Archive for July, 2006

« Older Entries

Consciousness Is?

Monday, July 31st, 2006

As the discussion is Alan’s original post has veered into another discussion, I’ve copied and pasted the last few comments here to continue this interesting discussion on consciousness.

Edward Berge Says:
July 29th, 2006 at 12:39 pm e

So to continue to respond to some of your points Alan I’m going back and re-reading Ken’s latest work, Integral Spirituality. I only have the original draft, not the full, new book. The new book is being released chapter by chapter at the Integral Spirituality Center but I’m not a member so I don’t have access to it. Plus the original draft does not contain the footnotes, so I don’t have access to many key explantions.

Disclaimers now aside, it seems that what the perenniel traditions discuss is the state-stages of meditative awareness, not the structure-stages of self development. (I know you say Aurobindo goes beyond them; we’ll get there.) The state-stages are the developmental sequence of 1st-person, phenomenological experience, the inside of the interior of the UL quadrant. Ken claims that such traditions were blind to the modern, exterior scientific developments and postmodern, intersubjective developments, which is true. Hence these traditions confused the state-stages for ontological realms of objective being. In other words, their intepretative framwork, not yet having the structural-stage developments of modern and pomo, intepreted these state-stages in the only ways they knew how.

Another factor is that one of the discoveries, or enactments, of the pomo, intersubjective worldspace is that epistemology and ontology cannot be separated. Both are valid, neither can be reduced to the other, but one cannot exist without the other. In a sense it’s like the inner/outer necessity we’re discussing with higher planes of existennce (ontology) you maintain can exist without a material connection. And I think you’re right that Ken disagrees, because he sees that a level of being cannot exist separately from the intepretive framework of the knower. It seems that the actual ontological level of being only comes into existence at the time that someone at the leading edge of evolutionary consciousness co-enacts it with their apprehension of it.

I understand that the metaphysical idea is the reverse, that the ontological levels of being were laid down in involution and that in evolution we progress back up through these already existent realms. These realms’ existence came before and exist apart from the material plane. Ken allows for involution but not as pre-existing ontolgical planes, merely as a morphogenetic gradient. It seems this gradient is “consciousness,” which is itself without form or content, merely the empty space is which evolutionary form arises.

This consciousness does sound a lot like a some kind of metaphysical “thing” that is outside of the material plane. It also seems to be outside of the upper left phenomelogical state-stages experiences discussed earlier. At least it would have to be, or else it wouldn’t transcend the AQAL matrix and hence not be an absolute. And this is where I get hung up on understanding the whole process. Help!

  • Edward Berge Says:
    July 29th, 2006 at 3:10 pm eKen’s conception of involutionary pre-givens outside of evolution can be found in note 26 to Exceprt A. These are distinguished from the kosmic pattern/habits of evolutioin thought to be involutionary givens by the perenniel philosophy.

    As Spirit throws itself outward in creating the physical universe with the big bang it leaves traces of itself, but not with levels, forms or contents but rather the morphogenetic field that pulls or spurs evolution forward (eros or agape, depending on the perspective). It is a gradient of potential, not actual ontological realms. So what then is pre-given by involution, besides this gradient of potential, eros and agape? According to Ken it’s the 20 tenets of holons.

    But what of this Spirit that left traces in involution and that we grow toward in evolution? This Spirit that stands outside of time and space, that is the very ground of it all? Is this the same Consciousness per above that is without quality or content that gives rise to both the involutionary morphogenetic gradient as well as the evolutionary measure of altitude?

    In Integral Spirituality (IS) Ken says:

    “This happens to fit nicely with the Madhyamaka-Yogachara view of consciousness as emptiness or openness. Consciousness is not anything itself, just the degree of openness or emptiness, the clearing in which the phenomena of the various lines appear (but is not itself a phenomena–it is the space in which phenomena arise).” (p. 29)

    Yet this consciousness is the altitude or level marker for all the lines. How can this be so if it is empty of quality? Ken goes on ask this same question on p. 30: “Since consciousness itself is without specific contents, how can we refer to its degrees?” He then refers to the perennial traditions’ notion of using the colors of the rainbow to identify them but it doesn’t answer, for me, the question of how something without quality can measure something with it? And it also doesn’t answer for me how this conception of consciousness, which is outside evolution, sounds remarkably like the empty consciousness of the causal realm which is inside the relative realm of UL states.

    You might be asking how this relates to Alan’s original contention that Wilber is using a form of materialism, that all experience of interiors must have a material correlate, that spirit cannot exist without matter. Well, it seems to me that Ken is answering this with the above elucidations, though I don’t quite understand it yet.

