Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6

It’s All Good, Baby!

For those of you who are tired of all the Ken Wilber stuff - tough! Actually, I’m almost done with A Theory of Everything, so I expect I will be moving on from it all in a few days. I’m actually pretty happy I have taken the time to go through it and do a thorough analysis of it for myself. I had a lot of preconceived notions about it, some of which turned out to be true, and some of which turned out to be true but not that important in the long run. I’m trying gradually to move myself away from doing strictly negative critiques, and this is another step in that process. It all started with my research into Scientology, really. I went into it with a mind to find out what all the fuss was about, and ended up learning a lot by challenging my prior assumptions and really going for the heart of the matter.

Anyway, this next Wilber quote I’d like to focus on is from page 111-112:

At the mythic level, Santa Claus (or Zeus or Apollo or astrology) is a phenomenological reality. It will do no good to say, “Well, we have evolved beyond that stage, and so now we know that Santa Claus is not real,” because if that is true - and all stages are shown to be primitive and false in light of further evolution - then we will have to admit that our own views, right now, are also false (because future evolution will move beyond them). But it is not that there is one level of reality, and those other views are all primitive and incorrect versions of that one level. Each of those views is a correct view of a lower yet fundamentally important level of reality, not an incorrect view of the one real level. The notion of development allows us to recognize nested truths, not primitive superstitions.

Wilber talks pretty constantly about “integrating” various schools of thought all together. Sometimes I like it and sometimes I don’t. In general, I find it’s a really mixed bag. Take the quote above, for instance. I agree with just over half of it. I like the idea he’s espousing that there’s not really an “incorrect” picture of reality. I wish he would go into a little bit about how no picture can ever really be complete, because pictures are different from reality. But I recognize that such an observation would very likely veer him off course philosophically from what he’s trying to do.

The other thing I like about this quote is that he’s (sort of) speaking out against trying to diminish other mind-sets or worldviews as primitive and false, noting that once you reach a higher level, the mindset you’re in now may also seem primitive and false. If you believe in evolutionary stages, to call somebody else primitive is admit that you too are primitive, after a fashion. But then, at the same time, Wilber often holds up this ideal of developmental stages, which to me causes a problem with the above. How can you believe in developmental stages without believing that some are better than others because they are higher or more advanced? Wilber tries to sidestep around this by saying that developmental stages are inclusive and have previous ones “nested” inside of them. For somebody who criticizes relativism in other places, this is very much a relativistic stance - simply because it views things in relation to one another.

I guess my feeling is that states or stages of development may be looked at in relation to one another, and that’s valuable. Contrast and compare attitudes, characteristics, activities, etc. I’m all for that. But is it necessary to decide that some are more valuable or somehow more complete than others? I’m still not convinced. I still don’t see the value in making distinctions about consciousness and spirituality which use the locators “higher” and “lower”. Especially not since we’re recognizing that each level on it’s own has an element of truth or reality to it.