Simply Put #2

so it is.

Julian, I've been reading you here for a little while now. You have a delightfully tough, beautifullly integrated, quick and generous mind. The quibbles here are only small since I basically agree with you.

One. Do you know the philosophical distinction between “reasonable” and “rational”? (Rawls spells this out at great length, but it's a common disction in moral philosophy.) Reasonableness refers to collaboratively-intentioned positions that incorporate the known differences of an Other. One's own position is not attenuated to “truth” or to “reality” objectively, but to the “truth” and “reality” of another. Rational-ness referes to positions that are shaped to harmonize with an exterior, “true,” objective reality. When you refer to “reasonable limits” in sentence four, given your argument it would be more accurate to say “rational limits.”

Two. And related. What about Wilber's original distinction between “truth” (for empirical science) and “truthfulness” (for hermeneutics). Interpretations, he says there, are more or less truthFUL–they deal in fundamentally in subjectivities. One can never circumscribe hermeneutical truth… only approach it. I will leave it to others to get in to it with you on this.

Third. As a political scientist/sociologist, I will offer that your statement about truth in the social sciences is elegant and maintains the (quite beautiful!) true/good/beautiful typology (or perhaps it is a hermeneutic? :) ) you are advancing. But it is inaccurate. In practice, social science is positivist and does not really concern itself with how we should treat each other nor with the question of what is the best organization of society. In practice, almost all social science in the past 20 years has been so hi-jacked by the bulldogs of rationality (indeed by the the same rationalist tendency I am looking to temper just a little bit in your post) that it has become a search for “natural laws.” This is ironic in many ways, but it is the case. Social science is on the first order concerned with describing social reality. Then it is concerned with predicting it. Manipulating it is a distant third concern which is seen as morally problematic, even in my home discipline of sociology (the most moral of the social sciences). It is a technocratic world alienated from the search for goodness, in part because it thinks goodness isn't “true.” This is what happens when one zone (social science: the zone of The Good) falls in thrall to another (natural science: the zone of the True).

Julian, I really loved this one. So clear. I''ve heard these things before, of course, but never so clearly, really. I really appreciate that.

The one minor adjustment I would suggest is not giving empricism the capital “T.” Because people also like to call the absolute “the Truth.” And in any case, the empirical truth of today is tomorrow's myth.

Great post. And you didn't even say anything bad about God!

:)

David

Ooer Julian, Watch out for them thunderbolts!  :D

This is a great blog. It also clarifies for me previous questions about UL & UR confusions, especially with the help of (0v0)'s response and examples - thanks (0v0).

Julian said
”there are three domains of reality”.

I think it is more accurate to say
 “there are three domains of human knowledge - and even though this is our best shot and even when we are using all 3 modes in a healthy, non-overlapping way, we are still not seeing “reality”  - we are just perceiving the closest approximation to reality that we can manage at this point in time”

because as you yourself said:
“truth exists independent of perception.” 

Hi, Julian,

Thanks for another great installation in what looks to be a promising series.  I like what you're doing – distilling the essentials of Integral and existential teachings down into pithy statements.

Because you invited a conversation on this thread about post-metaphysics, relativism, and so on, I would like to address what I see as a subtle myth of the given that still seems to underlie what you are doing.  Because it is subtle, it may not seem that relevant to you.  On a practical level, solving the immediate problems of people who come to you with suffering and confusion, you may not need to think much about what I'm going to say.  But if you step back, taking a broader and more holistic view of what is going on – seeing, or glimpsing, the whole tangled ball of string that we're in – it can have a subtle impact on us that is also important and practical, opening us (and refining our perspectives) in new ways.

Just a brief comment to start off:  from a Buddhist perspective, of course, scientific empiricism and subjective hermeneutics are both in the realm of relative truth, not absolute truth.  Your treatment of scientific empiricism as Absolute Truth is probably what underlies the occasional charges of scientism, Orange, and so on, that come your way.  While these remarks may be off base (I think, in general, they are), I believe they are in response to this apparent elevation of empiricism.  I will not address this directly, but in exploring post-metaphysics and the myth of the given here, I think you'll see how they relate to this issue.

I've been wanting to blog on post-metaphysics for awhile now, and writing in detail here may spoil that, but this does seem to be the place to make these remarks… 

A simple way to approach this is just to take an element of reality that we think is given and indisputable, and then to see how that “element” in itself is, in part, conceptual and therefore embedded in a larger network of presuppositions and meanings.  For instance, take the notion of “atom.”  At one point, we considered atoms to be indivisible points – the most fundamental, unchanging “pieces” of the empirical world.  Later, we discovered that they were divisible, mostly space, and that they had properties that seemed quite bizarre to us.  What is involved here is not simply the use of empirical methods leading to more and more refined images of a pre-given empirical reality.  If you look at what underlies the belief in solid, beebee-like atoms, moving through the void of space, you find a whole complex network of ideas about the nature of matter, time, space, perception, and so on, that all constitute a particular paradigm.  “Atom” makes sense, and actually only ex-ists, only within this larger context.  Eventually, the context may change enough that “atom” comes to be perceived as a clumsy approximation which is no longer useful.  So, does that mean “atoms” don't exist?  Yes and no.  Atoms ex-ist (stand out as empirical “objects”) within a particular AQAL space.  We cannot separate “atom” from the larger interpretive space in which they are understood and investigated. 

Let's take something else – something simpler and more “incontrovertible,” like death.  Does death exist?  From a post-metaphysical point of view, the answer must be yes and no.  What is death?  Death is a particular concept that we apply to a particular aspect of our experience, within the overall context of our worldview.  Death ex-ists within that worldview.  This does not mean that, if you change your worldview, you will suddenly and magically be able to continue in your body forever.  To really get at this, you have to unpack what is embedded within the word, “death,” and not treat it as a timeless thing-in-itself.  You cannot abstract yourself – your perspective-taking, your presuppositions – out of the picture.  You might define death as the cessation of a particular level of organic function, for instance.  This definition “plugs in” to a vast network of presuppositions, models, observations, beliefs, and so on, and only finds its “meaning” and its ex-istence in that context.  In the future, we may understand the nature of reality in terms which make our biological model appear as “clumsy” a tool as the Newtonian, beebee-like atom is to us now, and therefore “death” – to the extent that it is understood in biological terms – will also undergo a transformation.  It will become something different.  If we discover something about the nature of consciousness that is not apparent now, for example, it may become something quite different than the biological model currently presupposes. 

So what?  A rose by any other name is still a rose, right?  Not exactly.  Integral post-metaphysics, as I understand it, does not deny objectivity or reduce everything to purely subjective interpretation.  But it does say that you cannot actually say anything about “purely objective” fact either – you can't take anything as a purely objective given – because whatever you observe is always already, in part, an interpretation.  I understand that you may object to my suggestion in the previous paragraph that we may discover something about consciousness that dramatically changes our understanding of death as just another form of death-denial, and I think that's a valid objection.  That is not really my point here, though.  

My point is subtler:  Everything we talk about is embedded in networks of presuppositions, all of which influence each other, and all of which are subject to change, and therefore none of which can be simply be taken as “given,” as perfectly and timelessly representative of “reality as it really is.”  This does not mean that “anything goes,” or that everything is true.  Within any given paradigm, any given logos, it is possible to evaluate the truth value of different claims; and this is also possible, to a degree, between paradigms as well.  But I think it is important nevertheless to recognize the extent to which our “facts” are inseparable outgrowths of our interpretive lenses, and therefore should not be taken as simply, timelessly given.  Even something like “death.”  When we use the term, it is inevitably colored by our Kosmic address – and is not the “same thing” at every level.

