Where´s Alan Kazlev at?

 

- Nah, the black stork from Poland couldn´t make it,
so the Brotherhood decided to use me
as their symbol instead! What´s your prob, dude?
Never seen a black swan before???

I just realized that I never linked to this. It´s M Alan Kazlev´s classical critique of Ken Wilber, published at Frank Visser´s website Integral World. It´s undated (as far as I can see), but no footnote is more recent than 2006 (again, as far as I can see). The bizarre "Wyatt Earp" fracas, which took place that year, is treated as a recent event. Kazlev could perhaps best be described as an independent esotericist. At least at the time, he saw himself as a follower of Sri Aurobindo and The Mother (Mirra Alfassa). 

I´m not sure if anyone cares about Ken Wilber anymore, but since Visser´s site is still up, I suppose *somebody* must do so. Wilber´s peak popularity as a spiritual teacher seems to have been circa 1995-2010. I must have discovered him around the time Kazlev wrote his critical essays. 

Wilber´s "Integral Theory" is a grand and eclectic Theory of Everything. Since Wilber believes in cosmic evolution, there is a family likeness with Theosophy and New Age. Transpersonal psychology and Tibetan Buddhism are other sources of inspiration, the latter mediated through the controversial Franklin Jones (Adi Da Samraj). Wilber also claims an affinity with Aurobindo. Indeed, the term "Integral" seems to come from this particular Indian guru. Since Kazlev is/was a follower of Aurobindo, much of his criticism revolves around Wilber´s attempts to integrate (or should we say integralize?) Aurobindo´s teachings with Wilber´s own.

The essays are hard to read unless you have a working knowledge of the Integral and Wilberite scenes. The author argues that Aurobindo´s Integral Yoga is incompatible with Wilber´s Integral Theory. In many ways, the two approaches are exactly opposite. At least if you think Wilber´s goal is similar to Tibetan Buddhism or Advaita Vedanta (not the same thing - I know). But in 2017, Wilber actually wrote a book ("Trump and a Post-truth World") in which the stated end-goal of human-societal-cosmic evolution sounded pretty Aurobindonean! 

My impression of Integral Theory is that there have always been a tension between a this-worldly perspective (which sometimes sounds rather political) and a more other-worldly one in which liberation can only come by a radical break with samsara. Kazlev seems to assume that radical transcendence is the ultimate goal of Wilber´s teachings, either by merging with the Brahman (compare Advaita) or by "realizing" that samsara is really nirvana (compare Vajrayana or Zen). Both approaches imply that the world as we see it is an illusion. By contrast, Aurobindo had a realist metaphysic and strived for "supramentalization" and the divinization of matter (all matter in the universe), a perspective similar to the resurrection of the body and the new heavens/new earth of Christianity, but probably connected to tikkum olam and derived from Lurianic Kabbala by way of Max Théon. But I´m digressing...

One important point in Kazlev´s critique is that Wilber´s spiritual teachings are strangely "physicalist" in the sense that spiritual experiences seem to take place "in" matter rather than "above" or "beyond" it. It´s almost as if spirituality and mysticism (while objectively real) must nevertheless have a material correlate (compare Wilber´s holonic quadrant). To Kazlev, this is a compromise with modern scientism and materialism. Another important point is that Wilber´s de facto gurus Franklin Jones and Andrew Cohen can´t be truly enlightened beings. Rather, they are stuck in what Aurobindo called the Intermediate Zone and what other occultists would probably call the astral or lower astral. This explains both their often dangerous charisma, their half-truths and their abusive behavior. 

In hindsight, it´s also obvious (and kind of funny) that Kazlev himself often falls into the behavior he accuses Wilber of having. This despite the fact that Kazlev often charges Wilber and the Wilberians of projecting their short-comings onto others! Over-intellectualization? Check. Claiming that your critics simply can´t understand your teachings, since they are at a lower spiritual elevation? Check. Claiming that even abusive gurus might do *some* good? Check. It´s possible that Kazlev realized these shortcomings later. Thus, there is a later essay in which the author says that he no longer takes over-intellectualized metaphysical diagrams seriously and admits that he used to indulge in them himself! Bingo. 

Again: these essays are very niche, but if Ken Wilber and/or Aurobindo is the goal of your holonic striving, then I suppose they could be of some interest.

Towards a larger definition of Integral, part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Big Mind

 

So where Ken Wilber at? I haven´t read his most recent book "Finding Radical Wholeness", but the link below goes to a critical review by his constant shadow Frank Visser over at Integral World (yes, that site still exists). 

Make of the critique what ye wish, but I get the impression that Wilber is pretty much at the same place as, say, 20 years ago. The Tantric aspect is supposedly new, but hasn´t Wilber always been inspired by Tibetan Buddhism somehow?

And yes, Visser himself seems to be mostly stuck in the same place as always, too!    

The search for a "Big Wholeness"

Lost in evolutionary space

 

Credit: Kanzeon Zen Center

Some disjointed thoughts on Ken Wilber. 

Wilber claims to know both Bill Clinton and Karl Rowe. During the 1990´s, Clinton was widely considered to be "to the right" within the Democratic Party. He supported globalization, wanted to "end welfare as we know it" and talked about "family values". At the same time, Clinton had a somewhat unconventional public image for a politician. He played the sax on TV and recorded a self-ironic video of himself hitting a vending machine. It struck me that Slick Willy´s  cavorting with Wilber may have been part and parcel of this unconventional image. As for Rowe, he was of course George W Bush´s campaign general (as in election campaign).

