Reply to Wilber and Brief Further Response

 Early Reply to Ken Wilber   1999

Hello Frank,

I greatly appreciate Ken's speedy response to my article for the Guide. However it is clear to me from his comments that he has not yet grasped the substance of my criticism. (It is considerably more subtle that he seems to imagine). Basically he is trying to interpret my contribution within his own methodological frame of reference (when my very point is that this needs significant widening for successful integral translation).

"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)."

No, I do not overlook these statements. However I think Ken is missing the key issue.

I make a clear distinction as between absolute (one-directional) and relative (bi-directional) statements on reality.

The essence of the one-directional approach is that movement is interpreted in an unambiguous fashion. This is how Ken is interpreting development here. He identifies Eros (unambiguously) with reaching up (transcendence) and Agape with reaching down (immanence).

However in the bi-directional approach such directions have a purely relative validity. Thus from this context we can identify Eros and Agape with both directions of movement.

A one-directional approach - by its very nature - leads to an asymmetrical interpretation of relationships (where opposite poles in development become unbalanced).

We can see this readily in Ken's last statement "the whole sets the probability of each part's actions).

So in a (one-directional) holarchical model - regardless of how sophisticated - primacy is ultimately given to the whole (over the parts). Again this is necessarily the case as the model - by definition - is asymmetrical.

So the crucial insight required - before moving to a bi-directional relative approach - is that every asymmetrical interpretation of reality has an equally valid opposite interpretation (where polar directions are reversed).

The relationship between these two mirror identical (asymmetrical) models then leads to dynamic symmetry (which is the basis for true integration).

So Ken's holism is unbalanced because it is necessarily asymmetrical. "Partism" as the mirror model of development would be equally unbalanced.  

However the dynamic relationship between both is symmetrical (and is the basis for a true integral approach).

I could in fact point to several variations in Ken's work on his holarchical model of development (which are not properly consistent with each other). The fundamental problem is that - by definition - it places undue emphasis on transcendence (just as a "partarchical" model places undue emphasis on immanence). In an earlier version in "The Atman Project" (reprinted in "The Eye of Spirit") where Ken strongly asserts that transcendence and development are synonymous terms, immanence is not even mentioned.

Admittedly Ken recently has tried to present a more balanced approach. However his one-directional approach is unsatisfactory, as it requires treating immanence as a secondary function of transcendence. True balance between these two polarities of Spirit can only be properly maintained by using a dynamic relative approach. 

So my primary purpose was to point to the one-directional interpretation of relationships Ken typically employs (and the inevitable inconsistency this leads to from an integral perspective).

So as illustrated by his above statement Ken typically employs a Differential 2 method (as defined later in the article). 

The next step before moving on to true integration is to recognize that every holarchical interpretation has an equally valid mirror "partarchical" equivalent (representing a Differential 3 method). This recognition of opposite mirror interpretations (for all asymmetrical explanations) is the vital prerequisite for moving on to the true Integral Methods (based on dynamic relative understanding).

"Further, he overlooks the fact that I repeatedly say that each
quadrant causes, and is caused by, the others--i.e, radial logic."

This is not what I mean by radial logic.

I distinguish three logical approaches 

1. Differential. This is based on the clear separation of opposite polarities in experience. It leads to the principle of local causation where there in any relationship ambiguous connection exists as (independent) determining and (dependent) determined variables. 

2. Integral. This is based on the complementarity of polarities in experience. It leads to the principle of synchronous causation (e.g. where each quadrant causes and is caused by every other quadrant).

3. Radial. This combines the two other approaches. Thus entails both the principle of local (independent) and synchronous (interdependent) causation.

So in terms of my approach Ken is clearly referring to integral rather than radial logic.

Now it is very easy to make statements implying that everything is interdependent. However this in itself does not constitute the use of integral logic.

When we look at how Ken interprets the relationship between quadrants in his work he is clearly using - what I would describe - as a differential approach.

In other words - while recognizing their ultimate interdependence - he attempts to make clear unambiguous distinctions. For example the Right-Hand is consistently identified with exterior location and the Left with interior location. The Right is associated with perception, the Left with interpretation etc.

Now this approach - though having an important definite local validity - leads to severe inconsistency when applied in an overall global context. (I have pointed out several of these inconsistencies in my text and supporting notes, which Ken has not addressed).

In other words in an integral context (to recognize that each quadrant causes and is caused by the others) we need to use a dynamic relative approach.

However Ken does not do this and consistently sticks to his absolute (one-directional) method.

"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)."

No I do not ignore such statements. In fact I refer to Ken's "circle of understanding" in Note 2 to the text.

However I then go on to say:

"My key point is that one cannot properly approach the "circle of understanding" through linear translation. In dynamic terms it is necessary to show the precise inter-relationship of these two forms of logic at all stages of development."

So Ken is again missing my central point i.e. that such understanding must be consistently reflected in the way that one interprets the relationships as between holons.

