Sam Harris: Orange Meanie or Teal Secular Humanist?

thanks for the heads up on the Harris and Warren debate. will read everything as soon as i get the chance. and yeah, we should cut Sam Harris some slack :)

let's see. Sam Harris had already debated with Warren, Azlan, Prager, Sullivan, and a bunch of peeps on Beyond Belief. how about debating with Wilber? or is Wilber too chicken?

to make it a fair fight, let's throw in Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett to the mix. so it'll be Harris+Dawkins+Dennett vs. Wilber.

the loser would shave his head :)

~C

I thought this was great commentary.  I've noticed, in all my observations of Sam Harris, that never reduces transrational to pre-rational.  He mostly just focuses on pre-rational.  He's very careful to qualify statements with words like “mythic” and “magical thinking” and the like.  I think he cuts with precision and does a very good job at it.  He doesn't often cover a large spectrum of altitudes in his debates, but there appears to be an innate understanding in him and his language.  That is, I've never seen him slip up and claim that a trans-rational truth was a pre-rational myth.

ok, i've finally read the entire transcript of the debate. here's my take on it. bottomline: Warren is no match for Harris.

I agree ~C.  I'll check out your blog pretty soon.  But you're right.  Most of his arguments are Amber-contrived.

Good post, Julian. One thing that mystifies me is how often Harris is accused of reductionism in integral circles. It doesn't seem possible to read The End of Faith and come away with that conclusion, since he actually goes out of his way to say that the physicalist theory of mind that is popular among scientists is, to quote the book, “an article of faith”. In this interview, he says “there is no result in neuroscience that rules out dualism, panpsychism, or any other theory that denies the reduction of consciousness to states of the brain.”

I'm sure that his experience with Buddhism has influenced his position. Some integral blogs that I've seen seem to think that his connection with Buddhism is shallow – attending a vipassana retreat, maybe a bit of introductory practice, but I think this is also misinformed. In another interview [pdf link], responding to the question of how he came to Buddhist practice:

“I came to it initially through a few drug experiences. I had a brief psychedelic phase around twenty years ago that convinced me, if nothing else, that it was possible to have a very different experience of the world. I began reading about mysticism and contemplative experience, and it led me to Buddhist practice — Dzogchen practice, in particular.”

From this, I guess is that he has had more than a few transrational experiences, and also believes that his atheism is completely compatible with an authentic Buddhist practice. The integral blogosphere's take on Harris worries me because it seems at odds with his stated opinions. I think its worth considering whether this is more than just misinformation, that maybe we have supressed our own interior skeptic and projected those thoughts and feelings on to Harris.

MrTeacup, thanks for the info on Harris. those statements just validated what i thought of Harris eversince. he's no reductionist like Dawkins or Dennett. and man, he doesn't only practice a watered-down version Buddhism, he takes on Dzogchen! the ultimate Buddhist practice (according to Tibetan tradition that is). so yeah, let's cut Sam Harris some slack :)

~C

i look forward to having time to respond more properly to your - as ever - stimulating, well conceived, and informative, and slightly provoking posts ; )

for now, this jumped out at me:

“then - as we all know - there is the real world. we know that someone like harris - or someone like wilber for that matter, will not change the mind of someone committed to mythic religion ”

in my view, wilber _is_ committed to mythic religion (not abraham mythic, but his metaphysical buddhist-doctrine-influenced interpretations qualify in practise as mythic religion), and is not about to have his mind changed by someone like harris. while i do not equate wilber with a mediaeval monotheistic fundamentalist, the embrace of belief in the absence of evidence is largely epistemologically the same whatever else accompanies it. wilber’s willingness to embrace faith is all the more puzzling given the extent of his knowledge in other areas. then again, as we all know, human beings have a marked propensity to display differing levels of consciousness in different areas of life (lines of development in kw terms).

calling harris reductionist as others have done because he doesn’t explicitly couch everything in an “integral” framework or doesn’t respect the “important” truths of the “great traditions” seems rather oversensitive to me (by the way, could someone please explain what these important truths are?). either what he says makes sense or it doesn’t. wilber’s model is just a model, and one that has serious flaws which do not tend to get much airtime here at zaadz. while i do find harris’ argument style to be somewhat gratuitously snide at times, he himself says that he is no diplomat. the main thing is that i see few people actually answering his points with any coherence - they tend to present their own world views as answers, instead of replying directly. in general, i’m disappointed with the level of discourse of many of the speakers on these topics. the unwillingness to concede to a more cogent argument on all sides does not help us to move to greater understanding. as for dawkins and dennett’s “integral” reductionism, it is worth considering whether that which is supposedly being reduced has sufficient basis in fact so as to be reducible. anyone’s failure to adhere to a preferred model is of significance only to the extent that that model is an accurate reflection of reality. let’s cut reason some slack.

having spent easter indulging pleasures of the flesh, back to the epistemological grindstone : )

“so as you know the response is that there is such a thing as transrational experience.”

forgive my pedantic pausing here, but I would be grateful for some definition of that term - where does the word transrational come from, and what does it mean?

it doesn’t make sense to me. the word rational means in accordance with reason or logic. reason includes all that is, and i believe that all that is has a rational explanation, even if that explanation is beyond our current level of knowledge or understanding. how can anything be transrational, unless it refers to something which doesn’t exist but for which a truth claim is made, and if that is the case, what is the point in discussing it?

the wiktionary came up with this:

___________________

Adjective
transrational

1. (of thought etc.) Beyond the rational; believed without logic or evidence.

Usage notes

This word often seems to be a wooly word that is defined afresh by anyone who uses it. Using it may cast doubt on the referent and the referrer.

Synonyms
metaphysical

____________________________

help me out here!

“it mostly gets totally confused with metaphysical belief or magical thinking/mythic literalism. part of the reason for this is that it is hard to put into words.”

please do your best! i suspect that in the meaning i think you are using, you are not talking about an experience which is beyond the realm of reason, in which case the word is not an accurate descriptor.

“i am sure senor electroglide that you are comfortable with a realy strippped down “bare attention” style of meditation where there is no belief but a series of sequential openings in awareness?”

yep, although I still find it difficult in the middle of my yoga exercises ; )

“this would be the so-called injunction for engaging the “eye of contemplation”

(i have reservations about the validity of the 3 strands of science model as applied in wilberese, and especially the metaphysical conclusions which are stated as following logically from this process, but let’s cover that elsewhere).