Wilber´s Integral Theory was probably adapted to those portions of the privileged middle classes which were more conventional and "centrist". Perhaps they benefitted from both Clinton´s and Bush´s policies. It´s interesting to note that Wilber attacked New Age and political correctness, despite being (broadly) New Age himself and not particularly "based". Perhaps this was his way of signaling to the mainstream middle classes that he was just as respectable as they were. He consciously placed himself in the center. He also rejected conspiracy theories and apocalypticism.

Wilber´s Integral Theory is clearly inspired by Theosophy, but the societal optimism is much more explicit. Soon, globalization will propel a select few into a new form of consciousness, which represents the next stage in human and spiritual evolution. Regular liberals are better than the reactionary, nationalist and intolerant sectors of the population, but they still need to break free of certain shortcomings (such as fanatical identity politics) to reach the loftier global heights of integral understanding.

Now, why oh why would this be appealing to privileged middle class people in Amerika circa 2000, do you think? Because it probably rather faithfully reflects their self-understanding. 

Note also that Wilber supported "Bright Green" politics (really no Green politics) and that some of his erstwhile disciples are high on Bjorn Lomborg, climate change denial and such. The whole thing unravelled rather spectacularly with Trump´s election victory in 2016. Wilber´s response, "Trump and a Post-Truth World", was to berate the West Coast liberal elites for their arrogance - which had paved the way for Trump - but offering no particular alternative. I´m not sure what Wilber says today, but in the real world, not even Biden´s defeat of Trump solved America´s problems. We seem to be spiralling downwards on the evolutionary scheme...

So what´s the point of the above? No idea, except that it´s interesting that Wilber´s timeless theory of everything was so firmly situated in the *material* realities of turn-of-the-millennium United States. However, Wilber´s system also has an escape clause of sorts: the world-soul will never find what it´s looking for within evolutionary samsara anyway, necessitating a clean break into a purely spiritual dimension. 

Maybe it´s high time for that break. Or at least the preparations for it! 

  

Being and becoming

 

"Buddha at the Gas Pump" or BatGap is a YouTube channel featuring interviews with a long range of spiritual teachers and personalities, most of them broadly New Age or Buddhist. The show host Rick Archer is a former member of TM. In this episode (the latest), Archer interviews Carter Phipps, the former editor of the magazine "What is Enlightenment?". I think it´s fair to say that the group behind this publication, the Andrew Cohen Community, was a cult. For what it´s worth, even Cohen himself might agree with this today! As for Phipps, he comes across as a kind of more self-critical version of Ken Wilber. Some people probably do need to hear his message. 

The video is titled "Does Spiritual Illumination Create its own Intrinsic Blindness?" and it´s pretty clear that the answer given by both Phipps and Archer is "yes". TM´s guru Maharishi Mahesh Yogi believed that once you take care of the "spiritual root", the entire tree with all its branches will flourish, but alas, it didn´t turn out that way. Archer has met very devoted TM practitioners who were also criminals! And while neither contributor makes a direct reference to Adi Da Samraj and Andrew Cohen, I think the connection is obvious. Instead, Phipps criticizes Ramana Maharshi, or rather the adulation of him in certain circles - also a daring move, I imagine.

The main point of the presentation is that intense mystical states, while important and beautiful for the individual having them, simply aren´t enough to make you "the pinnacle of evolution" or a "fully enlightened being". Archer believes that such people are extremely rare, and those who exist must be both spiritual and highly ethical. Phipps doesn´t seem to believe in "full enlightenment" at all - at least not during our present phase of evolution! Indeed, the belief in such things could even *hinder* our evolutionary progress, which must take place in the material world, the world of culture and politics. 

One of Phipps´ central points is "Don´t turn the ground of being into the goal of becoming for you, for me or for us". An experience of the divine ground of being could become a starting point for further evolution, but emphatically isn´t the "goal". Of course, mystics often disagree. Mystical states have a "fragrance of finality" about them and lead to "the myth of the given" as the mystic takes his spiritual state super-literally. In reality, what often happens is a weakened self-structure. During mystical states, the "super-ego" is taken off line, so to speak, making people feel extremely free and self-confident. This can lead to disastrous results if the person scores high in narcissism. In fact, both people with too high self-confidence and those with low self-esteem might feel all-knowing due to such an experience (I think the funny example given in the interview refers to then-TM-member John Gray, who later authored books about gender roles). 

Another problem with these states is that they can function as a psychological response to trauma - the paranormal is "better" than the trauma-filled normal world. Indeed, even lightning strikes can cause paranormal states in humans!

But what should be done instead? To be honest, Phipps´ perspective could very easily be combined with atheism. It could become a kind of "spiritualized materialism", in which mystical visions are seen as just another interesting psychological method to improve our condition in the "real" world (the only one that matters anyway). After all, the evolution he is talking about seems to be societal, not "spiritual" (except maybe in a very broad sense). A Christian could argue that while "pagan" mysticism does indeed lead to super-egoism, Christian ditto (or perhaps Christian non-mysticism?) leads to humility. But even humility can become a narcissistic exercise, a kind of bizarre form of masochism. 

