8 circuit model Leary/Wilson/Wilber

[stonerfromohio]

Im curious what you all think about Timothy Leary and Robert Anton Wilson's 8 circuit model of consciousness and about Ken Wilber's holon's in evolution as well as other areas of thought. I understand that part/whole are concepts but if you are symbolically thinking I like looking at the world in terms of holon's and understanding that we are a part as well as a whole and we are enveloped in ever transcending layers of parts and wholes.
I took a model from Ken Wilber's Brief History of everything illustrating the initial evolution from atoms/cells/metabolic organisms/neuronal organisms/neural cord/brain stem/limbic system/neocortex/complex neocortex and paired it with Leary/Wilson's 8 circuit model. I think this shows natures natural unfoldment and transcendence of previous holons and if you include Wilber's model into the Leary/Wilson 8 circuit model you get everything pre bio-survival circuit and it illustrates how interconnected everything is. Im also curious as to what you all think about the drugs associated with the specific circuits and if you think its fairly accurate. In the end I understand its a model but nonetheless interesting.

Aside from that if you are orienting yourself from a Buddhist perspective on the world what is the point in imposing models on reality?

Interior - Exterior
Prehension – atoms
Irritability – cells (genetic)
Rudimentary sensation – metabolic organisms (e.g. plants)
Sensation – protoneuronal organisms (e.g. coelenterate)
Perception – neuronal organisms (e.g. annelids)
Perception/impulse – neural cord (fish/amphibians)
Impulse/emotion- brain stem (reptiles) The Bio-survival Circuit – Activated by opiates
-Concerned with the earliest modes of survival and the basic separation of objects into either harmful or safe.
Emotion/image- limbic system (paleomammals) The Emotional Circuit-Activated by alcohol
-Concerned with raw emotion and the separation of behavior into submissive and dominant
Symbols- neocortex (primates) The Symbolic Circuit-Activated by caffeine, cocaine
-Concerned with logic and symbolic thought
Concepts – complex neocortex (humans) The Domestic Circuit-Activated by Oxycontin or MDMA (Ecstacy)
-This circuit is concerned with operating within social networks and the transmission of culture across time.
The Neurosomatic Circuit.-Activated by marijuana or tantric yoga
is the first of the right-brain, "higher" circuits which are usually inactive in most humans
The Neuroelectric Circuit.-Activated by peyote or psilocybin (mushrooms)
is concerned with the mind becoming aware of itself independent of the patterns imprinted by the previous five circuits
The Neurogenetic Circuit-Activated by LSD, Raja yoga
allows access to the genetic memory contained in DNA.
The Psycho-atomic Circuit-Activated by DMT, Ayauscha, Ketamine, Samhadi meditation allows access to the intergalactic consciousness that predates life in the universe (characterized as the Godhead, the Overmind or aliens), and lets humans operate outside of space-time and the constraints of relativity.
Upper Left – Upper Right

 

[Shakti]

Yeah, I'm not too familiar with Leary's model or Wilson's, but I'm quite familiar with Wilber's and I think it's pretty great.

Aside from that if you are orienting yourself from a Buddhist perspective on the world what is the point in imposing models on reality?

If you're trying to escape the world of form and rest in formless cessation, then why bother with models of form? However, that's just not realistic for the vast majority of us, and quite arguably not the highest pursuit anyway. So, if you're one of the 99.9999% of Buddhists that don't spend all day everyday in absorbed in formlessness, then you are creating models of and imposing models on reality. So, why not be a good student of form and understand and integrate the best models?

