Integral Spirituality by Ken Wilber - Page 14

**Travis Clementsmith** · #**131** (**permalink**) 10th June 2007, 05:48 AM

Must be clear as mud. Let's see if we can apply this to a situatation here:

Cadero asks:

Quote:

If someone claimed to be a revelator for God and after understanding what they had offered, would you believe them or the bible? What would be your reason for this?

As is common, "God" is left undefined, in other words, according to Integral Post-Metaphysics, "God" here is pure metaphysics. Left without any Kosmic address, let's see how the thread plays out:

Madeline answers:

Quote:

I would believe the bible.

2 Timothy 3:16,17 - All scripture is given by inspiration of God...

Now, I'm going to take some liberty knowing what I know of the people on this forum. "God" here is (2-p, L/4).

Angeleyes replies:

Quote:

I would listen to anything, but wouldn't accept it or reject it unless/until it spoke to me, not mentally but through my spirit, and for that I would ask for help from God.

"God" here is (1-p, L/8)

vivamis123 adds:

Quote:

To believe blind, is not to know God on a personal level

"God" here is (1-p, L/9)

Then, evangelicalhumanist observes the different interpretations from their expressions. He then goes on to list several examples of more modern self-styled prophets. But he doesn't specify why he links certain people to certain definitions, and instead assumes because the revelation is personal, it is the same thing angeleyes and vivamis123 are talking about.

Most of his examples are of people who claim connection to the (2-p, L/4) God through a (1/p, L/4) personality. But EH is certainly correct that it is confusing, because nobody was able to specify what they meant by "God".

Artha then adds:

Quote:

but all the great Revelators have a common Source and reinforce and compliment each other spiritually

Here, "Source" is (2-p, L/6)

Rev Kelly adds:

Quote:

And since God/dess isn't sitting there telling us the whole story, we need to weed out what is Truth, and what is not.

Here, "God/dess" is (3-p, L/6)

Now later, EH adds:

Quote:

As a "humanist," I can't be satisfied imagining a god that has left everybody to either figure out this purportedly "most important truth" all by themselves, or not.

The "god" he is referencing is (2-p, L/5), and he has trouble reconciling this type of "god", but nobody to this point has mentioned this type of "god". He has, in essence, created a "god" he knows how to punch at. Which would be fine, except that nobody knows what anyone else is talking about, because nobody knows how to express it in a way that is relative.

Now, I could go on, but I think this demonstrates the problem in discussing "God" and "spirituality" among many different people. Without a reference, everyone brings their own metaphysical conception to the party, which will inevitably lead to an argument.

Not that I am against a good argument! Those can be quite fun. But if your goal is actually understanding someone else, then one needs to be able to reference what they are talking about. I understand charting out where certain objects re each time you type is a bit akward. But, if you want to see things in a slightly bigger and more encompassing perspective, you have to lern to get out of the one you feel comfortable in!

We'll end with the logical objection that we haven't encountered: How do you know there are these different "altitudes"?

-TC

**Travis Clementsmith** · #**132** (**permalink**) 11th June 2007, 07:05 AM

Lastly, we're going to talk about "injunctions". In any attempt to aquire "good knowledge" there are three strands one should go through:

Quote:

1. A practical injunction or exemplar. If you want to know whether it is raining or not, you must go to the window and look. The point is that "facts" are not lying around waiting for all and sundry to see. If you want to know this, you must do this--an experiment, an injunction, a pragmatic series of engagements, a social practice: these lie behind most forms of good science. This is actually the meaning of Kuhn's notion of "paradigm," which does not mean a super-theory but an exemplar or actual practice.

2. An apprehension, illumination, or experience. Once you perform the experiment or follow the injunction--once you pragmatically engage the world--then you will be introduced to a series of experiences or apprehensions that are brought forth by the injunction. These experiences are technically known as data. As William James pointed out, the real meaning of "datum" is immediate experience. [8] Thus, you can have physical experiences (or physical data), mental experiences (or mental data), and spiritual experiences (or spiritual data). All good science--whether narrow or broad--is anchored to some degree in data, or experiential evidence.

3. Communal checking (either rejection or confirmation). Once we engage the paradigm (or social practice) and bring forth a series of experiences and evidence (or data), it helps if we can check these experiences with others who have also completed the injunction and seen the evidence. A community of peers--or those who have adequately completed the first two strands (injunction and data)--is perhaps the best check possible, and all good science tends to turn to a community of the adequate for confirmation or rejection. This is where the principle of falsifiability is very useful. Although the fallibility criterion cannot stand on its own, as Sir Karl Popper believed, it is often an important ingredient in good science. The idea is simply that bad data can be rejected by a community of the adequate. If there is no way that your belief system can be challenged, then there is no way to dislodge it at all, even if it is patently incorrect--and therefore whatever else you have, your beliefs are not very scientific (they are instead what is called "dogma," or a truth-claim backed only by authoritative fiat). Of course, there are many realities that are not open to the fallibility test--for example, you cannot reject, or even doubt, your own consciousness, as Descartes knew. But this third criteria simply says that good science constantly attempts to confirm (or reject) its knowledge claims, and the fallibility criterion is often used as one part of this third strand of good science.

What we want to focus on here is the injunction, the first step. We have seen 8 different methodologies available to us in aquiring knowledge. But not all evidence is easy to see, not all insights simple to comprehend. I might be able to do some simple math, that does not mean I am adequately trained to interpret integral calculus. To do that, I must engage the field to aquire the requisite amount of instruction to be able to proceed to the next two steps. Otherwise, I have to rely (believe) on what the group of peers asssures me is correct. I cannot falsify that information if I have not done the injunction.

If I am presented with four slides and told one is a deadly virus, if I haven't completed an injunction to be able to discern what I see, I cannot verify which one it is. Once again, I have to take up a field of study to be able to properly engage the domain.

This is true of any of the methodologies, including phenomenology. If you really want to know what those realities "look like", you have to engage it in a course of study. If you do not, it is no different than gazing for hours at slides of viruses or differential equations without any clue of how to proceed. I can see the colors and shapes, I can see the figures and numbers, but without the proper injunction, its all Greek to me. And just as there are different levels of interpreting the data, there are different levels of interpreting consciousness. Just because you see, doesn't necessarily make you aware. All fields of study are now on equal footing.

-TC

**Travis Clementsmith** · #**133** (**permalink**) 11th June 2007, 07:09 AM

This will end the discussion on Integral Spirituality. If you like, here are some questions for closing:

1. Did you like the book?

2. Did you find the subject matter too difficult?

3. Did the discussion help clarify what you read, if so, what part?

4. If you came in late, would you consider reading the book?

5. Do you think the proposals are practical, why or why not?

6. Feel free to add any parting comments....

Thanks to all those who participated. I'll announce a new book soon.

-TC

Aaron · #**134** (**permalink**) 11th June 2007, 02:55 PM

Quote: