You may say it's just good-natured ribbing or an endearment or a funny joke, but I certainly don't buy that. I've been reading this forum since its inception, and I know your attitudes. Any attempt to explain this away as something nice and friendly would surely be gaslighting, and it certainly isn't more clever than the name calling I heard in high school. And have you thought how this might affect Bruce's reputation as an expert in inter-faith communication and world spirituality? Have you noticed how he doesn't call people names, aside from friendly jest? And why is it only Wilber that you've singled out for this friendly, respectful treatment? Why don't you call Bruce Blowj** or Derrida Derriere or Chomsky Chumpsky? I'm sure Bruce wouldn't like to be called Blowj** for seven years straight, so why would Wilber or anyone who likes him or anyone who simply wants to have a mature discussion? 

You've been riddling the Facebook forum with these names as well. "Lingam" is obviously a euphemism for "dick," and you write that and the "Cult of Kennilingus" in the Fourth Turning thread. I can't imagine anyone thinks this is cool or clever, especially repeated so many times. I know one person from the Wilber camp who said he was going to leave because of the tone in that group; I imagine Bruce talked him into staying. But I'm sure there are many more who wouldn't even stop in as a result, who would simply roll their eyes and go somewhere else for a mature, integral discussion. It doesn't affect me, but it tends to distract from the discussion, and I am pretty sure it keeps some people away. It's just not very pluralistic or integral or friendly to persist in that kind of name calling -- year after year. At the very least I think you might consider confining that kind of affect and name calling to this forum and letting the Facebook forum try to develop a more mature mode of discourse.

Views: 435

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion


The Christmas Wiki defines "kennilingus" as "humorous and quasi-offensive".  That means it both is and is not pejorative -- depending on how specifically we understand its area of application.

As for the word "false" -- it must not, I think, be taken in the mathematical sense of "proven to be nonfunctional".  We should not worry too much about proving its falsity -- but about exploring its qualities and typical behavior relative to other forms of reasoning.  This, after all, is the integrative double-necessity: that we both critique & validate.  Those who are temperamentally inclined to validation often undervalue the importance of the complaint that certain forms of obvious reasoning are not obvious at all.  But then again the critics spend less of their time dealing with the fact that "false" is always phenomenologically valid from some perspectives.

Lakoff is not a metatheorist, not exactly.  But does he present insights which depend upon a post-pluralistic cognition -- and which have ethical and pragmatic implications for the upward movement of the whole spiral in the contemporary epoch?  Probably.

It our job to both utilize/connect and distinguish-between people who are (a) approximating the general state of metatheory as we know it today (b) providing tools and tentacles by which metatheory and its originating ethos may flourish.

To accuse Wilber of false reason has a dash of hyperbole in it.

To mistake the notion of "false reason" for a reduction to the eye of flesh is an incomplete evaluation.  The issue is not merely that our concepts and their relationships arise embedded (as conservatives demonstrate) in life-contexts rather than (as liberals anticipate) a free universal mechanism.  It is, instead, that our logic must be examined for places in which they predictably fail to indicate what they are apparently indicating.  The eyes of flesh, mind & spirit are all capable of encountering "optical illusions".  And just because something is confessed by the denizens of a particular perspective does not mean that it accurately (in their own experience) describes to other people what that perspective involves.

