from being a thinker engaging with the world.

 

Not sure what you are trying to say here. Intuition is based on "parallel computing" of information stored in our mind (which the linear conscious mind can't follow), and (usually unconscious) psychic perceptions.

All the stages previous to vision-logic contain the germ in the form of creativity.  In formal operations, in the scientific hypothetico-deductive mindset, creativity is the ability to formulate questions.  The question is never an established fact but a hunch about what might be the case.  Of course, solutions to scientific questions might also come from the place of creativity.  There is a well-known story about James Watson who dreamed of a spiral staircase before proposing the double helis of the DNA molecule.

[Nikolai1]

Michael

 

Sad to hear that he commented so negatively on a beautiful movie that inspired so many. More and more I tend to think of him as a top heavy meddler, all in all - besides some valid insights he undoubtedly has

If he driticises what the mainstream scientists criticise then he is more likely to get the respect he needs.  I think Wilber has his place. He describes himself as a Pandit.  A scholar rather than a sage.  Maybe this is fair enough.  And to his credit there is a massive gulf between spirituality and mainstream science/humanities so maybe it is too big a gulf to span for one person.  He has to fall one way or the other!

 

Well, I am aware that Zen Buddhism, for instance, look at this differently, but to me, siddhis are not problems but natural abilities that can be of great value, even though they are undeveloped or suppressed in most.

Because Zen downplays the siddhis then I think some people are led to think that they are an illusion.  For me it's not that they are an illusion, its that siddhis do not equate to a full awakening.  I also think that siddhis are a natural extension of skills we use everyday of our lives, we just don't realise it.  I think Seth has influenced me in this way.

 

I am not really aware of Wilber's political views, other than that "everybody is correct in some regard.

Yes, but he would also say that liberal, socialist views are more evolved than nationalism, tribalism and conservatism.  This is undubtedly a controversial Wilberian theme.  He wants everyone to be accepted and heard and given equal rights; but it is in the same way that we should give children the same human rights as adults.  At the end of the day, he views adult society as being comprised of the less evolved (children) and the more evolved (adults).  Obama is for adults...and the Republicans have yet to decide which child will be their candidate!

[Michael Sternbach]

Hi Michael

 

Yes, the reason they sounded the same is because movement from formop to vision logic happens gardually.  But in formop we see different perspectives, but we still retain the belief that one of this correct and the other incorrect.  And once we have determined which is which we have unearthed a universal truth about the world

 

In vision logic we lose this belief more and more.  Perspectives are always, of necessity, provisional.  They do not and cannot correspond to a world 'out there' because the existence of that world is itself jist another persective.  Truth is something therefore that 'fits' the flow of events.  It might fit to today but not tomorrow. Like you correctly stated, there is no thinking - there is only the appropriate thought in that moment.

 

So there is relative truth, no absolute truth. The Dao De Ching (among others) speaks to that.

 

Exactly! Hence the term vision-logic.  We are not thinking and we are not thinkers - we are just the emptiness into which thoughts come...like visons.  Wilber does emphasise a lot the fact that vision-logic is not possible for those who have not experienced what he calls the 'satori'. Only with this glimpse of awareness will our identifies shift from being a thinker engaging with the world.

 

Gotcha.

 

All the stages previous to vision-logic contain the germ in the form of creativity.  In formal operations, in the scientific hypothetico-deductive mindset, creativity is the ability to formulate questions.  The question is never an established fact but a hunch about what might be the case.  Of course, solutions to scientific questions might also come from the place of creativity.  There is a well-known story about James Watson who dreamed of a spiral staircase before proposing the double helis of the DNA molecule.

 

In the "formal operations" state, the questions are intuitive, in "vision-logic" the answers. Interesting.

[Michael Sternbach]

Michael

 

If he driticises what the mainstream scientists criticise then he is more likely to get the respect he needs.  I think Wilber has his place. He describes himself as a Pandit.  A scholar rather than a sage.  Maybe this is fair enough.  And to his credit there is a massive gulf between spirituality and mainstream science/humanities so maybe it is too big a gulf to span for one person.  He has to fall one way or the other!

 

Yes, if it's too much of a stretch for him.

 

Because Zen downplays the siddhis then I think some people are led to think that they are an illusion.  For me it's not that they are an illusion, its that siddhis do not equate to a full awakening.  I also think that siddhis are a natural extension of skills we use everyday of our lives, we just don't realise it.  I think Seth has influenced me in this way.

 

Yes, I'm with you here. I think that, while they shouldn't be mistaken for full awakening, they are a natural part of the journey that leads to it.

 

Yes, but he would also say that liberal, socialist views are more evolved than nationalism, tribalism and conservatism.  This is undubtedly a controversial Wilberian theme.  He wants everyone to be accepted and heard and given equal rights; but it is in the same way that we should give children the same human rights as adults.  At the end of the day, he views adult society as being comprised of the less evolved (children) and the more evolved (adults).  Obama is for adults...and the Republicans have yet to decide which child will be their candidate!

 

Well, I have been called a liberal on this forum, so I guess I can live with Wilber's view on this. But I am not sure what such a designation includes, exactly; all I am sure about is that you can't really characterize somebody by such simplistic generalizations.

 

And there are usually only children taking part in political elections, probably because the few adults around wouldn't stand much of a chance anyway.

[Nikolai1]

Michael

 

But I am not sure what such a designation includes, exactly; all I am sure about is that you can't really characterize somebody by such simplistic generalizations.

This notion of soul evolution is something that I think about quite a lot.  I really don't know what to think.  Wilber would say that the world-centric, ecologically minded west coast liberal is more evolved than the conformist, Bible preaching Baptist and American patriot.  Is one more evolved than the other? Or are they just different?

 

What do you think? 

[Michael Sternbach]

Michael

 

This notion of soul evolution is something that I think about quite a lot.  I really don't know what to think.  Wilber would say that the world-centric, ecologically minded west coast liberal is more evolved than the conformist, Bible preaching Baptist and American patriot.  Is one more evolved than the other? Or are they just different?

 

What do you think? 

 

At first I was inclined to agree, but thinking about it more leads me back to my position that these are generalizations that are just not suitable to determine the stage of an individual's spiritual evolution. What if the liberal in question is an intellectual who denies anything spiritual? Maybe he is a supporter of abortions which to me suggests a pretty unspiritual lack of reverence for life. And Edgar Cayce could be thought of as "Bible preaching" (in fact, he was a Sunday school teacher) - but does this mean that he wasn't spiritual?

[Nikolai1]

At first I was inclined to agree, but thinking about it more leads me back to my position that these are generalizations that are just not suitable to determine the stage of an individual's spiritual evolution. What if the liberal in question is an intellectual who denies anything spiritual? Maybe he is a supporter of abortions which to me suggests a pretty unspiritual lack of reverence for life. And Edgar Cayce could be thought of as "Bible preaching" (in fact, he was a Sunday school teacher) - but does this mean that he wasn't spiritual?

Wilber's view of a mature spirituality is that which is able to tolerate difference, and extend loving-kindness outside of the immediate clan.  His perception is that the conformist American Baptist is less able to do this, than the liberal human.rights campaigner whose religion is a sort of ecological, world-wide vision.

 

I get exactly your hesitation though, because ultimately what is the scale by which we measure spiritual growth?

 

Also, personaly, I see no reason to think that people have changed that much over the last couple of millenia.  I often wonder if society isn't more like a kind of non-hierarchical caste system.  Spiritually minded folk are always the minority, and the majority are always conventional and focussed on, shall we see, worldly issues.