Sunday, December 31, 2006
m alan kazlev said... Hi Joe, I have to say I have found ideas in your blog very helpful in further developing and widening my understanding of Integral and the Integral movement. Yes much of Sri Aurobindo's writings are heavy in style, perhaps because of his English private school upbring. Interestingly his Letters on Yoga (it's since been published under another title, On Yoga or some such) are very easy to read; they're just extracts from letters to disciples, replying to their questions (unfortunately the disciples letters are not included, so the complete context is at times hard to follow). It took me a long time to learn how to read S.A.'s heavier books like The Life Divine and Synthesis on Yoga. I eventually realised you have to read just small parts here and there, whatever line or paragraph grabs your inspiration, and allow your inner being to be receptive to and uplifted by the Meaning behind the words. It's the same with reading Ramana Maharshi, or any great sage. Approached on that level, Sri Aurobindo isn't abstract at all! I could never read his books from cover to cover, but Tusar seems to approach them in a more scholarly way, and that's fine too. If you would like a good idea of what he is on about, but don't want to have to plough through hundreds of pages of philosophy, I would recomend just read the last four chapters of The Life Divine. That way you go straight to his message of spiritual evolution pure and simple!For a while now I have felt more of an affilation with Synthesis of Yoga, which is more practical and mystical than philosophical in approach. Then I discovered Sri Ramana, who is even more important to me now, as he teaches the realisation of the non-dual Self, which is necessary if one is to then progress to the stages beyond that, which is what Sri Aurobindo teaches (these stages, culminating in the Supreme individual and collective Realisation of the Supramental Godhead, are all described in those last four chapters of The Life Divine). Of course, for us ordinary mortals, even Self-Realisation (basic Enlightenment) is a huge task! For me philosophy is mostly of little interest, perhaps because of that abstract quality that you refer to, although I appreciate for some it is a genuine sadhana (spiritual path). The way I tend to communicate what Sri Aurobindo taught is to focus on the practical and mystical side of the teachings, and their implications for the integral paradigm and the Earth as a whole. Of course that leaves out all the more purely philosophical and intellectual stuff, as well as all the poems and the political and social commentary. But Sri Aurobindo is like an ocean, and it isn't possible to encompass the whole ocean. One can only splash in the shallows. It's like that when approiaching the teachings of every truly great sage. 3:09 AM
DGA said...I'm working toward an integral theory that is also critical, which is to say, is capable of holding up to a rigorous ideological analysis. Much Aurobindian and post-Aurobindian work (inclusive of much of Wilber) is not critical, but this does not mean integral praxis is not capable of doing it.
- But what of thinkers like Habermas, Max Weber, Foucault and Piaget? Did they have any distinctive spiritual attainment? Not that I know of.
- And what of contemporary spiritual adepts like Ramana Maharshi, Ramesh Balsekar or Poonjaji? Did they create great social analyses?
No. Profound spiritual adepts do not necessarily have superior social scientific theories. This assumption of a confluence between superior thinking and spiritual attainment is the reason Wilber advances Plato, Plotinus and Aurobindo as individuals and scholars. He implies that the validity of their philosophical work is connected to their spiritual attainments, but there is no necessary correlation between the two. philosophyautobiography.blogspot.com. Email at email@example.com
- But how does this experience fit into our ordinary understanding of existence, based largely on science?
- For example, is higher consciousness correlated with activity in a particular part of the brain, an activity we can actually measure and quantitate?
- Or is it associated with some larger form of organization than a single individual, such as humanity itself, or the entire earth?
- Did consciousness emerge from matter, or does it create matter?
- Is higher consciousness the next inevitable step in the evolution of life on earth, or a vision restricted to a few?
Having followed a meditative practice for thirty years, I appreciate that the insights and experiences of higher consciousness are mostly beyond words. But as a scientist with a background in molecular biology, pharmacology and neuroscience, I'm reluctant to ignore the implications another level of existence has for my profession.
- How far can we go in understanding higher consciousness in scientific terms?
- Or should we turn the question around, and ask, to what extent are the insights of higher consciousness relevant to our understanding of ordinary existence?
