8 circuit model Leary/Wilson/Wilber

[yougene]

I just listened to the dialogues between Kenwilber and Serj Tankian, and Larry Wachowski I thought they were awesome, just really awesome creative eloquent cutting edge conversations. I really like Serj Tankian, Larry Wachowski and Ken Wilber so I guess i'm biased :D the matrix was one of my favorite trilogies to have ever come out, I saw System of A Down Live in columbus and I cant ever forget that it was mindblowing.

I always enjoy listening to the artists on there. Rick Rubin and Saul Williams are good ones if you enjoyed the previous two.

honestly, i'm too dampened by my first impression to spend time trying to figure out if anything makes sense in their model

Fair enough. I must say though, if you are trying to make sense of the model this thread isn't the place to start.

 

[Psychedelic Gleam]

Honestly, I haven't found a thorough critique of Wilber. I have found several that will nit pick on the potential implications of some of his statements and then try to throw the baby out with the bath water. I don't think there is fully an "other side." There certainly people who reject his writing for this reason or that, but I haven't seen a cohesive argument against the totality of it.

There are points in which I too have disagreed with individual statements of his, but that doesn't mean I then get up on my high horse and condemn the whole because of a little part.

Also, I must say, his critique of some of the PoMo writers that have tried to destroy him has been devastating.

So if you do find some thoughtful criticism, I'd be down to read it.

Frankly I find the comparison between Wilson/McKenna and Wilber absurd. Wilson and McKenna both were speaking, as they repeatedly admitted, from an absolutely subjective perspective, readily accepting the fact that they could be absolutely wrong or complete jokes, they had a firm grasp of absurdity and humor and never took their own statements as dogmatic truth.

Wilber and his acolytes on the other hand are full of overblown language and accusations that people "just don't get it because they are at lower levels" or some other condescending statement.

Plus Wilber's stance on evolution lead me to stop even trying to "get" integral theory, that combined with the endless condescension and inaccessibility that obscures the philosophy and seems specifically constructed to prevent criticisms.

Oh and every interview I've seen between Wilber and other Integral Artists are interesting but frankly way too much circle jerking going on with each individual talking about how "integral" their work is and how that makes it so much more worthwhile than other art.

How can they be so condescending, so inpenetrable, and so adverse to criticism and still expect anyone to find their perspective worth spending the time dealing with? Oh and Wilber's perspective on psychedelic usage (considering his SINGLE lsd experience is quite obnoxious.

 

[yougene]

Wilber and his acolytes on the other hand are full of overblown language and accusations that people "just don't get it because they are at lower levels" or some other condescending statement.

Overblown language like what? If you want mysticism with flowery language Wilber probably isn't the guy for you. If you want systematic precision then Wilber is a good author. Like I said earlier, most of his "overblown" language isn't vocabulary he made up. It's vocabulary that is adopted from the models that are included. That's the whole point of what he does, he explores ways to connect different models.

I think you misinterpret the tone when he talks about people at "lower levels". First these aren't accusations, it's developmental psychology that doesn't rank value, status, or anything to that effect. Second he isn't looking down on people, all this means is that if someone is say a fundamentalist Christian. They haven't yet gone through the stages of development( aka experiences ) to grasp something like modernism, or post-modernism. He isn't accusing them of anything or passing judgement. It's certainly a more objective and kinder stance then being like "Fundamentalists are bad people! They hate teh gays!!! ARRR!!!"

Plus Wilber's stance on evolution lead me to stop even trying to "get" integral theory,

You don't believe in evolution?

that combined with the endless condescension and inaccessibility that obscures the philosophy and seems specifically constructed to prevent criticisms.

Ok, well look people go through developmental stages, that is a fact. Every field that studies humans and other organisms uses stage conceptions. If you think Wilber is condescending because he includes data that doesn't sit well with your ideals I don't know what to say. I disagree with your assertion. Wilber is not being condescending. Being at a specific stage doesn't give you any value in and of itself, and ranking the value of people by their lines of development completely goes against the spirit and logic of the idea.

Wilber's language is explicit and it interweaves multiple models( which each bring their own language ). Yes, this isn't writing that is filled with flowery language, it is explicit language But it does have its advantages. Explicit language makes it easier to find holes not harder. If you're saying you don't enjoy this type of writing I understand. But if you are saying this type of writing somehow makes it wrong I disagree.

Oh and every interview I've seen between Wilber and other Integral Artists are interesting but frankly way too much circle jerking going on with each individual talking about how "integral" their work is and how that makes it so much more worthwhile than other art.

I haven't heard a single artist on there say their work is more worthwhile for any reason. Most of the dialogues consist of the artist talking about their creative process and how it intersects with the integral perspective.

