Tom on "Quantum Enlightenment"

[Balder]

For anyone interested --

Tom, a former member of IPS, has posted an interesting -- and lengthy! -- blog on Integral Life.

 

Quantum Enlightenment 

[infimitas]

Ouch, did I say that?  The fucking paper on which ... ?

 

Must resist urge to comment.Must resist urge to comment.Must resist urge to comment...

[Balder]

AQAL is supposed to contain 2p implicitly in its 1p-pl (LL, "We"), but as Mark Edwards and others have pointed out, this doesn't really seem sufficient.  There are reasons to refer to 2p outside of the context of a 1p-pl emphasis and this should be handled separately. 

But concerning there only being "relatedness down there," my take on that is that 1p, 2p, and 3p (and plural variants) are all forms or types of relatedness, not just 2p.  While I think AQAL likely would benefit from something like Edwards' expansion (to 6 domains, I believe, including 2p), I believe the Wilber-V approach does get at this deep 'situatedness' and radical relationality, at least in theory if not always in popular application or expression.  In Wilber-V AQAL, as in QM, there are no 'things' -- there are 'perspectives,' e.g., relationships.

[kelamuni]

Interesting. I'll remember that. This relates back to the "problem" of the "causal/subtle."

Balder said:

 In Wilber-V AQAL, as in QM, there are no 'things' -- there are 'perspectives,' e.g., relationships.

[Edward theurj Berge]

Balder: “In Wilber-V AQAL, as in QM, there are no 'things' -- there are 'perspectives,' e.g., relationships.”

 

kela: “Interesting. I'll remember that. This relates back to the 'problem' of the 'causal/subtle.'"

 

Indeed it does, though I may be thinking on different lines than kela here. Recall as one example this post where perspectives/relationships only apply to the relative realm, whereas in the absolute/causal there are none. Also remember this from footnote 7 of Excerpt C:

 

"Is there any perception that is not a perspective? Yes, I believe so, and it has to do with satori or nondual awareness (or pure Emptiness--consciousness without an object, which is therefore consciousness without a perspective), which I will explore in later excerpts. The conclusion of this integral reformulation of the wisdom traditions is that samsara (or the world of Form) is composed of perspectives, and nirvana (or Emptiness) is pure perception without an object or perspective. The union of Emptiness and Form is thus the union of perception and perspective."

 

For those defenders of the faith that quip "but that was an old excerpt, he's evolved from that view," see the referenced post above to numerous example in IS where it just ain't so. The causal most absolutely poo poos P2P pee, its metaphysical "union" notwithstanding.

[Balder]

Wilber:  Thus, each level is a whole that is part of the whole of the next higher level: each level is a whole/part, a holon, possessing both agency (wholeness) and communion (partness).

Tom:  The last phrase strikes me as wrong.  Agency looks to me to be differentiation, or in other words partness.  Communion  is wholeness.  Is my brain wired backwards?

Just speculating: maybe it is better to say agency is something like whole-in-part and communion is part-in-whole.  I think Wilber says agency is 'whole' because agentic action manifests in quanta of action: when I want to get up, my whole body gets up.  And I think he says communion is 'part' because communing requires at least two sentient beings, experiencing deep relationship or interdependence.  But, in my view, agency is neither strictly whole (quanta of action are intentional, are oriented-towards), nor communion strictly part (it involves 'seeing through' partness to wholeness), which is why I suggest some hyphenated (non-dual) state of affairs.

Tom:  Leave AQAL as the map.  Return AQAL to its foundational concepts of single-plural and interior-exterior.  Those are good mapping terms.  But remove any association of interior with 1P, and exterior with 3P.  Then take 1P-2P-3P and let them be aspects of each quadrant, the movement of a given quadrant in three aspects.  I suspect that works.

This is interesting.  I think Wilber is approaching something like this now with his discussion of zones, since now zones allow you to differentiate between the inside and the outside of interior and exterior perspectives (for instance, take a 3p approach to 1p). Your suggestion goes a bit beyond this and would be interesting to explore.

Balder: “In Wilber-V AQAL, as in QM, there are no 'things' -- there are 'perspectives,' e.g., relationships.”

kela: “Interesting. I'll remember that. This relates back to the 'problem' of the 'causal/subtle.'"

Theurj:  Indeed it does, though I may be thinking on different lines than kela here. Recall as one example this post where perspectives/relationships only apply to the relative realm, whereas in the absolute/causal there are none.

Yes, of course, we've discussed that many times, and I've raised my own objections to the metaphysical and dualistic framing of this (in the Status of States threads, in Kosmic Addressing of Mystical Experience, and elsewhere.)  In my talk with him a few months ago, he did mention the causal (in response to a comment I was making in my paper), saying that the 'causal state' involves the momentary loss of perspective, experience, etc -- it is a 'gap' of sorts -- but then immediately 'gets' situated when we come out of it and begin to reflect on it.  I think such a 'state' is possible, having experienced such 'gaps' in my own meditation or sleep yoga training -- but, yes, his interpretation of it still seems split and metaphysical, as you say.  But in this thread (and others), I think we've explored some ways this could be approached more satisfactorily...