This site is devoted to this dialogue between science and spirit. It features links to my own writing on this subject, as well as discussions with and links to others exploring this area. My Books My Articles Dialogue/Feedback Related Links
- What does it mean that we touch Reality with such diverse avenues of knowledge?
- Why has modernity priviledged knowledge based on the phsyical senses -- resulting in the physicalist worldview held sacred by many in the modernist and postmodernist world?
- And when we undo this restriction, and open ourselves up to knowledge gained by other means than the senses, such as interpretation (eye of mind) and spiritual realization (eye of spirit), what does that tell us about the Kosmos we live in?
- If flatland denies interiority, what does rehabilitating interiority (or consciousness) mean in terms of formulating a view of reality at large -- otherwise known as ontology? Perennialism Postmodernism Integralism Frank Visser June 2004
Saturday, December 30, 2006
For in knowing absolute truth, human beings may participate in eternity on this side of manifestation -- in the relative world. The trick is to, so to speak, "prolong" eternity on this plane. We do this by 1) aligning ourselves with truth, and 2) assimilating truth. By "assimilating," I mean that we must metabolize truth so that it is "interiorized" and becomes entwined with our very psychic substance. We must "eat and breathe" absolute truth in order to become it and live it.
Authentic religion is the vehicle of absolute truth. You might say that absolute truth, the Godhead, the Ain Sof, the Supermind, Nirguna Brahman, or the God beyond being, are analogous to white light, whereas each authentic revelation is analogous to a color in the rainbow. This is why religions cannot be mixed "from below," lest you produce a manmade blending of colors that eventually ends up black, not white. However, this hardly means that one religion cannot illuminate this or that obscure or underemphasized doctrine of another.
Christianity, for example, is a obviously a complete religion. Nor will I argue with someone who believes it is the "best" religion. Nevertheless, it is obviously the case that the greatest Christian thinkers -- true theologians such as Meister Eckhart, Origen, or Denys the Areopagite -- exist only at the margins of contemporary Christianity, which is often sadly atheological -- either that, or couched in a ridiculous theology that makes religion itself look ridiculous -- a terrible sin by the way, for it amounts to taking the name of the Lord in vain. At the moment I am thinking of a genial dolt named "Osteen" that I caught on Larry King for a few moments, but it could be anyone.
Once you immerse yourself in, say, the genius of Meister Eckhart, you immediately see the parallels with, say, the greatest Jewish theologian, Moses Maimonides. Then you cannot help seeing certain unavoidable parallels with perhaps the greatest pagan mystic, Plotinus, then it's hard to distinguish him from the immortal Vedantin, Shankara. You needn't "blend" any of these truly celestial beings to appreciate how they are reflected in one another, each a particular color that carries and transmits real light. Most of us cannot know the white light, but each color is in the end nothing other than light, just as rain or snow are nothing other than water. I am as comfortable in a Catholic or Orthodox service as I am in a Vedanta or Jewish temple, so long as they radiate the sacred. However, I am definitely not "eclectic." I do not believe in "cafeteria style" spirituality. It is more like being able to appreciate, say, Arvo Part, Dexter Gordon, Merle Haggard, and James Brown. Each is a musical "avatar" who conveys real musical light, but I wouldn't want to blend them.
Apparently, it is difficult for most rank and file human beings to conceive of the Absolute on its own absolute terms, so they create a human substitute to stand for the Absolute. In short, they intuit the Absolute and believe in the Absolute, but the only way they can "think" about it is to elevate something on the relative plane to the status of Absolute. This is fine as far as it goes, and it does help those who are not metaphysically gifted to think about ultimate things. One Cosmos Under God Robert W. Godwin
Friday, December 29, 2006
"Sri Aurobindo Darshan: The University of Tomorrow " February 2006 Volume VII Issue I
- Do we truly know ourselves?
- Has man conquered all the domains of knowledge or are there other worlds yet to be explored?