  • Edward Berge Says:
    July 29th, 2006 at 9:57 pm eAnother clue to the notion of Spirit beyond manifestion is this comment from p. 32: “Thus, altitude or the x-axis is both empty consciousness as such, and then, in manifestation, the cognitive line, which is necessary but not sufficient (and whose altitude itself is measured by empty consciousness as such).” Ken sees the cognitive line as a qualified type of consciousness, one that enters “manifestation.” Consciousness per se, or Spirit, is empty of phenomenon and is the space in which it arises. The more phenonomon that arises the higher the altitude. But Spirit itself is both outside manifestation (transcendental consciousness per se) AND within it (immanent) via the cognitive line.

    This is consistent with Ken’s comments on reincarnation, that higher levels of consciousness (and their related body-energies) can exist outside material manifestation. But within material manifestation there is a related, intraphysical component for every level of the other quadrants.

    I’m still stuck though on how consciousness per se, which sounds a lot like the causal state within the UL as part of the manifest matrix, is also outside the matrix. Anyone?

  • Marko Rinck Says:
    July 30th, 2006 at 2:38 am eHi everyone,

    It seems to me that we are having an age old discussion here, which is already going on between Buddhists and Hinduists (mainly advaita) for more then 2000 years. The question being “is there Atman and Brahman or Noatman and Nobrahman?”. Part of this discussion is the question if identity, truth and consciousness are ontological states outside of our knowledge of it or not?

    Ken in his essay Intregral Spirituality incorporates postmodernist thought which says that truth is only relevant in cultural context (LL) and outside of that there is no ontological truth. He then links is to the ultimate emptiness doctrine of Buddhism. But that is circle logic because postmodern thought was influenced by Buddhism itself.

    Aurobindo seems to be on the Hindu side of the discussion and believes identity, truth and consciousness are ontological states laid out in involution which are also there without us knowing them.

    I see Ken‘s way of involution and morphogenetic fields somewhat artificial. It seems to me that he very much wants to incorporate postmodern thought because of the (postmodern) research that backs up this thought. I am on the Hindu side of this and see identity, truth and consciousness as pre given ontological states that are already there without us knowing them.

    If I am misrepresenting one of the positions I would very much like to be corrected. And it could be I am using some strange words like circle logic because I am Dutch and, just like you Edward, thinking out loud but added to it then translating my Dutch in English.

  • Andy Smith Says:
    July 30th, 2006 at 9:25 am eEdward, I think you’re quite right in seeing an inconsistency in Wilber between, on the one hand, his stated view that consciousness at any level is associated with some material presence, and on the other, with involutionary levels that step down. I made this point at the end of my most recent posting at Visser’s site.
  • Anand Rangarajan Says:
    July 30th, 2006 at 7:23 pm eAndy Smith said, “Nobody has even offered a coherent explanation of how our ordinary consciousness, which has a definite relationship to the brain, can be associated with the physical world.”

    While this is somewhat true, recently analytic philosophers have started arguing that our ignorance regarding the true nature of the physical is responsible for the hard problem of consciousness. See Daniel Stoljar’s article entitled “Two Conceptions of the Physical” (http://philrsss.anu.edu.au/~dstoljar/onlinepapers/2COP.pdf) or his recent book “Ignorance and Imagination” . In particular, Stoljar’s “Two Conceptions…” article is required reading in most analytic philosophy departments. Taking into account Stoljar’s articles and David Chalmers’ earlier efforts in addressing the hard problem of consciousness, it is premature to assume that consciousness cannot be accommodated into the physical – for the simple reason that the physical itself is not well defined at present.

    Also for a dual aspect panpsychist approach to consciousness which clearly associates consciousness with the physical world, please see Gregg Rosenberg’s “A Place for Consciousness”
    Anand

    • Posted in Spirituality | 40 Comments »

    King Josiah (Hosea)

    Monday, July 31st, 2006

    There has been an interesting German documentray series on SBS over recent weeks. It’s a survey of the current findings in Old Testament archaeology from an independent, secular view. I won’t go into all the detail save to say that the conclusion of the program is that the Old Testament was compiled in the time of King Hosea of the then northern kingdom of Israel (which was distinct from Judea in the south). It was compiled for political reasons, to provide a glorified past which he could use to further his ambitions. This is not unusual, rulers have often had lineages and histories fabricated in order to glorify and justify their ambitions.

    One of the startling allegations (backed up by archaeological evidence) is that the famed kingdom of Solomon never existed as described. If Solomon existed he was a more minor figure. Another allegation is that the story of Moses and Joshua’s conquest of Canaan never really happened either. It’s myth designed to give the Jews, and especially Hosea, a divine mandate – again, a not uncommon thing.

    It might be assumed that this means that the Jews do not have the claim over the land that they say they do. However, other evidence indicates that the Jews were always in Israel as part of the Canaanite people. Over time they became a separate culture that became dominant. The Bible was just a way for them to claim a supernatural history, rather than a more mundane, natural history.

