Translation and Transformation

[flowperson]

Hello All... Paladin, I can intimately identify with the "great cosmic joke" part of the conversation. Also, I am in harmony with the flowering/whithering cycle of life. A great symmetry and truth there Joe. All the best to you all.

flow....

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by earl

If anyone's interested in what's coming out of Wilber's mouth/mind on an ongoing basis, here's his blog site:

+kenwilber.com - blog

If I remember correctly the archives here contain some of his characteristic rants against those who "don't understand him."

Paladin, there's another interesting article that had been printed in the WIE magazine & posted at the site, which I assume is a restatement of what you mentioned you'd listened to in passing on I believe an audio set, (by the great audio teachings firm "Sounds True," I'd bet) "The 3 faces of God," which I found fascinating for how it wove together theistic and non-dual perspectives:

God's Playing a New Game

Paladin, as to the notion that via this model folks at various depths of understanding of spiritual reality (ies) might be able to dialogue better may not be entirely true as I believe Wilber has made the point that without at least a taste of other realities those who are well entrenched in a very conventional level of understanding will not be able to really get beyond their conceptual lenses to be open to such a dialogue. But for those who have had that taste the old adage that all mystics speak the same language regardless of starting point, (religion) will have some experiential validity I believe.

take care, earl

Quite true, whatever was I thinking?

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by Paladin

I also see how important atheism is, and even beyond that level of thinking to a different view which is more integral.

I wonder what Dawkins would make of Wilber's assertion that religion fulfils two important functions in society and for individuals...

s.

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by Paladin

In other works, Wilber affirms that to skip any of the steps leading to the ultimate realization is to become sick and damaged. I note from personal experience that even though "Mark" may not exist, he damn well better keep going to AA meetings and watching his behavior, treat people fairly, and learn to be a decent human being.

This for me is the paradox of realization.

Perhaps, in Buddhist terms, one can see the two functions of religion teased out in the eightfold path: the transformation through meditation and the translation through the remainder. Although, of course, it is not offered as a sequential path.

s.

[Thomas]

Hi all —

I've never read Wilbur, so you must allow me to take him at 'face value' as it were. I have read the article and I think it raises some interesting and valuable points.

Before that however, I would like to comment on something Hal Blacker said at the start of the article:

"... the superficiality that pervades so much of the current spiritual exploration and discourse in the West, particularly in the United States. All too often, in the translation of the mystical traditions from the East (and elsewhere) into the American idiom, their profound depth is flattened out, their radical demand is diluted, and their potential for revolutionary transformation is squelched ... the message of the greatest teachings often seems to become transmuted from the roar of the fire of liberation into something more closely resembling the soothing burble of a California hot tub. While there are exceptions, the radical implications of the greatest teachings are thereby often lost. We wish to investigate this dilution of spirituality in the West and inquire into its causes and consequences."

Bravo! Something, I think I can unashamedly say, that I have been saying consistently with regard to the nouvelle spiritualité!

My own twopence worth, is that the faultline sheers off from the Enlightenment, the point at which it was decided that absolute and objective reality was beyond human ken, and man is limited to the subjective, the relative and the contingent.

The result of this is that the modern West no longer accepts the data of its own traditions as given (let alone 'Revealed'), but rather more as 'plastic mediators' by which I mean the content of Scripture, for example, becomes not fixed in truth, but negotiable. The assumption is that either God does not speak, or if He does, He is incapable of expressing Himself adequately through man.

So in a sense I'm saying the West (and America) did significant damage to its own inherent traditions, before leeching onto Eastern traditions, and inflicting the same order of damage there ... the spiritual crisis that the author sees, from (presumably) a Buddhist or at least Eastern-orientated viewpoint, is the same crisis that affects Christianity, and is seen most clearly in America with the proliferation of denominations, especially those of an anti-intellectual and apocalyptic fervour.


The sum total of this process delivers us to the modern day, where man does not conform himself to truth, but rather conforms truth to himself — in effect this is not even a faith in sola scriuptura but in sola persona.

It is this single idea, at the very heart of 'relativism', that Christian theology challenges constantly, and it is this relativism, active in every domain of thought, that I think Blacker is addressing.

+++

Thomas
(more to follow)

[Dondi]

Originally Posted by article

It is your duty to promote that discovery—either way—and therefore it is your duty to speak your truth with whatever passion and courage you can find in your heart. You must shout, in whatever way you can.

Originally Posted by article

And so, given the measure of your own authentic realization, you were actually thinking about gently whispering into the ear of that near-deaf world? No, my friend, you must shout. Shout from the heart of what you have seen, shout however you can.”

