A somewhat sarcastic review of "Tangled Phone Lines: Why Richard Dawkins Hung Up on Ken Wilber", originally posted at Amazon.
This is a short article by David Christopher Lane,
taken out of context from a longer debate at the website “Integral World”. It's
not clear why it has been published as a separate Kindle pamphlet. Lane used to
believe that mysticism could be studied in a manner that was both scientific
and pro-mystical. He based this insight on several early books by Ken Wilber, a
spiritual writer and teacher who later developed his own system, known as
Integral Theory. Today, Lane is a vociferous critic of Wilber and the Integral
movement from a standpoint which sounds materialist and “scientist”.
While I don't support Wilber (who used to have connections to cult leaders Franklin Jones and Andrew Cohen), I must say that Lane's reductionism is almost comic. He no longer believes that mystics and scientists will ever see eye to eye, at one point stating concerning a Hindu practice known as Surat Shabd Yoga: “But what happens if in studying this phenomenon from a neurological point of view the Sant Mat mystic discovers that such `sacred' music is tinnitus, which may be caused by ear wax buildup, or nasal allergies, or lower levels of serotonin, or any host of physically related ailments. Does this sort of information change the numinous encounter or its interpretation? Are religious movements, predicated on shabd yoga practice, such as Radhasoami, the Divine Light Mission, Eckankar, Quan Yin, MSIA, etc., going to accept such a reductionistic explanation of what erstwhile was regarded as a direct pathway to God-Realization? I think not. Why? Because the very basis of the practice is centered on the notion that it is a spiritual endeavor and not merely a cranial one.” That's reductionism for you, right there. Mystical experiences are tinnitus or created by the build up of ear wax? I'll remember that next time Kal Niranjan speaks to me, LOL. Get behind me, ear wax!
Lane then wonders what Richard Dawkins would make of a certain statement by Ken Wilber. The Wilber quote is too long to be reproduced here in its entirety, but here's a sample: “The residue of this involutionary outpouring are various involutionary givens (or items that are given or deposited by involution, items that therefore pre-existed the big Bang and thus are already operating from the moment of the Big Bang forward), the most general of which is the great morphic field of evolutionary potential, a gentle gradient of persuasion pulling all manifest holons back to their ever-present Ground as Spirit--a Kosmic field of Agape, gently pulling evolution into greater and greater consciousness, embrace, inclusion. The universe, it appears, is tilted, and its entire contents are slowly sliding into the Source and Suchness of the entire display.” First, judging by context, Wilber is taking a position similar to that of Alfred North Whitehead, hardly an intellectual lightweight. More importantly, though, why *should* we care if Dawkins disagrees with Whitehead or doesn't understand Wilberite terms such as “Kosmic field of Agape” or “Suchness”? Since when is Dawkins a font of wisdom concerning mysticism or ontology?
I don't mind David C Lane bashing sects and cults (I found his articles on the subject interesting), nor do I mind him explaining inclusive fitness or evo-devo to the California New Age crowd, but I somehow feel that he threw out the baby with the bathwater (or was it the Sugmad with the goo) when he embraced a strictly reductionist reading of that batch of tangled neurons known as “Charles Robert Darwin”…
Live long and prosper.
While I don't support Wilber (who used to have connections to cult leaders Franklin Jones and Andrew Cohen), I must say that Lane's reductionism is almost comic. He no longer believes that mystics and scientists will ever see eye to eye, at one point stating concerning a Hindu practice known as Surat Shabd Yoga: “But what happens if in studying this phenomenon from a neurological point of view the Sant Mat mystic discovers that such `sacred' music is tinnitus, which may be caused by ear wax buildup, or nasal allergies, or lower levels of serotonin, or any host of physically related ailments. Does this sort of information change the numinous encounter or its interpretation? Are religious movements, predicated on shabd yoga practice, such as Radhasoami, the Divine Light Mission, Eckankar, Quan Yin, MSIA, etc., going to accept such a reductionistic explanation of what erstwhile was regarded as a direct pathway to God-Realization? I think not. Why? Because the very basis of the practice is centered on the notion that it is a spiritual endeavor and not merely a cranial one.” That's reductionism for you, right there. Mystical experiences are tinnitus or created by the build up of ear wax? I'll remember that next time Kal Niranjan speaks to me, LOL. Get behind me, ear wax!
Lane then wonders what Richard Dawkins would make of a certain statement by Ken Wilber. The Wilber quote is too long to be reproduced here in its entirety, but here's a sample: “The residue of this involutionary outpouring are various involutionary givens (or items that are given or deposited by involution, items that therefore pre-existed the big Bang and thus are already operating from the moment of the Big Bang forward), the most general of which is the great morphic field of evolutionary potential, a gentle gradient of persuasion pulling all manifest holons back to their ever-present Ground as Spirit--a Kosmic field of Agape, gently pulling evolution into greater and greater consciousness, embrace, inclusion. The universe, it appears, is tilted, and its entire contents are slowly sliding into the Source and Suchness of the entire display.” First, judging by context, Wilber is taking a position similar to that of Alfred North Whitehead, hardly an intellectual lightweight. More importantly, though, why *should* we care if Dawkins disagrees with Whitehead or doesn't understand Wilberite terms such as “Kosmic field of Agape” or “Suchness”? Since when is Dawkins a font of wisdom concerning mysticism or ontology?
I don't mind David C Lane bashing sects and cults (I found his articles on the subject interesting), nor do I mind him explaining inclusive fitness or evo-devo to the California New Age crowd, but I somehow feel that he threw out the baby with the bathwater (or was it the Sugmad with the goo) when he embraced a strictly reductionist reading of that batch of tangled neurons known as “Charles Robert Darwin”…
Live long and prosper.
No comments:
Post a Comment