Flowering of Consciousness in our Culture?

[phcou]

THATS THe nihilist part. having no "final truth" because all speech is "in flux" "becoming" you condemn yourself to silence.

[thepathlesspath]

All speech is in flux, but the unique part of this idea is that THAT is okay too. That whatever it is you are doing, or thinking, limiting yourself or not, the Truth or Whole or "Totality" is beyond words and IS words. Not condemned to silence but free to speak or not to speak. THAT is the true integration that Wilber has not expressed, and thus becoming an endless rambling :-/

[phcou]

Allow me to explain, granted that the human being is not simply what it is but becomes what it will be....

When a human being gives verbal expression to articulate the reality around him, he is rejecting what really exists and instead speaks of something which conforms to his understanding of it. IN consequence, or from the intergral P.O.V such speech is error rather than truth, since there is not yet a correspondence of truth to concrete reality.

[thepathlesspath]

Agree with you here totally. Jean Gebser described "integral" consciousness as the realization of this, and subsequent new ways of using POV, or speech or language or ideas as secondary "pointing out."

[thepathlesspath]

I think we are coming to an understanding now

[phcou]

So...if each speech is contradicted by its opposite (higher stage of consciouss, state of consciousness) which has no less a claim to truth (this stage of consciousness will give way to a higher stage of consciousness) and so, the totality of ones discourse is in way no different from silience. If we are continually "becoming" and there is no "final" say on truth, then we cannot really assert anything, can we?

[thepathlesspath]

Even with such a realization, as a Zen koan might express, the birds still sing and people still chatter. I think this discussion has helped me understand Gebser's point about integral in that it is totally liberating and integrating, allowing for both sound and silence as part a Whole, or non-dual. Form and no form. A direct perceiving of this that our rational thinking only becomes twisted up in paradoxes.

[phcou]

Well thats positive :-) Initially i only wanted to point out the danger of integrating the stages of consciousness POLITICALLY, which is what i think John and Matt are doing...and it is healthy that you aren't as problemtic as these two in seeing the limits of wilberian spirituality. Would love to talk more, perhaps at later date...have to go and start dinner now :( Late here in Australia. Thanks for discussion!

[thepathlesspath]

Thank you for this, you have helped me understand Gebser's insight and I hope to make a video about this soon.

[thepathlesspath]

And to end real quick for the night... Appropriately Gebser described Nihilism/Paradoxes and "existentialism" are all symptoms of man in transition, faced with a terrible dilemma, yet with an immanent shift in his consciousness. IMO having read Wilber's works, he has not even come upon this fundamental idea, but "skipped it" to create a method of everything.

Good night!

[phcou]

hmmm...."no final say". Knowledge of "process" "Action and becoming"

does this not have nihilistic implications?

[thepathlesspath]

Well to put it this way: in 3 dimensional, or rational terms, in the realm of human "thought" I do not think we can really accurately express "everything." So a theory of everything is always bound to eventually become brittle and fall apart.

I align much more with the Zen buddhists than the nihilists in this way. Consciousness is capable of the direct perception of reality. "The absence of view points." This is a big leap and any words, and descriptions fall short.

[phcou]

When we seek the truth, (plus truth about ourselves) we expierince the need to know how we can know....here is the important part:

IF ALL OUR SPEECHES ABOUT REALITY(definitions, arguements, beliefs) MUST ALWAYS CHANGE WITH THE EVOLUTION OF CONSCIOUSNESS, THEN THESE SPEECHES CANNOT REVEAL TRUTHS IN ANY SENSE WORTHY OF THE NAME. ANY ASSERTION OF TRUTH COULD BE CONTRADICTED BY KEN WILBURS SYSTEM, AND IF THAT IS THE CASE...ONES SPEECH DOES NOT ASSERT ANYTHING THAT ENDURES IN TIME...HENCE MABU888

[thepathlesspath]

This is why I believe Wilber's system has lost its humbleness. Words are a process, descriptions will always fall short. If we don't use them as a "pointing out" (as say the Zen lineage does), we fail to, ironically, integrate human thinking with the other aspect of who we are: a direct part of a Whole. The Source or "everything" is beyond any concepts. In my opinion Wilber's systemology is lost in itself.

"Integral" is knowing the limits of thought not needing to label the unknown.

[1PostPoMoMaN1]

I don't assign primacy to Ken Wilber's thinking. I'm more in agreement with Gebser of language and representation being not final. Knowing itself is higher than the clever uses of the alphabet, knowing is also 'higher' than mathematics.

