Ken on Supermind

[Balder]

Wilber has a new (premium) offering on Integral Life - an excerpt from his forthcoming book, The Religion of Tomorrow:

Supermind and the Primordial Avoidance

An excerpt:

"Supermind is the epitome of freedom and responsibility. You, and in the deepest sense you alone, become responsible for the entire planet and all of its beings. Immanuel Kant beautifully defined a “cosmopolitan” as one who feels that, “when anyone anywhere suffers, I suffer” – a profound world-centric awareness. And the ultimate cosmopolitanism is when one feels that, when anyone or anything anywhere suffers, I suffer, because I am them.

Supermind is that type of all-inclusive, all-pervading, all-embracing responsibility. And it starts with being able to hold the entire Kosmos in your awareness without shutting out so much as a single item. Absolutely everything entering your field of awareness, with no exceptions whatsoever, is fully and totally embraced, saturated with love, radiating from the infinity of your own heart-space, streaming from the radical fullness of your very own being, and reaching out to each and every thing and event, in each and every direction in the known ends of the Kosmos itself. There is simply nothing anywhere, at any time, on the outside of this awareness. It is “one without a second.” And having no outside, it has no inside either, but simply is.

To contract at all in the face of this undivided wholeness awareness, this total painting of all that is existing in this timeless all-inclusive present, is to set in motion the self-contraction, the separate self-sense that latches onto the relative, finite, conventional small self – a necessary functional entity for this manifest world created by the True Self itself, along with the rest of creation – but latches onto that small self, or “I”, as if it were itself the True Self, or “I-I”, thus setting in motion the entire train of events known as ignorance, illusion, Maya, deception, the fallen world, the world of the lie. This is transmitted in each and every lower structure present, and the radically enlightened nature of Supermind becomes lost and obscured in wave after wave of avoidance.

And that avoidance rests on this, what we might call “primordial avoidance” – the very first subtle looking away. If we go back to the single, indivisible, total painting notion, there is some element, no matter how small or seemingly insignificant, that for whatever reason I don’t want to look at, to be aware of, to notice, to allow into my awareness – that single, primary turning away, looking away, moving away. That primordial avoidance sets in motion the events that are, at this level, the dominant cause of the world of Maya, illusion, ignorance, deception. And every level, top to bottom, is infected with this delusion."

–Ken Wilber, Supermind and the Primordial Avoidance

[andrew]

Hi Joseph, for the record, I don't buy spiritual evolution the way it's marketed in Integral circles, that is why i put brackets around the term. That aside, i agree, this is one example of the epistemic fallacy. I also think you're  right that there is a demographic within the human potential movement that buys into these ideas, because, as you say, there is a certain type of efficacy when implementing various methods along these lines. I think India is in a unique position to explore these issues but needs to be reminded constantly about what the scientific method is . 

[Edward theurj Berge]

And I'm all for the benefits of meditative states as I've expounded at length in the forum. I'm just trying to put them in a postmetaphysical context as to ontological claims and speculations, since there is the stink of spiritual hegemony and superiority surrounding them. And as andrew notes, if such states cannot be applied to practical solutions in real (relative) world problems beyond narcissistic improvement or personal evolution, then what's the point? Just being is a superman-supermind club lording over the rest of us? That doesn't seem all that evolved to me.

[andrew]

I would have no problem with this if it was all framed within THEISM and working from Fowler's stage seven faith; while analyzing behaviour using Kohlberg's moral system, etc. It would seem like a healthy development within religion if this was how it was being framed. But that is not how it is being framed; there is a dogged determination here to deny god and frame soteriology within a Buddhist context using post metaphysical principles; and it doesn't work,IMO, it ends up creating contortions. It does not do justice to either Buddhism or evolutionary theory ( both epistemologies being agnostic about god). As  an analogy: Vancouver homeowners have become fetishly identified with their inflated real estate prices that we now live in a city of self entitled narcissists. They become enraged if you point this truism out to them.  I see this as a direct comparison with Wilber's view of evolution and Buddhist soteriology. Now I get that the world is not simply given to me and that it is a representation within my mind; that there are interiors and exteriors, etc; that the primacy of consciousness is not a settled issue and remains in dispute; that god's presence is a highly controversial aspect of theology. But none of these issues justify Wilber's positioning; which is incongruent with the facts as we know them at the moment. In this regard, Edward, you are right, and your take on post metaphysics , the MHC, etc., is closer to reality than Wilber's take. It's just to me  your view, paradoxically, does not do away with god , IMO. God still remains an ontological mysterious possibility, IMO. 

