Open Integral

49 Responses to “Nonduality revisited”

1. Edward Berge says:

   March 24, 2007 at 2:16 pm

   kela had this to say from the Lightmind forum at this link: http://lightgate.net/boards/viewtopic.php?t=6424&sid=e82007ccc8da013d3eb48cf4dd6f624a

   To get the gist of what Ken is on about here in terms of the two ‘forms’ of non-duality, we need to go back to Da. And from there we need to backtrack, yet once again, to the contrast between trancendentalism and immanentism found in traditions like Mahayana Buddhism, Vedanta, and Shaivism.

   In fact, if we follow this line of thinking in detail, there are three structurally distinct forms of the “non-dual.”

   In the traditional conception, the “causal state” is deep dreamless sleep. We might say that corresponding to this are the formless samapatti or attainments, sometimes called the formless jhanas. Transcending this “causal formlessness” are respectively, the nirvikalpa samadhi of Yoga/Vedanta synthesis of the 15th century, and what is called nirodha samapatti, the cessation of ideation/perception, in the Buddhist tradition. Both states are uderstood as super-worldy (loka-uttara), that is, as transcending conditioned states of consciousness, which for both traditions involves three-fold structure.

   What Da does is purposely conflate traditional conceptions of the third causal state, traditionally a conditioned state of consciousness, with the implied “fourth” state of consciousness, nirvikalpa samadhi/nirodha samapatti, which is traditionally considered a transcedent, if transitory, state. This is to say that he calls both nirvikalpa samadhi and deep dreamless sleep “causal.” That Da breaks with tradition here can be seen by way of his description of the so called “cosmic mandala,” or what Yogananda calls the “spiritual eye.” Yogananda clearly identifies the yellow ring of the mandala with the “subtle” realm and the blue ring with the “causal” dimension. Da, however, says that the red-yellow ring is “gross” and associates the blue ring with the “subtle.” Yogananda identifies the white star at the centre of the field with nirvikalpa samadhi and with transcendence of the three states. Da however relates the star with the “causal” domain.

   The effect of Da’s classification here is to “ratchet up” his terminology a notch. In effect, what Da is saying is this: “What was causal for you is now merely subtle for me.” This is an rhetorical old trick, and Da is not the first to use this kind of gambit. We find similar moves among the statements of various yogis and sants of the later tradition. This is another reason why their statements cannot be taken phenomenologically at face value: statements about such states and their hierarchy often contain polemical content, and this content needs to by made clear before actual structural comparisons can be drawn. That Kenny follows Da’s account is made clear by the fact that Ken often lumps in the third formless samapatti, the state of “nothingness,” with nirodha — something that the Buddhist tradition never does — and calls them both “causal.”

   We can now begin to clarify what is going on here vis a vis the terminology of “non-duality.”

   In a certain sense, we can call the third state of dreamless sleep “non-dual” in so far as there is no object, no other, no second in this state. This is what the word implies, after all, no (a-) second (dvaita), and this is precisely the sense used by the Brhadaranyaka Upanishad: the third state has no object of consciousness, no other, no second.

   But according to the Gaudapada Karika, this third state is still merely a relative state of consciousness. It is different from transcendent states insofar as the “seeds” (bija) of karmic impulses (samskara; vasana) remain in it. But does this mean that the “seeds” of karma, dissappear in the transcedent state? Here the tradition itself gets cloudy. The Gaudapada Karika only refers to the end result, turiya, the enlightened condition (bodha) of release (moksha) in its constrast with deep dreamless sleep. The Yoga Sutra, does speak of a seedless or “nirbija” samadhi. This, the commentaries equate with something they call “asamprajnata samadhi,” which the later Vedanta tradition of Vidyaranya and Sadananda identify with “nirvikalpa samadhi.” But the Yoga Sutra nowhere mentions any such state. It merely makes use of the term “asamprajnata,” and the later commentators like Vijnanabhikshu take this as referring to some sort of samadhi. This identification with “nirbija samadhi” is problematic. For according to a later tradition, the “seeds” of mental karma (samskara) are “burnt up” by repeated entry into asamprajnata samadhi. Thus, asamprajnata samadhi cannot simply be nirbija samadhi since the latter can only refer to the end of the process, to a kind of final state.

   In any case, what we find in the Yoga commentaries and later Advaita tradition is the description of a state in which conditioned existence is temporarily transcended. This corresponds, almost in its entirety, with the earlier Buddhist descriptions of “nirodha samapatti” and “asamjnika samapatti,” which the Buddhist texts themselves describe as a kind of “foretaste” of nirvana. This state, then, corrosponds with the “second” form of “non-duality.”

   According to Da, this state is but a temporary manifestation. And it remains relative to conditioned existence. While it can be called a kind of absolute state in that it absolutely transcends conditioned existence, it remains relative to conditioned existence. It can, in this sense, be designated a kind of “relative absolute.” According to Da, certain traditions make this state their primary goal and objectify it in their metaphysics (the nirguna brahman of Advaita Vedanta for example). But, he thinks, this state is still a “limited” state. And those traditions that attempt to turn it into a kind of permanent condition, the condition of permanent absorption in perfect formlessness, remain “limited” traditions. According to Da, these traditions discriminate nirvikalpa/nirodha state from worldly existence. In so doing, they create another duality, or, we might say, one duality remains.

   In this paper by Edward Conze, in subsection “C,” Conze distinguishes various sense of the term “non-dual” (advaya) in the Prajnaparamita texts. The first two need not interest us as they refer to two senses of the term that can be understood historically; they are associated with the Yogachara and Madhyamika schools, respectively. It is the third sense that we are interested in here; it refers to a sense that needs to be understood structurally. This is the non-duality between the absolute and the relative.

   This form of non-duality, it should be noted, is of a different order than the ones we have been discussing so far. Its structural relation can be understood as follows. The first two kinds of non-duality can be understood in horizontal terms. For example, we can think of a constrast or duality between two relative terms, say left and right, male and female, light and dark, etc. We can then think of their “resolution,” a kind of “coincidence of opposites,” as their “non-duality.” But then we have generated another duality, a duality between, on the one hand, the two terms understood as a constrasting pair, and on the other hand, their resolution understood as a unity. This duality I refer to as a vertical duality. The important point to note is that this is a duality of another order. It is in fact a kind of ultimate duality, and it is expressed by the contrast between Brahman and Maya, Shiva and Shakti, Nirvana and Samsara, etc. It is the duality between the absolute and the relative.

   What the traditions of “immanentism” attempt to do is “resolve” this final duality. According to them, pure transcendentalism seeks to maintain this final duality, and it does this by laying stress on the absolute term. But this “absolute” is, according to them, but a mere relative absolute since it remains in conflict with, in duality with, conditioned existence (maya, samsara, etc.) Da appropriates this tradition and makes it his own. Hence he begins to speak of “open eyes” (a term taken from Kashmiri Shaivism) samadhi, or “sahaja samadhi,” a kind of “continuous samadhi” in which transcendence is resolved with everyday waking consciousness. Ken refers to this state by means of various metaphysical equations: Emptiness is Form, “nirvana and samsara are the same,” etc.

   A Critique of Radical Immanentism

   One way of putting this “final resolution” is to say that “everyday consciousness” IS the enlightened condition, that there is no difference, really, between the two: “the enlightened condition is to be found here and now,” etc. The attempt here is to dissolve the “problem” at is very root; in practical terms, thinking that there is a “problem” that needs to be resolved by “sadhana” or some other means, is as much a part of the “problem,” since it implies a dualism between means and goal, seeker/sought, etc., and thus sadhana simply reinforces our conditioned existence by propogating yet more duality. Now we can attempt to do away with “duality” in this manner until it no longer exists. But then the entirety of tradition will come to be called into question, as there will be no distinction between the enlightened and the unenlightened state. This itself is a problem, or at least a grand paradox. My point here is NOT that this is all mere “talking school” and that in fact we need to “practice” because “practice” is “good” and necessary — that is yet another rhetorical bifurcation designed to make people feel good about the fact they put so much effort into their “sadhana” (the Protestant work ethic at work). My point here is merely that at some point, some sort of distinction between the “enlightened” and “unenlightened” state will need to be drawn, and this will mean that a strict adherence to “non-dualism” will need to be abandoned. Either that, or the entirety of tradition will have to be abandoned.