    So this research is not really bad news for Jews – but it is bad news for Islam because Mohammed accepts the Biblical account and bases his own claim to be a prophet on the authority of the OT prophets. The principle of jihad and his own (and Islam’s) aggressive expansion was inspired in part, by the story of Joshua’s conquest of Canaan, which never really happened.

    There’s an interesting twist to this. Many have excused the violence in the Koran by pointing to the violence in the OT. But it seems the violence in the OT may have been retrospective boasting to glorify the Jews of Hosea’s time. There may not have been the wholesale destruction the OT claims (though there would have been battles), rather a much longer period of gradual domination. Certainly aspects of the OT indicate that ‘purist’ Jews faced a constant struggle against other local variations (including the belief in Asherah, the consort of Jehovah). However, the destruction outlined in the Koran is historical, there is no real dispute that it happened. So the twist is that Jewish history may not have been as violent as first thought but the myth that it was inspired Mohammed who really did do a Joshua and expand his religion.

    And what of the modern day Palestinian’s claim to be the descendents of the Canaanites? A curious claim because the Canaanites disappeared as the Jews came to prominance. There seems to no record of a parallel Canaanite precence in the region. However, after the Roman’s destroyed the Second Temple there was a large exodus of Jews. This created a vacuum which neighbouring Arabs quite naturally took advantage of (and why wouldn’t they?). Until the Muslim conquest Palestine was part of the Christian Byzantine empire. The Arabs converted to Islam but there were always Jews and Christians. As I understand it, until the Crusades and the Christian massacre of thousands of Jews, Jerusalem had a majority Jewish population. Where were these Canaanites?

    Posted in Ray's Integral Blog | 2 Comments »

    Lebanon – 2

    Saturday, July 29th, 2006

    There was an important point I missed yesterday and that is the culpability of the civilian population in creating their own situation. The term innocent civilian can be misleading because some of the civilian population are Hezbollah sympathizers who fully endorse Hezbollah’s beliefs and agenda. There are many fleeing Lebanon who curse Hezbollah, but there are others who share Hezbollah’s desire to destroy Israel and kill Jews.

    I must admit to loosing a lot of sympathy for the Palestinians when they voted for Hamas. I know the reasons given were that Fatah was corrupt and ineffective. But here’s the thing – the Palestinians knew what Hamas stood for, it wasn’t a secret. The Palestinians knew full well that Hamas used terror tactics against Israeli civilians and they knew full well that Hamas was an Islamist political party that wanted the complete destruction of Israel. And knowing all this they still voted for them. What did they think would happen next?

    The argument is put forward that Hamas were democratically elected and that Hezbollah have a clear mandate from the Shi’ite population of Lebanon. True, but so what? This doesn’t mean that the rest of the world has to co-operate. It is entirely conceivable for a population to elect a vicious fascist government into power. How innocent were the Germans during WW2? Evidence has emerged that shows just how ordinary citizens participated in and allowed Nazi atrocities. So, just how innocent are civilians?

    I think it’s also worthwhile keeping in mind just what Hamas and Hezbollah want. For a start they don’t want an independent Palestinian state. That would only be a temporary goal on the way to the real objective which, in Hamas’ case is a Pan-Islamist state that includes much of the ME, absorbing Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, etc. They are not genuine Palestinian nationalists. Hezbollah wants to establish a unified Shi’ite theocracy which would unite all Shia under an Iranian style theocracy. They are not nationalists, they are Shi’ite theocrats. A unified Shi’ite theocracy would include Lebanon, Iran, Iraq and be allied to the Allawite minority that rules Syria (the Allawites are a sub-set of Shi’ism).

    The disturbing reality is that if Hamas and Hezbollah were to succeed in defeating Israel then they would turn on each other over the spoils, just as Sunni and Shia are fighting each other over Iraq.

    It is also worthwhile mentioning that the concept of ‘civilian’ does not mean much in Islam. Under the rules of jihad all Muslims are considered active participants. If they are not active combatants then they are expected to be active supporters. Similarly, all infidels are considered alike. There are a set of rulings under sharia law that permit civilians to be killed. The Western distinction between combatant and non-combatant does not apply. This is why Islamist jihadis have no moral problem in targeting innocent civilians – under their interpretation their victims are all culpable infidels. You are automatically guilty because you are not a ‘pure’ Muslim.

    There has been an argument put forward that the Israeli attack is ‘collective punishment’, as if that were an illegitimate reason. There probably is an element of that, after all Hezbollah only succeeded because of popular support. Here we need to consider the principle of reciprocity and argue in return that if you do not want collective punishment applied to you then do not tolerate it being done to others. How then is the indiscriminate firing of missiles into Israel (one hit a hospital yesterday) not collective punishment? How is the deliberate targeting of civilians in suicide missions not collective punishment? Should we sympathize with Shi’ite civilians who applaud these types of actions against Israelis?

