The Secret: Part Two - Wilber, Gebser, and New Age Pathology
Posted on Jan 18th, 2007
by 
Julian
Julian
Hi Everyone,
Response to Comments
Recent interest and controversy over my review of The Secret has prompted me to write a very brief part two!
First of all, thanks to all of you who have responded so overwhelmingly positively to the critical eye I have cast over a piece of pop culture spirituality that is being lauded in several different quarters, from new age Santa Monica to Larry King Live, to the hallowed Zaadz discussion boards!
Over on Brian's blog, both C4Chaos and MsCapriKelli have suggested that The Secret is appropriate for a certain level of spiritual development and that, while much of what I am saying makes sense from a more evolved view, i could be a little gentler - I think MsCapri said something about a "velvet hammer"......
Several people have said that my review was unbalanced because it did not include mention of what was positive about the intention and content of the film. Lastly Brian suggested, astutely, that the review could benefit from the addition of Ken Wilber's Pre/Trans Fallacy idea.
Thank you for all of the comments, criticisms and suggestions - this dialog is what I love about Zaadz!
Let's Get To It:
First of all I think it is important, if we are going to talk about stages of development to acknowledge that within those stages there is also pathology or sickness. Within a stagewise process of development there is also a tendency to regress, or move backwards, out of fear of continuing to move forward and accept the difficult struggle of higher growth.
My assertion is that this description of pathological regression reflects about 90% of what is commonly called the New Age, and The Secret is, through-and-through, a new age phenomenon. Part of what is going on is that spiritual seekers balk at the existential initiation required to move into adult spirituality and find it is much less threatening to embrace a childlike belief in magical thinking a la pieces like The Secret and What The Bleep - two perfect expressions of the regressive, narcissistic, junk science zeitgeist in the New Age today...
Pre/Trans Fallacy
I have provided a link to Wilber's original short but potent 1980 Pre/Trans Fallacy essay above for those interested in grasping this groundbreaking piece of spiritual/philosophical/psychological theory.
Basically the essay came about as a result of Wilber's anguished realization that the "Romantic" early period of his own spiritual path and theoretical stance was not holding up to the evidence he was gathering from his continuing study and practice.
The Romantic position Wilber had adopted basically stated that spirituality was a "return to some lost glory." That somehow through our growth from pristine infancy and through humankind's growth from our ancient wisdom we had lost touch with Spirit and needed to return to that former glory.
Wilber observes that most (if not all ) of us begin our spiritual path with this romantic assumption and that particularly the green meme new age culture dislikes developmental models that suggest a kind of progress toward glory instead of return to repressed glory for this reason.
The essay says basically this:
There are three broad stages of development. These are prerational, rational, and transrational.
Given this, because both prerational and transrational states and stages are non-rational - they are easily confused with each-other.
There are two ways that this confusion is enacted:
1) Viewing both transrational (or higher than rational) ideas/experiences and prerational ideas/experiences as being prerational. Hence (for example) empirically minded people might lump all psychology, spirituality, poetry, dance, belief in aliens, meditation, dream interpretatiion, animal worship etc in as being meaningless nonsense.
2) Viewing both transrational and prerational as being transrational - thus all of the above get lumped in with the transrational by (for example) New Agers as being profound and meaningfully spiritual.
So Wilber begins to differentiate the two as an attempt to correct the mistakes he had been making in his writing and thinking from around 1973 until 1980! Brave man indeed....
Stages of Development
Regarding The Secret, let's look at Wilber's stages of development as borrowed/modified from Jean Gebser - they are: archaic, magic, mythic, rational, pluralistic and integral.
Now those of you familiar with Spiral Dynamics will see that of course this maps nicely onto their color coded stages too!
See also my essay Santa Claus, Jesus, Ken Wilber. Piaget and Kohut for a more extensive explanation of how cognitive development relates to spirituality viz Pre/Trans fallacy.
Suffice it to say that if you look at:
archaic, magic, mythic - these are pre or prior to 'rational', and pluralistic and integral are trans or after 'rational', yes?
New Age spirituality is in part predicated on the emergence of a pluralistic, transrational worldview that can appreciate other cultures and is interested in an embrace of multiple perspectives. Unfortunately the New Age worldview gets very confused along the way, turns pathological and ends up regressing to prerational (magic and mythic) ideas as if they were transrational truths.
My assertion is that this happens because of a lack of tools to deal with the conflict of integrating the rational (cognitive) developmental line with the spiritual line, as well as psychological trauma that has not been resolved and a fear of the practice based existential initiation that makes way for adult transrational spirituality to emerge.....as such the New Age worldview is not stage of growth but a defense against growth. See here for 21st Century Spirituality: Mental Development - a more complete description and prescription for this pathology.
Whatever do I mean?
Well think of it this way: at the rational level of development we realize that magical ideas about reality (i can make it rain by chanting a special prayer for example ) and mythic ideas about reality (jesus was born of a virgin for example) are not literal truths. They may have some metaphorical value, but they are not accurate reflections of reality. Period.
Rational people agree on this fact, it's part of the definition.
At the pluralistic level we might start to wonder about the psychological, poetic meaning of these prerational ideas and look at them through translational lens, as did master world mythologist Joseph Campbell.
But, when the pluralistic level goes awry, as Wilber points out in Boomeritis and his multiple references to the MGM or "mean green meme" it results amongst other things in a regression to once again embracing magic and mythic prerational ideas and interpretations of reality as if they were transrational higher truths.
Now my position as stated above is that 90% of the New Age is infected with this pathology. So yes, there are a lot of spiritual seekers out there to whom The Secret will make a lot of sense and seem really life affirming and empowering.
But it plainly is not.
It perpetuates delusion, which helps no-one.
It denies the multiple factors that influence our reality (psychological, sociological, economic, racial, historical, educational etc) in favor of an over-emphasis on the power of intentional thought, which is immature and unrealistic.
It offers as ultimate ancient wisdom an oversimplified extremely partial truth that is more damaging than a direct lie and will actually actively prevent these seekers from hearing the truths that would enable them to keep growing.
What I would add to the Pre/Trans Fallacy to back up these assertions is this:
Authentic spiritual growth occurs as a genuine maturing process in which we learn (through practices that cultivate presence, compassion, honesty, courage, critical thinking) to be more and more in touch with reality as it is and to see the extraordinary complexity and bittersweet beauty of the world we live in.
Authentic spirituality creates a space within which we can wrestle with the distinctions between what we have power over and what has power over us. This occurs through learning how to deal with disappointment and feelings of helplessness, not through deluding ourselves into believing unreasonable and inaccurate things - and calling our faith in that "spirituality".
Conclusion
I am going to go out on a really safe limb and say that no one is ever going to change the bills in their mailbox into checks by thinking about it differently on their way down the driveway.
No-one is going to beat cancer who would have otherwise died from it by watching funny movies for three weeks.
No African kid on his death bed from a rare form of hepatitis is going to make a magical recovery by being sent "gratitude rocks" from L.A.
Also: no gay, black, Jewish or Muslim person is going to get bigoted co-workers to transfer out of their office or hate-criminal thugs to leave them alone by holding a positive mind-set.
These assertions are insulting to the depth and difficulty of these problems and erroneously imply a lack of character, spiritual positivity or mental resolve in those who suffer from them.
No-one is ever going to dependably master the "skill" of manifesting parking spaces. This is an asinine fantasy of infantile omnipotence and shouldn't even be in the same ballpark of anything appropriately designated as spiritual.
