You either have no idea what you're talking about, or you are quite terrible at trying to explain what you know. To quote from Billy Madison: "Mr. Madison, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul".
All i really have to say is that philosophy is the fundamental study of nature and humanity. This includes the houses of metaphysics, epistemology, morals/ethics, politics, and aesthetics. Spirituality is not a philosophy but has a philosophy (morals/ethics) and the concept of the spiritual realm is philosophy (metaphysics). Philosophy is an argumentative pursuit of truth. Not a means of communication.
Philosophy isn't just about words or their origins, thats only one part of philosophy. Philosophy can also be about ethics, politics, religion, morality, existance, truth, and scepticism.
@cpmc1 you can hope or you can plan and persevere..It's entirely your choice and responsibility. It's really good your so young and already know what you want to do, oh and keeping your focus is important.
A lot of people seem to criticize you for being vain and narcissistic. The very fundemental basis of yourself and many other great philosophers is "arrival at the truth." This in itself is narcisistic. Learn to take pride in recognizing that neither yourself nor any other can ever know anything with certainty. Are you down on life? Do you want to know how to lead a productive one? Im gonna tell you!!!!!
here it is in one sentence...... Study what makes you happy and do it.
Thats why we have science, non bias tests, and reproducibility. So we can know objective facts (maybe not truth) about our environment.
Ken Wilber is the man. He is half mystic, half scientist (if you can't balance both then your simply lost in some small world view.) and of coarse its about a well rounded practice, that's what the lines of development are.
You have just lost a lot of my respect with this video. if you don't like maps, then you don't like real philosophy or religion.
You say that objective truth cannot be reached by philosophy, however would you agree that science reaches objective truth, science is surely a part of philosophy, this obviously is not 100% thanks to hume/kant as in the reality we experience isnt necessarily whats actually going on but if we jus except we can never get out of our fish tank then philosophy/science can reach whatever is inside the tank but not outside
Words are like pointers when it comes to spirituality. We build a construct AROUND the things which cannot be verbally communicated in order to foster mutual understanding between like-thinkers and to help others who haven't accessed the realm of experience.
When knowledge and information are used for describing spirituality, it's like playing minesweeper. I can't click on the mine so I focus on the other blocks in an attempt to paint a full and logical negative of the picture.
After going through some of your comments, and remembering some of the things Ive said in the past, let me say, keep it up. I'm not saying I agree with you every bit of the way, but there is too limited access to 2nd tier thinking on the tube. So keep it up.
aknightofswords. Don't condescend to people who are intelligent enough to create their own ideas. Why should anyone listen to someone insecure enough to name themselves as a knight of youtube? Where are your philosophical videos which give you a right to criticize? I don't know, your comment just pisses me off. Please shut the fuck up.
now that you seem in a better mood, I was just encouraging red to continue his work, I was offering no opinion on philosophies at the moment, and my name is a reference to the tarot card, which I do not proscribe to in any serious way, but when I adopted it as a moniker years ago, it was because the personality type described for said tarot card was fitting for me. And the name wasn't taken...
its cool to hear someone speak on the subtle issues with these philosophies and philosophers, and how that aspect is more in tune with intergral dynamics of information evolution. thinking about how wilber focuses so much on the conceptual/rational brings to mind how terence mckenna is his perfect philosophical complement by emphasizing always the felt presence of experience over abstraction, but tis the fruits of both!
I agree. We do not have a spirit because existence precedes essence. To say that one has a spirit [essence] is to make an extension of one's self, an alter ego, which seems quite stupid, I think. This disproves the belief of any God as well because people just seem to pull something out of their asses and worship it. Well nice video!
I think that you make a valid point about Wilber's systematization. However, I think Wilber would agree that rational conceptualizing is not the same as experiencing. That is the whole point of his internal subjective quadrant. His systematization is the right hand correlate of his own subjective intellectual domain. I'm curious about exactly how familiar you are with Wilber because he has positions on such criticisms. My first impression is that you are getting this info second hand.
I wanted to stop watching 2 minutes in because it seems to me you are more interested in hearing yourself speak, rather than arriving at any truth. nothing you say is substantive or has any direction. Question:Why are interested in asking these questions? I ask because I've seen a couple of your videos and its all babbling nonsense in which you provide absolutely no understanding of your own. that is why what you say has no ring of truth. these posts of yours seem an exercise in vanity .
ishmahin, wouldn't it be nice if you were a "thinker" too, for a change? The Church of Scientology is rampant with abuse, being reported by ex-members around the world! Why are ex-Scientologists around the world - who do not even know each other - claiming the exact same abuses? Scientology was convicted recently of fraud in France. Families are being broken up by Disconnection. Critics harassed by Fair Game.
Why can't you be a "thinker" too by actually analyzing the entheta's validity?
however what im agreeing with is that your argument in general seems to push the value of mindfull flexibility and the ability to change from one pardigm to another. since counsciousness is similar to a shperical object and to think anything you must first choose a single angle if you never change angles you'l think the ball is just a circle. never changing angles hapens when someone rejects things regardles of what it is. please excuse my 'sphere' analogie its just.. the character count lol.
your description of philosophy only describes western philosophy what you call your spirituality is what i would call eastern philosophy. its great that you have read jung and especially williams i agree two of the greatest minds for ocur century. id recomend ( if you havent ) to transfer your notions into eastern philosophy and odly enough quantum phisycs these two introduced a big peace of the puzzle for me and its always pleasant to enlarge ones vocabulary for your view btw i agree tottaly
I think Wilber does in fact separate the two, although he does factor several definitions of spirituality into his philosophy. Wilber is an advocate of everyone picking a specific spiritual practice that works for you, AQAL and integral framework is something else, it adds nothing in a way but shows how everything fits together. It provides a more comprehensive map that lets you make conscious choices about your own development as contrasted to a wide range of practices (spiritual or other).
i think wilber thinks he is 2nd tier, but actually if you look closer he is 1st tier, actually he is blue, sofisticated blue, and AQUAL for crist s sake is sooo green, i have come to this after 10 years os studying him
2nd tier is AUTONOMUS you don t need a wilber or anyone to tell you who you are, only you can know
But by what features you label Wilber as blue? Is it because he integrates a type of authority? I think that would be contrary to non-integral. To be first tier, one would need to lack integralism, the way I see it.
