Kosmic Addressing of Mystical Experience - Integral Post-Metaphysical Spirituality2024-03-28T18:25:00Zhttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/kosmic-addressing-of-mystical?commentId=5301756%3AComment%3A51531&x=1&feed=yes&xn_auth=noIn the section of the "Integr…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2013-09-04:5301756:Comment:515312013-09-04T19:33:40.823ZBalderhttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/BruceAlderman
<p>In the section of the "Integral Semiotics" essay where Wilber discusses his Kosmic Addressing system, he argues that his semiotic/KA approach will allow us to avoid the common tendency to dismiss non-sensorimotor objects or referents as unreal. For instance, he remarks that materialists frequently dismiss buddha-nature as unreal or imaginary because it doesn't have simple location in the sensorimotor world; or they identify it as an imaginal product of brain activity, as opposed to…</p>
<p>In the section of the "Integral Semiotics" essay where Wilber discusses his Kosmic Addressing system, he argues that his semiotic/KA approach will allow us to avoid the common tendency to dismiss non-sensorimotor objects or referents as unreal. For instance, he remarks that materialists frequently dismiss buddha-nature as unreal or imaginary because it doesn't have simple location in the sensorimotor world; or they identify it as an imaginal product of brain activity, as opposed to something that is being authentically perceived (as one perceives a real apple).</p>
<p>I'm curious about some of the examples he uses, however, to illustrate this, and wonder if they do the work he would like. Several quotes to start with:</p>
<blockquote><p>1) When we perceive an apple, and say “I see the apple,” and the brain lights up in a particular way, we do not conclude, “The apple only exists as a brainwave pattern; it otherwise has no reality.” No, we conclude that the apple is a real object in the real world, and as the brain perceives it, it lights up in various specific ways. But what happens when we say the same type of sentence but a different referent, such as, when engaged in contemplation, “I see God,” and the brain again lights up in a specific way. Do we give to God the same reality we gave to the apple, and conclude that God is a real phenomenon in the real world, and the brain is lighting up as it sees this real item? No, in fact we don’t. In fact, we do just the opposite. We take whatever brainwave pattern we can find at the time—perhaps an increase in gamma waves—and we say, “When the brain produces excess gamma waves, then the subject will imagine that he or she is seeing God.” In other words, where with the apple the brainwaves are taken as extra proof that apples are real, with God, the brainwaves are taken as extra proof that God is just an imaginary object; it’s not real in the real world, but simply an imaginary product of certain brainwave patterns.</p>
<p>2) Simply giving a signifier or name to the object or event tells us nothing about whether that object or event is real (what about “unicorns,” or the “tooth fairy,” or “Santa Claus”? Turns out those are real, but only in the mythic worldspace. They cannot be found in the sensorimotor world, the rational world, the holistic world, etc., and are thus usually dismissed as fantasy, overlooking the genuine phenomenological reality those items have for those in the mythic worldspace, where those items are as real as any other object or event that can enter awareness at that level). </p>
<p>3) For a unicorn, which exists in the mythic worldspace (or Level 11) and the interior individual quadrant #1 (as an imaginal object), the KA would be (Q/1, L/11). For Buddha-nature, which exists in the interior individual quadrant (Q/1) and the causal state (S/c), the KA would be (Q/1, S/c).</p>
<p>4) The KA of the square root of a negative one is in the Upper-Left (Q/1) at the orange, rational, or Level 12 worldview (in fig. TBA), or (Q/1, L/12)o.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>How does an experience of "God," as a particular phenomenal enactment, relate to some of these other examples above -- and what sort of reality does Wilber's Kosmic Addressing system lend to it or ensure for it? For instance, Wilber argues that modern researchers often incorrectly treat experiences of God as "imaginary" because there is no external object we can point to in the sensorimotor world to correspond to the experience, and suggests instead that an experience of "God" is indeed akin to "perceiving an apple," but that it takes place in a different worldspace. He also argues that unicorns and the square root of negative one are as phenomenally real, in and for their respective worldspaces, as apples are in the sensorimotor worldspace. But at the same time, he