My model distinguishes stages and levels

andy smith Says: June 9th, 2007 at 1:59 pm I have criticized the W-C lattice extensively in articles at Frank’s site. I won’t try to regurgitate all that here, but just note one major difference between my model and Wilber’s. Wilber thinks there are nothing but levels, levels, levels, each one transcending and including the previous one (though he has hedged his bets recently with tiers). This view means that one reaches enlightenment by ascending level after level, and that the relationship of enlightenment to a lower level is much like the relationship between a lower level and some still lower level. Hence one has to postulate all these multi-colored vMemes, of which enlightenment is just the highest or a very high one, and gets into all sorts of problems wondering how earlier people could have realized those levels.

My model distinguishes stages and levels, based on enormous amounts of scientific, evolutionary and developmental evidence that Wilber blithely ignores or misrepresents. All the historical/developmental stages of humanity are on a single level, which is below that of enlightenment. So

a) one can in principle realize enlightenment from many different stages, without passing through all the others; and

b) the relationship of enlightenment to any of these stages is very different from their relationships among themselves.

This view avoids many other problems associated with the W-C lattice and the AQAL model in general.

Andy Smith Says: June 11th, 2007 at 8:36 am “In terms of Wilber’s use of levels, he does discuss the biosphere, noosphere, as well as the tiers. He mentions that the stages are variations on the states. Not entirely sure what that means except that around say indigo you are moving from the noosphere to the beginning theosphere. Something like as a stage the move from mind to soul in the great chain model.”

If these distinctions (like those between tiers) are different from those between stages, then are stages no longer believed to transcend and include one another, or do these higher distinctions involve something more than transcend and include? Silence from Wilber on this.

“You may not agree with the W-C Lattice but by the logic of that system no person needs to ascend to the highest levels for enlightenment. At least not what he now calls horizontal enlightenment or state-stages. Vertical enlightenment (stages) yes but with the qualification that one needs to reach the highest available at that time. So I don’t think it’s correct to say “enlightenment is just the highest or a very high one…”

By the logic of that system, one can temporarily realize a higher stage through a state, but can only permanently do so by moving to that higher stage. But what exactly is the difference between temporary and permanent realization of a stage? How can two individuals at the same stage, one of them temporarily realizing a higher state and the other not, have the same exterior or brain structure? And if they can’t, how can they be at the same stage? Wilber’s conception of stages as distinct from structures is inconistent with his own principle that every interior is correlated with a particular exterior. Two people at different states must have different interiors, so how can they have the same exteriors?

Andy Smith Says: June 11th, 2007 at 8:55 am It’s very difficult, obviously, to dissaude people from their own worldview, certainly to tell them that they have no right to promote it. It seems to me that the most powerful argument against the religious right, or against any worldview, is to show that it’s inconsistent. To reject the concept of evolution is to reject the scientific method. To be consistent then, those of the religious right should not fly on airplanes, watch TV, use cellphones, go to hospitals, or make use of any other forms of modern technology. If one doesn’t believe in the scientific method, one should not be able to put one’s trust in technology that is based on this method...

So the religious right, I would say, survives because of its hypocrisy. Fundamentalists love to chastise people with liberal religious beliefs for picking and choosing what parts of the Bible they will follow, but they use the same approach with regard to science. They are very happy to have all the advantages of science and technology, yet continue to trash science when it conflicts with their view of our origins. Open Integral