   ——————————————————————————–

   I’m not sure how much all this helps.

   Understanding what non-duality means historically is different from understanding it structurally.

   These two can, however, be combined. In that case we get four senses of the term advaita/advaya, senses that can be rooted philogically.

   1. The Chandogya Upanishadic sense of a material monism: “All this is Brahman,” or everthing is “sat” pure existence.

   2. The Brhadaranyaka Upanishadic sense of “not other,” in which case it means “Brahman has no other, no object”; in other words the world is a-rta, worthless, and only Brahman is real.

   3. The sense found in early Buddhism, the Prajnaparamita sutras and Madhyamika. Here advaya refers to the middle path between the two extremes of “being” and “nothingness” or eternalism and nihilsm, and the term “advaya” means “not one NOR the other.”

   4. A special sense of #3, in which case “advaya” means that reality is not to be designated as either the subject nor the object. This does NOT mean the “union of subject and object” as hockey translations would have it. This is the sense found primarily in Yogachara Buddhism, but also in the Gaudapada Karika and in Kashmiri Shaivism.
2. alan kazlev says:

   March 24, 2007 at 9:36 pm

   Hi Edward

   Thanks for continuing to so clearly elucidate the Wilberian post-modernist-inspired position. Even if I disagree with it, I still find it very interesting!

   Unfortunately I cannot take the credit for the superb scholarship of “The Atman Fiasco”, that essay is by my friend Arvan Harvat.

   Also I got a lot from the very interesting and learned post by Kela from Lightmind forum, the analysis ofvarious forms of nondualism, and the way Da uses polemic to push the superiority of his own insight. And yes it is as Kela points out an old tactic – e.g. in Radha Soami previous teachings regarding the Godhead and Liberation are consigned to intermediate spiritual planes.

   I was also interested to read Kela’s statement that Ken follows Da’s account because he combines “formless samapatti, the state of “nothingness,” with nirodha…and calls them both “causal.” ”

   This supports my own hypothesis that KW’s Wilber-II and all following stages (i.e. his developmental psychology stages, including all the AQAL levels) are based on (essentially just an elaboration of) Da’s “7 stages of Life”; Wilber becoming aquainted with Da and thus rejecting his earlier (Wilber-I) Transpersonal Psychology material. So the above is another example of evidence of this connection. So even though Ken wants to distance himself from Adi Da because of the latter’s contrroversial behaviour, there is no denying his intellectual dept to him. Even in his current (Wilber-V) post-modernist stage he hasn’t yet broken free of the Daist physico-psycho-spiritual developmental “narrative” story.
3. ebuddha says:

   March 24, 2007 at 11:48 pm

   Edward,

   I couple of thoughts.

   1. It’s nice to have someone else think in terms of “the varieties of the non-dual. Way back when, at Generation Sit, I expressed my experience with different experiences of the non-dual..

   2. Perceptually, it still seems to me to be the case that, whether immanent or transcendent, or the same, depends on the point of view. All three are perceptual realities, and, like wave or particles, depend on how one is looking.

   3. Nevertheless, it is still useful to hear the representation of non-duality, via the different schools.

   Lastly, my apologies for not responding or commenting here as frequently. Both busy-ness, and a focus on practices, more than theory, have taken me away. But thanks for keeping going.
4. Edward Berge says:

   March 25, 2007 at 9:21 am

   ebuddha,

   Perhaps you can help me with this question then. In your point 2 above you note that it depends on how “perceptual realities” are interpreted. This is in accord with what Ken is talking about in IS, that even the non-dual is interpreted. One of the main points of the myth of the given is that perception and interpretation arise simultaneously, hence there is no stand-alone, “pure” percetion. The latter is in fact one version of this myth.

   Yet Ken turns around and posits consciousness per se (CPS) as the measure of some type of overall altitude. It seems to me that CPS is by nature the very “pure” perception of the “absolute” that is not supposed to exist by itself, sans interpretation. Is Ken really “integrating” the absolute and relative here (like he appears to in the first paragraph) or is he now conflating them?
5. Edward Berge says:

   March 25, 2007 at 12:43 pm

   A local zen teacher says “beware of states and stages.” She explains that there are no states of consciousness that are enlightenment. She explains that there are no stages involved to understand the former. Yet nondual realization is IN each and every stage, as they are, as is. The mistake is in thinking there is enlightement on the one hand and samsara on the other, and that nonduality is some “integration” of those 2 things.

   The latter is what I’ve been calling Ken’s causal or differentiated nondualism, which he uses to justify certain ideas. The monist nondualism of zen allows for all the rest of Ken’s relative, developmental project as is, as an expression of each and every state and stage but enlightenment is not in any one of them. And yes, Ken does recognize this and say it repeatedly. But we can do so without the causal differentiated nondualism because monist nondualism is NOT developed after the former on some developmental continuum. Zen realization does not require one to have had a causal realization first. Or ever.

   Hence there is no CPS from which to measure an overall level of development. Just stick to the relative measures of altitude in each line Ken, and with the notion of a self-sense that integrates the lines at least tentatively. We can even relegate an overall altitude to this self-sense in very broad terms, usually around the cognitive and ego lines. But CPS? That just ain’t zen or tao man. To paraphrase the t-shirt: that wasn’t zen, this isn’t tao.
6. matthew newsham says:

   March 25, 2007 at 1:10 pm

   CPS might exist as a sort of kosmic habit- as a potential within all quadrants. If you accept this proposition, then deconstructing the idea of altitude by dissecting perception and interperitation may not be appropriate.
   Assuming that CPS exists at least as a manifestation of this potential in bio-organisms that develop increasingly complex nervous systems, Ken’s idea makes some sense- CPS is identifiable in these organisms as the “inside” of their nervous system. Without reaching at least this level of holonic integration it isn’t clear how CPS exists in the “IT” quadrant.
   But then what does that mean about logic? It doesn’t “exist,” literally, until after the advent of the neurocortex… Does this make its truth-claims nonexistant or just undifferentiated?
7. Edward Berge says:

   March 25, 2007 at 1:34 pm

   Matthew,

   I am not dissecting the entire notion of altitude. I said I accept it as a cosmic habit (to put it in your terms) in each line of development. So I’m with you on all of your presentation except when it refers to CPS, which is not supposed to be an evolutionary given (aka kosmic habit) but an involutionary given (aka “pure” and beyond evolution or the relative).
8. Edward Berge says:

   March 25, 2007 at 1:46 pm

   Here’s how Ken described CPS in IS (draft) around p. 83. You can see CPS is “empty” consciousness, not something that emerged in relative development:

   “The altitude markers themselves (3000 feet, 8000 feet, etc.)
   are without content—they are “empty,” just like consciousness per se—but each of the paths can be measured in terms of its altitude up the mountain. The “feet” or “altitude” means degree of development, which means degree of consciousness.

   “This happens to fit nicely with the Madhyamaka-Yogachara Buddhist 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 consciousness is not itself a phenomena—it is the space in which phenomena arise).”

   It seems plain to me that this is the differentiated nondual doctrine that separates the “emptiness” from the “form,” hence your “empty” CPS by which the relative realm is measured.

   Ptah! I had to spit out that distasteful hairball.
9. Edward Berge says:

   March 25, 2007 at 4:34 pm

   As another example, see the following from IS (draft) p. 305:

   “We could also use the phenomena that appear in specific states of consciousness, and indicate their address using, for example, (g/s) for gross state, (s/s) for subtle state, (c/s) for causal state, and (nd/s) for nondual state. Then, using just states instead of levels for a simplistic
   address, we might say, Spirit as emptiness(c/s) is a reality for most long-term meditators. Or, Meister Eckhart gave pointing-out instructions for ever-present Spirit(nd/s).”

