Go_to_gaia_btn
Mygaia_btn
Comm_home_btn
Gaia_mail_btn
Remember me
Powered by Zaadz
Explore
Questions & Reflections
Resultset_previousprevious thread | next threadResultset_next
threaded | unthreaded | newest first


  Nicole : lovelightsinger
print email

Ken Wilber on Deepak Chopra

Nicole said May 12, 5:04 AM:
 

Deepak Chopra, Integral Spirituality, Zones, Cultural Creatives

Posted on Sep 5th, 2007 by Albert : Warrior Albert
As diverse Debates about Science, Spirituality, Cultural Creatives,  Postmetaphysic Spirituality, methodologies of knowledge, integration of body, mind, soul and spirit, and DIVERSE integral approaches continue to confuse even intelligent discussion spaces in Europe, North America and elsewhere…I find it again helpful to take a piece of Ken Wilbers work which deals with some aspects in his book “Integral Spirituality” and of course his Magnum Opus “Cosmos Trilogy”.  Here he deals directly with The Book of Secrets  of Deepak Chopra. Its from “Integral Spirituality”.

And, no doubt for me:

There is only ONE “Einstein of Consciousness”: Its Ken Wilber. I am asking myself how long will it take to see his historic position in one line with the greatest giants of philosophy, science and spirituality?

And who of his critics did read his work as completely, precisely and appreciating as possible? Who in the academic crowds? And who of the Media?

I am living in Europe. And I must say I have met less than 40 persons the last 27 years and less than20 persons the last 5 years who fullfilled these criteria!

For all who dare to climb this Mount Everest of most advanced contemporary thinking ot 21st century here are the excerpts A, B, C, D, F and G  of Volume 2 of Cosmos Trilogy:

Ken Wilber Online


 

The Book of Secrets  Deepak Chopra. Serious writers accuse Deepak of being “spirit

lite.” I think this is unfair; he is a fine scholar with a searching intellect and superb writing skills.

What the intellectuals resent, I think, is Deepak's capacity to write simply and accessibly for wide

 

audiences, which has made his books very popular and often best-sellers (which is usually

enough to get you disbarred by the intelligentsia). My concern, rather, is similar to that expressed

with the others in this appendix: Deepak's lack of understanding (or at least use) of zones #2 and

#4 leaves him with a modernist epistemology (namely, empirical or phenomenological, and

particularly the scientific versions of such), which he attempts to extend into interiors a la

William James-which again, is fine as far as it goes, but brutal when it goes no further. Deepak

ends up trying to prove premodern metaphysics with modern physics, and the results are a

theoretical shambles, I'm afraid.

The second concern I have with some of these approaches is that, precisely because they

are often blind to zone-#2 stages, they are blind to how those stages might be operating in them

and in their writing. They often present the values of one of these stages and don't even realize

that what they are saying is true merely for one of a dozen or so stages of values development.

(Further, they may be caught in the dysfunctional forms of these stages and not even know it, as

witness boomeritis.) Deepak has a fine understanding of some of the types of phenomenal or

trained state-stages that can occur in zone #1 (as he showed in How to Know God), but because

he does not incorporate an understanding of zone #2 or its stages, he himself often comes solely

from the green altitude, and all of his zone-#1 stages are therefore looked at from that single

zone-#2 values stage.

A rampant confusion of spirituality with the green-wave of values, norms, and cognition

is widespread in this culture, due to the influence, it seems, of the green Cultural Creatives, some

20% of the population. (The most widespread form of this green-wave worldview is “the 415

Paradigm.”) Not only is this a massive Level/Line Fallacy, it has made the work of the more

popular spiritual writers open to extensive boomeritis.

