Reply to Kevin

                                                    Reply to Kevin


Kevin,
 
It is a pleasure to read such a well informed post and I agree with most of what you have stated.
The only real difference appears to be that while you interpret Ken's linear approach as a small problem I see it as presenting a major difficulty.

Clearly in his wide ranging synthesis, Ken displays marked analytical ability. Also - as you state - he shows deep insight into the intuitive nature of nondual reality. However he does not reconcile the rational with the intuitive worldview. Ken uses what I would call a closed (one-directional) linear
approach. This is suited to the static analysis of partial systems. However as his work relates to the dynamic synthesis of holistic systems this (closed) linear approach is inappropriate.
Human behaviour involves the dynamic interaction of opposite poles, leading to relative movement.
The one-directional linear approach fundamentally misrepresents such movement.

Let me try and illustrate this important point. If I take my car out on the road, I have a choice of moving in two directions. When I go up the road (holding my starting point fixed), I move forward (in
space and time). Equally when I go down the road (again holding my starting point fixed), I again move forward (in space and time). Thus though the two journeys are in opposite directions, from the
(absolute) linear standpoint the movement in both cases is in the same direction (i.e. forward).
However if we now adopt a two-directional approach (by abandoning a fixed frame of reference) movement becomes relative. Thus if the car moves forwards in the first direction (relative to the second), then the car moves backwards in the second direction (relative to the
first). In dynamic relative terms, positive movement implies negative movement; (likewise negative movement implies positive movement).

Thus in terms of the dynamics of human behaviour progression entails regression; transpersonal entails prepersonal. Because of the use of a closed linear approach this understanding is largely missing from
Ken's work. Therefore when we represent dynamic behaviour in static linear terms, we always have two interpretations which are equally valid. If we say that the direction of growth goes from prepersonal to
personal to transpersonal, then it is equally valid to say the direction goes from transpersonal to personal to prepersonal. Thus to move from reason to intuition we must use this two-directional approach. When we try to relate both directions (in rational terms) this inevitably generates paradox, which opens the
way for true intuitive understanding (where paradox is reconciled).

My main objection to Ken's approach therefore is that rigid (one-directional) understanding - especially when used in relation to the "higher" stages of spiritual development - sets severe limits experientially to true intuitive understanding. In fact it is inconsistent with such understanding.

I particularly liked your comments on "higher" holons implying that there are stages beyond - what is termed nondual reality. I personally do not see nondual reality as a final state but rather the beginning of the most complete stage of development.
For convenience, we can divide the "fully developed" life into three stages. The first - well covered in Western psychology - involves the differentiation of consciousness and the specialisation of
(analytical) reason.

The second - well recognised in Eastern spirituality - involves the integration of consciousness (through the development of the unconscious) and the specialisation of (holistic) intuition. Nondual
reality represents the culmination of this specialised intuitive development.
However the final stage involves the harmonised development of both (specialised) reason and (specialised) intuition in what in Christian terms represents the marriage of contemplation (spiritual intuition) with activity (worldly reason). This final complete stage
of mystical development is not just a transformation of the self but likewise a transformation of the world.
It is the understanding of this level that should form the standards by which other stages is judged.
Surprisingly however, little attention East or West has been given to appropriate intellectual clarification of this most comprehensive stage of development.

Regards,

Peter

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Marriage of Sense and Soul (1)

                                          The Marriage of Sense and Soul (1)       I particularly looked forward to reading Ken's latest book as I have shared for many years a strong interest in the same area. Once again I find that Ken is at his best in terms of differentiating the nature of the problem in question (which is admittedly a very important task). However I believe that he is on far weaker ground in his suggestions for integration. which he only does in very general terms. Ultimately this reflects on the inadequacy of his overall methodological approach (which is inherently unsuited to the task). My ultimate purpose in this round of posts is to put forward - what I would consider - an approach adequate for the task of integration. This will involve a detailed translation of the "higher" levels of understanding (indicating clearly the na...
Read more

Dynamic Approach to Translating Four Quadrants

Image
    DYNAMIC APPROACH TO TRANSLATING THE FOUR QUADRANTS   Introduction   The purpose of this brief article is to show how holistic mathematical notions can be fruitfully applied to the interpretation of the four quadrants. Ken Wilber uses the four quadrants in his later work. These are based on the valid belief that all holons have both (horizontal) exterior and interior aspects and (vertical) individual and collective aspects. Now the notion of a quadrant is essentially mathematical. In the most common definition, a quadrant results when a circle is divided into four equal sections by the horizontal and vertical lines drawn through its center. What is important to observe here is that we are dealing with the notion of both line and circle. Each quadrant comprises a horizontal and vertical line (at right angles) bounded by a curved arc (representing a quarter of the circle’s circumference). The implication is that in holistic mathematical terms the interpretation of q...
Read more

Initial Reponse from Wilber

  Hi Frank, Peter's article is interesting, but it's not quite right for the Guide. First, he overlooks my many statements that at each step in evolution, Eros reaches up (transcendence) while Agape reaches down (immanence), so that each part is taken into the whole and the whole is immanently present in each part as its overarching agency (the whole sets the probability of each part's action).  Further, he overlooks the fact that I repeatedly say that each quadrant causes, and is caused by, the others--i.e., radial logic.  Further, he ignores my many statements that in the hermeneutic circle (and all holons are in the hermeneutic circle) there is a ceaseless circular pattern of understanding (I actually use the analogy of two mirrors reflecting each other endlessly).  Again, that is precisely radial as he describes it. He is being quite unfair to my overall view.  Finally, when he tries to set up a dialectic between form and emptiness, he shows that his underst...
Read more