Help
Sign In
design
January 2008 
The Unsung Hero of the Integral Movement
P'SAL
Say what you will about Ken Wilber's critics, they certainly keep things interesting. Take this latest piece by Andrew P. Smith, where he attempts to find a real evolutionary explanation of non-dualism. Though he makes the controversial claim that certain "lower" forms of life -- like single-celled entities or simple organisms -- possess a sort of non-dualistic awareness (which he would like to "zero-dimensional consciousness", a.k.a. the incapacity to distinguish between self and other), he wisely eschews the pre-trans fallacy, albeit with reservations, stating:
"Yet while the perspective of a newborn is not at all on a par with that of a mystic, it's still a genuine form of non-dualism. It does fulfill the main criterion for this state, which is simply an absence of distinction between self and other. This begs a question, actually two questions, that Wilber never addressed: why? Why are we born with a nondualist perspective, and why does it gradually transform into dualism as we mature? Developmentally, what's going on here?"
Interestingly enough, the gist of his article is that nondual enlightenment is something completely different, possibly even antipathic, to spiritual growth and development, a radical "leap" into what could only be described as becoming one with the "zero-dimensional" experiential conscious of the emerging global super-organism (which is of course anathema in the Wilberian kosmology, for oddly political -- rather than rational -- reasons).
Here's where it gets really sci-fi:
"Just as primordial cells, by associating with each other, developed higher-dimensional perspectives of themselves and their environment, and the same with humans, why shouldn't a non-dual realizer, a vastly higher form of life, not reproduce itself, and eventually form a vast society of dualistic realizers? Is it possible that this is what intelligent life in the universe is all about? Entire noospheric planets that function as individuals, and begin to interact socially with each other?"
Let me repeat that: entire noospheric planets that function as individuals, interacting socially with each other. The implications of that are staggering, and a lot more interesting the typical "tier two" pablum. Of course, none of you will read this brilliant essay because you'll find it threatening to your Wilber-centered belief system, but so be it. ;)
Access: Public
well, i haven't read that essay yet, nor this one. not because it's threatening to my Wilber-centered belief system, but because i'm getting tired of the poo-flinging…
anyway, i will catch up on this later. but based on what you've quoted from APS. i don't agree with his assessment not because of my Wilberistic tendency but because of developmental perspective as a whole which is: development / evolution = differentiation -> integration -> differentionation -> ad infinitum. this is not a Wilberian concept. it's basic developmental theory claim. we can say that differentiation = (possible only in) dualism, while nondualism = integration to the max.
and about that sci-fi quote. i have a problem when consciousness is projected towards lower forms or inanimate objects be they cellular or planetary, because we are indirectly projecting human-like consciousness in the process. what i especially like about Wilber's version is that he uses the term perspectives, interiority, which doesn't necessarily mean consciousness so i think it's less sci-fi-iffy than ASP's version.
my two cents. i'll get to those essays when i get the chance. thanks for the pointing out.
~C (for Cellular consciousness)
Liked that Paul,
Thanks for pointing that out. Reminds me of one of my bigger-bugaboos with the ol' Wilber feller. Namely the disconcerting tendency to attribute sentience (on whatever scale you might measure such) to what might otherwise appear to the indoctrinated as little more than in-animate objects (translation–soulless matter!).
My gut feeling Paul–and I sense you are picking up on this one as well–is that because of certain doctrinaire tendencies manifesting around Ken, relative to such concepts as that ol' 'pre/trans fallacy' business, that Ken and those hooked by his convictions and certainty will end up missing out on much. You know as well as I do, dude, that when you hold in your mind a concept like 'pre/trans fallacy' as incontrovertible it eliminates furhter inquiry and investigation. In short, it becomes an obstacle to discovery…. er…. uhm…. or how about I say… it becomes an obstacle to Intelligence… to Sentience!
Animately Yours,
David Jon
P.S. I would also say… while I am going here with some momentum… that Ken's 'We See That Which We Are' phrase borrowed from one of my faves–R.W. Emerson… would logically lead us to conclude that those who don't see 'soul' in matter–the world around us, attributes of the Godhead… and so forth (and let us remember that even Trees are more developed in some capacities than we humans are… uhm…mmmm!… there's your development there!)… are themselves evidencing a 'lack of soul' because that is what they are seeing. Right?
