This file contains the words of Ken Wilber and my quick review (first try) of the website and one of his books called "No Boundary". (The work was initiated by an e-mail of my old friend.) After little research, I found that Wilber has an interesting integral view of the world. He covers a broad field. I now realize that he even has a book called A Theory of Everything. In a way, he may be seen as little technical and many readers may be lost because the subject he refers to may not be clear to them (me being one). In other words, the reading can easily become an intellectual masturbation, juggling with models of various kinds. If not careful, we may be able to talk about it but may not know much about what we are talking about it. In other words, we may become too brain heavy if we do not pay attention to brain-heart harmony.

Will Ken Wilber's work be more than a reference book or dictionary for me? Is he tying Zen to various fields of applications (with Kegon as a principle perhaps)? Is he developing a map of human evolution? Or, is he a man to build the model - an evolution model and play flute to bring people to join to dance with him? I am not quite sure yet. Also, as I see from the end portion of Quadrants discussion enclosed herewith (while I have not read his books), I am not quite sure if he is saying much about the process of transformation itself either. (I added my comments below.) Interestingly, however, my mini-company idea, discussion on heart and brain, research on bio-feedback, meditation, organizational implication of enlightenment, etc. have congruency to his integral approach. May be it is a form of Tao he is after.

Contents

* Ken Wilber's home site at shambhala is: http://wilber.shambhala.com/#subnav

======

The following is the highlight I got out of this interview.

Interview note taken from: http://wilber.shambhala.com/html/interviews/interview1220.cfm/xid,1495/yid,3324426

Interesting quote of Wilber:

"Deconstruction is something the ego does in the waking state in order to hold onto the ego."

* I feel however, construction is possible only through deconstruction (or at least observing, or 8-noble path). So, this ego is different ego and is higher ego.. to the point that it may reach to the true self. This is how I take this quote, especially tied to evolution process. All organizational change including corporate strategy will go through the same process.

* Interestingly, I learned that he himself came out of "transpersonal psychology" etc. to what he calls, "integral approach." As he says at one point in the interview, "The idea was that it was time to shake the field up and begin this process of differentiation (on the way to a higher integration)."

* Also, interestingly, he refers to holon, complex theory and Teilhard de Chardin…when he "categorizes" humans into various group denoted with color as he says in the interview for example, "Turquoise: Holistic . Universal holistic system, holons/waves of integrative energies; unites feeling with knowledge; multiple levels interwoven into one conscious system. Universal order, but in a living, conscious fashion, not based on external rules (blue) or group bonds (green). … 0.1% of the population, 1% of the power. " ((Possible link to Kegon))

* After reading part 1, I feel that he likes to structure and find the dynamics to see how the evolution may lead to certain spiritual direction. It appears that he sees the movement in U.S. psychology fields, etc. and like to share his view of "integral psychology" as a way to transcend yet benefit from what has been accomplished. I still have this question, "So what?" as I finished read this part 1. (In a way I feel like KW is just mapping out the frontal lobe's function with different colors. In other words, descriptive…but again, so what?)

Part 2:

This systems dynamics kind of argument among various groups of people with different spiritual orientation continues. I felt however bored as I tend to take the viewpoint of "So what?" But..Holon discussion has relation to my "mini-company" idea and interesting to see the contents - even if it seems mostly descriptive. An interesting point in the interview is:

Shambhala: So "whole" and "part," as well as "hierarchy," mean something very different in individual and social holons.

KW: That's right, and we really need to honor those profound differences.

I think there is a link to creativity and insight generation process as well as compassion. Lots more discussion on holon continues. I like the notion but my "so what" was never answered. As I quickly skimmed through this interview, it remained descriptive as if I was reading a dictionary.

Part 3

There was a discussion of "Human Change Process." and an Encyclopedia of Human Transformation. I thought this "attempt" interesting. As we accomplish materialistic needs, we realize the missing direction. This certainly ties to what he is to facilitate. Then, with regard to a work to "model" business, as he says " We have a terrific core team in ii-business that is working on the first model of integral business and integral leadership." So, more models and more dictionary work…. Integral Institute was set up to further integrate politics, art, etc. etc. (perhaps, under holonic concept)

After all, he is to develop a frontal lobe of all humans, as it appears to me. If so, then what? - is my question. Is there anyone who can answer my "So what ?" question? (My answer so far is shown at the end of the next section.)

