.jpg)
Please Log in to Vote.
9 out of 9 members found this useful.
Appendix III: The Myth of the Given Lives On....
Contributor: Ken Wilber 
“The Myth of the Given” highlights a number of otherwise brilliant modern approaches to spirituality that fail to take into account the insights of postmodernity, thus unwittingly perpetuating the myth. Postmodernity, Ken demonstrates, deconstructed not only the mythical formulations of premodernity; with the same ferocity, it deconstructed the rational formulations of modernity! Postmodernism shows—rightly so—that nothing is apart from its context. But in doing so, and especially in its more recent turns, it throws out both the premodern and modern babies with the bathwater. Context, contends the integral approach, is not everything—but it is something! The Integral approach is the first to take the truths of premodernity and modernity, consider their context as postmodernism necessitates, and locate them in a larger map. Once this blind spot is acknowledged, says Ken, it is easily remedied, leaving us with enduring truths, properly contextualized, and situated in a greater whole. And that changes just about everything….
At the second gathering of the teachers of Integral Spiritual Center, Patrick Sweeney famously asked Ken Wilber, “what can we do to stay out of Appendix III of Integral Spirituality?” In “The Myth of the Given,” Ken surveys some major modern approaches to spirituality, and demonstrates via AQAL their partiality—and how that partiality might be remedied.
It’s sobering to consider that so many of today’s most eminent teachers are partial! But as Ken points out, Appendix III (and the Integral approach in general) is meant not so much to point out that partiality as to highlight expertise in a highly specialized area. AQAL is an incredible tool for both situating various approaches and for understanding how they are related to each other. To the extent that the conclusions of these approaches fall within their area of expertise, they are most assuredly true. But to the extent that their conclusions overstep their area of expertise, a broader context such as AQAL can be enormously helpful.
The potency of AQAL to situate various approaches derives from its own formulation. Take, for example, the field of psychology. Ken points out that there are six major schools of psychology, each advanced by brilliant researchers who pioneered a particular approach to the field. Ken’s approach was to ask “what must be the characteristics of the human mind, such that the major conclusions of each of these schools could hold true?” His goal, rather than to work within one of the major schools to further its particular conclusions, was to reverse-engineer the human psyche—indeed, the entire Kosmos—altogether. The result of that inquiry was AQAL, perhaps the most complete map yet of the Kosmos we inhabit and the awareness in which it arises.
“The Myth of the Given” highlights a number of otherwise brilliant modern approaches to spirituality that fail to take into account the insights of postmodernity, thus unwittingly perpetuating the myth. Postmodernity, Ken demonstrates, deconstructed not only the mythical formulations of premodernity; with the same ferocity, it deconstructed the rational formulations of modernity! Postmodernism shows—rightly so—that nothing is apart from its context. But in doing so, and especially in its more recent turns, it throws out both the premodern and modern babies with the bathwater. Context, contends the integral approach, is not everything—but it is something! The integral approach is the first to take the truths of premodernity and modernity, consider their context as postmodernism necessitates, and locate them in a larger map. Once this blind spot is acknowledged, says Ken, it is easily remedied, leaving us with enduring truths, properly contextualized, and situated in a greater whole. And that changes just about everything….
In this first segment, Ken introduces the concept of "The Myth of the Given." He discusses how AQAL was formulated, and demonstrates how it is able to highlight blind spots in many modern approaches to spirituality.
Ken discusses the Theosopohical movement and its various incarnations with Mary Thesa Kelly. He demonstrates how, though relatively unknown in modern circles, the movement is nonetheless vastly influential on today's thought.
Ken speaks about technology and conciousness and the link between them. Using the telegraph (which led to the spread of Theosophy) as an example, Ken speculates about what the implications of the internet, as a Lower-Right quadrant artifact are for Upper-Left consciousness in our time and in the future.
Ken discusses the problem of harmful spiritual movements with Jacob Bartels. Using the concepts of structure-stages and state-stages, he demonstrates what sorts of things go wrong with these movements.
Ken discusses the premise of his unreleased novel, The Many Faces of Terrorism, as one possible future scenario which, when played out, has disastrous consequences. When worldwide democracy in put in place from a green altitude, the amber altitude elects its favored party, with radical implications.
Ken discusses with Gabrial Nossovitch the importance of "coming back" to the relative plane once absolute enlightenment is attained. Structure-stages and state-stages are used to highlight the necessity of both relative and absolute.
Ken shares a beautiful set of pointing-out instructions, designed to highlight the Witness of the sensations, emotions and thoughts that we conventionally take ourselves to be.
After pointing out the Witness of all that is arising, Ken demonstrates that this is not the end of the spiritual journey, pointing the way to a further development in which the Witness merges with all that is witnessed, in One Taste.
Default Series:
External Links