describes the unicorn as an imaginal object. So, in what way is experiencing a unicorn similar to, and different from, experiencing an apple? or experiencing God? Do these illustrations show us a way to rescue God from being "imaginary"? Or do they simply demonstrate that imaginary phenomena, or conceptual phenomena, are also "phenomenally" real (at least to the extent that they can be experienced at particular stages of consciousness and that this experience will causally affect us in some ways)? In my view, the examples of the imagined unicorn and the mathematical concept of the square root of negative one, do not require or entail that they must <em>necessarily</em> be other than brain activities (with phenomenal aspects) that are capable of top-down influence in their very emergence and manifestation. If Wilber wants to rescue God from being a "brain activity," I'm not certain these examples of phenomenally real, world-space-associated mythic beings and mathematical concepts go quite far enough to achieve this...simply because these things, in themselves, do not contradict or decisively rule out their being dependent on (and/or inseparable from) our embodied cognition. What do you think?</p>
<p>One possible (deeper) problem I see with the thrust of Wilber's argument is that it defines the real apparently exclusively in terms of the phenomenal or empirical: what is "real" is what is phenomenally enacted / experienced. In other words, there is a kind of "flatland" ontology which does not differentiate (as Bhaskar and OOO do) among gradations in ontic depth (such as the empirical, the actual, and the real).</p>
<p>On another note, which echoes some of the concerns in the opening post of this thread, I think there are issues with how Wilber kosmically addresses God or Buddha-nature, as Q/1, S/c. In the opening post, I had argued that I found it problematic that Wilber never included (in <em>Integral Spirituality</em>) a stage designation when discussing experiences of Emptiness or Buddha-nature or Causal Spirit; he only included the quadrant and the state. In the "Integral Semiotics" essay, he does include a stage designation (Ultraviolet, etc). One of my concerns, however, is that he associates a state of consciousness (causal) with God or Spirit, by definition, and then introduces the stages to account for different developmental manifestations/experiences of God. I personally find this problematic -- even though I have experienced causal awareness in profound ways via training in meditation, dream and sleep yogas, etc. In my view, while we can interpret and experience causal awareness in terms of divinity, spirit, buddha-nature, etc, I think any one of these "insights" or interpretations must be associated with, and cannot be divorced from, other important aspects of Kosmic addressing (such as stage, type (culture), etc). The causal state in itself isn't "given" as "God."</p>
<p>What do you think?</p> And recall Sara saying this i…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2010-10-22:5301756:Comment:43012010-10-22T04:13:06.000ZEdward theurj Bergehttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/theurj
And recall Sara saying this in the "status of states" thread:<br></br>
<br></br>
"States and stages are two terms that originated from thinking at the Formal Operations order of complexity.... For example, how about the state of meditation, the ‘witnessing’ kind where the person watches their thoughts go by? It, too, is a formal operations activity, not 'transcendent' at all unless someone wants to project 'transcendence' on it.<br></br>
<br></br>
"So, if I’m in the 'watching thoughts and objects' meditative…
And recall Sara saying this in the "status of states" thread:<br/>
<br/>
"States and stages are two terms that originated from thinking at the Formal Operations order of complexity.... For example, how about the state of meditation, the ‘witnessing’ kind where the person watches their thoughts go by? It, too, is a formal operations activity, not 'transcendent' at all unless someone wants to project 'transcendence' on it.<br/>
<br/>
"So, if I’m in the 'watching thoughts and objects' meditative mode, per above, I’m functioning with formal operations’ ability to reflect on thought. My physiological system is just humming along in 'on' position, and my brain (neurological) is active, though will gradually slow to alpha wave, a nice and relaxed neurophysiological condition. When my thoughts and visuals cease, my neurological activity goes not 'off' but to like an idling phase and my overt mental actions slide down the orders of complexity to doing nothing - order zero. Total inner silence, except for the awareness that there’s inner silence, nothing going on. While there is nothing going on, zero complexity. During or after (depending on the practice) formal operational reflection on the absence of thought, visuals, etc., along with enjoying the after-effects. In this analysis, rather than transcending (I cannot find anything that’s transcended - can anyone help me out here?) it is gradually turning off cognitive operations till maybe we hit zero complexity (with caveat repeated: if we are reflecting on the silence/void, we are performing formal operations cognitively and are still active, and something would likely be showing up on fMRI brain imaging).<br/>