Sri Aurobindo provides us with the tools with which we proceed to pierce open our evolutionary consciousness further onto extra-terrestrial regions of a liberated intelligence. Sri Aurobindo could fashion these ideals for he did bring down and craft these higher gradations of consciousness here on earth in a physical body. And he did so to make them realisable to an aspiring humanity! His integral yoga is the blueprint made available for every individual to manifest his body's soul. His is a life taken to demonstrate that the supramental consciousness cannot only be attained but be brought down and be made a permanent part of the earth-consciousness to effect a divine transfiguration of the human race!
Thursday, December 28, 2006
Wednesday, December 27, 2006
- The authoritory with which and about which they wrote or spoke (KW in contrast always uses second hand sources when discussing these matters, so do I. However this argument in itself is not persuasive because an Intermediate Zone guru also speaks with authority and direct experience).
- The anecdotes of those who knew them.
- Most importantly, and in addition to the above two points, there has not been a single case of them abusing their position. This is in contrasts to the “intermediate zone” gurus who have only partial enlightenment, but speak with authority and have dedicated followers whose lives were transformed. But the IZ guru will almost always in some way absue their position. The authentic and totally enlightened being never will.
I have no doubt that Aurobindo was the premiere spiritual philospher of the early 20th century. The issue with using Aurobindo as a model, it seems, is the lack of incorporation of the last 50 years of progress. Psychology has gone well beyond Freud and Jung, no matter the giants those two are.
Now, that is a square that can easily be circled, and probably what you are attempting to do, by STARTING with Aurobindo. Is there continuing research into Aurobindo's techniques, improvements, incorporations of new understandings, etc? 10:23 AM m alan kazlev said... Hi ebuddha, you said
"The issue with using Aurobindo as a model, it seems, is the lack of incorporation of the last 50 years of progress. Psychology has gone well beyond Freud and Jung, no matter the giants those two are."
Yes, this is an interesting question! But the problem here is that we are talking about two totally different realities.
What Sri Aurobindo says is timeless. It pertains to the Supreme, the Absolute Reality, God if you will (although I dislike that term because of the exoteric religious connotations, old man in a cloud, only way is through the true church, giving out authoritarian rules in some revealed scripture, etc).
50 years of progress in science, philosophy, psychology, historical criticism, etc etc pertains to the world of the relative intellect, the outer material world. It is not that this is not included in the Aurobindonian compass, it is only that it is one smallpart of the whole.
The situation is different with Freud and Jung. Great genuises that they were, they were still working at the level of the rational intellect. Like explorers of the unknown, but the world they explored is still accessible to our understanding.
Jung certainly touched on the greater reality; he is one of the very few of the 20th century who did. This is probably why many in mainstream psychology are still uncomfortable with him. But Jung's interpretations, a biologiacl racial memory, are nonsense, as any biologist will tell you. So Jung was trying to put a materialistic slant on things. Like Wilber, he was a bridgebuilder and he tried to define non-empirical things in the language of science out of a desire to appear respectable to mainstream academia (and like Wilber, he never did become so, but instead established his own "sacred tradition" if one might call it that). It's only in his older years, when he was no longer concerned with what his collegues thought of him, that he could be himself. That's when he spoke about synchronicity, psychoid archetype, things that were beyond the compass of secular knowledge.
In the intervening 50 years, has any Jungian improved on Jung? Ok you have people like James Hillman, Jospeh Campbell, etc. But has anyone in that tradition gone beyond Jung?
So the myth of progress doesn't apply. It's not like Edison or Tesla or Henry Ford or the Wright Brothers or Baird or other great technological pioneers, and that technology surpassed them and their were more advanced gizmos.
It's not like pure science where you have a Newton or an Einstein and others come along and refine and build upon their discoveries, using experimental method and empirical observation,or even a thought experiemnet, like how Einstein went beyond Newton with the discovery of Relativity.
The only person who was equal to Sri Aurobindo was Mirra Alfassa, the Mother. And yes it is interesting taht she did go beyond him, if you compare the Mother's Agenda (transcribed by her devotee Satprem) with the Aurobindonian corpus, she put what he said philosophically into practice. But since she left her body, there has been no-one of that level.
