Responding to Nov. 6 and 7, 2006, postings from

 

mrteacup

1/ a systematic following of IS is not exclusively Buddhist.

 

2/ It seems strange to me to make Piaget and Kohlberg = Hegel-Marx. As far as I understand it, stages of consciousness aren't essentially social or cultural, but belong in their own quadrant of development. Perhaps this can be clarified for me.

 

3/ Yes, I think that you must be able to, as an individual, transcend the maximum height of your culture, and that Buddha and Jesus did exactly that. Although even ordinary people have this potential, no?

 

ralph

4/ it something like this happens, i'm sure you will become, as a matter of course, more aware of the ins and outs of 'integral' and 'aqal' while further developing your own perspective. 

5/ aqal, of course, is just an artifact--metaphorically speaking, a map, an operating system, a framework.  it does not pretend to be a system of philosophy.  ken's philosophy, his entire adult life, it seems to me, has been simply 'everybody is right'.  in particular, habermas and kierkegaard are right, so how do we honor both of them?

Dear Friends,

Ad 1/ I agree, and this is likewise true for appropriating S. Kierkegaard---that need not be exclusively „Christian“ even as he himself was – and so I brought him into a dialogue not only with Habermas, an atheist, but also with „postmodern“ Jewish thinkers like Derrida and Levinas. One Ph.D. student wrote with a dissertation on Kierkegaard and the Kyoto School (Nishitani), and he argues for certain shared Buddhist aspects of SK, mystical dimensions, becoming self-nothing before God, etc.

Ad 2/  Stages of consciousness, phenomenologically speaking, pertain of course to individuals in UL in every epoch, but insofar as we overcome „the myth of the given,“ we are speaking about LL social-cultural sphere of hermeneutical meanings and social evolution. -- Ad 3/ -- And in every epoch single individuals begin at the beginning of prior social evolution but can reach in single life the maximum stage available to them in their epoch, or like Buddha and Jesus or Socrates push beyond their stage. So stages of c. pertain to both UL and LL, and insofar as they have the outer sphere of the body and economy also to systems of UR and LR.

Habermas (and Ken after him) speaks of reconstructive science on the level of ontogenesis (Piaget, Kohlberg, Gilligan...) and social evolution (Durkheim, Weber, Hegel, Marx...). Stages of c. are then the structures of understanding reconstructed from social evolution, such as pre-, conventional and postconventional, or traditional, modern, postmodern.  Habermas does not go beyond the rationalization of the lifeworld into the  formal-pragmatic attitude of speakers (1st person-I) and hearers (2nd-You) coming to an undrestanding about something (3rd-IT) in the world, and the splitting off of the liferworld (UL, LL) from systems of functionalist rationality (LR). But it appears clear to me that Ken, just like Habermas, speaks of both individuals and cultures when he refers to stages, and so in that sense, it would be quite correct to pair Kohlberg-Piaget ... in UL and Hegel-Weber-Habermas-Marx in LL, while Habermas has, e.g., Parsons and Luhman (systems theorists) in LR.

Where Ken goes beyond Habermas (and his Weberian thesis of the rationalization of culture into three expert spheres of science, morality+law, and art, with their three validity claims of truth, rightness, and sincerity) is in positing the emergence of post-rational stages of onto- and phylogenesis (social evolution), that is an emergence of critical religious or postsecular consciousness after the so-called Nietzschean „death of God“ in the West. So, contrary to Habermas and Weber,  there are both religious spheres of culture (post-rational, post/modern religiosities in LL) and corresponding phenomenolgies of the religious (UL), to which, ideally, would correspond more just, post-capitalist and post-authoritarian global economics and politics and environmental care (LR and perhaps UR). This is Ken's key contribution to this particular debate, something the Habermasians and others secular social theorists are yet to take notice of.

