Non-Duality in Ken Wilber's Integral Philosophy

NON-DUALITY IN KEN WILBER’S INTEGRAL PHILOSOPHY: A CRITICAL APPRAISAL AND ALTERNATIVE PHYSICALIST PERSPECTIVE OF MYSTICAL CONSCIOUSNESS JEREMY JOHN JACOBS 2009 Ken Wilber Cover Photo: Denver Integral and Ken Wilber Meetup Group <a href="/goto?url=http://www.meetup.com/denver-" target="_blank">(http://www.meetup.com/denver- </a>integral/photos/?photold=716584&photoAlbumld=102985. Accessed 20 February 2009). NON-DUALITY IN KEN WILBER’S INTEGRAL PHILOSOPHY: A CRITICAL APPRAISAL AND ALTERNATIVE PHYSICALIST PERSPECTIVE OF MYSTICAL CONSCIOUSNESS by JEREMY JOHN JACOBS Submitted in accordance with the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF THEOLOGY in the subject CHRISTIAN SPIRITUALITY at the UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH AFRICA Promoter PROFESSOR C E T KOURIE February 2009 Kenneth Earl Wilber (1949 - ) (theosophist.wordpress.com) Student Number: 3279-583-1 I declare that NON-DUALITY IN KEN WILBER’S INTEGRAL PHILOSOPHY: A CRITICAL APPRAISAL AND ALTERNATIVE PHYSICALIST PERSPECTIVE OF MYSTICAL CONSCIOUSNESS is my own work and that all sources that I have used or quoted have been indicated and acknowledged by means of complete references. _________________________ Signature ______________ Date Jeremy John Jacobs iDEDICATION To Kim and St John ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS My deepest gratitude goes to my wife Kim for her endless patience, encouragement, and support. I gratefully acknowledge Professor Celia Kourie’s professionalism. Her courteous manner of guidance and correction, and also the hospitality she extended to my alternative perspectives are an indication of her academic integrity. Special thanks to my sister Tania Jacobs who typed up reams of notes that I had gathered over the years, and finally my friend Andre Croucamp whose brilliant mind inspired me to think beyond the strictures of my creeds. iii ABSTRACT Since the advent of human consciousness all manner of theoreticians from mystics to philosophers, and linguists to scientists have considered why and how it is that an individuated self seems to occupy or indwell a physical body. There is a common experiential sense, in other words, in which personal consciousness and our bodies are felt to be two different things. Two broad areas of opinion attempting to explain this apparent bifurcation are defined for the purpose of addressing this problem: Essentialists who variously maintain that there are non-physical properties inherent to all forms and functions of physicality; and Physicalists who claim that the extant universe as a multiplicity of complex material processes is the only reality. The respective natures of body and mind and the ways in which they relate has yielded an extraordinary variety of hypotheses within and between these two broad categories. In this thesis the dilemma is called the Hard Problem and it focuses particularly on the relationship between consciousness and the brain. Recently, Ken Wilber has constructed an Integral Philosophy which attempts a synergistic gradation of all possible genres of experience and knowledge into one cohesive scheme representing the total Reality. The culminating point of Wilber’s theory claims resolution of the Hard Problem, indeed of all appearances of duality, in the realisation of consummate emptiness in mystical consciousness. Wilber’s proposal therefore tenders a version of Essentialism since it implies that an Absolute principle is inherent to all existence. The problem explored in this study considers whether the epistemological architecture of Wilber’s Philosophy is coherent and consistent. Following a critical appraisal of Wilber’s system it is proposed that epistemological coherence is more likely to be achieved by retaining the ontology of consciousness and matter to only one kind. In this way the scientific protocols which Wilber imports to validate his truthclaims are protected from ontological confusion. Whether this non-dual Physicalism is adequate as a means of explaining consciousness, and particularly mystical consciousness, is moot. Perhaps there remains an inalienable quality in mysticism which will always elude our ability to apprehend it. KEY WORDS Consciousness, Duality/Dualism, Epistemology, Essentialism, the Hard Problem, Integral Philosophy, Mysticism, Non-dual Consciousness (NDC), Ontology, Phenomenology, Physicalism, Science. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS <ul style="display: flex;"><li style="flex:1">Declaration </li><li style="flex:1">i</li></ul>Dedication Acknowledgements Abstract and Key Words ii iii iv CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION 1.1 1.2 Finding the Right Questions The Quest for Consistency and Coherence: The Purpose of this Research 13<ul style="display: flex;"><li style="flex:1">1.2.1 </li><li style="flex:1">The Context of this Research </li><li style="flex:1">3</li></ul>1.2.1.1Ken Wilber’s Integral Philosophy 1.2.1.2What is Essentialism? 58<ul style="display: flex;"><li style="flex:1">1.2.1.3What is Physicalism? </li><li style="flex:1">11 </li></ul>12 13 21 27 28 34 1.2.1.3.1 A Qualification: What does Ontology Mean? 1.2.1.3.2 An Expanded Understanding of Physicalism 1.2.1.4What is the Hard Problem? <ul style="display: flex;"><li style="flex:1">1.2.2 </li><li style="flex:1">Is there an Alternative Solution? </li></ul>1.3 1.4 Philosophy, Science, Mysticism, and Non-duality: The Integral Problem Research Methodology: The Challenge of Interdisciplinary Consistency <ul style="display: flex;"><li style="flex:1">1.4.1 </li><li style="flex:1">The Problem of Discerning an Appropriate Methodology for </li></ul><ul style="display: flex;"><li style="flex:1">Wilber’s Integral Philosophy </li><li style="flex:1">34 </li></ul>37 41 44 56 <ul style="display: flex;"><li style="flex:1">1.4.2 </li><li style="flex:1">A Multi-Method Proposal </li></ul>1.5 1.6 1.7 Demarcation of Chapters Legitimacy and Responsibility: Literature Survey Conclusion CHAPTER TWO THE FOUNDATIONS OF WILBER’S INTEGRAL PHILOSOPHY <ul style="display: flex;"><li style="flex:1">Introduction </li><li style="flex:1">2.1 </li><li style="flex:1">59 </li></ul>61 70 74 80 81 94 100 <ul style="display: flex;"><li style="flex:1">2.1.1 </li><li style="flex:1">Ken Wilber: A Biographical Literature Survey </li></ul>2.2 2.3 2.4 The Perennial Philosophy Transpersonal Psychology Emergent Principles of Wilber’s Integral Philosophy 2.4.1 2.4.2 Hierarchy and Holarchy in The Great Nest of Being The Two Movements of Spirit: Involution and Evolution <ul style="display: flex;"><li style="flex:1">2.5 </li><li style="flex:1">Conclusion </li></ul>CHAPTER THREE WILBER’S FOUR QUADRANT MODEL: STRUCTURE, METHODOLOGY, AND EPISTEMOLOGY 3.1 3.2 Introduction The Construction of the Four Quadrant Model 103 104 111 119 123 3.2.1 3.2.2 Holarchical Typology: Basic, Transitional, Surface, and Deep Structures The Means of Development: Lines, Streams, and States of Consciousness 3.2.2.1Is There a Spiritual Line? 3.2.3 Wilber’s Epistemological Method The Means of Transcendence: Translation, Transformation, and Transcription126 130 The Three Eyes of Knowledge: Sensibilia, Intelligibilia, and Transcendelia 130 The Three Step Exemplar 132 3.3 3.3.1 3.3.2 v<ul style="display: flex;"><li style="flex:1">3.3.3 </li><li style="flex:1">The Four Validity Claims: Truth, Truthfulness, Functional Fit, and Justness 134 </li></ul>3.4 3.5 <ul style="display: flex;"><li style="flex:1">A More Considered Appraisal of Wilber’s Epistemology </li><li style="flex:1">140 </li></ul>140 142 150 158 3.4.1 3.4.2 What is Epistemology? Wilber’s Approach to Epistemology 3.4.2.1 Harman’s Nine Criteria Conclusion CHAPTER FOUR THE CONTEXTUAL IMPLICATIONS OF WILBER’S INTEGRAL PHILOSOPHY 4.1 4.2 Introduction The Science-Religion Debate 4.2.1 Preliminary Challenges from a Physicalist Perspective 161 162 175 180 190 199 4.3 4.4 4.5 From Modernism to Post-Modernism and Beyond Legitimacy, Authority, and Authenticity in Religion Conclusion CHAPTER FIVE THE ROLE OF DUALITY IN WILBER’S PHILOSOPHY Introduction The Dualistic Idiom: Background Perspectives Wilber’s Interpretation of Duality 5.1 5.2 5.3 203 204 207 217 221 225 230 5.3.1 5.3.2 5.3.3 Subjectivity and Objectivity The Absolute and the Relative The Mind-Brain Debate <ul style="display: flex;"><li style="flex:1">5.4 </li><li style="flex:1">Conclusion </li></ul>CHAPTER SIX NON-DUALITY IN MYSTICISM: METHODOLOGICAL AND LINGUISTIC PROBLEMS 6.1 6.2 Introduction Christian Mysticism 6.2.1 Kataphatic and Apophatic Approaches to Mystical Spirituality 233 234 240 246 253 257 260 267 278 6.3 6.4 The Phenomenology of Mystical Consciousness The Nature of Consciousness According to Wilber 6.4.1 6.4.2 Wilber’s Definition of Non-dual Consciousness Questions and Challenges 6.5 6.6 Linguistic Problems in the Study and Expression of Mysticism Conclusion CHAPTER SEVEN A PHYSICALIST ALTERNATIVE TO WILBER’S PHILOSOPHY OF NON-DUALITY 7.1 7.2 7.3 <ul style="display: flex;"><li style="flex:1">Introduction </li><li style="flex:1">281 </li></ul>282 292 296 299 300 304 309 310 Wilber’s Rejoinder: Reductionism and God’s Existence