 

[stonerfromohio]

So do you think that trying to escape the world of form is a type of aversion? I think you have to come to a sort of middle way between formlessness and imposing a model. Imposing models is good for giving order to chaos and understanding things in a more intelligible way but from a Buddhist perspective is it really understanding things in a more intelligible way or is it just illusory forms? But those forms are themselves also a manifestation from the groundless ground of being correct? So those thoughts are just as real as any of the manifestations of the groundless ground of being no more no less so therefore I feel that they are just another expression of the groundless ground of being and therefore just as relevant as everything else. Obviously if the thoughts are taking an interpretation of something verifiable and it misinterprets quantifiable data its not worth anything but there are thoughts that make correct interpretations of reality that correspond with "objective" reality so thoughts can be more than purely subjectivity and valid to the "exterior" world. Symbolic thinking is also warranted for communication which allows for us to fufil our social need sitting in "formless" reality forever would deny us of the "middle way" would it not because we would not adhere to balance but instead deny physiological and social needs to experience formlessness. It seems i'm having trouble integrating the philosophy as I feel the world of form becomes obsolete in the Buddhist orientation but maybe its my understanding that is causing that i' not sure. I want to understand everything as well as I can I have been reading Joseph Cambell, Ken Wilber, Robert Anton Wilson, carl jung and taking 16 credit hours alongside and I seem to get a better understanding but at the same time more and more confused. But at the same time there is'nt really an I to understand or be confused so when I say I have those feelings do they not exist or are they just passing and I feel them but there is no knower who feels them I feel the latter is correct.

 

[Shakti]

So do you think that trying to escape the world of form is a type of aversion?

In a way.

I think you have to come to a sort of middle way between formlessness and imposing a model. Imposing models is good for giving order to chaos and understanding things in a more intelligible way

I agree.

but from a Buddhist perspective is it really understanding things in a more intelligible way or is it just illusory forms? But those forms are themselves also a manifestation from the groundless ground of being correct?

It depends who you ask. Those of the causal emptiness persuasion will say they are all illusionary. Those of the non-dual school will say that form is none other than emptiness. The later is the perspective i choose to hold.

So those thoughts are just as real as any of the manifestations of the groundless ground of being no more no less so therefore I feel that they are just another expression of the groundless ground of being and therefore just as relevant as everything else.

Well yes and know. Thoughts and Form most certainly are real. None-the-less, thoughts are inherently finite, incomplete, relativistic and otherwise "lesser" than the infinite, whole and absolute. But yes on the whole thoughts are quite relevant.

Obviously if the thoughts are taking an interpretation of something verifiable and it misinterprets quantifiable data its not worth anything but there are thoughts that make correct interpretations of reality that correspond with "objective" reality so thoughts can be more than purely subjectivity and valid to the "exterior" world

This seems to be the case.

Symbolic thinking is also warranted for communication which allows for us to fufil our social need sitting in "formless" reality forever would deny us of the "middle way" would it not because we would not adhere to balance but instead deny physiological and social needs to experience formlessness.

This too seems to be the case.

It seems i'm having trouble integrating the philosophy as I feel the world of form becomes obsolete in the Buddhist orientation but maybe its my understanding that is causing that i' not sure.

It seems to me you're beginning to understand it quite well. But the little bit of confusion you're having here is because of the difference between the causal realization and the non-dual realization. The former argues that the manifest world is illusionary and the way to peace and illumination is through cessation of form. This is a very powerful realization and proper and determined practice can allow one to do just what it claims. The later argues that form itself is this empty ground and they are not separate. They still practice cessation, but it's not the final goal. Once one has stabilized the causal realization in a non-dual tradition the next step is to return to the world in the pursuit of service and the alleviation of suffering, for if all sentient beings are not enlightened, could you be?

But at the same time there is'nt really an I to understand or be confused so when I say I have those feelings do they not exist or are they just passing and I feel them but there is no knower who feels them I feel the latter is correct.

Brahman is Atman. So it is true that your Highest Self is not a manifest object, there is no thing you can point to and say that is I. However, there quite obviously is something manifesting (confusion in this case) and a manifest knower. These things are arising within your ultimate Self, Atman, which is itself formless Brahman.

Good luck with your studies. I'm sure they shall reward you.