<br/>
"The real-time experience is relaxing - as Tom points out, the entire system is relaxed. The after-effects are pleasant. So, might we conclude that the subjective meaning we later assign to that state of relaxation could be whatever we individually want it to be? (this reminds me of the very old song, 'you say po-tah-to, I say po-ta-to'). Could be relaxing, spiritual, healthy, any number of classifications are possible, it seems to me." Also the following from that…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2010-10-22:5301756:Comment:42992010-10-22T02:35:13.000ZEdward theurj Bergehttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/theurj
Also the following from that thread, quoting Epstein from Chapter VI of the book:<br></br>
<br></br>
"Beyond the Oceanic Feeling<br></br>
<br></br>
"The equation of meditation with preverbal, symbiotic union or regressive oneness with the mother has gone virtually unchallenged within the psychoanalytic community" (124).<br></br>
<br></br>
"Meditation practices that produce an experience of one-pointedness, of dissolution of ego boundaries and fusion with a primary object, do gratify the desire to unite the ego with…
Also the following from that thread, quoting Epstein from Chapter VI of the book:<br/>
<br/>
"Beyond the Oceanic Feeling<br/>
<br/>
"The equation of meditation with preverbal, symbiotic union or regressive oneness with the mother has gone virtually unchallenged within the psychoanalytic community" (124).<br/>
<br/>
"Meditation practices that produce an experience of one-pointedness, of dissolution of ego boundaries and fusion with a primary object, do gratify the desire to unite the ego with that which it yearns to become. While recognizing the stabilizing impact of such experiences, traditional Buddhist psychology rejects the sole pursuance of such states" (134).<br/>
<br/>
"The traditional psychoanalytic formulation of the relationship between meditation and primary narcissism is correctly conceived but incomplete and undeveloped. Buddhist meditation seeks not a return to primary narcissism but liberation from the vestiges of that narcissism. Concentration practices do indeed evoke the ego ideal and the oceanic feeling in a manner well described by generations of analytic commentators, but the mindfulness practices, which define the Buddhist approach, seek to dispel the 'illusory ontology of the self' encapsulated within the ideal ego" (136).<br/>
<br/>
As I commented in the thread, Epstein is comparing types of meditation I'd call "causal," i.e., dissolution, as creating the ego ideal, a primary narcissism of regressive, oceanic union with the mother. Whereas mindfulness as he describes it uses the synthetic ego, per the previous post. Could it be that the kennilingus with his causal emptiness is guilty of the pre-trans fallacy here? Such irony... Recall this from the Buddhism…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2010-10-22:5301756:Comment:42982010-10-22T02:13:12.000ZEdward theurj Bergehttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/theurj
Recall this from the <a href="https://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B3ket5n91z-5OGI4MDZlZDctZjNkMi00M2Y4LWI2ZDQtZWJhODVmNmFkNzA2&hl=en" target="_blank">Buddhism and Psychoanalysis</a> thread on Epstein:<br></br>
<br></br>
"The development of mindfulness...involves a 'therapeutic split in the ego' in which the ego becomes both subject and object, observer and observed.<br></br>
<br></br>
"Advanced stages of insight meditation involve profound experiences of dissolution and fragmentation, yet the…
Recall this from the <a href="https://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B3ket5n91z-5OGI4MDZlZDctZjNkMi00M2Y4LWI2ZDQtZWJhODVmNmFkNzA2&hl=en" target="_blank">Buddhism and Psychoanalysis</a> thread on Epstein:<br/>
<br/>
"The development of mindfulness...involves a 'therapeutic split in the ego' in which the ego becomes both subject and object, observer and observed.<br/>
<br/>
"Advanced stages of insight meditation involve profound experiences of dissolution and fragmentation, yet the practitioner, through the practice of 'making present,' is able to withstand these psychic pressures. It is the ego, primarily through its synthetic function, that permits integration of the experience of disintegration. In true egolessness, there could be only disintegration, and such a state would manifest as psychosis.<br/>