According to Integral Post-metaphysics, there is not a single element of our world that is not subject to the dynamics I've been describing up above.  If you believe you are in possession of or have access to truth about the phenomenal world that is independent of perspectives or perceptions, that itself is subtle metaphysics.

Best wishes,

Balder

* An important point to make here is that, while we speak conventionally about finding out new things about “atoms,” it is actually more accurate to say that subtly different “objects” were tetra-enacted at different points in our projects of inquiry.

I second Balder's comments, but also wish to point to something more elementary. Namely, you seem to abstain from admiting that some of what you're conceptualizing here actually transcends this conceptualization, being of more sophisticated order, and that there is also that which is quite beyond the scope of any conceptual frame of reference, but still ascertainable through rigorous spiritual practice taken to conclusion  (i.e. actual awakening). Therefore, it'd be good to situate the simply put points in these regards, if I haven't overlooked something (in which case I stand corrected), but also explain how do you understand (1) devotional orientation in spirituality at the “simply put” level, and (2) the basic outlines of a post-rational, “post-reasonable” outlook. I believe these would be beneficial as footnotes.

Hokai

Here's my version of Simply Put #2:

Vacationing Shiva to Eden is driven

To wither the Apples and poison the Pears;

For now he's assuming his Group is the given,

Exposing the Fear that mythology wears.

Although this is common with Gods at this level,

Shiva progressed and to Mecca was flown;

Transcending the Kaaba he out-grew the devil,

All Muslims were Human with Rights of their own.

A Relative Storm then swirled into action,

By limiting Apples the Pears could persist;

These Angels united in one massive faction,

Returning to Eden no truth could exist.

All three of these world-views are partial but true,

I'm embracing all three…

                                           but transforming them too.

Sorry, Julian, but mind your words:
 poseidon has no literal objective existence.

Actually, that's not true at all. Whatever “poseidon” is understood to be, it always has some sort of objective existence, as a matter of fact, namely, the external signifiers giving rise to the notion of poseidon, whether in writing (in any possible system of signs), or in sound, or in picture, etc. all these are quite objective. There are even statues of Poseidon, in the name of Zeus! Also, Poseidon may have had a certain historical existence in the relationship of Mediteranean maritime cultures to the sea and eartquakes, and has quite objective existence in terms of this name being connected with other names, such as Neptune, Apollo, and even Troy etc. Now, what I'm saying is that even myths must have correlates in the objective world. What you're saying borders on Dawkins' arguments.

In short, all facts are interpreted. AND all interpretations rely on some facts.

We may know what you meant, but since you started this Wittgensteinean game of putting it simply, we also need some extra precision. But then again, you may really have been using the Dawkins' argument here, or simply pushing the “representation view” so beloved in the rational crowd.

I say it's a good start on the basics. the details can come later.

paul lonely…you are awe-some.

Hi Julian. A concept you might find useful when discussing this stuff is that of the “ontological status” of things. I borrow the term “ontological status” from the book Indian Philosophy by Sue Hamilton.

Mirages of puddles (sometimes called heat reflections though technically they are caused by refracted light) have an ontological status that is different than that of puddles of the kind that splash when you drive through them. Mirage puddles can not only be seen with the naked eye but they can be photographed and filmed, just as non-mirage puddles can be seen, photographed, and filmed. But someone who insisted that a mirage puddle would splash when driven through, or that the dog in the car could get out and quench its thirst by lapping water from the mirage puddle, would be wrong. Conversely, someone who insisted that a puddle that is not a mirage is a mirage (in the sense in which I am using the word “mirage” here, which is the “conventional truth” sense, not the “ultimate truth” sense), would be wrong. (To elaborate on that last parenthetical remark, we can say that there is a sense in which everything is a mirage, appearance, or illusion, but even if we say that we can still distinguish between mirages of puddles and puddles that are not mirages, between counterfeit currency and currency that is not counterfeit, between toupees and hair that is growing from the head and is not a wig or toupee, etc.)

So we can talk about the ontological status of angels and other such entites without denying that they have an ontological status. The question then becomes not about what does and does not exist, but about how things exist.

Julian,

Thanks for your thoughts – and for thinking out loud with me here.  I understand what you are saying, and I believe I understand where you are coming from…but I also think you are missing a key little puzzle piece or perspectival shift that would make things clearer.  I'll write a little more here to see if we can connect on this.

You mentioned that you found Wilber's writings on post-metaphysics to be shaky, so I would like to focus on one of his examples and unpack it a bit.  I would agree that his post-metaphysics proposal needs fleshing out, but it doesn't strike me as “shaky” in the way that you probably mean it.  The example I want to use is his apparently outrageous claim that ecosystems didn't exist 10,000 years ago.  A natural, rational reaction to this statement might run something like this:  “Well, even if people back then couldn't conceive of an 'ecosystem,' surely the mutually sustaining relationships between organisms existed at that time!  They were just unrecognized…”

Here's the problem with that response:  It takes our current models of reality (which include thought-constructs such as 'ecosystem') as timelessly given, as though they represent or mirror “reality as it really is.”  It fails to recognize the contextuality and constructedness of our current models as well; it forgets that 'ecosystem' is also an interpretation.  Yes, in one way, from our current Kosmic perspective, it does make sense – and it is actually valid – to say that 'ecosystems' really did exist back then but were unrecognized.  The key point, though, is “from our perspective.”  Because ten thousand years from now, we will likely have evolved vastly different ways of organizing and conceptualizing the world.  The notion of “ecosystem” will likely seem as primitive to us then, as the caveman's notion of anthropomorphized Powers or Spirits animating all “natural” phenomena strikes us now.  From this future perspective, does it still make sense to say that ecosystems “really” existed back then?  Or will we see “ecosystem,” not as “reality as it really is,” but as a particular way we used to organize experiential data, before our knowledge changed and expanded to include who-knows-what variables (which will include not just “extra data,” but whole gestalt shifts)?

You mentioned something about problematic thought experiments that take philosophers far astray from reality.  The point of the above exercise in imagination, however, is not to speculate about bizarre future models, but to use reason to shift and expand awareness of the present, helping us to be aware of the current models we have in place – here, not just scientific ones, but underlying 'representational'/'mirror of nature' ones too.

You also gave some examples of timeless truths or facts that I'd like to briefly address.  For instance, is it universally true that 1+1=2?  It depends on the math system you are using!  Some systems of vectorial equations, for instance, have whole numbers adding up to numbers which don't seem to follow, if we take standard physical “objects” or “units” as the items we are counting; but which make perfect sense if you understand the nature of the “things” that are being “added.”  In other words, the truth value of 1+1=2 is context-dependent as well.

About valid and invalid interpretations of Hamlet, or whatever:  Yes, of course.  I mentioned in this in my previous post when I talked about the patterns, procedures, rules of interpretation, and so on that we can reasonably rely on within the context of any particular paradigm or logos.  This does not impact the central argument being made.

YOU WROTE:  “empirical truths are rock solid until evidence proves otherwise.”

If evidence proves otherwise, this means that they were not rock solid after all, doesn't it?  In other words, the solidity was a convention – not a timeless, absolute reality. 

YOU WROTE: “for now let me say that the problem i perceive is that of subtle left quadrant reductionism, in which objective reality gets reduced to subjective and inter-subjective perspectives.”

I agree with you that a lot of “new age” and some Integral folks err on the side of subjective quadrant-reductionism.  But to the extent that you elevate right-hand methodology (empiricism) above other modes of knowing, I think you are likely committing a subtle reductionism in the opposite direction.  The key point of Integral post-metaphysics is that the quadrants tetra-enact.  The way you are framing things, it appears the quadrants are conceived as rather hermetically sealed, each operating in its own independent box.  I might be wrong in this assessment of your position, but this is what's coming across right now.

