I can see from the comments here that people have a hard time taking Wilber and Integral Theory out of context... if you're interested in this sort of stuff take the time to read his 'Sex, Ecology, Spirituality'
The good thing about teasers and primers like this are that they lead the curious towards more advanced study - that is why YouTube works so well. You should see our DVD Spirituality in the Modern World which this is a clip from.
"Famines occur only in countries that don't have representative democracies." That sounds like sloppy logic. What is the equation? More representative = less hunger? India has representaion and also hunger. Monaco is a monarchy, but no hunger. Rather I would write the equation, less government = less hunger, regardless of what form the less comes from. Since reduction of government requires a giving up of the collective ego, then everything else he said would follow.
The key problem of famines is the abstract illusion of property. There is enough food, but people starve to death because there is more respect for property than for human life. And Ken got it all wrong. Democracies? He has absolutely no clue what-so-ever about politics (which is common among esoteric people) and should therefore shut the fuck up. The fascist West has produced famines and poverty through colonialism, neocolonialism, proxy wars, backing of fascist dictators, debt ambushes,...
you are right, but so is Wilber. I think he has a great command over political theory, and he is very aware of the interobjective and intersubjective causes of starvation. you might want to read his books before you decide what he knows.
And through economic hitmen, blackmail, protectionism, weapon exports, war crimes, wars of aggression, climate change, so-called aid, patents, biopiracy, "green" gegetic engineering, missionaries, the catholic church, "biofuels", and so on...
Gurus promise that they can pull us out of the our shitty boxes of egos,unawarenesses,sufferings;yet for timebeing things might be ok,but same shit goes on again&if lucky,one finds trapped in another box,this time guru is controlling the brain with subtle words of his'awareness''ego'etc they copied from other gurus;since we want easy&instant results or answers&this what slaves get:'Masters';R we courageous enough ourselves to give our lives challenges&experiences answers or beg these pretenders?
Back from the trenches, so to speak.The only way to deal with the sheer volume is to deal with the sheer volume. Please do join me in discussion, when and if you find that you feel ready, if not here, at least somewhere else in one of those videos on my channel, in the playlist called 'Debates'.
There is also another playlist there called 'Ideas' which I have created to use for the refreshment of mental energies, whenever the debating gets to be too much.Open communication is the only way to reach people.I am absolute sure all disagreements can be resolved.
You're not demonstrating confidence in the whole point of this video: multiple perspectives are ultimately superior to any single perspective, even if they make you personally uncomfortable.
Furthermore, my expansion of my own awareness could only cause me to expand within the greater consciousness. Or, conversely considered, from the perspective of belief which indentifies the existence of only one mind, there is no such thing as a separate mind on which an "I" could indeed be working.
Yes, from "only one mind", or absolute truth, there is no separation, but from the perspective of relative truth, i.e. the world we live in and function in everyday, you most definitely work from your individual "I". An integral approach seeks to bring both of those truths to the equation.
Very true, however this is NOT how most people experience things, nor is it how most people see things when looking at others. You're talking from a very specific non-dual state, which is fine, but be aware that that state is not the whole truth, you must include both sides of the coin, don't say tails is false because I've seen heads.
I would challenge the statement in which he offered his opinion that, "world-centric is BETTER than ego-centric," however. Both must be considered as important to address. Consdiered from a personal perspective, if I am working on expanding awareness within my 'own' mind, then isn't that also helpful to the world around me?
Yeah, bear in mind that he's talking spiral dynamic type "include and transend" language. World centric includes ego-centric. Ego-centric does not include world centric. If you're operating from a world-centric view, you can include ego-centric and other perspectives. Since you're including more things, then it makes world-centric a better view.
In response to the claim that famine's do not occur in representatives democracy, correlation does not equal causation.
rjcspecial 3 years ago 5
Where can i find more information about Ken Wilber's personal spiritual practice?
Diatonic135 3 years ago 2
This guy is good but he is no krishnamurti for sure.
selfscienz 3 years ago
I can see from the comments here that people have a hard time taking Wilber and Integral Theory out of context... if you're interested in this sort of stuff take the time to read his 'Sex, Ecology, Spirituality'
delerium2k 3 years ago
The good thing about teasers and primers like this are that they lead the curious towards more advanced study - that is why YouTube works so well. You should see our DVD Spirituality in the Modern World which this is a clip from.
rajaquest 3 years ago
What country is he talking about towards the end of this video?
