Category: Philosophical

So, I’m still smitten with this Sam Harris character. I’ve spent a big chunk of precious me-time today scouring the internet for interviews and essays, dizzying myself in the process and, truth be told, this blog entry is merely a break in the action. I think I’m so lit-up by this guy because he’s managed to articulate my own convictions and concerns to a T. I remember being twelve years old or so and inviting a Jehovah’s Witness into my living room. He merely wanted to leave me a few pamphlets, but I challenged him to an impromptu debate on the nature of reality. Of course, he couldn’t give me satisfactory responses to any of my questions and quandaries, and when I bid him adieu I couldn’t help but feel intellectually superior. But, more importantly, I thoroughly enjoyed the interaction.

Another thing that strikes me about Sam Harris is that he speaks his mind in no uncertain terms — even shockingly provocative terms — and yet he nevertheless manages to be open and respectful in dialogue with others. I’ve always felt that knowledge and understanding can only be achieved through ongoing dialogue, yet it seems so few people have the willingness and/or capacity to be intellectually honest while retaining a true sense of openmindedness to others’ perspectives. Nowhere is this more apparent than in matters of faith. Indeed, faith can be a real conversation-stopper. When it comes to religion, the most obvious questions don’t get asked, much less answered. And like I tell my patients, whatever we sweep under the rug, whatever we don’t face directly, always comes back to bite us in the ass.

Sam Harris is my new God. Okay, so maybe that misses his point entirely, but I do have to say that I’m completely blown away by this guy. Forget about all that shit I said about my future rants against ignorance and fundamentalism. Sam Harris has already said everything I wanted to say on the matter, and he said it better than I ever could.

Thanks to my buddy Sean for giving me a heads-up about Harris via his blog. I’ve spent half the day reading Harris’s various online articles, and I’ll be reading his two books as soon as I can get hold of them. It’s weird that the day after declaring my intention to express my views with a greater sense of urgency, I would happen upon Harris, who expresses so clearly every nascent idea and argument I’ve ever considered regarding the scourge of religious dogmatism. Discovering this guy feels almost like divine intervention, but of course that notion is really fucking stupid.

This morning I sat on my little bench and “meditated” for the first time in many weeks. No big deal, just attended to my breathing and the other thoughts and sensations passing through. Presently, I’m enjoying a cup of coffee and playing on the computer, and a few minutes ago I took a peek at Matthew Dallman’s latest blog entry On Wilber’s advocacy of meditation. Dallman links to an essay by Jim Andrews, who questions the validity of Wilber’s general assertion that meditation is the Royal Road to Enlightenment.

I wasn’t as impressed by the essay as Dallman seems to be, but it still raises a few interesting questions in my mind, questions I have grappled with many times before. The first is: What exactly is meditation anyway? If it is, in fact, the Royal Road, then we can expect to benefit greatly from a thorough understanding of the process by which such an “activity” facilitates personal transformation. And if I’m to be quite honest here, I’d have to say that understanding the basic principles of transformation–in experiential terms–is the only part of the “integral” agenda that I find truly compelling these days. In this regard, I am not satisfied with Wilber’s theory, and so I will have to get off my duff and inquire for myself.

Now, this is an important issue, not just because it’s my thing, but because it speaks to the heart of Wilber’s core message which, in the early days at least, was essentially: “MEDITATE!” Quite recently, in fact, Wilber concluded: “the single greatest thing that the world can do to stop starvation is to meditate…Nothing else has been demonstrated to move people stages.” How has this been demonstrated? By Alexander’s TM study? Is that it? There’s obviously more to Wilber’s claim, and I think it’s the fact that he attributes HIS OWN transformation to his years of meditation. I’m fine with that logic, as long as one is honest about it.

In order to be considered properly scientific, I would assume researchers have to define meditation in terms of a particular form that all research subjects must follow. In the Alexander study, it was TM. 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.”

Okay, out of intellectual laziness I just cut and pasted the above paragraph from a blog I wrote a few months ago, but my issues are still the same I guess. Even if you give people the same instructions, there’s no way to tell what a person is really doing or experiencing while they sit on a cushion and breathe. Some people are able to turn everyday activities into spiritual practice. Others go through the motions with a technique or practice for years without ever really “getting” it. So, I believe it’s mindfulness in the broad sense that inspires or fuels the transformative process, and that this mindfulness has to do with a quality of attention one can bring to any activity. So, the current research, which does not account for this, has demonstrated DIDDLY SQUAT! And yet, I believe my hypothesis to be true anyway, simply because it fits with my experience and my intuition of other’s descriptions. Upper Right quadrant research is great, but it doesn’t tell us much if we don’t even understand what it is we’re looking at. I think we have to get a much clearer phenomenological account of the meditative process, and distinguish it (if it can be) from other “transformative” processes (mindfulness, creative expression, flow) before we can set up a UR research study that can even begin to support Wilber’s bold claims.

Since moving to Kentucky a few years ago (my wife’s in graduate school here) my main source of intellectual stimulation has been the Integral Naked Forum, a group of people united by their interest in the work of philosopher Ken Wilber. My ten bucks per month gave me access to weekly audio and video dialogue and whatnot, but I stuck around for the privilege of interacting with some highly intelligent, sensitive people with wide ranging interests and a deep commitment to truth.

I cancelled my subscription recently for two main reasons: First of all, I got bored with the audio and video stuff, which started to sound more and more like commercials for an ever-expanding line of “integral” products. When I realized how many blogs and free forums there are out there, I could no longer justify the monthly ten-spot. Secondly, I became increasingly alarmed by what I perceive as a “cult vibe,” which seems to be getting stronger and more insidious as Wilber prepares to catapult himself and his Integral Institute into the public sphere like never before with the launching of the Integral Multiplex.