Also, Wilber never told anyone how to be, but only suggested a use of integral concepts in new ways. The map, as we all knw and admit, is not the territory. AQAL is not the territory, but a conceptual framework of what 'samsara' might be. I use the framework to make sense of things and it works well for me. It can't be reduced to sophisticated blue level because it only integrates blue because it is 2nd tier, autonomous. 'It' transcends and includes as much as it can, every 'thing'.
We begin speaking with no understanding, but with emotion to avoid pain and pursuit pleasure. Then one learns and speaks with understanding. He will be above pain and pleasure. Then one becomes a spirit.
You speak "objectivity" boldly. I think you have earned the title of "philosopher".
Let us do evil, that good may come? whose damnation is just.Romans 3:8
Jesus and the bed!
Who's famous for the car? Ford
Who's famous for the light bulb?Edison
Who's famous for the bed?Jesus
The bed is evolutionary midicine, compensating for the hight of the trees
Not recognizing the connection/association between Jesus and the mass utilization of beds would be like not being educated concerning Henry Ford and the mass utilization of automobiles.Without history, we're lost and led astay
The task of contemporary philosophy is the Reversal of Kantianism. The Critical turn has imprisoned the mind in the ghettos of relativistic subjectivism and bereft of its most necessary creative function - speculative cosmology, cutting right through to the Absolute, the 'objective truth' as you call it here (and to do so without the mediation of spirit, as in Hegel). Add Wittgenstein and the suicidal self-denial of thought and you get the clear split between philosophy and spritituality...
As a quick follow up to the above statement....Wilber's map puts the world of form in its correct place so nothing jumps up and takes us by suprise; we become better agents in the divine mystery. Everybody has a map or view on reality (most peoples are reather shoddy) AQAL makes space in which everything can arise and self liberate. As for people who think that Wilber is only an intellectual; that is plain nonsence. Ken's work flows from over 30 years of spiritual practice...
I think your video was well thought through...you touched on some excellent points. I would like to say that Wilber reminds us that the map (AQAL) is never the territory! If we look at this world of form as a dream, and illusion, as some of the religious traditions do; then Wilber's map is nothing other than a map of Samsara...but if we are going to make a prison break we had better have a damn good map. Ken Wilber may not be a mystic, but he is truly a Bodhisattva of our times.
I get what you said about Wilber, one can't rationalise mysticism...Sri Aurobindo experiences everything he writes..it really is that difference between objective and subjective experience...spirituality can't be fit into quadrants or just steps...
Agree completely -- and there's no comparison between Sri Aurobindo and Wilber. The former was a master of the via mystica, an advanced realizer, whereas the latter is just an intellectual. There's no point in talking about spirituality if one isn't willing to *live* it. That defeats the whole purpose and one just falls into intellectual idolatory over and over again.
However, Wilber definitely isn't just an intellectual. He is an autodidact, and a meditator for 30 years in buddhism. He never said that the map is the territory.
of course, he's studied meditation and buddhism, he studied under adi da as well...but when he claims to be above and beyond sri aurobindo and others...have you ever heard of 'suck my 'd#$#' whaddya say?' search it on the net, wilber's ego is still alive and kicking... I still like aspects of his theory, integral paradigm should stand above and beyond wilber though...the map is not the territory but wilber seems to measure people by their holon levels...
Very interesting video. I found it interesting that you mentioned there are no women philosophers and I think for the most part, it's true. Back in the past most of the philosophers were men; Aristotle, Plato, Socrates, Aquinas, etc. As for myself, I like to philosophize about life, death, the universe and I feel almost alienated sometimes because it's so rare if not almost unheard of for women to be philosophers.
But personally I don't even think one can reach absolute eternal enlightenment......perhaps even after many millions of years we will perish. Otherwise we wouldn't be in our current state of limited awareness. Perhaps awareness itself gets board of existence and memory and kills itself on purpose.
The only way I can see all of humanity reaching an eternal state of enlightenment is through technology. We must stop death, otherwise we will always be faced with uncertainty of ending up as something horrible in our next life.
I don't know how much enlightenment has to do with actually living forever in this body. I think it has more to do with coming to accept the death of this body, as all things are impermanent. We cannot stop death without also stopping life.
Remember that this isn't just an issue of using drugs or something external, even meditative practices are based in our neurochemistry. All our thought process whether it be under a psychedelic or in deep meditation......all have to do with chemicals in the brain. Yes, it is true that the state on psychedelics don't last forever.......but whose to say the states in meditation lasts forever? There is no evidence that meditation reaches an eternal state of enlightenment.
Beware Ken Wilber and his cronies. Im not saying that he is bad, nor good, just beware the cult of personality.
Day by day keep digging kid, beware too much knowledge, decide, what do yu want, the experience or knowledge of it? If it is the experience you are after, beware filling your head, instead peel the onion. Take Care
Truth, non truth, objective, subjective - dualistic thinking all. Drugs can be fun, but to need any external substance to explore ones mind is a dangerous and unnecessary game to play. The brain is a finely tuned piece of hardware, and practice, everyday sitting may take longer but will have deeper seated , longer lasting effects. Anyone who has tripped knows its cool, but scatters your natural brain state and takes a few days to clean it up afterwards. Be honest.
It takes DECADES of meditation to even have the effects of that one has on a normal dose of shrooms or LSD, and takes nearly a lifetime of meditation to reach the ego death state with actually dying.
However the absolute best way to study the mind is meditating on a psychedelic.
I've tried several psychedelics. Psilocybin I found most beneficial and insightful. I think the only problem with psychedelics as a spiritual practice is that, while they can certainly bring one to the state of ego death, it remains a state, and so the experience fades away as quickly as it came.
To really maintain a permanent STAGE of consciousness, I think we need to put the drugs on the shelf and integrate ourselves from the ground up by doing the hard work of meditation and truly giving in and letting go of all the illusions created by ego.
