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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

“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.”

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.