Like another one of my heroes said–this time used referring to soul in matter… 'Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack.'
guys,
FYI: i know my little “essay” above didn't do the ASP article justice, but it really is worth reading. and it's not just another a bitter “poo-flinging” piece, he actually gives ken credit in several places. but man, it beats stagnating with aqal, jeez…
-p
He is asking some great questions in a coherent way…Thanks!
“…it beats stagnating with aqal, jeez…”
Precisely Paul. Ever get the drift that if you don't speak in AQAL terminology you are automoatically dismissed as irrelevant??
Can there be more than one tongue for speaking 'Integral?' Can we have more than one dialect please?
I also think it bears mentioning here–planting my own seed I hope–that you can be intrinsically Integral without explicitly speaking any form of Integral-speak. That's where I am going fellas. To be 'Integral' in a stealth way–underground, subtly… and not this wordy-garbage trying to pass for something profound and revolutionary. Blech!!
And yeah, I am trying to poke a bit. If only because you, Paul, have at your disposal a lexicon that in my estimation transcludes Intergal-speak ala Ken Wilber.
Going… going… gone…
DJP
First off: thank you Paul for shining the light on this. It is a horrendously fascinating experiment to read that article. Theoretical debate aside the man’s argument for a different kind of developmental focus doesn’t appeal on a functional level. But that’s not to write off the whole article, that’s just a very localized source of perceived deficiency.
DJP: The only reason I would go integral-stealth is so that the people I might be talking to can understand what I’m saying. The truth is I’ve always tried to assimilate the tenets of KDub and instrinsically re-orient them toward something that non-initiates have a chance of understanding without background. Which basically means neutralizing the signifiers, not because I can’t stand that there’s no two dialects but because more people will have a better chance of understanding me that way.
I really like integral-speak, and I like integral-folk and to answer your question I don’t really ever get the drift that people who don’t speak AQAL are dismissed (by people who do speak AQAL). Although I think we might want to hear from Vo Jass on this one.
For me this article instigated all kinds of fascinating theoretical questioning of how allocated assumptions require cross-referential analysis to move forward and perhaps manifest more meaningfully. I guess I never really saw it as a way to escape integral lingo.
My gut feeling Paul–and I sense you are picking up on this one as well–is that because of certain doctrinaire tendencies manifesting around Ken, relative to such concepts as that ol' 'pre/trans fallacy' business, that Ken and those hooked by his convictions and certainty will end up missing out on much.
It's rumored that the same thing can happen by holding too tightly to the notion that Ken Wilber is full of shit.
It's cool to read a critique that actually posits alternatives. W00t for original thinking! And congrats for Visser et. al. for moving on from a debacle which, as we all know, was entirely their fault.
yeah right, “entirely their fault”. i'm the one who forwarded all those articles to ken and got him going in the first place, ah well… ;)
but yeah, let's keep the focus on what Smith is actually saying with his article: that nondualism is a reoccuring pattern in nature, common to all compound individual holons before they engage in social interaction and have to develop the notion of “self vs. other” in order to survive.
as these social interactions increase, those individual holons are transcluded by social holons (this is where Smith has a major difference with KW), which eventually cohere into a sentient individual holon on a new level of existence. i.e. with humans: we start as a cell with nondual awareness, then become a society of cells with dualistic awareness (since they have to distinguish self from other in order to function), then become an individual organism with the nondualism of an infant.
then, we again become part of larger social holons, develop dualistic consciousness, and then a handful of us will come to identify with the nondual awareness of the next higher holon (aka nondual enlightenment), which Smith posits as the living superorganism emerging from the totality of organisms interacting on planet earth. because this “planet holon” is just emerging, it hasn't found a “society” of other planet holons from which to distinguish itself, therefore it abides in nondual awareness for now.
quite a hypothesis to say the least…
-p
yeah right, “entirely their fault”. i'm the one who forwarded all those articles to ken and got him going in the first place
Okay - entirely YOUR fault then. (See? I have no attachments!)
In all seriousness, it's a very interesting model. I need to dig into the essay more to find out exactly what it means for social holons to transclude individual ones. What would such a society - such a world - look like?
