Recent Updates RSS Hide threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • Is integral an open source project? 

    shamansun 8:46 pm on October 28, 2009 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , open access, renaissance 2, terry patten

    Terry Patten just posted this newsletter, “Exploring Big Questions in the Integral World.” I’m sort of glad that these are being brought up in the first place. Patten says integral themes are emerging naturally around the world, a “loosely-defined Integral movement seems to have appeared, and within it, the related field of Integral spirituality.” Cool! Yeah, that’s us. Popping up everywhere. Although let’s think of this carefully. The essential point he’s making is that the idea behind integral, or rather, just seeing underlying truths is becoming more recognizable for more people. Makes sense. We’re living in a digital age, we surf through information daily, and many of us are now more capable of discerning underlying patterns, not to mention developing new ways to synthesize information. We’re truly becoming planetary citizens.

    Integral is inherently an “open source” movement: On the one hand, Integral intellectual property falls into two categories: (1) There are copyrighted recordings and publications, and testing instruments, which are all necessary and completely non-problematic. (2) There are attempts to trademark or copyright important insights or good ideas in and of themselves. Such ideas may even be essential truths. Where would we all be if Ken Wilber had copyrighted the idea of the four quadrants? Or the notion of altitudes? This latter category is more analogous to patenting pieces of genetic code. By its nature, this tends to constrain the free flow of ideas, and inhibit the co-creative process at the heart of a thriving Integral community.

    Integral IP is healthy and necessary: On the other hand, serious intellectual creativity requires full-time dedication, which implies a successful business model. The Integral movement has come to life in the midst of the world economy at a time when innovative business models are primarily based on developing valuable IP. To make this distinction between two kinds of IP and to take one of them off the table is entirely impractical. It can’t and won’t happen. Moreover, any attempt to do so would be foolish. It would disincentivize innovation and constrain the ability of Integral leaders to monetize their creative contributions. If the IP has enough value, people will, and should, pay for it. And the public Integral conversation will go on; it is hardly in need of protection.

    A lingering question I had was, okay, it’s inherent, but what about manifest? If integral is inherently “open source,” in that the ideas are there, but the services are what we pay for (Integral Life, for example), is this truly a manifestation of Open Source? Aren’t there more wide-reaching models that rely on micro-transactions, blogging, twittering, live-feeds, and most importantly, open access?


    To me, it seems like Integral Institute and its associates are going down the well-trodded path. They want to be formally recognized, so they are taking on the traits of any traditional university, business or institution. Maintain control of intellectual property, to some degree, allow access for a fee, etc. But what if those models are dated? Wouldn’t the integral theorists do much better to embrace more collaborative, and technologically enhanced ways to share their work? Open access would, at least I believe, do the Integral folks wonders. I’m sure their intentions are benign by embracing traditional business and intellectual models, but it might end up serving as a road block to becoming true cultural catalysts.

    [Also, utilizing new legislation, like the creative commons, can protect intellectual property and at the same time make it more open source.]

    We live in an internet age, why embrace the old paradigm when new means of organization are capable of so much more potential? Just think, it’s the difference between “an institution and collaboration.”

    “New technologies are enabling new kinds of cooperative structures to flourish as a way of getting things done in business, science, the arts and elsewhere, as an alternative to centralized and institutional structures, which he sees as self-limiting.” Clay Shirky

    If there is to be an integral movement, if they really want it to be a catalyst for the greater culture, it’s time they smart up and utilize new ways of thinking and organizing.

     

  • Robert Wright and John Horgan, discuss “Spiritual Warfare.” 

    shamansun 1:00 am on October 5, 2009 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: blogging heads, evolution of god, , robert wright


    I just watched this interview between John Horgan and Robert Wright, author of The Evolution of God.

    Very interesting discussion, although I was frustrated at times, primarily with Horgan’s skepticism and sympathized with Wright’s tenseness at certain points in the video.

    Gurus and pandits might abuse the spiritual teachings, but it doesn’t mean they aren’t valid. If you’re unfamiliar with Horgan’s view, he sees himself as a skeptic of sorts, questioning both science and spirituality. He sees Buddhism as, like other religions, human inventions, and any real insights don’t have to do with the religions themselves. I could agree with this–we invent systems, we create religions. They have limitations for sure. Horgan, however, goes another step and confuses a lot of the practices without understanding what and why they are.

    For instance, the discussion gets into a debate about what meditation actually does. Horgan appeared to dislike meditation and saw it as a way to escape reality, and enlightenment claims to be too detached, missing the direct, personal life experiences and reaching for some heavenly “other.” At one point, he asserted that Robert Wright simply had gotten “nicer” after his Vipassana retreat, and that was not the result of Buddhism.

    I find myself a bit perplexed by Horgan’s understanding, just as I was when I read his book, Rational Mysticism.

    If I can throw in two cents here, isn’t meditation about becoming more familiar with ourselves, our habits, our emotions? A way to quiet the mind and learn to listen, instead of fill the world with sound? There are spiritual teachings too, such as satori or kensho. This is also taught, that we perceive deeper layers to the mind and reality, and help us live more presently, personal and collectively.

