[Dialogue] Wilber

Sat Apr 14 04:53:01 EDT 2007

Thanks, Darrel and Marshall. Wilber rides across the screen again. Reminds
me happily of the many e-mailed remarks by our colleague Basil Sharp about
Wilber. 

Wilber is an enigma to me (and many others, it sounds like: check out
Wikipedia, "Ken Wilber"). He fascinates and dumbfounds. I used to think
because I was not well-read in psychology nor did Buddhist meditation I
could not grasp his meaning. Now I wonder if anyone really grasps his
meaning. He is a free-wheeling theorist/meditator par excellence and a great
gift to academic types in that he drives them a little batty. Reading the
Marshall Jones link on Wilber referring to himself as the Wyatt Earp of
trans-everything is an example. (Marshall, he well may have been smoking
something on that piece of blog.) He obviously delights in being on the wild
side.

I find myself reading Wilber from time to time because he rattles my
operating images and my rational maps. I can never quite put myself back
together again after a serious encounter with his books or online. He's
definitely a gadfly.

The thing I appreciate most about his work is the understanding, repeated
over and over, that we are called to bow to and transcend. I also like his
constant use of "trans-" -- reminds me of the old days (though, I don't
think I'll ever get trans-establishment style down). And I'm amazed at his
productivity of thought and getting it into history. 

The thing I least appreciate about his work is his emphasis on
"developmental" in such a way that we all get cubbyholed in a stage of
development. Or, development becomes hierarchical, often leading to "I'm
more advanced than you," or "I'm more spiritual than you," which to me is
over the line: how can anyone be any closer to the mystery than anyone else?
This leads to misplaced and arrogant righteousness and is a fundamental
source of divisiveness in society and the universe.

Still, I hope to read Wilber till I lose all rational sense. And the way he
cranks out writing after writing, there will always be enough to chew on
till he loses rational sense.

John C.

Darrel, I did a double-take on your saying JWM was a revolutionary mystic.
Beware, he may hunt you down.

  _____  

From: dialogue-bounces at wedgeblade.net
[mailto:dialogue-bounces at wedgeblade.net] On Behalf Of Darrell Walker
Sent: Friday, April 13, 2007 2:16 PM
To: Colleague Dialogue
Subject: Re: [Dialogue] Secret

In 1986 while in Chicago for the summer event I picked up a little book by
Ken Wilber entitled A Sociable God.  You and others may well have picked it
up as well.  It was only on reading it for the third time that what Wilber
was saying about spiritual evolvement soaked into my thick skull and it took
several more years of brooding for a new paradigm to become my reality.  In
essence, Wilber proposes that as humans, both individually and culturally,
we evolve spiritually through naturally occurring steps that are similar to
the psychological evolution described by Kohlberg and others.  He defines a
sequence of levels through which we pass beginning with infancy and
proceeding through childhood fantasy, adolescent peer group, a transition
state between adolescent and adult, adult rational, a psychic level (poor
terminology) that is the onset of mystical experience where deficiencies are
seen in rational materialism, subtle where one begins to have experiences of
nature mysticism, causal level where the mystical is experienced on an
everyday basis, and the ego is surmounted.  The ego is at the max in the
adult rational level and the steps that follow consist of ego being
displaced by mystical experience.  There is no moral judgment placed on any
of the steps since they all are on the path of spiritual evolvement.  Each
person begins at the infant level and usually progresses through the levels
fairly quickly until arriving at a level where one spends most of a lifetime
working through the issues of that level.  However, for some people
evolvement may stop at the childhood mythic level (think fundamentalist
Christians who demand literal interpretation), some at the adolescent level
(think George W. Bush us vs. them, you are with us or against us), others at
the adult secular materialistic/scientific level, and so on.  A major point
is that people cannot help being where they are on the journey and hence,
should not receive moral blame for their attitudes at that level.  A second
point is that one cannot perceive and accept the characteristics of levels
beyond where one is.  Thus, one at the adolescent level has difficulty
accepting rational level beliefs in evolutionary theory or stem cell
research.  

In the evolution of the church through the early centuries the Orthodox were
operating at the mythic/adolescent level of bodily resurrection,
Trinitarian, authoritarian mode while the Gnostics were at the mythic level
that had no need for all that claptrap.  But since the Orthodox were in the
numeric/political majority, the Gnostics lost out.  Gnosticism came back in
the 1200s ce in the form of the Cathers in southern France and 
the Orthodox church had 40,000 thousand of them killed because they would
not bow in subservience to the pope and clergy.  For that historical reason,
Gnosticism has always carried the stigma of heresy, not because it is not an
observable reality for some people but because the majority had no clue what
they were talking about.

In EI history, Joe Matthews had few kind words for mysticism, stemming
probably from his Orthodox Methodist teachings, but you can't read his
lecture on Transparent Being without believing that he understood mysticism
to the depths.  I didn't experience Matthews enough on a personal level to
know where he would be on Wilber's spiritual hierarchy (and it is dangerous
to try to make such an assessment), but in spite of his protestations to the
contrary, I believe Matthews was very much a mystic.  That does not mean
that you are always operating at the mystical level in every day life.  Once
one has achieved a level, one operates at that level and at all prior
levels, whichever the existential situation demands.  

In answer to your question about Wilber, the spiritual level one has
attained determines the paradigm (the way life is) out of which one views
life.  I hope this gives a bit of grounding for the comments that I made.
    Darrell

Darrell, help me to understand better what you and Wilber are saying. Ground
it a little, please. You wrote:

"The way life is very much depends on where one is relative to Ken Wilber's
levels of spiritual evolvement. When one evolves beyond the secular
rational, the Gnostic perspective of 'inner knowing' becomes a living
experience."

Marshall, I think I understand you (what you're saying).

John

  _____  

From: dialogue-bounces at wedgeblade.net
[mailto:dialogue-bounces at wedgeblade.net] On Behalf Of Darrell Walker
Sent: Friday, April 13, 2007 11:23 AM
To: Colleague Dialogue
Subject: Re: [Dialogue] Secret

It would be interesting to see this and take it apart. To me it sounds like
the latest version of the Gnostic heresy, which would be very attractive if
you're looking for a secret escape hatch from the way life is.
Marshall

It is interesting to see the old Orthodox phrasiology of "Gnostic" followed
by "heresy" used.  Shades of Arianism, Docitism and the filioque clause!
The way life is very much depends on where one is relative to Ken Wilber's
levels of spiritual evolement.  When one evolves beyond the secular
rational, the Gnostic perspective of "inner knowing" becomes a living
experience.
    Darrell Walker near Sacramento, California 

  _____  

_______________________________________________
Dialogue mailing list
Dialogue at wedgeblade.net
http://wedgeblade.net/mailman/listinfo/dialogue_wedgeblade.net

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://wedgeblade.net/pipermail/dialogue_wedgeblade.net/attachments/20070414/9075e7b3/attachment-0001.html 