Mangopork 3 years ago
It must be difficult for Ken with this vast awareness and to have built up such an ego through is image as Wilber.
teamhumanity 3 years ago
"Famines occur only in countries that don't have representative democracies." That sounds like sloppy logic. What is the equation? More representative = less hunger? India has representaion and also hunger. Monaco is a monarchy, but no hunger. Rather I would write the equation, less government = less hunger, regardless of what form the less comes from. Since reduction of government requires a giving up of the collective ego, then everything else he said would follow.
cliffbadams 3 years ago
The key problem of famines is the abstract illusion of property. There is enough food, but people starve to death because there is more respect for property than for human life. And Ken got it all wrong. Democracies? He has absolutely no clue what-so-ever about politics (which is common among esoteric people) and should therefore shut the fuck up. The fascist West has produced famines and poverty through colonialism, neocolonialism, proxy wars, backing of fascist dictators, debt ambushes,...
trakkaton 3 years ago 2
you are right, but so is Wilber. I think he has a great command over political theory, and he is very aware of the interobjective and intersubjective causes of starvation. you might want to read his books before you decide what he knows.
davidtitterington 3 years ago 11
And through economic hitmen, blackmail, protectionism, weapon exports, war crimes, wars of aggression, climate change, so-called aid, patents, biopiracy, "green" gegetic engineering, missionaries, the catholic church, "biofuels", and so on...
trakkaton 3 years ago 7
Amartya Sen, the Indian scholar, won the Nobel prise in 1998 for discovering that famines do not occur in democracies. check it.
davidtitterington 3 years ago 4
Gurus promise that they can pull us out of the our shitty boxes of egos,unawarenesses,sufferings;yet for timebeing things might be ok,but same shit goes on again&if lucky,one finds trapped in another box,this time guru is controlling the brain with subtle words of his'awareness''ego'etc they copied from other gurus;since we want easy&instant results or answers&this what slaves get:'Masters';R we courageous enough ourselves to give our lives challenges&experiences answers or beg these pretenders?
kurupee 3 years ago
Pending approval = censorship of ideas. Why bother?
MENCADO 4 years ago
The shear volume of abuse, grabage, porn spam and other stuff has necessitated this measure...thanks, Raja
rajaquest 4 years ago
Back from the trenches, so to speak.The only way to deal with the sheer volume is to deal with the sheer volume. Please do join me in discussion, when and if you find that you feel ready, if not here, at least somewhere else in one of those videos on my channel, in the playlist called 'Debates'.
MENCADO 3 years ago
There is also another playlist there called 'Ideas' which I have created to use for the refreshment of mental energies, whenever the debating gets to be too much.Open communication is the only way to reach people.I am absolute sure all disagreements can be resolved.
MENCADO 3 years ago
@rajaquest
You're not demonstrating confidence in the whole point of this video: multiple perspectives are ultimately superior to any single perspective, even if they make you personally uncomfortable.
greenrate 1 year ago
Furthermore, my expansion of my own awareness could only cause me to expand within the greater consciousness. Or, conversely considered, from the perspective of belief which indentifies the existence of only one mind, there is no such thing as a separate mind on which an "I" could indeed be working.
MENCADO 4 years ago
Yes, from "only one mind", or absolute truth, there is no separation, but from the perspective of relative truth, i.e. the world we live in and function in everyday, you most definitely work from your individual "I". An integral approach seeks to bring both of those truths to the equation.
ddj333 3 years ago 2
Very true, however this is NOT how most people experience things, nor is it how most people see things when looking at others. You're talking from a very specific non-dual state, which is fine, but be aware that that state is not the whole truth, you must include both sides of the coin, don't say tails is false because I've seen heads.
Rcomian 3 years ago
I would challenge the statement in which he offered his opinion that, "world-centric is BETTER than ego-centric," however. Both must be considered as important to address. Consdiered from a personal perspective, if I am working on expanding awareness within my 'own' mind, then isn't that also helpful to the world around me?
MENCADO 4 years ago
Yeah, bear in mind that he's talking spiral dynamic type "include and transend" language. World centric includes ego-centric. Ego-centric does not include world centric. If you're operating from a world-centric view, you can include ego-centric and other perspectives. Since you're including more things, then it makes world-centric a better view.
Rcomian 3 years ago
"Suffering is pain plus avoidance."
A profound but simple truth.
MENCADO 4 years ago 5
I like his ideas but he's not a great speaker. He often rambles and goes off the subject.
strettcch 4 years ago 3
Could the audio on this be improved perhaps?
"Hurts more but bothers you less." That's great.
paxfeline 4 years ago 3