Ken Wilber
-
With all this given, might be a good time to bring up two of Wilber's criticisms of new-agers, based on his 10 spheres of being:
"[*]Stop elevating magic and mythic to the psychic and subtle. This elevation of magical narcissism to transcendental glory is the single defining characteristic of the New-Age movement.
[*]Stop confusing mythological stories with transpersonal awareness. This elevation of myth to subtle illumination is rampant in countercultural spirituality." (The Essential Ken Wilber, p. 111).
Apparently, we all have "regressive" infantile ideas about gods/goddesses, god myths, personal magical power, and get confused by equating gods and personal power with the ultimate reality. The "progressive" would dispense with such things immediately and simply concentrate on meditation.
So to make an example of how Wilber would classify a "magic" (3rd sphere) mistake:
A silly New-Age Occultist (who probably got mixed up with that Crowley fellow) gets angry at his/her girlfriend. Maybe he/she says, "I command thee to be punished!" Later, he/she gets into a car accident and thinks, "oh! I must have caused that by my anger at my girlfriend." Wilber would call this a 3rd sphere mistake, where a person is equating their personal power with universal power and karma. According to Wilber, this is the kind of logic toddlers use when they can't differentiate their personal power from the power of their parents/universe. While the person's anger may have actually caused the car accident, the person's own aggression triggering defense mechanisms (and a compromise formation) that ultimately causes an accident , this is due to the individual's own psychology and regressive manner of conceptualizing reality-- it doesn't have to do with any higher karmic force.
To make an example of how Wilber might classify a "myth" (4th sphere) mistake:
The same silly New-Ager prays to a God and something happens, perhaps he/she wants to get a NEW girlfriend. Within two weeks, the girl has magically appeared to him/her, and the person says "praise the gods!" According to Wilber, this is also silly regression; the Gods didn't do it, you did it, because the Gods themselves don't exist except in classically infantile/regressive logic.
...
Responses? I know this made me angry, but I also think that there's some truth to what he's saying.
Let me close by quoting some Crowley from Liber O:
"It is immaterial whether these (Gods, Spheres, Planes, et cetera) exist or not. By doing certain things certain results will follow; students are most earnestly warned against attributing objective reality or philosophic validity to any of them."
Do you think Wilber lends any insights, or is a closed-minded bigot? Or possibly both?
--MonKay!
-
Yeah, Wilbur's criticisms of "new-agers" are exactly the reverse of my criticisms of attributing #6 to Tiphareth.
It's not solely "logical," though I don't know if I'm doing jsutice to his use of the word. But it does want to make me point out that Tiphareth is also quite emotional, and I think we see Wilbur separating emotions out as part of another "sphere of being" that at least seem on the surface to be transcended by the higher reasonings. opposed to the higher #6 "vision logic" instead of #6 being a reworking of the earlier unbalanced narcissism of #3 "Magic"]
Tiphareth as I understand it, takes that "unity in diversity" of #6 "Vision Logic" and also applies it to the very question of "self/object" differentiation that Wilbur seemingly relegates only to #3 Magick.
It seems that Wilber can't understand a magickal worldview as anything other than a false belief resulting from poor self/object differentiation. However, where #6 distinguishes itself from Tiphareth (in spite of the initial association and concensus) is precisely in the manner that that Tiphareth plays on the self/object differentiation question as the "vision logic" and "unity within diversity" plays out on our understaning of "Self" and "Other."
When imbalanced, yes, this results in spectacular narcissism and solipsism. When balanced, however, there is a new relationship with the world around you that does seem quite magickal and mysteriously interrelated.
Just my two.
-
Frater LR, 93
"Yeah, Wilbur's criticisms of "new-agers" are exactly the reverse of my criticisms of attributing #6 to Tiphareth.
It's not solely "logical," though I don't know if I'm doing jsutice to his use of the word. But it does want to make me point out that Tiphareth is also quite emotional, and I think we see Wilbur separating emotions out as part of another "sphere of being" that at least seem on the surface to be transcended by the higher reasonings. "I think the effect on ego consciousness of entering into contact with Tiphereth is highly emotional. I agree Wilber tends to denigrate emotion. But emotions are primarily indicators - they compel us to see that something important is golng on inside. Connecting with emotion is vital, and repressing it is harmful. But emotion is not ecstasy, even if ecstasy provokes or evokes emotion.