    By diving into the Whole, we can appreciate each moment and relationship, and learn to accept ourselves too. A lot of emotional and psychological baggage can drop that way. True meditation isn’t an escape from ourselves or the world, it’s confronting, diving deep, introspection. That being said, it seems like Horgan is confusing spiritual practices with the more negative forms of gnosticism, which found the physical world repugnant and sought something greater. But it’s pretty basic in all the world’s major religions that divinity is immanent as well as transcendent. “The Kingdom of Heaven” is here, as Jesus said.

    At any rate, I’m glad Wright is getting the lime light and presenting these ideas and possibilities to the public. It seems like it’s a wonderful catalyst for exploring spiritual questions.

     

  • Autumn Dew 

    shamansun 10:34 pm on October 3, 2009 Permalink | Reply

    It’s funny. I often come here in the heat of analytic passion, sharing with my readers whatever book or new philosophy I’ve come across, or continuing down one certain line of thinking.

    Some recent personal insights have caused me to reflect on this, and the least I can say is I feel refreshed, breathing anew. This blog will still be important to me, to share things–but in a way that psychological push I’ve had (knowledge as a never ending banquet for my mind) has eluded me. I still absolutely love delving into a good book, particularly a philosophy book, but something has really changed.

    In philosophy, we’re often identifying our reality with a way of seeing the world. We question things, equate knowledge with analysis, insight and perception. This is a great tool for unlocking new knowledge, personally and with others. But we’ve often heard of another kind of wisdom, one that doesn’t entirely equate reality via thinking about it.

    Thought, often enough is considered to be a primary tool of the mind. I think we can take a lesson from eastern philosophers when they speak of duality and paradoxes. Often, a paradox is a sign of harmony: night and day, dark and light, aggressive and passive. They compliment and define each other. If we apply this to human nature, we might see ourselves as thinking, feeling beings, punctuated by quiet stillness or silence. Deep sleep, followed by a flurry of words and emotions. Might it be good to explore this other side, to balance a chattering mind with a still one? Both surely have their purpose and contribute to a harmonious lifestyle.

    And so one of the major breakthroughs, for me at least, is attuning myself to the silence as well as the chatter. It soothes the mind like a good song; a dance between silence and musical notes. This brings a certain joy to one’s life, a creative, intuitive component to life often misunderstood as idleness or sloth.

    It can help center you, giving energy to your thoughts and spurring insight, both in philosophical ventures and in friendship.

    I had been reading B. Alan Wallace lately, and learned Pythagoras was not only a philosopher who utilized intellect, but a mystic who listened to silence. Cultivating this into a modern lifestyle can truly help, not merely for psychological well-being, but as insight and transformation for our contemporary culture as a whole.

    Coming back around now, I think I’ve finally learned to appreciate the wisdom in, “Know thyself,” which isn’t merely intellectual knowledge but insight into one’s nature. Couldn’t we take ourselves further, deeper if we were not always filling the world with words, but listening to it too?

    Sometimes we identify ourselves too strongly with our words, our ideas. Psychologically, we do this often enough not with abstract ideas, but thoughts in the form of memories, experiences, associations. “I am ___.” We also identify ourselves with the emotions that accompany and interweave this. All in all, this makes a nifty not or web we call “me.” What meditation does, or really, what silence does is help us recognize the human experience has the potential to be something that is not quite a “thing.” It’s more of a state, a knowING, rather than the known, a beING rather than an object of being. This may sound complex, and yes, often words trip up in attempting to describe this surreal, serene state of presence with ourselves.

    All in all, silence and meditation loosen our bonds with the sense of Self, which can often become so wound up, we become bound in anxieties and psychological baggage. So much so, that some of us may defend ourselves, “but, this is who I am!”

    Taking a moment to observe ourselves through meditative practice, the person taking the time might notice that he or she is capable of observing their thoughts and feelings, but what then is the observer? A deep state of awareness may follow, like a cool river washing away the fragments of anxieties we were originally hung up on. This open, flowing state is equated with the “bliss” in spiritual practices, but to me it is also expressing the potential for human beings to mature into something beyond words, beyond names and limited concepts. It is that wordless, nameless state that more profound experiences may occur–satori, enlightenment, meeting God.

    Of course, all such names are not present, at least, not in focus as much anymore, we are taking flight, the “flight of the eagle” as Krishnamurti had once described. Dare we, for a moment, not limit ourselves to being lost in the self?

    On a purely physical level, we might say that the mind is associating neural pathways that are more integrative, less fragmented, more active and less reactive. The human being stepping up into their great potential through self-insight. One thing we are often afraid to do is just that–look into ourselves.

    PS: I’m putting together a thesis right now. Trying to balance out the heavy studies with meditation practice. How do you handle a heavy mental work load? Upcoming writing will probably include Jean Gebser’s work, Ever Present Origin, Wallace, and Teilhard. Thanks for dropping by!