Taken from: http://wilber.shambhala.com/html/books/psych_model/psych_model12.cfm/xid,2796/yid,2905656

(((This is the description of the model…..I inserted here as my note.)))

Most people find the four quadrants a little difficult to grasp at first, then very simple to use. The quadrants refer to the fact that anything can be looked at from four perspectives, so to speak: we can look at something from the inside or from the outside, and in the singular or the plural. (For a map of the four quadrants, see the Introductions to CW7 and CW8, posted on this site.)

For example, my own consciousness in this moment. I can look at it from the inside, in which case I see all my various feelings, hopes, fears, sensations, and perceptions that I might have in any given moment. This is the first-person or phenomenal view, described in "I" language. But consciousness can also be looked at in an objective, "scientific" fashion, in which case I might conclude that my consciousness is the product of objective brain mechanisms and neurophysiological systems. This is the third-person or objective view, described in "it" language. Those are the inside and the outside views of my own consciousness.

But my consciousness or self does not exist in a vacuum; it exists in a community of other selves. So in addition to a singular view of consciousness, we can look at how consciousness exists in the plural (as part of a group, a community, a collective). And just as we can look at the inside and the outside of the individual, we can look at the inside and the outside of the collective. We can try to understand any group of people from the inside, in a sympathetic resonance of mutual understanding; or we can try to look at them from the outside, in a detached and objective manner (both views can be useful, as long as we honor each).

On the inside of the collective, we see all of the various shared worldviews (archaic, magic, mythic, rational, etc.), ethics, customs, values, and intersubjective structures held in common by those in the collective (whether that be family, peers, corporation, organization, tribe, town, nation, globe). The insides of the collective are described in "we" language and include all of those intersubjective items that you might experience if you were truly a member of that culture. From the outside, we see all of the objective structures and social institutions of the collective, such as the physical buildings, the infrastructures (foraging, horticultural, agrarian, industrial, informational), the techno-economic base, the quantitative aspects of the society (the birth and death rates, the monetary exchanges, the objective data), modes of communication (written words, telegraph, telephone, internet), and so on. Those are all "its" or patterns of interobjective social systems.

So we have four major perspectives (the inside and the outside of the singular and the plural): I, it, we, and its. Since the objective dimensions (the outside of the individual and the outside of the collective) are both described in third-person it-language, we can reduce the four quadrants to just three: I, we, and it. Or first-person, second-person, and third-person accounts.²⁶ Or art, morals, and science. Or the beautiful, the good, and the true. ((((There is no absolute..))))

Now my major point is that each of the levels, lines, and states of consciousness has these four quadrants (or simply the three major dimensions of I, we, and it).²⁷ This model therefore explicitly integrates first-, second-, and third-person accounts of consciousness at each of the levels, lines, and states. This gives what I believe is a more comprehensive and integral model of consciousness. This "all-quadrants, all-levels, all-lines, all-states" model is sometimes referred to simply as "all-quadrant, all-level," or AQAL for short. I have explored this model at length in several books, such as Sex, Ecology, Spirituality; Brief History; and Integral Psychology. If we systematically investigate the implications of this AQAL model, we might also find that it opens up the possibility of a more integral approach to education, politics, business, art, feminism, ecology, and so on (see, e.g., A Theory of Everything--An Integral Vision for Business, Politics, Science, and Spirituality, to be released by Shambhala in September 2000).