Another possible response would be to argue that the experiences described by Phipps come from the astral world (or the "inner worlds"), rather than from the real divine dimension. But of course, anyone can say that - unless you can prove that a certain form of mysticism actually does lead to the desired evolutionary responses...      

Against integral teleology

John Michael Greer´s recent (as in yesterday evening my time) criticism of Ken Wilber. The discussion thread is quite interesting, too.  

Against Enchantment I: Ken Wilber

The integral wig

 

Ken Wilber explains why he is wearing a wig. His answer is...wild. Or as he puts it, "integral". LOL!

OK Boomer

 

About two months ago, Ken Wilber was interviewed on a YouTube channel called The Stoa. Wilber was a well-known writer on spiritual topics during the 1990´s and 00´s, but seems to have lost traction since. Hearing the interview, I can´t say I´m surprised. 

Wilber´s Integral Theory (which could be seen as a strongly modernized and syncretized version of Theosophy) sounds increasingly irrelevant in the new post-2016 reality. I realize that *every* topic can´t be covered in a two-hour YouTube satsang, but it *does* look strange that neither Trump, Biden nor COVID restrictions came up during the conversation between Wilber and his interlocutors. In other words, the actual global-systemic crisis in the real (first quadrant?) world. 

The problem is obviously Wilber´s evolutionary-optimistic worldview, in which everything just gets better and better all the time, a worldview he apparently has decided to stick to until he gets reincarnated in some turquoise star system. At one point in the presentation, Wilber even comes close to denying climate change, probably taking a cue from Björn Lomborg, accusing Extinction Rebellion of being "negative"! (Well, I suppose they are.) Rather than seeing that science is going through a crisis which may destroy it altogether (or at least its reputation), Wilber actually thinks that evolutionary theory is progressing in *his* direction, towards an understanding of Eros and teleology. And when asked whether we should try to preserve the ancient "traditions" - presumably a way to salvage what can be saved from the mess we´re in - Wilber in effect says no. The only "tradition" worth saving is the mystical core of every religion, as interpreted by modernized Zen Buddhism. Wilber strongly implies that someone who becomes enlightened today (or in the future) is more advanced than the Buddha. While the "emptiness" is the same, the "form" is much more expansive, and in Wilber´s system, apparently both are necessary for the enlightened being. (His view of enlightenment is probably very broadly inspired by Non-Dual Tantrism.)  

True, Wilber isn´t as nihilistic towards the past as, say, the SJWs. He is for evolution rather than revolution (at one point, Wilber boasted that he knew both Bill Clinton and Karl Rove), and the higher levels in his evolutionary scenario both "transcend" and "include" the previous ones. When discussing with de facto philosopher John Vervaeke, Wilber expresses strong support for his "Post-Nominalist Neoplatonism", and he seems genuinely intrigued by the ability of Neoplatonism to combine seemingly opposite notions (such as "ascent" to the spirit and "descent" into matter). Unfortunately, his discussion with Vervaeke was cut short precisely when it became interesting! And in the end, Wilber still sounds too transcending/repudiating of earlier perspectives. 

I think Integral Theory is past its pull date, and probably can´t be salvaged by any Hegelian Aufheben, being too "late modern" or even "postmodern" for the new and somewhat more "descending" world situation...  

The cat that walked through walls

"Quantum Questions: Mystical Writings of the World´s Greatest Physicists" is a collection of articles edited by Ken Wilber, an American writer and spiritual teacher. Ann Niehaus is credited with being the author´s research assistant. Wilber´s system, known as Integral Theory, has changed somewhat over the years, but could be characterized as a synthesis of Mahayana Buddhism, Jean Gebser, transpersonal psychology and Theosophy-derived notions (among others). In this book, he also makes frequent references to Traditionalist writers. I have the revised edition from 2001. 

Within the New Age, it´s common to argue that quantum physics somehow prove the spiritual worldview. Fritjof Capra´s famous book "The Tao of Physics" take this line. Wilber, interestingly, takes the exact opposite position. Physics do *not* prove the spiritual worldview, indeed can´t prove it at all, even in principle. My interpretation is that Wilber wants to save sprituality and mysticism from the atheists by placing them in an ontological and epistemological dimension completely separate from that of science. The idea is somewhat similar to Stephen Jay Gould´s NOMA (non-overlapping magisteria). Wilber also fears that a spiritual worldview based on science would be disproven if  (or when) the scientific theories change. Thus, an ostensibly scientific spirituality would in effect be subordinated to science (and subject to constant change). To Wilber, quantum physics is not about spritual phenomena, but deals entirely with material realities. The book debunks claims that Quantum Mechanics (QM) somehow prove mind-over-matter, that the observer can directly influence an experiment, that Schroedinger´s cat is neither dead nor alive until somebody takes a look, or that the strange properites of light (both a "wave" and "particles") are somehow magical or occult.