Well, personally I can't find those names amusing or clever. I find it sad, actually, to see them repeated so often. Why not have a mature discussion instead? You said earlier that we should assume everyone is reaching for higher levels of affect, but how can I assume that when someone persists in calling one of the most important figures in the discussion a "Lingam" or people who like him members of the "Cult of Kennilingus"? Self-transcendence also happens to be one of the most controversial items in the integral noosphere; many people have disagreed with that, developmentalism, and global norms rather passionately.
"As for the word "false" -- it must not, I think, be taken in the mathematical sense of "proven to be nonfunctional"."
In that case, it isn't a good choice of words and needs to be re-languaged for an integral framing. The framing can't survive in an integral theory, I am pretty sure. These "embodied" metaphors will surely change as one identifies with the high subtle, low causal, causal, etc. In many cases I actually think these embodied metaphors (like backwards and forwards, higher and lower -- in the context of stages of growth or immanence) inhibit a finer understanding of spiritual development. I think we will likely need some metaphors that are LESS influenced by the gross realm if we are going to characterize some of these phenomena accurately and realize them more easily.
I agree that embodied cognition is important to understand; I said that a number of times. I also didn't merely say that false reason was a "reduction" to the eye of the flesh. I said:
"Lakoff appears to want everything reduced to or subordinated to or "grounded in" the eye of the flesh." However we want to describe it, it is excessive. He says, for example:
"In the course of our research we ran up against a mythology…a kind of `romance" of mathematics…that goes something like this:… mathematics has an objective existence… independent of and transcending the existence of human beings or any beings at all."
Edwyrd echoes this:
"L&J get more refined that Wilber's general graph above  . . . Holons aren't an apriori part of the structure of the universe apart from the brain that perceives them, just as math is not. Holons and math are not involutionary* but evolutionary givens firmly grounded in the body and its interactions with the environment. We can eliminate the metaphysical underpinnings of Wilber's edifice by simply going into the details of his own sources."
Here we need paradox -- something like the difference between existing and subsisting that Wilber discusses in Integral Spirituality. Holons don't exist until humans can cognize them, but we can say they have subsisted. If you believe in Bhaskar's critical realism, certainly you have to believe that. Their overall ontological status is thus paradoxical and elusive. The same would be true for the involutionary mathematical laws Wilber discussed in Excerpt A:
"Most physicists today believe that when the Big Gang occurred, it seemed to be following certain physical laws described by mathematics.  These mathematical matrices therefore must have been present at or before the Big Bang (i.e., as involutionary givens), and not something that came into being after the Big Bang and were then inherited by the future (which would be an evolutionary a priori for subsequent moments, and which do indeed exist; but these mathematical forms appear to be involutionary a priori—not anything created in the past but present all along)."
The awareness of these mathematical laws certainly didn't exist until human beings cognized them, but, like atoms and molecules and cells (holons), they may have subsisted.
With regard to the difference between conservative and liberal framings, I think the liberal framings do resonate with liberals -- these candidates get lots of votes, sometimes the most. It would be smart politics, however, to reframe discussions (metaphorically, cognitively, morally) to the groups we are trying to reach. It is a very important inquiry, I think. Both sides seem to think that if they make their case on their terms and in their language everyone but idiots will believe them. The job of integral politics would be to find a way to reach a majority or plurality of people, as necessary.
Reply by theurj yesterday
I appreciate your perspective David but am not interested in discussing it with you. You can conclude from that what you will, and I'm sure you will. Take care.
PS: And yes, Bruce is much more open to that sort of dialogue and I respect him for it. That's not my bag, so to speak.
Permalink Reply by Balder yesterday
Why don't you call Bruce Blowj** or Derrida Derriere or Chomsky Chumpsky? I'm sure Bruce wouldn't like to be called Blowj** for seven years straight, so why would Wilber or anyone who likes him or anyone who simply wants to have a mature discussion?
No, Dildo, you're right -- I wouldn't like being called Blowjob for seven years running!  :-D
Permalink Reply by David yesterday
My offer to discuss it with you, Edwyrd, remains open. I would just ask you to please treat people with more respect and please not color both forums with names like "Lingam" and "Kennilingus." Otherwise it would seem that you simply move from active-aggression to passive-aggression and then back to active-aggression. I'm sure I'm not the only one who would appreciate a discussion without name calling. If you simply must continue with it, I think using that kind of language and affect here but not on Facebook is a reasonable compromise. 
Permalink Reply by David yesterday
Would you like it even once, Bruce?
Permalink Reply by Balder yesterday
It would depend on the context, I guess.  In most cases, probably not ... but I can't say never!  :-)  I'm not sure how much Wilber would actually object to Edwyrd's nickname for him, since when I met KW in person, he jokingly asked for volunteers from the JFKU students present to give him a blowjob, and he also pantomimed masturbation with a rolled up thangka.  So, he has a kind of raunchy humor (as Boomeritis also makes abundantly clear!).  But I agree with you, David, that referring to Wilber almost only with mocking nicknames is likely off-putting to some people, and think it would be good to find more of a happy medium.
Permalink Reply by Ambo Suno yesterday
Hi David, and t - yes, I must admit that the ongoing references to Ken in this way diminishes my attraction to this site and to reading t's rich comments. I hit an inner speed bump pretty much every time I read it and am faced with such a snippet of shocking and incongruous image in my mind. I thought that I might get past this aesthetic glitch but apparently it is more. Creative, sure, but I'd prefer not having to read it. Thanks.
Peace, ambo

David said:
My offer to discuss it with you, Edwyrd, remains open. I would just ask you to please treat people with more respect and please not color both forums with names like "Lingam" and "Kennilingus." Otherwise it would seem that you simply move from active-aggression to passive-aggression and then back to active-aggression. I'm sure I'm not the only one who would appreciate a discussion without name calling. If you simply must continue with it, I think using that kind of language and affect here but not on Facebook is a reasonable compromise. 
Permalink Reply by theurj yesterday
Ok, I'll try to give it up for the sake of the easily offended. It's a hard habit so it might be difficult.
Permalink Reply by Layman Pascal 23 hours ago
I'm for judicious usage.  I think "kennilingus" is both kinda funny and kinda reveals something which rears its head from time to time -- that's why it deserved to be added to the Christmas Wiki.  On the other hand, the "lingam" and "false" terms often seem to come up too much or have too hard an edge -- especially when they are used without careful (and therefore somewhat tedious) explanation of their meaning.
As Ambo says, these words can be a speed bump.  But at the same time -- no road is expected to be perfectly smooth.  I say: favor the funnier ones and use them artfully. 

theurj said:
Ok, I'll try to give it up for the sake of the easily offended. It's a hard habit so it might be difficult.
Permalink Reply by andrew 22 hours ago
In the off chance that you go into a creative slump i invite you to use the only minimally irreverent Southparkian , 'Kenny'! Perhaps, though, given the fervent religiosity that will most likely surround this mans passing we might want to to start using the more Romanesque, ' The Yellow King". 
Permalink Reply by Layman Pascal 22 hours ago
Oh, my God!  The Yellow King killed Kenny Wilber!  That bastard...
Permalink Reply by David 18 hours ago
I think we might consider what an integral view of humor would look like. Here is a start:
Egocentric humor -- it is funny to me, but no one else
Ethnocentric humor -- it is funny to those inside my group, but not to people outside my group
Worldcentric humor -- it is funny to all human beings
Planetcentric humor -- even the seagulls and monkeys are laughing now
Kosmocentric humor -- the gods and angels have joined in on the fun
Permalink Reply by andrew 17 hours ago
A bubble over Andrew's head, " they do know that i was obliquely alluding to the first integral stage of sdi?"
That the idea did come from the American noir drama series is a little beside the point, I think. It's not the sole purpose of humour, I think, to be funny only, but to point to various truisms that may be funny if one is not overly sensitive to criticism. But true , some humour may be prone to getting stale.
Reply by Layman Pascal 14 hours ago
Okay, consider humor as a "line" what do we find:
Aboriginal Humor - A clansman is made to do something which falls outside of the lore but is not taboo -- like unnecessarily eating testicles (Mel Gibson's "Apocalypto")
Barbarian Humor - A villager or horde member thinks they are going to gain status but they lose status by virtue of that same move.  The coyote thinks he is going to catch the roadrunner but his plan leads to his own collapse!
Ethnocentric Humor - The imposed "patriotic" icons (and dogmatic domestic order of affairs under the control of militarized oligarchic barons) present familiar herd characters who non-threateningly reveal the fact that they do not live up to their idealistic assertions.
Modern Humor - The individual finds himself disadvantaged by his freedom from the traditional customs but nonetheless retains his enthusiasm.  He is aware that content is being filed under conflicting categories (Schopenhauer's definition of the "ludicrous").
Pluralistic Humor - Reality is itself mocked by virtue of the presentation of idiosyncratic juxtapositions in which ironic fools attain mastery through their willing submission to the reversal of the rational order.
Integrative Humor - Humor is a sacralizing function created wherever things are both funny and not funny as a result of a shared logic.
Divine - Its funny because of the bliss which exceeds the limitations of what it IS.
Permalink Reply by David 13 hours ago
My scheme focuses on the moral line. So if something is funny to just you and me but is at someone else's expense it falls well short of integral humor. 
Permalink Reply by andrew 13 hours ago
But anyone of us at any given time can draw on the humorous aspects of the various memes that still reside within all of us to certain degrees. I personally found the Wyatt Herb (sic) episode funny as hell. I mean, I could have chosen to be offended, I guess, but my disposition has a strong irreverent aspect to it. I like Christianity for the same reason. It's able to laugh at its absurdities; whereas some other traditions take themselves a little bit too seriously. My feeling is that this is more a matter of personal disposition rather than some overarching schema. Here's the kicker: if I fully know that someone is going to be upset by my humour and I use it anyway; then, I am letting a 'redder' part of myself act out. At that point it may behoove one to listen to the greener pastures that reside in all of us. Thus speaks the ironic fool:)
Permalink Reply by andrew 13 hours ago
Furthermore, I think that the person offended may want to look a little deeper into themselves about why they are offended. In true conservative style I would suggest that when one finds oneself upset by humour, then one might consider taking responsibility for ones  own reactions. Perhaps this might entail a little look into ones shadow? 
Permalink Reply by David 12 hours ago