Now of course, yes - using the power of the mind to visualize, to dream, to imagine your possibilities, to shift out of your self-sabotage - and then doing something about it CAN be very useful - but it is no guarantee of success - and failure this time does not mean you didnt visualize hard enough or believe deeply enough - it might mean that you need to re-orient yourself to reality or do some deeper work on what is under the surface of your self-sabotage - or it may just mean that life doesn't always work out as we had planned.
As a yoga teacher I encourage people to exercise the power of focused intention every day - but more as a way to enter an inquiry-based transformational process than as a magic trick to get everything to go just as we want it through the assistance of some mythic force in "the universe."
So to Brian I say:
Thanks for the stimulus.
To MsCapriKelli and C4Chaos I say:
Not so! The Secret is not stage appropriate for anyone. What one can say for it in terms of empowerment and third chakra focusing of will is entirely overshadowed by the regressive prerational emphasis on faith in magic and belief in a mythic reality that simply is not so. This will hamstring ongoing growth and perpetuate a dissociative, fragmented, self-blaming pathology.
To those who thought I was not being balanced enough, I say:
Sorry, the film really is a piece of shit. A well shot, edited, staged and post-production computer effect-ed piece of shit, but from a philosophical, psychological and spiritual standpoint - just appalling!
If you are interested in some alternative perspectives to what I am debunking, here is a link to my essay Beyond the New Age: An Integral Vision, which includes a critique of What the Bleep.
Though I know this may ruffle feathers even more, I hope it creates more context and clarity about where my critique is coming from!
For The Secret: Part Three - An Antidote go here.
For more spiritual cinema reviews, check out:
The Fountain: Integral Cinema at it's Best
What the Bleep and Ken Wilber
Peace Out!
~Julian
Response to Comments
Recent interest and controversy over my review of The Secret has prompted me to write a very brief part two!
First of all, thanks to all of you who have responded so overwhelmingly positively to the critical eye I have cast over a piece of pop culture spirituality that is being lauded in several different quarters, from new age Santa Monica to Larry King Live, to the hallowed Zaadz discussion boards!
Over on Brian's blog, both C4Chaos and MsCapriKelli have suggested that The Secret is appropriate for a certain level of spiritual development and that, while much of what I am saying makes sense from a more evolved view, i could be a little gentler - I think MsCapri said something about a "velvet hammer"......
Several people have said that my review was unbalanced because it did not include mention of what was positive about the intention and content of the film. Lastly Brian suggested, astutely, that the review could benefit from the addition of Ken Wilber's Pre/Trans Fallacy idea.
Thank you for all of the comments, criticisms and suggestions - this dialog is what I love about Zaadz!
Let's Get To It:
First of all I think it is important, if we are going to talk about stages of development to acknowledge that within those stages there is also pathology or sickness. Within a stagewise process of development there is also a tendency to regress, or move backwards, out of fear of continuing to move forward and accept the difficult struggle of higher growth.
My assertion is that this description of pathological regression reflects about 90% of what is commonly called the New Age, and The Secret is, through-and-through, a new age phenomenon. Part of what is going on is that spiritual seekers balk at the existential initiation required to move into adult spirituality and find it is much less threatening to embrace a childlike belief in magical thinking a la pieces like The Secret and What The Bleep - two perfect expressions of the regressive, narcissistic, junk science zeitgeist in the New Age today...
Pre/Trans Fallacy
I have provided a link to Wilber's original short but potent 1980 Pre/Trans Fallacy essay above for those interested in grasping this groundbreaking piece of spiritual/philosophical/psychological theory.
Basically the essay came about as a result of Wilber's anguished realization that the "Romantic" early period of his own spiritual path and theoretical stance was not holding up to the evidence he was gathering from his continuing study and practice.
The Romantic position Wilber had adopted basically stated that spirituality was a "return to some lost glory." That somehow through our growth from pristine infancy and through humankind's growth from our ancient wisdom we had lost touch with Spirit and needed to return to that former glory.
Wilber observes that most (if not all ) of us begin our spiritual path with this romantic assumption and that particularly the green meme new age culture dislikes developmental models that suggest a kind of progress toward glory instead of return to repressed glory for this reason.
The essay says basically this:
There are three broad stages of development. These are prerational, rational, and transrational.
Given this, because both prerational and transrational states and stages are non-rational - they are easily confused with each-other.
There are two ways that this confusion is enacted:
1) Viewing both transrational (or higher than rational) ideas/experiences and prerational ideas/experiences as being prerational. Hence (for example) empirically minded people might lump all psychology, spirituality, poetry, dance, belief in aliens, meditation, dream interpretatiion, animal worship etc in as being meaningless nonsense.
2) Viewing both transrational and prerational as being transrational - thus all of the above get lumped in with the transrational by (for example) New Agers as being profound and meaningfully spiritual.
So Wilber begins to differentiate the two as an attempt to correct the mistakes he had been making in his writing and thinking from around 1973 until 1980! Brave man indeed....
Stages of Development
Regarding The Secret, let's look at Wilber's stages of development as borrowed/modified from Jean Gebser - they are: archaic, magic, mythic, rational, pluralistic and integral.
Now those of you familiar with Spiral Dynamics will see that of course this maps nicely onto their color coded stages too!
See also my essay Santa Claus, Jesus, Ken Wilber. Piaget and Kohut for a more extensive explanation of how cognitive development relates to spirituality viz Pre/Trans fallacy.
Suffice it to say that if you look at:
archaic, magic, mythic - these are pre or prior to 'rational', and pluralistic and integral are trans or after 'rational', yes?
New Age spirituality is in part predicated on the emergence of a pluralistic, transrational worldview that can appreciate other cultures and is interested in an embrace of multiple perspectives. Unfortunately the New Age worldview gets very confused along the way, turns pathological and ends up regressing to prerational (magic and mythic) ideas as if they were transrational truths.
My assertion is that this happens because of a lack of tools to deal with the conflict of integrating the rational (cognitive) developmental line with the spiritual line, as well as psychological trauma that has not been resolved and a fear of the practice based existential initiation that makes way for adult transrational spirituality to emerge.....as such the New Age worldview is not stage of growth but a defense against growth. See here for 21st Century Spirituality: Mental Development - a more complete description and prescription for this pathology.
Whatever do I mean?
Well think of it this way: at the rational level of development we realize that magical ideas about reality (i can make it rain by chanting a special prayer for example ) and mythic ideas about reality (jesus was born of a virgin for example) are not literal truths. They may have some metaphorical value, but they are not accurate reflections of reality. Period.
Rational people agree on this fact, it's part of the definition.
At the pluralistic level we might start to wonder about the psychological, poetic meaning of these prerational ideas and look at them through translational lens, as did master world mythologist Joseph Campbell.
But, when the pluralistic level goes awry, as Wilber points out in Boomeritis and his multiple references to the MGM or "mean green meme" it results amongst other things in a regression to once again embracing magic and mythic prerational ideas and interpretations of reality as if they were transrational higher truths.
Now my position as stated above is that 90% of the New Age is infected with this pathology. So yes, there are a lot of spiritual seekers out there to whom The Secret will make a lot of sense and seem really life affirming and empowering.
But it plainly is not.
It perpetuates delusion, which helps no-one.
It denies the multiple factors that influence our reality (psychological, sociological, economic, racial, historical, educational etc) in favor of an over-emphasis on the power of intentional thought, which is immature and unrealistic.
It offers as ultimate ancient wisdom an oversimplified extremely partial truth that is more damaging than a direct lie and will actually actively prevent these seekers from hearing the truths that would enable them to keep growing.
What I would add to the Pre/Trans Fallacy to back up these assertions is this:
Authentic spiritual growth occurs as a genuine maturing process in which we learn (through practices that cultivate presence, compassion, honesty, courage, critical thinking) to be more and more in touch with reality as it is and to see the extraordinary complexity and bittersweet beauty of the world we live in.
