@@futurethinkers Russ Roberts of EconTalk has been doing a weekly hour-long podcast since 2006. Recently-meaning 2019 or 2020-he commented that he's learned to interrupt his guests less often. He was always reasonably good at letting his guest speak, but he would often intrude with his own mini-lectures, and he does this less now. He continues to do fairly long preambles to his questions to set the frame. And he's very conscious about keeping his audience up to speed on jargon and terminology. ¶ But at the end of the day-for my taste-there really are times he _should_ interrupt the guest, because the guest is only painting half a picture and evading something important nearby and half a picture is not doing the listeners any favour. ¶ "Just let the guest speak" only works for a certain caliber of guest. Like almost any other wisdom that starts with the word "just", results obtained from adopting this posture of discourse minimalism are highly variable.
Wilber is driven, hard working, and sincere. I owe him much for his consciousness expanding talks, and his overall work in general. He's a great teacher.
Great interview and retrospective on the Integral Movement and its problems. Very candid and telling, and explains a lot. Thanks for doing these with Ken. It's great hearing all his perspectives. Good work.
Illuminating discussion on the notion of “returning to the garden of Eden”. Remember the Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young Woodstock song “...and we’ve got to get ourselves back to the garden”? Probably not intended, but according to Wilbur’s explanation, getting back to the so-called garden is regressive!
i extualy believe it exactly is a regressive mental state of mind yes , its like, driving your car to "your" believed "right" destination... and u got lost...there is no GPS... u just have to go back to were u came from and continue your journey from there... to then se and fiend your true "self" and understanding your "true" destiny/destination(in the universe). that u didnt know it wasnt your right destiny in the first place...and that the destination u haid before wasse an illusions...and our future technology that we made now will make this possible for us... its basicly reversing your mind with the knowlegde that u allready absorbed... and haid it form u... so then u turn into an infant...Naive... like u are reborn....and u came to the knowlegde that evrything u did untill now, that u were trully ignorant and evrything is an illusion... a misconception of the truth....(because of our monkey instinct that we have/haid to outgrow+ this stage as a human being that we also must outgrow...) we all will have to face it, or atleast our future generation... if it doesnt happen in our lifetime...( i believe we have a purpose on earth and a purpose in the universe)... our purpose on earth wich is globalization+ uniting as a whole human species and humanity...thats one stage) and when we achieved this... we will fiend our destiny( phase/stage) in the universe.... its like a transcendance to our next evolution. when we completed our planets evolution... the first will be the last and the last will be the first and to reformulate/refraise the last will be the first and the first will be the last.... since they are most and deeplyer connected to the matrix/illusion wanting to enhance in it...and will have a harder time to detach from it..and if u didnt wanne participate in it in the first pls u have an easyer time to get there.
Minute 24 and on: I'm blown away by Ken saying why he never attended the Integral conferences and associated forums: Because, he says, they speak as if they have found the answers and are "sterling representatives" explaining "what everybody should be thinking." I felt alone in this opinion. It's still happening, and the arrogance is common and offensive to me. That's NOT true for these two beautiful interviewers, Euvie and Mike, who show openness and dignity and balanced. Sadly, I see much of the arrogance on the Integral Life website and can't understand why Ken isn't collecting his second tier followers and teaching them.
The Ancient people of Kemet (Egyptians) seem to have some level of spiritual connection to source. The people of Kemet may have been around for more than 10,000 years. Being around for that amount of time,, I am sure There is nothing that they have not explored spiritually or intellectual. It would seem as if they had a system of perception or perceiving reality that worked for them. Not to mention Master yogis, Taoist & Buddhist monks and the list goes on. Maybe I missed something but this gentleman never mentioned meditation, reconditioning the mind with affirmations, combining the mind and the body to bring about manifestation and realizing and the individuals connection to all things infinitely. I want to maybe capable of Removing the concept and the illusion of separation.
