GNOSIS VS EPISTEME

[Oleg Linetsky]

Dear friends,

I want to share with you my speech on the IEC2014 conference in Budapest.

It's about the absolute truth and wisdom in the Integral framework,

about the ontology, Ukrainian crisis and a potential of the AQAL 

to solve the world problems.

PDF file is attached to this post.

Would be glad an opportunity to discuss it with you.

[Oleg Linetsky]

For those who are interested in more detailed introduction,

introductory article is attached here.

"The Archeology of Truth and the Return of Philosophy. Article one." 

[Balder]

Nice to see you here again, Oleg.  I look forward to reading this.

[Layman Pascal]

This paper seems misguided. It does not take seriously the difference in "lines".  Intuitive and moral understanding are distinct from cognitive understanding.  That is what all integrative maps insist upon.  The levels apply to different types of relationships to reality.  But the description of those relationships -- the description of intuition and morality upon a philosophical map -- is a rational act.  

The Basic Moral Intuition is not proposed as an alternative.  It is not supposed that individuals should drop their feelings and switch over to a calculation.  Rather it is an attempt to describe the general pattern that gets expressed when people DO get better at acting from their intuitive moral feelings.

All the different "sides" Oleg invokes (and I agree that wisdom emerges in thresholds and borders) are much closer together and more muddled into each other.  His generalizations about Western culture and Eastern culture seem naive and simplistic -- more useful for inspiration than analysis.

Every EPISTEME is an organic, half-known network of many forms of GNOSIS.  The Integrative Episteme is simply whatever we do to rationally articulate the total set of available human experiences -- including the experiences of drawing information from the Heart (or anything else which appears to come from outside our epistemes).  Oleg is presenting an integrative theory but what kind?  One that strongly affirms an element which he feels is missing from common conversations, one which he connects with international cultural and geopolitical tensions -- but also one which unnecessarily makes divisions.  

The wisdom-generating and heart-opening power of the boundaries on the Map is decreased by the assertion of a great cleft between East/West and Intuitive/Rational, etc.  One has not even really SEEN the integral map until these distinctions look like they may have vanished... and one must look closer, more delicately, with greater nuance in order to find them simultaneously joining and distinguishing in unusual ways.

The PHENOMENOLOGICAL and EPISTEMOLOGICAL attitudes are convergent in the notion of perspectives.  The function of any integrative map is to display how forms of reality emerge into awareness via thresholds which are simultaneously boundaries, tensions and connections. 

But it is always useful to remind ourselves that these maps are not simply visual and rational depictions of categories but are equally experiential, visceral, intuitive, phenomenological.  So I thank Oleg for reminding us of certain elements of the still-emerging integrative understanding that may sometimes be under-emphasized.

[Joseph Camosy]

Oleg,

Thank you for sharing your presentation with the group.  If I may, I would like to comment on a few of the issues you bring up in your paper.

You write:

With that I am deeply indignant at Ken Wilber for excluding the absolute truth , voice of the heart and the genuine wisdom from the Integral model.

As a modeling decision, I agree that there needs to be a placeholder for the absolute or non-dualism in the model itself.  In fact, this "absolute" whether it be some kind of withdrawn mystery, non-dualist assertion or ultimate paradox, needs to be placed at the very center of the model.

From my experience, eastern people do not use the kind of reasoning offered by Ken Wilber when making their decisions.  They are guided by feelings, conscience and wisdom of the heart more than by rational thinking and taking multiple perspectives.  [...] The reason, as I suppose, is that: Western philosophy still hasn't understood the mystery of the heart ...

Part of the reason for this is that there are two kinds of reasoning - analytic reason (what we commonly refer to as reason or rationality - a kind of dualism which has dominated Western philosophy since Descartes) and hieroglyphic/analogical reason (imagistic, intuitive, feminine, esoteric, tantric).   Wilber's AQAL map, does have a predominant analytic-rational and masculine feel to it.

A quote from Putin:

"The West is not merely expanding its sphere of influence in the East, but also attempts on the Russian soul ... I'm convinced there is some higher moral principle, about which they forget in the West thinking only about success and prosperity."

and your analysis:

I bet many of Western people don't understand him, but for Putin it may look like Jihad, crusade or ideological war for the faith.  He intuitively protects some specific Russian and Asian values, which we definitely cannot find in the AQAL model or in the Spiral dynamics.  These values are of a different nature.  In a certain sense, this aggression is natural and can intensify if we don't understand its message.