Originally Posted by Snoopy

What do you think of this? I may agree with every word Wilber has written, and yes the world is full of vulgar shouters but when I read this text above I’m thinking “evangelising, prosletysing…”…The kinds of things I find abhorrent. Or am I missing his point or being too simplistic? He allows for being wrong…Do we only need to shout to make ourselves heard above all the other shouters?...

I suppose you could look at it a "evangelizing, prosletysing". But what are you listen to when you hear a fired-up preacher? Someone with a conviction that what he believes will change the hearts of man, and by extension, the world. The man behind the pulpit, if he is worth his weight, is burdened and shows passion. Even if you don't agree with the message, you've got to admire someone who is at least trying to change the world. Sermons can be shouted at any pulpit, even at the secular level. It is the art of persuasion to make the other person think outside of his own paradigm. And it does take a tremendous amount of courage to put oneself out on the limb for people to cut off.

On the other hand, there is a fine line between passion and pomp. One must not shout too loudly that you can't hear the other speak.

[Thomas]

Translation and transformation aside (plenty of scope for discussion there, I think) the question of religion remains.

Actually, if I were to give my most critical view, I would suggest that Wilbur is another example of the process Hal Blacker was talking about "the translation of the mystical traditions from the East (and elsewhere) into the American idiom" — Both those areas of operation that define religion for him fall within the scope of psychodynamics, and are not unknown in Buddhism, nor are they unknown in the Christian contemplative tradition, but to suggest that is all that Buddhism — or Eastern traditions — are and do, is to fall a long way short of the mark.

In terms of Abrahamic or Eastern Revealed Traditions, his a-theist position renders him in no position to comment.

His critique of religious practice, and the conclusions he draws, is somewhat shallow and self-serving, I think. Wilbur seems to be making great news out of the fact that we all know smoking is bad for us, but we don't all give up smoking.

The fact that he is highly intellectual (or at least articulate), and appears to embrace tradition should not mask this fact. He utilises teachings from disparate sources to authenticate a position of his own occupation and a system of his own invention and (it would appear from his critics), with no great discrimination.

Then we come to this:

"... Let us proceed carefully with this transformative shout. Let small pockets of radically transformative spirituality, authentic spirituality, focus their efforts and transform their students."

Is this not what religion has been doing since man first looked skyward? Or are we to assume that Mr. Wilbur determines what is 'authentic spirituality'?

"... And let these pockets slowly, carefully, responsibly, humbly, begin to spread their influence, embracing an absolute tolerance for all views, but attempting nonetheless to advocate a true and authentic and integral spirituality—by example, by radiance, by obvious release, by unmistakable liberation."

(Not by ranting, then ... sorry, couldn't help that)

Why does he labour to invent new systems, where the old stand as exemplars that, in themselves, have been refined by millenia of practice and have no equal?

How can ersatz Buddhism better Buddhism?

Thomas

[Paladin]

Thomas,

Thanks for weighing in on this, I thought you might find it interesting and I was curious as to what you might make of it.
Wilber is very critical of what he call Boomeritis Buddhism and many of the things the Boomer generation has come up with, yet at the same time views traditional religion with a jaudiced eye. There is quite a movement up in Boulder following his AQAL model and Integral Spirituality. Anytime I see someone get a large following I begin to suspect their motives, but thats just me.
The idea that religion serves these two functions isn't new, but I think it prudent to be aware of the obvious, because there is much there still to see. For those who use it to better themselves, and perhaps become a better human being, it will serve quite well.
I often wonder what is it in a human being that "ripens" when the time is near for trancending the self, or transformation as it is defined in the article. Why so few? Surely the method can't be blamed for it is relatively inert until given life by practice. Would Rumi, St. John of the Cross, St. Theresa, and others had their experiences if they had been born in another tradition? I would like to think so.
I would also like to think that persons seeing the underlying value of looking again at the obvious might find a higher understanding helpful in seeing the value of religion in both translation and transformation.

[Thomas]

From:
God's Playing a New Game

Integral Post-Metaphysics and the Myth of the Given
Andrew Cohen: So today we’re going to speak about your wonderful new masterpiece Integral Spirituality, which I’ve just finished reading. You open the book with the assertion that the metaphysics of the great spiritual traditions have been “trashed” not only by the usual suspects—the modern scientific materialists—but even more so by the postmodern revolution, because of the traditions’ inability to stand up to the challenge presented by the insights of postmodernity’s great philosophers. And as you boldly put it, “[T]here has as yet arisen nothing compelling to take their place.” This is the fundamental theme of the book—explaining, in the most illuminating way, why the traditions have consistently failed to stand up to a postmodern critique and simultaneously re-envisioning religion and spirituality in such a way as to avoid the pitfalls of outdated metaphysics. This, of course, has been a central topic of most of our discussions over the past few years, but reading Integral Spirituality has had an enormous impact on me, and as a result I have seen much more deeply into the nature of our spiritual predicament.