From the, "integral perspective" the trick is to make sure that your, "waking up" practices are lining up with your, "showing up" and, "growing up" developments. The ancients had a highly regimented society without mass communication. Your path is like, "writing a new book" rather than, "recapitulating Vedanta Sutras." Take care of yourself pal! Knock and the door will be opened.
****** "We are all just walking each other home." About 10 comments below me, is Amara Jeanine's comment. THANK YOU, Amara. That comment makes me feel SO GOOD, and I'm not sure why, exactly.
This speaks for the quality of the interviews you have in mind. This speaks for the quality of the interview. This speaks for the quality of the connection between the interviewer and the interviewed, going back to the maturity of both. I have the feeling that the next major step, the quantum leap of communication, won't be much talk, won't be small talk. Before the talking will disappear, unless for entertaining purposes, the talk will be long, in a similar way we experience it here. A sincere person asks a sincere question to a person that is considered as being qualified to give a good answer. Then the medium for the answer makes his/her personality step aside and coordinates the "fall of the talking" until the question is sufficiently answered. This is my experience and my insight for the subject. I hope it serves you.
Maybe I’m wrong but The one area that integral theory as I understand it seems to lack (and perhaps ken would say what I’m about to say fits into a second tier development or satori awakening) is the humility about the always possible invalidity of such a theory not lining up with Truth due to the possible limitations of mind, senses and knowledge as being a human itself and the always possible chaotic, random, unknowable and magic potential of Truth, God, Reality itself and its potential to just do stuff outside the box of evolutionary, understandable, perceivable steps . Also isn’t the hierarchical idea/ concept of higher and lowers just that, a label or a story thrown onto experiences; particularly value judgements of more conscious or less conscious, better or worse/more ideal or less ideal, more complex or less complex, more functioning or less functioning. Wouldn’t such claims be better labeled as human opinions or accepted definitions of things that are then agreed on or not and then possibly debated or theorized from and not the Actuality of things or suchness itself. But then again it is called Integral Theory and not Integral Truth (not a diss). And to be fair my criticism could easily be said about 98% of most theory’s and scientific truths out there.
Yeah, it's just defined to not have a flaw from the get go :D Trying to integrate everything while knowing it's not possible, therefore trying to prioritize based on developmental models, while knowing each situation is too subjective to fit your current molds. The "higher and lower" concept has a disclaimer in every book of his. Higher doesn't mean better value, just like someone old isn't necessarily better value than someone young. It just means wider scope and/or deeper depth of integration/inclusion. If he would just write about the atoms -> molecules -> materials -> ink/paper of the book, he would never get to the story he wants to tell. You just have to prioritize the "higher" stages to get to the point.
@@prawtism Fair points. Although in regards to the higher/lower, my comment is not coming from that misunderstanding. You could say what I'm pointing to even recognizes that wider scope/deeper depth is still just as much as a accepted idea/definition as higher/lower (real mind fuck this one, it can really challenge idea's of specialness).
"The Flaws of Integral Theory"? Are they in the Wilber 1 to Wilber 2 transition only? That's it? What about the flaws in the Wilber 4 (SES)? The Lines/Types/Levels Confusion? Ken Wilber meets Spiral Dynamics? Going Crazy with Boomeritus? =)
"You are wrong because X." "No, that's Wilber 1. I'm now Wilber 2." "You are wrong because Y+not-1." "No, that only applies to Wilber 2. Now I'm Wilber 3." You are wrong because Z+not-1&nor-2." "Yes, if we are referring to Wilber 3. Now I'm Wilber 4..." etc
In regard to, "obnoxious tier 2" types (I was one in my early 20's). "One who is as humble as a blade of grass and is tolerant like a tree is qualified to chant Krsna-Nama." --Sri Siksastakam Spiritual discourse really should kind of be a, "humility and giving honor and respect to others"-off.