[...]

Unfortunately, evolutionary and epistemological approaches in this regard are part of the problem, not a solution!  Putin's frequent references to Russian existentialists are a vivid proof of that.  The belief that this is  just a fight between blue and orange values looks naive, oversimplified and even arrogant.

Yes, here, in my opinion is the fault with the current "levels" conception in Integral theory.  BTW, this is the first time I have fully articulated this observation and so it may be the first time anywhere this case has been made:

What Wilber and Beck are calling a developmental level is actually a conflation of two separate things (levels and types).  What Integral theory calls a "level" is actually a stable and adaptive collective complex (in the Jungian sense of the word "complex").  Now in history, the material conditions of a society as well as their developmental and technological level may have made some of these "complexes" more adaptive than others, but the complex itself has both a development aspect as well as a typological aspect.  Typology is the weakest link in Integral theory and so it is not surprising that without a rich typological scheme, there would be a conflation taking place. 

So are more accurate model for a level would be this:

LEVEL =  A stable and adaptive collective complex composed of a material/technological/psychological developmental level and a combination of types. 

A collective complex, as a kind of dissipative structure affecting all areas of individual and collective life, would thus act as a mediating holon would thus possess all 4 quadrants itself.   In other words, a level, rather than being just a simple red, amber, orange, green label would actually be more like a collective personality.  Thus the Integral psychograph (a chart of levels across various lines) would need to be expanded into something analogous to a kind of Integral natal chart showing developmental levels across various lines across various combinations of types.

It could get very complicated, but as a first step towards sorting out the model, Integral theory needs a robust typology, and recent attempts to integrate a typology into Integral theory such as the use of the Enneagram have, in my opinion, been less than adequate for a number of reasons.

So getting back to Putin and conflict of the East and the West, my point here is that it is possible that an important aspect of this conflict is a typological one, not just a developmental one.

Seen typologically, Analytic reasoning is masculine, while Intuitive/Analogical reasoning is feminine.  Can we see one possible basis for a values conflict between the domination of a Western dualistic masculine rationality on the one hand and MOTHER Russia (exemplifying a blend which includes a larger proportion of Eastern/esoteric/analogical/intuitive rationality) on the other?

In the short term, therefore, it may be useful to look at this conflict, not only developmentally, but also as a type conflict.  Perhaps an MBTI type indicator analysis could be helpful in highlighting areas of conflict.  What is America's MBTI type indicator?  Western Europe?  Russia?  Or we might be able to look at this as an astrological chart compatibility conflict.... or Enneagram type conflict, etc...

In the longer term, Integral Theory needs a model which integrates lines, levels, quadrants, zones, as well as TYPES onto one unified model.  This is my area of research as Bruce and others on the forum are aware.

[Layman Pascal]

Joseph,

A few thoughts:

1.

My analysis suggests that Absolute is grammatically related to the Causal Truth.  So every integrative model (as per the specifications laid out in my "Bible of Metatheory" text) must have placeholders for both Casual and Nondual aspects of reality.  Yet it is misleading to suggest that these should be "placed at the very center of the model".  The center is NOT the optimal symbolic localization of either the infinite structural (causal) dimension or the blended in-difference (nondual) dimension.  Both are better situated at the generative thresholds between experiential modes of participatory engagement.  I.E. the lines on the map must themselves be considered as the explicit presentation of impossible-to-conceptualize factors of various kinds.  As soon as one provides a particular discrete location on a map for that which is unbound by the map one ends up minimizing the significance of that referential gesture.

2.

There are, as far as I can tell, NOT "two kinds of reasoning".  There are multiple kinds of reasoning (more than two) but all of them, in so far as can discuss them, are amenable to rational discourse -- and therefore cannot be exaggeratedly affirmed as alternatives to rational models.  The so-called Dualism "dominant since Descartes" was never dualism at all insofar as progress of thought requires us to understand divisions as connections.  The dualism of Dualism only exists insofar as it is maintained by the assumption of thinkers. 

3.

It is virtually a non-statement to say that Wilber's AQAL map has a " a predominant analytic-rational and masculine feel to it."  It IS an analytic map.  All analytic maps have that quality.  The intuitive, feminine, holistic alternative is looking away from the map.  And the hybridization of those positions is to include that "look away" or "non-map" upon the map.  But even then it will inevitably have the flavor of analytic  mapping -- ESPECIALLY in its simplified and populist forms.