   Spirit as emptiness has what address? Seems the cat is inadvertantly let out of the bag here. And even though Ken has said a thousand times that the nondual is not a state but the ground of all states, etc., he treats is like a state in alot of his explication in IS. It’s like when Ken says that all holons have 4 quadrants, they don’t reside in a quadrant, but then he proceeds to put them in quadrants which has tangible and practical consequences, as does using the nondual as a state and the differentiated (causal) nondual doctrine to posit CPS.
10. alan kazlev says:

    March 25, 2007 at 4:38 pm

    Edward said:

    A local zen teacher says “beware of states and stages.” She explains that there are no states of consciousness that are enlightenment. She explains that there are no stages involved to understand the former. Yet nondual realization is IN each and every stage, as they are, as is. The mistake is in thinking there is enlightement on the one hand and samsara on the other, and that nonduality is some “integration” of those 2 things.

    And this is absolutely true from the nondual perspective/experience/realisation (Ramana says basically exactly the same thing). But it isn’t true from the relative mental-perspectival experience/perspective. What impresses me about the Integral project is its attempt to show all perspectives, not just one.
11. Edward Berge says:

    March 25, 2007 at 4:52 pm

    So if you use the causal state emptiness as an altitude marker instead of the nondual ground what do you get? I maintain a hegemonic system or model fueled by warped delusions of grandeur and power. Sound at all familar to you, either in the causal state or differentiated nondual “traditions” or Adi Da or Ken, etc.?

    But by using the nondual ground to, well, ground our relative altitudes, by seeing that there is no “absolute” apart from our relativity, by removing that power drive we can still compassionately embrace all just as they are while even giving them relative addresses of altitude. Just not some “kosmic” address that relegates them to eternal damnation, so to speak.
12. matthew newsham says:

    March 25, 2007 at 6:44 pm

    ” CPS, which is not supposed to be an evolutionary given (aka kosmic habit)”
    Really? Why not?

    So were supposed to have altitude that *wink* isn’t really altitude.
    Sounds a lot like were supposed to have *wink* altitude that is really altitude.

    There definitely are numerous ramifications to each- you point out the social benifits of the first quite clearly.
    I like to believe I have pointed out a few of the benifits to the individual going the other way (none of which I recall you commenting much on).

    Kind of reminds me of Capitalism vs Socialism. Something may not be differentiated at “Orange” here. (sorry to use meme terminology).
13. Andy Smith says:

    March 26, 2007 at 2:25 am

    Edward:

    CPS can be beyond evolution or the relative, yet we can still say that a holon’s degree of development is proportional to the amount of consciousness it realizes. Consider that old standby analogy, waking up from sleep in the morning. There are degrees of wakefulness–deep sleep, dreaming sleep, perhaps what we call drowsiness–each of which realizes progressively more consciousness (the relative, developmental way of understanding it) or is simply more fully awake (understanding the awakened state as completely different and beyond sleep).

    CPS is equated with, in my model, interiority, which is why distinct axes or quadrants are not necessary to express interiority. By Ken’s own definition (formulated some time after I pointed this out), degree of consciousness will always be directly related to degree of exterior development, so it is redundant (like so many other aspects of Wilber’s model) to propose distinct, independent axes or quadrants for interiority. Much of what Wilber calls interiority (such as language) can be understood in terms of exteriors. What can’t is simply CPS.
14. Edward Berge says:

    March 26, 2007 at 7:12 am

    I’d agree with both Andy and Matthew in the development of consciousness in the interior via evolution as a kosmic habit. I think this is primarily via the cognitive line, but also the “awareness” line that is developed by meditation etc. Although I think Andy rightly notes that what Ken means by CPS is not the foregoing.
15. Mark says:

    March 26, 2007 at 8:29 am

    There’s a basic rational contradiction at the heart of the 4Q model reagrding consciousness that reflects this relative and absolute conundrum. We label the UL as the consciousness quadrant AND define consciousness as the space within which all quadrants and levels arise THEREFORE consciousness cannot be limited to any single quadarnt or level. As Wilber says,

    “consciousness actually exists distributed across all four quadrants with all of their various levels and dimensions. There is no one quadrant (and certainly no one level) to which we can point and say, There is consciousness. Consciousness is in no way localized in that fashion.”

    So we have a model that defines consciousness as the interior of the individual AND says that it cannot be limited to any quadrant. The solution is to scrap the UL as the seat of consciousness. Consciousness is as much a behavioural and a social quality as it is an interior and an individual quality. The sociogenetic view of consciousness has been saying this for more than a century.

    Similarly with the relative absolute thing. let’s “simply” say that everything is absolutely relative and that there is absolutely nothing that is “simply” Nondual (relatively speaking that is).
16. Edward Berge says:

    March 26, 2007 at 9:55 am

    Yes Mark, and this is precisely the difference in a TOE and a TFA. With the latter we can maintain the holonic/AQAL model without the hegemonic metapysical underpinnings, both of CPS and absolutism. Just mix in a little Derrida, steep for 3 minutes and serve in attractively decorated porcelin cups.
17. ebuddha says:

    March 26, 2007 at 10:17 am

    “Yet Ken turns around and posits consciousness per se (CPS) as the measure of some type of overall altitude. It seems to me that CPS is by nature the very “pure” perception of the “absolute” that is not supposed to exist by itself, sans interpretation. Is Ken really “integrating” the absolute and relative here (like he appears to in the first paragraph) or is he now conflating them?”

    IF I am understanding you correctly –

    even though CPS isn’t ever experienced in its “pure” state, doesn’t mean that quantitative and qualitative judgments cannot be made (maybe better to state “noticeable perceptual distinctions”). We don’t “see” gravity – we infer it, but it is there.

    To infer gravity, we perceive that things fall down. Using our perceptual equipment, we discern an “unknown, unseen” force, that works upon the objects we do see.

    So yes, absolutely, we posit a CPS, althought at the same time, looking correctly, and in the right meditative state, we never “see” a CPS, limited as we are by our perceptual fliters. Doesn’t mean there is a conflation though – CPS exists, the same way gravity exists.

    Right?
18. Edward Berge says:

    March 26, 2007 at 12:46 pm

    Does gravity or CPS exist independently of our perception/interpretation? Is that the myth of the given? Or an involutionary given? Let’s explore a few items from Ken’s works.

    IS (draft) fn on p. 291:

    * This is not subjective idealism, nor does this stop us from saying that ecosystems had some sort of existence in magenta and earlier times. Just as the rejection of the myth of the given still allows for what are called “intrinsic features” of sensory experience, we can say that if ecosystems did not ex-ist or stand forth in the magenta worldspace, they nonetheless “subsisted” in it, or were present as intrinsic features of the Kosmos not cognized by magenta. But the point that still removes this from the myth of the given is that the intrinsic features themselves are not pregiven but are simply the products of the highest level of consciousness making the claim. In other words, intrinsic features themselves are interpretive and con-structed. Those intrinsic features are then retro-read into earlier times—which is fine, they are just not intrinsic features of a pregiven world, but intrinsic features of a turquoise worldspace (which will, of course, be largely rejected by indigo, whose own intrinsic features will be rejected by violet, and so on). In other words, these are not intrinsically intrinsic features, but interpretively intrinsic features. The point is that whatever is actually “intrinsic” to the Kosmos changes with each new worldspace; and thus both what ex-ists and what sub-sists are con-structions of consciousness. In this example, we are simply pointing out that ecosystems do not ex-ist in the magenta worldspace and cannot be found anywhere in its phenomenology.