Authentic spirituality creates a space within which we can wrestle with the distinctions between what we have power over and what has power over us. This occurs through learning how to deal with disappointment and feelings of helplessness, not through deluding ourselves into believing unreasonable and inaccurate things - and calling our faith in that "spirituality".
Conclusion
I am going to go out on a really safe limb and say that no one is ever going to change the bills in their mailbox into checks by thinking about it differently on their way down the driveway.
No-one is going to beat cancer who would have otherwise died from it by watching funny movies for three weeks.
No African kid on his death bed from a rare form of hepatitis is going to make a magical recovery by being sent "gratitude rocks" from L.A.
Also: no gay, black, Jewish or Muslim person is going to get bigoted co-workers to transfer out of their office or hate-criminal thugs to leave them alone by holding a positive mind-set.
These assertions are insulting to the depth and difficulty of these problems and erroneously imply a lack of character, spiritual positivity or mental resolve in those who suffer from them.
No-one is ever going to dependably master the "skill" of manifesting parking spaces. This is an asinine fantasy of infantile omnipotence and shouldn't even be in the same ballpark of anything appropriately designated as spiritual.
Now of course, yes - using the power of the mind to visualize, to dream, to imagine your possibilities, to shift out of your self-sabotage - and then doing something about it CAN be very useful - but it is no guarantee of success - and failure this time does not mean you didnt visualize hard enough or believe deeply enough - it might mean that you need to re-orient yourself to reality or do some deeper work on what is under the surface of your self-sabotage - or it may just mean that life doesn't always work out as we had planned.
As a yoga teacher I encourage people to exercise the power of focused intention every day - but more as a way to enter an inquiry-based transformational process than as a magic trick to get everything to go just as we want it through the assistance of some mythic force in "the universe."
So to Brian I say:
Thanks for the stimulus.
To MsCapriKelli and C4Chaos I say:
Not so! The Secret is not stage appropriate for anyone. What one can say for it in terms of empowerment and third chakra focusing of will is entirely overshadowed by the regressive prerational emphasis on faith in magic and belief in a mythic reality that simply is not so. This will hamstring ongoing growth and perpetuate a dissociative, fragmented, self-blaming pathology.
To those who thought I was not being balanced enough, I say:
Sorry, the film really is a piece of shit. A well shot, edited, staged and post-production computer effect-ed piece of shit, but from a philosophical, psychological and spiritual standpoint - just appalling!
If you are interested in some alternative perspectives to what I am debunking, here is a link to my essay Beyond the New Age: An Integral Vision, which includes a critique of What the Bleep.
Though I know this may ruffle feathers even more, I hope it creates more context and clarity about where my critique is coming from!
For The Secret: Part Three - An Antidote go here.
For more spiritual cinema reviews, check out:
The Fountain: Integral Cinema at it's Best
What the Bleep and Ken Wilber
Peace Out!
~Julian
Access: PublicTagged with: the secret movie, jean gebser, piaget, kohut, jesus, santa claus, the secret, john demartini, john assaraf, lee brower, science of mind, spiritual, movie, review, what the bleep, ken wilber, ramtha, jack canfield, jack kornfield, psychology, new age, shadow, michael beckwith, scam, agape, ethical, ethics, positive thinking, julian walker, Brian Johnson, Pre/trans falllacy, pre trans fallacy
I think the “attitude” of the film is that as long as we have all the best thoughts, good thoughts, and best intentions for our lives to be rich and fulfilling it will manifest that way, but when it doesn't the strategy is to have an “attitude” adjustment and just “think” positively.
Psychologically, this “attitude” adjustment from my Buddhist perspective is it doesn't allow you to see “what is really going on” or accept that there is pain in life as much as there is happiness. Another thing about the “Secret” that disappoints me as a Buddhist is that it doesn't speak of “impermaneance” at all. Spiritually, it is a huge topic that should be discussed and I think “The Secret” ignores it.
agreed klare!
another awesome follow up. let me just add that you're already preaching to the choir, at least in my case.
“The Secret is not stage appropriate for anyone”
you may think and speak that all you want. but the sales figures of movies like The Secret and What the Bleep, will and has proven you wrong :)
go grab Megatrends 2010, you may not agree with the wishy washy spirituality that is permeating in the business world. but i'd take that any day than less conscious and less compassionate capitalism.
baby steps bro, baby steps :)
~C
Thanks for the great piece. Time for me to catch up on all your other writing!
The one thing I'm left wondering though, Julian, is: “How do you really feel?”
Hah.
Two of the most classic lines I've ever read: “I am going to go out on a really safe limb and say…”
and, “To those who thought I was not being balanced enough, I say: Sorry, the film really is a piece of shit.”
To full expression.
-bri
And, ~C4: i think you missed his point. just b/c a product is consumed in great quantities and may provide some real or perceived nutritional value doesn't preclude it from leading most of its consumers to a state of toxicity. (see Micky D's as a reference. ;)
Okay, so it's obvious that you are extremely well-educated in Integral Theory and that you believe strongly in this new “evolved” thought process and you quote Wilber's works with an articulation of a very intelligent being. I understand your desire to passionately share your perspectives and opinions based on your educated life experiences. I can respect that about you. However, I am still struggling to get past what I perceive to be a desire to bypass certain Natural Progressive Development… let's use nature as an example… after all… we are a product of Earth. I see a rosebud or an acorn… and I know full well what the highest potential outcome is for either of these items… you can even feed both of these items bad “BS” and they will still grow towards their highest potential naturally (albeit there might be deformities because of bad nutrients)… however, if you try to “hammer” at the rosebud by tearing the green protective layer back and trying to fluff the petals out and exclaim that the rosebud should be able to skip this level of development and jump right into full bloom and fragrance, because ultimately THAT is it's most absolute state of being… well… we know what happens… the flower dies. Ditto with the acorn… you can't pop the top of the cute little nut and presto out comes a full grown oak tree (not even the best magician can pull an elephant out of a mouse's ass). Stages occur naturally… there can be stimuli that are introduced at various stages of the rose that can potentially harm it… but it can grow past that experience if positively tended and groomed… quite similarly, the oak tree can even endure being burnt… and although that sets the growth back for a period of time… it still progresses. I see no difference in human evolution, I can see where the thought process of Integral theory is and it's importance… I am not denying it's rightful place in development… but for the people in this stage of life to expect all other humans to spontaneously evolve right into the Integral theory thought and living, just from hearing an IT's opinions of these “lower level development and discoveries” being ludicrous… well… it's idealistic and lofty.
Another point I'd like to cover…. I see the issue of other people “finding” this ancient “secret” and using it as a device to control the masses (yes, you heard me correctly… I see this as a device, NOT a stage of human development) … insisting that they have THE right answer this time… hmm… that sounds vaguely familiar to the formation and foundation of religions…. so…yeah, humans using a method of thought to control other humans with all of the most positive intentions towards those other humans (I do this because I care about your spiritual development)….. but with an ulterior motive of getting money from of these people (fulfilling their own primal desire to be abundantly rich)…. again, it just sounds like a new religious tool to me. Yes, I can see how that is not progressing very effectively or quickly towards the Highest Potential of the Human Being. But, believe it or not (that is your choice –as well as your choice to voice your educated opinions) humans are progressing at the rate that they are meant to progress – regardless of how you perceive them to be. Yes, growth spurts are possible with nutrient rich “BS” too…. but to rip one form of “nutrients” out of the mouths of “babes” and start stuffing “grown up food” into their mouths and expecting them to eat it and be happy with it…. well…. {{spit-up happens}}…
Yes, this movie could very well stagnate a few hundreds of thousands of people for a thousand years or more…. how is this any different from any other religion? Who knows… a thousand years from now, the advanced, evolved human beings alive then may even look at Integral theory the same way you are looking at the devices of The Secret or WTB. Who knows. To claim that one can definitively say “No! Not that way of thinking! You are wrong for thinking that!” is a sure-fire way to set oneself (or one's group) up on a pedestal from which they can look down on others… only to set themselves up for the potential for a fall.