4.

The existing implication of all competent integral maps is that the increasing cognitive development of map-users leads to an intensification of their comprehensive (dis-entangling) of elements which initially appear to be conflated.  LEVELS have philosophical existence only insofar as they can be distinguished in their most basic and flexible forms -- differentiated from types and adaptable to various lines. Thus I would say that your definition is a specification well within the suggestions of the general meta-model that has emerged and is still emerging:

LEVEL =  A stable and adaptive collective complex composed of a material/technological/psychological developmental level and a combination of types. 

It perhaps only leaves out the intersubjective nod toward an ethos or "shared mood" -- although I assume that is implied.

5.

I think you are quite correct in suggesting that further articulation of the model requires a robust typology in order to prevent the collapse into simpler forms of the level/line relationship.  However I disagree that the Enneagram or any existing recent or ancient symbolic modelling system has shown itself to be either sufficiently robust or philosophically well-accepted enough to act as the basis of such a typology.  It would be considerably more robust to begin gathering data and then look afterwards for large blocs which may or may not validate our inherited psycho-symbolic typologies.

6.

Masculine/feminine polarization is an archetypal emergent which starts to appear in all contexts.  The beach is male compared to the ocean... but female when compared to the humans having a picnic on a log.  So we must be very nuanced and multifarious when applying even the basic sexual typology to geopolitical affairs.

And this cautious should be amplified by Neo-Reichian observations that it is generally a biopathic adaptation within the family life of latently fascist populations which predisposes them toward a mystical-protective idealization of the State as Mother.  Thus nations displaying this trend should not be casually linked to the Feminine but are equally likely to be linked to the imbalanced masculine.

7.

In experimentally trying a typology for world affairs (MBTI or otherwise) we need to remember that States are not Nations.  There is no organic basis for Countries.  They are not correlated to particular languages or ethnicities or common levels of development or typologies.  Even statistical generalizations should be more strongly aimed at cities, bio-cultural regions or ethnic groups.  Putin's remarks about the "world" of Russian speakers is a better place to start that with the merely superficial and bureaucratic-military entity of the Russian "state". 

[Joseph Camosy]

Layman,

Thanks for engaging with me on this most interesting topic!

1.

every integrative model [...]  must have placeholders for both Casual and Nondual aspects of reality

Regarding the "casual" placement of aspects of reality.  Without going into a complete cartography, all I can suggest at this time is that the placement of ultimate paradox or non-duality at the "center" of a model would imply that everything else arises out of this "mystery," and that includes the causal, as well as the casual.

      

2.

There are, as far as I can tell, NOT "two kinds of reasoning".  There are multiple kinds of reasoning (more than two) but all of them, in so far as can discuss them, are amenable to rational discourse -- and therefore cannot be exaggeratedly affirmed as alternatives to rational models. 

No, they are not alternatives to rational models, you are correct.  They exist within a typology of aspects of consciousness amongst a whole suite of others which can also be seen as kinds of perspectives as well.  Ultimately, one needs to integrate them all.  However, the two kinds of "reasoning" presented do exist in relation to each other having cultural and historical significance which is germane to the topic.  ie. rational scientific-materialist hegemony and what Habermas called the "Colonization of the Lifeworld."

The so-called Dualism "dominant since Descartes" was never dualism at all insofar as progress of thought requires us to understand divisions as connections.  The dualism of Dualism only exists insofar as it is maintained by the assumption of thinkers. 

OK. I'm not sure if we're talking about the same thing any longer.  Are you saying that dualism does not exist in the history of modern Western philosophy or are you offering a re-interpretation of that history?

3.

It is virtually a non-statement to say that Wilber's AQAL map has a " a predominant analytic-rational and masculine feel to it."  It IS an analytic map.  All analytic maps have that quality.  The intuitive, feminine, holistic alternative is looking away from the map.  And the hybridization of those positions is to include that "look away" or "non-map" upon the map.  But even then it will inevitably have the flavor of analytic  mapping -- ESPECIALLY in its simplified and populist forms.

It's either a non-statement or it's a statement of the obvious, like saying "look, the Emperor has no clothes." (Or saying that one's theory of everything is only partial.)   Of course, once someone pops that bubble, you can't very well rush out to put some clothes on, because that would only make it worse.  No, one must carry on and strut proudly as if that was the intention all along.  At least for a while.  As to the "hybridization" that you propose, I can only add that there are other approaches to this as well, relating to the typological issue I wrote about.