Ad 4 and 5/ Of course, AQAL is not a new doctrine or church, it is a way to think about the world, oneself, God.  Just as in Habermas the structure of validity claims, so AQAL franework is a formal-pragmatic structure that needs to be endowed with some content to operate. It is us, humans, who are the existential integers or operators of AQAL.

Just as I brought Kierkegaard to offer certain correctives to Habermas’s theory of communicative action in my 1993 book, so it is now possible to do that for Ken’s structures and stages of consciousness. In the latter case it is less a corrective and more another way of speaking about AQAL. Spheres of existence in SK provide certain modal logic to stages and states of consciousness. The existential spheres or stages on life’s way speak of  self-transformation, an integer of the AQAL in both UL and LL of onto and phylo-genesis. The stages and states of consciousness are about the what (content, world view, perspectives) of human development in UL and LL, while existential spheres are about the how (the way of self-appropriation, self-transformation, letting go of self...)

A full Kosmic address would read = stages, lines and states of consciousness + existential spheres

All for today, Martin Beck Matustik, 2006-11-19

Hi All, Happy almost-Thanksgiving.

Martin, that was a wonderful post. At one point you mentioned Ken and cultural evolution and-in case you or anyone else might be wondering- you are absolutely correct in what you said (UL -particularly zone#2 and LL-particularly zone#4 can not be reduced to one or the other, nor can one occur or arise without the other*). The best example of this, and Ken's most thorough study of cultural evolution equating with stages, is Up From Eden.

(* I always find myself mentioning to people that there is quite ample UR evidence for this fact from cognitive and neuro science-most particularly the fact that the single most powerful factor for early brain wiring and development is contact -particularly linguistic-with other human beings and the more the better. i.e. culture. And Ken has often used the example of feral children -"wolf boy"-to exemplify this as well.)

Anyhow, . . .

I wanted to mention, a discussion on I-I zaadz.com came to the question of personal transformation as a result of childbirth (or parenthood), and why some might experience this as profound personal or even spiritual transformation and others transform little or not at all.

Someone wrote: Excellent. I've wondered the same thing, myself, . . . Why was it the most profound spiritual experience of my life, having children, and yet so many others choose to simply continue on being who they are in the face of such miracles? I don't know.

I told them that that is exactly the sort of thing that comes to my mind when considering the transversal axis of the spheres of existence. Such differences make little or no sense simply with regard to states and stages. Someone at a higher stage of development could be just as indifferent or "un-transformed" by childbirth as any other stage. Likewise, I said there, even animals can be seen to be transformed by the birth of offspring (and likewise, interestingly, some not) and certainly so too with lower stages of human development.

Along the same lines, state experiences are certainly no prerequisite for maternal or paternal transformation and might not in any way shape or form affect such transformation either.

Such a transformation, I proposed, is existential in quality and in nature, and seems to me to be in alignment with -and perhaps a very good example of-the four spheres of existence.

(Ex. an aesthetic individual is probably the one whom-no matter what the stage-would be very indifferent,  or not really have the capacity to be transformed by a new life, etc. An ethical individual, something different. Religious A and B would be likely to yield some sort of profound transformation -again, at any stage.)

What do you think?

Peace, Tim

 

---

"With whom or with what are you in communion at this moment?"
. . ."I?" he replied, almost mechanically. "Why not with anyone or anything."
"You must be a marvel . . . if you are able to continue in that state for long."
-Constantin Stanislavsky

to beranaries
as well as others who have posted on this thread or have been reading this thread:

martin,

since hearing your teleconference with ken, i've been wanting to respond at much greater length than would comfortably accord with this thread. i guess i'm now taking that risk.

i'm the student here and you two the experts. i just look forward to hearing from both of you and contributing whatever i can. needless to say, there's alot i don't understand. i've dared to tackle a couple of your books, even though i obviously don't have the requisite background. whatever understanding i presently have of habermas and kierkegaard has come to me second hand.