The volume contains texts by Heisenberg, Schroedinger, Einstein, De Broglie, Jeans, Planck, Pauli and Eddington. It´s interesting to note that so many prominent quantum physicists were dualists or panpsychists. The main reason seems to be that in their opinion quantum physics didn´t explain mind and consciousness. Some kind of dualism became inevitable when it turned out that all the weirdness of QM was purely material in character. Many quantum physicists also felt that modern science no longer describes objective reality as it is. Rather, the theories have become highly abstract mathematical equations. Scientists succesfully manipulate symbols, but they don´t seem to correspond to anything "out there". Perhaps *all* scientific theories are really models of this kind, rather than descriptions of anything "real"? But if so, what if there are things outside the models? A mystical mind, perhaps? Another common argument, by contrast, said the opposite: the fact that the universe can be described mathematically at a "deep" level, suggests that mathematics aren´t a human construct but rather something the mind discovers. But if so, where does the correlation between cosmos, mind and math come from? 

Wilber suggests that the mathematical structure of the cosmos is ultimately derivable from a higher spiritual dimension, and hence represent a kind of Platonic form. I was somewhat surprised by the fact that he integrated math into his spiritual dimension of reality - since math is closely connected to science, I had expected him to argue that it belongs wholly to the physical realm. 

One quantum physicist conspicuous by his absence from Wilber´s collection is David Bohm. This is ironic, since Bohm is usually considered to be the most spiritual of them all, no doubt because of his coversations with Jiddu Krishnamurti, the former "World Teacher" of the Theosophical Society. Bohm believed that science *could* prove the spiritual worldview, which I suppose explains why Wilber doesn´t even mention him. I find this somewhat ironic, since you might as well argue that Bohm tried to integrally integrate physics, mysticism and even politics at a higher level. 

This is obviously a very short introduction to "Quantum Questions" and its contributors, so let me end by saying that both Wilber´s contributions and the old articles by Heisenberg & Co are very interesting in their own right... 

"Five stars". 

Ken Wilber did nothing wrong

To whom it may concern...evo-devo, orthogenesis and facilitated variation prove that God is real. 

There, I said it. 

Lost in a post-Clinton world

Although I never been a “fan” of Ken Wilber, I did consider the writings of his early and middle periods (Paleo-Ken and Meso-Ken) to be somewhat interesting. Then came his postmodernist-Habermasian turn (Neo-Ken) and I lost interest. Now, it seems that “the famous philosopher” has reached a fourth stage in his color-coded evolution. I suppose we could call it Post-Ken!

Let me guess: Ken Wilber's fans, who are mostly “liberal” and live on the West Coast, were profoundly *shocked* by Donald Trump's election victory, since it seems to disprove the upward evolutionary trajectory of Eros (and US liberal politics) they all believed in. Wilber has written this book to assure his admirers that evolution hasn't been cancelled, it's still in progress, and Trump's victory is really *part* of that evolution. Unknown to Trump, the cunning of Eros has readjusted evolution by taking a temporary step back, really as a warning to the liberal elites to mend their ways or else, and the upward trajectory to Integral (or Turquoise) will be resumed soon. Or will it? Perhaps Wilber has written this essay just as much to reassure himself, since in the end he proposes *no* political program for how to deal with the current mess in the United States. Instead, he simply expresses a pious wish that one day, sooner than we think, the Singularity will happen and the world will turn into a virtual paradise of high technology and super-consciousness (think Sri Aurobindo's Gnostic Man plus strong AI). None-too-humbly, Wilber sees himself as a central player in this millenarian scenario. As the Messiah, perhaps…?

This doesn't mean that “Trump and a Post-Truth World” gets it *all* wrong. Wilber is quite right that the haughty arrogance of the liberal elites was one of the reasons for Trump's success. He is also right that there is a serious disconnect between the liberal propaganda (in all its versions) and stark American reality, with unemployment, poverty and war. The various “identity politics” wedge issues popular among college-educated liberals have alienated many voters. Wilber believes that it's high time for the bruised liberal elites (who represent what he calls “green” consciousness) to reach out to the majority of the American people (who have an “orange”, “amber” and “red” consciousness). However, somewhere here the author goes off track. It's obvious that he looks down upon the great unwashed masses just as much as the West Coast elites he is criticizing. Ordinary people are stuck on lower evolutionary levels of consciousness, sometimes much lower, they can't really help it, so of course they spew racist and ethno-centric garbage. At best, Wilber can only offer condescension, not real dialogue. Indeed, he says that if the lower tiers continue spewing chauvinism, they should be censored or punished! But in what sense is this different from what every other “liberal” pundit is already saying?

The book has a peculiar intellectual-centered (or pundit-centered) worldview. In some weird way, the author believes that the postmodernist intellectuals and their college-student hangers-on have attacked the notion of objective truth so much, that the great mass of voters finally took it to heart and voted Trump, the post-truth liar extraordinaire. Ahem, no, most Trump voters believe that The Donald is telling the unvarnished truth, not clever lies, and few of them have ever heard of deconstruction, postmodernism or the Frankfurt school. I think Wilber's supporters need to believe his surrealist scenario, since the alternative is far grimmer: admit that Trump might be right about immigration, taxes or China. It also looks downright silly when Wilber (surely not with a straight face) accepts the “post-truth” and “fake news” narratives, as if the media or the political class pre-Trump were never telling lies! He even says that Hillary Clinton didn't lie during the election campaign, which is probably “true” in the sense that she didn't have to – since the Clintonista-controlled media apparatus wasn't asking her any hard questions to begin with…

That Ken Wilber understands at least some things is interesting, to be sure, but overall this book comes across as the desperate cry of Integral for relevancy in a world dominated by…truths too hard to integrate.