“if those terms are too vague for you think of it as a technique for building concentration on a certain aspect of experience. this can be engaged in an entirely reasonable and scientific way, as harris suggests.”

i’m with you

“either you are being intentionally provocative (which is fine)”

not at all (i hope), i’m here to deepen my/our understanding, not waste your/our time

“or you are not aware of the distinction being made by the term ”mythic religion” between literal belief in god/scripture and a kind of higher order metaphorical reading of the archetypal language of the psyche as a kind of map of one’s interior contemplative landscape”

i’m aware of the difference, i do think however that there is considerable blurring of the lines between what is regarded as metaphorical, mythical, poetic etc, and what is believed (literally) as an actual truth claim, or belief as to what/how reality is - both by followers of scriptural religions, and adherents to more “advanced” belief systems.

“where can we start? do you concede that there is a dimension of experience most effectively communicated via, say, poetry?”

i would agree that poetry/metaphor/myth can facilitate in the reader the experiencing of emotions/states more directly and deeply than some other forms of language. poetry includes the communication of sensory and emotional experience, although poetry is neither sufficient nor necessary for this - i’m deeply moved by other forms of language and media too. i’m a bit dubious about the use of the word dimension in the context of this discussion, given the metaphysical connotations elsewhere. aspects/types for example - no problem. i think these distinctions are important given what we’re talking about.

i don’t think poetry is an appropriate substitute for plain language when communicating _about_ those kinds of experience, or _about_ the experiences themselves - especially in an area as prone to confusion and misinterpretation as the the validity of belief in “god”, or any other spiritual phenomenon for which claims of existence are made. i think plain simple language should be used in this arena. i strongly disagree that there is an aspect of human experience which is objectively beyond the reach of language. the relatively low incidence of contemplative practise in the west has left our vocabulary arsenal short of snappy words to describe much of the subjective and interior contemplative experience, but we can manage without recourse to sanskrit or poetry.

if during self-enquiry meditation for example, i am reaching the point where words fail me, i do not feel the need to “wax lyrical” about the infinitely blissful feeling that ensues when attempting to communicate that experience with others, either those who also “know” or those who have never meditated in their lives. words are only ever symbols. jolly useful they are too.

if we are wishing to objectively discuss any experience, it is possible to reference that experience simply. for example, a “feeling of limitless oneness with all that is” can be understood in principle by anyone, even if they haven’t had that experience. again, recourse to poetry is not necessary.

love
orgasm
pain
bliss

are all complex experiences, but their referents are generally understood (although admittedly the referents have a wide range of variance depending on the definition used). the word is not the experience, nor does it attempt to be.

even if talking plainly may be seen as taking the magic and romanticism out of spiritual experience, (i think the various new age movements’ annual turnover would collapse if they were required to describe their operation simply and define their terms clearly), i think it is important to do so.

if i were to hazard a guess, i would say that there is considerable pyschological insecurity behind much of the language which is used in spiritual circles. if this language is pointed out, a believer might say that that person doesn’t “get it” or is simply not in touch with their “divine” or “true” nature, or that they are blind to the “Spirit” working through them, or they haven’t trained for long enough!!!! you are (sadly) unusual in your insistence that reason and critical thinking are not optional in any consideration of human consciousness, as such i see you as being in favour of integration rather than dis-integration. (as far as transrational is concerned… hmmmm.)

in many spiritual (esp. new age) cultures, it seems highly politically incorrect to question claims using reason, or even to suggest that “wisdom” without reason might not be all that it is claimed to be - the thinking mind is considered inferior, unacceptable, false. i think that the use of poetic language can be a coded signal for “believers” to please switch off their critical faculties beyond this point, because from here on in, anything goes so please indulge your spiritual leader! trigger words include “arise, arising, profound, divine, knowing, sacred” - they are all or can be symbolic of metaphysical belief. please check your disbelief at the door.

i recall the claims about language used by some to suggest that language actually changes our reality, for example the eskimos having a zillion words for snow, or the zulus having a zillion words for grass. not only is this an urban myth (there are considerably more descriptors for snow in the english language than inuit for example) but it’s a pernicious insult to the human mind (which has enough real limitations - including linguistic - without fabricating more!). a belgian/english/french etc peak spiritual experience is no less profound than the same depth of experience enjoyed by an indian yogi or japanese buddhist monk just _because_ he or she is belgian and calls it a peak spiritual experience rather than satori ! i dispute the assertion that meaningful description of subjective experience with plain language is futile and ineffectual.

while we’re at it, i’d like to initiate - right here right now - a campaign for plain language in any objective discussion on this site. one of my aims as i’ve said before is to develop concensus. going by many of the entries on this site, being “conscious” and compassionate is no guarantee of any ability to think clearly or critically, or to scrutinise one’s thinking for contradictions, indeed many seem perfectly content to stand by genuinely contradictory beliefs, and this makes concensus very difficult. in accordance with the principles of critical thinking in discourse, let’s define terms, use plain language, and take nothing (or as little as possible) as implicitly agreed.

what would be left of zaadz - indeed any spiritual community - if all metaphysical romanticism, unreason and dogma were removed, and were replaced by rationally integrated consciousness embracing all that is? in my view, a considerably more powerful force for good.

“now of course poetry should not be confused with empiricism. but neither should be reduced to the other either - yes?”

agreed, although i don’t think i’m trying to do so. poetry, myth, metaphor, archetypes, legend, fables etc are all valuable and enriching facets of human life if employed consciously and healthily, especially with regard to young people for whom they have great formative value. as stated above, i don’t endorse the use of poetry as substitute for rationality when considering truth claims, but literal language is equally not always the most elegant tool for evoking images and feelings in the human mind.

to summarise this language point, _a_ is _a_ …. a luminous cloud of infinitely knowing brilliance is what it is, and that is something that - so far as we know and can be demonstrated - exists only in the human imagination.