 

[Psychedelic Gleam]

actually i was referring to this:

"You either postulate a supernatural source of which there are two types. One is a Platonic given and one is basically theological – a God or intelligent design - or you postulate Spirit as immanent - of course it's transcendent but also immanent - and it shows up as a self-organizing, self-transcending drive within evolution itself. And then evolution is Spirit’s own unfolding. Not in super-natural, but an intra-natural, an immanently natural aspect. And that's basically the position I maintain. "

this conception of a "drive" within evolution... of "spirit" as the motor for evolution. and his use of scientists who would NEVER support such sentiment as support for his argument, plus his comments which sounded much like glorified intelligent design, and his comments on the "gaps" in evolutionary theory as a flaw in the theory pointing towards such an argument.

such as this:



"KW: ...The standard neo-Darwinian explanation of chance mutation and natural selection - very few theorists believe this anymore. Evolution clearly operates in part by natural selection, but this process simply selects those transformations that have already occurred by mechanisms that absolutely nobody understands.

Q. For example?

KW: Take the standard notion that wings simply evolved from forelegs. It takes perhaps a hundred mutations to produce a functional wing from a leg--a half-wing will not do. A half-wing is no good as a leg and no good as a wing--you can't run and you can't fly. It has no adaptive value whatsoever. In other words, with a half-wing you are dinner. The wing will work only if these hundred mutations happen all at once, in one animal--also these same mutations must occur simultaneously in another animal of the opposite sex, and they have to somehow find each other, have dinner, a few drinks, mate, and have offspring with real functional wings.

Talk about mind-boggling. This in infinitely, absolutely, utterly mind-boggling. Random mutations cannot even begin to explain this....But once this incredible transformation has occurred, then natural selection will indeed select the better wings from the less workable wings--but the wings themselves? Nobody has a clue.

For the moment, everybody has simply agreed to call this "quantum evolution" or "punctuated equilibrium" or "emergent evolution"--radically novel and emergent and incredibly complex holons come into existence in a huge leap, in a quantum-like fashion--with no evidence whatsoever of intermediated forms. Dozens or hundreds of simultaneous nonlethal mutations have to happen at the same time in order to survive at all--the wing, for example, or the eyeball.

...

more here:

http://www.kheper.net/topics/Wilber/Wilber_on_biological_evolution.html

If you think Wilber is on the same page as current evolutionary theory than maybe he updated his beliefs recently and I just wasn't aware.

 

[yougene]

actually i was referring to this:

"You either postulate a supernatural source of which there are two types. One is a Platonic given and one is basically theological – a God or intelligent design - or you postulate Spirit as immanent - of course it's transcendent but also immanent - and it shows up as a self-organizing, self-transcending drive within evolution itself. And then evolution is Spirit’s own unfolding. Not in super-natural, but an intra-natural, an immanently natural aspect. And that's basically the position I maintain. "

Your selection of quote is misleading in that it makes Wilber appear as though he is arguing for a "theological God or intelligent design". Wilber was never a proponent of creationism. This looks like he was comparing and contrasting two different perspectives. Where is the source for this?

this conception of a "drive" within evolution... of "spirit" as the motor for evolution. and his use of scientists who would NEVER support such sentiment as support for his argument, plus his comments which sounded much like glorified intelligent design, and his comments on the "gaps" in evolutionary theory as a flaw in the theory pointing towards such an argument.

Conceiving a drive to evolution and conceiving this drive as spirit are two different things.
Conceiving a drive in evolution is a utilization of systems theory. Conceiving this drive as "Spirit" becoming aware of itself is utilizing Hegel.

I can't speak for "most scientists" but it is perfectly reasonable for a biologist to embrace evolution that is systemic and emergent. I don't think many of them would even know who Hegel is though.
By your same reasoning would you call systems theory creationism? Hegel a creationist?


There are gaps in our understanding of evolution. The gap between what happens on macro scale and what happens on the molecular scale is vast. That's why evolutionary biologists still have a job. You don't agree with this?

"KW: ...The standard neo-Darwinian explanation of chance mutation and natural selection - very few theorists believe this anymore. Evolution clearly operates in part by natural selection, but this process simply selects those transformations that have already occurred by mechanisms that absolutely nobody understands.

Q. For example?

KW: Take the standard notion that wings simply evolved from forelegs. It takes perhaps a hundred mutations to produce a functional wing from a leg--a half-wing will not do. A half-wing is no good as a leg and no good as a wing--you can't run and you can't fly. It has no adaptive value whatsoever. In other words, with a half-wing you are dinner. The wing will work only if these hundred mutations happen all at once, in one animal--also these same mutations must occur simultaneously in another animal of the opposite sex, and they have to somehow find each other, have dinner, a few drinks, mate, and have offspring with real functional wings.