EASY QUESTION! i have no idea… smith offers some suggestions in other essays on his personal site, but i have a feeling it would look like ours, plus… something ineffably beyond us. my friend corey, for instance, thinks it would only be observable in dreamtime, but that's a little nutty….
ok, not entirely my fault, but i didn't help… =)
I haven't yet read the article, but I'm excited about the possibility of an alternative to Ken's work. As for a planetary holon, that seems like the next logical step when it comes to transcending and including. The thing that excites me about this idea is that it fits nicely with the Singularity. It seems entirely possible, even likely, that people with access to technology will be able to link together, forming a type of holon with a consciousness of it's own. It's only a matter of time before the Internet evolves and people can jack in to it like Neo in the Matrix.
Interesting article – I have some issues with some things, but some other things are cool. When I have more time I'll try to write something about it. I'd like to hear him talk to Howard Bloom (Global Brain) about global intelligence – would be a nice discussion to listen in on.
For another take, less favorable, on Wilber and nonduality, check this out.
Peace,
Bill
i've read the article, and it's nothing new. if someone needs an “alternative to wilber”, well, the world is full of alternatives. the problem is, they don't work very well in this or that aspect. pushing against wilber, or being bored with aqal, is still using kw as a primary conceptual reference. it's too easy to forget that wilber speaks from a two truth framework. and claiming to be “nondual” simply doesn't absolve anyone from the paradox. nonduality is not a conceptual framework. one should, instead, first realize the absolute in a stable fashion, and i dare anyone to avoid development and practice and discipline in doing That - and then, within that realization, see how expressing such realization goes at this moment in this society. having “new” formulations that substitute realization is of no use. it's an observable fact that development is everywhere before absolute realization and even after absolute realization. in my humble view, kw's work in this regard is unsurpassed at this point.
There's something I don't get about this. And someone correct me if I'm confused – because I'm speaking from an intellectual understanding of non-dual.
But isn't the basic idea of non-dual that you realize that subject and object are ultimately not seperate?
And wouldn't the state of a newborn be much more like a complete unawareness of subject or object?
And aren't those two very different things?
HOKAI: Personally i wasn't entirely satisfied with Smith's facile ditching of the developmental spectrum. I still agree with ken in that pursuing development on its accord might make one more “accident prone” to realizing the nondual.
UMGUY: According to my understanding of Smith, the state of an infant is indeed nondual (or “zero-dimensional”), but it is a nonduality of a lower level: basically, the nonduality of the organism level of existence, which is the final stage of cellular societies who've become a sentient organism. What we humans call “supreme nondual enlightenment”, on the other hand, is a sudden and shocking recognition of the zero-dimensional awareness of the planetary holon , an entirely new and radically more profound level of existence up from our native organismic. Does that make sense?
Hokai said: “if someone needs an “alternative to wilber”, well, the world is full of alternatives. the problem is, they don't work very well in this or that aspect. pushing against wilber, or being bored with aqal, is still using kw as a primary conceptual reference. it's too easy to forget that wilber speaks from a two truth framework. and claiming to be “nondual” simply doesn't absolve anyone from the paradox.”
i have yet to read the article so i'm not qualified to ditch or not ditch ASP. i have a life too outside of integral :) but i agree with Hokai and that's also how i think regarding most of Ken's critics. but then again, when you're critiquing something, it's always the “primary conceptual reference” right?
while we're at it, might as well add these unsung heroes too. and don't forget the real heroes we sometimes forget to sing about.
Smith needs to read Gebser. Wilber should re-read him. Gebser's work deals extensively with the 0 perspective order of existence and the relationship of progressive development through structures of consciousness with notions of integral enlightenment. It isn't the final word, but it is a good place to start.
I also commend Whitehead's Process and Reality. A remarkably profound early 20th Century attempt at metaphysics which takes consciousness all the way down and all the way up through an evolutionary process to godhead - and all from the mind of a logician, mathematican and physicist. Damned interesting.
In Wilber's defense - and I am not an acolyte (history will remember him, if at all, as scholastic cataloguer of the great ideas of others who had three or four good, but ancillary ideas) - he does say that the non-dual realization has nothing to do with what he does in making his map. His work is nothing more than a map of samsara - the illusion or the prison. It is not a roadmap to enlightenment - quite the opposite. It is a map for navigating the world of samsara successfully - something for which enlightment does not particuarly prepare you.