I'd like to wrap this brain-spill up with one final point….. I do respect your perspective on your life experiences and where you passionately feel humans should be living… I find that admirable and exemplary of Living Your Personal Truths passionately! I am not expressing my views as an opportunity to be belittled by you…. but to be heard by you. Whether or not you agree is irrelevant… I really don't care if you agree…. as a matter of fact, I doubt you will agree…. but please keep in mind that I approach you with a deep bow and being 100% authentic and vulnerable. I look at Zaadz as a safe place to express. I am not trying to set up an argument of who is right… “right” is irrelevant and just feeds the ego. I am just expressing yet another opinion of a fellow human on a journey… just like you. I do not judge you where you are at in your development… I ask for reciprocal respect. (ask … but by no means do I expect it.)
Namaste!
~K
all the respect in the world and total agreement that the toxicity of the secret is similar to the distortions of religion.
disagreement on what is “right” being merely the domain of “ego” - truth is in the trinity of truth, beauty and goodness for me and the intellectual/spiritual quest to discern what is true is, in my opinion, sacred.
tender budding flower metaphors aside (and i like flowers a lot) - in the above piece you are commenting on i already assert that what i am criticizing in the movie is not a healthy stage perception along the way of growth, but a pathological regression that limits growth.
see my conclusion for the list of things the movie claims that are plainly delusional and not part of any healthy spiritual developmental process. in other words - it is not part of anyone's healthy developmental process to suspend reality and believe these sorts of things. period. :O)
your assertion that humans are “progressing at the rate they are meant to progress” is meaningless to me. whatever do you mean?
all i'm saying is that the popularity of The Secret reflects the “stage” of the conscious of the consumers consuming it. we are what we like to watch :) (well, most of the time).
it's popular for a reason. people are hungry for the perspective that it offers. but once they become more conscious of its “toxicity” they would move on. same way i ditched McDonalds years ago. and that's pre-Super Size Me (the movie) era :)
here's my question Julian: what previous beliefs did you have that you've ditched since you've encountered integral theory?
but anyway, like i said, your criticisms of The Secret are head on. i just want to see you also look at the partial truths offered by the film.
for the record: i haven't seen the Secret movie. but i do understand the principles on where the movie was based on. so take what i say with a grain of iodized salt :)
~C
P.S. as for the Integral Theory. i'm greatly indebted to it for the map of reality that it has thought me. but i do like to remind integral peeps out there that what makes integral theory more embracing is not necessarily the contents of its theory, but its ability to be content-free–its framework. according to KDub:
“”Content-free” refers to the fact that virtually all previous approaches at unification have attempted to find some sort of unity on the level of actual content (whereas the integral approach does not). For example, most of the world's great religions have some version of the Golden Rule, and most universalists use those types of common elements to find their unity in the world's religions.
The integral approach does none of that. Or rather, all such similarities in content are looked upon as quite secondary, even trivial. This is why we call the core of the integral approach “content-free.” It finds its similarities in certain patterns of content, not in the content itself.”
so let's look more at the patterns of content if we truly want to integrate things.
Hey all thanks for the exciting discussion, this movie has been the subject of many a dinner party conversation in my world :)
so i just read C4’s first comment
“the Secret is a “repackaging” of ancient knowledge handed down from
generation to generation.”
and
“The Secret is actually no secret, the Law of Attraction has been
there since time immemorial. it’s the essence of Napoleon Hill’s
classic Think and Grow Rich. it’s one of the main ingredients of the
“think positive” mentality. ”
I don’t think the law of attraction apllied to human thought is appropriate
I think that the whole idea of applying the law of Attraction to the
“think positive mentality” is where stuff gets messed up
I think there is a power in thinking positively
at the right time a good attitude, positive outlook, good sense of
humor, focused goals, thinking big, determination and persistence can
do a lot ( is this what people are referring to when they mention the partial truth?)
but the thing is that the little engine that could didn’t make it up
the hill because of the law of attraction
he made it up the hill because of good clean positive thinking which
helped him stay encouraged and determined all the way up that hill
( that is something we are taught at a much earlier cognitive developmental stage, at no point would I use the law of attraction to explain the engine’s success. )
I believe there are studies that show that humor and a positive
outlook influence a person’s healing rate and success ( thought affects behavior thus outcome….sometimes)
Patch Adams was one of many great doctors who had respect for the
power of laughter (physiological +psychological affects of laughter compliment and support the regualr medical protocols)
life coaches thrive on the power of determination, thinking big , and
focused goals
and at the right time it can be really helpful
but sometimes you need a little cognitive behavioral therapy first and
sometimes that reveals you need a little psychoanalytic
therapy……..explore your sh*t, so your shi*t don’t get in the way,
and then learn how to deal with the disappointment brought up by
circumstances that make your dreams impossible
so it’s really the law of attraction thing that I think is so
dangerously wrong about this movie
the people in the movie should be talking about determination,
which positive thinking can help with
they should be talking about compassion,
which is a form of positive thinking….but true compassion includes
” bad thoughts”
[ enter Julian Walker’s 4 year Master’s level course on exploring one’s shadow]
the truth is I DO often get that really good parking space in front of
the coffee shop
but it’s because I really focus on getting a parking spot in a certain block
and by focus I mean stubbornly circle the block until someone leaves their spot
but sometimes it’s late night and I am in a residential area and the
cars ain’t gonna move, so I move beyond the immediate goal of close
parking spot
and focus on hurry up and park so i can go to bed
the blind irrational jump from positive thought to successful outcome
in the secret
actually belittles the power of positive thinking
I mean yes sometimes a smile can attract another smile
but that’s not evidence of a the law of attraction applied to human
thought and behavior
if you are in the wrong town at the wrong time of night
that same smile can get you an ass-kickin or worse
:) T
I'll say this. It's quite obvious The Law of Attraction is working in this debate … like attracts like. And from shit grows many things good and not so. But that's subjective. It's all subjective whether through the lens of AQAL, Green Meme, Magic line, Christian, Muslim, whatever. Objective absolute truth will still be experienced subjectively. Objectivity is recognized only by Subjectivity. All quadrants are still subjective, aren't they? And there's no apparent singularity to the whole of Subjectivity. Or is there? I am not as studied as some of you.
I wonder if we're witnessing the emergence of MTM. (mean Turquoise Meme) lol ; ). Not really feeling the compassion for my Magic - Mythic fallacies. It cracks me up when Wilber says we may encounter an alien culture with 5 or 7 quadrants in their model. It is a fun (perhaps magical) idea to toy with. Maybe the discerning subjectivity of a regressive pathology in regard to The Secret is missing a quadrant or two. again lol.
Yep there's plenty of shit in The Secret, I agree, but in like attracts like fashion I agree with C4C and we shouldn't throw out the baby with the bath water.
One man's shit is another's fertilizer depending on the quadrant. Growin' flowers ya'll with my Magic Green thumb (but only in my mind).
Good Luck everyone. (luck's magical isn't it?)
All the Best everyone. (I guess that's not plausible, crap!)
Love One Another (works for me)
As usual, J, a deep an insightful expose, but I must insist just a wee one-sided.
I'll risk joining the debate here, though I don't have much time.