     

  • Quick updates. 

    shamansun 8:43 pm on September 25, 2009 Permalink | Reply

    Hey everyone,

    I’ll be posting more blogs shortly. Lots of work to do with school, but part of my research entails writing about Teilhard. I hope to write another essay for Integral World concerning a “follow up” analysis of integral theory, and modern ecological problems. Sounds messy, but it could be fun.

    Til then!

     

  • Selections from Teilhard, The Birth of Thought 

    shamansun 11:13 pm on September 10, 2009 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: buddha nature, , , , omega point, teilhard de chardin

    “It is true that in the end, from the organic point of view, the whole metamorphosis leading to man depends on the question of a better brain. But how was this cerebral perfectioning carried out–how could it have worked–if there had not been a whole series of other conditions brought together at the same time? …Surely the smallest thing formed in the world is always the result of  the most formidable coincidence– a knot whose strands have been for all time converging from the four corners of space. Life does not work by following a single thread, nor yet by fits and starts. It pushes forward its whole network at one and the same time. So is the embryo fashioned in the womb that bears it. This we have reason to know, but it is satisfying to us precisely to recognize that man was born under the same law of maternity…

    …Without trying to picture the unimaginable, let us nevertheless keep hold of one idea–that the access to thought represents a threshold which had to be crossed at a single stride; a ‘transexperimental’ interval about which scientifically we can say nothing, but beyond which we find ourselves transported onto an entirely new biological plane…”

    …In the first place it involved a change of state; then, by this very fact, the beginning of another kind of life–precisely that interior life of which I have spoken above…”

    …the psychic center, once turned in upon itself… at the same time centers the rest of the world around itself by the establishment of an ever more coherent and better organized perspective in the realities which surround it. We are not dealing with an immutably fixed focus but with a vortex which grows deeper as it sucks up the fluid at the heart of which it was born. The ego only persists by becoming ever more itself, in the measure in which it makes everything else itself. So man becomes a person in and through personalisation.”

    “…Above the point of reflection, does the whole interest of evolution shift, passing from life into a plurality of isolated living beings?

    Nothing of the sort. Only, from this crucial date the global spurt, without slackening in the slightest, has acquired another degree, another order of complexity. The phylum does not break up like a fragile jet just because henceforward it is fraught with thinking centers; it does not crumble into its elementary psychisms. On the contrary it is reinforced by an inner lining, an additional framework.”

    I scooped up these excerpts from the Phenomenon of Man, the chapter entitled “The Birth of Thought.” Interesting points to consider. My mind dwells on these ideas:

    The emergence of thought is an organic process, a whole slew of different processes combine to form consciousness, which is then, so to speak, a thing in itself, although entirely dependent upon the environment which formed it. Self reflection, self-consciousness, self-awareness are synonymous with this. Also, the interesting case that throughout evolution, the emergence of consciousness (according to Teilhard) seems to be general direction. But, it doesn’t stop there. The general direction of matter to animate, to become sensitive and dynamic, integrated, and gradually sentient is a fascinating cosmology–although some argue entirely human-centric. I would argue that it is rather “conscious-centric,” in the fact that, life isn’t linear, and so many other creatures may have also been the ones to evolve minds, selves, and eventually cultures.

    There is also a possibility that life is a rarity, that in the universe, life does not have the tendency to become more complex over time. There are inhibitors; cosmic rays, differing conditions, lack of atmosphere, etc. that would stop emerging complexity. Or, in Teilhard’s conception, the universe appears mostly hostile towards life, and any “law of complexity consciousness” arising would be as rare as a diamond in the ocean. That may be the case, but given favorable circumstances, isn’t it still fascinating that life does have a non-linear, emergent direction?

    Another interesting idea Teilhard presents is the interdependence of life. No creature that has ever lived has “come onto its own.” Each organism is intricately connected to the surrounding environment, and, temporally, to the decisions and mutations of its ancestors. It suggests the idea that even consciousness is not a mere, unique diffusion of “mind,” but instead an emergent and new layer of life. Vastly more complex than biological, but not disconnected from it. Also, the idea of plurality only makes sense in this point of view, if we acknowledge that plurality is also interdependence, and emergence. Or, as Teilhard has mentioned, the point from which many, non-linear processes converge, and something new is born. Thus, we are not isolated societies destined to stretch infinitely on in our own ways, removed from each other. We come together, we meet and are changed by that meeting. Communion is the guiding force of evolutionary processes. Scientifically, there is the ecosystem, tit-for-tat, interdependence–and hopefully in the future as we discover the vastly complex processes underlying evolution, and integrate them, this may help us have a better sense of ourselves and the whole of life.

    This raises other points, but I think they can be mentioned in a future blog. Particularly, claims by B. Alan Wallace on the nature of consciousness. He argues that consciousness is beyond the brain, and in fact something “before,” the brain. Consciousness, then, is a convergence of matter, arranged in such a way to gain sentience of some underlying reality, also known as Buddha-nature (Could that be related to Omega point?). Fragments of light shining through. Are these claims valid? They’re huge claims, and I think require anyone exploring them to delve into huge, cosmological and spiritual questions. Definitely the subject for another post!