    And on a final note – the cult of martyrdom arose within the Shi’ites during the Iran/Iraq war (the Iranians were content to allow young boys to become martyrs) and was initially used by Shi’ites in Lebanon and then used by Sunni Hamas. Under the cult of martyrdom it is permissable to allow your own civilians to be killed because they died in a jihad and will automatically ascend to paradise. It is therefore morally permissable to put civilians in harm’s way, even without their consent, because they will become martyrs – in other words, civilians are legitimate weapons.

    Posted in Politics, Ray's Integral Blog, Terrorism | 4 Comments »

    Infantalizing women and children

    Friday, July 28th, 2006

    The issue of extending childhood is a topic I’ll revisit and review from time to time – when I was writing about the age of consent (which I regard as being a small corner of a much larger issue) I happened to watch ‘Iron Jawed Ladies’ (starring Hilary Swank and Aussie Frances O’Connor) a US film about the US Suffragette movement. What struck me at the time was the patronizing attitude men had towards women and the absurd arguments they put forward to justify preventing women getting the vote.

    What has this got to do with the age of consent? The arguments used to justify preventing women from getting the vote stemmed from a popular idea that women were to be protected from harsh realities because they did not have the ‘constitution’ or ‘mature rationality’ of men. This was an argument that was also used against other races. White men were morally and intellectually superior.

    It was also an argument used by men to control women’s sexuality. There were all sorts of false ideas promoted at this time. Female orgasms were linked to hysteria, clitoral orgasms were considered inferior to vaginal orgasms – the list of ignorance is long. The field of sexology, pioneered by Magnus Hirschfeld and Havelock Ellis, began to explode several myths. It has always been a controversial field because of its myth busting. Part of the process of controlling women’s sexuality was to infantalize women. Male doctors would not even dare to mention certain ‘delicate’ subjects to women, despite it being about their gynaecological well-being. And as the field of anthroplogy revealed radically different approaches to sexuality this knowledge was also kept from women because of its ‘delicate’ nature.

    It was part of a general patronizing attitude.

    The move to extend the age of consent was directed mainly at girls/women (boys were allowed certain hypocritical exceptions) and there was both a patronizing and matronizing aspect. The age of consent is not only about sexual intercourse that might lead to pregnancy or STIs, but also about withholding sexual information. It is usually only girls/women who ‘loose’ their innocence – it’s a mark of virtue if a man gains sexual experience early.

    Of course it’s linked to the high value Western society places on female virginity (in other cultures the hymen is considered an aberration and is broken in childhood). Feminism has made a thorough examination of the economic and patriarchal reasons for preserving virginity which I asume most of you are familiar with, so I won’t repeat them here.

    In my Temenos system I argue that the second stage of development deals with the archetype of the father and mother, the shadow version of which is the terrible father and terrible mother. The patronizing attitude is an example of the terrible father and it necessarily makes an alliance with the ‘matronizing’ attitude. The father protects by using discipline, the mother protects by wrapping the child in cotton wool. We find the matronizing impulse in both its good and shadow versions most in the helping professions, including psychology (and especially social work).

    The creation of ‘victims’ is often a result of an overactive matronizing impulse. A victim cannot take responsibility for themselves and must be protected, wrapped in cotton wool, by the matronizing power. This is not to deny the genuine cases of victimization, just to recognize a pathological matronizing impulse that creates and perpetuates victimhood.

    The age of consent laws were championed by Christian feminists who were part of the social purity movement and part of the worthwhile reform of many social evils (including slavery). But it also stepped into a moral matronizing stance. This still exists today in the feminist movement with an obvious split between what has been called the anti-porn and pro-porn feminists. (Is there a better title? I hope so, but you get my point). The anti-porn feminists see porn stars as victims of an insidious patriarchal industry whereas their opposites recognize sex work as a legitimate avenue that may empower women – not all of them are the victims the matronizing impulse would have them be.

    I suspect the same forces are at play in creating and sustaining the myth of the innocent child and extending that idea into late adolescence. As I’ve already said the evidence seems to suggest that ‘children’ are maturing physically, cognitively, affectively and morally at an earlier age. A 16 year old in 1920, 1950, 1970 and 2006 are different in terms of knowledge and maturity.

    As an interesting side note – a new Australian film has caused a controversy. It’s 2.37, the debut film by Murali Thalluri (which has just opened the Melbourne Film Festival). It looks at teen suicide and covers subjects such as sibling incest, homophobia, bulimia and confusion over sexual identity. The irony is that it has been given an R rating, which means it can only be seen by 18 and over. This is actually very funny because Murali wrote and started the film when he was 17 and technically he could not have seen his own film. All of the events in the film are based on his experience as a 16 year old, including the suicide of a friend and his own slide into depression and attempted suicide. This means that a film that might help teens understand their own angst and made by a teen will not allowed to be shown to very age group it was about, by and for. So, go figure!