It's true that God is on the inside, and it's also true that God is on the outside. As above, so below, right? You've given credence to the archetypes and angels on the inner world, but what about the real outer world mysteries that occur that have such deep implied meaning, like synchronicity? Like all the near death experiences that line up across the board?
I agree that it's true that a kid in Africa won't get healed by gratitude rocks from LA, but i'm also the daughter of an incredibly effective healer, my mom, who has worked with people's consciousness to heal them of 4th stage cancer.
How?
Well, life does occur in consciousness. Ideas that we hold affect our health. Toxic realtionships affect our health. When we align our consciousness with the truth about our divine identities, we can actually shift our vibrations.
I've suffered quite a bit from temporal lobe epilepsy over the years. My healing process has been slow but steady, and an incredible resource of spiritual integration. Everytime a seizure comes, in the aftermath, my consciousness gets stronger as I learn what triggered it, inner or outer. Triggers have included coffee, loud noise, anger, fear, and being overwhelmed. The list is long.
The last time I had a large attack my mother, the healer, was present. She led me through a prayer wherein I surrendered to Spirit my suffering and then saw myself as God sees me. Who are you as God sees you? -She asked. “Luminous Peace” I replied.
Ever since October, I have actually avoided 95% of my seizures by focusing on myself as Luminous Peace. It has had a diplacement effect on the seizures, as if the 2 ideas of myself cannot live side by side. The Kaia who suffers from seisures is not Kaia as Luminous Peace, and only one can be real at a time. I simply focus my awareness on the feeling state of Luminous Peace, which is my true identity.
Is this positive thinking? Is this an affirmation?
No, this is the power of shifting consciousness. This is what The Secret is pointing at in its own roundabout way. The power is in consciousness. And someone with 4th stage cancer can have that shift and be totally healed, as my mother experiences on a regular basis. It is also possible to read every spiritual book out there, meditate and do yoga regularly, and still be a total asshole (but a peaceful and more flexible asshole). You know these people in our own community. Has the practice shifted them at all? Fuck no. The shift is in consciousness or not at all.
Also, one last story. This being about the Universe as a subjective experience. I feel your argument doesn't leave room for synchronicity, which is a direct relationship between the inner and outer divine.
Two years ago I was fretting, stressed and concerned about my novel not being published. It's a book about Egypt and Greece, the events that led up to the burning of the Great Library.
I went for a hike in Temescal Canyon. And I found a little field and lied down in the tall grass and cried, a deep sadness emerging.
I cried for about half an hour, so overwhelmed by the emotion. And then I heard a voice that said, Look up. And I opened my eyes and looked up, and there, hanging on a low branch, was a Greek goat bell. I reached for it in total shock. It was even lettered with Greek writing on the inside. There could have been no greater symbol to my soul in that exact moment than finding that bell that I was on the right path. It was one of the most powerful synchronicities I have ever encountered.
Magic?
Oh yes; the real kind.
Meaningful?
Oh yes.
Totally subjective?
Yes.
I believe that God is on the inside, and I also believe that God is on the outside. That there is evidence of both.
How did my best friend who died in a tragic accident know three months before she died to write me a letter of wishing that I have a beautiful long life full of happiness and magic, joking that we might never see one another again. And why on her birthday, just 10 days before the accident, at the age of 22 did she want to discuss her funerary arrangements with her best friends about everything she would want if she were to die. She did not commit suicide. She had a freak accident while checking her mail in her driveway.
Magic?
Coincidence?
Life is a great mystery. We cannot say where the power comes from sometimes. Why some people die and others live. Why some people are healthy while others are sick. Why the most gifted artists, like Rothko and Van Gogh, kill themselves.
But I argue, that everything is created in consciousness. As we know, consciousness preceeds form. So if consciousness shifts, form shifts. That is metaphysical law.
And now I've got to go teach a yoga class!!!
Love,
Kaia
This is perhaps the most succinct summary of the partial truths (and limitations) I've read so far:
“…but the thing is that the little engine that could didn’t make it up the hill because of the law of attraction he made it up the hill because of good clean positive thinking which helped him stay encouraged and determined all the way up that hill”
Brilliant, tahini.
I LOVE the full expression we're all bringing to this discussion (if you can't tell) and the edges on which we're shaping our understanding, experience of and application of the highest truths.
to such pursuit.
-bri
love the discussion! thanks for stopping by y'all….
tahini you rocked it - very nicely said - it is precisely the central premise of the movie - the “law of attraction” - the so-called “secret” that we are supposed to buy is the reason for the success of all the great historical minds they reference, and is the way we can be succcesful in all cases without limit regardless of anything else - that is SO problematic SO a massive pre/trans fallacy, SO radically distorting and insulting to any spiritual awareness higher or deeper than that of a 7 year old - that is the problem!
i am all for a sequential process.
i am all for a spiritual system that recognizes the different stages that people go through and gives them stage appropriate healthy tools. the secret is NOT that.
i am all for people learning to be more empowered, to use the beautiful power of their minds to interact with reality in more effective and liberated ways. the secret is NOT that.
i am all for an integral perspective on how conscious intention, unconscious psychology, social conditioning, political context, spiritual practice and intellectual inquiry can do give us access to perspectives and experiences of truth beauty and goodness that would be worthy of grandiose titles like “the secret” - but this film is NOT that.
the secret?
here's one possible recipe:
start with a nice crust made of the scientific method infused with genune wonder a la darwin, add a firm layer of joseph campbell's voluminous observations on myth, society and mysticism, pour in your freudian, jungian, humanistic and transpersonal theory bits for texture,
next, add the observations of the existentialists, marxists and post-modernists, now add the sugar of religion and spirituality, (we recommend using the cultural context sieve here to remove any unnecessary baggage) - go easy here and make sure it's well blended with the critical thinking and psychological awareness, it should make a nice substantive slightly savory paste, also - be on the lookout for any lumpy bits that are more sweet than substantial - don't hesitate to discard any ingredients that won't blend! - they are probably either not fresh or of substandard quality…(some sugar manufacturers in particular are less than ethical about what they put in the bag….)
consult your integral cookbook periodically on this and take time to meditate on each ingredient if you are not sure….put in the oven of practical application for, oh about 90 years - serve warm with the cream of pragmatic and honest humility and the enigmatic tea that makes the ineffable mystery a central component of the overall taste experience…
and c4chaos in answer to your question: before embracing integral theory i was trying to come up with elements of it it myself (i am only 1/2 kidding) and hugely frustrated with both old world religion and the laughable new age nonsense that never really made sense to me - although admitedly i did haltingly buy into some of it for a little while to try and fit in and to assuage my existential angst - hence wilber was a boon when i discovered his work!
Kaia: We commented at the same time so I missed yours…just wanted to thank you for the power and the lyrical beauty…(and the imagery of my favorite Temescal hike…)
J: Nice recipe! :)
* cooking *
I have been reading these last two posts of Julian's and the comments with delight over the dialog contained in them. My first gut reaction to the piece was also, “Tell me how you really feel?” and I say that will all the love in the world for the passion and intensity you bring to your writing.
And like Brian I enjoy the alchemy of distilling the truths that come out of these discussions which for me was found in Kaia's comment
“I believe that God is on the inside,
and I also believe that God is on the outside.”
And ~C4Chaos remark according to KDub:
“”Content-free” refers to the fact that virtually
all previous approaches at unification have
attempted to find some sort of unity on the
level of actual content.”
Attempting to find Unity is what this is all about. Simple uncomplicated universal golden truths “As Above So below” or “Love thy God with all thy heart, soul and mind and love your neighbor as thy Self. Which seems universally found in a process or perspective of a content free emptying of ourselves.
