I recently started reading The Truth About Everything, An Irreverent History of Philosophy.  I have to say, for a critique and history of philosophy book, it has been a very (wildly) entertaining read. 

I found one particular paragraph that stood out to me.  Being both the idealist and compulsive categorizer, I often wonder what drivers philosophers to, well.... philosophize. 

From page 119:

"Philosophers begin by sensing a transcendental need, either in themselves or in others.  It is the need, loosely speaking, to feel good, or to feel at one with the world, and it usually stems from a sense of alienation, a belief that one is alone, unwanted, or useless to the world.  The philosophers propose to meet this need philosophically.  That is, they typically provide sets of arguments, summarized in a doctrine, to the effect that there is no need to worry, because all is one anyway, or something of the sort.  Whether or not this kind of quasi-truth therapy works in individual cases, it is by no means a sure-fire cure.  After all, it is just talk.  It is a set of reasons (or non-reasons) for viewing circumstances differently, but not a chance in the circumstances themselves.  Philosophical error occurs when the philosopher confuses this sort of general talk with a change in circumstances.  Plotinus, for example, seems at times to think that his various doctrines concerning the emanation from and return to the One not only show how one might become one with the world, but actually create this unity.  It is a form of Free Communion: One has only to state it, and it comes about.  Would that it were so easy."

What is The Principle of No Free Communion?  It's a philosophy that takes the union of man and universe as its goal and that conceives of this union as something other than the act of doing philosophy itself cannot achieve this goal by philosophical means.

The proof?  Essentially all philosophy takes the union of man and the universe as its goal, though this project may be expressed in a variety of ways.  The union of matter and mind, for example, is essentially the same thing.  In aiming for such a union, the philosophy necessarily begins by positing a difference.  Man and universe, or matter and mind, must be grasped as distinct if they are to be united.  Insofar as philosophy is mere description, it has no power to overcome this difference.  It cannot merely state the union, any more than it can state the union of peanut butter and jelly.  A possible exception is that philosophy which understands itself, that is, the act of philosophizing, as the union between man and universe.  This view, however, leads to absurd statements like "I, Socrates, am god," which are known to violate familiar syllogisms.

The New York Time's recently featured an article on Jung's intriguing and much anticipated Red Book. 


The Holy Grail of the Unconscious
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/20/magazine/20jung-t.html?pagewanted=1

A quote from Jung on journaling the inner workings of the mind and (possibly) dreams stuck out to me:

“I should advise you to put it all down as beautifully as you can — in some beautifully bound book,” Jung instructed. “It will seem as if you were making the visions banal — but then you need to do that — then you are freed from the power of them. . . . Then when these things are in some precious book you can go to the book & turn over the pages & for you it will be your church — your cathedral — the silent places of your spirit where you will find renewal. If anyone tells you that it is morbid or neurotic and you listen to them — then you will lose your soul — for in that book is your soul.”

The thought that time is somehow running out.

What is the true benefit and practical application of uber theories like Integral and Spiral Dynamics?

I've been thinking about this topic recently, and there were a few Twitter conversations (tweets) yesterday that prompted me too dig deeper:

@ericschiller: How useful are models like spiral dynamics at helping us grow? Or do they just show us the path, but not the steps?

@ericblue: @ericschiller I've thought about that quite a bit. the models are helpful in 'showing the path', or giving you a flashlight in the cave.

@ericblue: @ericschiller I've been thinking of ways to balance theoretical (top-heavy conceptual models) w/ pragmatic use. How can you apply in life.

@NeillGibson: @ericschiller @ericblue interesting link on spiral dynamics = Rich Carlson’s critique of Integral Theory http://bit.ly/25Syv

@ericblue: @NeillGibson @ericschiller Good critique of SD, Integral & theories in general @ http://tinyurl.com/puser8 (was my 1st intro to Integral)

One very interesting point that came from my last link (Tim Boucher's critique of Ken wilber back in 2005) was the following:

Who needs theories, anyways?

"My first and probably biggest question about this book and Wilber’s work in general is: Why on earth do we need a Theory of Everything? Life already gives us the everything, so what’s the use in having a theory about everything? Doesn’t the extra layer of theory add also a layer of distance, a separation between us and the everything? Do I need a theory about how locomotion works into the grand scheme of the universe in order to run across a field in spring-time with a dog? Do I need to know the biological mechanisms that control love, sex and attraction to be totally captivated by the sleeping face of the woman I’m in love with? I guess I’m beginning to feel less and less interested in theory for it’s own sake. I find myself drawn increasingly to the approach that fields like Neuro-Linguistic Programming take; they say, “we don’t have a theory” and instead just focus on what works and what doesn’t."

This is a very good point.

Personally speaking, I'm a huge fan of both Integral and Spiral Dynamics.  I'm drawn to 'theory of everything' models for a variety of reasons.  First and foremost, I like the complexity (the intellectual challange) and the simplicity (how does everything work together) at the same time.  One challenge though with all these models is that they, of course, don't truely represent reality as it is.  You know, the age old cliche of 'the map is not the territory'.

I feel in many ways, after much reading and research, that I'm cognitively starting to 'get it'.  And, while I'm really starting to grok some of these models I'm recognizing (as much as I can) where I'm at on the developmental path (stages, lines, spiral, etc.).  Like many predominantly left-brained (I don't always like that term, but let's just say analytical) people that are drawn to 'conceptual cartography' I've observed that my cognitive/intellectual line of development might be slighly ahead of other areas. 

So, these theories seem to work great for enhancing cognitive lines, but what about emotional, spiritual, moral and others?  As much as I love theories, and I am predominantly an idealist, I also have a very down to earth side.  I've recognized that in order to be truely integral you need to balance theory with some sort of practice and application.  It seems that pragmatism and practicality are the answer.  I think there is something to be said about Praxis: the process by which a theory, lesson, or skill is enacted or practiced.  As William James said, "What, in short, is the truth's cash-value in experiential terms?".

What does this mean about theories?  You could argue that they might be a 'cognitive burden', are intellectually top-heavy, a barrier to entry, and a labeling mechanism.  Should they be tossed aside?  While looking for some answers to this question, I stumbled across a passage in 'Integral Spirituality' by Ken Wilber pg. 38:

".... you can sit on your meditation mat for decades, and you will NEVER see anything resembling the stages of Spiral Dynamics.  And you can study Spiral Dynamics till the cows come home, and you will NEVER have a satori.  And the integral point is, if you don't include both, you will likely never understand human beings or their relation to Reality, divine or otherwise."

From the Power of Myth with Joseph Campbell and Bill Moyers (p.115):

MOYERS: You Write in The Mythic Image about the center of transformation, the idea of a sacred place where the temporal walls may dissolve to reveal a wonder.  What does it mean to have a sacred place?

CAMPBELL: This is an absolute necessity for anybody today.  You must have a room, or a certain hour or so a day, where you don't know what was in the newspapers that morning, you don't know who your friends are, you don't know what you owe anybody, you don't know what anybody owes to you.  This is a place where you can simply experience and bring forth what you are and what you might be.  This is the place of creative incubation.  At first you may find that nothing happens there.  But if you have a sacred place and use it, something eventually will happen.

Good overview of Kant and the Reenchantment of the world from Wilber's Marriage of Sense and Soul (pg. 86):

"Critique of Pure Reason (written in 1781)
relentlessly exposed the inadequacies of
monological reason to grasp metaphysical
truths, and it basically marked the dramatic
and historical end of that type of metaphysics.
The death of traditional metaphysics: this was
the virtually unarguable conclusion of Kant's
first critique.

  But for Kant, this was just the opening act.
He demonstrated that monological reason
cannot prove the existence of Spirit, freedom,
or immortality. But he also demonstrated that
reason could not disprove their existence either.
So science was not allowed to do two things:
(1) it could not say that Spirit existed; but (2)
it most certainly could not say that Spirit did
not exist! Kant's point was that, as he put it,
he wanted to demolish knowledge (it-
knowledge) in order to make room for faith.
Only as objectivistic, positivistic, mono-logical
reason stopped trying to get its hands on Spirit,
could other types of knowing step in to take up
the fight.

  Thus, in his second critique (Critique of
Practical Reason, 1788), Kant attempted to
show that where monological reason fails to
prove (or disprove) Spirit, dialogical reason can
succeed, at least in certain suggestive ways.
For if scientific reason (it-rationality) cannot
grasp God, dialogical reason (moral, ethical,
practical reason) does tend to show us a
type     of   transcendental      and     spiritual
knowledge. Moral reason (not it-knowledge
but we-knowledge) can, he believed,
operate only under the assumption that
Spirit exists, that freedom makes sense,
and that there is a type of immortality to
the soul. His argument, basically, is that the
interior "ought" of moral reasoning could
never get going in the first place without the
postulates of a transcendental Spirit: the
stomach would not hunger if food did not
exist. And where monolog-ical it-knowledge
can tell us precisely nothing about this
spiritual domain, dialogical we-knowledge
operates with its postulates all the time1.

  We can already see that Kant has begun
to differentiate clearly the Big Three value
spheres (art, morals, and science; I, WE, and
IT), and he has dramatically taken spiritual
knowledge out of the merely it-domain of
science and placed it squarely in the we-
domain of moral reasoning and yearning. He
wants      to    limit  it-science     (and     "it-
metaphysics"), but only to make room for
"we-metaphysics" and dialogical reason and
spiritual faith. Morals, not science, point
most clearly to God.

  What remained to be done was to find
some way to integrate this moral we-wisdom
with scientific it-knowledge, and in his third
great critique (Critique of Judgment, 1790),
Kant attempts this integration, in part
through the expressive-aesthetic dimension
(or art in the most general sense). In other
words, he wants to introduce the aesthetic I-
domain in order to integrate we-morals and
it-science. He wants to integrate the Big Three."