“gimme anther week to settle into my new place and we can do a fun z-bate”

when you’re ready, i think that would be smashing. i really value the way in which this site allows stimulating discourse with intelligent people - I clearly notice the growth in me from considering the viewpoints of others - especially the ones I disagree with - it often leads to a higher level of understanding, in me at least ; ) i think the z-debate format will help to avoid the confusion of argument which blogging tends to encourage (including my entry here - what’s my actual point?!?). having a clear proposition to debate would be great.

as for the heading of this blog, i think the assignation of integral altitude and altitude healthiness to harris - and whether he should subsequently be accepted/shunned by the “integral” community - is considerably less important than the central point he makes:

- is it appropriate to believe things for which there is insufficient evidence, when the consequences of doing so are for from insignificant, and when there is good reason to believe otherwise?

- another way of putting the question is - when is it appropriate to betray our minds?

these questions have direct relevance to the points we are discussing, and while the questions themselves can be associated with certain altitudes - the answers to them are more directly indicative of stage - and health - of consciousness. my answer to the first question is that it is not appropriate, my answer to the second is - never.

later dude

the word rational means in accordance with reason or logic. reason includes all that is, and i believe that all that is has a rational explanation, even if that explanation is beyond our current level of knowledge or understanding. how can anything be transrational, unless it refers to something which doesn’t exist but for which a truth claim is made, and if that is the case, what is the point in discussing it?

I think what you've defined here is not rational. In the context of pre-rational/rational/transrational, I understand rational to refer to something like logical positivism, which is that a proposition is meaningful only if there is a finite, objective procedure for conclusively determining whether it is true or false. So my interior states have no meaning because you can't perform a procedure to discover if they are true or false – the fact that they are compatible with rationality doesn't make them rational.

Transrationality, from the perspective of rationality, is terribly mundane and obvious. Transrational experience is comprehensible to a rational mind, but the fact that it is profound is not. Rationality does not permit knowledge of what is profound because that's just a subjective experience that no-one can objectively verify. The problem is that “objective” knowing could not take place without subjectivity, since you would have to have a subjective experience of having measured something before you could assert that you had arrived at an objective truth.

hi

“I think what you’ve defined here is not rational. In the context of pre-rational/rational/transrational”

since i dispute the validity of the word transrational, i don’t view anything in that context as logical. now _postrational_ - as in after the fact of having developed the use of rational consciousness - is a completely different story. the word transrational as far as i can tell is a pseudo-scientific trojan horse designed (consciously or otherwise) to facilitate the legitimation of mystical claims.

“I understand rational to refer to something like logical positivism, which is that a proposition is meaningful only if there is a finite, objective procedure for conclusively determining whether it is true or false.”

not exactly - i’m using rationality to mean thinking which is in accordance with - does not contradict - reason and logic. this would include but not be limited to the narrower criteria you have given.

“So my interior states have no meaning because you can’t perform a procedure to discover if they are true or false - the fact that they are compatible with rationality doesn’t make them rational.”

you’ve assumed my criteria (incorrectly) and then applied those assumed criteria to my argument. furthermore, your statement that your interior states have no meaning does not follow logically from your (inaccurately) assumed criteria. again, a state cannot be rational or irrational, it can only be evaluated rationally. subjectively, an interior bodymind state has whatever meaning the subject assigns to it. a state is neither true nor false - it is what it is. how that state is experienced subjectively, or perceived/analysed objectively, is a related but separate issue. rationality only comes in with the consideration of causation, effects, significance etc of that state.

“Transrationality, from the perspective of rationality, is terribly mundane and obvious.”

on the contrary, i find the whole notion charming, fascinating, and anything but obvious - especially since i dispute the existence of anything which can meaningfully be called transrational.

“Transrational experience is comprehensible to a rational mind”

not mine…

” but the fact that it is profound is not.”

what do you mean by profound? if referring to the perceived intensity of a state, that’s simply a matter of degree. i suspect you’re referring to something else though, of a more esoteric nature… please enlighten me

“Rationality does not permit knowledge of what is profound because that’s just a subjective experience that no-one can objectively verify.”

see above request for definition of profound. second person objective verification is not a necessary condition for the application of rationality. a subjective experience firstly can be verified by the subject, and secondly its neurophysiological correlates either are (or in time probably will be) detectable UR.

“The problem is that “objective” knowing could not take place without subjectivity, since you would have to have a subjective experience of having measured something before you could assert that you had arrived at an objective truth.”

i’m tempted to say “what are you talking about/getting at/ really wanting to say” at this point… i feel like you’re being a bit coy, but i’ll persevere… (it’s good fun : )

these statements do not follow logically from one to the other, and i need further clarification to know what you’re wanting to say

“the problem is”

what problem are you referring to in relation to what i wrote? i.e. what propositon of mine is your statement designed to qualify or refute.

what do you mean by “objective knowing”?

“since you would have to have a subjective experience of having measured something before you could assert that you had arrived at an objective truth.”

this doesn’t really make sense, nor is it accurate if i understand your intention correctly. firstly, millions upon millions of people do assert objective truth claims about experiences which they have not consciously measured, even about other people’s reported experiences which they have no way of measuring. secondly, let’s say i have a flash of hitherto unexperienced altered state of consciousness. i perceive that i have had it, and regard the fact of having had that experience as an objective truth, (in the absence of grounds for doubting my sanity or basic functioning of my bodymind which would then necessitate a further application of objectivity to my objective confirmation of my subjective experience). neither measurement other than binary, nor rational explanation, are necessary to confirm the truth of having had that experience. were i then to assert that that experience (which may have _felt_ or _seemed_ ecstactic, otherwordly, “nondual” or whatever) as proof of an objective truth, that assertion would - all other things being equal - have been made irrationally. again, that doesn’t seem to bother great swathes of the human population.

personally, i would want convincing on rational grounds before i were to assert that that experience was proof (“truth”) of anything else. social proof does not per se constitute rational grounds for so doing.

i can have first person objective awareness of a first person subjective experience (fuck the maths) which i could measure against all sorts of criteria

- physiology changes - body temperature, blood pressure, heart rate, brain activity, blood sugar, hormone production etc etc
- how much of my body mind i felt was affected
- intensity on a subjective scale based on past experience
- anecdotal comparison
- affective change
- comparison of the nature of experience with all previously experienced states

again, interpreting that experience as evidence of objective metaphysical truth (especially one which is at odds with my current understanding of the nature of the bodymind ) would be a leap of faith, and one which contravenes the law of identity.

i may not have answered your points to your satisfaction - i found some of them to be vague or non sequitur. feel free to elucidate.

best wishes

You seem to have a grudge against this word 'transrational'. I won't get in your way if you insist on beating senseless a straw man built around a particular word.

Our only point of disagreement is this: You think the word 'transrational' necessarily implies sneaking in magical thinking through the back door, and would prefer we use post-rational. I believe that it doesn't matter much what term you choose to call it, people are going to believe what they believe. You probably would prefer to just say pre-rational/rational, but the word 'rational' has strong positivist connotations that imply, as I said, that a proposition is meaningful only if there is a finite, objective procedure for conclusively determining whether it is true or false. If we accept that definition of rationality, then it makes perfect sense to distinguish trans- (or post-) rationality with rationality and there's no need to impute sinister motivations to people who do accept that definition.

But apparently that's not what rational means to you. OK. You are welcome to your own definitions, but the custom is to allow writers to use the nomenclature they are comfortable with, and it seems somewhat childish to insist that they use yours.

“You seem to have a grudge against this word ‘transrational’.”

my writing is not motivated by grudge, rather by a strong conviction that the planet would be considerably healthier if the human race were consciously oriented towards reality. i have yet to see a definition of the word transrational which satisfies that criterion on any logical level, or on any level on which its (equally vaguely defined) referents seems plausible. the word transrational is just one of many which apply to models i’m dissatisfied with as explanations of how the world is. julian happened to use that one in a post above.

you seem to be defensive towards the word, whatever it means ; )

“I won’t get in your way if you insist on beating senseless a straw man built around a particular word.”

i think the onus is on advocates of whatever concepts lie behind the word to demonstrate that those concepts are not as bogus in fact as they are epistemologically. i fail to see in what way i have created a straw man argument - i am disputing the validity of a vague truth claim on rational grounds, furthermore a truth claim which noone seems wiling to define. again, your comment is invited to respond to my points rather than simply ignoring them and repeating your original points (to which i have already responded).

“Our only point of disagreement is this:”

i think there are numerous points of disagreement. i hope you are able to respond to the ones i have outlined in my previous post. however contrary my arguments may seem to you, i assure you that i offer them as a way of deepening my understanding of the nature of consciousness and existence, so that i can better apply my abilities in the most effective way to help rescue the planet from the natural disaster that is wilful human ignorance.

” You think the word ‘transrational’ necessarily implies sneaking in magical thinking through the back door”,

i neither think it implies that, nor do i think it necessarily implies anything other than beyond the rational. i suspect that it was designed to be consistent with deductive reasoning based on traditional mystical beliefs. again, please answer my original points rather than filling in my blanks incorrectly. if i don’t know something, i just ask… like, what does transrational actually mean?

“and would prefer we use post-rational.”

again, no. post-rational has a specifically different meaning and definition from what i understand the word transrational to be pointing to, and i gave that definition above.

and anyway - who is “we”? irrationalists in general?

” I believe that it doesn’t matter much what term you choose to call it,”

what is “it”?

“people are going to believe what they believe.”

that’s why we’re in deep shit - the pandemic avoidance of reality.

“You probably would prefer to just say pre-rational/rational”

and then post-rational, if using it in a temporal (both meanings apply) consciousness development model. otherwise, just rational and irrational. at the likely risk of being accused of some kind of ppf flatlanding or whatever.

i’d prefer we all used terms which were clearly defined, had referents which were known to exist, or for which truth claims were not made in the absence of sufficient evidence, and which had a basis in reality. call me old-fashioned, but there it is. i still get lost in the awe and beauty of it all, fall in love, live passionately, and wonder at the mystery and majesty of life. i just don’t sympathise with irrational mystical romanticism, and the attendant effects it has on the world.

“but the word ‘rational’ has strong positivist connotations that imply, as I said, that a proposition is meaningful only if there is a finite, objective procedure for conclusively determining whether it is true or false. If we accept that definition of rationality,”

i answered that earlier, with my definition of rationality. nothing to see here, move on.

“then it makes perfect sense to distinguish trans- (or post-) rationality with rationality and there’s no need to impute sinister motivations to people who do accept that definition.”

i do not impute sinister motivations. i think - based on the absence of clear consistent definitions - that the use of the word transpersonal - like the word god - is (often unconsciously) disingenuous and misguided, and i look forward to seeing a definition and justification for it which will allow me to understand. seriously. in 20 words or less.

“But apparently that’s not what rational means to you.”

nope - your definition is closer to a description of the empirical scientific method. I’m just using the oxford american dictionary definition, for the benefit of you american upstarts (that’s a joke). i’m still having a ball : )

“OK. You are welcome to your own definitions, but the custom is to allow writers to use the nomenclature they are comfortable with,”

then why did you not extend that courtesy to me? you can’t supply a non-standard definition for a word that i used first, then attack my argument based on that definition and follow your points from that position. not if you want to stay open to updating your belief system anyway. i have definite opinions, but they’re flexible, because i love learning more than i love the false security of attachment to my beliefs. it’s people like you who have the honour and the privilege of helping a fellow human being to understand life better, it is my honour and privilege to be helped and help in return.

” and it seems somewhat childish to insist that they use yours.”

your arguments have largely been between you and you, i don’t really feel that that name calling has much to do with me. i’m not insisting that you do anything, i just think it would be more constructive if you answered my points. it’s not a fight, it’s a dance, and my feet ain’t that big…

peace brother

hi J, our posts crossed.

“more later, but i think it is helpful to differentiate the larger sense of the word rational from the specific developmental psychological stage it denotes.”

i use both meanings, but not in any “trans” context. i’m totally down with the psychological stage models (insofar as they relate to reality), and i use the oxford definition as stated above for the general usage of the word.

zooming out, i don’t really mind what terms are used (if the definitons are agreed), it’s the referents that concern me, and as i wrote above, i think we _need_ to use plain language plainly for these referents. i think one of the reasons harris has attracted so much -ve and +ve attention is that he states things clearly, in a culture (esp. green meme) which freaks out at confrontation and plain statement of fact and opinion. another book which excels in this is “the art of living consciously” by nathaniel branden - I dearly wish that this were required reading in any learning/spiritual environment - it is beautifully respectful writing with the most benevolent, heroic, and reasoned philosophy i have found anywhere.

the danger with lots of new vaguely defined terminology, as with wilber’s integral culture, is that the codes and concepts become gospel and immune from further questioning, as the attachment of insecurity and the psychology of previous investment kick in. they are then culturally defended by powerful in-group dynamics, and before you know it, you’ve got dogmatic faith. again, the end of faith is a dynamic ongoing psychological orientation which affects all of us, not just fossilised religions.

“how about is we instead say transpersonal, personal and prepersonal - would that make more sense and cause less semantic confusion?”

you mean pedantic confusion right ? ; )

here again (and it gives me no great pleasure to say so!!!), i would say pre-personal, personal, and post-personal in a developmental context to delineate the stage development, or interpersonal if relating to communication (of whatever kind) between people. the word transpersonal is used in contexts of mystical belief and faith, and it allows for ambiguities which do not lend themselves to clarification _especially_ when the subject matter is the episemological basis for non-evidence-based faith and belief (and arbitrary mystical interpretation of phenomena) !!!

do you get what i’m banging on about? and do you see why i am placing importance on this. it’s about critical thinking. while i have been jive on occasion in the posts above (i’ll learn), it is fairly easy to see which of my points have been addressed and which have been reacted to. i know you’re real busy right now, but to anyone else reading, please consider the possibility that we would all be better off if we honoured our minds before our beliefs, to allow the latter to be informed by the former. we’re in the unique situation in history of having both the freedom and responsibility to wield our self-reflexiveness consciously, and we are failing. that failure is caused by not exercising our freedom to choose to think - our volitional consciousness. this consciousness embraces the whole of our physicality, the whole of our spirituality, the whole of our mindbodies, and it is guided consciously and unconsciously by _reason_. there is considerable evidence for this. there is not considerable evidence for any “transrational” causality. the choice is ours to make.

i hope you are able to respond to the ones i have outlined in my previous post.

Very well. I've edited your comments down for space, I hope its still clear.

since i dispute the validity of the word transrational, i don’t view anything in that context as logical. now _postrational_ …

You may dispute whatever you like. I'm speaking about my interpretation of the word, and from the outset it seems you have rejected it no matter how I define it. But you seem to recognize that my definition of transrational is substantially the same as your definition of post-rational, and yet later you say you have not seen a definition of transrational that you agree with. I've summarized a definition of rational and transrational from Susanne Cook-Greuter, and posted it on my blog since its pretty long. I hope you will find, as I have, that defining transrationality correctly is a much more powerful tool for encouraging critical thinking in spirituality than semantic arguments. As a side note, here a move that I've noticed many atheists do: “These people's beliefs are completely irrational and illogical! Its almost as if they immune to logical arguments! This is terrible, what should we do? I know… let's use LOGICAL ARGUMENTS!” Genius. How could it possibly fail? It leads me to wonder if perhaps this is designed to fail.

i’m using rationality to mean thinking which is in accordance with - does not contradict - reason and logic.

That's fine. I'm using it differently, and I think there are good reasons to do so.

…you’ve assumed my criteria (incorrectly) and then applied those assumed criteria to my argument.

No, I am discussing the conclusions of my definition of rationality, not yours. The non-meaningfulness of non-empirical statements is a well-known aspect of logical positivism.

i find the whole notion charming, fascinating, and anything but obvious - especially since i dispute the existence of anything which can meaningfully be called transrational.

Here again, you simply refuse to allow me to use the word.

what do you mean by profound?

I include a range of meanings from relatively common to extraordinary.

second person objective verification is not a necessary condition for the application of rationality.

Under your definition, sure. Under mine, this is called transrational thinking.

…these statements do not follow logically from one to the other, and i need further clarification to know what you’re wanting to say..what problem are you referring to in relation to what i wrote? i.e. what propositon of mine is your statement designed to qualify or refute.

This is a somewhat lazy summary of one critique of logical positivism. The basic point is fairly obvious, that empirical observations require a subjective experience. But on what logical or empirical grounds do positivists trust their subjective experience? The ground beneath positivism gives way. The point is that we have moved beyond positivism, and this is part of the reason. This is not in response to anything you have said.

then why did you not extend that courtesy to me? you can’t supply a non-standard definition for a word that i used first, then attack my argument based on that definition and follow your points from that position.

A non-standard definition of a word you used first? LOL. Wow… would even it matter to you that actually Julian used the word first? For the record, I have no problem with your definition of rationality or transrationality and I have never attacked it. I just don't agree that its the only one, or that other people are necessarily misguided to use a different one. The Oxford American dictionary notwithstanding. I'm perfectly happy to be called defensive, since my aim is to defend, and I also don't agree that if somehow we managed to eliminate the word 'transrational', that critical thinking would be the result. If I can be said to attack you, it is on these points, which have nothing to do with which definition one prefers. But at this point, I think we've devolved into a semantic argument and I don't think its very productive.

hi Mr Teacup

gotta dash - i’ll respond later, but for now, i want to thank you (very sincerely) for engaging me on this thread - i’m really grateful for the insights and learning, and lots more besides (tell you later). i’m _really_ happy and excited about it. it is so fantastically amazing being alive!!!

julian, i’m going to do an interim summary later today/tomorrow, then split this discussion, as i’d like to get the thread more focused on the original topic, and take my discussion with Mr Teacup on to my blog or a pod if he’s agreeable after my response (for now i’d just like to say that our interaction has been far from unproductive for me). gentlemen, it’s been a pleasure and an honour and i look forward to more, now i gotta go record some music…

so far in this blog the discussion has moved from sam harris' level of consciousness on the spiral/integral scale, through a somewhat pompous refutation of the validity of the word transrational and its mystical referents, to a mildly self-righteous series of logical mismatches and composition fallacies. i must confess to having contributed more to the less noble parts of the discussion… and during the course of the blogging, i have experienced profound pleasure in the exercise of my mind, some truly hearty belly laughs at the absurdity of rolling around in the linguistic mud, and delighted at the complexity of insight and perspective that such an exchange can bring about!

there are some conclusions which i think can usefully be drawn, and a larger context within which a different meaning for my ostensibly pedantic argument may become apparent, as well as my understanding that consciousness is not limited exclusively to the function of rational thinking, not that you thought that for a moment anyway ; )

________________________________________________________________________

this is a discussion about a territorial dispute. this territory is invisible, elusive, its nature and significance fiercely disputed, its ownership hotly contested. it is reached only within the human bodymind (as far as we know), yet when it is arrived at, it is perceived to be everywhere and can seem larger than the universe. it is owned exclusively by anyone who goes there, but when entered, the owner disappears along with ownership. everyone has a belief about what the territory is, but noone can prove their belief to be correct. visitors stake their security and identity on their belief, and will defend, deride, protest and even kill to defend them, yet when the territory is entered, the beliefs and identity are often forgotten. the more vividly this territory is experienced as real, the less real everything else seems to be. it is a territory we live in, yet rarely visit. it can be reached by deciding to go there, or by spontaneous accident. it goes by many names depending on the model to which one subscribes or creates. it is claimed by some to be the best place in the world, by others to be the gateway to an even better place, by others to be an essential part of a larger island of consciousness, by others to be the causeway connecting each island with all that is, and by yet others to be a wasteland or a delusion. it is described as the source of ultimate truth, and as a mere part of a different truth. it is claimed to be the only place where suffering does not exist, and also to be the source of great suffering. some claim that defining this territory accurately is not important, that all definitions are valid, while others claim that if we do not have an accurate and shared definiton then we are lost.

this is the territory which lies at the heart of our discussion, at the heart of virtually every discussion on zaadz, and for which myriad and conflicting maps daily guide the hearts, minds and actions of billions of human beings.

harris' words have been analysed to determine how and where he fits into the wilber-integral-sd model, and to see whether he refutes or denies some of the “territorial” claims of that model. some have judged him as reductionist, pre-trans fallacious, narrow-minded (and much worse), and on this blog he has been deemed largely innocent of those charges.

the wilber-integral model is one representational framework or container within which the whole of human experience can be mapped. some of the content models supplied and endorsed by wilber/greuter et al as appropriate to that framework contain certain truth claims or beliefs about how reality is, and which refer to the territory mentioned above, using specific terminology as symbols referring to that claimed reality. while i dispute some of those claims, my point is that the question of the basis for beliefs and claims about how the world works is not an insignificant one. i, like harris and many others, maintain that the conscious and rational application of reason, imperfect as it is, is the best tool available to humans in guiding action and is optimally used in the full and healthy apprehension of the entire bodymind system. harris' primary concern (in his writings and interviews at least) is the danger posed by the intersection of religious fundamentalism and modern weapons. i believe the dangers of beliefs insufficiently supported by evidence and reason to be considerably wider and closer to home, especially in our collective failure to modify our behaviour  based on awareness of the effects of indiscriminate and insufficiently contextualised industrialisation, exploitation of technology, and consumption (in other words - tool use), and that it is incumbent upon all of us to choose our beliefs based on full-spectrum reasoning and critical thinking to the maximum extent possible, to integrate those beliefs into a philosophical vision as a guide to action, and to spread that vision worldwide to the utmost of our abilities as an urgent matter of survival.

i shall be rolling out a proposed framework for this vision and its transmission as soon as possible. (these discussions bear upon it). for now, contingent on reaching a concensus for that vision is the ability to communicate concepts meaningfully. this requires among other things a high degree of critical thinking in semantics, that word so often used pejoratively, yet without attention to which all philosophical discussion - and subsequent political discussion - fails. avoidance of reality has consequences at every turn, and each instance no matter how seeingly insignificant has processional effects. we do not actually live in a postmodern vacuum. everything we think, say, and do has a consequence. we have a moral duty to recognise this fact and strive to live accordingly.

words matter. ideas matter. concepts matter. symbols matter. models matter. the accuracy with which they are created and employed matters. the grounds upon which they are chosen matters. philosophical discussion is not an abstract exercise, mightily stimulating though it may be. ideas now shape the world as never before. we are creating the future. the current world situation is dire, and we and our children shall all be tested severely in the coming months and years. if the good people in communities such as zaadz - who have access to resources of intelligence and consciousness denied to many and therefore have the responsibility of leadership - cannot use those resources in the service of real goodness as opposed to good intentions based on shoddy wishful thinking, what hope is there for the mass of humanity? gaia is real, humans are real, the need for us to grow up is real…

if irrational faith and belief is not replaced by faith in our ability to live rationally then reality will exile humankind forever from the territory of consciousness - the means by which we come to know what it is to be alive, to experience the joy and despair of living - by destroying the conditions which make human life possible on earth. what is at stake is the survival of joy - the highest expression of the good life, and in order for each of us to contribute our own unique gift to that good life effectively, our primary concern must be to honour reality to the extent that our faculties of consciousness allow us. reality is all that is. the human form of consciousness is conceptual. if we do not use our conceptual imaginations in the service of a higher vision of reality, then our imaginations are worse than useless, since they are the means by which we otherwise visit hell upon each other and on the world. we can no longer pretend that an attitude of: anything goes, any definition goes, any idea goes, any religion goes, any belief goes, any interpretation goes - is compatible with peaceful sustainable human life. the evidence of the cost of so doing is irrefutable to all but the most dogmatic and uninformed. the choice is ours.

teacup, i have no reason to believe that you are anything other than a highly intelligent and thoroughly decent human being whose values coincide largely with my own. yet how easy it was for us to create misunderstanding and the beginnings of conflict (albeit coded). i invite you, in a spirit of learning and understanding, to join me shortly over at my place to see how far the semantic rabbithole actually goes by continuing our discussion, and to see what it transforms into as we proceed. my prediction is for concensus, fun and growth. you’ll also get to see me critique my own absolutely incontestable logic haha ; ) i’ll post you a link soon as i get time to set it up.

peace

adam

and for now, i'm on a fact finding mission, so if you're amenable to contributing, i feel comfortable asking for this ; )

http://religionsucks.zaadz.com/blog/2007/4/what_the_bleep_is_transrational

I listened to your dialogue with Ken Wilber, and liked your way of reasoning. I have also read  ’The End of Faith’ by Sam Harris some time ago. I don't remember much of the details of the book, but I know, I  liked it a lot. I have also listened to him in dialogue with Stuart Davis. There too I liked his reasoning. It is  clear, easy to understand. It brings out the problem of arrested development in the fundamentalist forms of religions. He is not so much focusing on other aspects of religions. However I do not remember him claiming that there are no healthier forms of them. So I'm with you here, that Harris is writing about important issues of our times, and in a healthy way.

Somehow part of my comment got cut away. So I continue here.

For me it doesn't matter so much on how high altitude one is. The most important thing is a healthy, easy to understand approach. What good does speaking from a high stage awareness create, if it goes totally over people's heads?

The fact that he doesn't talk about the positive possibilities in religions, I don't consider a big sin. This maybe because 30 years ago my own approach to religions was even more critical than his. I could not see much value in them. I agreed with Freud that religion is opium to the people. I was totally focusing my attention on the atrocities that had been made in the name of religions, especially Christianity, throughout history.

I started meditating at age 23, and I loved the practice, and felt my life improve through it a lot.

So it was natural that I was enthusiastic about it. Once when I was out with my two little kids at the courtyard, I told there to a young woman of my age, that I practiced meditation. The look on her face became very grim, and she said: “It is the greatest sin you can do against God”. She turned out to be a fundamentalist Christian. I felt her statement like a strong blow against my face. The result was that my attitude towards Christianity got for a few years time even more negative than before.

I however tend to observe the reality around me with open eyes. I observed that religion is helpful to many people in their anguish. There were people, who started meditating, but then at some point became reborn Christians, and felt more at home there.

During the last few years I have been pondering about the possible positive effects of Christianity on the development of Europe and western civilization in general. As I see it, the western civilization has evolved higher in the stages than the East. In the eastern religions and philosophies there are available advanced techniques and high wisdom in advancing practitioners to experience higher states. But these systems don't seem to have been very efficient in helping people to evolve through the stages. Christian Europe has fared clearly better there in spite of the many atrocities. There is something in Christianity that has helped people, even the big masses, evolve in their values, and morals. And most importantly the position of women has been better in Christianity than in other religions. The religions are not equal in their effect on people. There are more or less pathological forms of it. The speech of the pope September 2006 at the University of Regensburg, (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2006/september/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20060912_university-regensburg_en.html), that irritated so much the fundamentalist Muslims, helped me to understand better the role of Christianity in helping Europe to evolve.

(To my astonishment I liked and appreciated a speech by a pope. The first one I've ever read)

Sam Harris is doing important work in showing the absurdity of many of the pathological forms through simple clear reasoning.

Irmeli

“Sam Harris is doing important work in showing the absurdity of many of the pathological forms through simple clear reasoning.”

this seems to be the concensus by all posters so far, following on from julian's original assessment. i agree that harris has not devoted much time to the benefits of religion, but he has made the salient point - it is not that religion and “spiritual” practise are all bad, it is that we can no longer afford to avoid placing those benefits they have within a context of consciously chosen criteria based on the application of reason - within a healthy culture decided on rational grounds. few people (atheists especially) mention the many aspects of islam for example which have value, or the ways in which islamic cultures promote certain aspects of behaviour better than post-enligtenment secular western cultures. for example, there is a much more cohesive moral and ethical code, sexual difference is much more clearly defined in terms of roles and segregation, the masculine and feminine are celebrated and honoured to a much greater extent, community and family ties are much stronger, morals and ethics and honour are more valued. how healthily those aspects are manifested is a whole different story (ofen not very), and i think harris, like myself, is speaking universally in recommending that all cultures need to reconsider their beliefs and practises based on rational criteria.

i agree with irmeli that the health of a statement is more important than its altitude. what determines the health of a statement?  it's relationship to reality for one. what is the factor most pertinent to the health of the speaker? the health of their psycho-epistemology, in other words their level of self-esteem, the prime determinant of which is one's relationship to reality, which includes full-spectrum awareness of all of the territories of consciousness.

i too found julian's comments in his discussion with wilber to be clear and comprehensive, more so in fact than those of wilber himself.

i see much talk on zaadz of whether a person or their communication is “integral” or “second tier” (again relating back to harris). the label often seems to be used as a new form of political correctness, a ready label to determine whether someone is us or them, safe or dangerous, acceptable or unacceptable, ingroup or outgroup.

is it possible that a more meaningful use of the word “integral” relates to the health of the statement? the statement “i love my mother” or “i love you mother” is - generally speaking - a healthy expression from a linguistically precocious beige level of consciousness development upwards. does the absence of explicit second tier information make that statement not integral? if so, then i question the value of the label. who among us is truly “integral”? let him or her cast the first stone ; )

(at this point it seems appropriate to insert this link as an example of poetry which brings me into the present by delightfully and gently mocking self-important masculine positivist thinking and reminding my rational thinking mind of it's limitations, i loved it. yep, the map certainly is not the territory. of course this doesn't obviate the need for reason, nor does it inhibit my self-important masculine thinking ; )

it should be pointed out again that the need for inclusive comprehensive integrated adult thought and action is urgent. wilber's integral model (or collection of models) is one of numerous models, and in some regards is not the healthiest version of what can be called integral. he is the champion of the concept and the person most associated with the word, but i don't think he himself is necessarily the healthiest proponent of an integral worldview, so dogmatic comparison of statements against this model might not be the most er… integral thing to do.

as julian says, let's not ignore the trees for the forest.

as for the pope's speech, well… god bless him. a document chock full of noble intent, contradiction and chicanery, yet one which shows massive progress on the inexorable journey of the (truly bizarre) catholic church towards reality. it is remarkable in that regard (not so long ago he'd have been arrested for that speech), and the wording shows great insight, and contain many neartruths, and holds so much promise for a brighter worldview, yet falls down on the same grounds that compromise wilber's work - the dogmatic refusal to abandon mystical interpretations of phenomena for which insufficient evidence is available, and this relates to the territorial dispute i mentioned in my earlier post. his speech on its own merits is not impressive - a lot of intellectual wriggling if not sophistry - although the pope has allowed himself to consider situations where using a condom might not be a bad idea. that dude is _radical_ !!!

my discussions with teacup recapitulate to an interesting degree the pope's points about artificially limiting the bounds of reason, the inherent limits of logical positivism etc, and the nature of what lies beyond it, although i myself had not read the speech previously. ideas are important. it's just a shame that the pope's ideas wield such influence over so many - his speech isn't very impressive on its own merits. confusing intellectual wriggling, if not sophistry.

i don't think it fair or accurate for christianity to claim all or even most of the credit for the “evolution” of europe. free intellectual thought had a rocky road to travel before it became ascendant. now all we need to do is use that freedom responsibly and integrally (in the best spirit of that concept).

as for the relative merits of christianity, it was fortunate that the memes within the scriptures which lend themselves to benevolent behaviour happened to be applied as dogmatically as the less benevolent memes in other religions, which ultimately allowed reason to ascend, although not without huge destruction and struggle. the cultural scientific and intellectual oasis that was baghdad before literalist islam reasserted itself it was not so lucky. let us work to ensure that the same does not happen to the healthy parts of western culture.

a conclusion one could draw from harris's work (and any other person looking rationally at “spiritual” world practise) is that a revolution is required to introduce a new paradigm of spirituality by separating fact from fiction, honesty from dishonesty, reality from fantasy, and reason from mysticism. it's time to reclaim the territory of healthy spirituality from religion and mysticism, whereupon its evident richness and beauty can be revealed as requiring no legitimation from a higher power other than life itself.

let's roll.

Elektroglide,

with a healthy approach I mean ways of functioning that don’t force people to stagnation or even regression. It doesn’t need to be integral, or whole or holistic.

The statements and strategies can be one sided and not very holistic and still fulfil this function.

I believe human evolution goes often through the principle of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis. The antithesis can be as lopsided as the thesis, but to an other direction. Finally when true synthesis is reached, it is more integrated. Seen this way the antithesis, even if very partial and limited, can be healthy in the overall scheme of things.

There are a lot of power structures in human societies, that benefit from oppression, subjugation, and use religion and other ideologies as means to stop people get free, independent, empowered.

You seem to have a very idealistic picture of the Islamic culture. Do you have any real encounters with these people? I do have. In my work I’m also hiring apartments to Muslim refugees. I have met many Muslim families.

They are usually quite nice, and polite people. But…. There is a big BUT here.

The wives are usually very shy, don’t easily speak with me even if I’m female. When they speak, there expressions are naive. They seem to be very fearful beings. According to the Muslim law  the men are morally more advanced than the women. And so it really looks like there. When in the Muslim world a man rapes a woman,(which seems to be rather common practice among the Muslim men according to Finnish statistics), usually the woman is considered to be guilty. At what stage of moral development are the Muslim men who reason this way? And if the women are even lower, at what stage are they? Muslim women don’t have real human rights. They are often just slaves to their husbands, and his family.

I believe that the structures and actions that are displayed at the public arena, are just reflections of the structures of interaction inside the families. And hence I consider the stagnation and regression of the Islamic world not being due to some coincidence in history. How could it really? It has much more to do with the oppression of women in those cultures. There the patriarchal men have learned very effective means to keep their superior power over women. These means can be very brutal, as honor killing of daughters or wives, who try to rebel against their slavery.

You say that community and family ties are much stronger in Muslim cultures. That is true. But iis it because they are still at an ethnocentric or even clan centric level of development? When real evolving starts to happen in those communities towards individualization, the family ties there too will become looser. But there are so strong oppressive patriarchal structures in those cultures that they often seem to be almost immune to evolving. Among the different groups of refugees in Finland they show the poorest integration to the society. And I understand the poor integration being caused of their moral and values development being stuck so much behind of the average level in our society.

with a healthy approach I mean ways of functioning that don’t force people to stagnation or even regression. It doesn’t need to be integral, or whole or holistic.

we were talking primarily about harris' statements i thought. i also thought i made it clear that a statement doesn't need to be explicitly integral to be healthy.

The statements and strategies can be one sided and not very holistic and still fulfil this function.

i'm sure. we're using the adjective healthy in different contexts - i defined my context above. this doesn't of course invalidate your context, just means we're not comparing like with like.

There are a lot of power structures in human societies, that benefit from oppression, subjugation, and use religion and other ideologies as means to stop people get free, independent, empowered.

not in your society apparently ; )  you seem fairly iconoclastic and autonomous in your thinking.

You seem to have a very idealistic picture of the Islamic culture.

until you read the sentence following my comments about islam with the word healthily in it - that contextualises and qualifies the whole of the previous section. the beginning and end of that paragraph provide the context and qualification for the comments on islam - for you to have read my picture of islamic culture as idealistic, it would appear that you have not read the whole paragraph carefully (or indeed the majority of what i've written here and elsewhere about my lack of sympathy for religion and mysticism).

Do you have any real encounters with these people?

without wishing to give your misinterpretation any credibility, i'll answer your question: i live in a city with the biggest turkish muslim population outside istanbul, my apartment building is 50% muslim occupancy, there is a community prayer room on the ground floor, i live around muslims, turkish, kurdish, persian, you name it. in my experience, “these people” are as differentiated from each other as humans in any other varied set of homogeneous cultural groups, but from my own personal experiences i have similar observations to some of yours. pointing these out has not thus far been my focus however - i'm more interested in the philosophical basis for beliefs generally, and the implications of those beliefs.

I do have. In my work I’m also hiring apartments to Muslim refugees. I have met many Muslim families.

i have met many also, in germany and the uk. i come from leeds, where the london suicide bombers got their fabulous education, my sister is a fundamental christian. my zaadz address is religionsucks.zaadz, i've been studying religion, the psychology of religion, religious culture, religious anthropology, and evolutionary basis of religion for 20 years, i follow closely the appeasement of fundamentalism by relativist pluralist democracies, and the emboldening of religious factions in the face of postmodern philosophical cowardice. i'm well aware - and stay apprised - of the less savoury and destructive behaviours of those who identify themselves as muslims, or christians, or whatever. i would say i'm reasonably well informed.

to put it politely, i think you're barking up the wrong tree pointing out to me the deficiencies of islam as a culture (and since i have yet to see any evidence for the mystical and spiritual truth claims they make, i regard all religions as purely secular cultural phenomena). while it would appear that we have similar views about the deficiencies of islam, i'd probably be rather more scathing about it  - and christianity - if, for example, we started talking about the heartbreaking practise of religious conditioning of childrens' imagination from birth. but as i pointed out, there are elements of all religious cultures wh