@@adrianamatei6426 his work is great i read ses 12 years ago now but it does have flaws in it and in this interview he decided to critise pre ses and the a part of the community that arose post ses. Metamodernism, critital realism, object oriented ontology are places to look into as well.
it surely is interconnected with the other parts, but if you're appealing to ego and greed, the information is much more likely to be analyzed in those domains, and stay there, isn't it? look at the Superhuman OS website! i find it hypocritical that after doing this, he takes issue with the 10-15% egoists who attend integral conferences
In my view, the biggest problem with integral theory, widely discussed by scholars, directly or indirectly, seems to be the spiritual states theory of the upper left quadrant. The sequence of the spiritual states described in the upper left quadrant that end up into enlightenment are put in that sequence and hierarchy according to the Buddhist path (some specific types of Buddhism, not all Buddhism). This means that if you were to choose a different spiritual tradition for the upper left quadrant, the spiritual states would be ordered in a different hierarchy. So, type of enlightenment that Wilber discusses and puts at the top of the sequence of spiritual states is a Buddhist type of enlightenment (which could be stretched to some degree to overlap with the Advaita enlightenment, yet the two are still different). Why? Because Wilber has a Buddhist/Advaita leaning. This means that from the perspective of other spiritual traditions, the type of enlightenment that Wilber discusses is not considered enlightenment or union with God. Instead, it is consider just one of the many spiritual states a person goes through in his path to enlightenment. Different traditions teach different types of enlightenment, which does not overlap with the Buddhist type of enlightenment. Phenomenologicaly, the Buddhist spiritual enlightenment is very different than the Christian. The belief that all traditions are discussing the same spiritual reality when they say “enlightenment” or “union with God,” which view is called perennial or essentialist, has been debunked decades ago. It’s well established in scholarship that this view is deeply incorrect. So, I’m surprised that Wilber and all of his followers do not updated this widely known incorrect view. It could be updated pretty easily by modifying the upper left quadrant and making it a bit more flexible with a variety of routs (spiritual states) that could usher to different types of enlightenment, which can still correspond, to some degree, to the other three quadrants. Not updating this important mistake is doing a disservice to all spiritual traditions that are not Buddhists preventing them from fully adopting integral theory. In fact, by not correcting this mistake integral theory could only be said to be an “ Buddhist Integral Theory,” not an “Integral Theory.”
@Michael Erdmann for starters, I’d say that if we want a real Integral Theology we need to come to terms with the fact that there are many different types of enlightenment and union with God (even within the same tradition), each type of enlightenment pointing to a different type of spiritual attainment and type of liberation. Of course, most types of enlightenment have some things in common such us the absence of an ego-self, but beyond that they are very different in terms of the spiritual states they emphasize and the aspects of Spirit the focus on after a person has realized a non-ego self and can effortlessly abide in Spirit. If we agree on that, then an Integral Theology/Spirituality would include all types of enlightenment that have been codified so far by various traditions, as well as future ones that haven’t yet been codified or discovered. This way of looking at enlightenment and union with God would really bring people from different traditions together because it would maintain a hierarchy of spiritual states but not of types of enlightenment. All traditions that have as a prerequisite for enlightenment the dissolution of the ego-self while emphasizing a specific spiritual dimension of attainment beyond the ego-self, should have their type of enlightenment considered equally in value as other types in terms of general liberation and freedom. This is not a flattening Green approach. Why? Because this view would maintain a hierarch in spiritual states, and most of all, while recognizing the validity of all types of enlightenment it would also recognize the different strengths found in each type of enlightenment. Namely, a type of enlightenment can be more appropriate for certain worldview, historical times, personal makeup, personal objective… than other types. For example, there is a type of enlightenment that can be experienced as having a sense of egoless impersonal-ness vs. egoless personal-ness. In other words, experiencing oneself as God with no-ego self can be experienced as God being personal or as God being impersonal. If the historical time, the person’s make up, destiny, objecting for his/her teaching requires to realize the enlightenment that exemplifies the state of God as personal because people in that time and culture need to understand that Spirit can be personal and can care in a personal and unique way for each individual, then this type of enlightenment will be more appropriate. Not superior across all types of enlightenment in all circumstances, but superior in exemplifying the “God personal state” spiritual realization. Hence, that would respect all types of enlightenment and assert a conditional hierarchy depending of what needs to be exemplified best or accomplished for that historical time. Your other point you mention with regards to theoretic science, I think that integral science needs to include the left quadrants. It has lost itself so deeply in the upper right quadrant that it has lost perspective. But that’s nothing new.
