July 19, 2007

 

 

Review of Ken Wilber’s Integral Spirituality,  A Startling New Role for Religion in the Modern and Postmodern World,  2006

Shambhala Publications, 313 pp.

ISBN number:  13:978-1-59030-346-7

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Summary:

            Ken Wilber follows Kant’s example to remove the authority of ontology—statements of absolute structures of reality---and replacing it with epistemology---methods by which we gain knowledge of reality.   He then offers an epistemology that solves such metaphysical concepts as “god”, “soul”, “immortality”, etc—by locating both the referent and signifier in a 5-dimensional matrix, and  requiring that (1) statements be of injunctive rather than assertive form followed by (2) experience related to the injunction  (properly located in the same 5-dimensional matrix), and (3) community verification.        

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Ken Wilber has created a body of work that is probably one of the most important contributions to the development of a panentheistic philosophy that can reasonably be called a “theory of everything.”  I started reading the work of Wilber in the 1990’s when I was working as an atmospheric scientist in Boulder, Colorado.   At the time, Ken Wilber was also living somewhere in the vicinity of Boulder although I never met him.   However, through the years I have read many of his books and must say that Integral Spirituality is a beautiful summary and is an extremely useful distillation of much of his previous work and important work of other researchers in developmental psychology and philosophy.   

 

Wilber says that the “Copernican revolution” of  Immanuel Kant pointed out that we do not perceive objects  in an unfiltered and completely realistic fashion, but rather, “structures of the knowing subject impart various characteristics to the known object that then appear to belong to the object—but really don’t.  They are, rather, co-creations of the knowing subject.”   Therefore, “ontology does not exist.”  One example of a metaphysical (ontological) model given by Wilber is:

 

Reality: body>>>mind>>>soul>>>spirit

 

Because these structures of being really correspond to levels of knowing (epistemology) and postmodernism has shown us that culture affects all ideas, we must beware of the certainty of the structure of reality (ontology) that is really the product of an epistemology.   The thought that any idea/explanation/construction of reality is free of the culture is labeled by Wilber the fallacy of the myth of the given.   This fallacy is the incorrect claim that a model of the universe (i.e. reality) is not affected by the culture and the developmental stage that we are in.

 

For example in the “amber stage” (a developmental stage based on numerous psychological and sociological works used by Wilber as being the stage arrived at by almost all adults who have risen beyond the “clan-membership” stage) a western person  would probably view god as being identical with the god of the old/new testament of the bible.  The fallacy of the “myth of the given” is the inability to accept that any other claims could be made apart from a culturally accepted interpretation that is actually appropriate to a stage of development rather than absolute truth.  That is, the fallacy is to deny the possibility of change of perceptions following change from one developmental stage to a higher stage.   A first step in the realizing the “myth of the given” is the fact that most people know that the perceptions they possessed during infancy (a lower stage) are very different from their present perceptions of reality.  Following recognition of this fallacy, it would follow that people at higher developmental stages should have compassion and tolerance for those at lower stages, even though their own perceptions have changed.  Likewise, whatever stage in which we are located is likely not the highest stage and consequently we must treat our present understanding with a bit of humility.

 

To avoid the use of “fallacious ontological referents” [falsely assumed absolute structures of realities] and to replace this misuse with an epistemological grounding [method by which the proposed structures could be known] Wilber volunteers the use of his “All Quadrants, all Levels” (AQAL) theory.  Wilber claims that the AQAL model (developed in his earlier books) is an epistemology that fulfills the requirement to have adequate knowledge of the structure of reality.  

 

Wilber’s epistemology uses a “Kosmic address” which is a five dimensional address to locate spiritual, developmental, and other properties of a subject or object.  A full explanation of the model is given in his Appendix 2 of Integral Spirituality.     The five dimensions (elements) of the matrix locating the (descriptors of the subject and object) are given by roman numerals I through V below: 

 

I.                   Quadrant (refers to Wilber’s 4 quadrant model including the interior-individual, the exterior individual, the interior collective, and the exterior collective.  

II.                Developmental levels (9 developmental levels that Wilber has elaborated based on earlier psychological work of other authors as well as his own research.     

III       Lines (intelligences or abilities) 

IV        State (of consciousness) (there are four States)

V.        Types   (Masculine, Feminine, & other descriptors like 1st, 2nd, or 3rd  person)  

 

By using the 5-dimensional addresses given above, one can specify the address of both the subject and object in the sentence of the following form:

 

Subject (quadrant, Level, line, state, type)   interacts with   Object (quadrant, level, line state, type). 

 

An example of a signifier and a referent is [The Easter Bunny] (Signifier) is a [2nd person (magic-mythic) experience that many children have] (Referent).

 

 

________________________________________________________________________

AQAL EPISTEMOLOGY (good knowledge) consists of:

 

  1. “An injunction” (for example, an experiment).  “Its form is ‘if you want to know this, do this…..’”
  2. “An experience which is brought about by injunction (for example by doing a suggested experiment or practice).”
  3. “A communal confirmation or rejection”.     This is extremely important—a sort of “seal of approval.”

 

 

 

In my scientific career, this three-step method sounds a lot like what I had to do: (1) propose some course of scientific experimentation, (2) carry out the work and write a journal article, and (3) go through the journal review process and post-publication-discussion of the conclusion of the research.

 

Wilber uses an inserted exclamation point (!) to show “injunctivity” --- as contrasted to an assertion shown by a  plus ( + ) sign.  This + mark shows ontology ---- that Wilber warns could be fallacious).   Using this epistemology, one simplifies (solves or does away with) metaphysics because the 5-dimensional addresses correspond to unique subjects and objects. That is, the AQAL epistemology which locates any “referent” [unit of reality] of a “signifier” coupled with Wilber’s insistence that “any language other than injunctive is metaphysics.” [i.e. not to be trusted] and   “…..any spirit(+) language must be replaceable with spirit (!) language” seems very well supported by his wide-ranging work. 

 

It seems to me that Wilber’s AQAL model distinguishes the assumptions of statements of a metaphysical nature.   It is an analytical tool of great usefulness and elegance that locates questionable metaphysical assertions and which specifies methods to clarify problems of the universe.