@redliterocket4 Sure we should meditate. But it doesn't mean we can't treasure shamanic way of mediating as part of spiritual practice. I say use all methods of altered states of consciousness meaningfully and respectfully, whether that be from psychedelics, meditation, psycho-acoustics, ritual dancing, tantra and so on.
redliterocket4, have you ever taken any psychedelics? They are by far the BEST tools to study the mind, as long as you respect them and use them carefully (either way if you were to ingest shrooms your mind will force you to confront the truth of your existence). With a sufficient enough dose of almost any psychedelic one can experience ego death......yes ego death.
Like I said, you have effectively destroyed a word, 'truth'. That's called logocide. The word is now meaningless and you are on your way to starting a religion (like how the Bible kills the word 'love').
With the catapult, you missed the point. The point is that it WAS true that the ball would hit the target, because when it was fired, it did indeed hit it.
It IS true that nuclear war would kill millions of people. We CAN make accurate predictions. We CAN know the future to some extent. This is objective truth. Why is it objective? Because it doesn't depend on WHO makes the prediction; it is not subjective. It's not intersubjective either because it doesn't matter if the philosopher doesn't agree with the engineer. The ball will hit or it won't, independent of the whims of the observers.
Again, I'm not talking about *absolute* truth. You seem to be hung up on conflating objective and absolute. Whether or not there is an absolute truth, objective truth is attainable.
I'm not saying we can know The Truth, I'm saying we can know truths, and that we can tell truths from non-truths. See, no logocide required. Don't abandon the word just because we can't achieve perfection.
With your last comments, you are simultaneously destroying any meaning of 'truth' and also conflating it with 'desirable'. Can our desires never mislead us, never lead us to non-truth? Can we never be deceived? Is everyone right and no one wrong? Why do we have courts then?
And finally, here's a scenario: An engineer uses various methods of measurement and construction to build a catapult. He uses calculus and physics to calculate a trajectory to hit a target far distant. He claims, "The ball will strike that distant target." A philosopher claims, "You can't know that! Objective truth is impossible. Your claim is not true."
The engineer pulls the trigger and sure enough, the ball hits the target. How do you explain that in a universe without objective truth?
When a scientist, or in this case an ballistics engineer, builds an experiment or catapult, they are walling off a section of reality to control the variables, thereby allowing a sophisticated and perfectly internally consistant system of measurement to provide us with a map capable of predicting the future outcome of the experiment/catapult. But the grid is not "truth," it is not nature, not reality. It is a map, a gridwork.
Two equally internally consistant conceptual maps could be drawn that perfectly describe the activity of a phenomenon, but which when viewed from outside become contradictory. I'm trying to find a truth that is not dualistic, that doesn't require a distinction between map and territory.
What the ballistics engineer has designed is not an objective truth, it is a technological experiment. I would not say that his calculations were impossible, because I don't think that truth is a matter of calculation. It doesn't need to be added up by anyone, it is there already of itself. It is our job to discover it through a continual act of creative participatory communication.
I cannot tell truth from non-truth. The truth itself cannot be spoken, I cannot TELL it, SAY it, or WRITE it; the truth is an activity, an experience. When we are in truth, it speaks for itself. I do not know how it happens, but when something is true it becomes self-evident.
...so, though you state it with a great deal of thougtfulness and, in many cases, certainty, none of what you have written here or spoken in any of your videos in the last six months is true? rlr4, it is all truth in that it is all the expression of spirit as such. (but you already know that!)
Philosophy is that form of communication whereby one person attempts to transform and open up another's consciousness by conveying a truth as effectively as vocally possible. Something like advertising or propaganda is not designed to open up anything, it is designed to maintain a perpetual state of unconsciousness in the other. Philosophy comes from wisdom and is an expression of the heart. Propaganda comes out of fear and ignorance and is an expression of our lowest nature.
Not only that, but I think philosophy should be more of a conversation than a presentation, more interactive than TV programming. It must be an ongoing discussion in which the people sharing ideas continually push one another to higher, more open, more integral and aware states of consciousness. There are no final answers, no dogmas, no mottos or slogans; there is only continual awakening.
Ah ha. Okay, so it involves conveying a truth. I would agree and I'm glad you do too. So, next question, what is a truth? How do you tell truth from non-truth. Unfortunately, you've painted yourself in a corner since you claim we can't know objective truth. (By objective, I don't mean absolute, I mean independently verifiable.)
So, how do you get out of this corner? What is truth (or truths), in your opinion? If they are not objective, what are they? How can we identify truth?
Truth in the sense I use the term is not objective or independently varifiable. Rather, it is intersubjectively agreeable. If I try to convey a truth which someone does not understand or disagrees with (within reason), then my truth must be missing something. So the idea is that truth is what we find when we come to a common agreement.
But you can come to a common agreement on *literally* anything. Some people so agreed that the Hale-Bopp comet was a spaceship that they killed themselves over it. Was that a truth?
If you have three boxes and ask me and my friends to decide which box has a diamond in it; let's say we collectively agree on box A. Does that mean the diamond is really in box A? Where is the 'truth' there? What if the diamond is found in box C?
I am defining truth only from a particular perspective, though it is a perspective of perspective, or at least the most evolutionarily informed perspective from which I think we could ask a question like "what is truth?" For a subjective creature, for the human pysche, etc, the truth is not such a whimsically decided upon thing. The truth is something we are subject to as subjects, but no one could ever define it or make it known objectively forever from all perspectives.
The people didn't decide that Hale-Bopp was a spaceship, that is just the best explanation they could come up with at the time. From the perspective of the psyche, appearance is reality. As an intersubjective community, we all come to an agreement about what is important, and truth is a matter not only of epistemology in my opinion, but of morality. It concerns both what we know and how we act.
So the truth is not merely a theoretical concept, something which could be calculated or observed empirically. The truth is knowledge put into action.
Knowledge which is also action cannot always be objectively "right," but don't forget that right and wrong are just after the fact rationalizations imposed upon phenomena depending on what use we wish to put them to, based on what we value. If we are an AC company, extremely hot days are good. If we are too poor to afford electricity, they are bad.
ie, if we make money on broken AC units, heat is right! If we are stuck without AC, heat is wrong.
If we are a materialist physicist, if we value reductionistic explanations of everything and anything, then the hypothesis of consciousness is false. If we are a psychologist, if we value holistic methods of coming to realization of the self, consciousness is not only a valid hypothesis but an experienced reality. It all depends what use we wish to get out of the phenomena we are dealing with.