Originally posted on my main blog http://eric-blue.com

Overview

Last year I picked up a copy of The Integral Vision by Ken Wilber.  I recently decided to re-read the book, and created a comprehensive book summary highlighting the key pieces of information in the book.  The book summary is presented in the form of mind maps for each chapter.

Why am I doing this?

I first stumbled upon Integral Philosophy a couple years ago, and quite honestly became hooked.  Since that time, I’ve read a wide variety of books and have engaged in the exciting and often daunting task of trying to build a comprehensive and well-informed worldview (or map).  There are a number of good intro books that people recommend for first diving into Ken Wilber’s work (e.g. A Brief History of Everything).  Regardless of which book you pick, the fact is for most people (myself included) this is a vast and complex topic.  Distilling a philosophy/worldview/framework into a small but useful text is difficult to say the least.

I’ve personally found The Integral Vision to be the best intro into Integral.  It’s a short, but powerfully-information packed book that definitely does justice to such an interesting and complex topic.  My hope is that others who are just getting into Integral Theory/Philosophy will benefit from the mind map summaries.  My advice would be to get the book, and use the maps as a study or reference guide to help the information sink in.

Overview

View Online (Flash) | Download Map (MindManager)

Chapter 1

View Online (Flash) | Download Map (MindManager)

Chapter 2

View Online (Flash) | Download Map (MindManager)

Chapter 3

View Online (Flash) | Download Map (MindManager)

Chapter 4

View Online (Flash) | Download Map (MindManager)

Chapter 5

View Online (Flash) | Download Map (MindManager)

Chapter 6

View Online (Flash) | Download Map (MindManager)

Entire Book Summary

Download (2.0MB Zip)

From the Science of Oneness by Malcolm Hollick (p 163).

Zen Master Thich Nhat Hanh explains:

The Buddha ... said that in order to understand, you have to be one with what you want to understand. ...

The French language has the word comprendre, which means to understand, to know, to comprehend.  Com means to be one, to be together, and prendre means to take or to grasp.  To understand something is to take that thing up and to be one with it.  The Indians have a wonderful example.  If a grain of salt would like to measure the degree of saltiness of the ocean, to have a preception of the saltiness of the ocean, it drops itself into the ocean and becomes one with it, and the perception is perfect. ...

Understanding means to throw away your knowledge.  You have to be able to transcend your knowledge ... The technique is to release.  The Buddhist way of understanding is always letting go of our views and knowledge in order to transcend. ... That is why I use the image of water to talk about understanding.  Knowledge is solid; it block the way of unerstanding.  Water can flow, can penetrate.

Wilber makes reference to the birth of AQAL (All Quadrants, All Levels) in his work The Marriage of Sense and Soul - Integrating Science and Religion (pg. 63):

"It is fascinating that both premodern religion and modern science have a defining hierarchy, and both of them are composed of enveloping nests of increasing embrace (development that is envelopment).  And yet, these two major and extremely influential hierarchies never quite agree with each other.  Tantalizingly, they seem to talk about the same thing (a graded series of realities), yet their major terms never really match up.  Clearly, if we could find some way that these two hierarchies were genuinely related to each other, we would have teken an important step toward the hoped-for integration of premodern and modern.

In researching this problem, I did an extensive data search of several hundred hierarchies, taken from systems theory, ecological science, Kaalah, developmental psychology, Yogachar Buddhism, moral development, biological evolution, Vendanta Hinduism, Neo-Confucianism, cosmic and stellar evolution, Hwa Yen, the Neoplatonic corpus - an entire specturm of premodern, modern, and postmedern nests.  After I had collected several hundres hierarchies, I tried grouping them in various ways, and I eventually noticed that, without exception, they all fell into one of four major types.  These (are the) four types of hierarchies - which I call the four quadrants..."

I've been meaning to dig deeper into Rudolph Steiner's works since I first became aware of him a few years ago.  Steiner is an intriguing character for a number of reasons.  He was a passionate polymath, being interested and well-versed on a wide range of topics, accomplished philosopher and lecturer, founder of an alternative education system (Waldorf), and expert on esoteric matters (having founded Anthroposophy).

I was at the book store the other week, saw a book on his life and works, and decided to pick it up.  While reading the book, I saw reference to one of his famous works: Knowledge of the Higher Worlds and its Attainment.  I've been briefly skimming the book (thanks to Google Books) and found 2 great passages that resonated with me.  Steiner discusses the importance of patience with respect to the pursuit of knowledge (pg. 31).

"... no student should spend more time and strength upon these exercises  than he can spare with due regard to his station in life and to his duties; nor should he change anything for the time being, in the  external conditions of his life through taking this path.  Without patience no genuine results can be attained."

AND

"When the student seeks the path leading to higher knowledge in the way described in the preceeding chapter, he should not omit to fortify himself; throughout his work, with one ever present thought.  He must never cease repeating to himself that he may have made quite           
considerable progress after a certain interval of time, though it may  not be apparent to him in the way he perhaps expected; otherwise he can lose heart and abandon all attempts after a short time."