An Extended Critique

[of Stuart Davis’ Critique of The Secret: http://www.stuartdavis.com/node/1138)]

 
July 10, 2007

By Jana Espiritu Santo (Integirl, LOL!)

     INTERIOR                      EXTERIOR

 
INDIVIDUAL

COLLECTIVE

Diagram 1: IMP/AQAL model, Wilber-5

One of Stuart Davis’ criticisms of the movie The Secret is that it doesn’t differentiate between ego and Self, the mortal, small, and contracted “I” and the immortal, BIG, ever-expansive “I,” thus confusing the two. He proposes that this fusion is a manifestation of narcissistic (low-level) spirituality rather than authentic (higher level) spirituality, which incorporates that differentiation. I am going to stretch this discussion just a bit further using the integral model (Wilber-5) and then return to a critique of the above premise at closing.

We will begin with a philosophical inquiry of the perspective: I know the difference between ego and Self from an unknown/hypothetical subject as an exercise, using the basic definitions that Stuart has: ego as the “frontal structure/personality and Self as “an unbounded, unlimited reality which transcends but includes all qualities.” We ask: What is the truth to this assertion? One thing that I am learning from Wilber’s approach is to gather and listen to data with openness and receptivity, rather than to start with a perspective (bias) and then make the data fit (1^st tier excluding of data [content] that does not fit perspective [structure]).  The following is the introduction to the first step of that process: data collection using integral methodological pluralism. Please refer to Diagram 1 to locate terminology.

Before we embark on this journey, I must lay a few parameters to ground our context. Some may claim that the nondual perspective asserts that Self is ever-present (Atman, I-I); that it is ALL there is and ever will be (alpha-omega) thus negating such an exercise, yet we can hold the nondual perspective (it’s kind of ridiculous to talk about!?) AND also look at a relative perspective in which there is the placement of boundary (the Self and the non-Self; quote from Stuart: “I also have to say: The ego is not the Self.”). Thus, we speak of evolving awareness in the Relative; Self-as-pre-ego, Self-as-ego, and Self-as-Self. Another point is that while 1^st tier would determine, in such an exercise, if this perspective is true OR untrue arriving at rigid conclusions (linear/digital), 2^nd tier would discover multiple open-ended truths (holding the space for contradictions when they arise), general holistic patterns, and probability waves (analog/integral-aperspectival). Also, we are NOT attempting to discover the ontological pre-given reality of ego and Self (awareness of the myth of the given) but to extract truth from as many perspectives as possible about this perspective.

The IMP/Integral model is the most adequate model up-to-date for our purposes of gathering data from as many perspectives as possible to determine the validity of this claim in an individual holon. Let’s begin with language (integral semiotics*) since we are presented with a chain of signifiers, material words in the exterior: the English sentence “I know the difference between ego and Self”. {*For further exploration of semiotics see p.168 of IS}

Beginning with the LL structure (Zone-#4, outside LL; linguistic codes), this sentence is grammatically correct using proper semantics, borrowing rhetoric and meaning from perhaps Zen/Eastern philosophy and Western transpersonal psychology. So this perspective has functional fit within the integral community; we can read and make sense of it, structurally speaking. However, even though the map/model being used is culturally grounded, it may be dissociated and fragmented from the UL territory of the individual who thinks something and says this as a 1^st person perspective OF 1^st person (1-p X 1p). A mental distinction that follows the contextual “rules” of the theory doesn’t necessarily point to the immanent reality of the individual interior, which involves the act of looking within to SEE that distinction in one’s self (quadrant differentiation: LL map and UL territory). Now we turn to this individual’s UL.

For the material words, signifiers: “ego” and “Self” to have a referent, an actual reality that the words point to, one who has this perspective must have developed the worldspace (structure) that can hold the signified (content), what comes to mind when the signifiers are registered.

To me, the perspective that asserts one’s own knowledge of ego and Self requires a high altitude in the identity/self developmental line. If this person has not grown past the ego stage in identity then this statement is most likely coming from the self-as-ego. In such a case, “Self” is a signifier without a signified. The embedded ego can not differentiate itself from itself (not yet an object to a greater subject) and so the “signifiers” even though pointing to that which is beyond the ego can ONLY be used to further the ego’s agenda and its separation from what is. The irony is that when this perspective is merely conceptual, it can actually prevent growth as one can rationalize their stuckness with it: I can be an egomaniac (stuck in identification) as long as I don’t confuse Self with ego (as long as I have the right “spiritual” position to defend it). This occurs when transrational rhetoric is used to remain identified with the ego, a self-defeating trap. The question of vertical depth becomes, WHO is differentiating between ego and Self? And as data collectors, are we qualified to answer such a question?