you've suggested several things you might do as a follow up to the talk with ken, and they all sound great to me. what's more, they appear to fit in with the direction he and ISC have been going. in his opening address to ISC2, about five months ago and recently made available to us members, he introduced (at least to me!) the notion of the 'unique self'. i'm wondering if this wasn't what kierkegaard was after. more generally, he has begun talking about the second face of God, something he almost never did in the past, at least to my knowledge.

related to this is what i interpret, in both of you, as a concern about this latest wave of evolution called humanity. i may be projecting my own concern onto you to some extent, but the important thing to me is that it is integral, and not just political or social, etc. etc. nor just 'spiritual', for that matter. this is more or less the context in which i'm viewing the interest you both have in kierkegaard and habermas.

incidentally, for anyone unfamiliar with kierkegaard, who wants a quick introduction to his philosophy, i would recommend the chapter in 'history of western philosophy' by frederick copleston. he neatly lays out the existential spheres as they emerged in kierkegaard's own life, together with the collisions that facilitated this. by itself this could easily be interpreted as stage development or states progression, but i think the teleconference makes clear that this is not the case. i checked fowler's stages and underhills states of faith, which are listed in ch. 4, i believe, of IS, to make sure. neither one looks much like what kierkegaard elaborated, imo. (i'm less enthusiastic about joakhim garff's biography because of what appears to me to be an inadequate kosmic address, even though he seems to cover all the facts.)

this definitely looks like a transversal dimension to me, or better yet, a micro-dimension, for reasons that presently escape me, so i'll stop to think about that, and continue later on.

in gratitude for what the two of you have started,

ralph

---

martin beck matustik: The stages and states of consciousness are about the what (content, world view, perspectives) of human development in UL and LL, while existential spheres are about the how (the way of self-appropriation, self-transformation, letting go of self...)

by micro-dimension i meant one that is carried along the structure/stage dimension, i.e. is fully available at each stage, like the example ken gave of the chakras. as i understand it, this could all be pictured with regard to the human body as a series of seven circles of the appropriate, rainbow colors and number of petals at the intersections of the cadeucus, with two micro-axes pointing out from each one, one for states and one for existential spheres.

the use of micro-dimensions is suggested to me by the string-theory attempts at a TOE. my understanding is that they still keep the ordinary macro-dimensions of space-time, with the additional seven or so dimensions curled up about each space-time point at which a string might be located, and posited as being so incredibly small that we could not hope to see them with the best of instruments technology could provide us. in the case of aqal, things are turned around, with the structure/stage dimension being too large, so to speak, for us to directly experience, in contrast to the other two, smaller, and more volatile, dimensions.

the difficulty i see with this is that, whereas states and stages are well established, deep structures, your proposal to add existential spheres seems to depend on alot of surface structure, at least at this point. (i can't remember the exact reference for the distinction between deep and surface structure--my guess would be SES or something soon thereafter.) it depends mainly on kierkegaard's life and writings.

ken has elsewhere noted that freud and piaget were both outstanding phenomenologists--that they uncovered patterns of child development people had largely been oblivious of before. he faults them, however, for the theories they came up with to explain what they had found. it seems to me from reading his biography that kierkegaard was also an incredible phenomenologist in a more difficult and intimate way, because he was primarily observing himself, and there was an obvious dialectic going on between himself and his observations. he also observed alot of his fellow copenhagers, but not in a scientifically rigorous way. it seems to me that it is going to be alot more difficult to establish a validity claim in this case.

apparently, no one has followed up on what kierkegaard was doing in the way, for example, that piaget and, then, many others, followed up on james mark baldwin's study of structure/stage development. i'm unable to understand this, because the notion of existential spheres of increasing intensity is so clearly and dramatically emphasized in his life and work. is it like ken said in his opening remarks for ISC2, that it's no longer possible to talk about spirituality in the halls of academia?

the comparable ideas of aurobindo might help to begin sorting out what is deep and what is surface structure with regard to existential spheres. i don't associate intensity with him, yet he clearly went all the way to his inmost self.