I find it hard to understand why so much has been made of Wilber. If he made a contribution through joining some western ideas /findings to eastern, he was not the first - there are many academics in this field and have been for a long time. Also, his spectrum or levels of consciousness are there in ancient Indian psychology, the most modern framing of which is in the Integral Philosophy/Psychology/Yoga of Sri Aurobindo whose work was published throughout the 30s-50s and based not on intellectual theorising and superficial engagement with practices but deep psychological and spiritual experiences, which led him to some profound outcomes. There was anger about Wilber's using the term: integral psychology when that book came out, because those studying Sri Aurobindo's work and using it in their psychological and psychiatric practises said Wilber had filched it without giving credit.
As the it has been wisely said "If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants.”- Sir Isaac Newton, 1675 and it also applies to Wilber because he took all those fragmentary ideas that you mentioned and put them into one framework that that connects them plus gives them a much greater unity and understanding of existence that is why he is called "The Einstein of Consciousness" by some people
He gives a legit shortcut. Without him, everyone would maybe stumble on ONE of these sources you mentioned, but most would not even understand it properly. Now you can just read Wilber and he will mention all these sources in his model and you will appreciate them all and will have more patience when trying to understand the source.
" Sigh " difficult delivery ~ Lets re'member that we all emerged from pure energy ~ ( Garden of Eden ) and have accepted to incarnate into a denser world structuring thoughts carried by feelings & vice versa : Pleasure and pain in a dynamic dance of experiencing this humanity as an organic presence BUT also keeping the ability to disassociate in raising above matter as the Mind over body DISTILLING PROCESS !! I am a 71 yrs old 2-stage 4 cancer survivor ( +++ multiple other physically, mentally, emotionally socially, economically, spiritually challenging SURVIVOR here to always remember where I came from } = my own integrated + integrating holistic personal + collective future !!!
Even if you know everything that can be knowable, the best virtre you learn from everything is the virture of humility....or love...Without humility or love, the knowledge y think y hav becomes nothing!!
Total Enlightenment is actually being Totally Free of fear, anxiety, sorrow, suffering, confusion, alienation, addictions, envy, greed, jealousy, pride, anger, hatred, violence, bias, and prejudice in daily life, once and for all, now forever. They who are Totally Enlightened actually treat everyone, without exception, with the same intensity and quality of care and affection that they would give their dearest closest friend, lover, or child, without any sense of division, separation or distance in daily life, once and for all, now forever.
Enlightenment does not take time. It is not of time. It is not the result of time or the things of time. It is not the result of any method, ritual, or diet. It is not the result of any chemical. It is not the result of any process. There is no path to it. It happens effortlessly and choicelessly...faster than the speed of light. Moreover, it is once and for all, now and forever.
Do Jacob's Ladder. Set yourself Totally Free of fear, anxiety, sorrow, suffering, confusion, alienation, addictions, envy, greed, jealousy, pride, anger, hatred, violence, bias, and prejudice, in daily life, once and for all, now forever. Then and only then is there Lucidity, which gives birth to Love. See my group on Facebook: "Total Enlightenment NOW!".
After your Enlightenment, come join me on the front lines where we are working to move us all on planet Earth from the way things are today to a Whole New Way of Living rooted in Love and Wisdom. See my group on Facebook: "Creating a Wonderful World. (let's get it done already)".
Systematising a whole bunch of disparate theories doesn't make one theory which is useful to live your life by. This is either a tool for a rigid class society via categorisation, a tool to help people understand themselves, or a blueprint for the creation of a new religion.
U Need to solve and fiend your SELF. before u can solve integral and humanity in the universe. Untill then... its just another religion/believe of incomplete truth. And only the one That wants to solve it can do it. Evryone needs to Understand it... but only one can solve it.