     

  • An organic philosophy? 

    shamansun 9:21 pm on September 9, 2009 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: civilization, , , mechanistic, organic, , taoism

    In the last blog I was mentioning the need in the integral philosophy, and in philosophy in general, to cultivate some kind of more natural philosophy. By natural I don’t mean, “natural sciences,” although it is intricately connected to that subject. What it really means is acknowledging, I think, three major points:

    The first is that there is a need to find continuity between more disciplines, and ground academic, perhaps more metaphysical thinking in our observable reality – that of an interdependent world, woven together from biological ecosystem to social environments. An organic philosophy, where systems and processes are grown rather than mechanically assembled. There is a particular messiness in the world that doesn’t fit into boxy paradigms, but rather is better described in more circular or “feminine” descriptions, interconnection and relationship. Or, in other words, the space between the words acknowledged as an important reality.

    This leads me to the second point on synergy. In any ecosystem, synergy is produced from the complex interaction of variables. They have an emergent property, they create, more or less, a permeable “whole” which has its own characteristics, and may itself be a part of a larger system or process. This sounds a lot like systems theory, and I’ll be reading up on that too, but the key components here is that synergy produces emergent higher orders. This is an observable reality within the hard sciences, and, arguably, in the social sciences. Human beings and their ideologies, culture, philosophies, are not separate from their environment, not somehow “floating above,” as thinkers of previous centuries may argue. We are grounded in the world, not somehow outside observers. The world grows us like it grows a flower or a forest. These structural, non-linear processes are abounding in all parts of life, and the universe for that matter.

    So a worldview which embraces an organic rather than mechanistic universe (the seedling rather than the watchmaker), might better address and integrate our science and the world at large. Objectifying the world, while a useful skill when applied to understanding the physical processes, I believe is severely limited in that it has yet to wrap itself around (or open up to) the spaces between points (which, up until recently, has been the field for art, religion, poetry, philosophy even). I believe it is simply because synergy and non-linear systems are, by far, more complex than linear and mechanistic ones. In other words, our modes of thinking about ourselves and the world are too simplistic.

    The limitations are most apparent–we are facing various energy crisis, warring with one another, fragmented and at the verge of ecological , energy and economic crisis. These appear to me, at least, as tell-tale signs of a civilization which has yet to master the knowledge of interconnection with the whole of the world, and each other. Interdependence, in other words, is a missing element in our behavior and our collective knowledge.

    I do not think science itself is to blame, as much as science is still very much growing into itself. There are of course, mathematics and complex theorems that are anything but simplistic, yet we still struggle with a “universal theory,” and with more synergistic equations – because they are multiplicative, exponential. This simply means that, hopefully, this century will make best use of its computers by adding a whole dimension to the sciences: being able to navigate, theorize and master the non-linear, “organic” nature of reality. Science and its worldview will have to mature, so to speak, to incorporate this missing element, which has been up until recently so very difficult to integrate.

    These emergent properties can be spoken of now, however, and we have various philosophies that have attempted to describe the processes. Manuel Delanda, Deleuze are more traditionally known for exploring the non-linear, or organic facets of reality, trying to navigate them without getting lost.

    This leads me to my third point, holons. Other such thinkers, such as Koestler, have developed the idea of a “holon,” or a whole-part. This is exactly what was mentioned earlier: the synergistic, interdependent qualities of a system produce a higher order (star systems, galaxies, galaxy clusters). Ken Wilber is probably one of the most famous thinkers in this field, although I wonder if the maps and conceptualizing are all too boxy and conceptual to truly translate synergy emergence?

    This both synergistic, and emergent quality of higher and lower orders of complexity is abundant in the observable universe. In that sense, the concept of a “holon,” is a phenomenological  observation of reality, rather than metaphysical pie-in-the-sky idealism. It attempts to describe how life emerges, how culture emerges, and how they are all very much dependent on “lower” orders. For instance, a galaxy would cease to be if its parts were destroyed. Just as that is true, the mind would not be able to emerge without the brain. It’s not that the mind is epiphenomenal, but it is emergent from the synergy of brain chemistry. It has its own distinct properties rooted in physiological processes (which we are still attempting to understand).

    This is all really talking about an “organic” philosophy, in which all things are grown from underlying processes and new qualities emerge, which may have their own influence in the world (a tornado is “emergent,” for example).

    It requires us to integrate or shift from a mechanistic reality to an organic one. To me, at least, this indicates a major shift in thinking that will help us understand the world much more thoroughly, holistically. For the first time, our sciences may help us gain equilibrium with nature. Or, in other words, we will recognize ourselves, including our minds, as a part of the world and not separate from it, not somehow privileged above it. Equally, however, we will be unique in our ability: to think, to analyze, to conceptualize, relate- these qualities themselves being emergent properties. To use Alan Watts’ analogy, people think just like plants flower.