Hi, Andrew. I prefer the "integral style" of looking at it from both perspectives. It is good to look at oneself and take responsibility for one's reactions AND it is good to take a look at one's culture or collective and take responsibility for that.
With regard to shadow, I think people like Ambo and I have had several years to examine our reactions and take responsibility for them. I brought it up once a few years ago and then remained silent for another few years -- overall about seven years of silence minus a few days. But as Ambo said, there is something more than our own reactions or attachments going on. 
Also, those continually haranguing Wilber and people who like him might consider the possibility they are shadowboxing. After all these years of haranguing, maybe it's time for a little introspection. If you continue to disregard the feelings and requests of others (not speaking to Edwyrd, who I think has been very considerate recently), you might also explore the possibility you are not yet able to see and feel things from their perspective and/or haven't developed a level of care that includes enough people.
Permalink Reply by andrew 11 hours ago
Hey David, I appreciate the reply. I wasn't necessarily talking about any one individual, but more generally about those who feel offended. And sometimes there is good reason to feel offended, I wouldn't deny that. I do think I have a rather strong ability to take  the perspective of others , but you may have a point on the latter. I do try to keep my criticism of Wilber and IT in general to specific issues where I find disagreement. I don't think this in and of itself is inconsiderate, but at times it may come across like that. Obviously, there is much agreement in my mind when it comes to IT, but not everything. I think I remember you from previous forums ( I think you were a Zappa fan), but I've only recently talked with Ambo, so he is new to me. I can't recall saying anything to him personally that might have been offensive, however, I'd get it if he takes issue with some of my perspectives. 
Permalink Reply by David 10 hours ago
I don't find disagreement or criticism about IT problematic. In fact, that's what I was hoping to find when I first came to integral forums. I thought, "Wow, there's going to be a lot of cool, cutting-edge criticism that's going to open up my thinking as much as Wilber has." But then I found that nearly all the criticism wasn't informed or was hung up on some basic interpretive issues. I am not commenting on your criticisms there or any one person in particular, just a general comment.
The other thing is the basic tone and affect of it and whether there is some kind of emotional problem that's the real hang up and Wilber is getting blamed for it. Or the idea that, "I am right, so I am justified in being rude, making jokes at other people's expense, engaging in extreme polemics. It's my job to wake them up, and the ends will justify the means." Many people from Infrared to Clear Light will have the conviction that they are right; it doesn't justify anyone to engage in violence. This is one reason I have never thought the Wyatt Earpy blogs were justified -- it will just encourage others to think they are justified in using the same tactics, and virtually all of them won't be. It thus makes sense to establish non-violent speech as a cultural trait -- disagreement and debate are okay in some contexts, but just not ad hominen violence, haranguing, or continual unpleasantness.
It's perhaps one thing if you sign onto guru yoga, and your guru makes fun of you or calls you names and so forth to awaken you. In that case you have agreed that someone is your teacher and consented to it. But it would be arrogant for someone to decide that they're the online guru, and they have a right to wake people up because they're just so right. It seems that a lot of people do things online that they wouldn't in person or when their personal interests were at stake, and I think that's pretty problematic.
In any case, Zappa, yes, that sounds like me. What forum was that? Were you using the same name? I thought about posting some music here the other night, not Zappa, but I couldn't find a thread where it seemed to fit. It also didn't seem to fit with the ongoing conflict.
Permalink Reply by andrew 9 hours ago
Yup, you're  the same David. From zaadz. gaia. You can always tell who I am from my crappy grammar! lol
Anyway, I didn't say Wilber was right in his approach to his critics in the Earpy episode ; I said I personally found it funny. I agree with you, not his finest hour and he might even admit there might have been better avenues of exchange. Fortunately, I haven't come across any online gurus using the rude boy routine ( although that Pascal dude:) , but I don't have a hard time imagining it. 
It might be, too, that what people get offended by is their stage of moral development. I tried that on my kid when she was young and she answered Kolberg's question without hesitation in instant black and white terms. I spent a half an hour with her explaining different perspectives ( they bewildered her at the time). So, that may play a part in the offence. Folks at trans moral stages may be less prone to offence, but I agree, that shouldn't be licence for abuse. 
You can look on the Sam Harris thread where I took him to task on one of his mistaken perspectives, too. I wasn't rude or anything, and I did provide plenty of links that argued for his being incorrect on that particular issue.
My first and most for most critique of Wilber was along the lines of anyone trying to lay personal claim to a stage of human development. Wrong road there, imo. 
Anyway, i could swear I just saw this transcendent platonic reason hovering right above me ! whoa! dude!
You still in Chicago, man?

Thanks for doing that Edward. I was completely mindful of the off-topic trajectory of the thread, btw. 

Good morning David, 

I am going to lay out my criticisms of Wilber and IT here as this seems like as good a time or place as any. 

- I've already mentioned that  I consider it silliness and hubris for any one individual or group to try and claim ownership of a stage of human civilization. As an example , Sir Isaac Newton was one of the great forefathers of the scientific paradigm, but I don't see that he tried to say that he owned the scientific worldview. 

-I disagree strongly that evolution as it has come to be known by scientists needs love/eros to explain its most hidden workings. I have no problem with anyone believing that as a personal matter of faith, but not as science. Why not just call oneself a theistic evolutionist? That, it seems to me, is showing deference to both fields of enquiry.

- I find Ken's take on Christianity particularly weak. To colour code ___ out of the universe is a funny kind of gambit to me. I have more to say here but I'll leave it at one sentence.

 - that Ken seems to espouse as integral the third way neoliberal policies of the ruling elite is closer to blindness than truth, imo. This worldwide takeover of the commons and the commodification of everything is a spiritual malady that isn't going to be solved by patronizing this system. The system, is also by the day becoming more and more unjust . It needs strong voices to speak against it; not collaborate with it. I can see CC as a move in the right direction as long as it speaks out strongly against the neoliberal status quo.

- IT has too much male agency. Where are the woman being book reviewed, etc.? IT looks like the mythic patriarchy Ken's always railing against. 

- that people are not intelligent enough to understand his absolute truth and take on things borders on offensive. See the end of I.S. Really smart people do really bad things all the time. I.Q. in and of itself is no guarantee of anything; least of all a just society .

- did I mention that LP is a dweeb? Damn , I'm not supposed to say things like that!

Hi, Andrew. I'll respond to a few of the IT questions.

Andrew: "I've already mentioned that  I consider it silliness and hubris for any one individual or group to try and claim ownership of a stage of human civilization. As an example , Sir Isaac Newton was one of the great forefathers of the scientific paradigm, but I don't see that he tried to say that he owned the scientific worldview."

Has anyone really tried to claim ownership of a stage of human civilization? I don't see that anyone has. I think some people have taken responsibility for it, but that is a different thing than claiming ownership. They also haven't taken responsibility in an exclusive way; rather they have encouraged people to take the ball and run with it. This is like most other memes, epistemes, or movements.

Andrew: "I disagree strongly that evolution as it has come to be known by scientists needs love/eros to explain its most hidden workings. I have no problem with anyone believing that as a personal matter of faith, but not as science. Why not just call oneself a theistic evolutionist? That, it seems to me, is showing deference to both fields of enquiry."

I think Wilber does recognize this distinction. For example, he describes evolutionary spirituality (including eros/agape) as a "myth" in Excerpt A:

"Here is a myth that is sometimes useful in suggesting notions that cannot be grasped dualistically or conceptually in any event: As Spirit throws itself outward (that’s called involution) to create this particular universe with this particular Big Bang, it leaves traces or echoes of its Kosmic exhalation.  These traces constitute little in the way of actual contents or forms or entities or levels, but rather a vast morphogenetic field that exerts a gentle pull (or Agape) toward higher, wider, deeper occasions, a pull that shows up in manifest or actual occasions as the Eros in the agency of all holons. . . . 

As I said, this is a useful myth.

            *          *          *          *

Within that myth, we can summarize.  The postulated list of involutionary givens seems to include:

(1) Eros.  Eros basically is derived from one fact: Spirit creates the entire manifest world and every holon in it; in fact, every holon is Spirit-in-itself playing at being Other (e.g., the great nest of morphogenetic potential often summarized as matter, body, mind, soul, and spirit is actually Spirit-as-matter, Spirit-as-body, Spirit-as-mind, Spirit-as-soul, and Spirit-as-spirit). . . . "

Andrew: "I find Ken's take on Christianity particularly weak."

I would also be interested in hearing more on Ken's take on integral Christianity. I think that project did get a boost with Wilber V, but he seems to bring in Christian mystics rather than talk about it himself. I think part of his reluctance may be that he wants to be taken seriously by scientists and academics, so he needs to be careful about his use of the word "God" and his treatment of religion in general. He has said he doesn't talk so much about such things as the Second Face of Spirit for this reason.

Andrew: "That Ken seems to espouse as integral the third way neoliberal policies of the ruling elite is closer to blindness than truth, imo."

First of all, I have a pretty progressive interpretation or application of integral in the political-economic sphere myself. I like the integral idea because I think it would be more effective, but my own views tend to be on the progressive side. I don't always agree with progressives or liberals, but my views on democracy and economics, for example, are on the progressive side, but not what I would call radically progressive. I am not someone who rants about tearing down the entire system and building something else, that is. I don't see that things like anarcho-syndicalism are a viable option at this point, for example, and I think to think so drains power from reform movements. I'm all for something radically different, but I just haven't seen a compelling alternative to some kind of hybrid capitalist/socialist system, which is what we have already in North America, Europe, and a few other places to one degree or another, only we all need one that distributes profits fairly, truly represents the public interest, etc.

I think people jump to conclusions about Wilber's own political beliefs and at the same time overrate the importance of them, even if his views are what they say they are. He has actually been very careful about his comments; he hasn't wanted to alienate progressives, just move them into integral. That has basically been my take. He has basically just argued for an integration of interior- and exterior-causation perspectives, for example, without taking a stand on many specific issues. But even if he has argued for a brand of integral that leans on the conservative side (when I feel the U.S., for example, is leaning too much to the conservative side already on issues like the drug war, campaign finance, etc.), I don't see why that should matter too much or have implications on the theory. IT can be used to promote a progressive agenda, and it could probably be used to promote a conservative agenda as well, or something in between. But I think its flexibility is a strength there because the situation will differ from country to country, from region to region in some cases, and also from issue to issue.