I hope this has been helpful, friend – or at least interesting!

Best wishes,

Bruce

P.S.  Paul – I loved that poem!  And I'm enjoying your book… James, great distinction!  That's a helpful addition to the conversation…

Ha ha. Hey, I realized something after taking a peek at the Integral Naked page that introduces Ken Wilber's recent conversation with Conversations With God author Neale Donald Walsch. According to that page, Walsch and Wilber talk about the need for spiritually oriented people to “come out of the closet.”

That is something that I, as a guy in his mid-fifties who has been into spiritual, transpersonal, and what is today called integral stuff since his teens, has never had to contend with. I've never had to contend with it for the simple reason that I've never been part of the “straight,” “normal,” conventional, or what Charles T. Tart calls the “consensus reality” world. (E.g., I've never had a “straight” job and I've always been surrounded by supportive communities of spiritually and transpersonally oriented people.) But I do realize that a lot of people who are into spirituality (as we tend to use the term here) may very well feel that their normal work and living environments are not particularly supportive, and they may very well feel a need to “come out of the closet” around their spirituality.

But there is an area where I feel that I tend to be “in the closet” within the greater spiritual, transpersonal, integral community, and that is something I struggle with. I am intimately familiar with various nonordinary, altered, and higher states. I've had past life experiences, OBEs, I once had a near death like experience, I've experienced the blissful rapturous ecstasy of devotion or bhakti, I've had experiences that I could easily interpret to be paranormal, etc. I consider myself open minded, and the result of what I consider my open minded and open ended exploration and investigation of the “ontological status” of things over the decades is that I am strongly inclined to believe that living organisms and consciousness emerged in our universe without the invovement of any form of super- or supra-natural causation. I am strongly inclined to believe that consciousness (unless we stretch the word so far that it no longer means anything) emerged just as digestion and photosynthesis emerged, and did not exist “before the Big Bang.” I am well aware how in deep samadhi it just seems patently obvious that all that exists is Consciousness, but I cannot ignore that whenever I am in such a state there is a body, nervous system, and brain sitting there that later interprets its experience and that the interpretation isn't necessarily right (even if lots and lots of yogis, saints, sages, and lamas from premodern cultures have insisted otherwise). I don't say that I'm right or certain about these things, but I am more in line with, say, Stephen Batchelor's thinking on these things (he's the author of Buddhism Without Beliefs) than I am with those who make confident pronouncements about the nature of consciousness, biological evolution, reincarnation, paranormal phenomena and so on.

Ever since Ken Wilber began using pejoratives or terms of abuse such as “flatland” (a term he began using in the mid-nineties) I have felt more and more like it might be a good idea for me to be “in the closet” about what I consider my healthy skepticism about some of the things that a lot of spiritually and integrally oriented people seem to believe.

And I find that I am inclined to get defensive when I hear people speaking as if anyone who does happen to be skeptical about certain things must be a “flatland materialist” who lacks depth and height and who is thus at “first-tier,” etc. I got sick of that a long time ago but it still happens and just recently I saw a discussion on an “integral” website where the discussants seemed to be suggesting that anyone who has a naturalistic understanding of how living organisms and complexity evolved in our universe must be dying of thirst for depth and meaning and aren't even worth talking to!

Sometimes when people feel that they are being pushed into a closet they push back, and sometimes they push back with such force that they overcompensate. I think Wilber has done this at times. I think that he may feel that some of his views are so strongly rejected by some mainstream academics that he cannot but help to make sneering remarks every now and then about “flatland materialists” and comments about how everyone who accepts what is called the causal closure principle is “at Jane Loevinger's stage five” (something he says in his conversation with Alan Wallace, a conversation where both Wilber and Wallace jokingly look forward to the deaths of philosophers they disagree with such as Daniel Dennett and John Searle).

Sometimes I think I push back too hard against those within the spiritual, integral, transpersonal community who say things that I interpret as pushing people who think as I do into a closet. I am actually quite tolerant of people who don't see eye to eye with me on certain things. I have dear loved ones who are way into astrology and other forms of divination and who believe in supernatural forms of causation and reincarnation and so on and so forth and I have no problem with them. I don't attack them and call them “New Age space cadets” and they don't call me a “flatland materialist.” But when I read various integral forums, sites, and blogs and repeatedly hear people speaking as if anyone who doesn't share their views on certain things is by definition less developed and less evolved and less conscious then they are, and is lacking in depth and height and meaning, and is a “flatlander,” I get mad and I want to push back and attack them. And of course that leads nowhere but into circles of alienation.

So I appreciate that you, Julian, are as out of the closet as you are around so much stuff, because it encourages me to come out more, and at the same time I think we could all afford to be more respectful of those who don't share our views on certain things. I want to try to be more respectful in my speech of those who have ideas and beliefs that I don't share, even if they don't seem to respect some of my ideas and beliefs. I think that by stepping out of the closet more, I will feel less of a need to push back against those who seem to have little respect for some of my views on certain things (and who in any case may not really understand what my views on certain things actually are).

I'll end by mentioning that my concern about this whole issue is such that I was drawn a few years ago to attend a “Consciousness East & West” symposium at Northwestern University that featured a debate between Alan Wallace and John Searle. While the topic interested me I was more interested in seeing how Wallace would relate to Searle, given that Wallace believes in a lot of things about consciousness that Searle does not believe in. And I was disappointed to see that Wallace was rather condescending toward Searle (Buddhist right speech anyone? - I got the impression that Wallace may have perceived Searle as someone who pushes people like Wallace into a closet, i.e., who makes it difficult for people like Wallace to be more out about their spirituality in the academic mainstream). I think that people who consider themselves to be “spiritual” and “more evolved” or developed ought to hold themselves to a higher standard. If Dennett, for example, is less evolved than Wilber (not that I actually think in such terms), then shouldn't Wilber demonstrate his greater height by relating to Dennett with genuine lovingkindness and compassion (i.e., non-idiot compassion)? When Wilber jokes about Dennett and Searle dying off and when he sneers about “flatland materialists” as if he is talking about some evil “other,” he is sending a powerful message to all the young people he has made such an effort to draw to his work. (I once actually saw someone on Zaadz say that when they visit Frank Visser's Integral World website they want to grab a Glock. A Glock is the type of handgun used by the mass murderer in the Virginia Tech massacre. What really creeps me out is that there are people who might defend such speech by saying that they are being “Rude Boys” or are behaving in the manner of crazy wisdom masters who dish out Zen slaps to people who need waking up. But I digress.)

Okay, I think I just got something off my chest!

Just one tiny little point in this great discussion and comments that have been very helpful:

How can we ever know if there is Truth, truth independent of perception (or, may I add, realisation?)? Truth, and I think you put it well, Julian, always come together with untruth or false. What is true and what is false is always related, I think… but I really don't know :-)

Julian, I would love it if you could actually engage the argument and show its flaws, rather than just saying you don't agree with it. 

I agree with you that there are ways that the quadrants “influence” each other and ways that they don't.  I also understand why you reject any argument which would appear to support the magical notion that, if you change your idea about an object, that object will miraculously turn into another object - bam!  manifestation!  But the argument being put forward by a number of postmodernists, and by Integral Post-metaphysics, is not on this order at all.  It is not about magically influencing the “external world” with “internal thoughts.”  There is not even a hint of “fudging the data” in what I wrote above – so if you think that's there, please go back and give it another read. 

I feel we're at a momentary impasse.  Your comments tell me that you haven't really grasped the meaning or import of this argument or my examples.  I really do want to communicate about this, because I think it is important – and I believe it will actually help your overall project, once it clicks with you.  (I do NOT mean this in a condescending way.  It just appears you're not rejecting the argument that's being presented; you're rejecting a misunderstanding or mischaracterization of it.  Which is why I'm persisting.)

My example about 1+1=2 was not “to the contrary” of the claim that 1 apple plus 1 apple equals 2 apples; I really tried to make that clear.  I hope you will look at my example again.

YOU WROTE:  “whatever we choose to call them - the eco systems were still there. even once we have better, more nuanced languages - what the signifiers refer to is still and was still there.”

First, friend, let me assure you I am not angry.  And I started this discussion by praising your opening blog.  I am also not trying to one-up you, nor did I say that all of the points in your opening blog are just more reassuring crutches.

It might take someone other than myself to make this argument in a way that you can hear, that will not trigger these defenses.

I'll say a little more here, but will keep it short, and I do earnestly ask you to take another look at what I've written and think about what it might mean if I insist that it doesn't mean the things you've taken it to mean(!). 

YOU WROTE:  “there is a reality to discover - it is not all perspectives.”

Assuming you are talking about the “reality” disclosed by empirical methods, my question in response to this is, Can you discover this reality apart from perspectives?  Can you “encounter” it outside of all concepts, models, presuppositions, and so on, in its pristine form?  Do you believe that our models are getting closer and closer to accurately reflecting the true condition of objective reality, as it exists in itself apart quite apart from us or anyone else?

Best wishes,

Balder

P.S.  If you feel this inquiry is not helpful at all, and in fact is detracting from your blog, I will bow out of this discussion.  It is not my intent to sew confusion here.

Great conversation, great blog everyone. A few points.

1) Julian:   ” i think it is a mistake to think that empiricism will be tomorrow's myth.”
 
No one said that empiricism itself will be tomorrow's myth. Today's empiral finding or “conclusion” will be tomorrow's myth. They once thought that stars were holes in the sky where heaven shined through. Then they thought they were actual fires, like bonfires, and so on. They once thought that the world was flat because that's what it looked like. The emprical method will be alive and well; its particular  findings today most likely will be tomorrow's myth or something peole find funny.

2) Bruce: “Your treatment of scientific empiricism as Absolute Truth is probably what underlies the occasional charges of scientism, Orange, and so on, that come your way.  While these remarks may be off base (I think, in general, they are), I believe they are in response to this apparent elevation of empiricism.”

Bruce, great posts, as far as I've read. Really, I've enjoyed the stuff on the subtle aspects of the myth of the given. However, on the above point, if treatment of scientific empiricism as Absolute Truth is not Orange or scientism, then what is? Now, I am not accusing Julian of this–except for the odd moment here or there, perhaps :),  but definitely not in general–but if scientific empiricism is being treated as Absolute Truth, then that is scientism, and “Orange” is where we tend to see the worst of that, yes? So, I just mention that with regard to statements like, when we die it's lights out period, zip, and absolute statements like consciousness is a byproduct of biochemistry.


 

3) Julian: “i think we are in a community that wants desperately to believe that  “intuitive” metaphysical wishful thinking is just as valid as an empirical truth if not more so and want to believe that a really smart man named wilber has someohow proved this with his waist high pile of sea deep tomes - this is simply not the case and i dont think perpetuating this idea does anyone any favors - least of all the nascent integral community which is beginning to look like the smarter than average wing of the silly new age movement!”

Of course there are many who elevate magical thinking. It's one of the hallmarks of Green New Age. But you have a tendency to call everything that isn't rational or already proven magical, and this isn't the case. There are many things that are yet to be proven “conclusively,” and some of them wil turn out to be magical or wishful thinking, but some of them will eventually be “proven” with the empirical method. We don't know now which category a great many of the things that now sound far fetched will fall into. There may come a time, for example, when we have overwhelming evidence that something survives after death or that consciousness can exist apart from the body. Why wouldn't we keep an open mind to the possibility, especially considering there are some indications already that these things might be the case?

Really enjoying the conversation about metaphysics and the problems of empiricism.

I think that what Julian is speaking to is that mythical beliefs that are “false” in empirical nature with distinctive evidence can still hold a great deal of power for certain levels and lines in the spiral and this keeps them continously on that level if they do not acknowledge empirical evidence. (Could be the case of trauma or something else, not sure since I don't study psychology.)

I believe Julian is pointing out as someone (something more specific) who has some experience with these kind of pathologies that keep people from true transformation and their unhappiness (so to speak).

I think the blog is more about a specific case and not about understanding the philosophical nature of  “reality” or notions of “truth”.  Although it's really fun to read everyone's responses and inquire/investigate into that as well.

From my experience, some people refuse to accept specific empirical data and can't  fathom  or refuse to accept scientific findings even though given the evidence. (speaking generally of course) Most of the time people find it quite surprising and unexpected.

A good example is someone who thought that a man landing on the moon was a hollywood stunt when he saw it live on tv. This person has never been on an airplane and didn't find it possible to land on the moon. He believed it was a joke. This scenario can be true for someone who has never seen a plane or flew on the plane before.

Another interesting story:

I was telling a story second hand of an impossible situation to a PHD in EE (an engineer by profession) about a high Tibetan teacher sticking his finger through a stone. (I was told the story by a friend and thought it was an intriguing story.)

The engineer said that hypothetically based on string theory this is possible and that the teacher was probably playing a joke too. Either way we both can't “know” for sure and didn't make any conclusions from the story.

Someone who tends to believe that this could happen based on just probability would make the conclusion that yes the teacher did stick his finger in the stone and believe it to be true. Also playing the “appeal to authority” card since it was a high teacher (which is a fallacy) and believe it to be true.

An absolute skeptic would completely doubt the incident happened and believe that it was a joke and the teacher is also a joke.

So basically, my point is a “healthy” way to view the situation would be to just acknowledge that we do not know “absolutely” what exactly happened.
Uncertainty is a good thing and the mystery still remains…did he really stick his finger through a rock?

In some cases it is ignorance and in other cases it's just the refusal to believe since they are holding onto what they know to be “true” in their minds and probably have little experience with such knowledge.

But of course, we are all “intelligent” beings here debating on the blog.

:-)

Hey, Julian. First of all. I love your blogs, and this in particular is a great one, though there have been many great ones. It's quite amazing that you can withstand all these remarks! It's quite admirable, really. I don't know anyone here who engages with that intensity. Sorry if I've ever caused you any undue stress with my own remarks.

Anyway, you asked about the last paragraph. It sounds like a good way to touch base and also order the mind in an integral way. In so doing we objectify our experience and also have a map that puts things in order. If such contemplations persist througout the whole meditation period it might just amount to a continual dwelling on the personal self and conventional thinking, a continual clinging to the relative mind, but it sounds good for getting in touch the first few minutes and a useful thing to check in with now and then.

Julian.

there are people here who actually care about you enough to take the time to - at length - explain what it is that they see; mostly after saying how much they enjoy your blog.

I see you choosing to get irritated by that - people actually going out of their way to, in very kind ways, to explain what it is they think is important; and you get irritated by that more and more.

I do not think that disagree or agreeing is at stake here but that other than what your commentars are doing you do not seem to even inspect their ideas, you obviously already decided what they mean and where they come from and most of all that they disagree with you and you therefor disagree with them (with very rare exeptions). How about the thought that we're not just plain contrarians but actually go through processes of inspection of the ideas we write about…
And for agreements to disagree - which I think many of us are willing to 'give' - it is helpful if one is actually taken serious enough (and by that I mean that one's points are being considered instead of dismissed out of hand. You might not think you do that, but from what comes back from people here it's obvious they do feel so.)