    Posted in Ray's Integral Blog, Sexology | 2 Comments »

    Lebanon

    Friday, July 28th, 2006

    I’ve had time to digest the news coming out of Lebanon. I like to survey all the reports, both left/right, immediate and considered. There’s the rush to be first with the scoop, the dramatic and shocking images. Reporters battle each other for a different angle or an image that seems to contradict official press releases. However, all too often these initial reports miss important detail. We have to wait for the second wave of more in depth journalism from those who are more experienced and know how to sift through the propaganda from all sides (not ‘both’ sides, because conflict is usually not between two sides, but multiple views).

    Of course we can do a formulaic AQAL analysis of the conflict. I assume that most readers will be able to do so. Yes, there are all quadrant causes but what interests me the most is the divergent narratives being spread in regard to this conflict and how we might sort through those narratives and their biases to separate truth from myth/fiction and try to find a solution and predict likely consequences.

    Israel seems to have lost the propaganda war. This is a great pity because I believe their action is fully justified – and I’ll explain why. They have lost the propaganda war because the immediate media response is to concentrate on the most dramatic images and the greatest loss of life. There is then a emotional public reaction to these graphic images and an immediate need to place blame. In this case it is against Israel because it appears that they have over-reacted and have caused the loss of ‘innocent’ lives. We are dealing here with perceptions and it appears as if Lebanon is the weaker victim of Israeli strength and aggression.

    But now information is coming out that suggests that one of Hezbollah’s tactics is to intentionally draw fire towards civilians and UN peacekeepers. There is even mounting evidence that Hezbollah has forced civilians to act as human shields at gun point. This is a common guerilla tactic usually justified by arguing that the guerilla force has to resort to this because of the superior firepower of the enemy – they have to hide amongst civilians otherwise they will easily be picked off. What is less acknowledged is that it is a powerful propaganda weapon – particularly against the West because the Western public has a relatively low tolerance for the loss of ‘innocent’ civilian life. So insurgent forces dress as civilians and operate in densely populated areas (and in the ME hide in mosques) in order to cause as much of a propaganda advantage as possible. And in Lebanaon Hezbollah is doing exactly this, moving their missiles from town to town and firing from within so that if they are attacked there is high ‘collateral’ damage – and where there is a UN post they go toward it in order to draw fire. Of course, there is another very sound reason – and one I would use myself – there is a chance the enemy might not fire because the collateral risk is too high.

    This last point is important because Israel and the West do consider the collateral risk and do pull back from certain actions. This is not a moral consideration that Hezbollah makes. Whilst Israel makes some attempt to distinguish between civilians and combatants and to target only combatants Hezbollah makes no such distinction – which is where we get into competing narratives. Hezbollah fires its missiles randomly toward non military targets. It regards all Israelis and Jews as enemies.

    There has been considerable talk about proportionality. In the first days people were shocked that Israel would go to such an extent to recover two soldiers. But this conflict is not really about that – the kidnap was only the straw that broke the camel’s back. This conflict is about one thing – destroying Hezbollah. Israel would have known very early that there was a high probablity that their action could have seen their soldiers killed, so it’s not about their return. In which case the response has been proportionate, even measured – because it is now apparent that Hezbollah was better armed and better organized than Israel first thought.

    Let’s be clear about this, both Hamas and Hezbollah want one thing – the complete destruction of Israel. Whilst both organizations hold this aim they cannot be trusted and any cease fire is temporary. Hezbollah may accept a cease fire but only if they are in a weak position, in which case they will use a cease fire to regroup and find other ways to undermine Israel.

    And this is where we face another argument – that Israel is a bully that has the ‘unfair’ advantage of a large military (supplied by the US). But how easily people who hold this view forget history. Israel has always had to defend itself against powerful elements in the ME who want its complete destruction. This is not about the moderates on both sides who do reach out to each other and who do suggest solution after solution. It is about the extremists who undermine the moderates. In this climate the only way Israel has survived is through its ability to hit back and hit back very hard. Who is the bully? The person who does not want you to exist at all, or the person who demands they have a place and is prepared to fight back? Does Israel make mistakes, does it go overboard? No doubt – but who knows where the balance lies? Opinions vary widely. If Israel had not had the capacity to hit back hard does anyone seriously think that it would still exist?

    Whether you accept this view depends on whether or not you accept that Israel has a right to exist. Of course, if you think as Hezbollah does, that the Jews have no right to Palestine then all of the Zionists actions have been acts of aggression. If you believe that Israel has a right to exist then you are likely to interpret aggression as justified defence.