    This may revolutionize a lot of the ways we organize ourselves, from being like simplistic, linear machines to multi-operational living systems. For example, the ability for people to organize collaboratively, rather than simplistic “top-down” command systems, or hierarchies. This is observant in internet and mobile communication technologies.

    The philosophy may also be applicable to education. If we teach now by way of an “assembled” education, how might an organic one look? One in which we recognize the most natural and effective way to “grow” a mind rather than simply send it along linear paths and grading systems. This century, unlike any other perhaps since before civilization, offers us the opportunity to rediscover a “natural” lifestyle without having to return to a hunter-gatherer society. Or rather, we are finally understanding interdependence, holistic relationship and being able to apply it to the most profound and influential field of the modern world: science and technology. Might civilization at last grow into its own, cultivating a lifestyle rivaling the equilibrium with nature of hunter-gatherers and tribes? Solar energy, network societies, sustainability, local-economies and local energy sources, more efficient and lasting than our mechanistic civilization currently utilizes. It seems that a lot of the more masculine-oriented thinking (analytical, top-down, conceptual) is at last being complimented, or balanced by feminine-oriented relating (space between points, bottom-up, synergy, relationship, emergence). This century then, might be seen as the balancing of yin-yang in the human species. Linear processes give rise to non-linear, and the world suddenly becomes a dynamic exchange and integration of both kinds of thinking.

    This might also raise more cosmological questions, such as: do societies evolve? Why did we leave the hunter-gatherer society, and, now being in a more stabilized world civilization, does this mean evolution had some sort of underlying process which we were not able to recognize, that led us to where we are now?

    I firmly believe these are wonderful possibilities emerging right here and now, and we need only begin to apply them to reconcile some of our differences and seek a living civilization, one which reflects our connection with the world rather than the illusion of separation from it. One in which we see ourselves as grown from the world rather than “made,” for a mechanistic view has its cultural roots in both the enlightenment, and Judeo-Christian religions, (God the creator, maker, mechanistic processes). This paradigm shift might offer us the opportunity for a true evolution of culture, technology, politics and science. One in which we aren’t heading towards our doom, but are in the midst of coming of age in a universe waiting to be explored by a wiser, vibrant living humanity.

    More thoughts on this later!

    Note: Wilber has addressed an interesting point on dissociation vs. differentiation. When something new emerges, a new holon, it can emerge in a healthy manner by simply differentiation (like in biological processes), or it can emerge in an unhealthy manner, dissociation. Dissociation, arguably is what our civilization is struggling with. We have somehow disconnected ourselves from nature, by cultural myth or simply a lack of self-knowledge. Idealism, or even the belief we are floating above nature is a dissociation, harmful in that it disconnects us from the reality that culture, societies are intricately woven into nature. Modern science, of course, confirms this. Culturally, then, we wish to heal this dissociation with a healthier differentiation. Acknowledging our unique properties as within nature, rather than separate. (See Wilber, Marriage of Sense and Soul, pg 55.)

     

    • Paul Nelson 3:14 pm on September 10, 2009 Permalink

      You may be interested in my grad work on Organic Poetry. Taking a process view into the moment of composition. The “Organic Manifesto” on the home page is probably a good place to start, then the intro to org po.

      Be well.

      Paul

  • Response to, “Two Roads Diverging.” Or, “Can we find convergence in nature?” 

    shamansun 8:25 pm on September 7, 2009 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , habermas, , , integral world,

    I’ve been reading a new article on Integral World, titled “Two Roads Diverging: Integral Theory and Contemporary Science,” by Tomislav Markus. It’s important to read, I think, opposing and critical reception of integral theory. Markus is very harsh concerning the core ideas of integral writers, likening them to the idealists and transcendentalists of the previous two centuries. Now, I’ve tried hard to see his point of view, and I do think he has some very valid points. So, let me address them first before delving into where I think Markus seems to diverge. Also, I’d like to present the idea that there is the possibility that integral theorists might agree with him. He actually raises some critical points that Wilber has mentioned, repeatedly, throughout the years. To start with…

    1) Pop-evolution. If I understand him correctly, Markus argues that contemporary discussion, outside of the hard sciences, have used the term “evolution” too lightly. The evolution of the universe, the evolution of technology, the evolution of social sciences. “Evolution,” has become a way to mark changes, for just about everything. But, evolution was and is, biologically speaking, a dedicated and carefully tested science, with specific language and empirical observations: natural selection, genetics, etc. Such a carefully constructed science can’t simply be thrown around for anything. There has to be consensus between fields. Tested methodologies. In modern discussion, evolution has been used to note progress, development, and any change (usually positivistic).