Once again when one closely examines Ken's holarchical model (even in its most sophisticated manifestations), or his four-quadrant approach, Ken essentially employs a linear (one-directional) method of translation.

The very purpose of my article therefore is to suggest how this circular understanding can become properly incorporated into the interpretation of development (using a dynamic relative approach).

 

"Again, that is precisely radial as he describes it."

I have already dealt with this.  It is not radial as I describe it but rather integral.

"He is being
quite unfair to my overall view."

In the context of my article I would consider that I was very direct yet fully fair in my criticism. I was tightly constrained in space terms (10 double-spaced pages) and clearly did not have the opportunity to elaborate in detail. 

I never criticize lightly and only do so (a) when I am very confident of the value of my position  (b) can amply support my contention and (c) believe that I can suggest a "better" alternative.

I have been reading Ken's books for many years and derived great benefit from them. Within his own frame of reference he is superb and I recognize this. However he should also recognize that I have been developing my own distinctive approach for some 30 years based on the quest for an integral scientific approach.  I feel entitled therefore to criticize as I am doing so from an informed perspective based on experience.

I can safely claim that after 16 years of reading and two years of intensive debate on his Forum that I am quite familiar with his work. However Ken clearly cannot yet be familiar with my approach (which is very different from his).

So I can validly claim that Ken in his comments has been unfair to my position. However I think this is due to lack of proper appreciation of its rationale. I hope however that this discussion can help to facilitate clarification.

"Finally, when he tries to set up a dialectic
between form and emptiness, he shows that his understanding of emptiness is
merely intellectual."

I would not accept this at all. Indeed there is an acute irony in the allegation as my very purpose is based on developing a scientific appreciation of reality that is fully compatible with authentic contemplative practice.  Again my approach is far subtler that Ken seems to realize. So I say in the text:

"Its very purpose (i.e. formless logic) is to erode exclusive identification with the polarized distinctions of the linear method serving as preparation for a qualitative transformation through intuitive insight."

and later:

"Ultimately perfect integration is realized with the spiritual intuitive experience of the pure relativity of all polarized statements. Circular bi-directional understanding serves as a vital - though indirect - tool in the gradual erosion of attachment to (reduced) linear interpretations of reality." 

So the very purpose of my intellectual translations is to erode all rigidity of attachment (through a keen appreciation of paradox) paving the way for the pure experience of emptiness.

I would always maintain the primacy of authentic contemplative and the very value of my approach is that it is fully experiential. I do not use symbols as a substitute for spiritual experience. Rather I see them as an expression of that experience.

Indeed my greatest spiritual influence has been St. John of the Cross - who is the supreme exponent of the doctrine of emptiness (nada) in the Christian tradition.

I believe Ken' misconception may be due to his own particular bias. He tends to neglect the very valid role of refined intellectual experience at the "higher" stages of spiritual development interpreting it in unduly intuitive terms. Because I stress the (indirect) value of the rational at these stages he may misleadingly believe that I am ignoring the intuitive. However this is clearly not so. The refined use of reason - in dynamic terms - can be invaluable as a means of approaching spiritual emptiness. Equally, intellectual clarity can be greatly sharpened through abiding in emptiness. This is a vital point for it is this very (bi-directional) understanding which forms the basis for a true integral translation of reality.

Also because I use mathematical symbols (Holistic Mathematics) there may be a misconception that this is necessarily reduced thinking.  However the proper bi-directional interpretation of mathematical symbols requires an extremely refined form of intuitiveness awareness (which can only come from authentic contemplative experience). 

Frank, I think it is only fair that I now briefly highlight the positive aspect of my contribution (which Ken did not address in his response).

I think the question of what constitutes a truly integral approach is of fundamental importance and has never been properly addressed.

Even though my article has been confined to a very short space I believe that I have provided a significant contribution on this fundamental matter.

I distinguish clearly as between differential, integral and radial approaches (and the different variations with each class). Given more space I could have expanded greatly on the precise logical structure of each method (with corresponding ranges of application). This has the capacity to open up enormous new vistas of understanding.

Frank, I consider that I have provided effective - rather than unfair - criticism in my brief article (which I understood was the purpose of the exercise). 

I am of course available to clarify any further points.

Thank you again for inviting me to contribute to the Guide.

Best wishes,

Peter   

Ken Wilber wrote:

Frank,

I like Collins's response.  I was perhaps too hasty in my first quick reply.

But Frank, you do not have the authority to invite people to write things for the Guide.  The only people who are writing new items for the Guide are those in kindred visions who are fairly well known (such as Stan Grof, Huston Smith, Mike Murphy, etc.)--and they have already been contacted.

Collins has some fine ideas and I will try to point that out, but please, do not invite people to contribute items because we cannot use them (except for overviews and specific reviews).

Please forward this to Collins and let him know how very much I appreciate his alternative vision.

Best,

Ken

Please forward this to Peter Collins.