A valid and present signified requires subjective authenticity and objective accuracy in the UL, keeping in mind that authenticity and accuracy are on an analog scale (not digitally on or off). First of all, authenticity is NOT sincerity; one may mean well and have good intentions and yet not be authentic. It is important to know whether the individual with this assertion has checked her/his authenticity and truthfulness from within. One form would be through self-inquiry/contemplation, asking such questions as “do I really know the difference between ego and Self? Or do I just say I do for a particular payoff (i.e. it makes me hot and gets me laid, LOL!).” Part of authenticity is being true to what arises in consciousness (Zone-#1, inside UL; phenomenology & experience), even if it doesn’t gain the approval of others (image). Any distortion of this due to unacknowledged interior movement such as repression, neglect, denial, fear to look, unwillingness to admit weakness, defensiveness etc., constitutes some degree of self-deception and inauthenticity.

Even if the authenticity test is sufficiently passed, it may not be accurate. One can be authentic and be WRONG. One way of being wrong is with incorrect meaning assignment (LL) by inadvertently attaching a signifier to the inappropriate signified. One may mistakenly attach the pre-ego signified with the trans-ego signifier, and likewise confuse the embedded unconscious as the Self, the universe-sized ego as God, a nondual ego state as a transcendent stage. The use of syntax with the inappropriate semantics can be revealed in what Wilber terms a “collective reality check.” A person can simply learn the calculus terminology yet Calculus professors will discover (Zone-#3, inside LL; hermeneutics) whether there is actual understanding behind the arrangement of words and its connection to reality. 2^nd perspective (2-p) corrective feedback loops from those who have attained the worldspace of the signified can help correct errors in meaning and understanding (i.e. teacher-student relationship).

An accurate interpretation of one’s own interior (1-p X 1p) requires some degree of self-awareness (Zone-#2, outside UL; structuralism/constructivism). This question asks: can this person see himself? One component of self-awareness is the ability to objectively see ones subjectivity without total identification to the subjectivity. A technique to enhance self-awareness is to enter into the self-inquiry of the opposite, inverted, or re-configured perspective (like Byron Katie’s turnarounds) to see a bigger picture that includes emptiness: I do NOT know the difference between ego and Self. I only know the ego. I do not know either etc. And then to innocently ask and answer honestly: Are these perspectives as true as or more true than the original? Awareness beyond the identification to thought feels BOTH areas of fullness and emptiness, the space of unknowingness (i.e. “Self” is over my head). If a person has authenticity but not sufficient self-awareness, then the accuracy of such a perspective can still be questioned.

Next we turn the IMP microscope to the exterior quadrants to seek objective evidence for this claim that could possibly reveal the authenticity, accuracy of meaning, and self-awareness of the individual. We could examine this individual’s brain physiology/waves to detect transrational states and stages (Zone-#5, inside UR; neuroscience). As Confusius says, “a man’s character reveals itself through what he takes pleasure in;” our integrally informed interpretation might be: the interior center-of-gravity can be revealed through exterior behavior. We would need to look at behaviors, actions, and the energetic disposition in the gross, subtle, and causal (Zone-#6, outside UR; sensory manifestation).  Also, body language is a big part of communication and so micro-expressions, speech patterns, tone, inflection, and other mannerisms would be pertinent information, taking us beyond the “subject-less” material words. For example, if one says this statement with beaded-eyed cockiness rather than thoughtful self-reflection, we may question the authenticity. Also, in the collective exterior (LR, Zone-#7 & #8, inside/outside LR) we would want to examine the metaphysical law (in a post-metaphysical framework), “we become that which we stand in relation to,” to see the web of relationships of mutual resonance/dissonance.  The collective embeddedness and supporting culture can tell us a lot about the individual if we sensitively listen.