A wise man told me he never once saw a sheep not eat from a field because it had thorns, thistle's and briar's. It just walked around the bad and ate what it knew to be good. Bruce Lee expressed this beautifully,
“Absorb that which is good, reject that which is not useful, and create something unique within yourself.”
We all have to walk our own path, to experience the journey of our significance, to be responsible for our decisions and grow up as we know all to well from meeting consequence. Which is why I suppose we all are driven by shared experience and desire to “help” lead the sheep to greener pastures. But in the end, isn't it all about progression and becoming Julian? Isn't that what a meme is? The propagation of itself through cultural evolution and diffusion of a previous idea. The spiral progression and evolution of consciousness?
Everyday there is a “New Thing” and everyone gets caught up with the content and concept of the images missing the glory of the universally shared experience of the truth of “No thing.”
Perspective Can Shift Thinking but we get so caught up in the words, we tend to forget it's not the finger we're supposed to look at as it points to the moon, but the glory of the inexpressible of that which is being pointed out.
“Be water my friend, be water.” :-)
Looking forward to your next vlog.
DEO
Brian asked me to post my comments to this here, as well. So, here's a re-print:
“OK, I just finished reading the three blogs on this subject. I think Millman really nailed this
one on the head. I see Julian as kind of a defender of integral… a Vajra sword against
narcissism and the MGM, particularly in his critiques of New Agey-ness, cutting through
bullshit wherever it finds it. I think Dan Millman is offering the 'both/and' perspective Brian
likes to philosophize about. Ironically, I'm of the “both/and” persuasion when it comes to
Julian's and Millman's perspectives. They're both offering a very valuable critique here, and I find both to be very much needed, as the world grows into its next phase.
“Julian is offering Masculine compassion, defending the Tao, saying something like 'We
don't need to include pathology in our spiritual practice. It's limiting, and in fact, detrimental. So, let's cut the fucking unhealthy bullshit out.' Dan and others, seem to be offering a more feminine compassion here, saying something like 'No-one is 100% wrong 100% of the time, and there is some wisdom within The Secret. Any intelligent person can sift through and find it while taking the rest with a grain of salt.' So, that's a very brief summary of what I see here.
“But, like I said, I see all these perspectives as valuable. And I want to make clear that I
think Julian's perspective is one that isn't heard enough. It can only benefit us all to have the sword of Masculine Compassion shake us up a bit, seeking out and cutting our ties to
Narcissism.”
Also, feel free to read my side note blog entry.
I concur with Julian in that The Secret is not stage-appropriate.
As I wrote over on Brian's blog, in a response to MsCapriKell, I find it a little funny that anyone could see The Secret as an empowering tool. For me it's precisely the reverse … or, rather, it just trades one authority for another. It still recruits science (an outside entity if there ever was one) in its favor. It still promotes the illusion that material things are what we deserve, and material items are the things we should work toward. It still endorses an overwhelmingly cognitive (if lacking wholly in critical reasoning) approach to spirituality.
Spiritual development is so much more about going inwards, about sitting and being still and discovering these truths for oneself, not looking to some outside authority to confer them, or, for that matter, having this same outside authority support the idea that what we have and what we can get are important.
The reason I see The Secret as troubling is because of how it can contribute to divisiveness and a disturbing lack of compassion. If we avoid the eyes of a homeless person because he “hasn't been thinking positively” or chide a relative dying of cancer because they “haven't been visualizing” enough or brought it upon themselves because that's the “reality they were focusing on,” or if we shun our neighbor whose son just died in Iraq because of her “negative energy,” or if we ignore environmental and social justice issues because they've been “manifested” by those who are troubled by them, we risk contributing to an even more fractured world. And more than that, we're demonstrating that we don't really GET the deeper truth that The Secret brushes on … that that homeless person, and the dying relative, and the suffering mother, and those left homeless due to environmental damage, are ALL you … and thus can't possibly hope to have them “work.”
Because the truth is, we all are connected, but on more than just one level. We're interconnected spiritually, and we're interconnected materially as well; the car I chose to drive has an impact on the world around me, and the shoes I choose to buy are the product of someone else's labor, and the way I lead my life impacts the rest of the world. A spirituality that comes from inward awareness, from sitting and meditating and doing the necessary work, understands this; getting the message from outside in no way guarantees the understanding of social and environmental consciousness that's necessary to a better world. Where was the call to turn inward? To sit and be still and to discover this truth for yourself? The Secret asks us, instead, to turn to experts (as we love to do), and to take their words, shored up by a few personal stories and some shoddy science, at face value. Real transformation - the sort that leads to both inner change and change in one's surroundings - must occur at a deeper level. No movie will change that.
(Some more of my thoughts here - but be warned; it's long. ;) )
you're nailing it siona - yes, yes and yes.
on a side note, let me remind the integral peeps that “affirmation” is part of integral transformative practice. not exactly the same with wishful thinking, but the concept is very similar.
translation is key to transformation. here's a KDub quote:
”Transformative spirituality, authentic spirituality, is therefore revolutionary. It does not legitimate the world, it breaks the world; it does not console the world, it shatters it. And it does not render the self content, it renders it undone.”
all i'm saying is that not everyone is ready for authentic radical spiritual transformation. not everyone is ready to be undone.
so here's another KDub quote:
“…even though you and I might deeply believe that the most important function we can perform is to offer authentic transformative spirituality, the fact is, much of what we have to do, in our capacity to bring decent spirituality into the world, is actually to offer more benign and helpful modes of translation. In other words, even if we ourselves are practicing, or offering, authentic transformative spirituality, nonetheless much of what we must first do is provide most people with a more adequate way to translate their condition. We must start with helpful translations before we can effectively offer authentic transformations.
The reason is that if translation is too quickly, or too abruptly, or too ineptly taken away from an individual (or a culture), the result, once again, is not breakthrough but breakdown, not release but collapse. ”
~C (for Collapsing into the unknown…)
nice quote.
and nice sig. :)
I think the motivation or intention behind the work is what must carry the day. If one sees one thing, invariably someone will see another. The discussion of art, life, music and beauty are all subjective to our own experience.
What I appreciate in these discussions is the discernment each brings to the table that we are all eating from. I really enjoyed Juilan’s recipe,
”start with a nice crust made of the scientific method infused with genuine wonder a la Darwin, add a firm layer of Joseph Campbell’s voluminous observations on myth, society and mysticism, pour in your Freudian, Jungian, humanistic and transpersonal theory bits for texture,
next, add the observations of the existentialists, Marxists and post-modernists, now add the sugar of religion and spirituality, (we recommend using the cultural context sieve here to remove any unnecessary baggage) - go easy here and make sure it's well blended with the critical thinking and psychological awareness, it should make a nice substantive slightly savory paste, also - be on the lookout for any lumpy bits that are more sweet than substantial - don't hesitate to discard any ingredients that won't blend! - they are probably either not fresh or of substandard quality…(some sugar manufacturers in particular are less than ethical about what they put in the bag….)
consult your integral cookbook periodically on this and take time to meditate on each ingredient if you are not sure….put in the oven of practical application for, oh about 90 years - serve warm with the cream of pragmatic and honest humility and the enigmatic tea that makes the ineffable mystery a central component of the overall taste experience…”
I just love that Julian. Props :-)
Well we all experience the blending process of flavors through your own discerning and critical thinking on what we perceive in images. Which is why I like one of the proposed Characteristics Found in Thomas J. Hurley's; “Changing Images 2000 Integral Approaches to Re-Imagining and Re-Making Ourselves and the World.”
A response to the 1974 Stanford Research Institute study and seminal work entitled “Societal Consequences of Changing Images of Man” led by Oliver Markley with Willis Harman, Joseph Campbell and others that visualized a new consciousness paradigm for society.