[thepathlesspath]

But that doesn't mean it is an essentially nihilist philosophy, only that our thought is not what will carry us there. They can only point us there. Some might argue Wilber has written about Zen, Awakening, Consciousness, and mistaken his own abstractions for the universal realities.

[phcou]

But you, matt, john, phil, mabu888 are similiar in that you are all HISTORICISTS. I am not a historicist

[phcou]

Right, you've just reiterated my point...as "one realization" that seeks to be intergrated "globally", it would have to carry force with it, because, to repeat...it is just "one realization" among many, so what will give this revolution its totalizing legitimiacy? FORCE. you'll have to FORCE it on people

[thepathlesspath]

I think this clarifies things very well: Wilber's system, like any artificial thought process, is just that: a conceptualization. He claims his particular analysis is universal. I disagree. By its very nature it's partial. A "heap" of words (or matrix of words). But it doesn't follow that human consciousness cannot or hasn't had "shifts" in the way we perceive reality. Or that we can't explore that.

[thepathlesspath]

If there are real, legitimate "shifts" in consciousness, which transform the globe, they happen naturally. Major ideas and realizations transform cultures and civilizations, awaken us to realities we had not noticed before. This is a very dynamic and complex process. To me, Wilber may perceive that such a shift IS happening again, but the mistake is him trying to take the reigns on it. He cannot. It's something that is beyond an artificial system.

[phcou]

put simply, WHY IS KEN WILBUR NOT JUST ANOTHER SYSTEM?

[thepathlesspath]

...He is! My own definition of integral is somewhat different: integral as an expanding process, rather than an encapsulating dome which claims to represent everything. It IS possible to understand processes we are a part of (an evolution of consciousness) without having the final say on that.

[thepathlesspath]

Knowledge of process, evolution, consciousness as part of the flow... No final say, no "theory of everything" as a grand finale. Action and "becoming" rather than noun. Are you familiar with Deleuze or Delanda?

In short, I'd be much more impressed with an integral that describes a meandering, non-linear "expansion" much like the phylogenic tree, which does not claim to be "the final theory of all life" but as a description of process... of becoming...

[phcou]

you differ alot from matt and john on this point. For matt the process must come to a close...why? I don't know, he hasnt said...one can only speculate that it may be too horrible for him that there is end point of speculation. Where, as articulated by Mabu888, thought and being become one.

[phcou]

Would you ever be impressed with a theory that isn't historical? i.e that trascends the historical and is applicable to man as man?

[1PostPoMoMaN1]

An integral theory is not just historical. Just because the stages have occurred in history as they have, doesn't make the stages different, just the surface features are different. I find thepathlesspath's views on all this pretty good.

[phcou]

the status of the system of all systems that does not include itself as a system ultimately remains paradoxical. Its impossible to ascertain what it(what is it, if it is not a system?) contains and what it does not. That one justifies this by saying it "feels right" and it is "innate" is no answer...naming it as "the source" "the one" is no arguement either.

[phcou]

....a catalogue which includes only those catalogues which make NO mention of themselves. this is the problem that this system faces. as a SYSTEM OF ALL SYSTEMS, IT DOES NOT INCLUDE ITSELF IN THIS SYSTEM, WHY? T

[phcou]

I may use a philosopher that we are all familiar with. An arguement Betrand Russel puzzeed over is similiar to this delimma. He attempts to examine the status of a catologue of all catologues (or, a system of all systems, which is what the wilberian stages of conscioussness equates to) that does not include itself as a catalogue. An art catalogue which mentions itself in a long list of other art catalogues is imaginable. BUt Russel points out the delimma of someone trying to create

[phcou]

JOhn (mathfails) says that intergral system could be socially incarnated in Africa. This presupposes that the beliefs of the Africans and superflous and are merely one stage on the path of consciousness. In short, they are relative. SO what makes ken wilburs system so absolute then it can be applied to beliefs systems across the globe? Secondly, do you really think that the Africans are going to give up their beliefs that easily? No, Ken wilburs system will come from the barrel of a gun

[thepathlesspath]

Do you really believe Wilber's system will ever be able wield such power? Perhaps his followers do. I'm inclined to believe that "integral" or "awakened" consciousness is sublime, sure, transformative like a storm, but rational absolutism can't touch the universal human spirit.

Have you read Ever-Present Origin? I recommend that book to put "shifts" in consciousness in far better contexts than Wilber's "ladder."