    We are now at a very perilous point. I think we’ve quietly slipped into WW3 – slipped quietly liked Iraq has slipped quietly into civil war. Al Qaeda has called for jihad in Lebanon. Just as the invasion of Iraq created an anarchic situation which Islamist insurgents, Saddamists and opportunists could exploit I believe this conflict will descend into a similar situation. I believe Israel knows this and it explains why they want to completely wipe out Hezbollah. If any there are any remnants they will carry on an insurgent war, regardless of whether the UN or NATO sends a peacekeeping force. Lebanon will become another unstable front in a global war against an aggressive brand of Islam.

    But what about the many moderate Muslims? Indeed, what about them? Where the hell are they? This is the other unfortunate aspect of this global war. The extremists are advancing and the moderates retreating. I don’t know if people have been monitoring the global situation but Islam is turning further inwards, not outwards. Islamists have taken control of Somalia and are imposing harsh sharia law – and in the so-called ‘moderate’ Muslim nations conservatives are gaining ground. Indonesia is poised to introduce harsh censorship laws based on sharia, despite the constitution promoting the Panchasa system, the right of the five major religions to co-exist. There was a news report this week that at first seems trivial, but it is the sign of things to come. The conservative Muslim group the Islamic Defenders Front has filed a complaint against Indonesia’s Miss Universe candidate, Nadine Chandrawina, for indecency because she wore a swiming costume. She could face two to five years in prison. I hope it doesn’t succeed, but it might. A similar wave of conservatism is affecting Malaysia and Turkey (which now has full body swimsuits with built in hijabs so conservative Muslim women can go swimming – in time pressure will mount to ban bikinis).

    The war in Lebanon will further polarize the Muslim world and it will inspire even more converts to extremism and conservatism. In which case it might be argued that it has been counter-productive. Yes, but I believe the Israelis knew this but had no choice. I’m trying to remember which movie this scene is in (I think it’s either Sinbad or one of the Indiana Jones movies) – the hero is attacked by a skeleton but every time he smashes the skeleton the bones grow into even more skeletons. If he continues the skeletons will eventually over run him but if he stops they will kill him. Hezbollah was building up arms with the sole intention of eventually attacking Israel. The longer Israel waited the better prepared and armed Hezbollah became. Hezbollah had become a state within a state and was growing in influence. Its state sponsors, Syria and Iran were making increasingly belligerent, anti-Israeli statements. Hezbollah saw an opportunity to create a second front as Israel attempted to stop
    Hamas militants firing Qassim missiles from Gaza into Israel (a situation they had allowed to continue for some weeks in the hope there was a non-military solution).

    This larger polarization will affect every Muslim population and only increase the move toward militantcy, including increasing the risks of home grown ‘terrorist’ actions.

    What can we do? Not a lot, except defend ourselves. I’ve looked at this issue from all sorts of angles and I don’t believe that the bottom-line causes are within the West’s control. Peripheral issues certainly are. I think this is all about a perception of injustice as opposed to real injustice (besides, the idea of justice in Islam is different to the Western idea – the creation of the state of Israel is considered an injustice). We are ultimately fighting Islamic supremacists and triumphalists – people who fervently believe that this is a war between Islam and the infidels which Islam must and will win simply by virtue of the fact that it is the absolute and final word of God. There are many in the West who cannot grasp the relentless logic of this quest. The destruction of Israel is only an initial step. As Zarwahiri has just said, Islam must triumph from Spain to Iraq (yes folks, Spain must return to Muslim rule).

    What about international law you say? Doesn’t matter. The Koran and sharia are understood to be the only basis for any law. If it ain’t Islamic law it doesn’t count and several jurists have declared that the reconquest of Spain was illegal. Which is why the West must inform itself about Islamic law and the Islamic narrative/view of the world.

    And this is why Israel must have a powerful army because under Islamic law the Jews do not have the right to a separate state, they are meant to be subservient (as are all other faiths) to Islam. It was thus before the Zionist movement even conceived of the idea of a Jewish homeland. To a conservative Muslim it is simply an outrage that Jews and Christians (Hindus/Buddhists) even dare to assert themselves in anyway. Israel has always faced significant resistance from forces who never wanted it to exist.

    Again, what of the moderate view? It’s there and they are as appalled by the hardline view as anyone, but they are in retreat. Someone help me here but I can’t think of a moderate gain in the last year anywhere in the Muslim world.

    Posted in Politics, Ray's Integral Blog, Terrorism | 5 Comments »

    The Game of Metatheorising

    Wednesday, July 26th, 2006

    Have a look at David Boje’s site here.

