I was at barnes and noble yesterday, browsing through this book:
Toward 2012: Perspectives on the New Age - I was intrigued to see this book, because Pinchbeck hasn’t written much since 2012: The Return of Quetzalcoatl. The preface was interesting. Pinchbeck immediately slams Ken Wilber for reducing animism, which is the belief in a world of spirits, to mere tribal imagination. I thought this was a little more than confrontational, considering it was only page 2. He then goes onto make a case for beings of the spiritual world meddling in the psychological affairs of the living, arguing that they do not contradict modern science, but only deepen our understanding of mental disorders and pathologies. Spirits are a living, active part of our lives, our soul, mind and body’s “ecosphere” which can be healthy, harmful, or both. Interesting perspective. I wonder if Wilber will take the bate? Here’s the actual quote:
“Philosophers such as Ken Wilber tend to reduce them to psychological tropes or delusions. Based on my own experiences, I strongly suspect we need to attain a more sophisticated understanding of how spirits may operate, as well as a set of techniques for dealing with them, before we can approach higher states and stages of development. We cannot have spirit without spirits.”
As far as I know from reading Wilber’s books, he doesn’t speak or give much credit to this particular belief. In fact, he often writes them off as an ancient stage of spirituality, in which we animated the world with spirits by our own projections. In spiral dynamics, a developmental model Wilber often uses (and there are so many), Pinchbeck’s spirituality rests only in very early stages of human evolution. So what do you think? Is returning to our roots the way to go? Or are we truly evolving beyond them, and sprouting new leaves? I think the answer lies somewhere in between.
It’s good to get in touch with our spirituality. We can meditate on our true nature, and still find time to explore ritual and the world of spirits. Personally, I’ve had very unusual experiences in my life which I can’t write off as tribal imagination or delusion. It’s not exactly a linear process, and not black and white. Sure, it’s good to get in touch with our roots, but I suppose the real question is whether or not we need to go back and really re-live them, see them as truth, or are they merely one way to view a greater unity in all things? Might we not get lost while immersing ourselves in the realm of spirits behind every corner, without becoming shamans ourselves (I suppose we could learn Pinchbeck’s techniques, as he claims), or can meditation help ground us as we take spiritual journeys? My hunch is that we are not going backwards. Maybe we should get in touch with our cultural-spiritual heritage, but I wonder if writers like Pinchbeck get too lost in the sheer immensity of the spiritual “ecosphere” so to speak. That’s not to say Ken Wilber goes a little too far with his stages, states, types, etc. The good thing is, we can take a look at both thinkers (and a variety of others) and try to see some underlying themes at the end of the day. Standing outside of both points of view, it’s easier to find common ground and see where the two sides are both accurate and misled. More on this later!
You raise some interesting points… thanks for the post!
The fact that Pinchbeck believes he is at odds with Wilber just shows how little Wilber Pinchbeck has read, IMHO. I have read everything by both, and they are complementary in most cases…and, in those cases they aren’t, I find Wilber’s summaries to be faaaar more inclusive and integral than Pinchbeck’s…who seems to rely on a sense of ‘chosenness’ that forces him to deny Wilber…because, if Wilber is right, Pinchbeck is wrong…and if Pinchbeck is right, Wilber is still possibly correct.
The fact is, Wilber’s philosophy is inherently more willing to accept alternate view-points and ideas than Pinchbecks’…which relies upon some very specific ideals. I mean, I guess if Pinchbeck is completely right, Wilber is wrong…but, if Wilber is right, Pinchbeck is equally correct…within his own sphere of understanding.
One definitely seems more likely to me than the other.
Hi ChibiOne, I find it very interesting that you believe that Wilber and Pinchbeck are “complementary in most cases”. Because I’m very interested in what might be a leap in consciousness in the near future but I’ve read that Ken Wilber doesn’t buy into it. What I actually read from him is that he does not believe it will be the end of our world. That the mayan calendar has been discredited a long time ago and that, anyway, the real end of the mayan calendar does not occur before the 5000s…That being said, I’m interested to know if Wilber, not supporting any end of times/ catastrophes scenarios, does however let the door open to what might be some major change in global consciousness.