Unsnarling the world...not

"Unsnarling the world-knot" is a book by David Ray Griffin, the leading process theologian. Process theology is a very liberal form of Christian theology, inspired by the philosophy of Alfred North Whitehead and Charles Hartshorne. Interestingly, neither Whitehead nor Hartshorne were Christians, but their process philosophy did include a personal god.

In this particular book, Griffin makes a bold attempt to actually solve the mind-body problem. Indeed, he believes that he *has* solved it. Griffin's alternative to both materialism and dualism is a form of panpsychism which he dubs panexperientialism. The book is a prolonged argument in favour of this position, with each chapter becoming progressively longer and more difficult. However, the book shouldn't be insurmountable to people seriously interested in the mind-body problem. A working knowledge of Dennett, Searle and McGinn does help. It also helps to have read other books by Griffin himself, to put his panexperientialism in context. A good place to start might be "Whitehead's radically different postmodern philosophy", reviewed by me elsewhere.

Griffin believes that neither dualism nor materialism really solves the mind-body problem. Dualism, while admitting that the mind and the brain are numerically different, cannot explain how they can interact with each other. Materialism cannot explain how mind can emerge from matter, or how it can be identical with it. To Griffin, materialism and dualism are really part of the same problem, since both of them consider matter to be naturally inert and dead (or "vacuous" to use Whitehead's term). In the dualist scenario, God forces matter to organize according to "natural" laws imposed from without. He also creates immortal souls different in quality from matter. To Griffin, this worldview is connected to our alienation from and domination of nature. Materialists simply go one step further, and do away with God entirely, leaving only dead matter. They are then caught in a bind, attempting to derive mind, morality and aesthetics from a dead universe.

Griffin's solution is to embrace the idea that everything that exists has at least a rudimentary form of consciousness. Not just every living organism, but even atoms and molecules have "experience" - hence panexperientialism. What we call "consciousness" is really the last and most complex phase of "experience". Indeed, the most basic metaphysical entities are "occasions of experience", sometimes called "creative occasions". These entities or monads "prehend" each other in a never-ending process. In a sense, matter doesn't *have* experience, matter *is* experience. Each occasion of experience is both subject (when it "prehends" another occasion of experience) and object (when it's "prehended" by others). In this manner, the mind-body problem can be solved, since each monad is both "mind" and "matter", subject and object.

Griffin is clever enough to admit that some things, such as stones, really are dead and inert. A stone doesn't have experience in any meaningful sense of the term. However, even stones are made up of occasions of experience. These are organized in a manner which cannot generate higher-order forms of experience, let alone consciousness. This makes the stone a dead, inert heap. However, if one monad becomes dominant and manages to organize the other creative occasions in a more complex fashion, a "personally ordered society" emerges. This compound individual will have more advanced experience, and eventually something we would recognize as real consciousness emerges.

I admit that Griffin's theory (which is a combination of Whitehead's and Hartshorne's respective ideas) is quite clever. But does it really solve the mind-body problem?

At one point, Griffin distinguishes "the perceptual mode of causal efficacy" with "the perceptual mode of presentational immediacy". The former seems to be a kind of gut feeling through which we become aware of causality, space, time and the existence of an outside world in general. Griffin believes that this gut feeling can exist in a very primitive form, and hence be assigned even to atoms and molecules (or at least to micro-organisms). Presentational immediacy is our unmediated empirical ability to observe such things as the colour red. Presentational immediacy is derived from causal efficacy. At some point during evolution, living organisms translated the gut feeling of red (causal efficacy) into real seeing of red (presentational immediacy). Consciousness of the kind we can observe in humans is a combination of causal efficacy and presentational immediacy: we see "red" in the context of causality, space and time. Thus, we can see red objects, how they change through time, etc. I'm not entirely sure whether this part of Griffin's reasoning makes sense: can our complex minds really be taken apart in this manner? In what meaningful sense can awareness of causality, space and time really exist in a primitive form?

Griffin points out that most of our minds aren't "conscious", but nevertheless has experience. To use everyday language, most of our minds are subconscious. This seems to be one of Griffin's main arguments for the idea that consciousness can evolve from primitive experience. However, the subconscious phenomena mentioned by Griffin strike me as very advanced: the ability to prehend objective moral principles in the mind of God is a good example. Another is paranormal powers such as telepathy and PK. This surely presupposes that the mind is *already* advanced, and cannot therefore be used as an argument that it's derived from primitive ancestral forms.

There is another and perhaps more serious problem with process theology: panexperientialism seems to be redundant, since the system also includes God. Indeed, Griffin cannot derive objective morality from the "occasions of experience", which are wholly amoral. This is solved by appealing to God, whose mind includes moral principles as a kind of quasi-Platonic forms. Sufficiently advanced occasions of experience can then prehend these Platonic forms, but this sounds like a throwback to the dualism the theory was supposed to overcome. The moral principles aren't a part of the panexperientialist process, but are infused from the outside. Objective aesthetics are derived in the same way. Griffin also believes that each occasion of experience gets an initial push in the right direction by God, suggesting that the process isn't entirely self-sustaining. Another contradiction concerns God himself, who according to Griffin is a compound individual consisting of all creative occasions in the entire universe. But where does God come from? Has God evolved from a primitive form of experience? Clearly not, since these need God to give them initial pushes. Therefore, God has always existed - but if so, consciousness does *not* evolve from primitive experience. Rather, we are dealing with an involution-evolution schema, similar to that of Theosophy. Why not simply adopt this scenario, and combine it with a personal God, as in the system of Aurobindo, or a quasi-personal God as in Ken Wilber's Integral Theory? (Incidentally, Theosophists also believe in a kind of spiritual monads, emerging from the Brahman.)