So the truth... The truth is what drives us to continue communicating philisophically. Even if we have come to realize that no final fact or system of facts is ever going to be found that could explain existence once and for all, we still engage in the activity of seeking truth. We do so recognizing that truth itself can only ever be an experience, an ongoing communal activity whereby human beings attempt to find nature by being natural.
Truth and nature may be almost synonymous in this context. Nature is what there is. It is not necessarily a noun, but seems more like a verb. Though it isn't a verb, either. It is Tao, which you may take as a cop out, but I don't know how else to say it.
But unless you believe Heaven's Gate caught a ride on spaceship Hape-Bopp, their "action" was not associated with truth. And this is the case more often than not. Not all valid understandings (truths) are associated with action, and not all actions are associated with truth on any conscious level.
Objectivity and subjectivity are a basic duality created by the mind. And the absolute can be triggered by certain destructive ideas. That is, ideas which destroy other ideas, especially self-destructive ideas, such as koans.
should we imagin the world as flat again ,as understanding the world as round is destroying those who like to call themselvs mystics. or is mystery just another excuse to lie to ourselves or ceep others in ignorance, tell us then what mysterious trap would.. you .. like us to live in, that which you call freedom to confuse doubt and judge
A mystic makes no claims to knowledge, especially objective/scientific knowledge. A mystic knows only that they cannot know such things, because for subjective creatures such as you and I, perfect knowledge does not exist. Mystery is part of life and I do not think we can ever vanquish all unknowns. Even if we could, would it really be desireable?
mystics do say what they know or claim to know. the words subjective creatures (subjective to what,)you cannot speak for me .mystery is part of life,if i could i would vanquish all the unknowns which stand in my way
A mystic is focused on becoming aware and attaining understandings of the mysteries of spirit as a means to fulfillment and self realization. While the knowledge of these things may always be incomplete, experience and practice with mysterious understandings are VERY REAL KNOWABLE THINGS. There are very specific methods in mysticism and the more intense schools are very much like sciences.
"The authentic mystic's ultimate goal is a sustained stable state of full consciousness, wholeness/holiness through self-knowledge... ...the word mysticism, is best used to point to conscious and systematic attempts to gain transcendent insights/experiences through studies and practice." -Wikiipedia Mystic
thus my beef with Wilber is his cult of personality that he has cultivated. i believe that a philosopher and his theory are akin to what he or she produces - ie his work is interlinked with his or her personhood and can't escape that.
some of the issues for me with Wilber speak to what your criticism is that Wilber tries to make his philosophy seem to be objective truth. and also that its like his jamming everything into a overbloated blender and it splats everyone in a total chaos.
but some brief thoughts are that Wilber's system does want to be a search for objective truth - which I agree with you, subjective beings can not know objective truth. as an existentialist, the only truth to me is the perceived truth which is subjective at best. Kierkegaard too has influenced me deeply.
great response - of to sleep and then work, I want fully grasp this video with my fine-tuned ears.... thanks...i myself came to philosophy thru psychology
You either have no idea what you're talking about, or you are quite terrible at trying to explain what you know. To quote from Billy Madison: "Mr. Madison, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul".
therockstarpoet 10 months ago
Wow , I always suspected myself as being mildly retarded , and since I don't understand any of this I now have no doubt
panadevulpe 1 year ago
@panadevulpe you just made my day ;)
mwatershoes 1 year ago
All i really have to say is that philosophy is the fundamental study of nature and humanity. This includes the houses of metaphysics, epistemology, morals/ethics, politics, and aesthetics. Spirituality is not a philosophy but has a philosophy (morals/ethics) and the concept of the spiritual realm is philosophy (metaphysics). Philosophy is an argumentative pursuit of truth. Not a means of communication.
shawnwilliams77 1 year ago
Really interesting video man, many thanks for your thoughts and insights :-)
PhilosopherSteve 1 year ago
you should read cosmic consciousness. You might like it.
aberhamsty 1 year ago
Wanker.
TerrySleeper 1 year ago
Philosophy isn't just about words or their origins, thats only one part of philosophy. Philosophy can also be about ethics, politics, religion, morality, existance, truth, and scepticism.
Im 14, and im hoping to be a philosopher.
cpmc1 2 years ago 6
@cpmc1 you can hope or you can plan and persevere..It's entirely your choice and responsibility. It's really good your so young and already know what you want to do, oh and keeping your focus is important.
"Follow your bliss" Joseph Campbell
cloaknpoke 1 year ago
A lot of people seem to criticize you for being vain and narcissistic. The very fundemental basis of yourself and many other great philosophers is "arrival at the truth." This in itself is narcisistic. Learn to take pride in recognizing that neither yourself nor any other can ever know anything with certainty. Are you down on life? Do you want to know how to lead a productive one? Im gonna tell you!!!!!
here it is in one sentence...... Study what makes you happy and do it.
adderbrain5 2 years ago
Comment removed
owengundry 2 years ago
What a baby.
owengundry 2 years ago
Thats why we have science, non bias tests, and reproducibility. So we can know objective facts (maybe not truth) about our environment.
Ken Wilber is the man. He is half mystic, half scientist (if you can't balance both then your simply lost in some small world view.) and of coarse its about a well rounded practice, that's what the lines of development are.
You have just lost a lot of my respect with this video. if you don't like maps, then you don't like real philosophy or religion.
davidspoo 2 years ago
This was when Matt was still essentially in the green, postmodern stage. He has gained a lot of my respect to reactivate the redliterocket channel.
"Respect" is an illusion. Accept, simplify.
hyperseauton 2 years ago
, i dont think the truth's inside of the universe are subjective in anyway u think about it.
bennybenny55 2 years ago
You say that objective truth cannot be reached by philosophy, however would you agree that science reaches objective truth, science is surely a part of philosophy, this obviously is not 100% thanks to hume/kant as in the reality we experience isnt necessarily whats actually going on but if we jus except we can never get out of our fish tank then philosophy/science can reach whatever is inside the tank but not outside
bennybenny55 2 years ago
In one sentence:
"You can't handle the truth!"
bongolongo 2 years ago
if spirit cant be spoken of, why do so many (you included) speak about it?
yamaha893 2 years ago
Yamaha,
Words are like pointers when it comes to spirituality. We build a construct AROUND the things which cannot be verbally communicated in order to foster mutual understanding between like-thinkers and to help others who haven't accessed the realm of experience.