[Balder]

One interesting observation is that Wilber's "communion" is represented in AQAL by the "plural" column, the right-hand quadrants.  Those quadrants describe 3P "its."  Thus for Wilber, communion is a communion of its.  That doesn't work for me and suggests confusion in his labeling.

 

The plural quadrants are the bottom half, so it includes not only a plurality of its but a plurality if I's, with agency being "I" and communion being "We" (I's-in-union). 

 

It seems, then, that when focusing on agency, communion will be in the backdrop, and vice-versa.  I still think Wilber may have it backwards.  Communion is to me an experience of wholeness in the foreground, with partness operating necessarily or by implication in the background.  Agency, for its part, implies the unity of the self, so likewise operates in a dual context.  But I see agency as a moving, differentiating force, which to me conveys part in the foreground, or partializing, if you will.

 

Yes, that makes sense to me.  Perhaps agency is sort of a feeling of 'wholeness' or integrity in the part, which orients toward other parts, whereas communion is the feeling of wholeness eclipsing distinct parts.

[infimitas]

Wilber (from Theurji's post): "... samsara (or the world of Form) is composed of perspectives, and nirvana (or Emptiness) is pure perception without an object or perspective. The union of Emptiness and Form is thus the union of perception and perspective."

 

There is no such thing as Pure Perception as something separate from perspectives.  We could imagine reality as consisting only as Pure Perception, but this would result in the nonsensical idea of an Absolute Subject without an object(s) -- perception without something to perceive is a logical impossibility.  If the Absolute Subject (God?) divides itself into fragments though, then each part can perceive other parts, allowing for a subject-object division that comes out of subjectivity alone.  This means that duality and monism can both be accepted as true, reconciled within a genuinely non-dual ontology.

 

I don't know how seriously to take any of that, but it seems much more compelling a vision to me.  It also has some similarities to Vedanta, and perhaps Daoism.  Oh, and it answers Heidegger.

[Balder]

Tom: AQAL itself looks to be a linearization of wholeness, a squaring of a circle (which is impossible).  AQAL, as square, is a map, which to my mind is linear.  This linearization shows in AQAL being a map of parts (1P and 3P dominance).  This accords with Wilber's statements that that map is written on the paper of suchness, or wholeness.  Wholeness is thus the backdrop of AQAL, which preferences the parts modality in the foreground.

 

The quadrants, at least when taken as a representation of the Kosmic Holon, would be a counterfeit whole, in Bortoft's sense, especially if said Kosmic Holon is taken as "Everything" (e.g., AQAL as map of "everything," the totality*).  The image of the paper being the "emptiness" on which the map is written is intended, I believe, to point in the direction of Bortoft's authentic whole (as active absence) but the nature of this metaphor is limited, in that it seems to reify and rigidly "fix" such emptiness or wholeness as a static super-container.

 

 

* Elsewhere we have talked about Mark Edwards' preference to treat AQAL as "theory for anything" rather than "theory of everything," which preference I share.

[valli]

 

Balder - In Wilber-V AQAL, as in QM, there are no 'things' -- there are 'perspectives,' e.g., relationships.

 

perspectives have interiors and exteriors, this seems to be missing in the whole language of evolutionary spirituality and consciousness. From Gebser and Wilbur and others. The language is too generic, there is a need for discrimination and distinction as a premise to sustain whatever  complexity is in order, which otherwise gets merely speculative .  how about some critical realism or meta reality? I have not read Bhaskar :)

If perspectives are relationships ( or a set of enacted perspectives) then their exteriors are subjects and objects. Whether perspectives are things or relationships, they have an interior . which means an interpretation has an interior. Every thing is an interpretation and enacted  relations are interpretations of these interpretations. This is not really defining  because, enacted relations or perspectives are the content of the first interpretation, and one thing adds to the other, its accumulative, not an important distinction I guess. But the interiors of perspectives where perception arises, indivisible within and without, never a part, needs attention . perception arises and then observation exists, and does not. The zone of acausality and creativity. Iam thinking, is there a map of any of this ?

 

.

[valli]

 

On Gebser's Atemporal

 

Evolution is enmasse, acausality is individual (as in indivisible, therefore containing a whole that cannot be partitioned  and differs from the epistemological notion of whole) evolution is change over time and may always be so.  not a problem, it is what it is. When spirituality comes in we are speaking of a process other than evolution (among other things Schrödinger’s discontinuity and Bonnita Roy’s context transcendant meaning , come to mind) whats coming through is it does not transalate in evolutionary terms – doesn’t mean it doesn’t affect evolution. It looks like a feature of the nature of observation. like when being happens

Heres a view – once something happens or comes into being, then there is a phase of sheer momentum which is evolution. As a result of dynamic nature ofthese events like the  big bang. (big bang as metaphor)  And if these shifts don’t happen then the movement just ends . But the movement in itself is distinct, like evolution will always be linear. And the scientific truth (according to Ted :)  that there is not a fossil out of place in fifteen billion years is not unlikely. It could be even indisputable as an event in time measured by another event in time. So in itself its not an error, but its just part of the story.

[valli]

 

Iam a guy who likes navigating mystery. why do i feel like being silly now? is there something wrong with that?

:)

[valli]

 

There is also a basic question - since evolution is defined as change over time - can it include processes that occur, not of time?