It should be emphasized that this article has dealt almost exclusively with only one quadrant, namely, the interior of the individual (which is called the "Upper-Left quadrant"). But in other works I have dealt extensively with the other quadrants, and my point is certainly that all of the quadrants need to be included in any balanced account of consciousness. What is missing in the other major schools and forces of psychology is exactly this more comprehensive or AQAL approach, which is why I believe integral psychology must move in a noticeably different direction while maintaining a friendly and mutually beneficial dialogue with the other four forces.

http://wilber.shambhala.com/html/books/psych_model/psych_model14.cfm/xid,1266/yid,4666317

An integral model suggests that, from the relative perspective, all holons have four quadrants, including an interior and an exterior, and thus "subjective experience" and "objective matter/energy" arise correlatively from the very start. From the absolute perspective, an integral model suggests that the final answer to this problem is actually discovered only with satori, or the personal awakening to the nondual itself. The reason that the hard problem remains hard is the same reason that absolute truth cannot be stated in relative words: the nondual can only be known by a change of consciousness, not a change of words or maps or theories.

The hard problem ultimately revolves around the actual relation of subject and object, and that relation yields its final truth only in satori. We could say that what is "seen" in satori is that subject and object are nondual, but those are only words, and when stated thus, the absolute or nondual generates only paradoxes, antinomies, contradictions. The nondual "answer" to the hard problem can only be seen from the nondual state or level of consciousness itself, which generally takes years of contemplative discipline, and therefore is not an "answer" that can be found in a textbook or journal--and thus it will remain the hard problem for those who do not transform their own consciousness. (((I guess this is the conclusion after many words. Also, I am not convinced if he is addressing fully the process/contents of "transformation" either. Or, leave it indescribable but work out wherever we can work "collectively" may be his point.)))

(((At the end note, he refers back to holon, which I think is tied to Kegon philosophy of Mahayana. As he says in: http://wilber.shambhala.com/html/books/psych_model/psych_model14.cfm/xid,1266/yid,4666317)))

"All four quadrants are composed of whole/parts or holons, all the way up, all the way down, and because each holon is already a whole/part, each holon is an existing solution to the combination problem. Far from being rare or anomalous, holons are the fundamental ingredients of reality in all domains, and thus the combination problem is not so much a problem as it is an essential feature of the universe."

"Assuming that the combination problem can be thus solved, the way is open for a holonic model of the Kosmos ("all-quadrants, all-levels"), a subset of which is an integral theory of consciousness."

"That dualism is ultimately overcome, not with any model, no matter how "nondualistic" it calls itself, but only with satori, which is a direct and radical realization (or change in level of consciousness), and that transformation cannot be delivered by any model, but only by prolonged spiritual practice. As the traditions say, you must have the actual experience to see exactly what is revealed, just as you must actually see a sunset to know what is involved (cf. Eye to Eye).

From: http://wilber.shambhala.com/html/books/ontast_wharyo.cfm/xid,1495/yid,3324426

"The sky and your awareness have become one, and all things in the sky are floating effortlessly through your own awareness. You can kiss the sun, swallow the mountain, they are that close. Zen says "Swallow the Pacific Ocean in a single gulp," and that's the easiest thing in the world, when inside and outside are no longer two, when subject and object are nondual, when the looker and looked at are One Taste. You see? "

* Also, some other Zen expressions from my memory: "stop the falling rain" "Hear the one hand clapping" "Carry the spade in the empty hand."

I read more of Wilber's book, "No Boundary" and found a portion corresponding to Vipassana Meditation. While he does not specify Vipassana and there are areas that are slightly different from Viapassana (p.115-116), here are few quotes of interest.

"The body is not a "deeper reality" than the ego, but the integration of the body and ego is a deeper reality than the ego alone." (p.106)

"…dissolve the boundary between the mind and body so as to discover again this unity of opposite lying asleep in the depth of our being. (109)

* p.109-115 describes very similar approach to Vapassana, with good reasoning referring to how mind and body are interconnected with such comments as:

"..a tension, rigidity, or lack of strength in your legs usually indicates lack of rooted-ness, stability, grounded-ness, or balance in general." (p. 113)

"The crux, therefore, is getting the direct feel of how I actively tense these muscles, and therefore the one thing I don't do is try to relax them." (p.114)