In addition to “Zone viewing,” it is important to ground information in time (the z-axis) and its cyclic and asymmetrical patterns with the genealogical question: when? When do you “know” the difference between ego and Self, while on a lotus cushion, while talking to a boss, when you were a child, for an hour, all the time? State/peak realizations fade, ebb and flow. For example, at one point in time, the signifier and the signified may be accurately and authentically matched yet at a later moment unmatched. Do we hold on to the map even when it ceases to reflect the territory (flex flow or sticky stuck)? Awareness is not fixed and permanent but ALIVE, responding to changing life conditions. For example, when one is being attacked by a polar bear, s/he probably doesn’t know the difference between ego and Self, only between LIFE and DEATH (survival/infrared examples always work best)! Also the frequency and cyclic time intervals could tell us about the stability, solidity, and degree of space-time fragmentation of this realization.

Besides data collection (and this has been a very sloppy start!), we would also need to examine the altitude (i.e. qualifications) and perspective of the data collector/s for a more complete Kosmic Address, among other things, keeping in mind the absolute relativity of all perspectives. For our purposes we can stop here. The point of that exercise was to show how a mental dualism between ego and Self doesn’t have any meaning until grounded in the (AQAL) manifest. (Also, the delicious irony in this whole exercise can be eloquently summed up with this old wise saying: “Those who speak don’t know, those who know don’t speak”, LOL!)

Material/exterior acquisitions using the law of attraction are NOT a substitute for interior work, development, and growth. Stuart is correct in pointing out that The Secret is “low level” spirituality and so his critique is appreciated for its truth/s (and was incredibly entertaining to read; he’s a master at wicked prose!). His mental distinction is important in a meta-model as he sees the Secret trap: “It is dangerous to insert the ego in the place of the Self-the highest Self…as an egomaniac I can attest to its disastrous results.”

I also put the caution tape around his distinction, pointing out the next higher trap, offering an extended critique. I point it out because “I can attest to its disastrous results (...you know the rest),” as this trap does not enable growth, healthy transcendence, and freedom, but causes more embeddedness, stuckness, and contraction. So I attempt to speak with more humanity than projection. Each new mental truth also yields a temptation, the play of light and dark. Wilber has often said, and I paraphrase: “increased awareness/rights means increased responsibility.” I am going to focus on the responsibility part for a moment.

It is dangerous to assume that a differentiation in the map EQUALS a differentiation in the territory. Adopting the material/exterior signifiers of “ego” and “Self” is not a substitute for the interior work and development in which those signifiers will have the appropriately matched signified. The next level of spiritual materialism is much more subtle: the accumulation of and identification to a sparkly chain of signifiers. And Boomeritis, giving voice to the pluralistic whore within all of us (LOL!) will put them for sale: I have the signifiers that will “change the world.”

The ego can be supported and rationalized with sophisticated maps and models (mental concepts) just like it can be supported with the previous level of self-absorbed and overly subjective feelings like in The Secret. And in this context, like Stuart said, “the ego is not the Self.” Our minds can be evolving (getting smarter) while we (center-of-gravity) are NOT evolving (the post-postmodern Cartesian Split)! People always say, “Don’t confuse the map with the territory”, yet what if the signifier territory was paired with the signified map, LOL? Interior growth is the cure and one cannot do it for another. Again, a mental dualism and object of thought (signifier) ARE NOT necessarily an object of awareness (signified); the marriage of Ken and Krishnamurti, map maker and territory master!

In short, to connect this with my territory, when I talk about the “ego” and not look at it (signifier without a signified), it is easy to do and doesn’t cause much reaction. Yet, when I LOOK at my ego (signifier with a signified) it is rather painful and difficult as I am beginning to dis-identify, OUCH, FUCK, GEEZES, I scream!. Being crushed and killed by eternity is NOT a picnic, but a LIFE worth living, the endless play of Eros and Thanatos. Gotta always end with on a twisted note when I am BEING FULL-SPECTRUM!!

    Thanks for reading!

I dedicate this to my BELOVED, Eliot…the LIGHT of my LIFE, who ROCKS my world ;-). 

I am in a community that believes it is “changing the world” and that it is integral. Hmmmmm. ? I have questions.

I am in between a cognitive quantum leap, exploring the territory.