” i am really frustrated that this conversation even takes issue with these sorts of things…. aaarrrggghh!”

Can you imagine that a certain detoriation of conversation often happens when one person keeps insisting that their view is “rock solid” and what others say is basically beside the point or plain wrong? When one person keeps misrepresenting what he/she is reading - certainly from the point of view of those who've written that?

Now all of this may just be very much besides the point for you. Just consider the possibility that I (and others as well, which is what I read in their comments at times) feel with you…

I enjoyed reading your blog, brother. This is the reason why I am both a devotee and a mystic. If I should be purely religious, I would miss realization of my Self, I can perceive reality within myself, but I believe God has a personal form, and this is outside of me.

People who only seek truth as being outside of themselves are limited, and people who limit truth to being inside of themselves are also limited, I believe we must be more balanced in our approach.

Hi, Julian,

YOU WROTE:  “gravity is predictable, death is inevitable and the human psyche has universal contours and ways of defending against trauma and existential angst that we can discover via dialogical inter-subjective, subjective contemplation and intellectual means. magical  thinking is not a good reflection of how reality works - even if one's worldview thinks it is, and there is no white bearded man above the clouds regardless of anyone's ardent faith to the contrary. poetry and literature have discernible meanings and mathematics funcrtions in perennial ways….. what is the great taboo in acknowledging these important and beautiful truths?  i am really frustrated that this conversation even takes issue with these sorts of things…. aaarrrggghh!”

This really surprises me.  Do you really think I or others have been taking issue with these things?  You may not think the points that I or others have been making are very relevant or important, as you indicated above, and I'll grant that that may be the case.  So, continuing this conversation may not be worthwhile from that perspective.  Time will tell.  But I think it IS worthwhile to continue for another reason:  to get past this impasse and misunderstanding that we currently face, because it keeps arising in different ways.  You see, I'm not just pushing against disagreement here.  If I felt you understood what I was saying but didn't accept it, that would be fine.  It's the misunderstanding that I'm engaging with here and trying to break through.

I have a few questions I would like to ask, if you care to answer them – because I think they might help clarify what we've been going around about.  (I do not have any significant arguments with the points you've made in your opening blog; a lot of it reflects elements from Integral, which I also support – and which I happen to teach at the college level.  What I've been questioning is just the way you've framed some of your presentation – a perspective which was not directly reflected in your statements, but which appeared, to me, to underlie them). 

What do you mean when you use the term, “existential reality”?  Is there a singular, pre-given existential reality that all people inhabit, with more or less accurate perspectives on it?  Is there one way the world really is, and is that finally disclosed at the existential level?

What is chaos?  Is it an existential truth that exists in itself, separate from perspectives?

What is suffering?  Is it an existential truth that exists in itself, separate from perspectives?

Best wishes,

Balder

Hi Julian

Yes!! - for me you just nailed this whole “difference of opinion” on the head with this:

“i have a funny feeling that if i said 'the reality of human existence” in stead of “reality” i might be getting less flak here”

Best, James

Hello Julian,
Great posts…I like the brevity…not that I don't enjoy your longer posts too.
Perhaps you will think this is Balder-dash, but I am saddened to report that death does in fact exist. I know, I was at a beautiful Jewish funeral service last week in Stockholm. It couldn't be more final…or could it?

Thank you Julian, for your kind and considerate post. It sounds a lot different from many of the other comments and makes it much, much easier for me, and maybe others as well.

To your question in bold letters: Yes I think I know what you mean by pervasive relativism on both sides of the isle (the vertical line of the quadrants). I don't encounter it much in the circles I'm in (they are non-academics; mostly self-made individuals with a deep concern for helping to make the world a better place; some New Agers which endear me with some of their innocent remarks about angels and channelings, and so on.)
And when people I know (sometimes I'm included) downplay suffering and chaos I tend to understand and not insist on looking into that to see how by ignoring it they strengthen it in the long run… every realization has it's time, and since I don't claim to have special knowledge (except in certain states), I allow personal evolution to take its place. And I hope you don't misunderstand this statement as saying that a) I do that all of the time and b) that I say it to correct your view on this.
I know that here in your blogs you have often chosen to campaign against that type of ignorance, and at times you run wild with it, so wild that you don't see that what others and I have been moved to do, faced with that sometimes relentless campaign, is to than move that campaign to its next natural - or so it seems - step: Existential relativism that is also applied to itself - to reveal… well, everybody who goes through that process knows. No need to get into that now.

Yes, suffering is a major challenge to human beings, and my personal thesis is that consciousness is the cause of suffering. But that is beside the point. We agree on the very real experience of suffering across all kinds of world-view (I don't know about all, since I don't know all of them). I also see that there are many gradations of becoming free of it, and embracing being human including meaninglessness, chaos and suffering can be a major step into liberation (and depression also as I heard today; maybe if one is accepting that range of human experience prematurely that is what it will lead to.)
 
“there is a world, there is true and false, there are societies, there is art, etc… and within our BIG context beyond which we have no access - we can know those things in deeper and deeper ways more and more accurately (even when that accurate knowing means being clear that some things are unknowable or very contingent upon overdetermined variables)”

Yes, indeed. I feel over time that I know things deeper and deeper; yet it is a relational thing again; I don't know if I know them more accurately and I don't have a well developed feeling for what is accurate and what not; I had much more of that when I was younger. Now I go with the interpretation that whatever reality might be, its depth is endless. I sure know that the judgements my 13 year old stepdaughter makes about situations and mine differ mainly in depth (and by that I also mean the capability to use situations to co-create beneficial, beautiful and clear being-together).

“all human beings are born and die, suffer and love, exist within societies and economies, create culture, art, religion etc, and these are all functions of both the physical reality we inhabit and the ways in which human consciousness has evolved predicated upon our physiology….what else is there to talk about? why postulate anything else?”

Even if most of these statements are obvious and true to me most of the time I have a great hunger for enlarging my horizon. And that is why I enjoy the diverse conversations here as long as they don't go into the regions they have tended to go in before we found a way to communicate again.

“what am i still not understanding?”

Well, you be the judge of that, and we find out by your curiosity and questions. Human beings as us have developed quite a great array of sensings that produce both understanding and misunderstanding; so I guess we've gotta trust that.

Hi Julian. Just a few random comments…

You ask me if I think you should be more respectful of certain worldviews. No, I think you're doing great. You've obviously built up a lot of good will here and are able to roll with the punches and go with the flow.

I do think, though, that you might consider that you have been speaking for a specific metaphysical position to which there are alternatives. You've been speaking for what philosophers call realism about an external world or realism about a mind-independent world. (There are different kinds of realism in philosophy and this kind is often capitalized as Realism.) There are anti-Realists of different stripes who have intelligent, rational arguments against Realism and in defense of anti-Realism. I'm a Realist and I don't agree with anti-Realists, some of whom are subjective idealists, e.g., of the kind that say that there is only Mind, but I must accept that there are no knock down arguments in support of Realism and against anti-Realism and subjective idealism.

One way to avoid trouble when making assertions is to qualify assertions when necessary. We can say that it is absolutely true that all bachelors are married (because that is true by definition), but we cannot say that it is absolutely true that OJ is a killer. I would say that it is true beyond a reasonable doubt that OJ is a killer, but that is the most I can say. I can't say that it's true beyond all doubt.

I doubt that there are any crop circles that have been created by extraterrestrials, but I can't say for certain that this is the case. So if I'm expressing my opinion on the matter and I don't qualify what I say by saying that I think it's improbable that any crop circles have been created by extraterrestrials, someone might rightly point out that I am expressing greater certainty about the matter than is warranted. In other words, I can't legitimately say, “No crop circles have been created by extraterrestrials.”

Anyway, I love this discussion, I love that you get these kinds of discussions going, and I think you've been getting some great feedback from a number of people (Balder and Mushin in particular). Good stuff!

Oh, one last thought. I just last night read something about Kierkegaard's idea that “truth is subjectivity.” The person writing about this (Derk Pereboom) said that Kierkegaard did not deny that there are objective facts, but meant that when meaning is at stake, one's attitude toward the objects of one's concerns takes precendence over whether one is right about some fact. I agree with that.

Hi, Julian,

I appreciated your last letter – I think it goes a good way towards clearing things up.  I've been feeling a whopper of a headache today (I think I'm coming down with a cold) so it's been hard to concentrate, but I want to try to at least begin a response to you.

I agree with you and James that if you had said, “the reality of human existence,” that would have forestalled some of the reactions your blog entry generated.  I'm not sure yet if our disagreement traces wholly to this misunderstanding, however, or if we really see things differently.  I expect both things are at play here.

I understand your frustration and maybe I shouldn't have pursued these questions here, since they weren't directly related to the actual points in your blog.  I did so for two reasons:  one, a discussion about relativism and Integral post-metaphysics had arisen on the previous blog, and I thought you had invited the conversation to continue here; and two, I picked up on language (not just the one phrase in question, but in both blogs and comments) that suggested to me that this inquiry would be helpful.  Maybe, in the long run, on the other side of headaches and pulled out chunks of hair, it will be … :-D

I agree with you that the whole post-metaphysics question we've been following doesn't have direct bearing on the points you made.  And I actually appreciated your opening blog – which clearly distills, it seems to me, a number of Integral and existential ideas.  I didn't comment on them directly because they seem pretty straightforward to me, outside of small (insignificant) quibbles about a few details.  But in my opinion, the questions I've been pursuing here are NOT mere fanciful philosophical flights into irrelevant abastraction and speculation.

Here's why:  In a number of your posts, you've given the impression that your existential perspective is the absolute bedrock truth; the “actual condition” of reality as it fundamentally is; the “hard facts” that literally everybody else is avoiding, and so on.  You may not have intended this, but I believe this is the impression that has been made – in the minds of more than one reader.  It seemed that you were saying that the existential view you were representing was not a perspective which has its own Kosmic address, but really a view which reflects perspective-independent facts about how things really are:  reality is chaotic at its root, meaningless, and so on.

I totally agree with your comment in your last letter that, even though we can't know many things absolutely, we have to say something.  I am not advocating wishy-washiness or a flatland relativism.  But I felt, given the impression that was coming across, based on some of your arguments and your language choices, that it was important to point out the wisdom of acknowledging the limitations of our perspectives and the contingency of our worldviews, particularly in an open-ended evolutionary context.  Because facts cannot be separated from the worldviews that support them, and even though you have tried to narrow your arguments down to a few basic facts, your worldview gets carried along with them in your overall presentation – as either the acknowledged or unconscious background.

The reason I felt it was important to point out what I did is because the self likes having possession of incontrovertible, unshakable truths.  Even if those truths are challenging or daunting, there can be a certain security that arises when we feel that we at least know things absolutely – that we've got the final answers, that there's no danger of them being shaken up and of our being disoriented again, and then we can set about “coping” with whatever truths we have at our disposal.  We can build a brick house with them, instead of the straw houses of the theists and New Agers or whatever.  We won't be similarly deceived…

Does this make sense?  At least based on the impression that came across to me (and apparently to a few others)?

Best wishes,

Balder

P.S.  This letter is longer than intended, but I'm still stopping my train of thought short rather abruptly because work is over and it's time for me to go….

hey julian. about the statement, “all things are relative.” one question: what are “things” here? objects of perception, propositional contents, phenomenological perspectives, conceptual frameworks, world-views, god(s), reality, jim's receding hairline… ?

Hi Julian,

You talk about Piaget at the end of your last entry. You mention his stages and ask if these stages are not universal truths. As far as I know, they are universal truths, but isn't that an incredibly amazing thing that they are? Let's just think about that for a moment: in all cultures of the world, though there may be superficial differences, people pass through these stages. Why is that? It's an incredibly remarkable, mindblowing thing, isn't it?

How do we explain that?

Best,

David

Yeah, it's really cool, Julian. But I'm not making an arguement for design.

 

“it has to do with some combination of reality (as i have been saying above) actually being remarkably predictable ”



I'm pretty sure you know this, but Ken doesn't consider the next emergences to be predictable, only the old ones, only the “kosmic habits.” We don't really know what the next emergence will be, though we may have some ideas, but the ones that have been laid down as kosmic habits are then like grades that people move through.
 

“and knowable  in so many ways and human physiology having evolved specifically to optimize life in that existential reality. ”

I think what's predictable we might summarize as the twenty tenets of the holons, right? Holons emerge; holons transcend and include; evolution has direction. These patterns repeat themselves; things are always improving, optimizing into greater complexity and integration.

Okay, so why this cohesion? Why this similarity? Why these patterns? And what is it that's making it do all those things? Why the same patterns in millenia after millenia? Why the same patterns billions of years ago? Why the same patterns on different continents?

Hi, Julian,

Your additional letter to me helps even more.  I agree with you – with some qualifications, which I believe you will accept.  I'll discuss this in just a moment.

First, I just want to say that I did see your bolded paragraph to me in the previous email.  When I wrote that I was stopping my train of thought short, one thing I was thinking of was that I had not yet responded to that paragraph, because I wanted to.  For clarity, I'll quote it here.

YOU WROTE:  “i think too that there is a pervasive relativism that takes the nuanced philosophical points you are ably making and tries to down-play things like suffering, chaos and death by saying that they are merely concepts or beliefs  that have no objective or verifiable basis - and then thinks that this semantic mind game amounts to some kind of transcendence or transformation. do you know what i mean?”

I think this is very well said, and I agree with you.  This does happen and is a problem.  While it is true that these things are, at least in part, interpretations, the tendency in some circles to “translate them away” is not helpful and is often an avoidance tactic. 

Turning to the main points in the rest of your letter:  I agree also that there are objective dimensions to being, and that there are features of “the world” and human experience (or whole self-world complex) that are universal or legitimately universalizable.  (Note that this is subtly different from “universal.”)  I think we need to be careful not to treat the evolution of worldviews and cultures as neatly linear, because as certain dimensions of human being or the world get highlighted as we grow or develop in a particular direction, other dimensions or capacities may get sidelined or forgotten.  But with Integral Theory, I do agree that growth and development are  fundamental features of our world which exhibit universalizable trajectories; and I agree with you that experiences of suffering, chaos, and meaninglessness are ubiquitous as well (and therefore important to deal with).

The qualifications I wanted to make (in line with my arguments in earlier letters to you) are as follows:

While in Integral post-metaphysical circles it may go without saying, I think in this discussion it is still worth pointing out that stages of development do not have inherent self-existence.  Wilber points out that Plotinus didn't just stumble into a 10-story building of “stages of being” as he was out walking around somewhere; rather, he abstracted these levels out of his own contemplative experience.  They wouldn't “work” or make sense to others if there wasn't an objective, universalizable dimension to human experience, but this particular “map” nevertheless is an interpretation – something enacted rather than simply “discovered.”  And the same goes for Piaget's stages and the other stages we like to discuss, such as Gebser's or Kohlberg's or Fowler's.  These stages do not exist in and of themselves, as simple “objects” out in the world.  They are interpretations of experience, creative products that are powerful and useful but not simply “given” or “inevitable” ways to carve up and describe human experience and development. 