He then ties to the point of …finding that ".. you are the deep source producing all your voluntary and involuntary processes, and not its victim…. By realizing these processes are just as much you as the voluntary ones, you give up that chronic but fruitless program to take charge of creation, to obsessively manipulate and compulsively control yourself and your world. Paradoxically, this realization brings about as expanded sense of freedom. …. Most of our everyday problems and worries stem from trying to control or manipulate processes which the organism would be handling perfectly if it weren't for the intervention of ego … At this deeper level, voluntary and involuntary are one. … From this deep level the self leads…. A perpetual, un-calculated life in the present" (p.117 -8)

On page 119, He continues after his version of "So what?" leading to the meaning of life, saying "..the very processes of life itself generate joy. Meaning is not found, not in outward actions or possessions, but in the inner radiant currents of your own being, and in the release and relationship of these currents to the world, to friends, to humanity at large, and to infinity itself."

While Wilber divide the steps to what he calls the ultimate state of consciousness in several stages and the one mentioned is one of the steps, this may be seen arbitrary. For example, "creative detachment" he talks on page 128, "witnessing center" on p.129, and "choice-less awareness" on p.132 and "no boundary state (of unity consciousness)" on p.142 Referring Hakuin, "not knowing how near the truth is…" as well as quoting Eckhart, Tao, Suzuki, (Dogen), Wilber touches on such ideas of seeking is not finding, means and end are the same, practice is enlightenment, Shikan Taza (Just sit), Buddha nature,

* E.T. Gendlin's Focusing is referred by Wilber and I know that that work is related to Sharif's work on biofeedback posted at my home page and has strong connection to Vipassana.

My take from this part of the book is that while I thought Wilber as more of a conceptual thinker before, this work indicates the pragmatic end of the spectrum that I have not detected in him previously. Perhaps, in his work, he may be practicing Kanjo-eko (returning to the original shore as Bodhissatva.) with the idea of Kegon or Buddhavatamsaka-sutra (I discussed elsewhere). Wherever he had the knowledge/experience, to know that he even talks about Honshomyoshu ("original enlightenment is wondrous practice" - An insight of Soto Zen) in the book (p.144, etc) was quite interesting.

Because of many words I found in CW posted at the website, I only skimmed the CW 7 and 8. CW 7 was more of model of quadrants and 8 for application. The subject of science and religion I found in CW 8 was very similar point I described in my green book. Discussion on meditation, brain waves, application to business, education, etc. are also in line to my view.

Then, I believe this statement summarizes the key approach he is promoting:

"That, I believe, is why we should attempt these types of integrative visions. Will we ever completely succeed? No. Should we keep trying? Always. Why? Because an intention to find the One-in-the-Many aligns our hearts and heads with the One-in-the-Many that is Spirit itself as its shines in the world, radiantly." (Excerpted from the last portion of CW 8)

In summary, after spending more than few hours to read Wilber, is his vision and work too big for me to grasp? Perhaps, ungrasping is grasping. I can see intuitively what he is after. It is a process as means and end in itself. Instead of doing this as an individual, he is developing models and organization(s) to help facilitate the understanding - more like developing a reference guide ( i.e., a better frontal lobe). So, if this catalytic process works, I see something interesting may come up. As framework and ideas are shared and environment developed, we should see what kind of soup might be cooked. The process is critical. In the process, his terms and words may create a language that facilitates the communication (superficial it could be for many, however). Obviously, ingredients (people and ideas) are critical to make good soup.

The bottom line as I see is still in Satori with a gap unfilled (obviously). Yet, it may be seen as a process of developing a connection not at the individual base (of satori) but at the whole organization as a base. This is similar to what I tried and succeeded to a degree (so I think) in various cases in the organization as management consultant. Should I just wish the best for those joining this to create the tide of some sort? Well, it is about the evolutionary process. So, it is to be seen, after all. My "model" of brain and heart may be too simple compared to his? However, it is not the model, but the substance that should be the concern.

* I would appreciate very much if there is anyone who would comment to my comments for mutual learning or guide me to better understand Mr. Wilber. Otherwise, good luck for the Wiber and his associates!