<br/>
"Thus, mindfulness is not a means of forgetting the ego; it is a method of using the ego to observe its own manifestations." It might've been in the statu…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2010-10-21:5301756:Comment:42832010-10-21T21:24:44.000ZEdward theurj Bergehttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/theurj
It might've been in the status of states thread, and I'm sure in several others, that I've suggested that states and stages are not two different animals. It requires at least a formal operational cognition to even have these so-called subtle, causal and nondual state experiences via meditation, since they are, in fact, how formop integrates earlier cognitive levels/brain structures. So yes, we all sleep and dream but these states are not in themselves subtle and causal. They only become the…
It might've been in the status of states thread, and I'm sure in several others, that I've suggested that states and stages are not two different animals. It requires at least a formal operational cognition to even have these so-called subtle, causal and nondual state experiences via meditation, since they are, in fact, how formop integrates earlier cognitive levels/brain structures. So yes, we all sleep and dream but these states are not in themselves subtle and causal. They only become the latter through conscious(ness) practice. However, since formop is still representational it is "metaphysical" by definition and interprets a separation between states and stages, absolute and relative, and so on.<br/>
<br/>
Graphically, instead of the WC lattice, put formop in the mid-point of a figure 8, with the "states" above and the "stages" below. This pictorially shows the inverse relationship.<br/>
<br/>
Postmetaphysicality emerges at the postformal, but not sure specifically which particular stage, since there is no valid empirical research on this that I know of. Graphically this could be displayed as that midpoint expanded laterally into 4: systematic, metasystematic, paradigmatic and cross-paradigmatic. Get the picture?<br/>
<br/>
PS: I did note previously though that one who moves into postformal cognition does not necessarily integrate the earlier stages because they might not enact that transformation via meditation practice. So we can have the case of an un-integrated postformal, postmetaphysicist as well as an integrated, formal metaphysicist. And of course an integrated, postformal postmetaphysicist.<br/>
<br/>
But a pre-formal causal meditator? Unlikely. Recall that such traditions didn't start until the advent of formop in the Axial age. And that today it requires one be of a certain age to meditate, to have at least a rational ego, which I've said all along IS THE WITNESS! Ironically this witness in interpreted metaphysically, and how could it be otherwise since it arises in formop. I also started a conversation…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2010-10-21:5301756:Comment:42802010-10-21T19:09:51.000ZBalderhttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/BruceAlderman
I also started <a href="http://integrallife.com/member/balder/blog/kosmic-addressing-mystical-experience?show=all" target="_blank">a conversation about this</a> on the Integral Life website. In that discussion, our general consensus was that Wilber might have left "altitude" out of his addressing of "state" terms such as Emptiness or Ayin or Big Mind for simplicity's sake, and I do believe that's possible; but considering some of his other conventions, such as tying addressing to "degree" or…
I also started <a href="http://integrallife.com/member/balder/blog/kosmic-addressing-mystical-experience?show=all" target="_blank">a conversation about this</a> on the Integral Life website. In that discussion, our general consensus was that Wilber might have left "altitude" out of his addressing of "state" terms such as Emptiness or Ayin or Big Mind for simplicity's sake, and I do believe that's possible; but considering some of his other conventions, such as tying addressing to "degree" or "depth" of consciousness as such (as Theurj is discussing), and his use of states (as "horizontal" constants or givens in the Wilber-Combs lattice, as we discussed in the <a href="https://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AZE2w-dxx1huZGM1ZHhwcWJfMTI1YzRiajdwZGY&hl=en&authkey=CLOcycEC" target="_blank">Status of States</a> discussions), it may be that he actually <i>does</i> want to exempt them from the altitudinal component of addressing, despite some of the statements I quoted above that <i>seem</i> to indicate that this would be inappropriate (and metaphysical).