Is there continuing research into Aurobindo's techniques, improvements, incorporations of new understandings, etc?
Research implies the limited external consciousness. I might equally ask, has there been any research and improvements in the techniques that the Buddha taught? That Rumi taught? That Bodhidharma taught? That Sri Ramana taught? That's what I mean, it's a misplaced metaphor.
But as for incorporations of new understanding, well, that's different. There is also the possibility of greater external insights. Not just commenting, but bringing more things together. That's what I'm trying to do for example. Perhaps that's what the mainstream integral movement is also doing. This is the promise I see in the Integral Movement, and the reason I feel affiliated with it. It's not that anyone there can be another Aurobindo, or another Maharshi. But it is possible to take the outer forms of what these great sages taught, and try to put it together in a greater perspective.
And of course, to do this, one needs to start somewhere. One can start from one's own rational mind, but then why is what one says better than what anyone else says? There are just endless arguments, the mind turning around but not arriving at a higher truth.
That's why I prefer to start with the teachings of the greatest sage(s) I can find. And if there were any greater Sages than Sri Aurobindo and the Mother, I would without a microsecond hesitation switch to their perspective and use that as a starting point isntead. So far I haven't found any, but I am open to all possibilities.
Not sure if that answers your question. The problem truly is about acknowledging both the transcendent Supreme and the relative world, both, together. Reconciling the two, without contradiction. That's the real paradox. 2:41 PM
Tuesday, December 26, 2006
- Why aim small, when you can aim high?
- Why aim only for trying to be harmonious and interconnected in the workplace, when you can realise the Supermind (the Supreme Godhead) in the cells of your body?
- Why strive only for better ways of loving and playing, when you can reverse entropy?...
So to get back to the question, why start with the Aurobindonian stance rather than the Wilberian, my reply is simply that (to me) the Aurobindonian is more majestic, more awesome, more inspiring, more provocative, more inclusive, and more amazing and more profound in every way then any other teaching and any other praxis. And that is why, in my book on the Integral paradigm, I am using as the foundation and point of reference the Aurobindonian revelation. posted by m alan kazlev at 5:44 PM
Monday, December 25, 2006
The twentieth century Indian philosopher Sri Aurobindo, who framed his own full scale metaphysical synthesis, appropriated Hegel’s notion of an Absolute Spirit and employed it to radically restructure the architectonic framework of the ancient Hindu Vedanta system in contemporary terms. However, before considering this functional resemblance between Sri Aurobindo’s doctrine of the Absolute of that of Hegel’s, first some of the central distinctions between their respective doctrines must be grasped. Sri Aurobindo first critiques the Hegelian concept of the Absolute conceived as a totalistic system of dialectical reason, what F. H. Bradley has called the “bloodless ballet of categories.” Sri Aurobindo’s concept of the Absolute is not deduced product of a dialectical logic, as Hegel’s, but rather a...
Keirsey had long been interested in the concept of temperament, and while he does discuss the MBTI preferences, both books focus mainly on temperament. Unfortunately, in the first book he labelled the four temperaments with the names of Greek gods, Dionysus, Epimetheus, Apollo and Prometheus. I found these names really difficult to work with when I first read the original book, and had to have a dictionary in my hand to make any sense out of some of the material. In the intervening years Keirsey (Marilyn Bates has since died) renamed them: Artisan for the SP, Guardian for the SJ, Idealist for the NF, and Rational for the NT, which made for easier reading.
In the revised edition "The Keirsey Temperament Sorter II" has been updated with some different questions, and this can still be used to determine your type. He has added "The Keirsey FourTypes Sorter" which determines only your temperament. Both of these quizzes are also on his web site:
The book discusses in detail the similarities between temperaments and MBTI, and also how they are different. The MBTI bases psychological type on internal mental functioning. Keirsey finds it more useful to stick to what can be observed or people's behaviour: how people use words and tools.
Words are either abstract or concrete, and tools are used in a mainly cooperative or utilitarian way. Thus, SPs use mainly concrete words and use tools in a utilitarian way; SJs are concrete and cooperative; NFs are abstract and cooperative; and NTs are abstract and utilitarian. According to Keirsey, temperament determines behaviour.