Ken Wilber: Yes. I think it is the great catastrophe of the modern and postmodern world that spirituality, higher spirituality, was killed, as you mentioned, not just by nasty science and the Newtonian/Cartesian paradigm but by the humanities themselves. All of mystical spirituality got thrown out by the humanities because it was caught in outdated metaphysical systems. And most importantly, because mystical spirituality was monological—it didn’t understand what postmodernists call “the myth of the given.” [/quote]

This just flies in the face of reality, and is inevitably what happens when fan clubs operate in the media.

The author and interviewer have never heard of Maurice Merleau-Ponty, Paul Ricoeur, Gabriel Marcel, Phenomenology, Existentialism ... Neither, apparently, have they heard or read modern Thomist philosophers — Bernard Lonergan, Kenneth J Schmitz, Tom Norris ...

The above interview falls into the trap of assuming empirical philosophy is a proven and an inarguable system that swept all before it.

Oh, and by the way, Wilbur's 'The Myth of the Given' looks suspiciously like a retread of Plato's 'The Myth of the Cave' ...

Thomas

[JosephM]

Originally Posted by Paladin

(snip)
I often wonder what is it in a human being that "ripens" when the time is near for trancending the self, or transformation as it is defined in the article. Why so few? Surely the method can't be blamed for it is relatively inert until given life by practice. Would Rumi, St. John of the Cross, St. Theresa, and others had their experiences if they had been born in another tradition? I would like to think so.
I would also like to think that persons seeing the underlying value of looking again at the obvious might find a higher understanding helpful in seeing the value of religion in both translation and transformation.

Greetings Mark,

It seems to me that the 'translation' portion is used to tame the ego to a point that 'transformation' to the ego is not seen as something it would agressively oppose. This makes it 'ripe' so to speak. It becomes open to the fact that even though its identity will be lost, it will trust something greater awaits. The ego comes to grip with itself that it is destined to die anyway and ceases to oppse surrender.

I see translation as a kind of taming a wild horse. And transformation as the radical loss of identity with that aspect of ones life which is facilitated by the taming or training process. Just a thought to consider.

Love and Peace,
JM

[earl]

Originally Posted by Thomas

From:
God's Playing a New Game

Integral Post-Metaphysics and the Myth of the Given
Andrew Cohen: So today we’re going to speak about your wonderful new masterpiece Integral Spirituality, which I’ve just finished reading. You open the book with the assertion that the metaphysics of the great spiritual traditions have been “trashed” not only by the usual suspects—the modern scientific materialists—but even more so by the postmodern revolution, because of the traditions’ inability to stand up to the challenge presented by the insights of postmodernity’s great philosophers. And as you boldly put it, “[T]here has as yet arisen nothing compelling to take their place.” This is the fundamental theme of the book—explaining, in the most illuminating way, why the traditions have consistently failed to stand up to a postmodern critique and simultaneously re-envisioning religion and spirituality in such a way as to avoid the pitfalls of outdated metaphysics. This, of course, has been a central topic of most of our discussions over the past few years, but reading Integral Spirituality has had an enormous impact on me, and as a result I have seen much more deeply into the nature of our spiritual predicament.

Ken Wilber: Yes. I think it is the great catastrophe of the modern and postmodern world that spirituality, higher spirituality, was killed, as you mentioned, not just by nasty science and the Newtonian/Cartesian paradigm but by the humanities themselves. All of mystical spirituality got thrown out by the humanities because it was caught in outdated metaphysical systems. And most importantly, because mystical spirituality was monological—it didn’t understand what postmodernists call “the myth of the given.”

This just flies in the face of reality, and is inevitably what happens when fan clubs operate in the media.

The author and interviewer have never heard of Maurice Merleau-Ponty, Paul Ricoeur, Gabriel Marcel, Phenomenology, Existentialism ... Neither, apparently, have they heard or read modern Thomist philosophers — Bernard Lonergan, Kenneth J Schmitz, Tom Norris ...

The above interview falls into the trap of assuming empirical philosophy is a proven and an inarguable system that swept all before it.

Oh, and by the way, Wilbur's 'The Myth of the Given' looks suspiciously like a retread of Plato's 'The Myth of the Cave' ...