"It seems that Wilber can't understand a magical worldview as anything other than a false belief resulting from poor self/object differentiation. "
I think he's quite correct in insisting on us not confusing the planes. In that, New Age thinkers are often the worst offenders. But many occultists tend to take every minor event as a sign of something significant. The Universe responds and echoes us through various signs and coincidences, but such synchronous events are usually like nods of greeting from casual acquaintances, and not necessarily grandly significant. Wilber is good at puncturing such pretensions.
93 93/93,
Edward
-
@Edward Mason said
" I think he's quite correct in insisting on us not confusing the planes. In that, New Age thinkers are often the worst offenders. But many occultists tend to take every minor event as a sign of something significant. The Universe responds and echoes us through various signs and coincidences, but such synchronous events are usually like nods of greeting from casual acquaintances, and not necessarily grandly significant. Wilber is good at puncturing such pretensions."
Well spoken, methinks.
But you see the problem this brings up: * if *(emphasis on if) magicians are viewing the world with poor self/object differentiation, where does that leave magical practice but in the convulsions of infantile logic? Baby see bread, baby want bread, bread come to baby-- big-time wow, baby's desire for bread powerful!
Two hypotheses:
- Infantile logic itself is a necessary part of the process, which Wilber doesn't understand and is unnecessarily denigrating.
- That the evaporation of self-object boundaries must be** actual **and not due to ego-delusions.
-
93,
"But you see the problem this brings up: if (emphasis on if) magicians are viewing the world with poor self/object differentiation, where does that leave magical practice but in the convulsions of infantile logic? Baby see bread, baby want bread, bread come to baby-- big-time wow, baby's desire for bread powerful!
Two hypotheses:
- Infantile logic itself is a necessary part of the process, which Wilber doesn't understand and is unnecessarily denigrating.
- That the evaporation of self-object boundaries must be actual and not due to ego-delusions."
Well, Wilber doesn't understand the process. We have to make allowances for his lack of practical experience, since he had the bulk of his practical training in yoga and Tibetan Buddhism.
I don't see the Qabalistic process of seeking to attain K&C as infantile at all, though I'm sure any number of psychologists would and do see it as a regression to a womb-state in classic Freudian style, or as a sequence of mundane-ego reinforcing exercises. Wilber may be playing it safe and taking his cues from that segment of clinical opinion, and there is, I'd say, plenty of evidence of this sort of self-aggrandisement around:
"I am armed, I am strong, and thus I can be habitually rude and stupid, and spit on your crapulous creeds and stuff like that. And not really do much else."But a serious Thelemic practitioner is aiming for actual dissolution, not just a reinforced ego. That requires long-term discipline and the willingness to undergo prolonged analysis of one's own nature and powers. Maybe Wilber never met a serious Thelemite of that stamp?
93 93/93,
Edward
-
"But you see the problem this brings up: if (emphasis on if) magicians are viewing the world with poor self/object differentiation, where does that leave magical practice but in the convulsions of infantile logic? "
I think that may not be a bad description of some of what happens in the ongoing process of initiation... but with magicians, those convulsions are usually transformative and evolutionary. They aren't (or shouldn't be) merely a stagnant display of limited, rigid displays of poor adaptation skills and self/object differentiation.
Instead, what you see is that the magician sort of "reboots" the process of discerning self and object. It can be messy and spill over the bounds of sanity at times, but, overall, it leaves the magician more highly adaptable to his or her environment.
-
@Edward Mason said
"
Well, Wilber doesn't understand the process. We have to make allowances for his lack of practical experience, since he had the bulk of his practical training in yoga and Tibetan Buddhism. "Yep, which answers my earlier question as to whether Wilber's system is wide enough to speak for the Transpersonal psychology of ALL systems, here using Crowley''s spiritual system as an example. (We are going to assume Crowley is legitimate, either that or I'm wasting a LOT of time with him.
)As you point out, Wilber's likely relying on conservative psychological interpretations and likely a few bad examples of ego-centric New-Agers when coming to his conclusions.
I think though too (and let me emphasize that this is my interpretation), Wilber's "system of consciousness development" is extremely linear. You pass through stages of consciousness development, and then you don't have use for them anymore.
Even the most bigoted Freudian will tell you that you have the need to interact and be affected by your "earliest" levels of psycho-sexual development in your later adult life; even once you've reached the genital stage, you are still affected by how your oral-level conflicts were resolved.
Which I fear exposes the basic problem of Wilber's system: it is based on a rationalist denial of the totality of the person's processed experience of reality.
Even the most bigoted Freudian will say that your primary process thinking (unconscious child logic) lies underneath the waking moment in every moment. (Now Freud isn't the same as the Piagetian concepts that Wilber seems to employ, but hear me out.) Wilber sees the process as more linear, once you achieve a certain stage of development, you never go back or are affected by other stages.