The wide expanse of the collective and its“global” pursuits in 1^st tier (green) turns into the depth of the individual in 2^nd tier (yellow vMEME/teal altitude). In Spiral Dynamics this is the polarity move from we-communal to I-individualistic. From the inside it almost feels like the spiral is inverting as the infinite lateral reach of Flatland flips inside-out (rather than coming from the outside-in), becoming the multi-dimensional spectrum WITHIN the individual. “What is within me?” becomes the question, not “How can I change you/the world/society.” The very “act of changing something OUTSIDE the self” is trapped within the dualistic mind producing mental viruses and mind-body fractures (the “I” unseen [no Zone #2] and “the world” ONLY seen). As of such, the proposed solutions from unseen I always breed further fragmentation from the whole (as I am learning from Krishnamurti, a “spiritual/nondual teacher up to the Wilber-5 standard”, Eliot once pointed out in sharing his work with me; I now deeply feel that Wilber and Krishnamuriti are a complimentary pair, and encourage the "Integralites" to explore the truth in this).

This notion of “changing the world” literally becomes nonsense, an abstraction at best, a distraction at worst. There is only ONE thing any one of us can change and that is the self at the ROOT-of-BEING. The individual. The emphasis is on the individual/human being. The 4 Quadrants outline the structure of consciousness of an individual holon. LL contextual and cultural embeddedness are WITHIN the individual, while the collective IS in itself NOT an INDIVIDUAL.  Important. Therefore I turn within. Do I have the COURAGE to look within? Can I accept that the “world out there” is the “world in here?” Krishnamuriti said: "I am the world and the world is me."

Jumping into A theory of everything from the inside-out takes EVERYTHING I have to evolve; is EVERYTHING I am. One may ask, what the fuck am I getting into here?

In such a developmental transition, one becomes fully aware that one cannot change another (exterior information does not move subjective perspective PERIOD!) and these “crusades” and “isms” and “this versus that” propositions and “ideologies” in which we “fight” for change, peace, happiness, love, etc. becomes let go of as we can see through the false promises of salvation (war will always make more war/separation will always make more separation/simple and quite deep). For to the superficial mind, they appear to be “creating” wholeness and yet a deeper mind can see that I CANNOT CREATE WHAT ALREADY IS. If I cannot BE WHOLE, how can I create WHOLE? It would be artificial and unsustainable and it would not be REAL. The more we try to create order the more viruses we spread in the mindspace by feeding 1^st tier partial, compartmentalized perspectives. Can we examine the action-based limitations of 1st tier? 2^nd tier is the awareness of those impulses (limbic/reptilitan brain) and the extracted truths from all perspectives (can we keep the baby and toss out the dirty bathwater!! LOL/w/ prefrontal cortex). The “action-man” of 1^st tier (as SD theory calls it) are actions from fragments of the whole merely creating more fragments in the midst of blindness and confusion (there is all this doing with EYES shut). Can we lift the veil? Can we SEE our own fragments? Like the work of Byron Katie, can we stay in OUR business with self-inquiry? as individuals; microcosms of the Whole, a Whole in ITSELF. Or are we too interested in joining the “save the world” campaign, focusing on the collective, to make ourselves feel  AMAZING, avoiding the interior inspection? Hmmmm.

These dead-end pursuits are merely a distraction from the self and BEING. Every urge to point the finger, to manufacture another duality is the urge to escape the self, and this only becomes more subtle as development ensues, rationalizations get sharper and narcissism evolved. In 2^nd tier you can no longer hide in identifications and mental constructs that bias WHAT IS to an absolutist, contracted perspective, for the very act of hiding does not promote consciousness as something will come to bite you in the ass later. Looking carefully at the ‘movement of hiding’ is an opportunity to become more AWARE, for the who that is looking becomes a greater subject to an object that was previous subject (ala Keagan). That very act of looking requires objectivity.  2^nd tier is about BEING, not about DOING, for doing is effortless, in natural accord with Nature when being is prioritized. Doing is no longer done out of unexamined anxiety, childish/dissociative needs, self-image and ego identifications. Doing, in this context, perpetuates the wheel of karma, the serpent chasing its tail saying “do, do, do!” [behind-the-scenes: to not SEE, SEE, SEE!].  Can EYE SEE? Exterior behaviors distracting interior pathologies (Krishnamuriti-Wilber). slamming against the walls of a linear dimension (duality) and embedded holographic proclivity (self-destructive patterns). I cannot know what to do until I become self-aware and can see the WHOLE and this takes time, dedication and commitment. I create more bad than good when I create in blindness; when I become self-aware there is no I create for "I am the world and the world is me". This makes sense intuitively, but it takes a moment outside of time to comprehend (peak state) and the messy process of growth to live outside of “psychological time” as an acquired stage. Authentic nondual perspective transcends and includes genealogy.

It is difficult for me to discuss anything outside of consciousness, such as "global" concepts and mental abstractions, when I attend groups where the average mode is green. And prior to transformation, I said too much not really saying anything at all. I really can’t say a whole lot in the midst of “cutting edge” speak where everyone supposedly knows a lot about everything and in the midst of looking within, which is totally blowing my mind away, quite literally in fact. I see a lot of bright colors and whimsical dreams, but on some level it is meaningless to me, because I am only interested in what I can directly experience and what I can directly experience I can talk about in the we-space (mutual resonating signifieds), otherwise where is the Good? I have to pay close attention to the spreading of viruses in the LL. I have outgrown being a social parasite, but what I have transcended is still within and included. I want to be a human-being in communion with other human-beings more than a fragment of human feeding of off fragment off of another human. Direct experience is what I know, NOT what I claim to know; otherwise knowledge is not grounded in the UL. So, while I speak less, I grow more. I know so little. Like Tao Lzu said, "I am stupid and dull." (I have also learned such from Krishnamurti and my Beloved.) I ask myself, How would a child use this model, before the stain of ego. For the innonence of spirit is required, to LOOK when guilty ego says DON'T LOOK. This is only after going through "the hell of self-knowledge" that Kant once talked about, for innocence is not a backwards journey.

It takes a lot of authenticity to make this move and I have been blessed by my supporting life conditions (including being around the higher consciousness of my Beloved), I literally cry to life in gratitude. Many people become so entrenched in their identifications and mental constructs  that all of LIFE’S energy is about supporting this and sustaining that (I call it the this-that prison), essentially the lie of separation, rationalizing stuckness. I know because I did. This pattern soon becomes a mold, crystallizing over time (the sedimentation of time-bound constructs [that escape reality]). There is no freedom in this, yet there is freedom in seeing it. To make a vertical advancement, the entire structure disintegrates and this involves a lot of instability and chaos before a higher order can be established, the crisis before the dawn, the Dark Night before the light. It is much easier to remain embedded and speak integral rhetoric, lip service always the short cut, yet there is only one person we ever cheat.

Many people do not have the life conditions to support growth from 1^st to 2^nd tier, which is why we must meet people where they are at, acknowledging the exterior limitations (external pressures and demands from the environment) for interior growth (staying true to what we learn with SD; prioritizing the health of the spiral and NOT merely the height of the spiral). When we do not acknowledge this we are “forcing” people to change unrealistically and irresponsibly, lost in an idealistic utopia where consciousness is flat, a representation of our consciousness (narcissism) and the collective is a homogenous solution. And although green talks a lot about “growth/change” it does not understand subjectively the principles behind transformation, for if it would not try to “sell it” and “force it” or “preach it,” with such arrogance. Green, confined to a 1st tier stance, cannot be sensitive to what is required in all quadrants to nurture subjective death (the living 2-p), as that sensitivity may not support 1-p attachments. Green does not see the responsibility in it, for if it did it would not be so mindless about promoting growth as an “end all solution” biased towards the positive (growth=good exclusivism/partial truth), without ability to see the alpha and omega (Big Picture). When a baby is born, the mother feels a lot of physical pain and there is a lot of blood, we need a doctor, a healthy mother, there are requirements for a healthy birth; can we see rebirth and the miracle of life with balanced perspective (good and bad and transcendence of both).

Life has to be able to support the chaos/disorder that structural change breeds in all quadrants, if it does not “forcing” someone to grow can do more damage than good stemmed from more agenda then actual goodness. Agenda does not have its sight on the whole. And of course, back to the beginning forcing someone to grow/change outside the self is a distraction from the self, anyhow; it is normally based on the addictive seeking nature and self-worth issues of Boomeritis that is plagued with selfishness (when I help you “grow” [when I am not sure what that is] I get to feel AMAZING and then we get to be AMAZING [isn't that the point of life, LOL!]). Boomeritis can NOT admit its own selfishness in the midst of service (authenticity?) and it rarely checks (with 2-p & 3-p feedback loops) if in ACTUALITY growth has occurred in any grounded and stable way without its 1-p biases (essentially because it doesn’t understand what vertical growth is until 2^nd tier; growth is the mere addition of content/translation [I just learned a new word superceeds I just understood an old word more deeply]). With the limitations of its structure it cannot discern authentic growth in REALITY; it merely uses the concept to enhance self-image. This is how Boomeritis has manifested within me. How about you? Can we see the disease with compassion while also not feeding it? And every time you see it, you see what is within you.

When the emphasis is on being, a lot of shit comes up…childhood/family issues, regressive pathologies, pre-cognitive disabilities, stage stuckness, kinks of consciousness, polarized pathologies, shadow, etc. as you cannot hide in the exterior world anymore, with exterior behaviors. We have to understand this all within us individually and we must dive into our own territory before we can start preaching to the choir. And I can see some of the self-contraction/performative contradiction in what I am saying almost immediately, to some extent I am “preaching to the (imaginary) choir” in this blog. Call it 2^nd tier insights with a 1^{st tier} center! Because that is what is going on (differentiate cognitive from self-line). ;-) hehe. I learned the hard way, when you identify yourself as “integral” you gotta a bitch slap waiting for ya...and my bitch slap literally killed me! Let’s be authentic; if we can never accept that we are 1st tier (and the statics back this up: only 1% of the population is there unless we believe we are the exception/anomaly (which is ususally a form of narcissism), LOL!) then we have ABSOLUTELY no chance to evolve! GAME OVER. I speak with love, how far does a theory of everything go? Just to the edge of the ego? Ken Wilber is quite smart...he appeals to ego on some level (come and be a turquoise thinker, the height of humanity) and then...if you go deep enough that very ego that lead you to his work must come undone.

Until we can acknowledge and own our 1^st tier impulses in the interior and balance them appropriately to our life conditions as INDIVIDUALS, not DOING but BEING the GOOD, TRUE, and BEAUTIFUL can we stop feeding all the 1^st tier wars in the world manifested in collective and exterior. SOCIETY IS BUILT ON THE INDIVIDUAL, Krishnamurti reminds us. The emphasis is on the individual and the radical transformation of the individual. When we observe a war outside, we must be willing to reflect the origin of that war inside first before we can come up with any type of holistic/global solutions (I mean global in the turquiose sense, not the green; SD warns us that green hijacks turquoise rhetoric in its "global" speak).

But it is quite interesting when you look. 1^st tier is NOT about solutions, even though it speaks of solutions. When one deeply looks one can see that 1^st tier is interested in selling its perspective as the best and biggest perspective and it is quite smug about that, it will not look at a bigger perspective, because that means death, little perspective must die within bigger perspective. If the “solution” doesn’t support its perspective then it is automatically excluded for the motive is to validate perspective and NOT BE free from it in order to be the good, the true, and the beautiful. I am learning to not give my peak state yellow solutions when they are not wanted, and this is specifically when 1st impulses hijack 2nd tier (I am like, I have a 2nd tier answer, hello! Listen to me (ego/savior complex-1st tier). Quite funny indeed.

From content-bound awareness to structural awareness is the quantum leap, that Clare Graves calls the MOMENTOUS LEAP between tiers.

1^st tier perspectives posing as 2^nd tier perspectives are the high-quality virusES of the INTEGRAL AGE. WELCOME TO HUMANITY AND FREE WILL! It's a jungle out there! Ooops, I mean in HERE ;-)

The QUESTION BECOMES: ARE WE "CREATING" MORE FRAGMENTATION OR BEING MORE INTEGRAL? Keep your EYES open. When you see it, it is within you. The integral perspective can SEE BOTH when arises. 

Some people confuse looking within as self-involvement/self-absorption. The former requires objectivity/subjective death and the latter is mere embedded subjectivity/subjective attachment. We must keep our eyes on both for narcissism can be rationalized as "looking within.".....hmmmmm. My eyes see that all in HERE.

Jana [Integirl]