 

[yougene]

I see Timothy Leary as a pioneer who was going in the right direction but was ultimately working in the dark. Two lines of thought come up when I look at this cross-section.

Wilber's big contribution to developmental hierarchy conceptions was to plot the development from multiple domains. Each line is looked at in its interior and exterior facet, in its singular and plural( systemic ) form. Essentially analyzing from all three pronouns( I, We, It ) and correlating. A common fallacy in these schemas was to take the singular form of a level and say the plural form is a higher stage of development. It's not sharp thinking, in that you are switching perspectives mid-analysis and you end up with alot of inconsistencies. With that said, the domestic has no place in that line of development, and would be its own line ("We").

Leary also makes the mistake Wilber was making up until about 10 years ago. He was confusing stages of development and states of consciousness. The stages develop through time, states come and go regardless of stage of development. Wilber would take the most profound states of consciousness and put them on the top tier. But this was inconsistent in that these states were available to anyone and you could then just jump from one stage to a top stage without traversing in between. The higher stages have a connection with states of consciousness but they are not the same thing. Leary makes this mistake where he includes elements that are stages and elements that are states. Raja Yoga and Samadhi Meditation do not activate higher stages in and of themselves. The Wilber-Comb Lattice was made to illustrate this point.

 

[Shakti]

Hey yougene, what do you think about the relationship between states and stages? In my own life it's seemed that revelatory states have worked to accelerate the development of higher stages. I don't think I've ever read Wilber commenting on this. Do you know of any data on this and what is your general impression of this relationship?

 

[Jamshyd]

All this thread needs is a Mckenna to turn into epic fail! :D *

Seriously though? I don't buy it.

Maybe I'll write more thorough criticism later but honestly I have better things to do.

* Relax, it's a joke.

 

[Shakti]

Aw great, just leaving unqualified declarations of bunkhood. Come on Jammy what is it you don't buy?

 

[yougene]

Hey yougene, what do you think about the relationship between states and stages? In my own life it's seemed that revelatory states have worked to accelerate the development of higher stages. I don't think I've ever read Wilber commenting on this. Do you know of any data on this and what is your general impression of this relationship?

There is supposedly a connection between the two like you said and there is data on it but I haven't taken the initiative to find it. It's probably a psychology sentence completion test or some variation of it. Look in the bibliographies or ask around.

Aw great, just leaving unqualified declarations of bunkhood. Come on Jammy what is it you don't buy?

Jamshyd has expressed his disapproval of Wilber in the past. I think we've all agreed to disrespectfully disagree.

That was a cheap shot Jam.

 

[vegan]

you can ignore my post cause i only read a bit about it on wikipedia. so i definitely don't know the subject well


but still... it looked like utter bullshit to me

you can invent as many pseudo models of whatever as you wish, using incomplete made-up categories and abracadabra vocabulary

actually... where is Manifesto when you need him?
he'd give you a few pages of examples of nonsense that make a lot of sense to him

 

[stonerfromohio]

So what do we consider psuedo science? Is it science which does not agree with consensus reality? Is it science which does not correlate as empirically observable data and therefore since it is not exteriorly verafiable it is not valid? Is it science that is too speculative? Also dont take this as me denying psuedo science because it is everywhere Id just like to understand better. I consider psuedo science as science with no evidence for it which I dont agree applys to wilber. Id like to know the specific critiques on Wilber or Leary's model, I dont assert them as more relavent then other models just a more integral map of reality and obviously more will emerge that will refute as well as add to current maps availbable. I am very open to Wilber and Leary critique especially Leary who often times delved into major psuedo science with no grounding in "reality" whatsoever. Wilber on the other hand incorporates a lot of the greatest academic minds as well as the sages and mystics of the ages into an all encompassing model of thought. He himself does not claim his model to be the only model nor the best model. I do understand claims of narcisism and critiques about his support of Adi da but id like to know why alot of people regard Wilber as a quack and lump him into all the other new age quacks.