A third major problem with these general approaches is that they are completely blind to

the truth-power-knowledge complex. This is another aspect of postmodernism that seems to have

 

postmodernists to the abuses that come from a claim to have “truth” and “knowledge”-there are

simply no such things divorced from power relations. Even (or especially) somebody claiming to

have spiritual truth is somebody who is wielding power and attempted power; there is simply no

way to avoid this completely for any form of knowledge or truth, and so the best one can do is

acknowledge it and attempt to be self-critical about it. Failing that, you have what both

modernists and postmodernists always claimed metaphysics was all about: it's all about power, so

watch out. The move from metaphysics to post-metaphysics is an attempt to foreground the

truth-power-knowledge complex and deal with it consciously, unlike metaphysics, which simply

wields it.

Finally, let's note what we can no longer do: we can no longer simply say things like,

“We are combining body, mind, soul, and spirit-and heart and community-to produce a truly

integral approach.” Because that isn't integral (or it isn't AQAL integral), because somebody at

magenta or red or blue (etc.) can embrace those tenets. Including the various components of a

human being (“body and mind and soul and spirit and community,” etc.), without also including

the zone-#2 and zone-#4 genealogical realities and levels of worldspaces, will result not just in a

fractured human being, but one that can be deeply immoral as well. If you haven't seen it, I

highly recommend that you get a copy of the Discovery Channel documentary video, Nazis: The

Occult Conspiracy. Hitler and his inner circle-particularly folks like Goebbels and Himmler

(head of the SS)-were deeply into the practice of mysticism and mystical states of

consciousness. They used astrology before battles, psychic pendulums to locate allied warships,

encouraged daily practice of meditation, deliberately selected occult symbols and myths, traced

what they felt were their own reincarnations, fully supported “body, mind, soul, and spirit,” and

had numerous and profound experiences of unio mystica. That's exactly what you get when you

promote horizontal states and not also vertical stages (particularly in ethics, cognition, and

interpersonal perspectives).”

    World_link permalink
  mike S : Within
print email

Re: Ken Wilber on Deepak Chopra

mike S said May 12, 6:22 AM:
 

There are some interesting parallels between the Integral movement and the Existential movement (following WWII and generally originating in France), both being esoteric philosophical movements and both deeply misunderstood. (I'm sure someones has made this comparison, but I have yet to stumble upon it)
Both involved art (Giacommetti, Picasso) and literature (Camus, Beckett) and although neither originated in the university, both were easily assimilated by the intelligentsia and academia. Both had leaders which were subsumed into a “cult of personality' with Sartre the existential front man and Wilber as integral's guru of consciousness. Both were involved in severe back and forth criticism which tended to highlight the personality idiosyncracies and quirks and for Sartre it was Heidegger and Marcel, while for Wilber it is Thompson, de Quincy and a whole host of others.
“Being and Nothingness” (few have ever, or even can, read and fully understand) was Sartre's magnus opus, while I suppose Wilber's “Sex, Ecology and Sprituality” is his great work (correct me on this one).
And of course, the leaders of both movements, as well as adherents and aspirants, lament the lack of understanding the world has accorded the theories.
Sartre was basically repudiated and resigned to history through his “existentialism is a humanism” which attempted to take his obscure theories mainstream and it is the only work he regreted writing.
As I read over “Theory of Everything,” for the umpteenth time, it seems that this may be Wilber's downfall in his mundane attempts to reach the common man. However, I have yet to consume “Integral spirituality” and possibly his need to adapt Spirit to sequential/equational formulae may indeed turn many away.
Nevertheless, there is no doubt these two giants have, and will continue to,  influence generations to come. 
With respect to the holistic perspective,  Wilber's integral theory easily transcends and includes existentialism. One then wonders what  new and profound thinking will transcend and include integralism, since obviously there can be no end?

Just saying…

Peace Angels,
mike S

    World_link permalink
  Negoba : A Simple Seeker
print email

Re: Ken Wilber on Deepak Chopra

Negoba said May 12, 7:02 AM:
 

There is only ONE “Einstein of Consciousness”: Its Ken Wilber. I am asking myself how long will it take to see his historic position in one line with the greatest giants of philosophy, science and spirituality?