Two streams come together. 

One stream is very sensitive to what I have called (as a demonstration of borderline good taste) the "OLEG problem" - our tendency to express authentic wisdom in styles that undercut it, primitive styles, separative styles, etc. 

The other stream affirms the absolute necessity to keep a ribald, aggressive, humorous, critical attitude in play. 

No one, I am sure, denies the importance of both streams.  The question is -- does any given instance become "too much" of one and not enough of the other?

It is not a homogeneous situation.  Some words have more cleverness, more humor than others.  Some start to quickly sound petulant or needlessly snippy.  Others actually have an interesting, possibly useful shape and might as well be normalized even though they might trigger subtle alarms for people who have certain social sensitivities.

Clearly we are moving into a culture where a lot of stuff that previously sounded boorishly sexual or disdainful is commonplace speech.  Fuck, for example, is no longer an extraordinary words reserved for passion and violence.  It is not a mainstream word used causally in many walks of life.  So we must be open to these sensibility shifts... but at the same time remember that we are not in an arbitrary environment.  We are working to create some mutual edification and whatever fails to do that is "bad etiquette". 

So a conversation must go on between the people who are untroubled by putatively pejorative terminology and those who are aware that different styles have different effects -- even counterproductive effects.

Thanks for considering my positions David:) I'll only focus on the 2nd point of evolution for the moment. Ken has a way of making these presumed scientific myths sound like religion. I went to the I.L. life link and it is classic Wilber with wonderful prose waxing rather philosophically about science; and making science sound like religion. In and of it self I guess I don't have a problem with it, but it gets bundled in this packaging especially in the case of A.C.; and then it just starts to sound like fetishism. I can understand why that narrative might be appealing to some , but right from the get go it was not my thing. This particular criticism in no way makes me think that civilization is not on the cusp of an Integral age. I might add that taking that particular myth/narrative and imposing it on Christianity is an absolute non-sequitar to me personally. I've given it years to percolate , too, gone to the sermons, listened, contemplated, and nope! That's definitely NOT it for me! And I don't see that I am just being obtuse and difficult here. At this point I enjoy Ferrer more:) 

But just call me OLEG! lol Anyway, in the spirit of the Ryder Cup I invite all those Euro Integralites to come over here and show up all these know it all american IT theorists! Raw raw raw!

What the evolutionary spirituality myth does is set things like Buddhist compassion or Christian love in a four-quadrant evolutionary context. So Christian evolutionary love would include, for example, evolving our social system to points of greater fairness and equity; it would include evolving our individuals and cultures as well because in a democracy the people produce and elect their leaders (without a more evolved electorate you can't have more evolved leaders, so you can't have more evolved policy). I often wonder how anti-developmentalists and anti-evolutionaries plan to improve our social systems. Often they're the same people ranting how much we need to change our systems. How, pray tell, will we do that in a democracy without a more evolved electorate? How will we do that unless more adults take responsibility for their continued cognitive and moral development? 

The words "evolution" and "evolve" aren't essential. We could say there is a kind of love or compassion in each quadrant as well. But the idea of evolution, if understood broadly (including eros and agape, agency and communion, etc.), can tie everything together in a coherent story. It looks better than other available meta-narratives to me, or a lack of a meta-narrative. It basically situates ideas of love or compassion in a wider context, one that understands the connections between culture, systems, biology, psychology, and so forth when it comes to quality of life and transcendence. Pieire Teilhard de Chardin is one Christian who liked this sort of thing. There are others, of course. But I don't think it adds anything essentially new to the teachings of Jesus. He was all about feeding the hungry and helping those in need. All an AQAL evolutionary view would do is clarify all the different forms of that kind of love, lest we leave one out or overemphasize some at the expense of others.