When knowledge and information are used for describing spirituality, it's like playing minesweeper. I can't click on the mine so I focus on the other blocks in an attempt to paint a full and logical negative of the picture.
Monolith1618 2 years ago
After going through some of your comments, and remembering some of the things Ive said in the past, let me say, keep it up. I'm not saying I agree with you every bit of the way, but there is too limited access to 2nd tier thinking on the tube. So keep it up.
aknightofswords 2 years ago
aknightofswords. Don't condescend to people who are intelligent enough to create their own ideas. Why should anyone listen to someone insecure enough to name themselves as a knight of youtube? Where are your philosophical videos which give you a right to criticize? I don't know, your comment just pisses me off. Please shut the fuck up.
Monolith1618 2 years ago
lol... no
aknightofswords 2 years ago
Hahahaha!!!
Monolith1618 2 years ago
now that you seem in a better mood, I was just encouraging red to continue his work, I was offering no opinion on philosophies at the moment, and my name is a reference to the tarot card, which I do not proscribe to in any serious way, but when I adopted it as a moniker years ago, it was because the personality type described for said tarot card was fitting for me. And the name wasn't taken...
aknightofswords 2 years ago
its cool to hear someone speak on the subtle issues with these philosophies and philosophers, and how that aspect is more in tune with intergral dynamics of information evolution. thinking about how wilber focuses so much on the conceptual/rational brings to mind how terence mckenna is his perfect philosophical complement by emphasizing always the felt presence of experience over abstraction, but tis the fruits of both!
mythtometaphor 2 years ago
No offense, but you are all about philosophy as you have defined it :)
influencija 2 years ago
I agree. We do not have a spirit because existence precedes essence. To say that one has a spirit [essence] is to make an extension of one's self, an alter ego, which seems quite stupid, I think. This disproves the belief of any God as well because people just seem to pull something out of their asses and worship it. Well nice video!
teo829 2 years ago
I think that you make a valid point about Wilber's systematization. However, I think Wilber would agree that rational conceptualizing is not the same as experiencing. That is the whole point of his internal subjective quadrant. His systematization is the right hand correlate of his own subjective intellectual domain. I'm curious about exactly how familiar you are with Wilber because he has positions on such criticisms. My first impression is that you are getting this info second hand.
saverase 2 years ago
ur just hot as fuck dude
jalnabi 3 years ago
I wanted to stop watching 2 minutes in because it seems to me you are more interested in hearing yourself speak, rather than arriving at any truth. nothing you say is substantive or has any direction. Question:Why are interested in asking these questions? I ask because I've seen a couple of your videos and its all babbling nonsense in which you provide absolutely no understanding of your own. that is why what you say has no ring of truth. these posts of yours seem an exercise in vanity .
tabularasa108 3 years ago
i disagree. He is making definite points within a definite context. Do you find all philosophizing vain and empty?
Valerian1 2 years ago
He's startning man... He's young.... Give him a chance, - the guy is "a thinker", an "analizer" ...... Wait and see (:
ishmahin 2 years ago
ishmahin, wouldn't it be nice if you were a "thinker" too, for a change? The Church of Scientology is rampant with abuse, being reported by ex-members around the world! Why are ex-Scientologists around the world - who do not even know each other - claiming the exact same abuses? Scientology was convicted recently of fraud in France. Families are being broken up by Disconnection. Critics harassed by Fair Game.
Why can't you be a "thinker" too by actually analyzing the entheta's validity?
OpenComments 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
A nice steady stream of babbling bullshit flowing from nowhere to nowhere.....
leemthompo 3 years ago
Imaging you know everything already. But it is forbidden to know, by a ... what ever means in your body or else. gggg. LOL
syntax128 3 years ago
however what im agreeing with is that your argument in general seems to push the value of mindfull flexibility and the ability to change from one pardigm to another. since counsciousness is similar to a shperical object and to think anything you must first choose a single angle if you never change angles you'l think the ball is just a circle. never changing angles hapens when someone rejects things regardles of what it is. please excuse my 'sphere' analogie its just.. the character count lol.
fibonacciphipi 3 years ago
your description of philosophy only describes western philosophy what you call your spirituality is what i would call eastern philosophy. its great that you have read jung and especially williams i agree two of the greatest minds for ocur century. id recomend ( if you havent ) to transfer your notions into eastern philosophy and odly enough quantum phisycs these two introduced a big peace of the puzzle for me and its always pleasant to enlarge ones vocabulary for your view btw i agree tottaly
fibonacciphipi 3 years ago
i thought philosophy was a way of thinking
camandoe 3 years ago
I think Wilber does in fact separate the two, although he does factor several definitions of spirituality into his philosophy. Wilber is an advocate of everyone picking a specific spiritual practice that works for you, AQAL and integral framework is something else, it adds nothing in a way but shows how everything fits together. It provides a more comprehensive map that lets you make conscious choices about your own development as contrasted to a wide range of practices (spiritual or other).
Glass2007 3 years ago
Very efficiently and agreeably stated.
MaBu888 3 years ago
i think wilber thinks he is 2nd tier, but actually if you look closer he is 1st tier, actually he is blue, sofisticated blue, and AQUAL for crist s sake is sooo green, i have come to this after 10 years os studying him
2nd tier is AUTONOMUS you don t need a wilber or anyone to tell you who you are, only you can know
garudadesvignes 3 years ago
I think that is crazy. However, I don't agree, but then again you've studied him for 10 years, so...
MaBu888 3 years ago
But by what features you label Wilber as blue? Is it because he integrates a type of authority? I think that would be contrary to non-integral. To be first tier, one would need to lack integralism, the way I see it.
MaBu888 3 years ago
Also, Wilber never told anyone how to be, but only suggested a use of integral concepts in new ways. The map, as we all knw and admit, is not the territory. AQAL is not the territory, but a conceptual framework of what 'samsara' might be. I use the framework to make sense of things and it works well for me. It can't be reduced to sophisticated blue level because it only integrates blue because it is 2nd tier, autonomous. 'It' transcends and includes as much as it can, every 'thing'.
