In the opening paragraph of Right Ho Jeeves,[1] the glorious Bertie Wooster admits to me the
reader, that the really tough part is in knowing where to begin a tale. If you begin at the very beginning, you lose
the reader long before you get to the stuff of the story, but if you just dive
right in without warning no one will know where you have gone. Just so.
Where to begin?
I encountered the work of Ken Wilber[2] seven years ago, not long after finishing undergraduate degrees in
biology and psychology. I had been
canoeing alone for two months in northern Quebec and while there remembered why
my education in science had been so troubling; it did not include my own lived
experience. At the time I felt a deep
conflict between the scientific knowledge I had internalized and my personal
life/journey of exploration. Wilber's
vision provided a very broad conceptual map on which I could locate many of the
fractious thoughts and feelings squabbling in my mind and heart and soul.
I have since studied several of his books with mixed
feelings. For me he is a courageous
thinker who attempts to embrace, integrate and balance everything he encounters
in the world. He reads enormously and
it is his passion to develop one over-arching conceptual system; a single
unified theory of knowledge that celebrates both diversity and wholeness.[3] In the introduction to the new
edition of A Brief History of Everything Wilber
says:
"Integrative"
simply means that this approach attempts to include as many important truths
from as many disciplines as possible -- from the East as well as the West, from
premodern and modern and postmodern, from the hard sciences of physics to the
tender sciences of spirituality. As one
critic put it, this integrative approach "honors and incorporates more
truth than any approach in history."
He dances gracefully and sometimes plods pedantically
from positivist science to hermeneutics and aesthetics, from evolution of the
individual (physical, psychological, spiritual) to evolution of culture, from
body to mind to spirit, from "Tolstoy to Tinkerbell" (although he lingers
longer in Berkeley than he does in Carmel).[4]
Wilber also brings the insight that arises from deep
spiritual practice to his work. While
he does not consider himself to be a spiritual teacher, when discussing
spirituality, he is not merely speculating, but speaking from his own direct
experience. He has developed not only
the eye of the flesh and the eye of the mind, but also the eye of the
spirit. This gives him a broader and
richer perspective than I find in many other writers.
At times Wilber's work moves to the front burner of my
mind, at other times it simmers almost forgotten. Frequently I use his major recent work, Sex, Ecology, Spirituality, especially the bibliography, as a
reference guide. Finding, or not
finding there, an author who is new to me tells me something important; but I'm
not yet sure what that might be.[5]
In many academic circles Wilber is not highly regarded:
perhaps because he is not fully credentialled in the academic community;
perhaps because he sometimes reads like an arrogant zealot; perhaps because
authors he bitingly criticizes often claim they do not recognize themselves in
what he says about them; perhaps because in his effort to synthesize everything
into a unified theory he lumps together apparently disparate ideas and sets his
own vision above all others.
In other circles - transpersonal psychology, East/West
studies, meditation - he is sometimes seen as a guru. I try to consider what he says with an open heart and uncertain
mind. When he rants, which he does with
a panache that can be quite entertaining, I enjoy but demur. When he seems to forget that his model is a
human creation and slips into proposing it as essentialist truth, I
resist. I find what he says enormously
useful, especially if I remind myself to approach it as metaphor.
I will briefly discuss three major
strands that weave through Wilber's work:
1) evolutionary, developmental perspective; 2) hierarchy/holarchy theory;
3) multi-faceted ontology and pluralist epistemology. My purpose is not to attack or defend the model he proposes, nor
to focus on an analysis of it as a metaphysical theory. I present it as a framework we can use to
open and organize space for this exploration of my lived experience of
education as spiritual practice.
Wilber's evolutionary perspective is not limited to
biological change, but encompasses consciousness and culture as well. Individual psychospiritual development is
explicitly recognized to take place within an evolving cultural context. Consciousness and culture interact and
impact each other. The cultural matrix
supports and constrains capacity for personal development, and is also a
reflection of the stage of psychospiritual development of the members.[6] Since my project focuses on personal lived experience, I will
direct this discussion primarily to individual stages of development.
Wilber follows Piaget's[7] model of the stages of cognitive development from infant (sensorimotor),
to child (preoperational), to youth (concrete operational), to adult (formal
operational). He argues that these
stages correspond to Gebser's[8] depiction of cultures as primarily archaic, magic, mythic, and mental,
and analyzes the characteristic lived experience (and world view) that emerges
and dominates at each stage of the individual's (and culture's)
development. Wilber then extends the
model past Piaget's final stage (formal operational/rational thinking ego) and
into transpersonal spiritual stages.
The whole process is one of decentering from egoism.[9]
An infant (sensorimotor stage) begins the journey
experientially embedded in the physical environment with no sense of a separate
body; the world and self are one. Since
the infant does not experience itself as part of something greater, the unity
is defined as archaic. Its own
experience is all there is. In the
preoperational (magic) stage, the baby differentiates her body from the
external world, but thoughts and emotions are not identified with the body or
an "I". The child's desires and
thoughts seem to be reflected in everything.
She cries for milk, and it magically appears.
When the child enters the concrete operational (mythic)
stage the world is no longer controlled magically by the personal desires of
the child or of powerful others, but rather is controlled by mythic, non-human
figures; Gods and Goddesses. These
figures are very real, since at this stage thought processes are still
concerned with concrete objects and behaviors.
The primary identity of the individual as well as her personal efficacy
arises through relationship to these powerful Others.
Piaget, among others, saw the formal operational
(rationality) stage, to be the culmination of human development. The universe is experienced as obeying cause
and effect physical laws which are understood by means of logic and
reason. The processes of the material world
and the collective activity of the human community constitute all of reality. Personal efficacy results from discovering
physical and social laws and using this knowledge to predict (and manipulate)
activity of the material and social world.
Development of a healthy, autonomous ego is the generally accepted
hallmark of maturity.
Wilber, citing mystics from various traditions, as well
as some Western psychologists, argues that humans have the potential to move
beyond the rational into spiritual domains.[10] In continuing to grow toward
personal and spiritual maturity the child, youth, adult (may) re-integrate
herself experientially with the surrounding physical, emotional, and cognitive
matrix. True spiritual growth is not back
into pre-rational myth, magic or oceanic oneness, but forward through
rationality to trans-personal identification with all forms of life and finally
with pure Spirit.[11] This identification is radically
different from the original experience of oceanic oneness in which the infant
is not only one with, but also the center of everything. A critical difference between the two is
that in the trans-personal state, there is the dual awareness of the decentered
self as both individual and one with the All.
This is the balance of differentiation and communion. The self is experienced - from a
non-self-centered perspective - as one of multiple manifestations of Life
rather than as the center around which all else revolves or as identical with
the All. Self-centered identity is
surrendered to identifying the self as part of something greater. Freedom is based in discipline rather than
in self-indulgence. The vehicle for
this journey is not infantile fantasy, romantic imagination, or rational
thought, but calm introspection, meditation and contemplation.
The developmental approach is useful in exploring the
confusion about different personal experiences and conflicting cultural
claims. Wilber insists it is vital to
include the stages of cognitive development in analysis of non-rational
experience. He is vehement in his
discussion of what he calls the pre/trans fallacy, and I think his perspective
important but not uniquely right. He
claims it is a common and serious mistake to conflate all non-rational
experience into a single state of consciousness; to confuse pre-rational stages
of development with trans-rational.
Thinkers who value the rational mind above all else, tend to see all
non-rational experience as regressive; suspect at best and psychotic at
worst. On the other hand, much new age
spirituality, and anti-modern romanticism decries the rational mind as corrupt
and anti-life, a developmental dead end, and celebrates any and all
non-rational experience as spiritually significant.[12] Wilber refuses to deny or glorify the value
of any experience from any stage of development. They are all vital to our full human experience. But he insists on the importance of
differentiating pre-rational experience from trans-rational experience in any
examination of spirituality.[13]
The second strand is hierarchy/holarchy theory. Wilber claims a web of life perspective that
rejects all organizational hierarchy is reductionist. He sees the universe as a hierarchy of holons; a holarchy.[14] Each Îthing' exists within and
is part of some larger whole and is itself the context for and composed of
smaller Îthings'. The world is neither
holistic nor particulate, but holonic; wholes/parts. There is not a fundamental particle that is itself not made up of
yet smaller particles, nor a single over-arching whole that is, itself, not
part of something greater. It is not
"turtles all the way down," it is holons.
The most useful image for holarchy is not a ladder, but a set of
concentric circles. Each larger circle
transcends and includes the smaller circles within.
New qualities, constraints and difficulties emerge at
each new level of the holarchy. Each
part/whole must balance its own autonomy needs with the requirement that it
cooperate with other holons. If it
fails to maintain autopoietic organization,[15] it will merge with the surrounding matrix and cease to exist which could
also have serious consequences on the larger holon. If it fails to remain structurally coupled with other holons or
dominates their relative autonomy, function of the larger holon may be
disrupted. This in turn could be detrimental
to the holon causing the imbalance. At
each new level of organization, differentiation and integration must be
balanced or disorganization will result.
Hydrogen and Oxygen atoms must both retain and alter their structure to
become water. A cell must maintain its
own integrity but also participate in the common function of the tissue it
supports. An organ functions as a
semi-autonomous unit integrated into the more inclusive organism. The citizen must balance personal autonomy
with social participation. I do not
wish to defend holarchy as the reified essential structure of the universe -
although Wilber sometimes does - but only to suggest it as an organizational
metaphor. Let's return to cognitive development as an example.
In social development there is risk that fragile
personal identity can be swamped and the individual lost in the social
collective. At the other extreme, there
is the risk that the self will become inflated and equate it's own finite being
with the whole. The challenge is to
dance a shifting path between these two extremes. Individual cognitive development requires that we transcend and
integrate the lower stages of development into our current experience. On the one hand we can become stuck at any
stage of development or can regress to a more Îprimitive' level. On the other hand we can transcend but
repress and deny the energy and value of all the previous stages. Wilber makes a number of interesting claims:
1) The root pathology of modernism is repression of the power and value of
earlier stages of development. The
modern experience is largely disembodied - rational mind cut off from emotions,
physical body, and surrounding world;[16] 2) Much so-called new age spirituality is not movement beyond the
rational into the spiritual, but a regressive return to pre-rational
consciousness which denies rather than transcends and integrates modern
rationality; 3) Fundamentalist religion is stuck in pre-rational mythic
consciousness; 4) Honoring and integrating earlier stages of development
(calling up hidden magic, celebrating myth and ritual, sinking into physical
sensation) is healthy and necessary as long as we do not become trapped there
and mistake those pre-rational experiences for trans-rational spiritual
awareness.[17]
A third strand of Wilber's vision can be short-handed to
"Kosmos cannot be reduced to Cosmos."
Kosmos is the full range of human experience; body, mind, spirit.[18] Cosmos is the material aspect of
the world. While all experience is
embodied in the physical world, purely physicalist explanations cannot account
for all facets of experience. The
material world is the domain which positivist science undertakes to explore,
measure, and explain. This is appropriate,
but problems arose in the modern moment when positivist science began to insist
it could measure and grasp all that is real through the monological
epistemology of physical empiricism.
Everything is or eventually will be reduced to and explained by physical
laws.[19]
When it was realized that non-material aspects of the
world (experiences of mind and spirit) have physical correlates in the physical
processes of the brain, it was sometimes assumed that the only valid and
necessary procedure is to study these processes and ignore the qualitative
experience of consciousness itself.
This approach tends to devalue or disappear those aspects of experience
that do not have an observable physical location. As a result interior experience of qualities such as beauty,
love, compassion, awe, and meaning which cannot be measured, lose substance and
are neglected or relegated to the domains of aesthetics and religion.[20]
The humanities and more recently the social sciences,
feeling under attack, struck back by demonstrating that positivism, with its
dream of discovering objective reality, really is dreaming. All experience and knowledge has been shown
to be context dependent and so the stories that science tells are just as
subjective as any expressions of personal meaning. Pretty much any story is as good as any other, and anyone who
disagrees is hopelessly naive.[21]
Wilber argues that the relativist attitude carried to an
extreme is as narrow and reductionist as is positivism. Instead of all experience being reduced to
the physical, the empirical, physical world is now relegated to the status of a
"mere human construction." A more
balanced view is that our experiential[22]
world arises through relationship; both the psychosocial relationship among
humans and the psychophysical relationship between humans and the material
world. The physical world constrains,
but does not determine, our experience.
At the same time, our relationship with the physical world shapes, but
does not determine, the behavior of that world and the aspects of that behavior
we are able to perceive.[23]
Instead of arguing about objectivity and subjectivity,
ontological reality and constructivism, a richer way of living in the world is
to value as many aspects of it as possible from various perspectives. Simplistically, the perception of any
phenomenon has three important aspects: material, aesthetic and moral. We can question whether our interpretation
is true, beautiful and good. This opens
up a great deal of space for exploration without the need to negate any aspect
of experience. It does not deny the
possibility for contextualized Îobjectivity,' yet acknowledges the vital
importance of lived experience and moral values.[24]
Wilber's four quadrant model (Fig. 1) is an attempt to
represent these different aspects of experience as a geometric space. The diagonal lines represent the development
of holarchy in each quadrant.[25] They show cognitive and cultural
development as well as increased physical complexity through time. The grid is divided into four quadrants,
each representing a different aspect of experience. The upper two quadrants represent the singular aspects of
experience, the lower two the collective.
The physical aspects of the world available to the senses directly or
through mechanical extensions are located on the right. This is the domain of empirical measurement.[26] The upper right groups
holarchies of physical individuals: atoms, molecules, cells, organisms, central
nervous systems, neocortexes. The lower
right represents collectives of physical individuals: solar systems,
ecosystems, social systems in various stages of development.
I find the left hand quadrants to be the most
interesting. These show the inner
aspects of the world - the domain of meaning.
The upper left represents interior awareness. This holarchy is made up of the stages of cognitive development I
discussed previously. Subjective
perception of any experience will depend on the individual's structure of
consciousness. Traditionally, this has
been the domain of the spiritual path and of aesthetics. From the perspective of a dualistic
worldview, mind and soul are not seen as grounded in the physical form (brain)
or in the cultural matrix. They exist
independently and are unaffected by conditions in the material world. Because of this, little effort has been made
until recently to integrate these inner experiences with aspects of the world
represented by the other quadrants.[27]
The lower left quadrant is the collective experience of
a community of individuals; the intersubjective worldview - shared cultural
meaning; collective good. It is within
this context that individual lived experience of the upper left quadrant arises
and is interpreted. The holarchy here
is of cultural progression.
This is one place where Wilber runs afoul of cultural
relativists who insist it is impossible to judge one culture as more or less
advanced than another. Each must be
judged solely within its own historical and ecological setting. The only criterion for judgment, they claim,
is whether the culture is viable on its own terms; whether it continues to
survive. I have used this argument
myself. But, as Wilber points out, this
is reducing Kosmos to Cosmos. Quality
of the internal experience of cultural members is ignored, and no moral
judgement addressing justice or ethical values is applied. The only aspect of a culture which is
considered is its continued physical existence. Certainly physical survival is necessary, but among those that
are successful, can valid judgments be made about the values of different
cultures; about their stage of development?
Are some morals and ethics universally better than others?[28]
It is interesting to try to locate the research of
anthropologists in this schema.
Researchers working in the lower right quadrant focus on the external
form and function of the social unit.
They ask, for example, what is the structure and function of
religion? How does it consolidate the
community, resist disorder, and enhance survival? From this perspective, there is little need to enter into
dialogue with the members of the community.
Observation is required. An
ethnographer is more likely to be interested in the cultural experience of
community members. Rather than
questioning the structure and function of religion, she will attempt to
understand the meaning of religion in the lives of the people. How does it give meaning to and create a
context for them to understand their living?
An autoethnographer might explore and describe his own religious
experience and perhaps his experience of his brothers and sisters.
The four quadrants are not separate and distinct from
each other. In every moment of
experience all aspects are present. No
matter how positivist the orientation, it is simply not possible to exclude the
cognition of the observer shaped by the social and cultural conditions of the
scientific community that constrains and supports it.[29] Nor is it possible to ignore the
values and personal responsibility of the scientist. All knowledge, even public knowledge, is first personal
knowledge.[30] It is equally important to
recognize that even the most personal, spiritual experience occurs in a
physical and cultural context.[31]
In ending this section, I will reiterate how I see
Wilber's work. His vision of the world
is complex and exciting. It is more
inclusive and speaks more clearly to my own lived experience than any other I
am familiar with. But it is very
structural and I think Wilber sometimes falls into the trap of imposing this
structure onto the world rather than playing with it as a descriptive
metaphor. In Marriage of Sense and Soul, p 66 he writes:
Now
this is an interesting development.
What if these quadrants, these four types of hierarchies, are in fact
real? Since variations on these four hierarchies
show up extensively across cultures and across epochs - premodern, modern, and
postmodern - might this indicate that they are actually pointing to certain
irreducible realities? What if the four
quadrants are an intrinsic aspect of the Kosmos itself?[32]
David Jardine titles
chapter six of his recent book, Dwelling
with a Boundless Heart, "Immanuel
Kant, Jean Piaget, and the Rage for Order."
He considers monological perspective to be one of the major problems of
modernity. The world is assumed to be
singular and unambiguous and so can be described with a single voice from a
single perspective. Wilber often seems
to speak with such a monological voice even when he is arguing for
epistemological pluralism. It is as if
he forgets to apply his vision of a holonic universe to his own work. His integral model is not left open and
ambiguous. It is not presented as a
whole/part, but as a candidate for some final conceptual whole. Everything must be fit in no matter how
violent the required contortions. At
bottom, his vision of logical, linear development seems to describe a
predictably mechanistic world rather than one that is vibrantly alive. I don't think this problem is specific to
Wilber's model, but applies to conceptual models in general. Models are constructions, and if confounded
with the living world, that world is lost to view.
As I read and wonder, I try to keep a balanced
mind. I use this as an organizational
matrix in which I attempt to locate other work, and at the same time remember
that these other visions can not be actually located inside Wilber's structure.[33]
Allan Combs (2000) recently responded to some pretty
sharp criticism from Wilber with these words:
Indeed, the integral structure of
consciousness is the essence of spirituality, suffused with the very light of
the Origin. It is an open spirituality, open both to the diaphanous light of
the spirit and open to unrestrained human potential. Such consciousness cannot be contained by the linear models and
mental abstractions that dominate the modern as opposed to the postmodern mind.
Such models and abstractions permeate Wilber's writing from top to bottom and
lie at the root of his complete failure to appreciate the postmodern
experience. The integral can best be
expressed through art, poetry, and music, but only clumsily in prose.
In closing, I will allow Wilber to reply in his own
words from One Taste, p 260:
We do not live in a pregiven world. One of the more remarkable tenets of the
postmodern revolution in philosophy, psychology, and sociology is that
DIFFERENT WORLDVIEWS EXIST--different ways of categorizing, presenting,
representing, and organizing our experiences.
There is not a single, monolithic world with a single, privileged representation,
but rather multiple worlds with pluralistic interpretations. Moreover, these worldviews often - indeed
almost always - change from epoch to epoch, and from culture to culture.... It
is not a matter of which of these worldviews is right and which is wrong; they
are all adequate for their time and place.
It is more a matter of simply cataloging, as carefully as possible, the
very general characteristics that define each worldview, and
"bracketing" (or setting aside), for the moment, whether or not they
are "true" - we simply describe all of them as if they were true.
When this statement is juxtaposed with much of his other
writing, I can, with great respect, welcome Wilber to the world where the rest
of us contradictory critters live.
Introduction
|| Next Section (The Journey)
Back
to Writings
www.bobkull.org
[1] Wodehouse,
1934, 1975.
[2] As usual, I am
intrigued by the process of writing of this paper. Almost finished with the rough draft, it occurs to me to ask,
"Why am I spending so much time presenting Wilber's work?" I may not have a reasonable answer. As is often the case in my writing, I'm just
hanging on for the ride and have little clear idea where I'll end up. I haven't spent much time with Wilber's work
during the past year, yet I still see it as the most inclusive cognitive map I
have encountered to help organize my thinking and stimulate questioning. He addresses a broader range of issues and
speaks more fully to my own lived experience in language I can understand than
anyone else I have read.
[3] The notion of
holism is interesting. Does everything
fit together somehow, or not even need to fit since the apparent divisions are
illusory? After all, we apparently
exist together in the same universe.
Or, at bottom, do we, as Maturana & Varela (1987) claim, truly live
in a multiverse of sometimes conflicting realities? It may be a matter of perspective. For example: On one level
there is conflict between two boxers hammering on each other. From another point of view they are both
cooperating in a single ring at the same time else there would be no
fight. Within the battered, fifteenth
round bodymind of each fighter, how can conflict not dominate? Seconds later, after the final bell, these
same fighters often embrace in mutual acknowledgment and respect. Yet Ali never embraced Liston, never.
[4] Simon,
1966. (This is most disappointing! I assumed everyone on the committee would
easily recognise the line from the Simon and Garfunkel song Cloudy, but neither David nor Pille nor
Lee did. The immediate words of the
song are: Cloudy, my thoughts are scattered and they're cloudy/They know no
border, no boundary/They echo and they swell/From Tolstoy to Tinkerbell/Down
from Berkeley to Carmel/Got some pictures in my pocket and a lot of time to
kill.
[5] When I do find
an author there whos work is new to me, I will often use the index to locate
what Wilber has to say about that person.
From this I can tentatively locate the author's work in Wilber's scheme. This is useful if I remember that Wilber is
only one voice among many.
[6] Wilber, 1979,
1981.
[7] Wilber, 1995.
chap. 5 & 6; Piaget, 1977.
[8] Wilber, 1981,
p 23.
[9] Transformation
is, I think, the clearest definition of spiritual knowledge. Without personal transformation there is no
real spiritual understanding. There may
be intellectual understanding of what spiritual growth is said to entail, but
not spiritual knowledge. This is not
esoteric, but analogous to the difference between conceptual knowledge and body
knowledge. Knowing the theory of riding
a bicycle or hearing a description of the process is not the same as climbing
on and going for a ride. Nor does
knowing how to ride assure one of the ability to describe it to another or to
understand the process intellectually.
Transformation
is a slippery word. What does it mean
in pragmatic terms? While different
spiritual traditions disagree in many of their teachings, I believe they hold
at least one thing in common; the direction of growth is toward integration and
wholeness. Different traditions may
seek union or identification with True Self, Nature, God or Pure Formless
Spirit. However, all agree on the need
for the ego to surrender its apparent, self-centered autonomy and find its
place in a larger Reality. Only here
can one find the harmony of peace, joy and love.
[10] Wilber, 1995,
chap. 7 & 8.
Also see: Goldstein, 1983; James, 1958; Krishnamurti, 1968;
Smith, 1991; Suzuki, 1970; Tart, 1973; Underhill, 1930; Varela et. al., 1991;
Watts, 1958.
[11] There is
disagreement about the supposed stages of higher consciousness. Combs (2000) cites the traditional Zen
teaching, "Before enlightenment, chopping wood and carrying water; after
enlightenment, chopping wood and carrying water. Nothing special, things just are what they are." to support his
claim that while there is certainly transcendent experience, there are not
higher stages or structures of cognition.
It is my personal experience that the transformation from structured,
rational mind is not into another static structure of consciousness, but into a
flow of integrated perspectives that moves effortlessly from depth to depth.
[12] There are many examples of mistaking pre-rational regression for trans-rational spirituality. A classic one is the new age practice of adopting the feel-good trappings of Eastern religion or Native spirituality as somehow pure and noble in and of themselves. While any serious spiritual practice can lead to trans-rational experience, it requires effort and time.
Christianity offers accessible examples. The analytical study of theology is a rational activity. Prayer, meditation and self-surrender to the will of God is spiritual practice. Fundamentalist acceptance of the creation myth in face of scientific evidence to the contrary is pre-rational. Believing in and praying for personal benefit to the historical figure of Jesus who now sits at the right hand of God is mythical and narcissistic. A classic example is when opposing sides in an armed conflict pray to the same God to destroy their enemies. Pre-rational prayer asks God to "Give me what I want for myself." Trans-rational prayer asks God to "Help me know and accept Your will for me." Believing that the actual wine and wafer are somehow the blood and body of Christ is magical. Praying for eternal personal life in a physical heaven with angels flying around playing harps is magical/mythical. Yet all these beliefs, if approached as metaphorical windows with spiritual significance, can be vital aspects of trans-rational spirituality. Jung (1964) clearly differentiates between treating the cross, for example, as both a manifestation of and a transparent opening into transcendent Spirit and treating it as an opaque magical end in itself.
[13] Developmental
models, whether by Piaget, Kohlberg,(see Spilka et al, 1985) or Wilber, tend to
be linear and idealized.. The child
begins here, and the adult, ideally, ends here. Little wiggle room is left for individual and sexual difference,
the impact of emotion and physical desire on cognitive function, or cyclicity
in the process. When I try to locate
myself in such a system, I am unable to do so.
I am, you might say, all over the map: a wave of bodily desire, a spell
of magic, the taste for myth, a measured cup of reason, and a whisper of
spirit. It all seems to shift and flow
to its own secret rhythms.
[14] Wilber (1998,
p 67) credits Arthur Koestler with coining the term holon.
[15] Maturana &
Varela (1987) propose the terms autopoiesis and structural coupling as defining
characteristics of living organisms.
Autopoiesis refers to the autonomous, self-organizing qualities of
living systems. Their internal activity
is self-directed. (This is one aspect
of Maturana's cosmology that I have wrestled with a great deal. From a trans-rational/spiritual perspective,
personal autonomy seems partial at best and possibly even illusory.) Internal activity may be triggered by
stimuli from the surrounding environment, but it is not determined by such
external stimuli. However, an organism
does not exist in a vacuum, but always within a surrounding environmental
matrix with which it is structurally coupled; physically, biologically, and,
for some organisms, culturally. (Wilber extends the notion to include
culture.) If the organism fails to
maintain its own autopoietic organization it will disintegrate from within. If its structural coupling with the
surrounding environment breaks down, it will no longer obtain necessary energy
and material to maintain itself and so will also disintegrate. The disintegration can take place
physically, biologically, or psychospiritually. While Wilber does not use these terms in exactly the way I do, I
think the usage is compatible. A holon
must maintain both internal integrity and external communion. It must transcend and integrate the
sub-holons which make it up.
[16] Beginning from
where most of us find ourselves in our actual lives, there is common agreement
on the need for integration of our fragmented selves. Goldstein & Kornfield (1987) describe the progression of
dualities the mind creates. The primary
division is between self and other; subject and object. We separate ourselves from the
environment. The second level of
dualism is between mind and body; the sense of a separate, disembodied ego
within the total organism. Then the
mind itself fragments into a socially acceptable persona - our preferred self
image - and what Jung (1959) called the shadow - all those elements of mind we
discard through repression, projection, etc.
The path of reintegration begins when we slowly, and often painfully,
own those aspects of ourselves we have previously rejected. We learn to see ourselves as we are and not
as we would like ourselves to be. Then
we work to reintegrate body and mind.
Finally we surrender to the lived awareness that we are truly one with
the world around us. This does not mean
that we dissolve permanently back into the experience of oceanic oneness, but
rather are free to move between the different levels of experience depending on
what is appropriate to the situation.
[17] Highlighting
these potential risks tends to complicate matters. It is more comfortable - and perhaps more skillful - to stay with
experience as it arises and not worry too much about pinning down whether it is
this stage or that, pre or trans, transcendent or regressive. If one gets lost in this kind of
questioning, the spiritual journey can become frightening, and a guide, who
knows the territory, useful. However,
with all the conflicting teachings afoot in our culture today (and not just our
culture today, "Beware of false prophets," warns the Bible: Mark 13-22) one
must still rely on his own judgment in the end. Honesty with self and others is vital. Nowhere is the warning "Garbage In, Garbage Out" more important
than in using the rational mind to examine personal experience and behavior. If the rational mind were our only compass,
we might be lost once we transcend its reach into the spiritual stages. But Wilber, citing mystics who have traveled
the path, reassures that there is some presence or power, a strange attractor,
pulling us to fulfill our inherent potential for growth. It is sometimes called the Omega Point
(Teilhard de Chardin, 1961) which is not a finite point, but rather the
Spiritual Presence that is both the source and ground of all being. The journey is, for Wilber, not a process of
creation as such, but the discovery of ontological spirit.
[18] This integrative approach is grounded in the notion of
the Great Chain of Being, the fundamental insight of the Perennial Philosophy
which, Wilber claims, forms the core of all the world's major religions. It is a hierarchical system, the most basic
levels of which are: body, mind, spirit.
In different systems of thought these domains are subdivided further and
often non-living material makes up the first level. While the conceptual content of each of these domains varies
enormously among religions, the basic structural organization is always
similar... except in our scientific culture which often denies spirit and
occasionally mind too.
Each
domain or level of the hierarchy emerges through, is grounded in and subsumes
the lower ones. Thus a living organism
finds its existence only in a physical body which is constrained by physical
laws. Yet it also has emergent
qualities - capacities and needs - which are not present in inanimate
material. So too, mind only arises and
is embodied in a biological being. To
learn about each of these levels, we must use different faculties, what Wilber
calls Eyes: of the flesh, the mind, the spirit.
To
examine the physical we use our perceptual senses. Exploring the mind requires a different approach. Humans, for example, cannot be understood
simply by using observational methods adequate to the physical world. To understand the experience of logical
thinking, emotional quality, and intentionality, we need to open ourselves to
the lived experience in question and at the same time participate in dialogue
with other minds. Language is the tool
for such investigation.
In
exploring spirit, we also need to utilize the appropriate method: contemplation/meditation. Thinking about Spirit will not get the job
done, we must surrender to direct experience.
This is not unique to the domain of the Spirit. In all exploration, it is necessary to give
ourselves to the direct study of the subject in question; this is a fundamental
characteristic of science. If I want to
understand how the physical world works, I can first hypothesize to orient my
exploration, but finally I must look for myself. Other wise I am just speculating.
[19] One example of
this is E. O. Wilson's (1975) exciting pronouncement that all the arts and
humanities will eventually become branches of biology. Another is the approach of radical
behaviorism (Peterson, 1988) which denied the functional efficacy of cognition
to influence behavior. Lee reminds me
that B.F. Skinner argues this strongly in Beyond
Freedom and Dignity. Nor has this
perspective been abandoned. Last year I
audited a course on Consciousness in the Philosophy Department here at
UBC. Several students identified
themselves with one possibility under consideration: we are conscious, but
consciousness is an epiphenomenon and does not directly influence
behavior. This is not a trivial
question. If we accept that we are
embodied in a material world that obeys physical cause and effect laws, then if
we are to have what is normally thought of as conscious free will, this free
will must derive its power from some non-physical source. We are stuck with some form of dualism. This contradicts current evolutionary theory
which is based on a purely physical explanation. The existence of emergent
properties is now used to finesse this difficulty, but whether free will is
deposited from above or arises from below, makes little difference. It seems as though dualism is alive among
us. Barbour (1990) argues that the
notion of panexperientailism allows for downward causation without falling into
the extremes of panpsychism or dualism.
As I understand it, matter behaves differently depending on its context. Atomic processes, for example, are not the
same in a cell as they are in a rock.
In this way, the larger whole exerts influence on the behavior of its
parts. This is a direction I want to
continue to explore. I question whether
the apparent paradox can be resolved without a deep shift of perspective. Perhaps panexperientialism represents such a
shift.
This
is one of those wonderful paradoxes.
Seeing ourselves from the outside as physical creatures, the notion of
freedom makes no sense. From the inside
it is obvious that we make decisions, and it is hard to imagine living with the
proposition that our own freedom is illusory.
When we question the existence of freedom, the foundations of our value
system become shaky. This is apparent
in much of the social debate today. Who
or what is responsible for crime; the individual or the social matrix? From a psychological rather than from a
purely physical perspective, the problem remains. It seems clear enough from the inside that I can do what I want
to do, but from the outside it is not at all clear that I am free to choose
what I want.
[20] What is needed
to correct this imbalance is a pluralist epistemology. There are different ways of knowing the
different domains of experience: empirical observation for the physical realm;
logic-based, rational thought and narrative for the mental realm; mediation/
contemplation for the spiritual realm.
Here again Wilber's model has been useful to me as a space
stretcher/organizer.
[21] Wilber (1995) and Barbour (1990) argue against such extreme relativism. They point out that if this approach is followed to an extreme, not only are objective facts shown to be subject to interpretation, but the empirical content is ignored entirely which leaves only intrepretation. This position demonstrates internal inconsistency. It states that there is no universal truth and that all scientific explanation is a manifestation of power, yet it is proposed as universally true and not in itself a simple manifestation of power. It may be important to differentiate between natural and social science here, in that the social world can more easily be shown to be constructed than can the non-human world.
[22] Experiential world, world as experienced, etc. refer to our conscious lived experience.
[23] Varela et al (1991) elucidate this perspective as
enactive epistemology. What we
experience is not an internalized vision of some objective ontological reality,
nor is it purely subjective and constructed in the individual mind.
Varela (1999, p
1) sums up this perspective as: "What we take to be objective is what can be
turned from individual accounts into a body of regulated knowledge. This body of knowledge is inescapably in
part subjective, since it depends on individual observation and experience, and
partly objective, since it is constrained and regulated by the empirical,
natural phenomena."
The
enactive orientation is not confined to exploring natural phenomena. In discussing literary theory Culler (1997,
p67) says: "The meaning of a work is
not what the author had in mind at some point, nor is it simply a property of
the text or the experience of a reader.
Meaning is an inescapable notion because it is not something simple or
simply determined. It is simultaneously
an experience of a subject and a property of a text. It is both what we understand and what in the text we try to
understand. Arguments about meaning are
always possible, and in that sense meaning is undecided, always to be decided,
subject to decisions which are never irrevocable... Meaning is context-bound, but context is boundless."
[24] I want to suggest that all valid knowing (material,
mental, spiritual) can be grounded in some form of scientific inquiry. Such inquiry has three essential components:
1) an explicit practice or method of how to proceed (if you want to know this,
do this); 2) direct apprehension of data in the domain brought forth by the
stated practice or method (when I follow this procedure, I experience this); 3)
communal confirmation (or disconfirmation) by other trained practitioners (is
there commonality in our experiences, and if not, why not).
What
does this mean for non-material experience such as belief or love or awe? Does existence of these resist becoming
public knowledge? I don't think so, but
the focus shifts from content to process.
If I claim to believe that God exists, my belief does not establish the
existence of God. The existence of my
belief may count as valid knowledge.