    This “game” is an interesting concept for supporting multiparadigm perspective taking andfor opening up metatheoretical blindspots. Imagine this game applied to integral approaches with various integral approaches included among those presented here  (the organisational theories included here are well worth a look in themsleves).  Although the game is specifically for consultants something similar could also be used as an antidote against our own pet assumptions and theoretical biases.
    David Boje founded the Journal of Organisational Change and Management which was the first academic journal to offer a special issue on integral theory.  He’s developed some wonderful postmodern appraoches to organisational development. He’s also developed a holon-based method for representing interorganisational development.

    Posted in Integral Sites | 1 Comment »

    Essay on Integral World

    Tuesday, July 25th, 2006

    Hi everyone

    Finally my entire essay – Towards a Larger Definition of the Integral – An Aurobindonian vision and a critique of the Wilberian paradigm – is up on Integral World

    For those who are interested, the entire series is:

    There will also be a follow-up essay.  

    I have spoken more about the reasoning behind this essay series on my blog Integral Transformation, so I won’t repeat myself here.  But basically I am interested in emphasising much less the intellectual-theoretical, and much more the practical process of integral transformation, which according to Sri Aurobindo and the Mother culminates in the transformation and divinsation of matter itself.  This may however be a concept that is too radical for many to appreciate.

    Posted in Uncategorized | 27 Comments »

    A further note

    Tuesday, July 25th, 2006

    I think some of the confusion over this consent issue is understanding the difference between when a person can consent and when a person ought to be allowed to consent. The age for either may be vastly different. I assume that people born into fundamentalist families are as equally capable of consent as someone born into a secular family. However, religious conviction may state that an unmarried person should not consent to sex no matter what age. Indeed, many fundamentalists actively argue that laws should be put in place to impose their view and fundamentalist Christians have had some success in pushing abstinence until married programs – and some Muslim states have strict consent laws.

    But this is a different issue to when consent can reasonably be said to effectively occur.

    In a moral plurality is it justifiable to impose a given notion of when consent ‘ought’ to occur, rather than base it on when it ‘can’ actually occur?

    Posted in Ray's Integral Blog, Sexology | No Comments »

    Consent and stuff

    Tuesday, July 25th, 2006

    An interesting set of responses to my posts on age of consent. A real case of misinterpretation and misreading. Mark claims I didn’t answer his questions. I thought I did but I’ll try again. But first a clarification. What I’m interested in is what constitutes consent. How do we know when an adolescent is mature enough to be able to give full adult consent? A survey of the laws in a number of countries shows that the range is between 12 and 18. I haven’t bothered with an average but it seems to be 15/16. But what developmental evidence is there to support that age or any age?

    My biggest concern is that setting any age (14, 16 or 18) ignores the fact that children and adolescents develop at different rates. In fact the period of adolescence is one of great variation in biological and psychological development. It is my view that the law should recognize and be sensitive to this great range.

    Now I have rephrased my views a couple of times but let’s be fair here. This is a blog, a diary, a record of thoughts in progress. I’m allowed to change my mind – not that I have a great deal. For the record (again). I think the age of full adult consent should be raised to 18 or even 21 (depending on the evidence). Up until that age the law should be flexible in order to take account of the developmental differences between teens. I wish I could remember where I saw it but developmental psychologists have charted when individuals enter certain stages. If we use Kohlberg as an example, some children enter stage 3 before puberty and some adults never quite get there. I’m also interested in ‘gifted’ children and some of these teens enter a high cognitive level early. But again, what constitutes consent? If there is such a spread in both biological and psychological rates of development then surely any set age has to be completely arbitrary. So what I’m suggesting is to allow a period of provisional consent.

    Mark asks how the court might determine the competence of the adolescent? Much the same way they do now. Child abuse experts and psychologists are already consulted and the court might direct that the ‘victim’ to undergo counselling. Mark also asks how the police might learn of an offence? The same way they do now. It’s reported. The difference for me is that the state cannot prosecute a case against the clear wishes of the alleged victim. As it stands now, in many constituencies the wishes of the victim are not taken into account. What is the psychological affect on someone who is forced to participate in a court case they did not initiate and to see someone sentanced who they have no complaint against?

    I think we need a reality check here. What really happens now under age of consent laws? The fact is that adolescents break them all the time. The only time a case is prosecuted is if someone finds out. Teens are good at keeping secrets. An example recently was the confession of a personality on TV that she lost her virginity when she was 14. She was at a sleepover and her friend had organized for them all to loose their virginity that night. They all snuck out and met up with boys around the ages of 17/18 and did the deed. They kept the secret. Dangerous behaviour? Yes, but this happens all the time.