i'm also intrigued with how dostoevsky compares with kierkegaard. the three karamozov brothers can be classified existentially, with dimitri being the aesthetic, ivan the ethical and alyosha the religious, but dimitri and ivan are the most intense and alyosha is all peace. with regard to the other dimensions, though, kierkegaard is clearly at a higher stage of development than them, as are copenhagers vis a vis the russians, who weren't ready for their own revolution until over a century after the french, and this has to be somehow factored out if spheres of existence are to be somehow transversal to stages of development.

it looks to me like alot of work needs to be done to ferret out what is truly structurally deep and independent of states and stages. i like the distinction ken makes between ladder, climber and view. clearly, you're focusing on the climber, the self, whereas states and stages focus on the ladder--like you said, on the 'how' rather than the 'what'.

i will definitely be watching to see what comes of this,

ralph

---

Dear Friends,

below is a link to an essay I wrote for a very different context, it just came out, I thought you might appreciate seeing some of the wider connections of what is at stake globally in the "existential"perspective and its impact on the development of stages in both UL and LL and deepening of states.

Velvet Revolution in Iran?  by Martin Beck Matustik

Logos: A Journal of Modern Society and Culture (Fall 2006)

go to: http://www.logosjournal.com/issue_5.3/matustik.htm

 

Sincere thanks

MM

yes! whither humanity in this age of globalization?

and 'the development of stages in both UL and LL and deepening of states' will certainly be crucial.

have you happened to hear about the fictional trilogy 'the many faces of terrorism' that ken, when he has time, is working on? many of the people following his writings have been saying for several years now, especially with the creation of i-i, that they want something more political from him. it sounds to me like this might be it.

with so many other things to do, it may be a while before we will get a chance to see this, and, in the mean time, we will have to make do with some sketchy, preliminary indications.

he has mentioned the possibility of a coming generation of idealists something like what occurred in the 60's, but this time, presumably, at a developmental level beyond green and, hopefully, inoculated against boomeritis, and not limiting themselves to civil rights within our borders, but embracing global ethics, if i'm interpreting him correctly. i've read that our country has what might be called a spiritual awakening every fourth generation or so, so this would be a little early, but who knows? the need for this is certainly pressing.

i'm going to be exposing my typically american ignorance about what's going on outside the 50 states, but, hopefully, you will correct me where most needed, so that we can begin to put your ideas into an integral context. i'm not totally ignorant. i had an opportunity to visit berlin shortly after the wall went up, and i made it though checkpoint charlie several times--i don't need to tell you what i saw. i also visited prague during that stay in europe, where i heard at length how one worker felt about the soviet russians. i was also in the peace corps in bogota' for three years, so i had a good chance to see how a third world democracy was doing.

(incidentally, if this discussion continues beyond this post, it should probably be transported elsewhere and made into a thread of its own, in order not to take away from the original, i think, very exciting topic of this thread.)

anyway, my ignorant thoughts:

can we say that president havel was coming, for the most part, from a green perspective, whereas klaus is coming from orange? and that Communism, Nazism, fascism, iranian clericalism are all a pathological blue? it seems to me that this would take us a good ways towards explaining the farces you point out.

the problem, as i understand it, is that we live in a rapidly globalizing world without any really effective, global governance. moreover, when we look at it developmentally (evolutionarily), we realize that even healthy blue and orange are not really capable of governing much more than an ethnic group or nation, respectively. while we would like to think that green can do better, its contempt for (ken says 'distrust of'--i'm obviously letting personal experiences get the best of me) hierarchy raises the question, imho, whether or not it can successfully govern anything, let alone the entire world (i have no idea how this might apply or not apply to havel, who i've always admired, but whose effectiveness as a politician i'm now wondering about). it seems to me that something like turquoise will be needed.

i feel the work of habermas is invaluable is this respect, because he has explored much more than anyone else what turquoise governance, which doesn't yet exist, might actually be like--again, in my ignorant opinion. it looks like i need to take a closer look at your books!

ralph

---