MaBu888 3 years ago
We begin speaking with no understanding, but with emotion to avoid pain and pursuit pleasure. Then one learns and speaks with understanding. He will be above pain and pleasure. Then one becomes a spirit.
You speak "objectivity" boldly. I think you have earned the title of "philosopher".
Israe5l 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Let us do evil, that good may come? whose damnation is just.Romans 3:8
Jesus and the bed!
Who's famous for the car? Ford
Who's famous for the light bulb?Edison
Who's famous for the bed?Jesus
The bed is evolutionary midicine, compensating for the hight of the trees
Not recognizing the connection/association between Jesus and the mass utilization of beds would be like not being educated concerning Henry Ford and the mass utilization of automobiles.Without history, we're lost and led astay
alanejackson 3 years ago
The task of contemporary philosophy is the Reversal of Kantianism. The Critical turn has imprisoned the mind in the ghettos of relativistic subjectivism and bereft of its most necessary creative function - speculative cosmology, cutting right through to the Absolute, the 'objective truth' as you call it here (and to do so without the mediation of spirit, as in Hegel). Add Wittgenstein and the suicidal self-denial of thought and you get the clear split between philosophy and spritituality...
TheParrhesiast 3 years ago
Modern Philosophy = Sophistry. Yay!
abandonship42 3 years ago
As a quick follow up to the above statement....Wilber's map puts the world of form in its correct place so nothing jumps up and takes us by suprise; we become better agents in the divine mystery. Everybody has a map or view on reality (most peoples are reather shoddy) AQAL makes space in which everything can arise and self liberate. As for people who think that Wilber is only an intellectual; that is plain nonsence. Ken's work flows from over 30 years of spiritual practice...
1HandClappn 3 years ago
I think your video was well thought through...you touched on some excellent points. I would like to say that Wilber reminds us that the map (AQAL) is never the territory! If we look at this world of form as a dream, and illusion, as some of the religious traditions do; then Wilber's map is nothing other than a map of Samsara...but if we are going to make a prison break we had better have a damn good map. Ken Wilber may not be a mystic, but he is truly a Bodhisattva of our times.
1HandClappn 3 years ago
I get what you said about Wilber, one can't rationalise mysticism...Sri Aurobindo experiences everything he writes..it really is that difference between objective and subjective experience...spirituality can't be fit into quadrants or just steps...
Domsta333 4 years ago
Agree completely -- and there's no comparison between Sri Aurobindo and Wilber. The former was a master of the via mystica, an advanced realizer, whereas the latter is just an intellectual. There's no point in talking about spirituality if one isn't willing to *live* it. That defeats the whole purpose and one just falls into intellectual idolatory over and over again.
spiritofnow 3 years ago
exactly!
Domsta333 3 years ago
However, Wilber definitely isn't just an intellectual. He is an autodidact, and a meditator for 30 years in buddhism. He never said that the map is the territory.
MaBu888 3 years ago
of course, he's studied meditation and buddhism, he studied under adi da as well...but when he claims to be above and beyond sri aurobindo and others...have you ever heard of 'suck my 'd#$#' whaddya say?' search it on the net, wilber's ego is still alive and kicking... I still like aspects of his theory, integral paradigm should stand above and beyond wilber though...the map is not the territory but wilber seems to measure people by their holon levels...
Domsta333 3 years ago
Definitely, I agree with you fully, now that I think further of it.
MaBu888 3 years ago
Very interesting video. I found it interesting that you mentioned there are no women philosophers and I think for the most part, it's true. Back in the past most of the philosophers were men; Aristotle, Plato, Socrates, Aquinas, etc. As for myself, I like to philosophize about life, death, the universe and I feel almost alienated sometimes because it's so rare if not almost unheard of for women to be philosophers.
HaleyMary 4 years ago
Have you studied first order logic?
cosabio 4 years ago
But personally I don't even think one can reach absolute eternal enlightenment......perhaps even after many millions of years we will perish. Otherwise we wouldn't be in our current state of limited awareness. Perhaps awareness itself gets board of existence and memory and kills itself on purpose.
silverbackman 4 years ago
The only way I can see all of humanity reaching an eternal state of enlightenment is through technology. We must stop death, otherwise we will always be faced with uncertainty of ending up as something horrible in our next life.
silverbackman 4 years ago
I don't know how much enlightenment has to do with actually living forever in this body. I think it has more to do with coming to accept the death of this body, as all things are impermanent. We cannot stop death without also stopping life.
redliterocket4 4 years ago
@silverbackman funny how scary uncertainty can be sometimes.
cloaknpoke 1 year ago
@cloaknpoke Fo realz. Life can at times feel like a dream of profound certainly, in the shadow of its true form; uncertainty :/
silverbackman 1 year ago
Remember that this isn't just an issue of using drugs or something external, even meditative practices are based in our neurochemistry. All our thought process whether it be under a psychedelic or in deep meditation......all have to do with chemicals in the brain. Yes, it is true that the state on psychedelics don't last forever.......but whose to say the states in meditation lasts forever? There is no evidence that meditation reaches an eternal state of enlightenment.
silverbackman 4 years ago
Beware Ken Wilber and his cronies. Im not saying that he is bad, nor good, just beware the cult of personality.
Day by day keep digging kid, beware too much knowledge, decide, what do yu want, the experience or knowledge of it? If it is the experience you are after, beware filling your head, instead peel the onion. Take Care
RasJeza 4 years ago
Truth, non truth, objective, subjective - dualistic thinking all. Drugs can be fun, but to need any external substance to explore ones mind is a dangerous and unnecessary game to play. The brain is a finely tuned piece of hardware, and practice, everyday sitting may take longer but will have deeper seated , longer lasting effects. Anyone who has tripped knows its cool, but scatters your natural brain state and takes a few days to clean it up afterwards. Be honest.
RasJeza 4 years ago
It takes DECADES of meditation to even have the effects of that one has on a normal dose of shrooms or LSD, and takes nearly a lifetime of meditation to reach the ego death state with actually dying.
