.jpg)
Please Log in to Vote.
11 out of 11 members found this useful.
Appendix II: Integral Post-Metaphysics
Contributor: Ken Wilber 
The Great Chain of Being and the notion of enlightenment are two examples of the far-reaching implications of Integral post-metaphysics. The bottom line, in general, is that there is no pre-given world, but rather, worldspaces that arise when something is viewed from a given altitude, through a given perspective. Thus, we can situate everything perceived—and indeed, every perceiver—by their altitude and perspective, that is, their Kosmic Address. Among other things, the Kosmic Address of a perceiver specifies an injunction which the subject must perform in order to access and enact and access the worldspace of the object. Thus, the meaning of a statement is the means of its enactment. And in the light of Integral post-metaphysics, problems like the proof of God’s existence, long a thorn in the side of metaphysical approaches, are problems no more….
The term “metaphysics” (literally, “beyond physics”) first came about when Aristotle’s students wrote a book to follow his Physics. While metaphysics has been a respectable term through most of its history, Immanuel Kant’s critical philosophy thoroughly dismantled that credibility. Kant’s philosophy replaced ontological objects with structures of the subject. He showed that what appears as a pregiven reality is really a co-creation of the knowing subject and the known object.
Kant’s (and subsequent) thought has necessitated—at the very least—a complete rethinking of the way we approach spirituality. Take, for instance, the Great Chain of Being, which is thought to be the central core or deep structure of the world’s religious traditions. Modern and postmodern thought has at least three profound implications here. First, even if we accept the levels that the Great Chain posits, we must allow for them to be con-structures of the knowing subject, or structures of consciousness. Second, the “proof” for such assertions must satisfy both modernity’s demand for objective evidence and postmodernity’s demand for intersubjective grounding. Third, these structures must be seen as having developed in time, evolution, and history.
So too, the very idea of enlightenment itself bears re-examining. If we define enlightenment as “being one with everything,” that is, with Emptiness and form, we must admit that form—and therefore enlightenment itself—evolves! If we can allow for the levels of the Great Chain to have evolved over time—i.e. evolution is the Great Chain, temporalized—we will have moved a long ways toward the resolution of the problem. Thus, from this point of view, enlightenment can be defined as the realization of oneness with all states and all structures that are in existence at any given time.
The Great Chain of Being and the notion of enlightenment are two examples of the far-reaching implications of Integral post-metaphysics. The bottom line, in general, is that there is no pre-given world, but rather, worldspaces that arise when something is viewed from a given altitude, through a given perspective. Thus, we can situate everything perceived—and indeed, every perceiver—by their altitude and perspective, that is, their Kosmic Address. Among other things, the Kosmic Address of a perceiver specifies an injunction which the subject must perform in order to access and enact and access the worldspace of the object. Thus, the meaning of a statement is the means of its enactment. And in the light of Integral post-metaphysics, problems like the proof of God’s existence, long a thorn in the side of metaphysical approaches, are problems no more….
Steve Earle asks Ken a series of fascinating questions around the topic of metaphysics. Why is the notion of enlightenment important in the first place? How does "oneness with all form" fit in with the notion of Kosmic Address? If the given is a myth, where does God fit in?
Integral post-metaphysics describes the "what" and the "how" of manifestation. But "why the Kosmos?," asks Glenn Klein. Ken responds with a beautiful description of the Kosmos as the Play of Spirit.
What do you need to get a universe going? Ken discusses this question with Brendan Snow, emphasizing that part of the "baggage" of traditional metaphysical systems is the number of involutionary givens they require. Ken then specifies the absolute minimal involutionary givens required to start a universe.
The "Daemon" is an ancient notion that has inspired countless human beings to reach their highest calling. How can the Daemon be viewed from an Integral Altitude, asks Brendan Snow. Ken responds that the idea is as relevant as ever, though at Integral, it takes somewhat of a different form.
Author Allan Combs discusses with Ken the evolution of multiple perspectives (or zones) within the structural development of the person.
Given that what we experience is constructed in part by us and in part by our culture, asks Ilmar Waldner, what are the constraints of such constructions? What is it that remains invariant? If, to some extent, experience has primacy over interpretation, and experience is not "given," what is it that gives experience its primacy?
Whereas structure-stages are being laid down by each subsequent generation, state-stages are as ancient as the spiritual journey itself. Ewan Townhead asks Ken to discuss the relationship between state-stages and Kosmic Grooves.
Integral calculus is a revolutionary way of understanding and expressing perspectives. How, asks Ewan Townhead, does the equation change when one is taking an explicitly integral perspective?
Ken has often pointed out that the three strands of valid knowledge--which have been so valuable in the validation of scientific knowledge--are equally applicable to spiritual knowledge. Cameron Freeman asks whether this is reducing the spiritual journey to a scientific experiment, and where the role of faith comes in to this formulation.
If the meaning of a statement is the means of its enactment, doesn't this mean that understanding a given statement about spirituality (e.g. God is Love) requires that one follow a set of prescribed steps? If so, asks Cameron Freeman, isn't that just another form--albeit more sophisticated--of exoteric spirituality?
Cameron Freeman asks whether the four quadrants and eight indigenous perspectives are, in fact, still other versions of "the myth of the given." Ken responds that to posit some evolutionary givens is not necessarily to fall into the myth, and that the primordial distinctions between interior/exterior and individual/collective may well be among the involutionary givens of this universe.
Default Series:
Contribute
Blog Posts
In this conversation Ken talked about four meanings of integral consciousness:...... (more)
External Links