Reconsidering Existing Hypotheses: Is it Time for a New Approach? <ul style="display: flex;"><li style="flex:1">7.3.1 </li><li style="flex:1">An Elaboration: More Reasons Why a New Approach is Necessary </li></ul>7.4 7.5 The Epistemological Context of a Physicalist Approach <ul style="display: flex;"><li style="flex:1">7.4.1 </li><li style="flex:1">Excursus One: Could Consciousness be a Simulation? </li></ul>Finding Criteria to Moderate a Physicalist Approach to NDC <ul style="display: flex;"><li style="flex:1">7.5.1 </li><li style="flex:1">The Multiple Drafts Model and Heterophenomenology: Daniel Dennett </li></ul>7.5.1.1Prolegomenon: Evolution is Foundational vi 7.5.1.2 7.5.1.3 7.5.1.4 7.5.1.5 7.5.1.6 Consciousness and the Self The Multiple Drafts Model Memes The Phenomenological Problem and Heterophenomenology The Intentional Stance 311 313 314 315 316 318 322 325 325 7.5.1.6.1 Excursus Two: The Millisecond Gap: Tor Nørretranders 7.5.1.7 7.5.2 7.5.2.1 7.5.2.2 Free Will and Determinism The Dynamic Core Hypothesis: Gerald Edelman and Giulio Tononi Foundational Precepts for a Theory of Consciousness Methodology: The Formative Context of the Dynamic <ul style="display: flex;"><li style="flex:1">Core Hypothesis </li><li style="flex:1">331 </li></ul><ul style="display: flex;"><li style="flex:1">331 </li><li style="flex:1">7.5.2.2.1 Unity and Integration </li></ul>7.5.2.2.2 Differentiation, Complexity, Informativeness, and the <ul style="display: flex;"><li style="flex:1">Dynamic Core </li><li style="flex:1">332 </li></ul><ul style="display: flex;"><li style="flex:1">335 </li><li style="flex:1">7.5.2.3 </li></ul>7.5.3 Can NDC exist according to the Dynamic Core Hypothesis? Andrew Newberg and Eugene D’Aquili: The Brian and Mystical Experience 338 7.5.3.1 The Nature of Consciousness 7.5.3.2 The Neurological Basis of Self-Transcendence 341 344 7.5.3.3Do Newberg and D’Aquili Provide Adequate Substantiation for a Physical Explanation of NDC? Conclusion: Does NDC have a Place in Physicalist Theories of Consciousness? 347 <ul style="display: flex;"><li style="flex:1">352 </li><li style="flex:1">7.6 </li></ul>CHAPTER EIGHT CONCLUSION 8.1 8.2 The Foundational Context of this Research General Conclusions 8.2.1 Ontology and Epistemology 8.2.2 Essentialism and Physicalism: The Asymptotic Limit of Heuristic Enquiry 8.2.3 The Problem with Wilber 8.2.4 Modernism, Post-Modernism, and the Science-Mysticism Dialectic 8.2.5 Consciousness, Phenomenology, and Language 8.2.6 The Promise of Science 361 365 365 366 367 369 370 373 <ul style="display: flex;"><li style="flex:1">377 </li><li style="flex:1">8.3 </li><li style="flex:1">NDC: A Mystical Disambiguation </li></ul>Bibliography 383 vii LIST OF DIAGRAMS Note: The following diagrams are all available from the same source: Lark, S Nd. Integral Diagrams Collections. Flikr.com (http://www.flickr.com/photos/slark/collections/72157600929362884/) <ul style="display: flex;"><li style="flex:1">Diagram 1 </li><li style="flex:1">Wilber, K Nd. Traditional Great Chain of Being. Excerpt G - Toward A </li></ul>Comprehensive Theory of Subtle Energies. <a href="/goto?url=http://wilber.shambhala.com/html/books/kosmos/excerptG/part1.cfm" target="_blank">(http://wilber.shambhala.com/html/books/kosmos/excerptG/part1.cfm. </a>Accessed 9 June 2008). Diagram 2 Diagram 3 Kegan, R Nd. The Evolving Self. Part 1. Why the Hierarchy Within Can Heal the Hierarchy Without. Luminous Arising: Integral Naked. <a href="/goto?url=http://in.integralinstitute.org/talk.aspx?id=33516 June 2008)." target="_blank">(http://in.integralinstitute.org/talk.aspx?id=335. Accessed</a><a href="/goto?url=http://in.integralinstitute.org/talk.aspx?id=33516 June 2008)." target="_blank"> </a><a href="/goto?url=http://in.integralinstitute.org/talk.aspx?id=33516 June 2008)." target="_blank">16 June 2008). </a>Wilber, K 2005. Integral Spirituality: The Role of Spirituality in the Modern and Postmodern World (Presentation for the Inaugural Gathering of Integral Spiritual Center). <a href="/goto?url=http://slark1.googlepages.com/WhatIsIntegralSpirituality.pdf" target="_blank">(http://slark1.googlepages.com/WhatIsIntegralSpirituality.pdf. Accessed 12 </a>June 2008). Diagram 4 Diagram 5 Combs, A & Esbjörn-Hargens, S 2006. An Integral Tour of Consciousness Studies. AQAL Journal of Integral Theory and Practice. 