I think the reason for Griffin's reluctance to embrace something like Theosophy is that process theologians want to be seen as scientific and modern, something they wouldn't be able to do if they had adopted a more explicitly Theosophical orientation. (Ironically, Griffin was some kind of Theosophist in his youth before turning to Whitehead and Hartshorne.) Instead, process theology has opted for a panpsychist version of materialist evolution, in which experience (rather than matter) goes from less complex to more complex. Griffin even prides himself on his position being "naturalist" or "physicalist". The limited success of process theology outside Claremont shows that the strategy isn't working: to materialist scientists, Whitehead and Hartshorne were still too religious, due to their belief in a personal God which doesn't seem to be evolving (at least not entirely - strictly speaking, Process God is dipolar). Griffin is less scientific than many other process thinkers due to his support for parapsychology, personal immortality and reincarnation, making his particular version of this theology even harder to swallow for naturalists sensu stricto. Imagine what the New Atheists or CSICOP might do with Griffin's writings, if they ever become interested in process thought!

"Unsnarling the world-knot" isn't a bad book by any means. If you are a dyed-in-the-wool materialist, this book might help you unsnarl a few of your knots. Had I read it a few years ago, this might very well have been the book that swayed me away from materialism (ironically, I read Colin McGinn's "The Mysterious Flame" instead - McGinn is one of Griffin's primary targets). I suppose you could argue that Griffin succeeds in replacing evolutionary materialism with evolutionary panpsychism, "as far as it goes". But how far *does* it go? The fact that Griffin is forced to introduce a personal god into his philosophy, in order to salvage objective morality and aesthetics (in effect, objective meaning without which the Process would be just as nihilistic as in a materialist universe) shows that we have to probe deeper than Whitehead's and Hartshorne's process philosophy.

Or, to use the author's simile, unsnarl a few additional knots...

Nuke the transpersonalists

A faux review of Ken Wilber´s "Quantum Questions" (which is actually quite good!) 

Nice try, Wilbur. When the Bible sounds barking mad, it means what is says. When the Quran sounds barking mad, it means what it says. But when quantum physicists sound like mystics (and hence barking mad), THEY ARE MERELY BEING METAPHORICAL!!! We know this on the authority of Richard Dawkins!!! No doubt Mr Wilbur (another stray from the Dawn Horse stable of the so-called "Ruchira Avatar" Adi Da Samraj Free Love Hubba Bubba Whatever a.k.a. Franklin Jones) is one of those crazy Christian theocrats who believe that the world is controlled by two giant green lobsters named Esmeralda and Keith!!!

Darwinitis

David Christopher Lane is the cult-buster who went after Eckankar and the MSIA some decades ago. He is a former follower of the Radhasoami tradition within Hinduism. Today, Lane sounds like a sceptic-atheist-materialist, although he still makes occasional nods to mystical spirituality. "Cosmic Creationism" contains a number of polemics against Ken Wilber and his followers on the question of evolution. I think all of the material, in one form or another, is already available free on the web.

I agree that Wilber's take on evolution is curious for a supposedly evolutionary thinker. It *does* sound quasi- or crypto-creationist. Wilber seems to have a saltationist view of evolution. Since that's hard to explain in purely materialist terms, Wilber postulates a supra-physical, teleological force at work in the Kosmos, a force he calls Eros or Love. Why Eros can't evolve a bird gradually from a reptile isn't clear to the present reviewer! Would that be tough love?

Lane has little problem showing that Wilber's view of evolution is fringey, that even his description of the current state of research is distorted, and that alternative explanations to "Eros" exist. Amen. My problem with Mr Lane is that he presupposes materialism in his polemics against Wilber, and rather crudely at that ("everyone can see the physical world, but we can't all see God"). No, but we can intuit thoughts, meaning, values (or abstract numbers!), none of which are physical, so why assume materialism? We can also, ahem, intuit mystical states...

While evolution is true (in the sense that a primordial organism really did became Kenneth E. Wilber after some quality evo-devo and a string of transitional forms), there is a philosophical case for at least "soft" teleology and a spiritual-supernatural dimension of our (admittedly confusing) holonic multiverse. Yes, David, dogs do have Buddha-nature. And you, my friend, are suffering from Darwinitis! :-D

Journey home?

David Christopher Lane is a former follower of Radhasoami, a spiritual tradition that exists within both Hinduism and Sikhism. At one point, he was also interested in Ken Wilber's transpersonal psychology. This Kindle article, “The Journey: A Voyage of Light and Sound”, references both Wilber and Wilber's de facto guru Adi Da Samraj, alongside various Radhasoami authorities. Today, Lane sounds more skeptical and regularly bashes Wilber at Frank Visser's site Integral World. He has also written exposés of Eckankar and M.S.I.A (pronounced “Messiah”), two American groups which borrow extensively from the Radhasoami, and perhaps from Scientology, without acknowledging their sources.

