To sum up this latest video clip on Integral Naked:
Wilber begins by saying that it is very difficult (although not impossible) to transform, i.e. move up stages of consciousness, after the age of 25. He says there’s been an “enormous amount of studies” that demonstrate that psychotherapy and other approaches to personal transformation only move a person up about a quarter of a stage (“statistically insignificant” according to Wilber). Upon this foundation (which feels a little shaky to me), Wilber lays out three “facts” which, taken together, lead him to his conclusion.
Fact #1: Studies show that meditation over the course of four years can move people almost two stages on average.
Fact#2: Famine only occurs in societies that don’t have democratic governments.
Fact#3: Democratic systems are a Moral Stage Five product.
“Therefore, it follows that the single greatest thing that the world can do to stop starvation is to meditate. Nothing else has been demonstrated to move people stages.”
Here are a few issues as I see them:
(1) Should Integral Institute place more emphasis on social activism and less on “navel gazing?”
(2) Is Wilber’s thinking really based on a careful deliberation of “the evidence,” or is he just hand picking whatever studies he can find that can be used to support his ideas, translating and interpreting the “facts” to suit his pre-determined agenda?
(3) [Really a continuation of (2)] Is there a circularity to Integral Theory such that Ken Wilber is found to be the Center of the Integral Universe? Which way does the little ball bounce: Ken meditates and Ken sees meditation as the “single greatest thing that the world can do.” Ken lifts weights and Ken sees resistance training as the “ultimate” physical component of an Integral Life Practice. Stuart Davis, Eddie K., Serge from S.O.D. and Billy Corgan all read and love Ken’s books, so their music must be “Integral.” Anyone who gets Integral Theory is, by definition, a “second tier” thinker.
I don’t think that Wilber is saying that the ONLY thing we should do to alleviate world hunger is to meditate. Of course, he would advocate an integral approach, addressing the issue from every conceivable angle. It’s just that I often get a weird feeling in the pit of my stomach when he bolsters his arguments with vague references to “studies” and “evidence” which, upon further investigation, can turn out to be pretty obscure, self-serving, and way too small scale to build strong conclusions upon.
Wilber was citing studies involving “meditation” in a particular sense. I don’t know the specifics, but I imagine that in order to be considered properly scientific, the researchers probably defined meditation in terms of a particular form that all the participants followed. But who’s to say what’s really going on within an individual’s consciousness while they practice a particular form of meditation? For one person, the first five years of zazen practice might be a striving to achieve some sort of special, spiritual experience, preparing one for some big moment of realization down the line that there’s no”I” to achieve anything. For another, sitting in meditation is simply an expression of an already-apprehended realization of peace and contentment. I know from my own experience that there is a particular attitude or mode of awareness that accompanies and is strengthened by a number of practices I consider “spiritual” and “transformative.” For me, there something going on during the creative process (while playing and writing music) which feels the same as what’s going on while I do sensory awareness stuff on my floor, which feels the same as what’s going on while I make love, which feels the same as what’s going on when I sit zazen… In other words, there are principles of transformation that go way beyond any particular form of practice, so that propping up one’s own favorite forms (like sitting meditation and weight-lifting) with references to “studies” feels too biased, like it’s partially an unconscious attempt to justify one’s own choices. I’m not saying we should ignore research, I’m just suggesting that what we consider significant or insignificant can often be more a matter of personal bias than anything else. We all do this to a certain extent, I think. We unconsciously employ selective attention to highlight those “studies” and arguments and ideas that justify and maintain our current “status quo.” So, IF Integral Institute is or becomes too much about Ken Wilber’s particular perspective, then the inevitable shadow cast will blot out too much good stuff, even as the Integral Vision seeks to include as much as possible under its Big Umbrella.