In it on page 22 he highlights “The creative, constructive powers of human consciousness and the connections between mind and the physical world” which are to;
Provide an understanding of how we construct the world we experience and how, by making those processes conscious, we can increase our capacity for choice and open up possibilities for experience and action that might previously have been unavailable to us.
Foster an appreciation for the development and use of our multiple ways of knowing, being, doing.
Value both “masculine” and “feminine” qualities and capacities, active and receptive modes of consciousness, agency and communion.
Emphasize our capacity for both adaptive and generative learning — for both responding effectively to what arises and initiating creative, purposive actions that bring forth a world expressive of our essential values and highest sense of possibility.
I guess in the end, we might conclude the Secret did do some of that for some, and not for others. It's all about perspective and where we are in the spiral of life. As has been said, one may be at the zenith, another at the nadir, I just hope to meet you in the middle. :-)
DEO
Siona, I feel the same way about the movie and feel it can be dangerous and another strategy to avoid the truth of impermaneance. From a Buddhist perspective, The Secret resonates with me as a big “ME” fantasy. As long as you “think” somehow your thoughts magically delivers what you've always desired…power, money, beautiful people as your friends, etc. etc.
Kala's point about metaphysical law and consciousness as the source of “form”. Well,
I'm not a physicist and I haven't studied any physics. On the relative level of speaking directly about our material world also throw in some empiricism…consciousness doesn't necessarily make it so that I can randomly do things with just simply the power of the mind.
Many times I've tried to bend the spoon with my mind, it just doesn't seem to work.
I don't discredit the power of “positive” thinking but you have to wonder what exactly is it to “positively think”. I think that “Wisdom” would be a better word. Sometimes, you just have the wisdom to know that you just can't do certain things not because you don't want to. It's just not possible.
@ ~C, regarding translation vs. transformation:
I couldn't agree more, which is why, in my side note, I recommend a thorough study in Rationalism before (or during) embarking on anything trans-rational.
alright. My ideas are still fuzzy, but I'll throw this out there:
~C4's thoughts have been in my brain (always a frightening concept! :)
I tend to focus more on the partial truths so I'm thrilled to have Julian and Siona masterfully articulating the partial(/significant) wrongness of things like the secret, wtb, etc. (I actually watched both, paid attention to the stuff that I dug and went on with my life. :)
C4 says: “all i'm saying is that not everyone is ready for authentic radical spiritual transformation. not everyone is ready to be undone…”
Interestingly, it’s almost like there are two “undoings”: one from the rational sphere of living and then one from the post-rational but pre-stable trans-rational sphere of living.
Perhaps the secret, wtb, etc. are catalysts for the undoing from the rational?
As I read Klare's and ~C4's experience with the Celestine Prophecy (and recall my own immersion into gas station attendants jumping up onto roofs (yes, I did actually think (and secretly hope!) that this magic was possible along w/all kinds of other stuff in the book :), I'm sitting here wondering: did any of us not get caught in some “new age” weird magical thinking stuff en route to embracing a more stable (to be generous :) trans-rational perspective?
b/c I think we all went thru that…
the whole concept of going trans-rational is that you're leaving the safe harbors of your rational beingness…and by definition when you start anything new, you're going to be a bit awkward while you really get comfortable with the new landscape, no?
And, if that's the case, then “Halleluja!” for the secret/wtb/whatever stimulus is catalyzing people out of their pure rational slumber and into a *temporary* adoption of weird beliefs en route to more grounded antidotes. No?
Again, I'm not saying that wtb, the secret, etc. are providing anything close to the answers for “real” spiritual practices, but I have a pretty strong sense that these “new agey” shots in the arm may be just what the doctor ordered for the kick in the butt out of pure rational en route to a solid trans. and, if that's the case, then I think it's important to include a discussion about how to most powerfully (and skillfully) help ourselves and others translate our experiences into healthy evolution rather than hammer on perceived pathologies that are really just signs of temporary groping in an unlit room you’re not familiar with…
b/c, sledgehammer or velvet hammer, the whole point for wielding the tools in the first place is to help sculpt souls, right?
Brian:
I think that's a good point. Seriously. I mean, it is all play, and unhinging from the rational is probably (inevitably) going to involve some experience of both sides. Obviously the pre-rational magic feels a hell of a lot more safe than the scary unknowing of transrational mystery, and if that's what it takes for people to loosen their white-knuckle grip on “the way things REALLY are,” so be it.
I'm still a little dubious, though, about what the trade-off might be. That is, DO people go from pre to trans? Or will they tend to get stuck? (Or does it really matter? Maybe the pre will be pre and the trans will be trans and the latter will get there regardless of whether or not they get fed The Secret just as the former will think magically regardless of whether or not someone is making a killing off their gullibility?)
But.
I mean, And. And. I do think - that there's a very very very good chance that people who get intrigued by What the Bleep will end up hanging around in more New Age book stores, and will end up wandering over to the, ahem, Wilber section, and might start investigating more the spiritual realm at large (especially when they start discovering that really all that material gain is not quite as satisfying as they thought) or might, ahem, join Zaadz and start getting exposed to different views …
Love it.
But quick note:
–>That is, DO people go from pre to trans? Or will they tend to get stuck?
But that's NOT what's happening. It's not like we're talking about adults who believe in frickin santa clause!!! It's RATIONAL to trans no I mean pre no I mean trans no I mean…where the f*ck am I?!!?!?
:)
I'll re-iterate my point, because I believe it needs to be stated again, that a thorough translation in Rational is a pre-requisite for stabilizing anything in Trans-Rational. Without a solidification of the principles of a Rational worldview as a basis structure, pre/trans fallacies can easily seep in. One can always regress, in service of transformation, and fix their own misunderstandings of lower structures, in order to create conditions conducive for the transformation into higher. Without solidifying the Rational structure, attempts at evolving into Trans will likely lead to confusion between pre- and trans-. Trans- is built from Rational. A solid understanding of Rational is a pre-requisite for healthy trans- transformation. Is this making sense?
I believe that a huge reason why the pre/trans fallacy is running rampant in our society is because people are trying to skip through Rational without really, really understanding it first. If you haven't seen the Beyond Belief series, I'd highly, highly recommend trudging through it. That, or get a degree in a Rational science. I mean, really, watching a bunch of brilliant scientists debate the very core of what it means to think rationally without performing scientific experiments or proving theorems is akin to reading an integral book without engaging in modules of an integral practice. But it's a good start.
So, my main point is that a thorough understanding of Rational will remedy the pre-trans fallacy, because Rational can debunk pre- and is included (albeit also transcended) in trans-.
Spot on, Mathew!
”a thorough translation in Rational is a pre-requisite for stabilizing anything in Trans-Rational. Without a solidification of the principles of a Rational worldview as a basis structure, pre/trans fallacies can easily seep in. ”
This is the bulk of it isn't it?
And as ~C4 quoted KDub:
”much of what we must first do is provide most people with a more adequate way to translate their condition. We must start with helpful translations before we can effectively offer authentic transformations.”
Yep.
It's frustrating as hell to see pre-rational drivel masquerading as Trans rational.
Maybe that's partly why Wilber's work is so effective - because you have to be so full on cognitively rational to be able to even grok it - at which point you are flushed out into THE MYSTERY… into Trans-Map-Land.
Once you cross the river you don't haul the boat around on yr back - but by the same token, you don't go around hollering that boats are evil.
AND, if some bloke is selling paper boats and claiming they will take folks across the river, well then do you poke him in the nose? Do you chuckle and sigh and chalk it up to fate?
Personally, I'm a poker.