    IS (draft) pp. 279-80:

    all that would be required to account for the creation of ever-higher levels of being and knowing is an autopoietic, dissipative-structure tendency in the universe—“Eros” in a more poetic version. Not much more “metaphysics” is required than what Whitehead called “the creative advance into novelty.” Yet this minimalist metaphysics can generate a Great Chain and all of its essential accoutrements without having to postulate pre-existing independent ontological structures of any variety.*

    *For a more precise account, see the discussions of “involutionary givens” in Excerpts A-E

    Excerpt of fn 26 to Excerpt A:

    The postulated list of involutionary givens seems to include:

    (1) Eros. Eros basically is derived from one fact: Spirit creates the entire manifest world and every holon in it; in fact, every holon is Spirit-in-itself playing at being Other (e.g., the great nest of morphogenetic potential often summarized as matter, body, mind, soul, and spirit is actually Spirit-as-matter, Spirit-as-body, Spirit-as-mind, Spirit-as-soul, and Spirit-as-spirit). Since the reality, suchness, or isness of every holon is actually Spirit, but because most holons do not realize that they are Spirit, then each holon, so to speak, has an itch for infinity: each holon has a drive, a desire, a push, a telos, a hankering for God–which means, a drive to realize Spirit-itself, a drive which ultimately wants to embrace the entire Kosmos itself. This is a drive toward higher unions, wider identities, greater inclusion–culminating in God-realization, or every holon’s realization of Spirit, by Spirit, in Spirit, as Spirit. This ultimate realization, however, is not a summation at the end of the line, or a culmination of temporal additions, or a finite sum of finite parts adding up to One Really Big Finite Thing, but rather the realization of the ever-present, spaceless and therefore infinite, timeless and therefore eternal, formless and therefore omnipresent, Condition of all conditions and Nature of all natures and radically groundless Ground of all grounds. Nevertheless, in the manifest realm, the paradoxical result is a drive toward greater unity among finite things themselves, yearning to be Free and Full. This drive toward greater unity and wholeness in the finite realm is called Eros: the drive of all finite things to find the infinite, which results in the increasing unification and differentiation-integration of finite occasions. In the temporal realm, the sequence of ever-increasing unifications is endless, stretching from the subtle into millions, billions, zillions of manifest realities in the future, as every moment transcends-and-includes its predecessors, thus bringing new truths, new experiences, new realities, and new integrations into being, with no discernible upward limit (because Spirit is not found as the upper limit of finite things but as their ever-present Ground, and therefore there is no final destination upward). At some point in this spiral of development and evolution, a holon becomes complex enough, differentiated-and-integrated enough, conscious enough, that it can begin to awaken to its ever-present Ground, even as the finite display continues on its agitated round of unifications. In that holon, Spirit then continues its play of manifestation, but now as a conscious, felt, vividly present Presence, a ray of infinity hooking out from that holon on the world that it created.

    This drive–the drive of Eros–appears, to the third-person perspective of humans at or beyond the yellow wave, as a drive toward self-organization in all complex holons, a drive to create order out of chaos, a series of dissipative structures that eat energy and create unified form: against all scientific sensibilities (which see only “its” without intentionalities), and against every known law of physics (which imagines that “its” only run downhill), the material universe appears to be actively organizing itself into higher and more complex systems. Scientists scratch their heads. How can that be? The universe is self-winding. The universe seeks higher unions. The universe has a drive for self-organization. The universe… well, let us say plainly what the it-perspective misses: the universe is on fire with an unquenchable thirst for God. But however you wish to conceive this Eros, this drive to order-out-of-chaos, this astonishing autopoiesis at the very heart of matter, it is an uncontested pattern in evolution, and a pattern that cannot be accounted for by evolution itself.

    Thus, Eros is postulated to be one of the involutionary givens: that is, one of the items present from the start of evolution, a deposit in the manifest realm of Spirit’s involution into, and as, that realm–faint echoes of Spirit’s sneeze that set this particular round of the Kosmic Game in motion.

    (2) If all holons reach toward Spirit, Spirit reaches out to all holons. The first is called Eros, the second is called Agape. Two sides of the same pull.

    (3) A morphogenetic gradient in the manifest realm. This refers to the curvature of spacetime across all possible forms of the manifest or AQAL matrix: Eros operates through a gradient of increasing embrace. This gradient (clumsily expressed by premodern traditions as a pregiven, fixed series of levels and planes stretching from matter to body to mind to soul to spirit–the so-called “great chain of being”) actually represents the tilt of a universe looking for God. Involution creates, not a series of fixed planes and pregiven levels (there is no pregiven great chain), but a vast morphogenetic field of potentials, defined not by their fixed contents and forms but by their relative placement in the sliding field. (See “On the Nature of a Post-metaphysical Spirituality,” posted on this site.)

    (4) Certain Prototypical Forms or Patterns. If involution creates, not a series of pregiven fixed levels but a fluid morphogenetic field, the question remains: are there any fixed forms that are involutionary givens? We saw several: Whitehead’s eternal objects, basic mathematical-physical laws, Sheldrake’s implicitly postulated archetypes, and so on. A list of 20 proposed involutionary givens can be found in chapter 2 of SES. These 20 tenets are simply the residual forms of the Big Sleep, echoes of the Big Forgetting that set this round in motion, involutionary forms that were tattooed on the translucent skin of the radiant Kosmos in its coming-to-be.

    But aside from those relatively few involutionary givens, keep in mind that what most theorists postulate to be involutionary givens or eternal archetypes (i.e., involutionary a priori, given for all time) are actually evolutionary a priori, or forms chaotically created in temporal unfolding and then handed to the future, not as forms that were predetermined even before they unfolded, but simply as Kosmic habits that various forms happened to take in their AQAL evolution, forms that were then handed as a priori to the next moment, an a priori determined not by eternal archetypes but by temporal history.
19. Edward Berge says:

    March 26, 2007 at 1:04 pm

    Let’s start with this:

    Eros basically is derived from one fact: Spirit creates the entire MANIFEST (my emphasis) world and every holon in it…

    This ultimate realization, however, is not a summation at the end of the line, or a culmination of temporal additions, or a finite sum of finite parts adding up to One Really Big Finite Thing, but rather the realization of the ever-present, spaceless and therefore infinite, timeless and therefore eternal, formless and therefore omnipresent, Condition of all conditions and Nature of all natures and radically groundless Ground of all grounds. (My comment: sounds “nondual,” right?)

    Nevertheless, in the MANIFEST realm (my emphasis), the paradoxical result is a drive toward greater unity among finite things themselves, yearning to be Free and Full.

    Question: Does your zen teacher posit a spirit that creates the manifest realm? Or that they are distinct? What is the “kosmic address” of Ken’s statements?
20. ebuddha says:

    March 26, 2007 at 1:59 pm

    Couple of threads -

    “Kosmic Habits” – always thought that was a great quote – at any rate:

    There is still an embedded perception, with various discrete elements, that “can” be categorized, mapped, based on it’s frequency and relatedness to other embedded perceptive elements of conciousness. Whether that perception is “suchness”, and the and the renewal in every moment of the GodPulse, or whether as prosaic as “things that go up must come down”.

    Taken as perceptual limiters (“things that go up come down 99.9999% of the time”) (“existence is arising as one whole in awareness, without subject/object distinction”), this isn’t changed, whether this embeddeness is a Kosmic Habit or a pregiven.

    Now, to answer the question “Does your zen teacher posit a spirit that creates the manifest realm? Or that they are distinct?”

    Yes, yes, and yes.

    In one sense, Spirit isn’t separate from the manifest realm. Spirit and the manifest realm arise together. The deep ocean is not separate from the top wave.
    In this sense, “spirit creates the manifest realm” is true, at the same time that that creative spirit isn’t divorced from the realm.
    In another sense, it can be useful to divorce the spirit realm from the manifest, BECAUSE the depths of the ocean are not seen, from the normal perspective.

    “What is the “kosmic address” of Ken’s statements?”

    Postform-op thinking, is what I would say. Not too much different from the thinking that is behind “meta-functional” data logarhythms. An example.

    a. I get a raw email.
    b. I classify this raw email into categories.
    c. I classify raw emails by tags.
    d. I setup functions for emails, both by tags, folder, and functions.
    d. I OPERATE UPON those tags, with META-functions. These are dynamic and continuous.

    This post-formal operations ability – pattern recognition and operation, really – is pretty much what Ken is using, but also using the data revealed by spiritual introspection.
21. Edward Berge says:

    March 26, 2007 at 5:40 pm

    Let me state at the outset that I do not have the answers. I have questions that lead to tentative hypotheses that often have to be modified if not discarded outright with further inquiry. For me the process of group inquiry is essential to my understanding; I cannot do this by myself.

    There’s a lot I don’t understand here. For example, where did you get the material on embedded perceptions and could you expand on that? I’m not quite getting it.

    I get the notion of the top wave being a part of the ocean, etc. Holons, all the way up and down. And Ken even said per above that “Spirit is not found as the upper limit of finite things but as their ever-present Ground, and therefore there is no final destination upward.” So in that sense the ocean is not the “final destination,” or a metaphor for the infinite, as it cannot be finally determined.

