Please Log in to Vote.
8 out of 9 members found this useful.
Wilber doesn't understand sf
It seems as if Ken Wilber doesn't understand SF. Even after David Riordon explained his view on future fiction, science or speculative fiction, Wilber continued with his pre/trans falacy, archaic, magic, mythic, etc., etc., without answering David. SF is the one genre that one can develop a new mythology using new metaphors, images and visuals to capture the imagination and soul of the viewers (see my blog on Avatar). Added to that, in SF anything is possible as long as it makes sense. Although the Na'vi were socially on a mythic literal level their worldview is on a different level. I think AH Almaas (1988:475) understanding of a higher level worldview in The pearl beyond price: Integration of personality into Being: An object relations approach, is more appropiate than merely pre/trans falacy: “The world is perceived, in some sense, as alive and living, as one infinite and boundless organism of consciousness. It is not merely the presence of Being or consciousness; this dimension of Being is experienced as a living organism, boundless and infinite.” And what about the name of the movie - Avatar? Wilber didn't touch on it. The review was a comedown for me. Wilber seems frozen in his own AQAL dogma and is blinded by his structuralism. I enjoyed his comments on the Matrix trilogy but on Avatar he is only half right.
- Please Login to Add Comments
- show all sub-comments
- Report Abuse
Please Log in to Vote.
4 out of 9 members found this useful.
and you don't understand Spiral Dynamics :(
Posted June 17th, 2010 by Federico ParraAnd I don't think Ken missed something, but instead that he cut a little David's fantasies about the possible continuation of the film and stayed along with what is really happening in this film; at the end, none of us know anything about the 2nd part of Avatar; it could be even greener than this first part; so we have to stick to the one we saw.
Please Log in to Vote.
3 out of 3 members found this useful.
Avatar
Posted June 18th, 2010 by Naas FerreiraThank you for your comments.
I know Ken is brilliant and he's read more books than I've ever seen or dream of reading. He is obviously enlightened and experienced One Taste and All That. I've learned a lot from studying his books but as Ken said, we are all partially right - even Ken. We can understand the structure of AQAL and know every detail of every quadrant, but we still have to live in the real world trying to make sense of everything. The world needs a new mythology and AQAL, although a brillaint map, speaks only to the mind and not the heart or the soul. It needs a myth. Joseph Campbell showed us the way and also the reasons for myths. Avatar has created a door to a new myth. Ken is wrong when he says: “Mythology has no special claim whatsoever on the four quadrants; mythology is simply one particular instance of the four quadrants (mythology is the four quadrants conceived as conformop). And these great myths, laid down 3000 years ago, could never be created today, not because humanity has no imagination, but because everybody has a video camera. Just let Moses try to claim he parted the Red Sea and see how far he gets.” (See Sex, Ecology Spirituality and Integral Spirituality) Myths are imaginative ways to express experiences of the Unknown in words and pictures. Avatar has captured the imagination of a world looking for a new myth. A reviewer should provide hermeneutical keys to the text to include viewers in understanding the development of myths and consciousness. Ken hasn't done this with Avatar as he did with The Matrix Trilogy.
Please Log in to Vote.
1 out of 1 members found this useful.
What's wrong with Wilber's critique?
Posted June 18th, 2010 by Michael HI really do not understand the basis of your criticism of Wilber's review. The purpose of the discussion was to get Ken to analyse the film from an integral perspective. I think he did that very effectively, and the points he made were pretty much exactly what I expected an integral critique of the film would offer. I certainly don't see any new mythology being presented by Cameron in this film - unless by "new" you mean the standard new age/environmentalist bandwagon that anyone in popular culture is obliged to climb aboard these days. Frankly, if the novelty factor of new visual effects were removed from this film, I think most people would find that what you would be left with is a very average to mediocre adventure movie, employing a much recycled theme, stock characters, and a paper thin plot.
Avatar was a fun ride - an entertaining distraction but not much else.
Michael
Please Log in to Vote.