So, now I’m trying to make new connections in the blogosphere and in public forums, so that I can stay plugged into some sources of interactive intellectual stimulation. Thus far, it’s been fairly fruitful. I’m now participating on the Ken Wilber Forum on the Integral World site, and I’ve become acquainted and reacquainted with a few friends from various blogs. An anonymous commenter on one of those blogs had this to say about cultic dynamics, and it pretty much sums up my concerns about recent developments in Wilberland:

“Being an old time poster on the original Wilber forum, what strikes me is how the online discussions back then, mirror those taking place now. For those who don’t know, the original forum also served as a place for Adi Da devotees and ex-members to hash and re-hash, back-and-forth, about whether Adi-Da was a divine avatar or simply an abusive psychopath. There was no end to it, and the current devotees defended their god-man through anything and everything, including very real sexual abuse. How, one must wonder, could folks defend such stuff? To understand this, you have to look at the mix of eastern religion and western megalomania that manifested in cultic ways during the seventies. It’s really very simple how these cultic groups defended the indefensible, and this very much holds true the Da-is-divine crowd on the old Wilber forum. They play three very simple cards, which can not, NO MATTER WHAT, be trumped. What’s remarkable is that Wilber and his groupies now play those same exact three cards, which are:

(1) The Higher Level Card (i.e. Sorry, it’s just over your head). Sorry, but you’re just not smart enough to realize I am smarter than you, because you’re on a lower (less divine) level.

(2) The Projection Card (i.e., I know you are, but what am I). By criticizing me, you are really just criticizing yourself, because any problem you see in me is just a projection of a problem in yourself.

(3) The Skillful Means Card (i.e., it’s all your own fault, dickhead). The most potent card of all! It’s not abuse; it’s not pathetic or ridiculous or wrong; it’s a crazy-wise teaching. You know, like Zen stuff. So when I call you a dickhead, it’s not because I’m a dickhead, it’s because you have a dickhead-complex that you need to evolve past, and I’m here to help you see that.

Note that these cards are not designed in any way, shape or form to prompt a discussion or dialogue. What can one possibly say to any of these cards? Nothing, and that is exactly the point. They are designed to end all discussion, and they are used only when folks know the actual substance of their beliefs has run, or is running, dry. Wilber’s latest attack of Visser, and the defense provided by his young (and getting younger by the day) followers, consists nearly in whole of these three cards.”

Anyone interested in all this nonsense can follow the links. Aside from this mental masturbation, I hope to get back into regular writing, recording, and podcasting as time allows in the coming days.

Peace out.

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.

One of the coolest things about Wilber is his commitment to making sense of a situation, allowing his intuition, unconscious processes and gut instincts to work on a problem and eventually bring forth a creative response. Think of the twenty-three year old kid trying to synthesize western psychology and eastern spirituality in Spectrum of Consciousness. Or the Big Bald Guy sequestered in a room for three years, with charts and maps all over the floor, wondering how they all fit together (Sex, Ecology, Spirituality). This is what made him a hero of mine, and to this day his words are often infused with a sense of wonder, mystery and power that inspire me to grab life by the balls. We all probably have experienced the difference between a connected, embodied, integrated type of thinking and writing, and the more strained, contracted, neurotic attempts to patch up any sense of uncertainty, paradox or contradiction with a slick veneer of conceptual gimmickry. “Evidence” and the methods of science can be twisted to fit any agenda, consciously or unconsciously. We have all seen logic and reason co-opted by pathological currents in individuals and societies. All this is to say, if the centaur stage and beyond is to be characterized as “mind and body are both experiences of an integrated self,” then our “second tier” insights ought to invoke a feeling in us, a sense of something greater than ourselves, they should stir us in our depths, arouse our intuitive faculties. Wilber, at his best, does just this (for me, anyway). Where the theory leaves me cold — that’s where I do my digging.

I love the way Alan Watts used to handle criticism. Instead of taking up arms or further convoluting the situation, he would just laugh and say, “You mustn’t take what I say that seriously. I always exaggerate — for effect. I’m not so much making an argument as trying to invoke and inspire a sense of wonder, a state of consciousness.” I often wish Wilber would loosen up a little, hold his theories with a lighter touch. But then again, he’s already given us all quite a gift. It’s up to each of us to find our own authentic voice.

I’ve tried to keep an open mind about the Big Mind Process as I’ve explored it on Integral Naked over the past year or so, but I’m just not getting it. Not only does it leave me cold, but it also leaves me scratching my head. Ken Wilber and Stuart Davis talk about Big Mind like it’s to be the flagship spiritual practice of the emerging Integral Scene. Wilber said something like ninety-eight percent of people got a “big hit” from the BM process at a recent gathering. I’m just not buying it. When you get a bunch of people together and the vibe is right, I don’t think it matters much what you do. People will get a “big hit” from the love in the room, whether they’re doing Big Mind or the Hokey Pokey. Not that all activities or practices will inspire or amplify the love vibe to the same degree. I just think too much emphasis is given to technique sometimes, whether we’re talking schools of psychotherapy or spiritual practices. I wasn’t there (at the Integral Spiritual Center gathering), but I wonder if too much credit was given to the Big Mind process and not enough to the energy of expectation, anticipation, hope and love that the people there shared with each other.

Also, the BM process just doesn’t make sense to me. Simply saying, “Let me speak to Non-Grasping Mind” or “Big Heart” or whatever, and having me shift in my seat and act out my idea of what that means — doesn’t that just reinforce whatever concept I have of those terms? Wouldn’t everyone in the room have a completely different idea of what those terms mean? Shit, if I knew what the experience of “Big Mind” or “Big Heart” really felt like and I could tap into these places on command, then I would already be enlightened (and fully realize it). I don’t know, maybe it’s just “The Skeptic” talking.