    However, in the meantime, we go ahead and try to name it anyway, calling it Spirit, the All, the Whole, nondual, whatever. And that will look differently per above: “the intrinsic features themselves are not pregiven but are simply the products of the highest level of consciousness making the claim….but intrinsic features of a turquoise worldspace (which will, of course, be largely rejected by indigo, whose own intrinsic features will be rejected by violet, and so on).”

    So one of my points is that we have at least 2 types of ways to interpret these “intepretively intrinsic features” nondually: 1) the causal, differentiated nondual and 2) the monist nondual, as per Ken’s own words. And per Ken these are distinguished by “the level of consciousness” perceiving/interpreting them. And also per above, turquoise will be largely rejected by indigo, and then by violet, and so on. Note Ken did not say “integrated” here. So one question for me is when Ken mixes and matches the types of nondual language is it really an integration or a mish-mosh?

    I provided some research by kela and if one has time they can explore this same topic in the Lightmind forum. But kela notes there that “Ken may be influenced by Tibetan Buddhist conceptions of consciouness here, which are based on the conception of consciousness in Yogachara thought. These conceptions of consciousness are fundamentally at odds with Shankara’s.” Are we to suppose that Ken has found a way to reconcile them when Shankara and other luminaries have not? Maybe, but highly doubtful.

    There is much more to ponder here but I’ve run out of time and have other commitments to attend to. To be continued…
22. Andy Smith says:

    March 26, 2007 at 7:36 pm

    “So we have a model that defines consciousness as the interior of the individual AND says that it cannot be limited to any quadrant. The solution is to scrap the UL as the seat of consciousness. Consciousness is as much a behavioural and a social quality as it is an interior and an individual quality. The sociogenetic view of consciousness has been saying this for more than a century.”

    Which begs the question: why do we need left quadrants? What so-called interior phenomena in them can’t be understood as exteriors? Our private thoughts? But take away consciousness, and what are these thoughts but nerve impulses? Of course we can make various distinctions among phenomena, but my point is they can all be subsumed under the very general heading of exteriors. Consciousness IMO can be best understood as what remains when we attempt to explain experience or so-called interiority in terms of exteriors.
23. Mark Edwards says:

    March 26, 2007 at 10:25 pm

    Hi Andy,

    We need to posit interiors because “I” is not “You”. The experience and practice of relationality through interior-exterior is the basis of being human. Getting rid of the definition that consciousness is an interior (individual) quality (UL) does not mean we get rid of interiors. It means we redefine consciousness as the space in which interiors and exteriors arise. See attached diagram. My difficulties with Wilber discussion of consciousness is not with his distinction between interior and exterior it his limiting of consciousness to just some aspect of the interior. This is a reductionist appraoch to consciousness. On a good day he recognises this and says i) consciousness is the space in which all levels and quadrants arise. On an average day he says ii) Consciousness is the UL. On a bad day he says i) and ii) are both right so let’s just stick with ii) because that’s the “functional seat of consciousness”. All of which is completely logical but making no sense whatsoever.
24. Mark Edwards says:

    March 26, 2007 at 10:32 pm

    The file won’t load, let me know if you want to have a look at this reframing on consciousness in AQAL.
25. Edward Berge says:

    March 27, 2007 at 6:25 am

    Just a quickie cut-and-paste from kela at Lightmind, from his “Are Emptiness and Brahman the Same: Part III”:

    We are now at a position to consider more specific differences between the Prasangika approach and Shankara’s advaita. In Meditation on Emptiness, Jeffery Hopkins brings out the basic difference between the two approaches. He acknowledges that there are similarities between the two (though it is not clear, due to the odd manner in which this work is written, whether this similarity was recognized by the Prasangikas themselves or whether Hopkins is entertaining a question that has entered his mind on its own). Following the Prasangikas, Hopkins characterizes the difference thus: the approach of Advaita Vedanta can be described as aiming at the “emptiness of other,” or “parata-shunyata.” Given our description of Shankara’s advaita above and Shankara’s own comments on the shunyavada, this would appear to be an appropriate description. Following the lead of the Brhadaranyaka Up, Shankara’s advaita aims at the discrimination of what is “other” than Brahman, or the highest Self, and at the negation of this “other” as “an-artha”, worthless (Brhad Up 1.1.1), and “an-rta”, false (Brhadaranyaka Up 3.5.1; Brahma Sutra Bhashya 2.1.14). At the same time, the “neti, neti” leaves the highest Self, or formless brahman, untouched, as Shankara says.

    In contradistinction to Advaita, the Prasangika path teaches, in addition to the emptiness of other, “the emptiness of self,” or “svatah-shunyata”. Now, we should not assume that this simply refers to the emptiness of a personal self (pudgala-nairatmya), of a subject in opposition to objects, as if this were simply a restatement of the an-atma doctrine. The term “self” here also, and perhaps more importantly, refers to the idea of a metaphysical essence. So it refers not only to our personal selves, but to the nature of things and reality in general. In a way then, the two paths could not be more diametrically opposed. One seeks by means of its negative dialectic to unearth a metaphysically ideal reality beneath or beyond appearances. The other also seeks to dissolve the veil of appearance but, at the same time, it is also designed to undermine the very search for such metaphysical idealities.

    As Shankara admits, the shunyavada does not leave the highest Self or formless brahman untouched in its negative dialectic. Similarly, though Gaudapada accepts Nagarjuna’s definitions of svabhava, he insists that there is at least one being that is not empty of svabhava: the non-dual Self, which for Gaudapada is self-existence itself. For the Madhyamikas, though, the non-dual Self is also empty of all sva-bhava or “own being.” Given that Advaita Vedanta defines the highest Self and formless brahman with every manner of reflexive term — “self-luminous” (svayam-jyotih), self-established (svatah-siddha), self-reliant (sva-tantra), self-existent (svayam-bhu), self-abiding (sva-stha), and so on — the Madhyamika approach of “emptiness of self” is tantamount to the denial of the Vedantin’s very conception of reality.

    Thus, the Madhyamaka’s conception of reality and the Advaitin’s conception of reality are diametrically opposed to one another. For the Advaitin, reality is ultimately that which is the self-existent, while for the Madhyamaka, reality is ultimately empty of such self-existence. While both indeed refer to the ultimate truth as “signless” (animitta), the similarity stops there as their conceptions of reality are completely contrary to one another.

    There is another manner in which the Madhyamika and the Advaita Vedanta are fundamentally opposed in their conceptions of reality. As noted above, part of the point of Nagarjuna’s analysis is to undermine the way in which language and conceptualization serve to reify “things” in the world. Although Nagarjuna does not specify in his analysis any theory as to how words are related to reality, other than to say that they are conventional and relational, it may be possible to abstract certain assumptions from the Prasangikas’ presentation that are suggestive as to how they might be related for them. To begin, for the Prasangikas, words do not obtain their meaning by referring to “objects” in the world. Nor do they obtain their meaning due to the effect of some transcendental essence. In other words, the Prasangikas accept neither an extensionalist nor an intensionalist theory of meaning. Rather, words have meaning, and are able to predicate objects, primarily by virtue of their use (prayojana) and imputation (aropita). In this sense, words are mere nominal signifiers (prajnapti) and their application is merely conventional (vyavahara). This line is in general keeping with the Buddhist tendency toward nominalism. Drawing upon this analysis, later Buddhist thinkers will articulate a theory of meaning something like Saussure’s: words refer to objects by virtue of the exclusion (apoha) of their counter-positives.

    There are parallels here with the thoughts of Wittgenstein on such matters, though it is important not to emphasize such similarities beyond the point of their being mere heuristic devices for understanding the Madhyamika. Wittgenstein, for example, also held that words do not obtain meaning by reference to objects. For him, the primary determinant in meaning is how words are used. The Madhyamakas, however, go further than Wittgenstein by insisting that, in reality there is no “thing” as such to which words refer, and that all such “things” are but conceptual constructs that are logically dependent upon their conceptually constructed counter-positives. At this point, a better analog for Prasangika thought might be the Derridean analysis of the Husserlian conception of “essence.” According to Derrida, there is no unchanging self-same “essence” that fixes the denotation of signifiers — no “transcendent referent” that anchors meaning. This is because “essence” is as much determined by its own iterations as it determines those iterations. Like the Prasangikas, Derrida argues that “meaning” is determined by a series of oppositional relations — signifier/signified, universal/particular, substance/attribute, essence/iteration, concept/thing, scheme/content, map/territory — in which both poles are mutually determinate, and in which no priority can be granted to one of the poles. Similarly, for the Prasangikas, there is no independent thing or essence that determines meaning. Thus, for the Prasangikas, there is no transcendent referent that determines and has priority over the term “emptiness”. As Chandrakirti says, “emptiness” is itself empty of any essential nature. There is, then, no ultimate “thing” to which the term “emptiness” refers.