I am halfway through A brief history of everything and ive read no boundry as well as introdocution to an integral politic, science, psychology and spirituality. I dont think he is absolutely true or his model is the best but certainly relavent in todays philosophy/spirituality fields.

The one thing I dont like about other peoples models in general is along the lines of religion is someone elses spirituality, do I need other people to create the models of reality that I use to make sense of things? I feel im perfectly capable of constructing a model in which to communicate and orient myself to the world do I really need someone to go into this ultimate endeavor of a "theory of everything" which does all my thinking for me. Also am I supposed to consult all these thinkers major opus before deciding the action to take in a given situation? Thats why I always seem to come back to Buddhism, formlessness doesnt concern itself with memorising hundreds of dead peoples books, and ideas about truth it knows itself simply is and as soon as you entire symbolic thinking to speak of any matters concerning being you are merely speaking of representations of itself which will always be representations.

I, We, It
Ego, Super ego, id
The father, The Son, The Holy Spirit
The true, The good, The beautiful
the Buddha, the Dharma (the teachings of the Buddha), and the Sangha (the community of Buddhists).
Also ken wilbers big three

I think there is a commonality between cultures of the trinity whether in christianity, buddhism or psychology.

 

[Jamshyd]

Jamshyd has expressed his disapproval of Wilber in the past. I think we've all agreed to disrespectfully disagree.

Yes, that's true .

That was a cheap shot Jam.

Frankly, I do not think Leary/Wilson/Wilber/(McKenna) are even worth more than a cheap shot... but that's just me... and Vegan .

---

Nevertheless, let me summarize my sentiment in one line:

What has Wilber & Co. brought to us that has not been out there already? The fact that they gained riches and fame out of it makes it even less interesting.

Don't get me wrong - Aleister Crowley was famous (and, um, rich I guess?), but the ingenuity of his writings made it worth it.

When I read Wilber, I feel that what he's saying is not worth my time or money because I have already seen it all in texts that surpass him by thousands of years, restated in a neo-arcane tongue.

Ok, that was more than a line. But you get the idea.

 

[yougene]

Frankly, I do not think Leary/Wilson/Wilber/(McKenna) are even worth more than a cheap shot... but that's just me... and Vegan .

Ok, but you're not only making a cheap shot at the authors, you're making a cheap shot at posters in the thread.

What has Wilber & Co. brought to us that has not been out there already?

How about his work in mapping? The whole point of his theory isn't to come up with something new, it's to connect fragmented domains of knowledge. With that said he has made plenty of novel contributions.


As for "& Co" I wouldn't even know where to start.

Saul Williams, Darren Aronofsky, Michael Crichton, Warren Farrell, Billy Corgan, Sam Harris, John Mackey, Rick Ruben, "Hermit the Frog", Alex Grey, Wachowski Brothers, and the list goes on and on.
Really? You don't think any of these people have made a unique contribution?

The fact that they gained riches and fame out of it makes it even less interesting.

I think you're showing your genuine reasoning here.

When I read Wilber, I feel that what he's saying is not worth my time or money because I have already seen it all in texts that surpass him by thousands of years, restated in a neo-arcane tongue.

What texts of his have you read exactly?

How can text that draws relations between domains of knowledge that are only centuries old be surpassed by texts that are thousands of years old? I don't think you get it.

 

[stonerfromohio]

^I concur

 

[Jamshyd]

Ok, but you're not only making a cheap shot at the authors, you're making a cheap shot at posters in the thread.

Erm, although I have no idea how this works, let's assume it's true... your attempts to guilt-trip me are definitely cheaper shots.

How about his work in mapping? The whole point of his theory isn't to come up with something new, it's to connect fragmented domains of knowledge. With that said he has made plenty of novel contributions.

How is that a contribution when he's just doing what you and I do in our daily lives on this forum?

