tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13617569.post115055594747506963..comments2024-03-27T02:13:58.088-07:00Comments on Integral Options Cafe: Applied Integral Spiritualitywilliam harrymanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06981478282688361274noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13617569.post-1150737626833687512006-06-19T10:20:00.000-07:002006-06-19T10:20:00.000-07:00Thanks for the link to the pdf, Bill. I read thro...Thanks for the link to the pdf, Bill. I read through the appendix, as you suggested, then your post. Very interesting ideas, although I see one possible issue that maybe is covered in more depth in a different work. <BR/><BR/>On page 106, Wilber writes, "Enlightenment is supposed to mean something like being one with everything, but if everything is evolving, and I get enlightened today, then won't my enlightenment by partial tomorrow?" This basic idea is continued on page 107, "The manifest world of Form is evolving and becoming more complex—it is becoming Fuller and Fuller over time ... and therefore whatever enlightenment I may attain today is not going to be as FULL as...I might attain in a decade."<BR/><BR/>Two things. First, I don't see how, even if everything is evolving, that enlightenment wouldn't be complete. Because to be one with everything is to be one with the process of evolution itself, which would therefore grant one an enlightened understanding of future evolved lifeforms. Thus, enlightenment would not be partial.<BR/><BR/>More importantly, however, is the part where Wilber says that Form is becoming more complex. This is soundly refuted from the biological perspective by Stephen Jay Gould in the book <I>Full House</I> (which is a great read; I'd highly recommend it). Gould shows that life is NOT becoming more complex. He does not deny that additional complexity has evolved (i.e. we have evolved from the single cell creatures that lived way back in the day). But considering all sentient beings, he shows that (a) Humans are NOT the pinnacle of creation, and (b) complexity of beings as a whole is not increasing. I'd like to know how Wilber tackles this issue, and how it affects his theories.<BR/>Thanks for posting!Mikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17934386917419130389noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13617569.post-1150564158267909092006-06-17T10:09:00.000-07:002006-06-17T10:09:00.000-07:00Sean,I agree that this seems to contradict what Wi...Sean,<BR/><BR/>I agree that this seems to contradict what Wilber has said in the past. <BR/><BR/>But, I also think Wilber is arguing less that the intellectual line needs to be higher and more that cultural stuff can keep one rooted in a specific stage. For example, a nondual experience for a fundamentalist Christian might simply cement his/her worldview and keep that person rooted in the stage currently lit up. <BR/><BR/>I think we might have to wait for the new book to see what he really believes. When he is talking with Cohen he has a tendency to agree with Cohen in ways that don't always adhere to his books and papers.<BR/><BR/>Peace,<BR/>Billwilliam harrymanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06981478282688361274noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13617569.post-1150561659387021192006-06-17T09:27:00.000-07:002006-06-17T09:27:00.000-07:00Last night I read the first part of The Guru and t...Last night I read the first part of <I>The Guru and the Pandit: Dialogue XIII</I> in the recent What Is Enlightenment issue and ran across this curious interchange on pages 76 and 77:<BR/><BR/><I>Wilber: ...The states are wonderful and we applaud those; they are part of horizontal enlightenment. But the vertical component is not as highly advanced as it could be.<BR/><BR/>Cohen: it seems that if state experiences don't, at least to some degree, compel one to begin to move toward higher stages, actually those experiences could even embed one more deeply in the stage that one is already at.<BR/><BR/>Wilber: Yes. And that depends largely on what you culture is telling you...</I><BR/><BR/>I suppose this means that higher state experences can lead to higher stage experiences only if the cognitive development line has advanced higher than the spiritual line. Otherwise, that higher state experience may retard development.<BR/><BR/>My point is that Wilber seems to agree with your assessment that higher states are necessary, and taken together with constantly evolving enlightenment, perhaps higher state experences ultimately hinder growth.<BR/><BR/>I'm interpretting mixed messages from Wilber on this, since he does, as you point out, advocate for higher state experiences to pull you up to the next stage. Which is it, I wonder? What am I missing?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com