However the absolute best way to study the mind is meditating on a psychedelic.
silverbackman 4 years ago
I've tried several psychedelics. Psilocybin I found most beneficial and insightful. I think the only problem with psychedelics as a spiritual practice is that, while they can certainly bring one to the state of ego death, it remains a state, and so the experience fades away as quickly as it came.
redliterocket4 4 years ago
To really maintain a permanent STAGE of consciousness, I think we need to put the drugs on the shelf and integrate ourselves from the ground up by doing the hard work of meditation and truly giving in and letting go of all the illusions created by ego.
redliterocket4 4 years ago
@redliterocket4 Sure we should meditate. But it doesn't mean we can't treasure shamanic way of mediating as part of spiritual practice. I say use all methods of altered states of consciousness meaningfully and respectfully, whether that be from psychedelics, meditation, psycho-acoustics, ritual dancing, tantra and so on.
silverbackman 1 year ago
redliterocket4, have you ever taken any psychedelics? They are by far the BEST tools to study the mind, as long as you respect them and use them carefully (either way if you were to ingest shrooms your mind will force you to confront the truth of your existence). With a sufficient enough dose of almost any psychedelic one can experience ego death......yes ego death.
silverbackman 4 years ago
Like I said, you have effectively destroyed a word, 'truth'. That's called logocide. The word is now meaningless and you are on your way to starting a religion (like how the Bible kills the word 'love').
With the catapult, you missed the point. The point is that it WAS true that the ball would hit the target, because when it was fired, it did indeed hit it.
wonderist 4 years ago
It IS true that nuclear war would kill millions of people. We CAN make accurate predictions. We CAN know the future to some extent. This is objective truth. Why is it objective? Because it doesn't depend on WHO makes the prediction; it is not subjective. It's not intersubjective either because it doesn't matter if the philosopher doesn't agree with the engineer. The ball will hit or it won't, independent of the whims of the observers.
wonderist 4 years ago
Again, I'm not talking about *absolute* truth. You seem to be hung up on conflating objective and absolute. Whether or not there is an absolute truth, objective truth is attainable.
I'm not saying we can know The Truth, I'm saying we can know truths, and that we can tell truths from non-truths. See, no logocide required. Don't abandon the word just because we can't achieve perfection.
wonderist 4 years ago
With your last comments, you are simultaneously destroying any meaning of 'truth' and also conflating it with 'desirable'. Can our desires never mislead us, never lead us to non-truth? Can we never be deceived? Is everyone right and no one wrong? Why do we have courts then?
wonderist 4 years ago
Those last questions are socratic ones, but here is a simple, direct question: How can you tell what is truth from what is non-truth?
To expand on that: How can you tell when you've heard a truth vs. a non-truth? How can I tell if what you are saying is a truth or a non-truth?
wonderist 4 years ago
And finally, here's a scenario: An engineer uses various methods of measurement and construction to build a catapult. He uses calculus and physics to calculate a trajectory to hit a target far distant. He claims, "The ball will strike that distant target." A philosopher claims, "You can't know that! Objective truth is impossible. Your claim is not true."
The engineer pulls the trigger and sure enough, the ball hits the target. How do you explain that in a universe without objective truth?
wonderist 4 years ago
When a scientist, or in this case an ballistics engineer, builds an experiment or catapult, they are walling off a section of reality to control the variables, thereby allowing a sophisticated and perfectly internally consistant system of measurement to provide us with a map capable of predicting the future outcome of the experiment/catapult. But the grid is not "truth," it is not nature, not reality. It is a map, a gridwork.
redliterocket4 4 years ago
Two equally internally consistant conceptual maps could be drawn that perfectly describe the activity of a phenomenon, but which when viewed from outside become contradictory. I'm trying to find a truth that is not dualistic, that doesn't require a distinction between map and territory.
redliterocket4 4 years ago
What the ballistics engineer has designed is not an objective truth, it is a technological experiment. I would not say that his calculations were impossible, because I don't think that truth is a matter of calculation. It doesn't need to be added up by anyone, it is there already of itself. It is our job to discover it through a continual act of creative participatory communication.
redliterocket4 4 years ago
I cannot tell truth from non-truth. The truth itself cannot be spoken, I cannot TELL it, SAY it, or WRITE it; the truth is an activity, an experience. When we are in truth, it speaks for itself. I do not know how it happens, but when something is true it becomes self-evident.
redliterocket4 4 years ago
None of the words anyone speaks contain the truth. The truth is the activity of speaking itself, the activity of communicating in order to evolve.
redliterocket4 4 years ago
...so, though you state it with a great deal of thougtfulness and, in many cases, certainty, none of what you have written here or spoken in any of your videos in the last six months is true? rlr4, it is all truth in that it is all the expression of spirit as such. (but you already know that!)
ddj333 3 years ago
"philosophy is effective communication"
Communication of what?
wonderist 4 years ago
Of whatever you want to pass along.
redliterocket4 4 years ago
So if I effectively communicate a sales message to you, like "Buy Viagra cheap at such-and-such website", is that philosophy?
As you can see, I'm trying to probe exactly what you mean.
Computers effectively communicate computer viruses and worms. Is that philosophy?
How about if I communicate a death threat to someone. Is that philosophy?
wonderist 4 years ago
Philosophy is that form of communication whereby one person attempts to transform and open up another's consciousness by conveying a truth as effectively as vocally possible. Something like advertising or propaganda is not designed to open up anything, it is designed to maintain a perpetual state of unconsciousness in the other. Philosophy comes from wisdom and is an expression of the heart. Propaganda comes out of fear and ignorance and is an expression of our lowest nature.
redliterocket4 4 years ago
Not only that, but I think philosophy should be more of a conversation than a presentation, more interactive than TV programming. It must be an ongoing discussion in which the people sharing ideas continually push one another to higher, more open, more integral and aware states of consciousness. There are no final answers, no dogmas, no mottos or slogans; there is only continual awakening.
redliterocket4 4 years ago
excelent
cardellacole1 4 years ago
Ah ha. Okay, so it involves conveying a truth. I would agree and I'm glad you do too. So, next question, what is a truth? How do you tell truth from non-truth. Unfortunately, you've painted yourself in a corner since you claim we can't know objective truth. (By objective, I don't mean absolute, I mean independently verifiable.)