Talk about mind-boggling. This in infinitely, absolutely, utterly mind-boggling. Random mutations cannot even begin to explain this....But once this incredible transformation has occurred, then natural selection will indeed select the better wings from the less workable wings--but the wings themselves? Nobody has a clue.

For the moment, everybody has simply agreed to call this "quantum evolution" or "punctuated equilibrium" or "emergent evolution"--radically novel and emergent and incredibly complex holons come into existence in a huge leap, in a quantum-like fashion--with no evidence whatsoever of intermediated forms. Dozens or hundreds of simultaneous nonlethal mutations have to happen at the same time in order to survive at all--the wing, for example, or the eyeball.

I don't see anything wrong here.

In a nutshell, evolution is probably far more complex and systemic then we currently understand.
Oh no, we've got a creationist on our hands!!!

Considering Wilber has a phd in Biochemistry, I don't think he's exactly speaking out his ass here either...

If you think Wilber is on the same page as current evolutionary theory than maybe he updated his beliefs recently and I just wasn't aware.

I don't think you'll find many biologists talking of evolution in terms of "Spirit" but his ideas are pretty consistent with what has been floating around. Alot of biologists do take a systemic view on evolution and biology, and most of them have to deal with "gaps" in understanding on a daily basis..



This "article" was garbage, it tries to portrays Wilber as someone who doesn't believe in Darwinism( which he does ). The author disagrees with Wilber's conclusions but instead of addressing Wilber's premises he throws around Ad Hom attacks like "creationist", and "anti-darwinism" which aren't even accurate.

 

[Shakti]

Frankly I find the comparison between Wilson/McKenna and Wilber absurd. Wilson and McKenna both were speaking, as they repeatedly admitted, from an absolutely subjective perspective, readily accepting the fact that they could be absolutely wrong or complete jokes, they had a firm grasp of absurdity and humor and never took their own statements as dogmatic truth.

I find the comparison absurd too, but not for the reasons you do. Wilber does not present or view his statements as dogmatic truth. He has on many occasions said that his integral map is nothing other than maps of samsara/maya, in other words they are illusion and not absolute truth. None the less they do have consistently verifiable manifestations.

I'd like to refute a number of your other misinformed statements but it seems yougene has done a pretty good job of it and I don't want to be redundant or boring.

Oh and Wilber's perspective on psychedelic usage (considering his SINGLE lsd experience is quite obnoxious.

What is his stance? I know I've read him speaking of historical shamanism as an effective means of transformation.

 

[stonerfromohio]

I like people who dare to think outside consensus reality and who is to say what reality is? Robert Anton Wilson tried to remove is altogether with his adoption of E-prime. A lot of people aren't able to comprehend or are not open to Robert Anton Wilson's humor nor out-there way of thinking, Robert Anton Wilson was certainly not a cook watch maybe logic or read some of his books. Timothy leary was a very futuristic thinking individual who always thought outside the box to him there was no box, Timothy leary at times is pure insanity but thats part of the reason I like him and he was a PhD psychologist at Harvard university he must know something. As for mckenna I think he refused to be a conformist and got a little fixated on psychedelics. But he had a great mind and if im not mistaken also had a PhD I am not saying everyone with a PhD is instantly a great mind but it takes effort and intelligence to earn a doctorate. I think timothy leary, wilson and mckenna have done a lot to open peoples minds and get outside the norm and encouraged people to do a little introspective analysis whether with meditation or psychedelics.

 

[Jabberwocky]

Prune-time bump

 

[Quantum Perception]

Well...

After reading most of this thread, which went from speculation to argument, here my two cents:

Regarding Wilbers quads and Learys circuits modals of consciousness, I think spiral dynamics has more in common with the 8-circuits then the quadrants do.

That said, Leary/Wilson/Mckenna i beleive are a hybrid of artists and scientists which I hope can find its place in academia. They are hybrids because their work is avant-guard.

IMO there is two kinds of science, that which discovers, and that which affirms prior assumptions. The latter can halt progress and has been doing so. But this distinction i believe is not evident to most scientists, and because in psychology we know humans like familiar things more often then novel ones, scientists often spin/interpret their results and observations as encoring the old instead of finding the new.

Therefore, because of this bias toward certainty, academia needs a place where avant-guard style work can be conducted. Leary/Wilson/Mckenna are explorers of new ares, basically mappers. Only after them and others like them can more empiric/systematic observations can be done. Plus on the whole, it makes science more exciting as part of it becomes adventurous- reminiscent of past explorers into unknown continents or jungles.