And that is the view from way down here from the carbon sinkhole that is Vancouver B.C. 

[DavidM58]

Hence, Integrals get shoved into political maps such as this:

[Ambo Suno]

Hi David - I think that this illustration is poignant, interesting, and it puts a smile on my face as often happens with rather comprehensive pluralistic renderings. In this case there is a little bit of integration as well.

The accompanying article is also appreciated, particularly his acknowledgment of his context-dependent resonance with difference views.

At a glance, the website looks interesting. Thx.

PS - I am appreciating this thread. It has a scale and psycho-social focus that touches me, and maybe many of us. ambo



DavidM58 said:

Hence, Integrals get shoved into political maps such as this:

[Edward theurj Berge]

Seems fairly accurate. Kennilingus, both the man and the model, are seen as the savior from the most evolved level on the planet. However salvation is offered on a personal basis to only those who kowtow to the system and achieve certain states (disguised as elevated stages beyond relative measurement). That is all that is offered on a social basis as well via paid seminars, a model and some states, since consciousness per se is the Reality and the only thing worth working on. By edict any other form of social activism is green and ineffective from a lower order of consciousness. So yes, "God will save us" in our little in-group and the rest can go to hell where they belong.

I'd say Rifkin's Integral Commons is in the transition group, realistic about the dangers and possible collapse, yet willing to do something about it in actual terms of not just personal but socio-economically ecological action. And to hell with being called green or other derogatory names by the effete and narcissistic elites.

[Edward theurj Berge]

PS: There is also an element of Technotopian in Rifkin as well, but it's not tech per se that prepares us; it's the shift in consciousness brought about by the necessary but not sufficient techno-economic base. The latter is necessary for this shift, as well as providing the base conditions of communication and energy needed to unite us in a global commons. But as he notes, that infrastructure can be and is being abused by the capitalist meme, so we also need the shift in consciousness to use that tech appropriately. Though without the tech it's questionable whether we can achieve the global commons. Regressing back to an earlier meme is not the answer either, nor is tech per se the problem.

[Ambo Suno]

Hi, t. I think that it is probably useful to be able to see the Ken Integral phenomenon through your subjective-objective lens.

For me, your tone and the categorical placement of all that Ken and this phenomenon have been about is reducing it in a skewed way. I don't think this issue is entirely a matter of facts, and that you have simply described the facts. I am thinking that in this post you have subjectively skewed it into an unequivocal interpretation of the totality of Ken and integral's modus operandi, motives, and intentions and there seems to be a strong emotional charge around how you are saying this.

To me, if I want to check in with how I might interpret what is going on in you and your comment, what I feel a lot of what I imagine is a reactive and maybe a baseline and specifically vindictive anger. Etc. Yet if I reduced your presentation(s) to that it would be surely very skewed. Skewed because what you say is also informative and can evoke inquiry.

I am glad that there is so much integral information and writings and vocal comments and conversations online for virtually free. There are library books, used books, new books where a person and a society can learn and question for themselves at low cost. There are Amazon website, selected readings from new and old books for free. There is you-tube, Vimeo, and more.

Yes, to spend time with the big kahuna usually costs money, and personally I am ambivalent about that. Luckily, I don't feel a strong desire or strong sense of utility to me being at many of these events; I may not be configured, perhaps not at a Kosmic address where I would benefit so much.

I have gone to all the integral theory conferences and been lucky to hear some bright, coherent, insightful, Ken-inspired cogenerating people. Like Zac, like Bruce, like... If you spoke at any of these I may have heard you. I'd actually like to go to the next one because of several of y'all presenting, but at this time I can't afford it. I don't categorically resent Mark Foreman, the institute, and many of the commercially sponsoring organizations because I can miss out on some good info, some good growth vibes, some good camaraderie, some potential embodying inspiration that I may be in sore deficit of.

We are all 'wired' differently (specific context-influenced) and that tells me, in my brighter moments, that I don't want to unequivocally and permanently judge and categorize you, Ken, Mark, and myself. I could natter on more about this and my own particular messes that I am trying to navigate through without humongous success.