Nationalism rears its head in the integral forums again. It seems to play a larger-than-ideal role sometimes. It's hard to tell how much resistance there sometimes is because Wilber is an "American," but I think it is occasionally a factor. Surely the dynamic would be different had he come from British Columbia or East of England or New South Wales. Individuals of each country and culture need to take responsibility for their own social indoctrination, biases, and prejudices, wouldn't you say, Andrew? It will differ from country to country, region to region in some cases, but most people will probably have a more-than-ideal amount of tribalism and nationalism, so it is one thing each of us has to examine. What do you think that would mean for you as a Canadian?

Hey David, I've had a long streak of idealist transcendentalism within me so it's not hard for me to see religion as myth. Personal experience and intuition is another matter altogether , but as i've aged I'm more prone to being amenable to interpretive lenses. Perhaps an anecdote might help? Quite some time ago I was fortunate to see the blind blues guitarist Jeff Healy in a small club. I was fortunate to be able to speak with him briefly after the show and mentioned that he sang really well that evening. He was totally appreciative of someone complimenting him on a lesser aspect of his talent ( this is analogous to Wilber's writing style that I've always been appreciative of), the thing is though, although Jeff was a fantastic bluesman he was by no means my favourite guitarist. i mean, listen to Metheny at his best and it's hard not to feel transported ( this is analogous to many other good IT theorists who i've come to appreciate). You know,  if I see a dozen musicians in a room and they are practicing polyrhythms; i don't look down upon the one or two that can't do them ( say play straight eights with the right hand and quarter note triplets with the left) I don't see them as lesser musicians as most of the time they all have other stronger capabilities. That is my way of referencing a kind of top down structure that I've perceived within the integral community. I know am not the first person that feels this way. Make of it what you will:)

Anyway, on your first point about society: there is one thing that I feel hasn't changed on this planet since antiquity. That is the consistent rising of a small percentage to the top of any given society that rules in the way THEY want. Yes, there have been times when they were defeated ( the French Revolution, etc) and times when they ruled smartly with consideration to others ( say Roosevelt's New Deal) , but most of the time they simply take care of themselves at the expense of most everyone else . I've previously granted many times that in the last 50 years they have managed to set up a trickle down system that has given a large percentage of certain countries a decent standard of living. But these rulers are now at a threshold of growth, resources, and energy supply , and they seem to be in complete denial as far as their behaviour. What is it going to take to wake them up?

Yes, Islam of the sane moderate healthy kind should be marching on masse ( millions) to speak against terrorism. So, also, should Jewish people ( be marching against its states hardliners) . As should moderate Christians speak out against Christian Zionism, etc. 

I am cool with moderate amounts of tribalism and nationalism, as long as they are juxtaposed to egalitarianism and a sense of goodwill towards others. But there are limits to the last part. Those who are more culpable when it comes to destructive behaviour should be held accountable ( justice).

I don't know what is going to wake them up. Cultural disapproval is a start, psychedelics could help, spiritual practice, moral development (a big thing missing in the education system).

The "top down" structure goes both ways, doesn't it. It is just as much of a factor in "egalitarian" postmodernism. I don't see Jorge saying he is higher than Ken less than vice versa, for example.

Anyway, I think we should make more of an effort to stay on topic. What do you think of the tone of this guitar solo? 

Reply to Discussion


What paths lie ahead for religion and spirituality in the 21st Century? How might the insights of modernity and post-modernity impact and inform humanity's ancient wisdom traditions? How are we to enact, together, new spiritual visions – independently, or within our respective traditions – that can respond adequately to the challenges of our times?

This group is for anyone interested in exploring these questions and tracing out the horizons of an integral post-metaphysical spirituality.

Notice to Visitors

At the moment, this site is at full membership capacity and we are not admitting new members.  We are still getting new membership applications, however, so I am considering upgrading to the next level, which will allow for more members to join.  In the meantime, all discussions are open for viewing and we hope you will read and enjoy the content here.

© 2022   Created by Balder.   Powered by

Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service