 

[qwe]

i'm nearly done with a biology major, chemistry 2 year degree, and i've finished my psychology minor (so.. relevant to the subject). i've also read several books by Leary and Wilson, including some that outline the 8 circuit model. tbh, i think it's rather bizarre, and it reaches too far. i can see how it could be useful in some circumstances, but i've never used the model in my own psychonautic journeys, or for life in general.

 

[Quantum Perception]

^They reach far into bizarre areas because they are explorers more then scientists.

 

[qwe]

yeah, don't get me wrong, i don't think that they're totally useless. i very much enjoyed leary and wilson, that's how i got to bluelight

 

[stonerfromohio]

I dont put as much value on Wilson/Leary/Wilber as I used to, I think Wilber repeats the same thing over and over again, without much meat and a lot of fluff. Everything is integral.. blah blah blah, I think hes a cool dude but eh i dont really want to hear about that anymore. Leary honestly is bat nuts, I mean some of his writings are interesting I think LSD gave him some real insight but i believe it also ruined him if you saw videos and interviews of him before his death I think he was really off his rocker. Wilson I still like but also another guy im not too intersted in reading anymore.

I think they were stepping stones, they provided a lot of insight and awakened me to things id never thought about before, but ive moved on. Mckenna is another one who awakened me and tripped me out but again ive moved on. Interesting seeing this thread, as i dont put much stake into what a lot of these authors say anymore. But tbh I think they are a great head trip, they make you think, and they are entertaining so either way props to them.

 

[malakaix]

I think they were stepping stones, they provided a lot of insight and awakened me to things id never thought about before, but ive moved on.

This is more or less, from my perspective the goal of many of these teachers.. you're meant to move on from them.. they may or may not help you awaken to your own self-mastery, but they are there as stepping stones.

I personally found much value in Wilber's work over the years, much of it helped me to better understand what i was going through on a spiritual level, but it also seems to me that eventually at some point, you can no longer find purpose within the words.. and must take the next step on your own.

 

[Quantum Perception]

I agree that these guys are stepping stones, gateways or what have you that have lead me to ideas and other teachers. But i still listen to them, an I still learn a lot from them.

I think they are not appealing to people who like the reductionist attitude of science. That's fine but what makes these guys great is their broad grasp which is more holistic then reductionist.
Therefore they are seen in the same way some people see psychedelics, great for a while but hang up the phone once you get the message. Or just listen for fun don't take seriously. This i believe is part of the unfounded social stigma against all things drugs/psychedelics. Intoxication is a natural process like eating or shitting, read Ronald K. Siegels book INTOXICATION... but i digress.

I love Mckenna/Wilson/Leary/Wilber because they are great teachers that have humor,wonderful ways of interpreting information, and are very knowledgeable being able to bring together many overarching themes.
But that is exactly their turn off to some systematic reductionist and their subscribers.

IMHO don't subscribe to only one or a few teachers!

 

[Quantum Perception]

BTW Wilber is great for his paradigm shift and mapping, but I am weary of his motives as he seems to market his stuff often through the Integral camp. But he still published great works, and interpreted and synthesized many fields of knowledge in a novel and thought provoking way.

I guess that's whats good about freelance scholars, they have awesome topics but may be biased and made to fit their agenda. While academics are true but boring and at times close minded and cynical of new information that challenges the given zeitgeist.

A balnce of both is what i think is good. One checks the other.

 

[Quantum Perception]

ONE MORE THING lol

I remember seeing in the thread that it's bad that these authors mention other peoples works. I just want to point out that most dissertations have shit loads of footnotes. That just shows one how all new information is really old information brought together and reinterpreted. Its just like DNA, all creatures have the same building blocks, its all just arranged differently.

 

[Utahrd]

bro just flatten out and float to the surface. feel free to intrude on my color all you like. my shapes are moving. all quotes by me. yes, there was just one braindead greenlighter who happened to take interest when I saw an 8 circuit model thread. take offense! but really, I have seen the videos of Leary with flowers in his hair, telling America to turn on tune in and holy shit did he just tell kids to drop out of school and do drugs all day? NO! but thats all they heard, because he watered his message down into some kind of pasteurized, catchy USP paste that everybody can swallow. That literally is what my aunt thinks Leary meant

 

[yougene]

I think Wilber repeats the same thing over and over again, without much meat and a lot of fluff. Everything is integral.. blah blah blah, I think hes a cool dude but eh i dont really want to hear about that anymore.

I think his work can be repetitive as well. Alot of his books are meant to be accessible. Other books like S.E.S are geared towards academia.