But I enjoy the occasional surprising headline about the fool who crossed the bloody river in a paper freakin' boat.
xo
cree
ps
Kaia ~
“Who are you as God sees you? -She asked. “Luminous Peace” I replied.”
Geez Luhweez! Gorgeous!!!
Matthew,
Nicely put I must say. The way you explained it I can understand it better from an integral perspective.
Brian and I had an e-mail conversation about his “wobbliness” theory. I believe he was unsatisfied with my response because as he suggested above, ”the whole concept of going trans-rational is that you're leaving the safe harbors of your rational beingness…and by definition when you start anything new, you're going to be a bit awkward while you really get comfortable with the new landscape, no?”
So, below is our conversation, which includes a short synopsis of a fraction of my own journey (Bri wanted to know if I'd experienced “wobbliness.”).
Brian: ”But doesn't there still need to be a catalyzing event to push you past? And might this not lead to some wobbliness as we intergate the non-rational? Did *you* not have any wobbliness?”
Me: Well, like I said, the trans-rational includes rational. There doesn't need to be misunderstanding of rational when a 'catalyzing event' happens. With enough causal and non-dual states training, what should happen is that Rational becomes inadequate to account for a (w)holistic perspective. It becomes apparently partial, and certain assumptions that it makes become obviously false (with transformation into the higher, there is some negation to the lower). Throwing one's 'self' into causal no-self (nirvikalpa samadhi) or non-dual Self-no-self enough ought to loosen the ties with Rational-exclusivity. This opens one up to a healthy transformation into the Trans-Rational where the truth of certain paradoxes seems obvious, not because there is anything magical about them but because the trans- allows one to see both the Rational and the beyond-Rational truths; and, in fact, the paradox is no longer a paradox. 'I am no-one, and I am everyone, and I am neither of those' makes perfect sense in Trans-Rational, because what 'I am' Truly means, is understood, not from the egoic-self, but from a place beyond it… a place that informs the egoic-self and allows the rational self to talk about such things. And, if the egoic-self is healthy and well-translated in its Rational and other stage-specific realms, it will have little trouble debunking pre/trans fallacies.
“Eye to Eye is a great book that talks about how the 'Eye of Mind' (ie egoic-self) is what is used to discuss matters of both the 'Eye of Spirit' and the 'Eye of Flesh,' as well as its own 'Eye of Mind.' Wilber now calls the 'Eye of Spirit' Big Mind, as per Genpo Roshi. And he has gone beyond his Eye to Eye analysis in recent works, integrating more and more perspectives. But Eye to Eye definitely helps to explain some of the confusion we see today, that his recent works do not touch as much. So, looking at these three eyes, the 'Eye of Mind' would be the eye that transforms. The 'Eye of Flesh' and the 'Eye of Spirit' remain constant, and both can feed info into the 'Eye of Mind' helping it to transform (say, from Rational to post-Modern to post-post-Modern/Integral).
“On to 'wobbliness.' I suppose this would happen during the 'exiting' and 'entering' phases of transformation. With enough disciplined practice, these phases can be navigated without jumping to erroneous conclusions that cause unhealthy and stunted transformation. At these points, the egoic self may crave answers without being ready to complete transformation. Without a disciplined practice, a weak 'Eye of Mind' may settle for unhealthy answers just to get out of the discomfort of not knowing… of not having a solid world view to fall back on. This is a mistake that a disciplined practice can remedy. Spiritual practice is not a world view. It provides a container that can hold the 'Eye of Mind' as it transforms. These in-between phases of transformation are, in fact, the jewels. Being able to be 'OK' with them as they happen (with the help of a strong spiritual practice container) helps to make the transformations all the more profound and solid, providing a good springboard for the next jump.
“Well, I hope that answers at least part of your question. As for my 'wobbliness'… when it happens, I sit with it and let my practice inform how to proceed. I'd say confusion has become less and less the more and more I am able to have a practice during such times.”
Brian found this response inadequate to his question because it didn't cover enough of my own experience (or “case study”). So, I added the following:
“There wasn't much wobbliness for me. After stabilizing to sanity following 3 months of psychosis (a very long and traumatic altered-state experience), I developed a Causal level undersanding of life. This led to a thorough study of mathematics and Rationalism, which gave me a discerning eye during my post-modern and integral transformations.
“I don't recommend people play around with schizophrenia, but I do recommend they get serious about a practice (such as meditation) and exercise that rational brain as much as possible in order to help with smooth transitions. Apparently, a physical practice (such as lifting weights) and shadow work (or psychotherapy) help, as well, according to KW.”
Brian (humorously): ”HAH!!!! Not much wobbliness?!? You went psychotic, dood. :)”
Me: “Dood, that was pre-transformation. That was the 'catalyzing event.' And it wasn't under my control.”
Brian: ”That's my *whole* point. :)”
Me: “huh?! I thought you were talking about wobbliness *during* transformation.”
Brian: ”Um…dood. The catalyst WAS part of the transformation. No?”
Me: “Following stabilization into sanity, I'd say it was at least five years before I'd have considered myself anything resembling Integral. And yes, I guess a 'catalyzing event' is as much a part of transformation as a banging gun is a part of a race.”
Brian: ”Yes yes yes!!!!! That's the point I'm trying to make and why I believe we can't totally discount the catalysts… you are eloquently *nailing* it!!!!”
I'd like to hear your comments to this discussion, too…
Matthew? Beautiful.
I just wanted to add something else to this discussion, though, given the title of the post.
My background is in psychology. My background is in psychology, and I do not believe in pathology. I've found, over and over again, that what we see as pathology or sickness or defense tends, overwhelmingly, to be merely a healthy response to an unhealthy situation.
The drive toward growth and development is powerful and inexorable and strong, as is the drive for self-preservation. (I don't want us to lose sight of that; this drive, to me, is far, far stronger than even the vastest intellect. All the theorizing in the world can't compare.) When an entity - from a puppy to a person to an organization - is placed in circumstances that it cannot handle or understand, it will do everything in its power to struggle through that situation … it will make the best choices available to it at the time, and will do the best that it can with the information it has. Whether it's a young girl who has developed OCD as a means to focus her thoughts so as not to have to deal with an out-of-control world, or an adult who has taken to drinking to insulate himself from a reality he can't handle, we do the best we can with the tools available to us. We use whatever coping strategies we can. We do what we must to survive.
And so, for me, the question is not so much about remedying pathological behaviors (by either explaining or teaching / training them) as it is getting the individual or group back into a healthy environment, so it can start unlearning the behaviors it adopted to protect itself and can start unfolding, again, in the direction it was meant to go. While there are certainly experts we can turn to who might help us in 'unlearning' and adopting new strategies, I find the best route is to trust in the process of the individual, and to hand them back their power and personal responsibility, and to let them know of my undying, committed belief in their path.
Because I trust that, again, we all have within us that drive toward our own self (or spiritual) fulfillment. Who am I to presume that I know what anyone else needs to be taught? Who am I to say that I know better than another person what he or she needs to grow? I do know, though, that the incredible pull within me is NO DIFFERENT then the unfolding struggling to occur in everyone else around me, and because I trust that process, I can look at my neighbors and tell them how deeply I believe in them, and how, given the right environment, the right soil, and the right nutrients, that incredible drive to development will do what it has always done and is already doing.
Which is why I'm so enamored of Zaadz. We promise to do nothing more than to create that environment of trust and love and empowerment. Your path is your own, and you (You) know better than anyone outside you could possibly guess what that path looks like. Whether it's The Secret or a few years spent in the corporate offices of Exxon or a month in an Ashram in India or a blind commitment to the tenets of Integral theory or raising a family in Ohio, your path is your path … just as it is Mine.