    To quote Markus himself,

    In science, the term «evolution» means primarily biological evolution by (neo)darwinian natural selection. For pop-evolutionism, «evolution» has a much broader meaning, becoming identical with any presumably «progressive» and purposeful change, from the cosmic Big Bang to social macrodynamics of recent human history. «Evolution» is, as quasi-neutral synonym for «progress» or «development», all what someone interprets as «progressive» or «upward» movement. Pop-evolutionism is a remnant of 19th century’s myth of progress, still well and alive in the beginning of 21th century, because the myth of „historical progress“ is a fundamental metanarrative of the industrial societies, still dominant social realities. Many contemporary thinkers, from advocates of the „universe story“ (Swimme-Berry 1992, Berry 1999) to integral theorists, subscribe to an unscientific untestable notion of „progressive evolution“ in which humans are „emerging consciousness of the unfolding cosmos“. But in science one term, like „evolution“ in darwinian biology, can’t be arbitrarily transferred to other domains.[5]

    He has a point, evolution can’t be arbitrarily thrown around. But has it been? Integral theory is the latest, but not the first, to present and study the phenomenology of our existence. Whitehead, Teilhard, Koestler, just to name a few. This isn’t meant to be “name dropping,” but if you looked at the works of these writers, the ideas aren’t arbitrary. They’re sophisticated arguments, phenomenological, perhaps, but certainly not “pop” evolution. The “law of complexity-consciousness,” for example, was Teilhard’s observation. How do we interpret a universe that appears to emerge more complexity as time goes on? Is the emergence of human consciousness a mere by-product? A mistake? Does evolution have direction, far more sophisticated than the idealists of the 19th century? These are just a few of the questions explored. For anyone reading this out there, I recommend Teilhard’s “The Phenomenon of Man.” It makes an interesting and compelling case for a universe that is emerging in complexity. In other words, it wasn’t “pop,” it was a means to rigorously test and hypothesis whether or not a greater picture, or “meta-narrative” was possible. As I’ll hint later, I believe that contemporary rejection of this idea in modern thought is a big mistake, likened to the analogy of not seeing the forest through the trees. That’s a big claim, but I believe there is significant credibility in open-minded discussion, of a sophisticated evolution of the cosmos, and not merely biology, without becoming “pop.” This leads me to the next subject, which gets into the nitty, gritty details of the evolution of societies (or as Markus writes, the lack-there-of).

    2. Evolution, or regression?

    One of the big claims that Markus has made in this article is that, far from being scientific, integral theory and to some degree, social sciences, fail to address the biological and physiological influences of civilizations. He argues that they, like the idealists of the 19th and 20th centuries, believe that somehow human beings are exempt from nature, that they have distinct properties that are transcendent and therefore beyond nature. This, he argues, is simply against all evidence. There are major biological and physiological reasons why we are what we are, and can fully explain why we are having problems in modern day civilization. Without addressing the harder sciences, such as evolution, how can integral claim to be, well, integrative? He also cites many integral theorists to simplify the “harder components,” (simple and complex hunter-gatherers), replacing the terminology for “tribal, “warrior” or “mystical” consciousness. These are interesting observations, however, I would like to point out a few things.

    The first is that, if Markus has read SES (Sex, Ecology, Spirituality), Wilber dedicates at least 200 pages to describing holonic theory, as well as Habermas and his view of socio-cultural evolution. If I’ve read Habermas and Wilber correctly, they have both articulated that such complex processes exist (particularly Habermas). Wilber may generalize a bit, but he certainly has the nuances in mind, as anyone can attest from his complex “charts.”

    Also, if I’m not misrepresenting Habermas, the theory of communicative rationality, which argues that humans adapt physiologically as well as conceptually, acknowledges the “hard” components of human evolution along with the conceptual ones, positing a theory that we are both biological and conceptual creatures, not disconnected or removed from nature. The idea we are separate, above or exempt from nature is not something that integral theory, or its general “paradigm” embraces. This is where I believe Markus misrepresents these thinkers significantly. In fact, writers such as Wilber, Habermas or Teilhard have always wrote that our conceptual traits are dependent upon our evolutionary, and biological ones, almost like the grounding for newly emerging properties. They aren’t abstract principles, but are rooted in our physiological natures. The difference here, I think, is that integral theorists argue there is indeed a newly emerging property, with concepts as the noosphere, social-sphere, etc. They aren’t, however, separated from nature, so much as they are grown out from it. This is a severe misunderstanding that I believe should be addressed by integral theorists, and hopefully reconciled with the hard sciences. Wilber may write about this too conceptually, but he does address the point.

    This is probably the latest idea, from speaking to integral thinkers online: we need to embrace a more organic philosophy, one which isn’t too “metaphysical,” but accentuates how the universe is emergent organically: things grow out from it, and are always a part and contingent upon the lower processes, not somehow “in the clouds.” This also goes into the holonic view of the universe, which I find Markus does not mention. I think, to some degree, he misrepresents the more credible and interesting components of applying evolution as a phenomenology, and extending it beyond biology. But, I’d like to talk about other points too.