Yada yada, brah. ambidingus

[andrew]

In my opinion, conflating human consciousness to ultimate reality has always been a category error and an epistemic fallacy. In truth , the dharmic traditions are every bit as bizarre and unlikely as western theism's official stories; the why and the how of the dharmic traditions is as untenable as official stories from the wests traditions. It's been a false, but easy gambit to say the dharma is more rational and consistent as compared to western theism ( Wilber constantly does this ; chuckles at the infancy of the western narratives) but the dharma is as much a fallacy when analyzed carefully. 

But yes, Ambo , Wilber is a part of a vast knowledge awakening that had been predicted to happen in antiquity. He's been a blessing to my life in that regard. 

Anyway, a 10 degree warning is going to make all of this moot. At that point it is a bottle of Jack and the hope that god is real and independent of the talking monkey. 

[Edward theurj Berge]

I can sympathize with your feelings Ambo. But this forum will attest that many of my posts are very specific as to what I agree and disagree with in kennilingus. So it's not like I'm just always bitching about it. But those aspects of it that are harmful in my view I am most adamant about, like this Superhuman Supermind BS. So sorry if my strong opinion offends but that's not going to change. Also not changing is my appreciation for the Lingam and his work and often expounded upon at length.

And yes, the terms Kennilingam and kennilingus are derogatory but he brought it upon himself with the Wyatt Earpy episode, telling those of us who don't suck his dick in obeisance like his followers to suck his dick. And that attitude continues to this day, hence my continued use of that well-deserved nickname. But again, I can separate that aspect of him from his work and appreciate both of them in other ways, and I continue to do so. It's just some particular posts focus on his sometimes assholonic nature so it seems appropriate to be assholonic in response. I learned long ago that to be nice to a bully only reinforces it, so I fight back and hard.

[DavidM58]

FYI, I posted the "political map" chart above in specific relation to the idea of Supermind and elitism. The replies bringing in a broader discussion about the map seem a little off topic for this thread, so I copied and pasted some of the replies and my response over to the Integral Energy thread here.

[Ambo Suno]

Yes, it seems clear to me that you have plenty of respect for Ken and how he has stimulated a branching of branchings into important topics. I imagine that you, me, and various critics might have tucked away a realm of affection for aspects of the story and the Phenomenon that he has become.

As I exploratorily riffed on in a thread on ILC, I sometimes think that there may be a bit of an Oedipal-like archetypal-almost-scaled response pattern that has gotten stimulated in some of us by this phenomenon and that has been awoken and touched so much in us.

Also one facet of fun of this metaphor is the image of King (Father) Ken cottage industries springing up around the castle wall. Some are expansive and some are rebellious. It may be a powerful Phenomenon indeed to feel at one point some great numinous attraction and then to also have to test oneself against the power, oppose the power, surpass the power. I am suspicious that often what we think we are doing and what we think we are about is also an expression of sometimes deeply unconscious influences that belie our own self-stories.

I wouldn't want to carry this too far, and I probably wouldn't assert a presumption like this to anyone in particular, though I see glimmers and shadows of this even in myself, the commenter. Blindspots and structure-like templates may actually substantially co-rule what we rationally have come to believe about ourselves and about others.

"Ken" in his accidentally (partly) developed self-story and these "supermind" evocations both can be numinous and can provoke much in us. I doubt I am saying anything new to you t and others, but I wanted to riff on why what we are saying isn't all about Ken and the statuesque concept of supermind.

Thanks. Good day, or night, at least on the inside, where-ever we all be, eh.



theurj said:

I can sympathize with your feelings Ambo. But this forum will attest that many of my posts are very specific as to what I agree and disagree with in kennilingus. So it's not like I'm just always bitching about it. But those aspects of it that are harmful in my view I am most adamant about, like this Superhuman Supermind BS. So sorry if my strong opinion offends but that's not going to change. Also not changing is my appreciation for the Lingam and his work and often expounded upon at length.

And yes, the terms Kennilingam and kennilingus are derogatory but he brought it upon himself with the Wyatt Earpy episode, telling those of us who don't suck his dick in obeisance like his followers to suck his dick. And that attitude continues to this day, hence my continued use of that well-deserved nickname. But again, I can separate that aspect of him from his work and appreciate both of them in other ways, and I continue to do so. It's just some particular posts focus on his sometimes assholonic nature so it seems appropriate to be assholonic in response. I learned long ago that to be nice to a bully only reinforces it, so I fight back and hard.