Keirsey devotes a chapter to each temperament, including a description of each of the four psychological types included in that temperament, e.g. Rationals include: INTJ, INTP, ENTP and ENTJ. As would be expected the descriptions focus more on behaviour than on internal thought processes. Each temperament is described in terms of language, intellect, interest, orientation, self- image, values and social role. The book is well set up as it has numerous charts, and while emphasizing a specific temperament, it also shows the corresponding entries for the other three temperaments.
Having given a basic description of each temperament, the book then devotes a chapter to the three main areas of life: mating, parenting and leading.
In mating styles the Artisan is the Playmate, the Guardian is the Helpmate, the Idealist is the Soulmate, and the Rational is the Mindmate. While any temperament can and does marry any of the four temperaments, Keirsey finds that people tend to be attracted to their opposite: Artisans to Guardians, and Idealists to Rationals. He further describes how each temperament is likely to get along with each of the other temperaments and then gives further detail into how the temperament is likely to interact with each of the four types within the opposite temperament, e.g. an Artisan with a Guardian (ISTJ, ISFJ, ESTJ and ESFJ).
In the Parenting chapter, Keirsey describes children with each of the four temperaments and describes each of the combinations of temperament of parent and child. The Artisan parent tends to be the Liberator and is very tolerant of the child's behaviour. The Guardian parent sees the job of parenting as one of socializing the child. The Idealist parent wants to harmonize all relationships the child has. The Rational parent wants children to become individuals. The main task of all parents is to stimulate children to help them develop their potential.
There are also descriptions of how each temperament learns best. In his work as a school psychologist, Keirsey found that many behaviour problems were the result of poor instruction techniques rather than problems such as ADD or ADHS. The Artisan child needs lots of hands-on learning. The Guardian is more willing to do what he is told. The Idealist wants to be authentic and get along. The Rational just loves to soak up information, but quickly spots the teacher who doesn't know the material.
The final chapter looks at leadership. Keirsey sees leadership as a function of intelligence. He sees that each temperament has a main intellectual skill with lesser ability in the other forms of intelligence. Artisans are best at tactics, Guardians at logistics, Idealists at diplomacy, and Rationals at strategy. Churchill was a good example of a tactician. He could quickly accesses what was happening and knew what to do next. Washington was the man to lead the new nation with his ability to organize all of the details needed to bring the country out of the chaos of war. Gandhi used his example of passive resistance as the diplomatic way to bring about the end of British rule in India. Lincoln, the Rational, used his skill at strategy to give the leadership required to win the civil war. Keirsey makes the point that each of these intelligences are needed in society. As such, each intellectual skill is equally valid. Unfortunately, most intelligence tests do not measure these traits.
This updated version of Please understand Me II is almost double the size of the original. In the intervening years Keirsey has accumulated a lot of additional material that he has included in his latest book. There is a great deal of useful information for those who prefer the MBTI, and you might find that the concept of temperament is well worth considering and another useful tool to add to your psychological tool bag.
That system actually had a sensible basis. Remember, before the scientific and market revolutions, culture was virtually static. There was no notion of progress; in fact, most cultures thought that the reverse was true--that our ancestors once lived in the mythological "Great Time" of a golden age, but that subsequent generations had somehow deviated from the ideal. The purpose of culture was to try to imitate the ways of the ancestors, otherwise the passage of time would simply lead to more degeneration and chaos.
Obviously human beings all over the world still struggle mightily with the allied notions that dynamic chaos is the source of order and that the application of rigid order generates chaos. Where would the socialist left be, for example, without the primordial distrust of free markets and individual liberty?