As for "& Co" I wouldn't even know where to start.

You misunderstand again. By "&Co" I meant the ones mentioned above.

You fail to mention Aurobindo, which I incidentally do appreciate, and which is everything that Wilber is, IMO, minus the glamour.

I think you're showing your genuine reasoning here.

I think you assume too much, as you have so casually un-quoted the line following that which clearly shows that this is not true.

What texts of his have you read exactly?

Not too much, but then again that's not an issue as you'd expect a verbose ego like wilber to simply repeat himself over and over again in more and more arcane language.

That said, I read most of No Boundary then tossed it, read less than hald of A Brief History of Everything and tossed it too, and I read The Pocket Ken Wilber and gave it away to a random guy in India because I decided it wasn't worth the weight of carrying it in my backpack.

Note that I am not judging wilber against myself, I am judging him against other writings, most of which are, interestingly enough, anonymously written.

How can text that draws relations between domains of knowledge that are only centuries old be surpassed by texts that are thousands of years old? I don't think you get it.

Of course I "don't get it". If I were as smart as you were, I'd have agreed with you, wouldn't I?

Your zealotry scares me, although seeing it is Wilber we're talking about I'm not too shocked to see it.

 

[stonerfromohio]

I respect your position and definitely see logic in what your saying. I will have to check out Aurobindo.

MDAO what do you think?

 

[Manifespo]

What's Up Vegan? ManifesPo here!

I'm lost in the OmniTriBiDimensional Moniverse.

OmniLogy
1. Meta - Philosophy/Mathematics
2. Physics
3. Chemistry
4. Biology
5. Psychology
6. Sociology
7. Ecology
8. Geology
9. Sology
10. Milkology
11. Astrology

The universe is the one objective process

studied by every sobject.

The universal entelechy is an auto-generating

(capable of autopoesis) Higher Key, composed

of superimposing, simultaneous, and ontologically

co-dependent Energetic Processes, on every scale

from the subatomic to the universal.

 

[Manifespo]

Following is some of the 'nonsense' that you speak of.

Notice any similarities between the models of Leary/Wilson/Wilber and my conceptions?

Omnology – PostMetaCosMetology
Nothing is not studied by Objective omnology.
Key: SHeIaM is Everything
Joe Broderick October 16, 2006

0. Everything is GOD
Cosmotheology: sHeIaM intelligently designs itself through Time
Fundamental Cosmotheological Entheon: OmniSpo Katabaz
The ultimate question, WHY?
Generator Operator Regenerator/Destroyer

1. Everything is Information
Meta-Physics: sHeIaM is Communicating Spinning Ideas
Fundamental Information Entity: Structural 4D Form in SpaceTime ST
Mathematical Philosophical Meaning Linguistic Patterns Neo-Platonic Laws
Reality is stranger than fiction, on every scale, from bottom up down strange top charm quarks protons neutrons electrons photons hydrogen helium lithium
Phil’s Photons Phaos Light Highest frequency- Gravity Quark

2. Everything is Energy
Physics: sHeIaM is Scalar Interacting Waves in SpaceEnergyTime SET
Fundamental Physical Entity: Functional Behavior of Electrons
Elle the Leptic Electron standing spinning orbiting omnitransic waves
Three Corks per Nitro, two down and one up cork, two up and one down for Proto.

3. Everything is Mass
Chemistry: sHeIaM is Chemical Elements Bonding in STEM
Fundamental Chemical Entity: 118 Atomic Elements composed of PEN
Protons Electrons and Neutrons combine to form Elements.
The Chemists deal with about 90 chemical entities, although 118 have been produced. The first chemical is hydrogen. They form molecules, salts, acids, and bases. Matter/Mass is produced by Mind which is produced by interacting energy patterns, What we perceive as hard, would melt like butter to the sun. Mass is just slow energy.