“The Journey” is a short article, probably written at some point during the 1980's. Yet, it's quite interesting. Lane describes the spiritual journey of the Radhasoami mystic in some detail. The ascent to the divine could be described as a consciously induced near-death experience, during which the physical body becomes completely numb, as consciousness is concentrated in the “third eye” and then leaves the body behind. The process has obvious similarities with “astral travel”, and Lane explicitly compares one of the regions traversed to the astral. With one exception, all the spiritual dimensions passed by the soul on its journey back to the divine are “positive” and immensely enchanting. In one of the regions, every wish comes true and the mystic can even create entirely new worlds. Or so he imagines! The soul is advised not to dwell too long in these regions of spiritual space, since they really hinder its progression. One region is described as negative and hence constitutes a kind of “hell”. Interestingly, it’s the last dimension traveled by the soul before it merges with the divine.

Only a person with a competent guru can undertake the perilous journey back to godhead, the form of the guru guiding the soul through its meanderings in enchanted astral space. The guru also teaches the future mystic various mantras or passwords necessary for the trip. Ultimately, the soul sees the guru as God, and then sees how the guru merges into God, next realizing that it (the soul) has been part of the guru and hence God all along. A distinctive feature of Radhasoami is the emphasis on the “Audible Life Current”, the various cosmic or spiritual sounds heard by the mystic during his ascent, showing him that he is on the right track.

Another distinctive feature is the idea of a negative force in the cosmos, called Kal, which represents descent from the divine to the material. Kal (sometimes personified as a kind of Gnostic demiurge) is the ruler of the non-divine realms, including the enchanting ones, and his mission is to hinder the soul from reaching its true destiny and merge with the ocean of the divine. The idea that there is a fallen god in charge of the material and the astral strikes me as non-Hindu. Where does it come from? Is it an actual Gnostic idea influencing Radhasoami, or did they develop it independently?

Following Wilber, David C Lane believes that mystical experiences can be studied scientifically and that this is an important future task of transpersonal psychology. (He no longer holds this position, having become a materialist and a skeptic.) However, he eventually admits that it's very difficult to know which spiritual tradition is the correct one. How do we know that Radhasoami's form of yoga (Surat Shabd Yoga) is true, whereas Adi Da's kundalini yoga is false? Lane reaches the conclusion that perhaps we don't, and therefore non-dogmatically advises seekers to freely experiment with and compare different paths. He also has a soft spot for Faqir Chand, who was something of a maverick within the Radhasoami tradition.

While “The Journey” is a very short journey, it might wet your appetite if you're interested in mysticism, and I therefore give it three stars. Not for the general reader, though! As already noted, Lane no longer hold the pro-mystical/pro-Wilber positions expressed in this article, having become a materialist and a skeptic.That's another story, though. And another journey...

Inside the Chandian effect

David Christopher Lane is a professor of comparative religion who has written extensively on the Hindu-Sikh Radhasoami tradition (which he once followed). Unlike many other scholars who specialize in comparative religion, Lane is also a vocal critic of religious cults. His specialty is exposing sects and cults inspired by Radhasoami, specifically Eckankar and MSIA. Lately, he has also become a leading critic of Ken Wilber and Integral Theory. For some reason, Lane has republished a number of old articles on Kindle. Perhaps he knows that an omnivorous reviewer-fish known as the Ashtar Command lurks in the murky waters of Cyber-Saraswati…

“The Himalayan Connection: UFOs and the Chandian Effect” is an article probably written during the 1980's or 1990's. It mentions both Radhasoami and Wilber in a positive light. Indeed, the article argues in favor of a non-reductionist approach to UFO studies, based on insights from both Wilber and the Radhasoami guru Faqir Chand. Huston Smith is also referenced. To put matters very simply, Lane argues that UFOs are real, but that most UFO encounters are similar to mystical experiences and hence take place at (or rather “in”) another level of consciousness than “ordinary” waking consciousness. He also argues that the two levels, roughly the material and the spiritual, can be confused and combined. This explains the weird and quixotic nature of many UFO observations. The author also makes the interesting point that while some UFO experiences are “transrational”, others are “prerational”, which also explains part of the confusion surrounding the phenomenon.

But why should we believe that mystical experiences are real at all? Here, Lane appeals to something he calls the Chandian Effect, apparently an insight he derived from Faqir Chand in the Himalayas (hence the title of the article). The Chandian Effect states that the reality of our experiences cannot be empirically proven, rather all empirical proof is dependent upon a prior feeling of reality and certainty. This feeling is qualitative and hence cannot be scientifically observed or measured. It simply is, as the underlying deep structure of all consciousness. Since dreams and mystical state are also experienced as absolutely real while they last, they too *are* real under the Chandian Effect.

In a postscript, an older and “wiser” Lane argues that everything he wrote in the old article is wrong, that UFOs don't exist at all, and that all supernatural-religious claims are simply products of our brain chemistry. What the…?! Essentially, he collapses back into the reductionism his younger (and higher?) self argued so persuasively against.

As for the aliens, they are still out there, inside the Chandian Effect…

Entangled by materialism

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.