In fact, European conservatives are the same way--by and large, they are nothing like the revolutionary conservatives of contemporary America, in that they tend to be elitists who wish to preserve inherited power and privilege (Margaret Thatcher notwithstanding, who was a modern Hayekian "conservative liberal"). Prior to the conservative intellectual movement founded by William F. Buckley in the mid-1950's, American "paleo-conservatives" were similar to their reactionary European counterparts...Now the Hindu caste system was originally based on the banal but accurate observation that individual human beings do indeed belong to different castes--that there are different personality types (for example, consider Jung's typological system of 16 main personality types; see book below). This should surprise no one. It is simply a variant of the idea that "it takes all kinds to make a world." Their mistake was in wedding this idea to the primordial fear of disorder, and creating a rigid system in which one's caste was determined by genealogy instead of inclination.
In a perfectly functioning market system, the same thing will happen spontaneously, as people discover their particular gift, actualize their innate potential, and find their adaptive "niche." (Yes, troll, let me save you some time and say that I realize the system is not perfect.)
Again, the original caste system was based on the idea that a functioning society required very different tasks and skills, and that certain temperaments were better suited than others to discharge those tasks. Warriors, priests, intellectuals, merchants, laborers--all have very different temperaments (in fact, there even appear to be temperamental slaves, but I don't think I'll go there; suffice it to say that there are a great many sheep in the world whose collective energy creates wolves).
It has long been observed that living another man's dharma is a grave spiritual danger. In other words, it is possible for us to get stuck in the wrong caste, so to speak. If this happens, we will never actually be. Rather, we will only seem to be, and our life will pass by unlived before we plunge into the abyss.Now, my crack about religion being only for the very stupid and very smart probably also sounded elitist. My point was this: there are different kinds of men--emotional men, physical men, intellectual men, spiritual men, and various shades in between. And there is a religion for each. To put it in yogic terms, for the physical man there is karma yoga, the yoga of action. For the emotional man there is bhakti yoga, the yoga of devotion. For the intellectual man there is jnana yoga, the yoga of metaphysical and philosophical knowledge. And for the spiritual man, there is raja yoga, the yoga of meditation and ascent. They all work, and no one is better than the others, but one can be worse than the others if you are practicing the wrong one.To cite just one example, many sophisticated westerners such as JWM have difficulty embracing Christianity because in the West it has largely lost its sapiential (knowledge) and transformational components, and has been reduced to a simple fideism of bhakti yoga, or worship of Christ. But in fact, all of the major religions are analogous to yoga, in that they have a place for all the castes and temperaments. In Christianity, the sapiential-transformational component was never lost in the Orthodox tradition, whereas by necessity it was under-emphasized in the Catholic West due to the exigencies of worldly power and the need for organization and orthopraxis. But even then, you don't have to search far in Western Christendom to find the most sublime and unsurpassed spiritual wisdom, for example, in the figure of Meister Eckhart. One Cosmos Under God Robert W. Godwin
Sunday, December 24, 2006
Where I start to disagree with you, and call it "not integral," is when you talk about what you refuse to integrate. Your post has helped clarify in my own mind what I take issue with, which I will try to express as concisely as possible.
What I see you and others doing here is over-simplifying and consolidating ideologies, taking them wholesale so to speak, and outright writing them off if any of its parts you disagree with. It is as if you refuse to, or cannot, see ideologies as composed of different aspects, as dynamic even, but rather as static entities that are utterly unmalleable.
So when you talk about Marx's legacy via the supposedly "seductive intellectual pathologies that continue to infect the mind of man," you refuse to recognize how all of these have some veracity to them, are "true from a certain angle." Not absolutely true--just as your ideology is not Absolute Truth (no matter what Psycho Princess claims).
Another example is when you say that atheism and theism are incompatible. Strictly speaking, I agree. But what if we look less at the surface structures and more at the deeper, subtler dimensions of both? Atheism questions the belief in God, or anything that cannot be experienced with the senses. Theism posits a Power within and/or beyond the sensory world. "Mature" atheism is agnosticism, which is not anti-theistic, it just doesn't settle for belief. "Mature" theism is mysticism: it is not based in belief, but in experience.
What I'm doing here is, as Ken Wilber likes to say (perhaps ad nauseum), not throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The bathwater of atheism is its refusal to be open to anything other than the sensory; the bathwater of theism is its reliance upon belief. The baby of atheism is its adherence to experience, to what one can verify personally; the baby of theism is its recognition of a deeper order or energy or power.