    Markus is an advocate of bio-social-disconinuity theory, which basically claims that our optimal evolutionary environment is a hunter-gatherer society. Many of the pathologies that exist today, do not exist then. In other words, humans are no longer in their natural habitat, and this is the cause for many of the social problems, from elitism to ecological crisis. He argues this, unlike integral theory, is based upon facts. We are biologically, evolutionary built to live in hunter-gatherer societies. So, when we started to depart from our natural environment (civilization, nation states, etc), pathologies emerged. If I am understanding him correctly, Markus is saying that the whole of civilization has been a digression from our natural state, a regression, whereby our quality of life is diminishing as time goes on.

    In response, I recommend Markus read Alan Watts. There are answers to this problem, as to why our quality of life has developed more pathologies. Could it be that our departure from the hunter-gatherer niche had reasons? Evolutionary in nature? I don’t think such questions are unscientific. I think he is being a bit too dismissive about theorists who tried to explain why or how we departed from our  stable “eden,” in nature.

    Although I would argue that the whole of civilization being a mistake, or somehow a collective error is in itself unscientific. Even Habermas has stated that we adapted, both technologically and conceptually, to new conditions (greater population, greater competition for resources, etc) via more complex social environments. Our mental abilities aren’t frozen in stone. They are pliable, adaptable. While our minds are not tabula rasa, they are certainly more like a pliable clay. In short, Markus criticizes integral theory for being too conceptual in nature, while himself reacting in an overly-physiological way. Biology and evolution play critical roles, and I don’t think seeing the whole of civilization being a long error to be, well, intuitive or scientific. See, though, this is the debatable ground, in which integral theory and Markus have some interesting points.

    “Anthropogenic problems – the main features of all civilizations with a culmination in in the last 100 years – are the biggest problem for every progressivistic intepretation of the human history. Great megacities of industrial societies are the most unnatural environment in human history, in which basic human needs cannot be satisfied and which continually cause pathological and destructive behaviour.[9] What does „progress“ mean here except mindless and destructive consumption, including shopping-for-spirituality? It looks strangely to think that «the most primitive level of consciousness» exists in (hunter-gatherer) society where there were/are not anthropogenic problems at all and even more strange that «the highest level of consciuosness» exists in a society in which absolutly dominates the most absurd and destructive lifestyle ever and in which anthropogenic problems abound.”

    It seems that human beings adapted to changing environments via civilization. Why is this the case? How did it occur? These questions remain unanswered, but I believe integral theory and Markus’ opinions can be satisfied, together. Seeing it this way: something happened to us, roughly 10,000 years ago, in which we could no longer remain in the hunter-gathere niche. We adapted newer, less “natural” means to survive. They came with new problems. Our conceptual ability allowed us to develop new modes of organization and new adaptations, both physical and cultural. Each adaptation still seemed inherently flawed. The pathologies and issues of civilization seem to be so abounding that hunter-gatherer societies look pristine in comparison. How then, can this be seen as progress? It might also be seen as this: we can acknowledge that human beings diverged from their natural state, in light of changes. These changes caused more adaptations to become necessary (more problems). This might be explained because of the emergence of conceptual-thinking, or, as Habermas states, the emergence of the noosphere. For the past 10,000 years, it has evolved to more complex levels (fully contingent upon physical and biological roots), attempting to grasp for equilibrium and stability. If this is the case, as Habermas suggests, then civilization can be seen as the attempt for the noosphere to find balance again in the biosphere, through new, conceptual and physical means. We want to discover a way to live in harmony with the environment again, but we can’t simply return to hunter-gatherer societies (Markus has not suggested that), but we can’t keep going in this direction either.

    3. Convergence: our concepts and our technology as a part of nature.

    This is why I recommend Markus read Alan Watts (If he hasn’t already). There are alternative ways to see ourselves as a part of nature, as our conceptual-sphere growing out of the biosphere, and as such, potentially able to find balance. The holonic-view, for instance, sees human beings as being part of a greater, diverse ecosystem, of wholes and parts, helping correct our thinking when we mistake the part for the whole. It helps keeps things in perspective, and acknowledges all of the components of the universe: physical, emotional, conceptual, etc. It’s an interesting theory that helps keep human thinking in perspective. Perhaps the idea of progress is too simplistic – but evolution as an emergence of novelty, complexity, and consciousness? These are philosophical and cultural ideas that have great potential to help balance civilization and yes, perhaps help humans attain some degree of stability again with the rest of nature.

    These ideas require integral theorists to also begin to address these heavily critical issues, attempting to discover more natural and organic philosophies to bridge the gap between the hard sciences and social sciences, to truly integrate. More thoughts on this later.

    In short, I hope that the hard sciences and the more organic-oriented philosophies can find common agreement. Integral theorists and biologists can work together for mutual understanding and yes, progress in the struggle to enhance the quality of life for all beings on earth. We have the potential to rediscover balance with nature if we shift our perspective to realizing we are within nature, including our conceptual thinking! Integral theorists and biologists could agree with that reality. It may be possible for civilization to be a good adaptation, in that we finally learn to balance ourselves as creatures within nature, not somehow detached or apart from it. This would be a wonderful place to start working together to help the current state of the world. To end on that note, I’d like to quote Alan Watts:

    “The problem is that we are now wielding the incredible surgical instrument of technology with trembling hands, and what concerned Huxley was that such power cannot be handled constructively by anxious and alienated men with a fundamentally hostile attitude to nature. Mahayana Buddhists never had our technology; but they had art, and practiced it to high perfection (in China and Japan) as a cooperation between man and nature-indeed, as nature itself. What if the same realization–that science can be the work of nature, and that the individual is one body with his environment–could become the informing spirit of Western technology?” – Alan Watts, Does it Matter?

     

    • frank visser 9:52 pm on September 7, 2009 Permalink

      hi shamansun,

      i notice you have blogged on Markus’ latest essay on Integral World. Is it ok if i repost your reply on Integral World and ask Tomislav to comment?

      best,

      frank visser
      webmaster “Integral World”

    • shamansun 10:01 pm on September 7, 2009 Permalink

      Hey Frank,

      Yes that would be fine. I actually emailed you a few minutes ago, submitting it as a word document. Thanks!

      -Jer

  • shamansun 2:36 am on September 3, 2009 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , america,

    “The heart of the matter is that we are living in a culture which has been hypnotized with symbols- words, numbers, measures, quantities and images- and that we mistake them for, and prefer them to, physical reality. We believe that the proof of the pudding is in the chemical analysis, not in the eating. This is largely the result of an educational system which is overwhelmingly literary and mathematical, which prepares everyone to be clerks and bureaucrats, and provides apprenticeships in arts of material competence only reluctantly- for those considered too stupid for intellectual advancement.

    This is not sentimentalizing about the “dignity of labor.” it is saying that a culture is hardly a culture at all when it does not provide for the most sophisticated training in the fundamental arts of life: farming, cooking, dining, dressing, furnishing, and love-making. Where these arts are not cultivated with devotion and skill, time to spare and money to spend are useless. The shops are empty of all but trash, thrown together by slaves working joylessly for cash with one eye on the clock. Thus there are virtually no jobs to be had for those who delight in expert workmanship in producing the necessities of life. The jet air craft and the scientific instruments are marvelous, but houses, cars, fabrics, lighting fixtures are simply phenomenal failures of human imagination.”

    -Alan Watts, Murder in the Kitchen.

     

    • marianasoffer 6:42 am on September 3, 2009 Permalink

      I comletelly agree, our culture it lowering our life quality, I mention that fact in several of my post, because I consider it a very important thing to think about. You have written a great post, interesting way of putting your thoughts. Let me just leave you with a wanderful quote from einstein:

      As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.

  • Mystical experiences. 

    shamansun 6:55 pm on August 31, 2009 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , mystical, , unity

    “Inability to accept the mystic experience is more than an intellectual handicap. The lack of awareness of the basic unity of organism and environment is a serious and dangerous hallucination.” — Alan Watts

     

    • marianasoffer 7:25 am on September 1, 2009 Permalink

      Alan watts was an amazing person. I read 2 of his books and they made me learn a lot about budhism. They where both about zen.

      here is another quote from himself that I like and it is related to the one you posted

      “And although our bodies are bounded with skin, and we can differentiate between outside and inside, they cannot exist except in a certain kind of natural environment. “

  • Zen and Christians, afraid to love? 

    shamansun 7:46 am on August 30, 2009 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , fear, , stuart davis, unknown,

    Clergyman defends his Zen Buddhist practices.

    Conservatives in the Episcopal Church of the US are demanding that Rev Kevin Thew Forrester, a priest of the diocese of Northern Michigan, be barred from the episcopate because he received a “lay ordination” from a Buddhist group.

    Strange how so much misunderstanding stems from when we see something as “new.” When something new arises in our world, we can become startled by its presence. Not familiar with its features, we become frightened and unwelcoming to the new presence. This is a base defense mechanism within the human being, and while it may have helped formulate tribe and culture, it no longer has a place in our world today.

    The importance is to recognize that “different,” is not dangerous. This requires a certain degree of psychological maturity- to not lash out any anything that startles you; physically, emotionally, mentally, spirituality. By abiding in the present, without judgment, you are no longer bound by fear and instinct. You can now act and engage the new force, whatever it may be! Why would you do otherwise? This whole idea of “self and other,” is a destructive and coercive force in the world, arising from ancient impulses that could not accept change and unknown.

    That is my initial reaction, at least, to this story. Zen Buddhism has a lot it could give Christianity, and perhaps vice versa, if the minds and hearts of both cultures can meet halfway, challenging their fear (that many animals have) with an even more human trait: love. Isn’t that a Christian thing to do, anyway? To recognize humans are blessed with particular unique abilities and traits?

    “Shadow over everything, I dream as the other.

    Shining back as everything, when dreaming is over.”

    -Stuart Davis, Dirty Purity.

     

Older Posts →

c
compose new post
j
next post/next comment
k
previous post/previous comment
r
reply
e
edit
o
show/hide comments
t
go to top
l
go to login
h
show/hide help
esc
cancel