Drop dead

A faux review of "Frisky Dirt: Why Ken Wilber´s New Creationism is Pseudo-science" 

This is another incomprehensible e-book by David Christopher Lane, in which he beats a dead horse named Ken Wilber. Lane has published a collection of frisky anti-Wilberite critiques in pamphlet form, titled “Cosmic Creationism”. Since the relevant material is also freely available at Frank Visser's mostly anti-Wilberite website “Integral World”, I'm not sure why anyone would want to pay a few bucks for this Kindle version of just one short article? I've already commented on both Lane's and Wilber's respective positions in my review of “Cosmic Creationism”, and don't feel like repeating myself. Let's just say that while Ken Wilber may be a dead horse, even dead dawn horses have Buddha-nature… :P

The lost tribes of Israel are WOKE

I just stopped here to share the crankiest speculation ever (and I do mean ever!) concerning the present whereabouts of the ten lost tribes.

About 40 years ago, there was still a very small sect in Sweden, known as Efraims Budbärare (Ephraim's Messengers). The group had Adventist antecedents and had certain similarities with the Jehovah's Witnesses (denial of the Trinity, literal millennium, etc).

They also claimed – wait for it- that the Swedish working class is the lost tribe of Ephraim, while the proletariat of neighboring Norway is the tribe of Manasseh?! The Soviet Union is apparently “Assur”, and will be used by the Lord to punish and chastise the unbelieving West, so Efraims Budbärare supported the Soviets in the Cold War…

This is almost bizarrely brilliant. If Efraims Budbärare are right, everybody else simply *must* be wrong. Period. I challenge the perennialists to harmonize the message of this sect with that of Advaita Vedanta, Mahayana Buddhism or Schuonian Traditionalism, muhahaha!

But sure, Ken Wilber might do it. The messengers of poor old patriarch Ephraim, stranded on a distant and somewhat chilly shore, surrounded by seals, blackbirds and Swedish gooseberries, were, I suppose, INFRA-red. Even apart from being Reds!

A message from the Mean Green Meme

It's a well known fact that Ken Wilber is a Leninist Neo-Conservative who misinterprets Plotinus, plagiarizes Aurobindo and blatantly rejects Christ Jesus in favour of one Guru Adi Dadi Da.

Recently, a conference of 1000 scholars gathered at Mecca, Illinois exposed all the factual errors in Wilber's book "Integral Banking and Baking: A New Perspective for the Third Millennium". Ken clearly lacks rigour. He doesn't like ecofeminists either. Is that why the Mean Meme is Green?

PS. The above is a criticism of Wilber VII. Next week, The Lodge of United Dutch Theosophists will take on Wilber VIII and his crackpot opinions on EVIL-ution. I mean, what good is half a paleomammalian brain, anyway?

:D

Kidding.

How deep is Deep Ecology?

"Beneath the surface" is a collection of articles criticizing Deep Ecology, the philosophical and political current associated with Norwegian philosopher Arne Naess. The critics in this volume are not brownlashers or cornucopians, however. Rather, they belong to different strands of the Green movement. Indeed, many are quite "deep" themselves.

I haven't read every article (yet), but I noticed that they are of quite varied quality, which is probably inevitable. It's an anthology, after all. Some are written in a relatively accessible style, while others are loaded with academic jargon (a humorous similarity with Deep Ecology itself). Most of the articles deal with philosophical issues, but a few takes a more concrete approach.

Bron Taylor's article "Deep Ecology and Its Social Philosophy: A Critique" is quite interesting. Deep Ecologists claim that anthropocentrism hinders pro-environmentalist consciousness and actions. Conversely, they claim that Earth-centred spirituality enhances it. Taylor has attempted to actually research whether these claims are true, and seems rather sceptical. At least in the Third World, the main reasons for environmental action tend to be very "anthropocentric" and "materialist": communities fight against foreign corporations or corrupt governments that literally steal their land. Taylor also believes that religious believers who take up Green causes virtually always turn to their own traditions in search of spiritual answers. If none are forthcoming, they simply change or "Green" their traditions, even if they are monotheist, rather than becoming neo-pagans.

Another interesting text is Michael Zimmerman's "Possible Political Problems of Earth-Based Religiosity". The author is a former admirer of Martin Heidegger, but has reached the conclusion that anti-modernism is too simple and, frankly, reactionary. Instead, he has taken up the neo-Hegelian approach of Ken Wilber (who even helped him with the article), according to which humans are different and higher than animals, and have to transcend modernity rather than simply go back to pre-modernity. Zimmerman believes that this can be done without repudiating an environmentalist perspective.

There are also articles claiming that Deep Ecology itself is anthropocentric, since it's based on the idea that the human Self must expand and encompass all of Nature. But isn't this still a perspective that privileges humans? The political naivety and right-wing drift of some Deep Ecologists are criticized by ecofeminist writer Val Plumwood. Bioregionalism, classical republicanism and Deep Green Theory (a competitor to Deep Ecology) are also up for criticism. A few "pro" articles have been included as well.

Since really existing Deep Ecology seems to be a rather broad current, I'm sure some people calling themselves deep ecologists might actually agree with some of the contents of this book. Others might reel, especially at Zimmerman's pitch for Wilber (who is apparently no stranger to controversy).

"Beneath the surface" might not be your first choice of light bedtime reading, but if you have a more scholarly or advanced interest in Deep Ecology and its problematique, you might found this volume to be relatively interesting.