Help
Sign In
1st perspective
September 2008 
A Critique of Stuart Davis' Critique
EYE SEE
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
| UPPER LEFT QUADRANT (UL); ZONE-# 1 & 2; I, 1st person-perspective (1-p) [SIGNIFIED*] | UPPER RIGHT QUADRANT (UR), ZONE-#5 & 6, IT, 3rd person perspective singular (3-p) [SIGNIFIER*] |
| LOWER LEFT QUADRANT (LL); ZONE-#3 & 4, WE, 2nd person perspective (2-p) [SEMANTICS*] | LOWER RIGHT QUADRANT (LR); ZONE-#7 & 8, ITS, 3rd person perspective plural (3-p) [SYNTAX*] |
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 (1st 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 1st tier would determine, in such an exercise, if this perspective is true OR untrue arriving at rigid conclusions (linear/digital), 2nd 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 1st person perspective OF 1st 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. 2nd 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!
Access: Public
boo-yah!
ain't had so much fun since i struggled through the first three chapters of ulysses!
dense but well-crafted technical writing.
really cool chops on the quadrant/zone details.
it didn't feel like too much of a critique of stuart's piece - sounds like you were zero-ing in on that sentence and how it can be interpreted/slanted depending on perspectives/stages….impressive and richly layered!
personally i am not a big fan of the ego/Self argument. i do hear stuart's point though and i think he makes it well…and you nuance it well.
i aggree that without deep UL practice and work the statement is meaningless and potentially becomes another empty egoic contruct.
but the secret is not BS because it is not about non-dual realization of the absolute Self. (i am less and less enamored of this a priori sacred cow these days anyway…:O)
the secret is BS because it is pre-rational magical thinking, infantile omnipotence, regressive fantasy dressed up as “higher truth” - and it is a complete evisceration of any kind of psychological or spiritual depth as well as a massive insult to the hard existential reality of suffering (think auschwitz, 911, the little boy whose arms were just blown off in iraq and the little girl who is being raped by her uncle in celveland right now…) and the socioeconomic realities that more than 90% of the world are dealing with…
as such i think it is a harmful piece of work that reflects something really superficial, materialistic and irresponsible in the current american spiritual zeitgeist.
also am not a big fan of the “all perspectives are relative” position - while it has a certain usefulness and validity my sense is that this idea often creates/perpetuates a great deal of confusion about ethics, extreme relativism, and avoidance of hard distinctions.
i would love to hear from you jana if there are any statements you see as NOT being relative?
this point is related to the idea i hear in wilber v savvy circles about 2nd tier being free of all either/or dualities or zero-sum games - which i think is a rather unrealistic (and ineffective) ideal - albeit very appealing in an abstract sense….
i hope this is not coming on to strong - i am thoroughly enjoying the peek i have had so far into your mind.
what say you, integirl?
~julian
Thanks Julian for engaging this dialogue and responding so thoroughly.
You basically summed up my point (better than I did, thank-u ;-) :
“i aggree that without deep UL practice and work the statement is meaningless and potentially becomes another empty egoic contruct.”
I agree with your thoughts about the Secret, and so well articulated.
I would like to point a theoretical distinction that might provide some space/openning within your consciousness. Personally I am only having glimpses of understanding this theoretical distinction, it not fully stable in my awareness, we do our best moment to moment to track the map-territory relationship, so i speak of the Integral Map (attempting to stay true to theory/correct me where I am wrong), not necessarily my territory in such a distinction, perhaps pointing out what I need to hear as well.
And that distinction is the momentous leap between pluralistic relativism (green-1st tier) and genealogical relativism (yellow-2nd tier). The former is flat, all relative perspectives are equal and the latter is multi-dimensional/vertical depth, some perspectives are greater/more evolved/deeper than others and there is good/bad in every perspective.
You have become aware of an important truth as you observe the amorality/lack of ethics, chaos, insanity and anarchy of extreme relativism (unhealthy green). BTW, your writings articulate this brilliantly. You are correct that we must be aware of this as differentiating between unhealthy green from healthy green is essential for health of the spiral. I also suspect friction within you of push-pull/reject-accept in regards to relativism and this dissonance may be part of that momentous cognitive leap between tiers, which is very natural, the flickering motion before an increased holistic order, perhaps.