2 out of 2 members found this useful.
the meaning of "avatar"
Posted June 18th, 2010 by mysticolinWhen I first saw a poster for "Avatar", I was excited and confused because Avatar: The Last Airbender was the first thing to come to my mind. Once I looked into it, I realized the Cameron's use of the word "Avatar" was more along the lines of that coined by Neal Stephenson (who wrote "Snow Crash) and found within other cyberpunk novels (such as William Gibson's novels). Stephenson drew the term from the eastern (Sanskrit) term avatara to which you are most likely referring. Seeing as the English translation is often "incarnation", Stephenson probably chose this term to refer to the user's incarnation into the metaverse (the virtual reality in which people's avatars interacted). Seeing as Neal also drew from Sumerian mythology for Snow Crash, I could see an argument for some deep philosophical talk concerning his use of 'avatar', but I don't believe the same can be said for Cameron.
First of all, because the term 'avatar' is popularly understood as a representative of oneself (on the internet) so I wonder if this is where Cameron came across the term. Yes, the main character's avatar was closer to the English understanding of "incarnation", but it doesn't fit the idea of one who has "descended" from Heaven1, or "manifested", in the sense it is used in eastern religion.
Secondly, I just don't think Cameron is that deep. I don't think he's shallow. I just think he had the more popular concept in mind when he wrote Avatar. The lead character was definitely not a higher being preceding his existence in his avatar form. I agree with the dialogue between David and Ken about the avatar state actually being the higher state because of it's more inclusive perspective, seeing from the human and na'vi eyes. So this "avatar" didn't "descend" so much as "ascend" - not because he became na'vi (for I agree that Cameron romanticizes the na'vi and belittles humanity quite a bit in the movie), but because his perspective broadened.
1I checked out the wikipedia article on avatara in order to make sure my understanding was accurate.
--
Colin
Broken and Divine
Please Log in to Vote.
0 out of 0 members found this useful.
bubbles!
Posted June 20th, 2010 by vernpeacehi,fiction...is...a...rather...new...word...in...the...scheme...of...things
...before...it...came...along...the...term...fairy...tale...was...used...now
...both...are...simply...terms...for...metaphors...playing...with...the...past
...or...future...historic...fiction...or...future...fiction...and...for...any
...one...who...has...read...Ken`s...books...knows...that...he...likes...the...
former...rather...than...the...latter...as...a...means...to...explore...the...
possible...both...it...seems...are...the...same...thing...however...i...can...
see...the...reason...future...fiction...can...seem...less...con-vincing...than
a...past...fiction...because...it...has...less...to...attach...its...self...to
...less...to...have...opinions...about...something...he...seems...to...like...
better...than...most...the...past...puts...more...weight...behind...his...dreams!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=886Z6zKXmG4&feature=related
peace7love...vern
- Please Login to Add Comments
- Report Abuse








.jpg)





Please Log in to Vote.
2 out of 2 members found this useful.
Hi, Naas
Posted June 17th, 2010 by Jennifer GroveI agree with you about some things, and yet there is more. Just this morning I was having a convo about this on FB. This is what I wrote:
" see everything that Ken sees too. It's glaringly obvious. But there is more that he did not point out. And this is what interests me. Why would he paint it in such stark colors when it wasn't really that extreme? Is this intentional? Is this skillful? If so, to what end are these means being employed?
My inquiring mind wants to know..."
and
"He likes to poke Scientific Materialism in the eye sometimes too, so I know he can play for both teams. Perhaps he is trying to get Integral drafted for the Orange/Rational team because that is the largest demographic out here and they are in the most dire need of some healing. But will it work? Is this healing? Or is it just indulgence? That is a fine line to walk. "
Ken is no dummy. It may seem as if he doesn't understand, but I don't think that is what is happening. I've felt the same frustration about him myself over the years. He says one thing one day, and another day denies it. I suspect this may be a case of what Corey calls, "Marketing" or speaking as if you are a member of the demographic that needs your wisdom the most. I've done it on occasion too without being conscious or intentional of it. Now I can look at it, instead of just out from it.
Near the end, he does acknowledge the function of sci fi and it's power to create a single cohesive vMeme out of what could only be considered a "Greatest Hits" style collage in normal earth terms. But it's still important to note that alot of people are going to miss that. Most Greenies will believe that this is how primitive civilizations really were here in this world.
What I noticed that he did not acknowledge was how science was treated in a balanced way by pitting the exploitative part of it against the exploratative and research part. Zero mention of that. Interesting, huh?
--
For just $14.95 a month, YOU TOO can offset your Karma Footprint by becoming a Member of Integral Life!
[has that already been done?]