I'm a little bit nervous when a post starts like this. Ken Wilber is so different a mind from Einstein that it makes me laugh to read the hyperbole. Ken is a magnificent synthesizer, his wide and fairly deep reading of so many sources is impressive. His ability to pull those together in a useful model that helps many more “lay” folks understand is great. Einstein was a creative genius who completely created new worlds of thought that eventually transformed the world.

We've talked about jargon with Ken before, but it makes me very uncomfortable when Ken uses his own terminology to criticize someone else's work. It approaches circular reasoning and to me detracts from his valuable contributions.

One can wander off to dangerous places in the quest for the ultimate inside. “Dear Prudence” anyone? Important points probably are made in this review. But if I have to be an insider to even understand what you're saying (and sadly I am learning the Integral-speech slowly), then to me it's pointless. It's the same as saying “Because it says in bible verse xx:xx”

    World_link permalink
  mike S : Within
print email

Re: Ken Wilber on Deepak Chopra

mike S said May 12, 7:25 AM:
 

Negoba,

Excellent point and it seems Einstein's emergent genuis, or transcendent conceptualizations out of nothing, is in contrast to Wilber's integrative genius or conceptualizing the patterns  of what is “known” to perception, into a unified whole.


Historically it seems all philosophical movements do tend to be transcended and included and I suppose Integral will be as well. Possibly this transcendence of thought will have an accelerated effect to where we will see the change in consciousness, derived from philosophical advances in thought, in this generation. What we will see is open to speculation but I do feel we live in an exciting groundbreaking epoch in history. There is an undercurrent of change that seems to be building in momentum and I believe it can only be sensed intuitively, otherwise everything just looks the same.

But what do I know…

Thanks,
mike S

    World_link permalink
  Nicole : lovelightsinger
print email

Re: Ken Wilber on Deepak Chopra

Nicole said May 12, 9:35 AM:
 

Dear Mike,

There are some interesting parallels between the Integral movement and the Existential movement (following WWII and generally originating in France), both being esoteric philosophical movements and both deeply misunderstood. (I'm sure someones has made this comparison, but I have yet to stumble upon it)
Both involved art (Giacommetti, Picasso) and literature (Camus, Beckett) and although neither originated in the university, both were easily assimilated by the intelligentsia and academia. Both had leaders which were subsumed into a “cult of personality' with Sartre the existential front man and Wilber as integral's guru of consciousness. Both were involved in severe back and forth criticism which tended to highlight the personality idiosyncracies and quirks and for Sartre it was Heidegger and Marcel, while for Wilber it is Thompson, de Quincy and a whole host of others.

Very interesting. I see the similarities! wow…

“Being and Nothingness” (few have ever, or even can, read and fully understand) was Sartre's magnus opus, while I suppose Wilber's “Sex, Ecology and Sprituality” is his great work (correct me on this one).

I'm not up enough on Wilber to know what his magnus opus was.Hopefully someone else here can address that?

And of course, the leaders of both movements, as well as adherents and aspirants, lament the lack of understanding the world has accorded the theories.
Sartre was basically repudiated and resigned to history through his “existentialism is a humanism” which attempted to take his obscure theories mainstream and it is the only work he regreted writing.
As I read over “Theory of Everything,” for the umpteenth time, it seems that this may be Wilber's downfall in his mundane attempts to reach the common man. However, I have yet to consume “Integral spirituality” and possibly his need to adapt Spirit to sequential/equational formulae may indeed turn many away.
Nevertheless, there is no doubt these two giants have, and will continue to,  influence generations to come. 
With respect to the holistic perspective,  Wilber's integral theory easily transcends and includes existentialism. One then wonders what  new and profound thinking will transcend and include integralism, since obviously there can be no end?

Very interesting thought! Thanks for that.

Negoba, you wrote:

   

 

I'm a little bit nervous when a post starts like this. Ken Wilber is so different a mind from Einstein that it makes me laugh to read the hyperbole. Ken is a magnificent synthesizer, his wide and fairly deep reading of so many sources is impressive. His ability to pull those together in a useful model that helps many more “lay” folks understand is great. Einstein was a creative genius who completely created new worlds of thought that eventually transformed the world.