Thomas[/quote]
Well Thomas, I'd have thought you'd be uncomfortable with Wilber's distinction between "ethnocentric" and "world-centric" Christianity as he mentions in this article. Wilber through all his books reads and mulls over in his voluminous reference notes an unbelievable number of thinkers past and present-the guy's a human computer. He certainly is quite familiar with phenomenological/existential literature. As to his familiarity with some of the other theologians/philosophers you mention, I cannot say. I'd agree he most certainly is more conversant with Eastern religious views than western. He certainly as the article indicates has been in ongoing dialogue with some modern day ("liberal") Catholic priests/monks such as Thomas Keating and David Steindl-Rast who would be less instantly turned off by such a perspective. earl

[Thomas]

Hi Earl —

If he's as widely read as that, then he's operating a selective process of what he takes on board and what he doesn't — I would suggest he's inventing his own paradigm, and then things stand or fall with regard to that. I'm sure he's in favour of anyone who seem to support his thesis, but one can't simply close ones eyes and ears, or pretend things don't exist, if they prove to be problematic.

That's like me saying simply that 'Liberal Catholicism is a catastrophe'.

Thomas

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by earl

Though you'd think that among spiritual paths Buddhism might be less inclined toward this sort of trap, I've certainly noted on Buddhism boards that typically the discussions seem very "fettered" with folks seemingly as attached to their Buddhist self as any other aspiring journier.

Phew, I know what you mean, I'd thought I was just a 10th grade Buddhist.

s.

[Snoopy]

[quote=Dondi]

I suppose you could look at it a "evangelizing, prosletysing". But what are you listen to when you hear a fired-up preacher?

Well, I tend to be put off actually! I’m interested in the words, not the volume. The truth is the truth even when whispered, a lie is a lie even when shouted.

Someone with a conviction that what he believes will change the hearts of man, and by extension, the world. The man behind the pulpit, if he is worth his weight, is burdened and shows passion. Even if you don't agree with the message, you've got to admire someone who is at least trying to change the world.

Er, well, that depends on whether or not I agree with what he wants to change the world into methinks.

Sermons can be shouted at any pulpit, even at the secular level. It is the art of persuasion to make the other person think outside of his own paradigm. And it does take a tremendous amount of courage to put oneself out on the limb for people to cut off.

I agree. Nice phrase!

On the other hand, there is a fine line between passion and pomp. One must not shout too loudly that you can't hear the other speak

Ditto.

s.

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by earl

I've read a ton of Wilber's writings and think his perspectives are very good. (I've even as a result followed the debates with him by others and his responses to them which, perhaps not unlike all of us, have revealed that Wilber the man perhaps is very stuck in his "self-" the man has a hide as thin as a vapor as he's always engaging in ad hominem attacks on his critics with language most drunks in bars wouldn't use. But this isn't about the guy).
Have a good one, earl

I can only go on what I’ve read here and bits on his books, but your comment did strike a chord with me, in combination with this from the article:


“But in today's America, this is much more disturbing, because this vast majority of horizontal spiritual adherents often claim to be representing the leading edge of spiritual transformation, the "new paradigm" that will change the world, the "great transformation" of which they are the vanguard. But more often than not, they are not deeply transformative at all; they are merely, but aggressively, translative—they do not offer effective means to utterly dismantle the self, but merely ways for the self to think differently. Not ways to transform, but merely new ways to translate. In fact, what most of them offer is not a practice or a series of practices, not sadhana or satsang or shikan-taza or yoga. What most of them offer is simply the suggestion: read my book on the new paradigm. This is deeply disturbed, and deeply disturbing.”

So are his books offering a new paradigm that will change the world? That seems to be the flavour of his books in the blurbs and excerpts that I’ve looked at. And whatever they are offering, from what you say about him above, his wisdom does not seem to have deconstructed his own “self” too much, does it? To paraphrase badly: is it a case of “Be as I say and not as I be” ?

If his work is purely “academic” or “intellectual” then fine as long as we don’t confuse this with…the non-academic and non-intellectual, the ineffable. Religion is not simply an academic pursuit for intellectuals to make careers from. I believe that a “call” to a “spiritual search” may take us from our mundane life but then that “search”, such as we label it, may be directed by the same conditioning as in our everyday life. Hence we may mistakenly search for spiritual enlightenment or (more concretely) through the route of garnering knowledge; as if each book, each new fact, each new theory takes us a little closer to our goal. It is a goal we can never reach and so disillusionment is the only possible destination. There is nowhere to search because we are already there. Oh bugger it, I suppose I’ll get one of his crummy books.


s.