You are so keenly aware with such mental acuity, might I add, of pathological pluralistic relativism that I might gently caution that the temptation here could be increasing the potentially/likeliness of excluding relativism from your perspective entirely in reaction to pathological relativism, unconsciously perhaps (merely a question for self-inquiry; NOT an assertion, here). And the particular points in time when relativism is excluded could be the very hiding places of the shadow, as it creeps in with subjective blindness and uses perspective to its advantage (this true for all of us). The ego will find convenient moments to exclude truths for its own supremacy (to proclaim “i am right, my truth absolute!”), which is why we need to have a careful eye on the ego's games, for in one sense they never go away! The games get more subtle, NOT less as we travel upwards, in fact. I only point this out because I have done this (personal experience combinded with theory). when I see a deeper truth my ego is tempted to become attached and identified to it (i,e, 1st tier hijacking 2nd tier rhetoric) and the most easiest way to rationalize this is to reject RELATIVIZING that truth (yet any truth is always partial, a truth in one moment, a truth passed through UL/LL filters). Can you see this trap?
We must be clear about the 2-truth doctrine: THE TRUTH is the Absolute, nondual and cannot be spoken of but directly experienced (WHAT IS). Any truth that can be spoken of has a Kosmic Address and is RELATIVE [UL psychograph, LL cultural contextual embeddedness (myth of the given) etc.]. And every truth (that can be spoken) exists simultaneously with other truths.
As far as being “free from all either/or dualities”, I can see both the truth and the lie so understand your criticism. As a mental thought it is a contradictory statement, still caught in duality, as this thought does NOT promote awareness of its opposite thought; awareness being what transcends thought (in other words “freedom” is not found within thought/mind)! So I find this rather cute, and immediately see the potential destruction as it creates a universe-sized blindspot, if you will! ;-) [Imagine the danger of identifying to such a statement! you could totally spin the fuck out! ] It sounds like as unrealistic a “goal (?) ” as “being free” from the ego. Once you think you are free, you have pretty much fucked yourself over by attaching to a concept (that has transcended all concepts, wtf?), this absurdity brings up serious red flags, thus being blind to the moments in time where the opposite may be more true (the moments when self/others is attached to duality and the appropriate times it may be necessary). a mental construct prioritized over awareness or confused as awareness is obviously the danger of these integral circles these days, which brings us back to the beginning, what my critique was all about. the higher you go the more places to spin out on, and this could be a devastating turn for spiritual development….I can see the dark spirits that would love to hijack a human vessel who actually believed he was free from dualitistic thinking!! YIKES! I am glad you see it! keep it REAL
I have enjoyed this meaningful exchange, Julian! Sorry so long, it was necessary to cover the points.
.
in communion,
Integirl
rock it out you intricate and astute thinker and expresser….. is that a word?
i don't feel any danger of not giving relativism it's due.
it is extremely important and powerful to recognize the relativity of socially contructed, psychologically conditoned, stage-limited perceptions of truth.
however i ask again - are there any statements that you would see as not being relative? give me one and let's start from there…
personally (like you i am sure) i have read just about every page senor wilber has writtenand i find the latest instalment a bit lacking.
it's an (as always) ambitious piece of work, but i think it missteps in some important ways:
1) it can't decide wether it is an overview for beginners written in simple direct language with jargon carefully introduced and defined - or a bust it out barnstormer of brand new commplex additions to integral theory for advanced nerds like us…
2) the myth of the given and integral methodological plularlism (while gorgeous and relevant) bits are written in a way that makes them easy to misinterpret and prone to feeling very validating of both healthy and unhealthy green perceptions as somehow belonging to second tier perspectives…
3) the integral calculus and 8 zone stuff will only give most readers a headache and provide ammo for endless hours of beautifully accurate yet cloistered analysis of just about everything (as you demonstrated so capably with your analysis of stuart's sentence…)
so what is not relative?
well i think we have to start with deconstructing that word and it's usage and talk about where it does and doesn't apply and what the shadow is with regard to misuse in either direction.
also the whole ego-schtick doesn't really resonate for me anymore, i think it's a bit of red herring.
let's start by coming up with a truth that is not relative and does not require egoic reactivity to stand up for…
i think the crux of this for me may turn on the difference between really seeing that each person's perspective is valid from where they stand (psychograph and quadrant analysis etc) but that certain truths are still more adequate to the reality of the kosmos - which is actually discoverable via the three strands in all three domains and presents/reveals itself more and more completely and undeniably the more one's development progresses….
the assertion that protons don't exist prior to their being discovered/observed is both profoundly true and decidedly not true and unfortunately as wilber acknowledges is easily misunderstood as badly skewed quantum fiddlesticks solopsism…
*all people deserve human rights* now i don't care if those human rights are not visible to tribesmen in ethiopia who believe they have to circumcise teenage girls and murder or gang rape them if they are acccused of a sexual indiscretion, it's ok to say that this is a broach of human rights and unacceptable, withhout any qualifiers. it's another thing altogether to figure out what we can do (if anything) about it - another thing too to attempt to approach that culture with an effective and humane startegy - but i am sick of the green integral taboo against simply acknowledging that this is an atrocity.
it's like when steve pavlina came out hours after the va tech incident and said that it was not a tragedy and that he could extract personal numerological significance from it etc as if there was some message from the universe in it for him, and some higher purpose to those 33 kids being executed senselessly - and many if not most integralites on zaadz AGREED or defended his position and attacked myslef, stuart and wilber for pointing out the magenta/twisted green new age insanity of what he was saying - i think because of this rampant confusion about what healthy relativism looks like…..
this is a serious problem.
so a lot to talk about there - and in fact i would look forward to doing a really friendly and intense z-bate with you in september if you are up for it!
Dear Julian,
I truly love and feel inspired by this dialogical MUSE.
“are there any statements that aren’t relative”
My answer/question is: in the RELATIVE (Manifest) there are only relative truths, logical right? In The ABSOLUTE there is the TRUTH (direct experience-apprehension/the space-void that holds the statement/the paper the metamodel is written on/the wordless, etc.), translogical, correct? Trying to find an absolute truth in the Relative is a dead end.
“Coming up with a truth that isn’t relative” is exactly what humanity have been doing the last 2000 years! Hence, we have the Crusades, religion, holy wars and all these false gurus that claim to speak “the truth”. It is a bloody mess. So I caution you, my friend, pay close attention to history and its lessons.
Remember: THINKING OCCURS IN THE RATIONAL/ SEEING OCCURS IN THE TRANSRATIONAL.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts about IS. I embrace your perspective and also disagree… cheers to our unique UL psychographs!
If I could comment on point 3) I understand why you feel the headache, really I do. My two cents: people normally want to USE integral rhetoric before true UNDERSTANDING and this just makes things complicated and complex (it’s usually the ego’s fault, LOL!…it wants to know everything). This is the problem of using signifier/s with NO signified/s, as elaborated in the critique. The funny part is that Wilber’s language is not complicated and complex but on the contrary very straightforward and CLEAR.
To be direct and straightforward, communicating the most meaning and depth we are capable of, we must remember Occam’s Razor (that Wilber points out many a time): Be as SIMPLE as possible BUT NO simpler…for then you travel into reductionism land! Over-simplifying leads to distortion, as well as it’s opposite.
Let me perform a SIMPLE exercise about the Critique of Stuart Davis’s Critique (and BTW this is all completely spontaneous/emergent/novel, so thank-you for the inspiration Julian!)
There is practical application here with an integral analysis on a very profound level:
Here are the “extracted” truths derived from the IMP test and this is just a start.
#1: Never ASSUME that a person who claims to KNOW the difference between ego and Self REALLY knows.
#2: Never PROJECT that your own differentiation is the same for others (green tends to project it's qualities onto others).
#3: Never ASSERT that you have differentiated the ego from Self until you have checked within.
#4: Never ASSUME that a group of people can differentiate between ego and Self (the error of the Super-I). It's an individual thang!
ETC.
We can go even more SIMPLE and leave out all the content:
Don’t ASSUME, PROJECT, ASSERT if you want to discover deeper TRUTHS (not absolute truths but deeper relative truths: genealogical relativism.
Eliot has been waiting for me to understand this for a year now. And quite interesting I think I finally get it as this just emerged from my consciousness without him! Well, I can’t say for sure….let’s see what tomorrow brings, those misleading peak states!
For ASSUMING, PROJECTING, and ASSERTING is the SLOP of the mind (1st tier tends to be quite impulsive and draws conclusions way too quickly: limbic hijacking prefrontal cortex). And you so eloquently discuss this in your writings: Critical thinking, discernment and clarity are very IMPORTANT. You also emphasis this here: “certain truths are still more adequate to the reality of the kosmos-which is actually discoverable via the three stands in all three domains and presents/reveals itself more and more completely and undeniably the more one’s development progresses…..” Excellent, ROCK ON! That is what we just did, essentially. Surprisingly, there can be practical value here.
Now we can take these Truths into the LL for the Good (part of the strand!).
Can you see that failing to live by these truths in relation to others can cause destructive behavior as assuming, asserting, and projecting can be based on mere lies? Acting on mental distortion/fantansy rarely manifests the GOOD, if we look closely enough, and you often write about this yourself thankfully. For example, if I thought everyone in the integral community could differentiate ego and Self, I would be in BIG trouble.
Now, it is important to not get attached or identified to these truths because these truths will no longer BE BEAUTIFUL. These truths are beautiful to live by but will become prisons of Samsara if we lose the balance of humility/humanity/ascending/descending currents. Self-righteousness and stain of ego will attempt to come in to have its piece when a truth emerges, and this will turn BEAUTY into NARCISSISM and VANITY. Eliot taught me how men often fall for the “vanity of principle” a lot…worth a google search ;-)
Now we have the Good, True, and Beautiful, and yet we must be flexible to adapt to the next moment free from attachment to allow for other contexts.
Simple and Deep. I hope your headache is relived….there is potential here Julian! and we are on that very edge ;-)
Now, I must turn to the integral feminine (which I believe to be an oxymoron, and yet will play with the word). First of all, I totally understand your feelings about the horrible horrible insident.
To me, the appropriate response to the VA massacre is compassion, awareness, presence, support/assistance, and holding the space for pain and anger. The inappropriate response is to rationalize what happened with New Age psychobabble! YOU ARE TOTALLY CORRECT about that!
I have to play fair though, transcending the temptation to bias in a friend’s favor and here is where my integral feminine comes in, please take this as deep care for it is truly meant to be. I also don't believe it is entirely appropriate to CONDEMN those who rationalize events with their foo foo fairy dust. I sense that it could be a distraction from the issue, a potential red herring. And I say this with feminine love, as who doesn't want to be distracted from such a horrible tragedy? However, to be in a state of CONDEMNATION is not a fun place to be in, I have lived there for many months….so I fully feel your pain and turmoil and am trying to throw you a rope in the 'condemnation pit' to pull you out. I too used to be very very mad at New Age blindness/bypass/and utter denial that I would turn RED in the face every time I came in contact with that SHIT so my Zone#1 is resonating with your Zone#1, which is why I feel qualified to have this opinion.
Here is why I say this: When we condemn others we cannot create the Good, even if our truth is higher/deeper we are actually giving another person our power and energy (you are allowing Palvina to have control over you!!) . If you cannot see this ask yourself: has your “crusade” created the Good (remember our history lesson earlier)? Deeply ask. Have you convinced Paliva, or more universally: can you convince an idiot to be smarter?
This world needs a lot of compassion, including compassion for Pavlina because when tragedy strikes everyone goes koo koo and mentally ill in trying to deal with the pain and we need to be aware of all the defense mechanisms playing out insanity, including contraction to irrational myths and magical lies. Pavlina is in a New Age HELL, how could you possibly be a healthy human to think what he thinks. And you may be in a hell of trying to convince people you are right, even if on some level you are as I believe (you mention about being ill-received by the community). I have compassion for you Julian.
If I may tell a story to show you that I have compassion. I once went to a retreat and discovered it was very New Age. A horrific tragedy was mentioned as news and the New Age teacher said, “well the good can only exist with evil.” I remember being so pissed off at the teacher I made a disgusted look that she saw and went even more loopy. I thought she was so evil for saying such a thing to excuse this tragedy with her so-called wisdom.
I was in immense pain inside and I even cried hard, because I felt like she was using the sacred (spirituality) to rationalize horrible events. Eliot helped me to see my shadow in the emotional charge. And the reason why I was so pissed is because I used to be into the New Age and was going through a transformation that made me aware of the lies. I hated that in her that I hated inside myself. I use to be stupid like Palvina.
What I learned is the there is truth in this statement: good can only exist with evil. But there are appropriate contexts and times when this truth has functional fit. It is not appropriate to use this truth to be blind to the evils of the world. There is context and content and only till a truly integral consciousness emerges can one see the difference.
With that said…here is the key with healthy relativity: The ability to see all perspectives, including Pavlina’s and NOT necessarily agreeing with them, going along with them etc… We have to understand the world before we can change it and Wilber talks about that in his blog. For an extreme example: The detectives who hunt down serial killers have to be able to take the serial killer’s perspective in order to guess the next move, of course they don’t agree with the serial killers but they have to understand them if they are to catch these horrible monsters.
The more we can get into other people’s heads the more we can discover solutions for the world as we come closer to realizing that the world is WITHIN US. 2nd perspective is an important task for an integral spirituality. We must also remember that we cannot change subjective perspectives with any type of crusade. Palvina may not be capable of higher intelligence due to brain plasticity, psychological development, family/cultural influence etc. My advice: Don't pay attention to him and his idiosy…focus on your growth. Feeding the quacks of the world gives them energy to continue their childish displays.