I would even say there is a relatively natural sequence, an evolution of consciousness: From theism to atheism to agnosticism to mysticism, which is roughly synonymous with premodern to modern to postmodern to post-postmodern (or integral). In my opinion, everyone must let go of their belief in God to actually experience the Divine (this is somewhat related to the notion of Grace, where all we can do is surrender--we cannot "grab" the Divine). Thus the synthesis of the thesis (theism) and antithesis (atheism) is agnostic mysticism.
Another thing that I see you and others here doing is a simple fallacy of elevating one's personal relative and contextual worldview with some kind of Absolute Truth. This is where the "good news" of postmodernism--recognizing context and cultural situation, as well as personal interpretation--is utterly missing from this blog. It is as if no one here recognizes that their views are at least to some degree shaped by their culture, their personality, and their personal beliefs. This is why any codified ideology is not, cannot be, "absolute"--only Absolute Truth is absolute.
When you discuss Marx and other Leftists and speak of how their views are based on total falsehood, it sounds to me as if you are projecting your own shadow onto them. I get the sense that you believe that you are without blindspots, without any degree of falsehood. In other words, you believe you have found THE Truth against which everything else is Lies, instead of what you may have actually found: a clearer vision (and interpretation) of Truth than you previously had. In other words, we're all deluded, we're all prone to falsehoods--and none of us truly, fully gets it! We're all works in progress. 12/23/2006 04:49:48 PM Gagdad Bob said... Integralist--I didn't intend to jump back in, but "fed up with the troll" makes an excellent point. You are an "orthodox Wilberian." In point of fact, there can be no "Gagdaddians," orthodox or otherwise. If you had read my book, you would understand this. The point of most of my writing -- both in substance and in style -- is to facilitate a personal experience (O) in the reader of whatever it is I am writing about. The experience is theirs, not mine, even if I may have provoked it. I could say more, but those who get it, get it, those who don't, don't. And anyone who thinks I am presenting a dogmatic intellectual system (k-->O) that someone can follow, a la Wilber, doesn't get my approach. And please, I am not criticizing Wilber. If he speaks to your soul, again, it would be entirely inappropriate for me to argue with you. 12/23/2006 05:58:56 PM
by rakesh on Sat 23 Dec 2006 05:41 PM PST Profile Permanent Link
Each of these modes of existence has a different aspect, which I call objective and subjective, or exterior and interior. For example, as I mentioned the other day, matter has an obvious subjective aspect that we know of as beauty. Matter has a metaphysical transparency that can never be reduced to its mere physicality. To do so is absurd, not to mention non-integral. This is why we needn’t waste any time trying to integrate any philosophy of materialism with ours, because materialism is simply the philosophy of the objective aspect of matter. It cannot even account for the subjective aspect of matter, much less the other modes -- life, mind and spirit.
Nor could we ever elevate natural selection to an all-encompassing integral philosophy. Certainly we take note of whatever truth it contains, but in so doing, we are clearly dealing with a category -- truth -- that cannot be reduced to genetics. At risk of pointing out the obvious, the human ability to know truth is not dependent upon genes. If it were, it wouldn’t be truth...In my theory, I find no place for leftism, that is, for any ideas that can trace their squalid genealogy back to Karl Marx. Marx, like every other philosopher, was an ingegralist. In his case, he was trying to integrate Hegel and materialism, or Falsehood with falsehood. In so doing he created many seductive intellectual pathologies that continue to infect the mind of man -- the ideas of class struggle, oppression, exploitation, and collectivism, which have morphed into critical theory, deconstruction, victimology, political correctness, radical environmentalism, gender theory, feminism, afro-centrism, multicultrualism, cultural relativism, queer theory, the designated hitter, etc. There is no place for any of these things in my theory. If that makes me “non-integral” in the minds of some, that’s fine with me. I’m only trying to integrate truth, not lies. posted by Gagdad Bob at 12/23/2006 09:09:00 AM 43 comments links to this post Robert W. Godwin One Cosmos Under God