4. Everything is Alive.
Biology: sHeIaM is Self-Organizing Life in iSTEM
Fundamental Biology Entity: Self-Creating Cells
Biology studies DNA nucleic Acids, amino acids, Carbohydrates, Lipids, Proteins
Our dual stranded DNA codes for bio-information. DNA is created out of chemical elements in chemical surroundings, replicate their self-organizing systems, by transcribing their replication patterns into RNA, a single stranded molecule which the cell then uses to attach amino acids and assemble proteins, which control basically the whole cell.

5. Everything is Mind.
Psychology: sHeIaM is self-propelling Intelligence
Fundamental Psychology Entity: iME and Your OrgasMind
Psychology studies individual organisms in every biological species. Input, Analyzing, Output. Another Trinity is Memory Processing Prediction.

6. Everything is Social.
Sociology: sHeIaM is interacting organisms in groups
Fundamental Sociologic Entity: Civilizational Relationships
Sociology studies the sponomic interaction of Techno-Sapien Civilization.
The Key: Balanced, Integral, and Productive Transport Layers

7. Everything is Nature.
Ecology: sHeIaM is interdependent cycle of biological species
Fundamental Ecologic Entity: Earth’s BioSphere

8. Everything is Planetary
Geology: sHeIaM is an orb of rock with a bio-skin
Fundamental Geologic Entity: Earth’s GeoSphere

9. Everything is Solar
Sology: sHeIaM is an enormous fireball phusing atoms
Fundamental Sologic Entity: The Sun

10. Everything is Galaxic
Milkology: sHeIaM is a Milky Way galaxy
Fundamental Galactic Entity: The Black Hole Sun

11. Everything is Universal
Astronomy: sHeIaM is the Measurable Universe
Fundamental Universal Entity: Quasar SuperClusters SuperNovas Pulsar

You would think we should stop here, since we can’t go beyond the universe, but as a special treat I’m going to reveal the final dual triads of Omnology.

12. Everything is GOD
CosMetAstroTheoPhiloCogitoSophy: sHeIaM intelligently organizes herself
Fundamental CosmoTheoSophic Entity: Jevei = Eva Violet Elwood

13. Everything is iMeYou
Biography: sHeIaM is OmniSelf Law of MUG
Fundamental Biographic entity: Techno-Sapien individual (You)

14. Everything is WoMAN
Anthropology: sHeIaM is measured by Techno-Sapiens TS
Fundamental Anthropologic Entity: Human (TS) Civilization

15. Everything is Re-Membrance
History: sHeIaM is re-learning Past Phenomena
Fundamental Historical Entity: Memory Stores

16. Everything is Re-Presently Blurry
Semantics: sHeIaM is communicating auto-poetic meaning
Fundamental Semantic entity: Understanding an Idea felt in colorful curves

17. Everything is Phuture
Metology: sHeIaM is presently destroying the past
Fundamental Semantic Entity: Free Choice Re-Creating Infinite Phuture


Widest Omnologic Scale.
Creation Operator Regenerator = COR
Generator Operator Destroyer = GOD
Unifying Dual Diversity
Everything is still. I looked at Phoenix and then I sneezed.
Who am I? What sneezed? Well that is the question which CosmoTheology attempts to answer. For now we shall skip CosmoTheology and go straight to theosophy.

Now Everything is Moving Vibrating Resonating Spinning Swirling. The endless courtship of Eva and Katabaz, who are both just David Spoey and Alpha Merica.
physics, chemistry, biology, psychology, sociology species

This Meta-Metology
Omnilectic Trinity
OmniSpoGOD = sHeIaM
OmniPervasive; Sustaining Preserving Operating
Generator Operator Destroyer
Spin Orbit Frequency

 

[stonerfromohio]

haha

 

[Jamshyd]

... So, why is Wilber a celebrity, but Manifespo isn't, even though they are both practically doing the same thing using differing vocabularies and arrangements (and frankly, Manifespo's is slightly more interesting)?