I use and rely on these stage terms in my own Integral practice and discourse, so I am not at all trying to dismiss them or “relativize away” their significance.  I am just taking the time to stress, here, our creative involvement in the enactment of the self-world complex we “inhabit” at all levels – since this not only helps counter the tendency to absolutize the perspectives available at any given “level” (however we conceptualize it), but it also frees up energy for ongoing creative inquiry and deepening insight.

About the transition from pre-rational to rational levels of thinking requiring the surrendering of metaphysical ways of thinking – I agree, but would point out that another, perhaps more thorough-going shift away from metaphysical thinking becomes available with vision-logic.  As Wilber acknowledges, and as Derrida points out, it may not be possible to get away from metaphysical thinking altogether – but it can become much more self-conscious, and much subtler.  At rational levels (and Orange values), we may come to challenge and let go of traditional metaphysical objects (mythic beings and metaphysical energies or “planes” and so on), but postmodernism and Integral dig deeper and show that the roots of metaphysical thinking run deeper than the mythic level. 

Best wishes,

Balder

The person who passed away was my wife's father's wife's mother Ester. She was 89. I visited her a few days before her passing in a hospital, and from the appearence of her body she was in the process of dying.
This reminded me strongly of my experience of being by my father's side when he passed away at the age of 76. The joke was that my father had nine lives. By that we were referring to his many brushes with death in the form of several heart attacks, 5-way bypass operations, single-bypass operation and small strokes. All of these were exascerbated by his having “adult-onset” diabetes, which complicated all those other health issues. At age 75 after another incident he was put on dialysis, and miraculously got off it a year later.
So when I got the call that he was dying I flew up to see him in Seattle from my home in Santa Monica. It was obvious to me that he was dying, and with one look at him I knew that his time was drawing to a close.

This left he feeling sad, but mysteriously at peace as well. It felt intuitively natural to me that it would be so. I am not religious in any way, and reject the standard two-thousand year old faiths so popular today. But I do believe in God. God for me is that from which everything comes, and perhaps returns. God devoid of endless-regressions. Just what is.

Seeing my father in his failing body, I knew that he was going to die within hours. His companion of many years had been at his bedside for 2 days and went home exhausted to try to get some sleep. (My father was at a hospice facility). I stayed with him and talked to him despite his being mostly unconscious. I told him I loved him and that it was OK to let go. I believe his companion's clinging and unacceptance of his condition was keeping him from being free. And one look at his body, covered in bad and blue marks from burst blood vessels and failing circulation, I felt totally at peace in standing by his side during his passing.

I gave his ice bits to keep his mouth lubricated and touched his hand and face. I slept beside his hospital bed in a chair. He passed away peacefully one morning around 7.

I was very devastated that he was gone…and yet deeply at peace as well…it was…beautiful…in a way that I cannot describe. And real.  

And after his passing it was so intuitively clear that whatever was my father was no longer there…that his soul, or animating life force was gone. 
Seeing Ester gave me the same feeling of peace. 
Of rightness. 
This is what is. 
We live. 
And we die.

About what happens to “us”afterwards I do not know. But I think it's good. I sometimes wonder if the dramatic way in which we come into the world, and which I will shortly witness with the birth of my first child, may perhaps mirror the way we exit.

That idea does have a beautiful symmetry to it. But I'm not betting on live being any more that what it here. and now. Life is beautiful and ugly, unjust and chaotic.

The Orange County boy in me says you ride the wave as best you can.There's beauty in that as well.

Besides post an appreciative comment over there pronto (I've already read it), I'm going to wait patiently for your response here as well!  :-D

Barry - Hi

This is a beautiful description. My father died in very similar circumstances to what you described, and I had a strangely similar reaction aswell:
 “somehow I was very devastated that he was gone…and yet deeply at peace as well…it was…beautiful…in a way that I cannot describe. And real.”

I still cry when missing him, like i'm bleeding softly from the inside, but it feels like a “clean wound”  if that makes sense. Anyway, thanks for this.

All The Best,

James

James,thank you for the kind words…and I know what you mean.

Right after my father passed away I would use music to trigger the tears…usually while driving.What always worked was Radiohead's Let Down and Björk's Joga…

I hope your clean wound heals beautifully. And I wish you peace./b

I'd first of all like to question Bruce about something–the point about stages having self-existence and not being objects. Could they be subtle objects? Also, the phrase self-existence comes from Buddhism, I believe, perhaps Nagarjuna in particular–does the evolutionary perspective (including Eros, the Optimizing Force etc.) alter that theory? Nagarjuna's position, generally, as I understand it, is that nothing has self-existence. I think that's a valid perspective, but could it also be a valid perspective that emptiness manifests as these structures and that there is “some” self-reality about them?

Well, Julian, I was hoping just to continue with that line. We started with Piaget, we moved on to the twenty tenets–if we follow that line of reasoning we come to some interesting ideas that we shouldn't shy away from. Why this universality regarding Piaget's stages? I think you may be dodging the question. I don't mean to lead us into design–I'm just hoping, for my own edification as much as anyone else's, that we can look at it and tease out just what integral postmetaphysics is, or just how Ken Wilber means it.

If we see that there is this universal pattern, that the twenty tenets have validity (particularlly that evolution has direction and that direction includes such things as increasing complexity and integration) can we not hypothesis that there is a life force with a certain kind of nature to it? A certain kind of evolutionary creativity? We're taking a third-person perspective on it there. But the first person perspective, that it is not other than I, would also be valid. At the same time, we cannot claim personally to have created the entire universe, and so, from a personal perspective, we could also take a second-person perspective, having the humility of knowing that we have not yet realized that life force as purely as we could and that we still retain a sense of separateness.

Hi, David,

Yes, when I said that stages lack self-existence, I was using that term in a Buddhist-like way.  What I meant was that particular stages (as charted by Piaget, Kohlberg, etc) don't exist as purely objective things-in-themselves, wholly independently of perspectives (or other conditions and causes), which is different from saying they don't exist at all, in any way whatsoever.

Is the difference in meaning clear?

Best wishes,

Bruce

Barry,

As a doula and apprentice to midwives and as a granddaughter who recently held space for my beloved grandfather to pass, i will share that the energy at both events is exactly the same…portal spaces…the miracle and mystery of the comings and goings…a mirror indeed…however, i would love to hear more of your view/experience after witnessing your child being born as i have to experience the birth energy in such a personal way…

congratulations on your upcoming daddy-hood…

much love and blessings….S.

Thanks for those interesting insights Sa'Rah!
I'll most probably do some writing on that on my own blog page here soon.
Take a peak in there from time to time if you'd like.
peace.

Bruce, does anything exist as a purely objective thing in itself, wholly independant of perspectives?

Julian, okay, well, I don't see why you object to the second face of God if you accept Eros, because that's really what the second face of God boils down to, the grain of truth in the mythic Gods.

David, not that I know of!  If there is any purely objective thing-in-itself, wholly independent of perspectives, we cannot know it or describe it. 

Also, if 'interiority' goes all the way down, as Ken posits, then nothing arises without tetra-arising – e.g., as a perspective.

Just a comment to complement what Julian says about “Eros”…

In the “Evolutionary Biology” video at Integral Naked, Ken Wilber says that his oft-used term “Eros” – as in “There's an Eros to the Kosmos” – is just a “real old-fashioned” name for something which can be given a scientific name, such as “self-transcending autopoietics.” In reference to “some sort of something where matter winds itself up into higher states of organization,” Wilber says, “You can give it a scientific name and scrub it clean and that's fine.” Wilber also cites Stuart Kauffman's ideas on “self-organization” in this regard.

There is nothing spooky (suggestive of the supernatural) about autopoiesis or self-organization. These are naturalistic processes the acceptance of which require no leaps of faith or privileged mystical apprehensions.

Sometimes, and I believe he does this for “political” reasons, i.e., so he can appeal to people at various “levels of the spiral,” Wilber isn't clear that all he means by “Eros” is something which can be given a scientific name. This can lead some people to wrongly believe that Wilber means something by “Eros” that cannot be accounted for by naturalistic explanations and that cannot be given a scientific name.

The funny thing of the “Eros” process, scrubbed clean and then called “self-organisation”, is that it is, of course, not an explanation - scientific or otherwise. It's a description of something that we really have no fricking idea about. So it is really fine to call it God. It's not fine to stick a beard on it (beards are not self-organising but growing in faces or on trees).

It seems that the self sometimes organises into having beautyful and extatic experiences, and then some of them are full of all kinds of appearances as well.
But really “self-organisation” also is not an explanation either; it's a description… right, you got it!

So wether or not eros and the evolutionary process are blind or see, they also are descriptions of things and situations developing over time that we perceive, intuit and know about. But they are no explanation - they don't give us a why or a reason for what's going on; these so called explanations are just another way to say, “it is so, because….” (as my parents said exasperated when I didn't stop asking…)

Hi Mushin. I wonder how you are using the word “explanation.” I am using it as it is used in the philosophy of science (which is not to suggest that that is the only way to use it or the right way to use it).

For example, there is a single light burning in a room and it suddenly goes out. Someone who is in the room who wishes to find a reason, cause, or explanation for why the light went out might do things like check the bulb to see if it's burnt out, they might check to see if the power went out, or if the wall switch was switched off, etc. If they discover that the bulb burnt out and that replacing the bulb restores the light, then they could say that “The explanation for why the bulb went out is that the bulb burnt out.”

Such an explanation doesn't have to trace a causal chain back to the Big Bang, nor does it have to address questions that aren't relevant to the problem, such as “Why does something exist instead of nothing?” or “Why does light exist at all?”

If you are calling what I'm calling an “explanation” a “description,” then we are using two different words to refer to the same thing.

Of course the term “self-organization” is not an explanation of anything. It refers to a hypothesis developed by Stuart Kauffman that purportedly explains how complexity arises without appealing to supernatural causation. (I'm not particularly impressed by Kauffman's ideas, by the way.) If Wilber uses the term “Eros” more or less synonymously with “self-organization” (and at times Wilber has used “Eros” more or less synonymously with “self-organization”), then he is using “Eros” to refer to something like Kauffman's hypothetical explanation for how complexity arises.

I prefer to call my cat “Squeaky” rather than “Feline” or “Cat.” I say things to her like, “I love you, Squeaky,” rather than, “I love you, feline” or “I love you, cat.” Scientific terms tend to be dry and bereft of affective content. (I hate science as a subject but I've forced myself to learn a tiny bit so I can discuss some things.) So it makes sense for someone who wants to build and cultivate a certain kind of meaning structure to refer to whatever natural process results in the emergence of complexity in the universe as “Eros” if referring to that process as “Eros” helps them feel emotionally and heartfully connected to that process in a way that dry scientific terms like “self-organization” and “autopoiesis” do not. And, if someone has an idea about how supernatural causation plays a role in the emergence of complexity, and they can do better than the leading proponents of Intelligent Design theory have done, I'd love to hear about it.

Thank you Jim, I think I now understand better what you meant.
I guess the difficulty I stumbled over - hmm, I love to stumble over at times, at least mentally - was that when I hear Eros, or “self-organisation” or some such… terms that want to explain something and make it easier to understand than say the difficult terms “God” or the horrible but modern “Intelligent Design” I get easily tied in knots.
I tend to think that there must be someting wrong with me that I don't go Eureka! Something that happens to me when I really understand…

Maybe it is because I don't think that complexity is the result of some former provcess being more simple… (O god! hope that isn't a hornet's nest!) But rather that wholeness has a tendency to differentiate into all kinds of form… as if something gels… Maybe something like the riverbed and the entire surrounding influences the swelling waters to divert into rivulets, vortexes, waves and such…

A, forget it. Thank you for giving me a great explanation as to the evolution of greater complexity arising without needing something supernatural to cause it.

Julian, I posted a response to you in blog form:

Integral Postmetaphysics, Simply Put

B.

Thank you, Bruce! That's good to know!

Julian, yes the phrase suggests a personal Other.

I see it, to begin with, as a way of integrating the self: the first-tier stages tend to negate the other first-tier stages to a large degree, though of course there is some inclusion. Thus, Amber negates Red; Orange negates Amber: Green negates Orange and Amber. This kind of dynamic goes all the way up, it seems to me, or as far as I can see, anyway, but with Green, for example, you can see a real antipathy towards Orange and Amber. With Teal, Orange is befriended again: rationalizations and discriminations arise again–but Amber is not yet befriended. With Turquoise, Amber awakens again–not the belief in the myth or the personal God as such, but the attitude of devotion and faith, among other things, such as appreciation for Amber values like community, honesty, loyalty, etc. It's not the same as with a person with an Amber COG, but Amber is being integrated for the first time in second tier. There is no longer the antipathy for Amber you see in Green, no longer the dismissiveness you see in Teal.

Then an interesting thing happens in third tier–the person realizes that the personal will, the personal self, is just a play on the surface, and the best that it can do is make really nice sand castles that will be washed away by the next high tide. There's an awareness of another force, another intelligence, coming from “being.” This energy does not act out of fear like the personal will. The second face of God acts as a bridge between the two, and also as a means to integrate the whole self–it releases all sorts of energy and heart.

The moment a person begins believing in a personal God, they would fall back down to Amber–they would stop taking responsibility for themselves at that moment or else act out of fear. So the personal Other side of the idea should be transmuted into impersonal action, or “I-I action,”  though it does allow the person to tap into all sorts of energy they wouldn't otherwise have access to. The dynamic aspect of being is also Other–a different line–than the personal will, so in surrendering its personal will, the personal self opens itself up to that impersonal energy, though, paradoxically, it's the energetic aspect of being doing this.  Actually, it's incredible what can happen when the personal self gives up control, though there are a lot of piftalls there as well (if any of its evolved capacities are somehow taken offline by the idea of “surrender” or put online in a personal way).

I like what you say about devotional spaces and being blown away by compassion and beauty and such–I really don't feel that we're that far apart on this.

David

If I can somehow find out who this person was that saw the actual event happen in front of his very own eyes. I will let you know. :-P

Also, it was a question that the students asked the teacher and the teacher responded by showing him. Then afterwards, the teacher said he would still not believe what he saw and no one will either. At least that is the story I heard, but again. I would think that the student/person who saw the finger and the rock would have  a different story.

 I'm not a complete absolute skeptic about it and yet I can't claim that this makes any rational sense. And in the long run, this information is completely “IMPRACTICAL” to anyone's meditation practice or belief system and will not keep them from continuing to feel pain/suffering or to find joy and happiness.

May all sentient beings find the root of happiness.

Hi Julian

JW: james and barry so beautiful thanks.

now is it fair to say that both of you are talking about a subjective expereince of the objective reality of death that has universal features in the way human beings experience it - especially if they are emotionally open?

JB: Yes!

Can we have any other kind of experience than the subjective?