    The great concern is about older, predatory men. I am aware of no evidence to suggest that fixing an age of consent stops this risk. Nor am I aware that there is a sudden pressure placed on ‘just legal’ adolescents from eager older men lining up for ’sweet sixteens’. Predators simply try to subvert what ever law is in place anyway. How are they caught? A complaint is made and nowhere in my posts have I removed the right of an adolescent to make a complaint. However, again, the reality is that modern teenagers are far more forward in seeking sex than previous generations, especially females. There have been numerous reports of girls becoming more sexually aggressive and if they see an older guy they like they will pursue him regardless of the law. I’m not talking about 14 year olds seducing 40 year olds, more 13/14/15 hitting on 18/19/20.

    Consider this, a mature 14 year old who understands the law is more than capable of subverting the law. If he/she is capable of such subversion perhaps they are also capable of consent?

    Mark then asks a cruncher question – what happens if a child consents to an adult/child sexual contact? This is indeed a controversial issue and I will be controversial and say that not all child/adult sexual contact is either abusive or harmful. There have been several studies done that support this. The most famous was a meta-survey published by the American Psychological Association in 1998 which argued that around 48% of males and 31% (from memory – when I finally work out how to provide a link and I’ll link you to the original paper) who said they had had sexual contact with an adult reported it to be pleasurable and non-traumatic. Another percentage said it was unwanted but not especially traumatic. And yes, of course there were those who said it was traumatic. This paper caused such a controversy that Congress sought to ban it. After a public outcry subsided a professional review of the methodology of the meta-survey cleared it of any methodological fault. It still stands. There have been further studies that have reached similar conclusions. If we claim to be integral shouldn’t we take account of these studies?

    In her book ‘Harmful to Minors’ Sandra Levine outlines how the over zealous proecution of child abuse cases can actually cause more trauma to the alleged victim than the original incident itself, especially when the child does not regard the incident as significant or upsetting.

    In general what I am suggesting is that the reality is far more complex and nuanced than any arbitrary law can expect to cope with. I would have thought integral thinkers might have realised that consent is a complex AQAL affair.

    Finally, what constitutes consent? Let’s not muddy the waters with driving licences and such. In order to get a driving licence one has to pass a test, fail and you don’t get it – you don’t automatically get a licence when you reach a certain age (and yes, the age at which one can sit a test varies, 18 in Victoria, 17 in NSW, and 16 in some US states). In my view consent can occur when two conditions are satisfied.

    1. Knowledge of consequences.
    2. Ability to judge consequences.

    Even if you are a genius and you have no knowledge of likely consequences then you cannot give consent. Knowledge can be attained (hence the need for comprehensive sex education). The ability to judge consequences is surely a matter of cognitive development ? In which case, in regard to sexual consent, what is the appropriate cognitive level – given that the age of consent equally applies to allowing cognitively less able individuals to consent by virtue of the fact they are old enough? That’s the flip side of a set age. Not only that it denies young but able people the right to consent but gives older but not as able people the right to consent because they’ve passed an arbitrary age. And here we can discuss the right to sexual relations given to the intellectually disabled.

    Further – attaining competency to consent ought to be based on the complexity of the thing one is consenting to. In the case of sex it ranges from the simple to the more emotionally complex – and I might add, when laws are included there is an added layer of complexity.

    Posted in Ray's Integral Blog, Sexology | 1 Comment »

    What is enlightenment anyway?

    Monday, July 24th, 2006

    Edward Berge: 

    I’m creating a new topic from the last comments in the Social Holonic Agency thread, as we came around to enlightenment being a “special case” outside of culture, at least according to Andy. But what is enlightenment?

    I’ll kick this off with Ken’s version from Chapter 4 of Integral Spirituality, which is being printed chapter by chapter at the Integral Spiritual Center for subscribers. Chapter 4 deals with states and stages and their relationship.

    Ken says that he used to stack the transpersonal stages of gross, subtle, causal and non-dual on top of the structural stages up to integral-aperspectival. But then he discovered that the above transpersonal stages were really state-stages, or development in the meditative states. These were confused with the actual transpersonal structure-stages because there are similarities but they are not indentical.

    So he and Combs created the Wilber-Combs lattice where the structure-stages are charted vertically on the left and the state-stages are horizontal across the top. This shows that someone from any stage of development can have a state experience and will intepret it from their developmental stage. Hence one could achive a steady-state experience of the non-dual within a past, conventional level culture. They would be “enlightened” within that cultural context. But would they be enlightened today? Ken suggests that they would not because this person is not one with all the states and stages currently available.

    Of course this places enlightenement is a sliding scale, at least its relative aspect. The unchanging causal realm and experience doesn’t change, but the relative world does. And if the highest state-stage is the non-dual (aka ”enlightenment”) wherein the absolute and relative are integrated, then at least part of enlightenment evolves and part of it doesn’t. This explanation allows for that aspect of enlightenment that is beyond relative culture (Andy) yet also that aspect that is bound to it (Edward).

    Posted in Spirituality | 13 Comments »

    « Older Entries