Just my thoughts and I hope they are received as care, whether you can see what I mean or not. This is my first attempt at applying the integral feminine so I hope I didn't fuck it up ;-)
This has been truly a pleasure to share a cyber-exchange with a new cyber-pal in this radical new world…
I'm down for z-bate in the fall. Hell yeah!
Jana
re: new age/compassion etc…
i agree with one clarification - i do not feel it is condemnatory to point out that integral HAS to differentiate itself from the new age.
i am less outraged with pavlina (he's a dime a dozen) it was more that so muchh of the integral community couldn't see the new age narcissism for what it was - and as you know being able to accurately name somsething for what it is and extrapolate on what is problematic about that is not neccesarily “condemnation”.
when i point out the suffering and confusion caused by the failure to see the new age defense for what it is - when i point out the prevalence of new age thinking in “integral” circles i am not condemning anyone - i am making a distinction that i think needs to be made.
i think that frustration is actually the healthy response to such confusion - and that making the distinction between spiritual insight and kitschy nonsense is a responsibility for those who can tell the difference.
now as to your question - can one convince an idiot to be smarter? of course not - but can one utilize a tool like zaadz to reach thousands of people and raise issues that some small percentage might be ready to think about and so put a new meme out into the conversation? that answer would be yes and it is what i am doing - and i don't really care if i change anyones mind who i am actually debating with - thousands of other eyes are potentially reading and a data base of archived discussions is being created that add depth, critical thinking and healthy distinction making to a community that appears to generally eschew these things….. that makes my heart and mind do a little dance. :O)
i would pose a question back at you - why the fear of making a strong argument against something completely inane? - as if this spiritually incorrect - i actually find that position more arrogant than just coming out and debating the point in no uncertain terms - do you get what i mean?
when i wrote my original scathing critique of the secret all the integral-heads said - oh but what about the partial truths and oh why offend the people for whom this has value - this is both incorrect (there are no partial truths in this belief system) and condescending - people actually deserve to be told when they are embracing something that will cause them suffering - to my delight wilber agreed….
i am wary of a lot of the shorthand jargon and ideology of integral and how it is being slanted by the ubiquity of green relativism, new age fluffiness and faux non-dual esoterica…..
BTW what do you think about the suggestion that the statement 'trying to find an absolute truth in the relative realm is a dead end” is a performative contradiction?
what do you think about me suggesting that all this talk about relative and absolute may well be a red herring and somewhat meaningless because it is invoking what is beyond words (an a priori metaphysical contruct) to try and back up an assertion being made with words…… for me this is the ultimate dead end and possibly a misuse of that duality…..
non-relative truth: raping a child is morally indefensible. that's an easy one right?
non-relative truth: 2 +2 = 4 yeah?
non-relative truth: all humans are mortal, socrates is human, therefore socrates is mortal.
non-relative truth: everything that is born will die.
non-relative truth: heroin is addictive.
“Coming up with a truth that isn’t relative” is exactly what humanity have been doing the last 2000 years! Hence, we have the Crusades, religion, holy wars and all these false gurus that claim to speak “the truth”. It is a bloody mess. So I caution you, my friend, pay close attention to history and its lessons.
Remember: THINKING OCCURS IN THE RATIONAL/ SEEING OCCURS IN THE TRANSRATIONAL
hmmm - well i disagree - humanity has been coming up with metaphysical beliefs to hide behind for fear of facing existential reality - but i would hardly take a single one of the truth claims you are refering to as even being relatively true - let alone absolutely…
Remember? ehem….. :O) condescension alert.again the whole thinking/seeing, rational/transrational duality seems like fancy in-group idealogical footwork to me - and it gets invoked with some kind of authority as being from the book of wilber chapter and verse blah blah - i don't buy it anymore…. and that is after years hanging with adveitins and getting all strung out on non-duality and the circular headtrips that generally go along with it… satori is satori and the more adequate truths of the world we actually live in still deserve to be discovered.
also, again: the ego/Self stuff also just doesnt ring true or useful to me these days…. i think the defintions of those terms and the shorthand of what they stand for are all cockamamie….especially in the absence of serious meditation practice - which a tiny percentage of people throwing these terms around are actually engaged in! not to mention the problem of the different ways the word ego is used depending on the school of psychological or spiritual thought you are coming from….i am also enjoying jana - thank you!
Thanks Julian, for sharing your perspective and taking the time to do so as we both love to get into this stuff passionately, thoroughly and deeply. I will be contemplating what you have written as this has inspired me. Thanks for taking my comments as friendly as they were meant to be ;-) Now, I need to spend some time on your blogs for some more exploration!
Love,
Jana