But the process isn't linear. Or is it?
-
@Frater LR said
"
I think that may not be a bad description of some of what happens in the ongoing process of initiation... but with magicians, those convulsions are usually transformative and evolutionary. They aren't (or shouldn't be) merely a stagnant display of limited, rigid displays of poor adaptation skills and self/object differentiation.Instead, what you see is that the magician sort of "reboots" the process of discerning self and object. It can be messy and spill over the bounds of sanity at times, but, overall, it leaves the magician more highly adaptable to his or her environment."
I'm glad you point this out. In contrast to Wilber, who says that ALL self-object confusion is maladaptive, you're saying that this may happen-- but that it's part of the process and not ideally part of the outcome.
Which again either points to the bias of his system, the assumptions he's making about spiritual evolution, or both, IF he's claiming (and he is) that his model is the correct model for all people.
-
@Edward Mason said
" I don't see the Qabalistic process of seeking to attain K&C as infantile at all, though I'm sure any number of psychologists would and do see it as a regression to a womb-state in classic Freudian style, or as a sequence of mundane-ego reinforcing exercises."
This is what scares me. Wilber is elevating his "system" of consciousness development to a universal, while his system only allows for one method and not many. If you're not following his method, you're regressive and therefore pathological. And I can't think of a derogatory enough slur for that kind of myopic logic. (Crowley might have compared it to popular journalism...)
-
I'm really enjoying this discussion, I think we're really getting at something here, so thanks!
So to take a different approach...
There are two different possible types of self/object "dissolutions."
- The child who thinks the world revolves around the self. When things happen in the world, they appear to be connected to the self.
- A more mystic self/object dissolution.
Perhaps the problem is that, in seeking the "higher," it is also common to get confused at a lower level of self/object dissolution and then to attribute everything to the "self."
If the universe as we normally come to it is a phantasmagorical extension of ourselves, this possibility would seem to be an even more likely problem. For it would then be our own image of the reality of ourselves in existence, and not the myriad possibilities of the reality of ourselves in existence, that we would then tend to see.
Which would tend to suggest to me that if there are experiences in which the world seems to revolve around self, these may need to be taken more as danger signs than as signs of self-enlightenment or whatnot, e.g. problems to be worked through than as signs of attainment.
Which, unfortunately, would then validate Wilber's hypothesis. Just when I was starting to really think I disagreed with him entirely...
-
93
"This is what scares me. Wilber is elevating his "system" of consciousness development to a universal, while his system only allows for one method and not many. If you're not following his method, you're regressive and therefore pathological."
Sure, that's Wilber's failing. He is not very plugged into the idea of "Thus ye have star & star, system & system; let not one know well the other." To me, his biggest personal problem is that he wants to be seen as a genius. I think he is one, but his need for recognition is something that has him stuck. It's as if he never quite absorbed the deeper warnings his experience with Ada Da Samraj, another guy who Knew It All, should have showed him.
But that said, I think discriminating reading of his work is always useful, if only because he attacks nihilism and pessimism so effectively.
93 93/93,
Edward
-
@Edward Mason said
"
if only because he attacks nihilism and pessimism so effectively.
"Hi Edward,
Would you mind summarizing this briefly, or pointing out a certain work/passage? I'm curious about this.
-
Escarabajo, 93,
"if only because he attacks nihilism and pessimism so effectively.
Hi Edward,
Would you mind summarizing this briefly, or pointing out a certain work/passage? I'm curious about this."My Wilber books are packed away right now. So, I'm paraphrasing him here. But he stresses that holons are evolutionary in that they become more complex over time. That is, life began with simple creatures, progressed to organisms with a spinal cord and then creatures with brains, and so on.
He is critical of much ecological thinking, and of eco-feminism, which want to take things back to their prior condition. He says, in effect, that to try to move human culture back to a pre-civilized, "more natural" state is to move back to earlier, less versatile or creative types of holons, and this is not in any way a "healing of the planet." It takes us away from spiritual growth, and is absolutely not a solution to anything.
He is equally critical of post-modernism, which reduces and relativizes everything to meaningless. In Wilber's view, each new level of holon *adds *to meaning, building on what has happened before. Collectively, we have moved from clans to tribes to nations and will, eventually, reach a global society. He doesn't accept that all lifestyles or cultures are of equal value, because to make such a statement is already to have taken a "superior" position to people who argue that some societies are more advanced than others.
Beyond that, someone who can quote his books directly will have to add comments.
93 93/93,
Edward