So, how do you get out of this corner? What is truth (or truths), in your opinion? If they are not objective, what are they? How can we identify truth?
wonderist 4 years ago
Truth in the sense I use the term is not objective or independently varifiable. Rather, it is intersubjectively agreeable. If I try to convey a truth which someone does not understand or disagrees with (within reason), then my truth must be missing something. So the idea is that truth is what we find when we come to a common agreement.
redliterocket4 4 years ago
But you can come to a common agreement on *literally* anything. Some people so agreed that the Hale-Bopp comet was a spaceship that they killed themselves over it. Was that a truth?
If you have three boxes and ask me and my friends to decide which box has a diamond in it; let's say we collectively agree on box A. Does that mean the diamond is really in box A? Where is the 'truth' there? What if the diamond is found in box C?
wonderist 4 years ago
I am defining truth only from a particular perspective, though it is a perspective of perspective, or at least the most evolutionarily informed perspective from which I think we could ask a question like "what is truth?" For a subjective creature, for the human pysche, etc, the truth is not such a whimsically decided upon thing. The truth is something we are subject to as subjects, but no one could ever define it or make it known objectively forever from all perspectives.
redliterocket4 4 years ago
The people didn't decide that Hale-Bopp was a spaceship, that is just the best explanation they could come up with at the time. From the perspective of the psyche, appearance is reality. As an intersubjective community, we all come to an agreement about what is important, and truth is a matter not only of epistemology in my opinion, but of morality. It concerns both what we know and how we act.
redliterocket4 4 years ago
So the truth is not merely a theoretical concept, something which could be calculated or observed empirically. The truth is knowledge put into action.
redliterocket4 4 years ago
Knowledge which is also action cannot always be objectively "right," but don't forget that right and wrong are just after the fact rationalizations imposed upon phenomena depending on what use we wish to put them to, based on what we value. If we are an AC company, extremely hot days are good. If we are too poor to afford electricity, they are bad.
redliterocket4 4 years ago
ie, if we make money on broken AC units, heat is right! If we are stuck without AC, heat is wrong.
If we are a materialist physicist, if we value reductionistic explanations of everything and anything, then the hypothesis of consciousness is false. If we are a psychologist, if we value holistic methods of coming to realization of the self, consciousness is not only a valid hypothesis but an experienced reality. It all depends what use we wish to get out of the phenomena we are dealing with.
redliterocket4 4 years ago
So the truth... The truth is what drives us to continue communicating philisophically. Even if we have come to realize that no final fact or system of facts is ever going to be found that could explain existence once and for all, we still engage in the activity of seeking truth. We do so recognizing that truth itself can only ever be an experience, an ongoing communal activity whereby human beings attempt to find nature by being natural.
redliterocket4 4 years ago
Truth and nature may be almost synonymous in this context. Nature is what there is. It is not necessarily a noun, but seems more like a verb. Though it isn't a verb, either. It is Tao, which you may take as a cop out, but I don't know how else to say it.
redliterocket4 4 years ago
But unless you believe Heaven's Gate caught a ride on spaceship Hape-Bopp, their "action" was not associated with truth. And this is the case more often than not. Not all valid understandings (truths) are associated with action, and not all actions are associated with truth on any conscious level.
cosabio 4 years ago
Objectivity and subjectivity are a basic duality created by the mind. And the absolute can be triggered by certain destructive ideas. That is, ideas which destroy other ideas, especially self-destructive ideas, such as koans.
swaydam 4 years ago
should we imagin the world as flat again ,as understanding the world as round is destroying those who like to call themselvs mystics. or is mystery just another excuse to lie to ourselves or ceep others in ignorance, tell us then what mysterious trap would.. you .. like us to live in, that which you call freedom to confuse doubt and judge
cardellacole1 4 years ago
A mystic makes no claims to knowledge, especially objective/scientific knowledge. A mystic knows only that they cannot know such things, because for subjective creatures such as you and I, perfect knowledge does not exist. Mystery is part of life and I do not think we can ever vanquish all unknowns. Even if we could, would it really be desireable?
redliterocket4 4 years ago
mystics do say what they know or claim to know. the words subjective creatures (subjective to what,)you cannot speak for me .mystery is part of life,if i could i would vanquish all the unknowns which stand in my way
cardellacole1 4 years ago
A mystic is focused on becoming aware and attaining understandings of the mysteries of spirit as a means to fulfillment and self realization. While the knowledge of these things may always be incomplete, experience and practice with mysterious understandings are VERY REAL KNOWABLE THINGS. There are very specific methods in mysticism and the more intense schools are very much like sciences.
cosabio 4 years ago
"The authentic mystic's ultimate goal is a sustained stable state of full consciousness, wholeness/holiness through self-knowledge... ...the word mysticism, is best used to point to conscious and systematic attempts to gain transcendent insights/experiences through studies and practice." -Wikiipedia Mystic
cosabio 4 years ago
lighthouse consider it you reference point while you flash lights to warn others of rocks hows that analogical. best philsopohy save overs lol
danbit5 4 years ago
you rock but hang on.hope you are going find your point :)
danbit5 4 years ago
thus my beef with Wilber is his cult of personality that he has cultivated. i believe that a philosopher and his theory are akin to what he or she produces - ie his work is interlinked with his or her personhood and can't escape that.
GrowthSpiral 4 years ago
thus his work is a self-portrait.
GrowthSpiral 4 years ago
some of the issues for me with Wilber speak to what your criticism is that Wilber tries to make his philosophy seem to be objective truth. and also that its like his jamming everything into a overbloated blender and it splats everyone in a total chaos.
GrowthSpiral 4 years ago
but some brief thoughts are that Wilber's system does want to be a search for objective truth - which I agree with you, subjective beings can not know objective truth. as an existentialist, the only truth to me is the perceived truth which is subjective at best. Kierkegaard too has influenced me deeply.
GrowthSpiral 4 years ago
great response - of to sleep and then work, I want fully grasp this video with my fine-tuned ears.... thanks...i myself came to philosophy thru psychology
GrowthSpiral 4 years ago