1 (1) Part 1. Stewart, C. C 2003. Integral Scenario Development: Introducing an AQAL Root Questions Method<a href="/goto?url=http://members.upc.nl/fvisser/pdf/stewart2.pdf" target="_blank">. (http://members.upc.nl/fvisser/pdf/stewart2.pdf. </a>Accessed 11 June 2008). viii CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION 1.1 Finding the Right Questions How should mysticism be studied? Since mysticism transcends all the faculties of reason is it possible to study it at all – should such an attempt even be made? Does it require a uniquely tailored epistemology that operates only within its own noetic and experiential domain? If so, is it sufficient for it to be self-legitimising, or should its truth-claims be valid in other disciplines? Is it possible, for example, for science to study mysticism? How would it do so and what would the results reveal? Would the research be useful for our understanding of science and of mysticism? What methodological instruments would need to be included and how would the ontological terrain be demarcated? What epistemological protocols would have to be set in place to ensure coherence and consistency? Answers to these questions are fraught with difficulties. Would mystics welcome or resist such research and are scientists interested enough to take on the challenge? Research which embodies affirmation of existing knowledge is generally welcomed by those who prioritise the preservation and promotion of orthodoxy. All disciplines have their protectors, but vigilance seems at its keenest when it comes to matters of religion.<a href="#12_0">1 </a>Alternative or hybrid theories which challenge the hegemony are therefore vulnerable to criticism or dismissal in strongly bonded environments (Brockman 2006:xxi). Prior learning, personal preference, cultural demographics, beliefs, fears, and a variety of other variables will thus determine our readiness to receive new knowledge. In other words, says Gamez (2007:1), there is, ‘… a sense in which we are our theories.’ Heuristics traverses the fertile, if treacherous middle-ground between that which we currently believe to be true and that which we might discover through alternative hypotheses and exploration. Heuristic pursuits must therefore accommodate the possibility that new knowledge may dislodge the sovereignty of established beliefs (Moustakis 1985:41).<a href="#12_1">2 </a>Propagandists exist on both ends of this noetic spectrum; those who wish to preserve and nurture established knowledge, and those who wish to alter or transcend it, and their 1 Newberg, D’Aquili and Rause (2001:164) similarly comment that, ‘Any challenge to the authenticity of that truth, therefore, is an attack not only upon ideas about God, but also upon the deeper, neurobiologically endorsed assurances that make God real. If God is not real, neither is our most powerful source of hope and redemption. There can be only one absolute truth; it is a matter of existential survival. All others are threats of the most fundamental kind, and they must be exposed as impostors.’ 2 Douglas and Moustakis (1985:40) describe heuristics as, ‘… a passionate and discerning personal involvement in problem solving, an effort to know the essence of some aspect of life through the internal pathways of the self ... It requires a subjective process of reflecting, exploring, sifting, and elucidating the nature of the phenomenon under investigation. Its ultimate purpose is to cast light on a focused problem, question, or theme.’ 1respective epistemologies will be complicated in the extent to which they assign different properties to the ontology of shared experience.<a href="#13_0">3 </a>The shared experience under consideration in this thesis is the non-dual, unitive, or enlightenment experience variously described by mystics as the highest or most integrated realisation of consciousness. The structure of this study will firstly establish the experiential and theoretical contexts of mystical consciousness as the field of research. In so doing Ken Wilber’s Integral Philosophy will be introduced as the framework within which the ensuing dialectical process secures focus and direction. As the content and fabric of the subject takes form, distinctions will be drawn between two primary modes of inquiry: Essentialism and Physicalism. This basic distinction does not overlook the varieties of alternative solutions or intermediate positions that have been posited and some of these will be acknowledged shortly. In the mean time, Essentialism, as it will shortly be defined in this study, rudimentarily refers to the belief that there is a quality - a trans-elemental property like consciousness, mind, or spirit, which is inherent to the nature of physicality. Physicalism, on the other hand, simply asserts that there is only one reality, the universe