    As a Vedantin, the Advaitin sees things differently. He does not reject both poles of the dichotomy between the absolute and relative, the transcendental and contingent. As we noted above, the Advaitin is only concerned with the emptiness of “other.” But he does not negate the essence, the “self”, the transcendent referent.

    With respect to this difference between Advaita and Madhyamika, T.R.V. Murti has written in an article, “Samvriti and Paramartha in Madhyamika and Advaita Vedanta”:

    The Vedantist will not reject both terms as relative; he accepts one as the reality or basis of the other. For the Madhyamika, substance and attribute are equally unreal, as neither of them can be had apart from the other. The Vedantist would say that… substance or the universal is inherently real…; it has a transcendent nature without the relation. The general formula applicable to the Vedanta is: the terms sustaining a relation are not of the same order, one is higher and the other lower; the terms are not mutually dependent…. One term, the higher, is not exhausted in the relationship; it has a transcendent… existence which is its intrinsic nature.

    The upshot here is that to suggest that the terms “emptiness” and the “formless brahman” both refer to the same unconditioned reality begs the question as to the nature of the relation between designators and their referents, and prejudices the Vedantin’s position by presupposing an account of the relation between language and reality that the Madhyamika rejects.
26. Matthew Newsham says:

    March 27, 2007 at 9:25 am

    So we’re supposed to have reality that *wink* isn’t really reality.
    Sounds a lot like were supposed to have *wink* reality that is really reality.
    The question is how to reconcile these two concepts?

    I think that Ken’s approach to this may be to shift the conceptual weight away from this deadlock and out into the realm of developemental theory. The myth of the given can always be deconstructed back down to this dichotomy when talked about in purely theoretical terms- but if you add the vector of human developement (with the assumption of altitude) you begin to get novel results that resonate back down through both of these perspectives.
    To me, it seems more important to see if we can talk about and develop the novel results and their relationships and ramifications (integration). But that means moving into new territory rather than appealing to the arguments of old authority.
    Deconstruction is fine and necessary- like oil, you need it for the battle machines during conflict, but once the energy has been released its gone. Its time to develope some other conceptual resources, humans were busy doing something before industrialization…
    And by other resources I don’t mean something like planting a bunch of trees (to extend the metaphore) that’s still primarily a “postindustrial” mindset. Maybe something that we can create in the blogosphere…
27. Edward Berge says:

    March 27, 2007 at 10:29 am

    Matthew,

    Honestly I don’t understand what you’re saying and I want to. Would you relate what your saying to the Ken quotes I provided above regarding involutionary and evolutionry givens, intrinsically intrinsic features and interpretatively intrinsic features, and locating Spirit and/or CPS in all this. Thanks.
28. Edward Berge says:

    March 27, 2007 at 12:09 pm

    Mark,

    In your comments of yesterday regarding consciousness and the absolute, I have some questions. You note that consciousness [per se] (CPS) is not located in the UL quadrant. You seem to agree with Ken that CPS is the empty space in which all phenomenon arise. Yet you also say that everything is absolutely relative and nothing is absolute (paraphrase). It seems to me that when Ken refers to CPS as this empty space it’s from the “causal” perspective of it as an absolute in relation to the relative. So how do you reconcile the empty CPS not being this absolute, if it does not possess any phenomenal characteristics itself?
29. Edward Berge says:

    March 27, 2007 at 12:42 pm

    Derrida refers to Plato’s notion of (the) khora…[which] is the space that ‘gives place.’

    Here we return to the articulation of the ‘space-in-between’…. But khora is a concept at once non-identical with itself in its very intention ‘as if there were two, the one and its double’, for it opens ‘an apparently empty space’ but is not ‘emptiness’.

    For Derrida, by contrast, what is indeconstructable is rather the formless, structureless space in-between, the abyss or chasm ‘in’ which the cleavages between sensible and intelligible, body and soul, can have a place and take place.

    http://www.openintegral.net/blog/?p=107
30. Mark says:

    March 27, 2007 at 6:54 pm

    The absolute and relative truths thing is somewhere i don’t willingly go Edward. But what the heck – CPS does’t equate with causal I don’t think It’s more like picture 10 in the oxherding pictures of Zen. The integration of all levels in returning to the marketplace and playing with children. I like to play with diagrams more than words and for me CPS is the paper out of which ditinction is made. Paper-absolute, marks on the paper-relative. A crude analogy but there’s something there.

    I very much like your last post on Derrida. I am not at all familiar with his work of that of other Frenchies but they have really got something. I am reading a little of merleau-ponty and there is soemthing there that is completely missing from Wilber – a source of thinking that is not accommodated by any of Wilber currentcaptured by
31. Edward Berge says:

    March 28, 2007 at 7:27 am

    It is clear that Ken uses Vedanta and Vajrayana as the main sources of his conversation about states. And per kela (and the sources of his research, which are the “authorities” in this field, not Ken) their view of the nondual is not the same as Nagarjuna’s Madhyamika. In fact they were and are quite opposed at the most fundamental level. To just mix and match the language of both at will is NOT an integration of both nor does it automatically become a both/and situation just because of Ken’s gifted and “spiritual” sounding rhetoric. Ken’s sources are most definitely of the “consciousness only” variety, where Nagarjuna’s (and Derrida’s) are of the variety that says not even consciousness is IT. (It is NOT a “state” of consciousness.*) Note that Ken’s sources were furious with Nagarjuna back in the day and accused him of nihilism much as Ken now does with Derrida. (In fact Vajrayana considers itself the “next level” beyond Nagarjuna.) Although Ken talks a good game to those that don’t know the difference.

    And there really is not need to get our panties in a bunch because neither Nagarjuna’s nor Derrida’s “emptiness” negates all the relative formulations of AQAL. It just puts them in “perspective,” which is fine for Ken to do with everyone else’s perspective with his on the top. But when his perspective is recontextualized, look out, you’re a green pluralist. Hence my criticism of CPS as the measure of altitude, as it depends on how you define this “nondual” basis wherein altitude arises. By using CPS we’re getting the Vendanta and Vajrayana bias of “consciousness” as this basis, which of course has its practical consequences in Ken being king of the world at the top of the holarchy. I’m reminded of James Cagney in White Heat when he’s going out in a blaze of glory: “I’m on top of the world ma!” But we can’t really blame Ken, this is inherent in the “consciousness” paradigm-enactment of his chosen “practice.” This type of nonduality is a “compassionate conservatism” I can do without, even though it’s for “my own good.”

    *And of course this has everything to do with how states and stages are “related,” another story for another day.
32. Mark says:

    March 28, 2007 at 6:22 pm

    Edward,

    Apoloogies but I’m a bit slow on this. Can you go through it again. Pretend you’re explaining this to your local grocer. What’s the context you’re trying to lay out here? Can you set out your premises for me in a succinct way. I’d appreciate it greatly if you could lead me through it.

    Ta
33. Andy Smith says:

    March 28, 2007 at 6:26 pm

    Mark: “We need to posit interiors because “I” is not “You”.

    As I said in my post, of course there are different kinds of exteriors. One specific exterior of a holon is not the exterior of another specific holon, that doesn’t mean they aren’t both exteriors. We can distinguish them while at the same time recognizing they are both exteriors. So the question is, why can’t we do the same with “I” and “you”? What is there in “I” that is not consciousness?

