 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|||
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
[1] In the following email I have changed "you" to "de Quincey." [2] Keith Thompson: Now it is true, as several have charged, that Wilber does not derive intersubjectivity solely from anything holographic. The reason, as he told me once, is that the holographic theory is based merely on the interpenetration of finite subjects and objects, and thus fails to also include the infinite (it includes the All but not also the One). So he refuses to use merely holographic theories to derive intersubjectivity, because that leaves out the unbounded infinite Spirit that is the actual ground of all four quadrants, including the intersubjective. But he does say that on a given, finite, manifest level, the holons are holographic. He says this clearly and often in Eye to Eye. In fact, in the first edition of that book, he said "between levels, hierarchy, within levels, holarchy (meaning holographic)." Then he switched terminology in the second edition of Eye to Eye but kept the identical meaning: he chose "heterarchy" to mean "holographic interpenetration of each holon on a given level," since no holon was "higher or lower" than another, but all of them had "mutual interpenetration with equivalence." And he chose "holarchy" for between levels because Koestler had already established the usage for that word. But clearly, Wilber finds holons of similar depth are mutually interpenetrating and mutually co-creating and holographic. He repeats that standard formula in SES ("Within levels, heterarchy, between levels, holarchy"). He then talks about pathological heterarchy and pathological holarchy, etc. So he would definitely agree his theory is not merely holographic in any typical sense, because holography doesn't account for those aspects of holons that are nonequivalent and it doesn't account for the infinite. This is why he is often viewed as an opponent of the holographic paradigm (ask any of the more obsessive Wilberphobes at CIIS), but clearly that is only "half true." [3] This is from The Eye of Spirit, second revised edition, CW7, note 12 for chapter 11: The "impassable gulf" is simply another name for the subject/object dualism, which is the hallmark not of Descartes's error but of all manifestation, which Descartes simply happened to spot with unusual clarity. It is still with us, this gap, and it remains the mystery hidden in the heart of samsara, a mystery that absolutely refuses to yield its secrets to anything less than post-postconventional [or nondual] development. I have repeatedly had people explain to me that the Cartesian dualism can be solved by simply understanding that . . . and they then tell me their solutions, which range from Gaia-centric theories to neutral monism to first-third person interactionism to systems theory [to Whitehead process philosophy]. I always respond, "So this means that you have overcome the subject-object dualism in your own case. This means that you directly realize that you are one with the entire Kosmos, and this nondual awareness persists through waking, dream, and deep sleep states. Is that right?" "Well, no, not really." The [ultimate] solution to the subject-dualism is not found in thought, because thought itself is a product of this dualism, which itself is generated in the very roots of the causal realm and cannot be undone without consciously penetrating that realm. The causal knot or primordial self-contraction--the ahamkara--can only be uprooted when it is brought into consciousness and melted in the fires of pure awareness, which almost always requires profound contemplative/meditative training. The subject-object duality is the very form of the manifest world of maya--the very beginning of the four quadrants (subject and object divide into singular and plural forms)--and thus one can get "behind" or "under" this dualism only by immersion in the formless realm (cessation, nirvikalpa, ayn, nirvana), which acts to dissolve the self-contraction and release it into pure nondual awareness--at which point, the traditions (from Zen to Eckhart) agree, you indeed realize that you are one with the entire Kosmos, a nondual awareness that persists through waking, dream, and deep sleep states: you have finally undone the Cartesian dualism. [4] As Nagarjuna demonstrated, the ultimate relation of subject and object cannot be stated in words but only realized with Enlightenment (satori). Any attempt to state the ultimate relation of subject and object by using relative words will fail. This relationship can be shown (with satori), but not said (without satori). This applies only to aspect #3b of the mind-body problem. [5] See note 15 for chap. 14 in Integral Psychology, which also gives the endnotes in SES. [6] Kindred Visions is still in the process of being edited and assembled. We had so many wonderful contributions we are at a loss as to how exactly to proceed. Most likely we will simply post all of them on Integral Institute's website once it is up and running. Stay tuned to Shambhala.com for more information. [7] Technically, "we" is first-person plural, and "you" is second person. But I include first-person plural ("we") and second person ("you/Thou") as both being in the Lower-Left quadrant, which I refer to in general as "we." The reason I do so is that there is no second-person plural in English (which is why southerners have to say "you all" and northerners say "you guys"). In other words, when "we" is being done with respect, it implicitly includes an I-Thou relationship (I cannot truly understand thee unless WE share a set of common perceptions). [8] And "for the record," I first used the phrase "the 1-2-3 of consciousness studies" in a conversation with Frances Vaughan and Roger Walsh in 1996. Roger had come up with what he called a "20-20" rule, which is that it would be great if funding organizations had a rule that at least 20% of funding had to go to research in each quadrant. This got us to talking about an upcoming talk that Frances was going to give, and we decided that she should call it "The 1-2-3 of Consciousness Studies," as a shorthand for the Big-Three approach of integrating first-, second-, and third-person approaches. I can't remember whether Frances or I first came up with that phrase--they can't remember, either--but we did agree she would call her talk by that title. Immediately thereafter I began using that phrase as another shorthand for the Big Three approach to consciousness. Two years later I made some of the endnotes in The Eye of Spirit the basis of an article in JCS with the title "An Integral Theory of Consciousness," which was written in 1996 and published in 1997--again, well before de Quincey's paper crossed my desk--and parts of which were actually published in the Noetic Sciences Review, where de Quincey works. The first printed use of the phrase "the 1-2-3 of consciousness studies" occurred in 1996 as I edited "An Integral Theory of Consciousness" for its eventual inclusion in volume 7 of the CW, where the phrase can be found in several places, such as p. 378. And then, with Integral Psychology, I used the phrase "the 1-2-3 of consciousness studies" as a chapter title--all of this in a type of homage to that conversation with Frances and Roger, and which I personally trace to Roger's "20-20" rule. [9] Wilber (2000c) gives these examples p. 570.
|
 
 |
 ©2008 Shambhala Publications For More Information Send Email to: editors@shambhala.com Created and Maintained by Mandala Designs |