itself, and that consciousness is simply one mode or expression of these physical processes. The epistemological differences between these two types of knowing necessitate clarification of meanings ascribed to ontology. Moreover, in the course of classifying these distinctions, a fundamental and perennial problem, the mind-body problem, or so-called Hard Problem is identified as the linchpin of this analysis. In an attempt to address the Hard Problem as it pertains to mystical consciousness, an answer will be proposed in an alternative Physicalist rendition of consciousness. The cornerstones of this thesis are thus set in place and the central problem is then elucidated. The complexity and philosophical ambiguity of the problem requires a coherent and systematic methodology if the argument is to remain sensible. Additionally, since Wilber’s Integral Philosophy suggests the synthesis of all possible experience and knowledge, a <ul style="display: flex;"><li style="flex:1">uniquely constructed multi-methodology may facilitate </li><li style="flex:1">a</li><li style="flex:1">more consistent re- </li></ul>3Reference to noetics is deliberate in this context. Colloquially, noetics simply refers to the general faculties of intellection, reason, learning or understanding, but more accurately the Greek νοῦς (nous) implies a quality akin to soul as the source of the manifest realm. Pythagoreans in the sixth century BCE used νοῦς as a descriptor for the World Soul, and for neo-Platonists in the third century CE it implied the essence of the One or the Non-dual. The correlation to the priority of intellectual percipience illuminates the paradoxical gap between reason and mystery. The paradox is revealed in the extent to which mystery can only be described as mystery by employing the faculties of reason. Reason and mystery are not, in other words, descriptively exclusive and noetics clearly captures the essence of this integrated dimensionality. 2conceptualisation of the subject under scrutiny within the inevitable density of information packed into this study. The structure and division of chapters in this thesis are therefore demarcated to carefully evaluate the primary issues in Wilber’s interpretation of mystical consciousness. Following the appraisal of Wilber’s Integral Philosophy an attempt to reveal the importance of a more coherent hypothesis will be proffered in the penultimate chapter. The scope of potentially relevant literature in this study is staggering. Criteria therefore need to be set in place to distil the most pertinent and current theories which speak most specifically into present understandings of mysticism and consciousness. 1.2 The Quest for Consistency and Coherence: The Purpose of this Research 1.2.1 The Context of this Research Studies in Christian mysticism are commonly, though not exclusively, tendered from Essentialist vantage-points which employ the epistemological instruments of theology, spirituality, mystagogy, phenomenology, and various types of psychology. In this case however, a view from the opposite Physicalist end of the spectrum will be proposed which utilises varieties of rational-philosophical and scientific media. The precarious heuristic terrain in this alternative approach is revealed in the degree to which a Physicalist explanation deigns to venture into theological-spiritual territories. It furthermore aims to do so with consistent and coherent renderings of the non-dual phenomenon in mysticism. Such an endeavour risks raising the ire of both the Essentialists and the Physicalists; the former claiming reductionism and the latter a breach of scientific or empirical protocols. However, in today’s interdisciplinary environment such sharp territorial demarcations may foreclose heuristic inquiry. Schneiders (1993:13), writing from the emerging academic study of spirituality, similarly encourages examination of the theoretical and existential character of spiritual phenomena by considering their inter-faith variety, structure in consciousness, criteria for adequacy, and position in socio-cultural and aesthetic contexts. Is it possible within this more intentional and positive approach to the study of spirituality for a Physicalist rendering to make a meaningful contribution to research in non-dual mystical consciousness?

Non-Duality in Ken Wilber's Integral Philosophy

Details

Download

Copyright

We respect the copyrights and intellectual property rights of all users. All uploaded documents are either original works of the uploader or authorized works of the rightful owners.

Support