[1PostPoMoMaN1]

Despite my apparent support of Wilber's ideas, I agree with thepathlesspath that Wilber's system is trying to use too much of a kind of rational absolutism.

[phcou]

btw, wilbur arrives too late. Hegel has already spoken.

[phcou]

mmm...Robespierre also spoke of liberating the people. Have you got the gallows for those who refuse the model of ken wilburs integral consciousness? thats the great thing about systems, you can rationalize totalitarianism.

pathlesspath: "EVERY STAGE OF CONSCIOUSNESS IS RELATIVE, THAT IS MY ABSOLUTE! how the f*ck can this relativism coincide with a system which claims to be absolute? Go on, explain that...how ken Wilburs absolutism can justify relativising everything that isnt it

[thepathlesspath]

This video is a vocation, a declaration of something that goes far beyond Wilber's integral. He may be overstepping his bounds with "Integral certifications" and other such authoritative means, but seriously... Isn't the message at the heart of this matter something which transcends endlessly discursive systems?

[phcou]

Yes but one wonders why you need such a system? a totalizing worldview as wilberians like to call it. Aren't you adopting what you seek to refute?

[thepathlesspath]

That's a good question. I think Wilber's system is a very limited "microcosmic" expression of one realization: our consciousness can achieve greater realization, or deeper or more "intensified." The rest of what he does, I think might be too simplistic and authoritative (hence totally rational in nature).

I don't need Wilber's system, no. I think you are barking up the wrong tree in this video.

[phcou]

as "one realization" why do people such as mathfails seek to spread it globally? i mean, theres all this talk of a revolution on a planetary scale..but for that you cannot speak of it as "one realization" the only way it can legitmize itself globally is if it has some objective truth

[MaBu888]

Of course the 7th level is integrative, ect. Milestone. However, as such, at a dynamic, more multidimensional perspective, there are, simply, 2 kinds of energy within the 'horizontal' as well as 'vertical' scales of what manifests: integrative energies (positive, connective emotions, sensations, behaviors, patterns, for example EXCITEMENT LIVED ALONG INTEGRITY), AND segregative (negative emotions, disconnexive sensations, realizations, behaviors, patterns). This, too is a polariaztion.

[thepathlesspath]

Agree with everything said here. "Horizontal" and "vertical" are still limited terms, trying to express in 3 dimensional ways perceptions that are liberated from "time-space" (Satori, Nirvana, etc).

Wilber's work like many spiritual works liberates (points to), integrates what is, and segregates (or discerns) the whole as a process. I think the Buddhist teacher Shinzen Young says it best, "Expand contract."

[thepathlesspath]

I don't know if I've asked you this but, have you read Jean Gebser's "Ever Present Origin?"

[1PostPoMoMaN1]

I haven't read anything by Gebser yet. but from what little I do know, he is totally awesome. Except a new video soon from this my other account. :)

Trippy video.

[1PostPoMoMaN1]

Expect *

[phcou]

my god, will you actually speak in this one?

[phcou]

I doubt it...truth is retrospective for you. SO i'll have to wait until you're on your deathbed before you utter anything...and even then it will probably be some polemic nihilism

[1PostPoMoMaN1]

Polemic nihilism isn't my forte. :)

[MaBu888]

Ken Wilber exists at a very vibrational level somewhat, but manages to pull it down sometimes to banality, sometimes simultaneously with integral genius. His later work is less linear, however. A linear saying would be: Everything has already happened. A translinbear or dynamic way of speaking would be: Everything is happening right now. Saying anything or writing is a creative endeavor, may it be effortless.

[MaBu888]

Meant to say: "Ken Wilber exists ata very high vibrational level.

[thepathlesspath]

I think Spiral Dynamics is still somewhat linear, and Wilber's models are still very rational based (multiple lines, where lines meet, cross sections, etc). Almost like a rational mandala, or the type of geometric spirituality the Greeks expressed. It's one way to try to manifest spiritual reality once it has been recognized. Wilber's style, however, as a human being, can at times be overly discursive.

[thepathlesspath]

And that discursiveness manifests in his models, books and theories a bit too much.

[HaleyMary]

Well said. I like the concept of the universe being conscious of itself. Sometimes it seems like everyone is a part of the universe themselves. Particles of energy popping in and out of existence in the physical world sort of like quantum mechanics.

[imfreeinfinity]

well said.

[Paramystical]

I'm enjoying this shtuff.

[Lindsoiderf]

Beautiful.

[Cashify]

very nicely articulated