Still, I might not really have such a belief. I might be mistaken or unwilling to confront my fears and
doubt. If I wish my belief to become
valid, public knowledge, you might invite me to examine and discuss what I
claim to have observed in myself. In
such a case no public observation of my experience is possible. Acceptance of my claim will be based on the
community's belief that I am truthfully reporting that inner experience, the
internal consistency of the report with my behavior, and the reasonableness of
the claim.
From
the perspective of epistemological pluralism there is no need that we should all
agree that I actually have faith in God or even that such faith is
possible. If we are willing to consider
the world to be deeply ambiguous, perhaps no single, valid description is
desirable or possible.
[25]Again I need to
be clear that I am not defending this schema as comprehensive or entirely
internally consistent. Eventually I may
think so, but at this time I approach it as very useful to me and quite
beautiful in some ways. I see two
particular difficulties. Wilber defines
an organism as individual and an ecosystem as collective. Yet an organism can be seen as a collective
of cells or as an ecosystem of bacteria, mites, etc.. Each cell can also be seen as a symbiotic collective of nucleus,
mitochondria and cytoplasmic organelles.
Nor have I been able to make sense of the holarchy Wilber proposes for
the lower right quadrant. From level 5
to level 13 seems consistent, but I simply cannot see any way for a planet to
transcend and subsume a galaxy, nor an ecosystem subsume the gaiasystem. I think Wilber is attempting something he
sees to be morally good and very necessary in today's divisive climate. Still, as with any unified theory, many
instances that on closer inspection may not be compatible are clustered
together as sufficiently similar.
[26]I could spend
the rest of the paper discussing this statement, but prefer to posit the
possibility of Îobjective' measurement once a collectively accepted context and
methodology is determined.
[27] Recent work by
Varela and others (1991; 1999) focuses on bridging the gap between the two
upper quadrants. How does the conscious
experience of awe or compassion or anger for example correspond to observable
changes in the physical substrate of the brain? Critical theory (Kincheloe & McLaren, 1994) may investigate how
cultural context impacts the consciousness of individuals. In Up
From Eden Wilber develops the links between evolving cultural forms and
developmental of stages of consciousness.
[28] The question troubles me. If I claim that all individual and collective human behavior is
valid and go no further, I am lying. I
simply do not believe this. On an
absolute level, to quote Aldous Huxley, (from Wilber, 1999, p 243), "·there is
the sense that in spite of Everything--I suppose this is the Ultimate Mystical
conviction--in spite of Pain, in spite of Death, in spite of Horror, the
universe is in some way All Right, capital A, capital R." But from a relative, personal perspective, I
deeply believe that individual freedom and mutual respect are preferable to
oppression and fear. Yet I see no way
(except to anoint my own personal preferences) to prove to someone who espouses
fear-based, social control that my way is superior. I can only own and honor what seems right to me and trust that
the natural unfolding of the human spirit will eventually lead us both to the
heart of the matter. This attitude of
trust requires both courage and mindfulness.
Each
of us, I think, uses the form of persuasion that corresponds to our
development. If a person or culture is
pre-rational, then physical or psychological fear/force will be used to
coerce. Rational mind offers reason to
persuade. The trans-rational individual
will trust the beauty of love to transform the experience of the other. It is difficult to respond to intimidation
and pain with reason or love. But if we
respond to violence with violence, not only have we failed to decrease the
violence in the world, but have actually increased it with our own acts.
[29] As Maturana
and Varela (1987, p 27) put it: "Everything said is said by Someone"
[30] Polanyi, 1958.
[31] The question
of language and shared, common experience is interesting and troubling. Since exploring this issue has occupied much
of my time recently, I will address it in the next section rather than here.
[32] How can I integrate Wilber's rational model into
itself? The model is a product of the
rational mind at the formal operations stage of development just as a myth is a
product of the concrete operational mind.
Wilber (1995, p 236-241), while showing deep respect for the work of
Joseph Campbell, argues that he is wrong in his claim that myth is a source of
true spirituality. He points out that
Campbell acknowledges that 99.9 percent of believers take myths literally and so
the deep meaning of the myth is lost on them.
It is only when myth is approached as metaphor does it become a window
into higher spiritual truths. Just so,
says Wilber, and when this happens, the mind is no longer truly in the myth,
but is appreciating and integrating the mythical quality from a higher (e.g.
rational) stage of development.
It
seems consistent to treat Wilber's conceptualization in the same way. Taken literally, it is inconsistent and acts
as an anchor to prevent continued development.
Only when approached as metaphor to be integrated into a wider
perspective does it make spiritual sense.
Rational thought, like myth and physicality, is vital to integrated
development, but it is not the end of the path. To move beyond, we need to question the concrete notion of a path
toward higher and more integrated being.
Concern with cause and effect directionality must, sooner or later, give
way to living here in the now. An
important question is when is it appropriate for this to happen? Too soon and we drift aimlessly, too late
and we ride at anchor imagining progress on a virtual sea. And, I need to acknowledge this analysis as
metaphor too.
[33] While I don't
take the holonic/four quadrants model as ontologically Real, it is not
subjective fantasy either. It is a
human construction that has arisen socially in the relational space between our
collective consciousness and the material world. From the lived experiential perspective, it works for me in many
ways, and I offer it up to ask if it makes sense to you?