    My claim is that anything in “I” that is not consciousness is an exterior. Just because it is not accessible to “you”–as in the case of the content of thoughts, for example—doesn’t mean it’s interior, any more than the fact that you (nor I, for that matter) can’t see or acces my brain tissue means that it must be interior. My brain tissue is considered exterior because in principle it can be accessed by anyone, by cutting open my head. I’m arguing that the contents of my thoughts (as opposed to what I call, lacking a better term, my experience of them) are likewise accessible in principle to all. It may be very difficult to do so, at our current state of technology it may be impossible, but at one point it was difficult or impossible for people to access all kinds of things inside their body that you, Wilber and everyone else now consider to be exteriors.

    In other words, I think we should classify as exteriors not only everything that all of us can access in common now, but everything that we can in principle at some point in the future access, given the likely advancement of science. Where do we draw the line? I draw it at what I call consciousness. That is where exteriors can’t go. I think this is consistent with your interesting statement, ““I like to play with diagrams more than words and for me CPS is the paper out of which distinction is made.”
34. Edward Berge says:

    March 29, 2007 at 6:17 am

    I cannot explain it any better than did kela when I posted an excerpt of his on 3/27 above: Are emptiness and Brahman the same?. Perhaps if you re-read that and ask specific questions it? For me that highlights the difference I’m talking about between a metaphysical essense (consciousness) versus the emptiness that Nagarjuna and Derrida point to.
35. Edward Berge says:

    March 29, 2007 at 6:27 am

    This also applies to “emptiness” when we reify it as an essence or view. See the previous blog section “No views is good views”:

    “To hold emptiness as a view – to reify it or think of it as the essence of things – is to misunderstand it entirely. As the goal of the MMK is to show how absurd it is to hold any view whatsoever, one may with confidence conflate sunyata with Nagarjuna’s position. Therefore, whoever takes Nagarjuna’s work as proposing a view has done something wrong.”

    How then do we talk about it? How can it be “useful” if it ain’t nothin’? How did Nagarjuna and Derrida do it and did they succeed?

    http://www.openintegral.net/blog/?p=107
36. Edward Berge says:

    March 29, 2007 at 6:29 am

    By the way, I did try to explain this once to my butcher. He told me I need to get out and get laid more often. He then gave me gratis his best cut of fillet mignon and said to eat more of this. Can’t argue with that.
37. Edward Berge says:

    March 29, 2007 at 7:37 am

    As stated previously at http://www.openintegral.net/blog/?p=107:

    Recall from Braitsten above that both Nagarjuna and Derrida emphasize that emptiness is beyond views or perspectives and is itself not a view or perspective. But neither is it a “consciousness” without a perspective or a “pure perception” as Ken defines it. Hence the former places perspectives in an indeterminate context whereas the latter has a determinate and absolute consciousness at its root, a la vedanta, vajrayana and yogacara. There is a big difference here (or is that differance?) with practical implications and consequences. To recap Ken’s perspective on no perspectivity:

    Footnote 7 to Excerpt C:

    “Is there any perception that is not a perspective? Yes, I believe so, and it has to do with satori or nondual awareness (or pure Emptiness–consciousness without an object, which is therefore consciousness without a perspective), which I will explore in later excerpts. The conclusion of this integral reformulation of the wisdom traditions is that samsara (or the world of Form) is composed of perspectives, and nirvana (or Emptiness) is pure perception without an object or perspective. The union of Emptiness and Form is thus the union of perception and perspective, where in my pure perception I am one with everything that is arising (although as expressed through my own individual perspective, with which I am no longer exclusively identified). Finding Emptiness is a freedom from all perspectives (a nirvana free of samsara); a union with Form is finding the Fullness of perspectives that alone can express this Freedom (the nonduality of nirvana and samsara). Wisdom is transcending perspectives, compassion is embracing them all.”
38. Edward Berge says:

    March 29, 2007 at 12:01 pm

    Although Ken again hedges his bets with the below, excerpts of his quotes above.

    “Just as the rejection of the myth of the given still allows for what are called “intrinsic features” of sensory experience….In other words, intrinsic features themselves are interpretive and con-structed….. In other words, these are not intrinsically intrinsic features, but interpretively intrinsic features.”
39. Matthew Newsham says:

    March 31, 2007 at 11:33 am

    I’m back-

    Some big words here.
    “involutionary and evolutionry givens”- We seem to agree up to the idea that CPS exists at least as a manifestation of some potential in bio-organisms that develop increasingly complex nervous systems. Also, CPS is identifiable in these organisms as the “inside” of their nervous system, but without reaching at least this level of holonic integration it isn’t clear how CPS exists in the “IT” quadrant. We posit Kosmic habit.

    “intrinsically intrinsic features and interpretatively intrinsic features”- All “kosmic habits” would be “intrinsically intrinsic” I suppose, but note that this term brings about a kind of silly answer- a sort of “a priori” set as the backdrop of integral philosophy. The “interpretatively intrinsic” features then would be everything that comes up at any “kosmic” address. The a priori elements co-creating the world of form, so to speak.

    “Locating Spirit and/or CPS”- This is the point that this whole thread is addressing, a sort of inside and outside of nonduality, as championed by our two sages. Now, at the moment that we compose our next sentence we have to decide as Individuals what we wish to accomplish. Do we wish to deconstruct Ken’s model? Fine, break it down to this point and you come across this contradiction, notably a classic contradiction that our language has yet to address in a streamlined way. Possibly even a wrinkle created by our “integral a priori.”
    At this point you can side with one of the sages (I’m reminded of the logical fallicy of a simple appeal to authority), you can say “see Ken is wrong, and possibly bad (insert Ken+big ego/narcissism statement here), or you can follow the pattern forward. Given that your tautological aim is to deconstruct (an unhealthy hierarchy?) The last option might not prevail until we as an Individual decide to reorient on some other goal than that of continual deconstruct of that aspect of the hierarchy. OK, so we find another section to deconstruct and so on, and finally we posit the model that has given us the tools to do the deconstructing (which ultimatly accepts the same basic a priori assumptions) as the best way to think. This model has gained traction by virtue of its ability to find a set of common pomo “a priori” elements and, within the pomo tautology cut away the rest of the model that deals with something else.
    But it’s still a model- with its own sets of assumptions not addressed within the model. How do you analize those assumptions? How bout’ by positing the base assumptions and trying to develop new models that desrcibe EMPIRICAL data beyond the pomo tautology? Maybe address the latest findings in developemental research, that sort of thing…
    Maybe these new models will shed new light onto this nonduality issue, maybe the nonduality issue isn’t something that is meaningfull addressed in the true/false terms that deconstruction indirectly seems to demand of a model. Does CPS and altitude exist in anything other than relative terms? Any attempt to critique Postmodernism would seem to necessitate accepting this (with a great big wink included), to give the external information relevence not immediately eaten by the pomo tautology. Straight up.

    Such is the age old-battle of inductive vs deductive reasoning as it relates to pomo/integral, CPS, and nonduality.

    And that whole earlier tree thing… mainly to reiterate not focusing too much on the new evidence at the expense of older patterns built up by the wisdom of our ancestors. I got a little out there with that one, sorry.
40. Edward Berge says:

    March 31, 2007 at 5:16 pm

    Matthew,

    I just don’t get it when you say that I’m trying to completely deconstruct AQAL, like I’m saying it’s useless. I like it just fine except for the one teeny bit of metaphysical essense left to it in the form of CPS. Which could be that I’m just not understaning what Ken means by CPS. Otherwise I’m on board with much of holonic AQAL and especially the postmetaphysical bent. I’m even and especially on board with developmental levels. So I’m not sure why you respond like I’m out to gut the whole program. And maybe that’s just my inaccurate intepretation of what you’re saying.
41. Matthew Newsham says:

    April 1, 2007 at 9:16 pm

    I was trying to describe what I meant in more detail, as you asked. Do you agree with:

    “Maybe these new models will shed new light onto this nonduality issue, maybe the nonduality issue isn’t something that is meaningfull addressed in the true/false terms that deconstruction indirectly seems to demand of a model. Does CPS and altitude exist in anything other than relative terms? Any attempt to critique Postmodernism would seem to necessitate accepting this (with a great big wink included), to give the external information relevence not immediately eaten by the pomo tautology.”