Yes, I hear you, and do see a big difference between the two.

We've talked about jargon with Ken before, but it makes me very uncomfortable when Ken uses his own terminology to criticize someone else's work. It approaches circular reasoning and to me detracts from his valuable contributions.

One can wander off to dangerous places in the quest for the ultimate inside. “Dear Prudence” anyone? Important points probably are made in this review. But if I have to be an insider to even understand what you're saying (and sadly I am learning the Integral-speech slowly), then to me it's pointless. It's the same as saying “Because it says in bible verse xx:xx”

Yes, thus totally defeating the purpose of integral… hmm…

Light and peace,

Nicole

    World_link permalink
  Gavin : A Zen Buddhist
print email

Re: Ken Wilber on Deepak Chopra

Gavin said May 16, 5:34 AM:
 

 

I suppose we can start to compare apples and oranges now that we compared Wilber and Einstein. Hmm they are both kinda round in shape…ah…


Gavin

    World_link permalink
  Nicole : lovelightsinger
print email

Re: Ken Wilber on Deepak Chopra

Nicole said May 16, 5:41 AM:
 

LOL! Oh, very good one, Gavin,

Light and peace,

Nicole

    World_link permalink
  Marmalade : Gaia Explorer
print email

Re: Ken Wilber on Deepak Chopra

Marmalade said May 16, 2:27 PM:
 

But which one is the apple and which the orange?  ;)

    World_link permalink
  Negoba : A Simple Seeker
print email

Re: Ken Wilber on Deepak Chopra

Negoba said May 16, 2:46 PM:
 

I don't know about those fruit but I'm all about big plump blackberries myself.

    World_link permalink
  Marmalade : Gaia Explorer
print email

Re: Ken Wilber on Deepak Chopra

Marmalade said May 16, 3:36 PM:
 

Ha ha!  Negoba is a big plump blackberry!

    World_link permalink
  Nicole : lovelightsinger
print email

Re: Ken Wilber on Deepak Chopra

Nicole said May 16, 4:13 PM:
 

LOL! you remind me of one of my favourite books, To Kill a Mockingbird, where Scout calls out the taunting song at the end to the one she thinks is her buddy Cecil…

now, that's a book I've almost memorised, so many times have i read it! :)

peace,

nicole

    World_link permalink
  Marmalade : Gaia Child
print email

Re: Ken Wilber on Deepak Chopra

Marmalade said May 16, 5:34 PM:
 

Ha Ha

    World_link permalink
  Nicole : lovelightsinger
print email

Re: Ken Wilber on Deepak Chopra

Nicole said May 16, 5:43 PM:
 

Well! that's laughing :) Ben! take that!

    World_link permalink
  Marmalade : Gaia Child
print email

Re: Ken Wilber on Deepak Chopra

Marmalade said May 16, 5:57 PM:
 

Ok, you win!  Nobody can beat a laughing baby.  And if they tried, they should be arrested.  :)

    World_link permalink
  Nicole : lovelightsinger
print email

Re: Ken Wilber on Deepak Chopra

Nicole said May 16, 6:18 PM:
 

yay! i rock! but actually you win cause my brain is fried on chad vader :):)

    World_link permalink
  David : ~
print email

Re: Ken Wilber on Deepak Chopra

David said May 19, 2:07 AM:
 

Hi Nicole, all,

Hey, you might be interested in this webcast. It features a live guru and pandit (Ken Wilber and Andrew Cohen) and also a live hour of Deepak Chopra and Andrew Cohen. Also What Is Enlightenment? editors. It's on Saturday, May 31, and it's free!

Sounds pretty cool, huh?

David

    World_link permalink
  Nicole : lovelightsinger
print email

Re: Ken Wilber on Deepak Chopra

Nicole said May 19, 2:21 AM:
 

Thanks so much, David! You Integral Pod guys have been so helpful to us here.

Love,

Nicole

    World_link permalink