4.

Thus I would say that your definition [of levels] is a specification well within the suggestions of the general meta-model that has emerged and is still emerging:

It perhaps only leaves out the intersubjective nod toward an ethos or "shared mood" -- although I assume that is implied.

Yes, this is implied.

5.

I think you are quite correct in suggesting that further articulation of the model requires a robust typology in order to prevent the collapse into simpler forms of the level/line relationship.  However I disagree that the Enneagram or any existing recent or ancient symbolic modelling system has shown itself to be either sufficiently robust or philosophically well-accepted enough to act as the basis of such a typology.  It would be considerably more robust to begin gathering data and then look afterwards for large blocs which may or may not validate our inherited psycho-symbolic typologies.

We're in complete agreement here.  I never said that the Enneagram was adequate.  I said just the opposite.

In fact I would assert that a search for an "adequate" typology necessarily includes a literature review or "data gathering" covering the last 2500 years or so of philosophy itself.  Could there be a common thread across the centuries? 

6.

So we must be very nuanced and multifarious when applying even the basic sexual typology to geopolitical affairs.

Agreed.  However, this polarization was used to illustrate that type matters, and that however more complex a complete analysis may be, there is a noticeable bifurcation along these lines.

7.

In experimentally trying a typology for world affairs (MBTI or otherwise) we need to remember that States are not Nations.  [...] Even statistical generalizations should be more strongly aimed at cities, bio-cultural regions or ethnic groups.  Putin's remarks about the "world" of Russian speakers is a better place to start that with the merely superficial and bureaucratic-military entity of the Russian "state". 

This seems reasonable.

[Layman Pascal]

Hey Joseph,

These are great and important considerations.  Here's how I would nuance them:

1.

It is fine to casually refer to the central importance of including the mind-exceeding condition of nonduality within our maps.  However as soon as we start to think of signifying that condition AT the center of our maps then we begin to subtly mislead -- both by (a) conflating the Mystery with the "merely" infinite point that represents Causal reality, and (b) reducing the status of the ultimate background to a foreground object.  But both of these problems evaporate as soon as we interpretively decide that the contextual boundaries within and around the map are robust indictators of the non-local and generative capacity of that can be mapped.

2.

You are, admittedly, correct in pointing out the historical and cultural relevance which debates the rational/intuitive pair of intelligences.  But I think it is precisely here that we must be very careful in our affirmations.  The progressive integration of various forms of intelligence proceeds through the capacity which produces the "rational-scientific materialist hegemony" into the capacity which observes the dangerous effects and narrow logic which colonizes the Lifeworld.  Our duty as thinkers must be to make sure that this part is localized in developmental levels (which provides a moral imperative) rather than sidelined into a typology or choice (which is precisely the means by which intuitive intelligence has been minimized during mechanistic modernism).

On DUALISM:

I am saying that it does not exist objectively within the history of modern Western philosophy.  Its presence (i.e. the dualistic version of Dualism) has primarily exist as an interpretive bias and must therefore be corrected through a re-interpretation of that history -- rather than being secured ideologically by the presumption of its prior and general acceptance.  

3.

Fair enough -- statements of the obvious & non-statements are different nuances of redundancy.  I would just caution critics (including "proposers of additions") to keep in mind that when we gaze upon the surface of the logical "systemic" aspect of vision-logic we are guaranteed to observe an excess of logic and a relative absence of the experiential. However we go astray in our own theorizing if we take this as a deficiency in the logical model.  Thereby a subtle flaw is incorporated into our solutions to this problem.  Its problematic nature must be undermined prior to additional theorizing.

4.

Yay!

5.

Yeah, a "data gathering" must cover all the contemporary sources of information -- including subjective and objective records going back as far as possible, along with statistical analyses, brain studies and the full range of currently available diagnostic tools.

6.

Yes, there is a noticeable bifurcation along typological lines which emerges when the lens of archetypal gender polarization is affirmed.  We must, I think, always try to support this affirmation with the up front declaration that it is rested in contexts.

7.

Yay!

[Layman Pascal]

Hopefully, our friend Oleg will take my comments as a useful "tension".  I am somewhat combative in response to the unnecessary and exaggerated distinctions/assertions made in this essay.

I think he is far too intellectual and systematic in his attempt to rationally insist upon this cultural dichotomy, this psychological dichotomy, this phenomenology/epistemology dichotomy.  It is too neat and too orderly.  The uncertainty that we must embraces is precisely the one that appears when we let go of the alternativeness between East and West.  It is the uncertainty that appears when we become willing to doubt both our reasoning and our intuitions -- and doubt the difference between them. 

The development of the world, both politically and psychologically, is into (and through) post-modernism.  That is a great arena of experientialism, tension and uncertainty.  It comes about only in the degree to which we move on from both "rational modernist individuals" and "traditional instinctive collectivism".  Those are both primitive.  They both must be partly left behind so that we can find the new order and new instincts that are appropriate to the emerging planetary civilization. 

I applaud Oleg's impulse to heal the rift between hearts and establish a planetary wisdom-teaching.  It is my own wish as well.  Yet it is not helped much by gross simplifications and cartoonish caricatures of East and West:

"When it comes to the West, a wise person is the one who is more developed, knowing, the one who has a lot of experience, self-confidence and the ability to take into consideration numerous factors and various perspectives. In the East, however, a wise man is considered to be the one who is more sensitive, unprejudiced and impartial.

That is almost superstitious and certainly is not fair.

In the West it has always been said that Wisdom is distinct from Knowledge.  And today the developments that are most promising are those which seek convergence between the two -- a more knowledgeable Wisdom and a knowledge that is more supportive of Wisdom. All integrative philosophies pursue that goal and none of the main ones demonstrate an exaggerate favoring of knowledge over wisdom.

In both the East and the West there are many voices who mistake tradition and inherited social instincts for a profound, intuitive, deeply human and progressive form of intelligence.  To separate the pre-rational from the trans-rational is our goal.  To find the oppositions in our own instincts and overcome them, mix them, merge them, interpret them as mutual -- these are inner human efforts demonstrated by successful individuals in East and West alike.

To ponder and weigh the feelings associated with different sides of any uncertain choice is a developmental necessity but that is not at all an alternative to anything on the existing integrative maps.  No one disagrees with Oleg that our hearts have a full right to be represented in our integrative philosophical maps.  But a more complete understanding of the existing maps will reveal that these things were never left out. 

The Wisdom of the Heart is NOT irrational merely because we access it in mysterious and often thoughtless ways.  Rationality is the ability to describe why THAT makes sense.

I hope that Ukraine grows, deepens and becomes healthier through its current challenges.  Russia is nearby and dangerous and true in many of its statements.  Russia is also deceptive, insensitive and culturally weak.  Whomever seeks to unify and purity its culture is moving in the wrong direction -- away from strength and health.  America has many of the same problems and Europe is a chaos of self-destructive conservativism and self-destructive faux-post-modernism.  I hope we all find a way forward that overcomes and assimilates tensions.  And one of the first steps in that process is to stop using old-fashioned and misleading dualities whose unfounded assumptions only create more of the very problems they are trying to address. 

Our goal is not to balance East & West.  It is to take the best from both, reject the worst, and combine them into a crazy, up-building, deeply human and transcendent future.

[Joseph Camosy]

Layman:

Just a brief follow-up to your excellent reply:

1.

It is fine to casually refer to the central importance of including the mind-exceeding condition of nonduality within our maps.  However as soon as we start to think of signifying that condition AT the center of our maps then we begin to subtly mislead ....

To resolve ambiguity, I would need to present  a complete argument for this position, and so for now, it is possible that we're subtly talking past each other.  Suffice it to say, any kind of naive set, type or category theory is subject to Russell's paradox (who shaves the Barber of Seville?).  Russell's solution of course was to introduce a hierarchy of types which is another way of saying that on any given level, there exists a higher more enfolding level where contradiction is resolved.  For any model of reality, type, set, or category theory contradictions can continue to be pushed up the hierarchical chain until it reaches the base type or class where the buck ultimately stops and you have the paradox.   So, placing PARADOX at the center of any model is an acknowledgement of the limitations (or built-in feature!) of all knowledge and systems of representation in general, as well as having usefulness of its own accord such as this passage from the Kybalion:

THE DIVINE PARADOX

"The half-wise, recognizing the comparative unreality of
    the Universe, imagine that they may defy its Laws--such
    are vain and presumptuous fools, and they are broken against
    the rocks and torn asunder by the elements by reason of
    their folly. The truly wise, knowing the nature of the Universe,
    use Law against laws; the higher against the lower; and by
    the Art of Alchemy transmute that which is undesirable into
    that which is worthy, and thus triumph. Mastery consists not
    in abnormal dreams, visions and fantastic imaginings or
    living, but in using the higher forces against the lower--escaping
    the pains of the lower planes by vibrating on the higher.
    Transmutation, not presumptuous denial, is the weapon of the
    Master."--The Kybalion.

This is the Paradox of the Universe, resulting from the Principle of Polarity which manifests when THE ALL begins to Create--hearken to it for it points the difference between half-wisdom and wisdom. While to THE INFINITE ALL, the Universe, its Laws, its Powers, its life, its Phenomena, are as things witnessed in the state of Meditation or Dream; yet to all that is Finite, the Universe must be treated as Real, and life, and action, and thought, must be based thereupon, accordingly, although with an ever understanding of the Higher Truth. Each according to its own Plane and Laws. Were THE ALL to imagine that the Universe were indeed Reality, then woe to the Universe, for there would be then no escape from lower to higher, divineward--then would the Universe become a fixity and progress would become impossible. And if Man, owing to half-wisdom, acts and lives and thinks of the Universe as merely a dream (akin to his own finite dreams) then indeed does it so become for him, and like a sleep-walker he stumbles ever around and around in a circle, making no progress, and being forced into an awakening at last by his falling bruised and bleeding over the Natural Laws which he ignored. Keep your mind ever on the Star, but let your eyes watch over your footsteps, lest you fall into the mire by reason of your upward gaze. Remember the Divine Paradox, that while the Universe IS NOT, still IT IS. Remember ever the Two Poles of Truth the Absolute and the Relative. Beware of Half-Truths.

2.

Our duty as thinkers must be to make sure that this part is localized in developmental levels (which provides a moral imperative) rather than sidelined into a typology or choice ...

Without presenting a complete meta-perspective this is difficult to describe accurately, but as I hinted above, a robust typology is not a sideline, but central.  It's what generates all the other elements of the model (including AQAL), but with typology being the weak-link in Integral Theory, I would not expect many to recognize it.  This thread, however, is not the place for me to attempt to demonstrate it.  :-)

Joe

[andrew]

I very much enjoyed your paper Oleg! Let the sensei's riff:)

[Oleg Linetsky]

Dear friends,

thank you all for your attention and replies.

Unfortunately, most of comments only confirm theses of my report.

Meaningless discussion of words just make me tired.

I personally need philosophy when I encounter situations of doubts and uncertainty.

It's one of postmodern key principles - contextualism.

We need a problem/task to talk about wisdom/solution.

Otherwise we just discuss empty words and conceptions.

It's really boring. Words, words, words... Conceptions, conceptions, ...

I can spend my time more meaningfully.

I have set a specific question

What is your integral ground and a support when something worrying happens? 

 

Just to take in a view 5 elements of the AQAL? Ok, fine. Not bad to start.

But TO WHAT EXTENT it is necessary to take into account the interests of the elements?

Because they contradict very often! Like individual and collective, external and internal, ...

Wilber couldn't offer anything except for BMI by now!

I'd be glad to be wrong. Bring me just ONE particular example of how to act in situations of moral dilemma, which recommends Wilber, different from BMI, from intellectual morality. There are many good authors that write about spirituality. But how to be spiritual in a particular situation???

What CRITERIA of wise/moral decision do you use? 

Kindly show just one example in a real context.

Thank you very much, but I do not need your diagnoses or assessments of my aqal knowledge.

All the best, Oleg

[andrew]

Hey Oleg, I won't speak for anyone here but I could take a guess that there would be a consensus that moral issues fall upon trajectories of moral line intelligence. That conventional people can't see clearly the difference between pre-moral attitudes and post-conventional morality which seems to justify the behaviour of people like Adi Da and Andrew Cohen. Probably the confusion here is that these two actors might be spiritually intelligent but I highly doubt that they rate very high on any moral line. So, imo, it shouldn't be automatic that people with  high spiritual intelligence be given a free pass on dubious behaviour. 

What do I think? Everything comes from God. And when that gets printed on ones dna one lets go of worrying. Bad things will always happen because of what I call the left hand path protocols. But one doesn't need to fear that. This does have real time utility but I've got to work now.