    I think that this is why Ken has “hedged his bets” as you say, in the way that he did. Also, the technique you are using seems to me to be a method of deconstruction- which you are quite nimble with- but that is a tool to cut apart hegemonies, yes? I know you respect integral technique- and maybe that’s a better way to think about integral- as a sort of sophistry as opposed to a tautological truth formula.
    This would be my personal answer to the topic of the thread, and how I address this contradiction so that Ken never loses “coherence.”
42. Edward Berge says:

    April 2, 2007 at 6:20 am

    To address your quoted paragraph:

    1. Does Ken’s model shed new light on nonduality? Not that I can see at this point. It seems to just re-hash the same arguments that have been going on for millenia and he seems to have his preferences in the Venanta and Vajrayana. And all one need to is some initial research to see that a) even these 2 views disagree as to the nature of the nondual and b) they are yet again different from the Madhyamika of Nagarjuna.

    2. Can deconstruction meaningfully address in true/false terms? No, but that’s not what deconstruction does at all. It decontructs such binary logic and asks “then what?” And that then what sounds a lot more like Madhymika, which can and does meaningfully address the nonduality at the “base” of AQAL.

    3. Does CPS and altitute exist in anything other that relative terms? If you are saying “no” then we agree, as I think CPS is a relative terms as Ken uses it.

    4. Is their “external” evidence that makes pomo a tautology? I disagree with the premise. Pomo does not deny an external, i.e. a given. It only contextualizes it the way Ken does in IS with his notion that there are no intrinsically intrinsic features sans intepretation. I agree with Ken here.

    5. I agree with you more on the “technique” of AQAL as opposed to its “truth” formula. And it seems to me that the latter is what is still being adhered to with the remnant metaphysical notion of CPS.
43. Edward Berge says:

    April 3, 2007 at 7:44 am

    To re-state what Desilet said in the “Desilet on Derrida” thread:

    Undoubtedly Wilber would not be happy to find his “integral” views associated in any way with “exclusionary” forms of metaphysics. Clearly he wants to dissociate himself from such traditions of thinking and spirituality. Nevertheless, attempts to depart from exclusionary forms of metaphysics cannot succeed by reaffirming orientations that give renewed meaning and prime significance to states of transcendental awareness implied in notions such as “transcendental signifiers,” “pure consciousness,” and “realizations of oneness.” The deconstructive critique of transcendence appears to be a part of Derridean postmodernism that Wilber and other integral theorists have not so much overlooked as underestimated.
44. Edward Berge says:

    April 3, 2007 at 7:57 am

    These “exlusionary forms of metaphysics” are apparent to anyone outside I-I and/or it’s parochial meme. Just look at how I-I is set up, all the complaints about refusal to accept valid criticism, it’s exclusionary and self-proclaimed superiority over other worldviews based on what? Degrees of “consciousness” which are developed how? Certain forms of meditation, themselves embedded in rather metaphysical assumptions about its special relevance in the cosmic scheme of things.

    So no, I’m not saying throw out meditation and states of consciousness, just contextualize it in a postmetaphysical framework that doesn’t give it “absolute” preference to all other levels, lines, etc. THAT is the problem with Ken’s system. Take that out and it can be highly and effectively practical without the fricking presumption of omnipotence and self-serving, hegemonic superiority. Otherwise history is likely to throw the AQAL baby out with the bathwater of this religious* pretention.

    *And yes, “spiritual” is just as bad as “religious,” just at a “higher” level of egocentricm and dysfuntion. I’m starting to wonder it the whole spiritual line isn’t in fact a dysfunctional way we humans intepret things we dont’ understand. We can still have mystery and posit the unconditional and undeconstructable, but without God attached in his various guises up to and including CPS.
45. Edward Berge says:

    April 3, 2007 at 8:18 am

    For example, let’s look at how some “integral” levels are described in the article “What is altitude?” From Holons magazine. Note that in the defintion of turquoise is the prerequisite of a “spiritual” orientation, and what comprises spiritual? I maintain its states of consciousness obtained via meditation and contemplation, or in I-I’s own words “manifested through any or all of the 3 Faces of God.” Indigo is of course undefined, other than who has it, like Ken and Andrew Cohen, at least according to Joe Perez. To get that attribution certainly requires a “spiritual” orientation.

    http://holons-news.com/altitudes.html

    Teal (worldcentric to kosmocentric—able to take a 4th/5th-person perspective): Teal Altitude marks the beginning of an integral worldview, where pluralism and relativism are transcended and included into a more systematic whole. The teal worldview honors the insights of the green worldview, but places it into a larger context that allows for healthy hierarchies, and healthy value distinctions.

    Perhaps most important, a teal worldview begins to see the process of development itself, acknowledging that each one of the previous stages (magenta through green) has an important role to play in the human experience. Teal consciousness sees that each of the previous stages reveals an important truth, and pulls them all together and integrates them without trying to change them to “be more like me,” and without resorting to cultural relativism (“all are equal”).

    Teal worldviews do more than just see all points of view (that’s a green worldview)—it can see and honor them, but also critically evaluate them.

    Turquoise (kosmocentric—able to take a 5th-person perspective): Turquoise is a mature integral view, one that sees not only healthy hierarchy but also the various quadrants of humans knowledge, expression, and inquiry (at the minimum: I, we, and it). While teal worldviews tend to be secular, turquoise is the first to begin to integrate Spirit as a living force in the world (manifested through any or all of the 3 Faces of God: “I”—the “No self” or “witness” of Buddhism; “we/thou”—the “great other” of Christianity, Judaism, Hindusm, Islam, etc.; or “it”—the “Web of Life” seen in Taoism, Pantheism, etc.).

    Indigo (continues and deepens kosmocentric—able to take 6th-person perspective and higher): Evolution and development continues growing, and we have no reason to believe it will stop with the stage that we are at now. We have indicated all of these higher possibilities with the next color in the rainbow after turquoise, which is indigo.
46. Matthew Newsham says:

    April 4, 2007 at 5:03 pm

    “So no, I’m not saying throw out meditation and states of consciousness, just contextualize it in a postmetaphysical framework that doesn’t give it “absolute” preference to all other levels, lines, etc. THAT is the problem with Ken’s system.”

    It seems like Ken has given significant concessions to the “postmetaphysical framework” issue with IS, are you asking him to give up all truth claims regarding spirituality that he does believe? Are you asking that he give up on spirit? Taken from a more sophist-ic angle (technique, etc) this line of thought would seem prevent him from integrating religious traditions. Plus it may just plain be harder to understand.
47. Edward Berge says:

    April 4, 2007 at 5:45 pm

    Yes, IS is significantly about pomo revelation and accurate, as far as it goes.

    No, I’m not asking that Ken give up his spiritual practice or truth claims, just contextualize them within the rest of his pomo agenda in IS. I.e. to scrap the notion of an absolute, transcendant realm that can be directly perceived, which is counter to the prior pomo revelation. And no, what he’s doing by retaining it is not an integration of pomo with spirit at a higher level, imo.

    And doing the above will not prevent him from integrating religious traditions in the least. He’s already recontextualized them based on his pomo AQAL, allowing each’s truth claim within its own context. And all he need do is the same with his own spiritual realization (san the ultimate crap). But that might be the problem, as Ken admits that when one is embedded and identified with a particular level they cannot see beyond it. Of couse I thought once one went “2nd tier” they were transparent to their limitations and open to listening to those “ahead” of them, but that remains to be seen.

    Yeah, I’m suggesting that there are those alive right now on this planet that are beyond Ken in the model of hierarchical complexity scale. AND there are those at the same level sans his particular pathologies that skew his lens some. AND his death-grip on the last vestige of essentialism is also miscoloring his color scheme. AND so on.
48. Gudi says:

    April 7, 2007 at 12:07 pm

    hello,
    I have just found out about the website while i was trying to find out the literal meaning of ADVAYA.
    I am a musician and a composer named Jonathan Harvey composed a piece called “Advaya”.I know that it means “not -two”..your explanations are too deep for someone like me to understand the main line,the basic explanation of it..

    I am very sorry not to know about all these things you have written,I am trying to understand but do you mind to send me a link or to describe Advaya in a simpler way? something clear…?

    thank you very much for your understanding..
    looking forward to your answer…

    kindly yours,

    gudi
49. Edward Berge says:

    April 7, 2007 at 7:06 pm

    For a basic introduction to nonduality (advaita) see this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonduality