Wilbers new book - "Finding Radical Wholeness"

[SeaMonster]

1 hour ago, aurum said:

There are degrees of wholeness. So the title is likely appropriate.

If he'd titled the book, "Finding Wholeness," how would it have made the meaning any different?

It wouldn't.  He may as well  have titled it "Finding Super-Duper Wholeness" by Ken Wilber The Pretentious Asshole.

He's basically saying "that other wholeness authors talk about? That's not the ultimate wholeness. Mine is."

A guarantee he's full of shit, in other words.

Edited April 15 by SeaMonster

[UnbornTao]

2 hours ago, aurum said:

There are degrees of wholeness.

Then it isn't whole nor complete by definition.

[SeaMonster]

3 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

Then it isn't whole nor complete by definition.

...and if you are using a word in a way that's different from commonly accepted meanings, you might be a narcissistic manipulator.

[aurum]

1 hour ago, SeaMonster said:

If he'd titled the book, "Finding Wholeness," how would it have made the meaning any different?

He probably could have. But most likely he is setting up a comparison between lower degrees and higher degrees of wholeness. This is in alignment with his holonic philosophy of integration. Thus, “radical” wholeness.

In addition, it could also be a reference to integration along multiple lines, i.e his ideas around Growing Up, Showing Up, Waking Up, etc.

1 hour ago, SeaMonster said:

A guarantee he's full of shit, in other words.

That’s a pretty big assumption based on just a simple book title.

What is your beef with Wilber? Not saying the guy is right about everything, but it seems like you really don’t like him.

Edited April 15 by aurum

[aurum]

10 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

Then it isn't whole nor complete by definition.

Not from a holonic perspective. Which is at the center of Wilber’s work.

[UnbornTao]

@aurum whole, unbroken, complete, integral. A vase is either whole or it has a crack, at which point it is no longer complete. Its function is already diminished or broken.

A perspective is partial. How do you define whole?

Edited April 16 by UnbornTao

[SeaMonster]

22 minutes ago, aurum said:

That’s a pretty big assumption based on just a simple book title.

What is your beef with Wilber? Not saying the guy is right about everything, but it seems like you really don’t like him.

I think the kinds of models he hawks for personal development just get people more into their ego (in insidious ways) as opposed to towards "wholeness."  So he's leading a lot of people astray.  Also, there's a cult-like element to the community and teachings.

I fundamentally disagree with the premise that one should consciously develop along the dimension of structures of consciousness (in other words, Orange -> Green -> Yellow, etc.)  Anyone who suggests such a thing is either a cult leader or simply doesn't understand psychology.

The egoic element in man loves shit like that and seizes on it with glee.  "Wholeness" is about accepting that you aren't morally perfect -- it's about finding a balance of the psyche.  All attempts at moral perfection are doomed to failure.  If naturally being at some stage isn't good enough for you, you're trying to compensate for a lack of this balance.

 

Edited April 15 by SeaMonster

[SeaMonster]

6 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

whole, unbroken, complete, integral. How do you define it as?

I was referring to Wilber, not you.  Your comments are right on.

[aurum]

11 minutes ago, SeaMonster said:

I think the kinds of models he hawks for personal development just get people more into their ego (in insidious ways) as opposed to towards "wholeness."  So he's leading a lot of people astray.  Also, there's a cult-like element to the community and teachings.

Sure there is definitely some of that. Although at the same time, I’d also argue you are not going to find a teacher / community who doesn’t suffer from the same fate.

The question is to what degree and how toxic it is.

11 minutes ago, SeaMonster said:

I fundamentally disagree with the premise that one should consciously develop along the dimension of structures of consciousness (in other words, Orange -> Green -> Yellow, etc.)  Anyone who suggests such a thing is either a cult leader or simply doesn't understand psychology.

Development is happening either consciously or unconsciously. Why would unconscious development be superior to conscious development?

11 minutes ago, SeaMonster said:

"Wholeness" is about accepting that you aren't morally perfect -- it's about finding a balance of the psyche.  All attempts at moral perfection are doomed to failure.  If naturally being at some stage isn't good enough for you, you're trying to compensate for a lack of this balance.

That’s your particular, limited perspective on wholeness. How do you know there aren’t other more inclusive perspectives? 

[SeaMonster]

1 hour ago, aurum said:

Development is happening either consciously or unconsciously. Why would unconscious development be superior to conscious development?

As I suggested above, there's an ulterior motive to conscious development, and due to that it's rife with self-deception.

(I'm referring to the kind of moral development Wilber hawks, not development towards some particular goal, like learning to play guitar to impress women or something like that.)

1 hour ago, aurum said:

That’s your particular, limited perspective on wholeness. How do you know there aren’t other more inclusive perspectives? 

Let me explain something about Wilber -- his fatal flaw is that he takes something that is arguably observable (different people are at different stages of development) and turns it into a kind of ethics (this is the hierarchy you should climb.)

He takes an IS and turns it into an OUGHT.

You can be a philosopher-ethicist or you can be a developmental psychologist.  When you try to mix the two you get dogshit.  Developmental psychology is about what actually works for people, not what we would like.  If my perspective is limited, can you provide any evidence that Wilber's prescriptions actually work in the real world?

 

Edited April 15 by SeaMonster

[aurum]

2 hours ago, SeaMonster said:

As I suggested above, there's an ulterior motive to conscious development, and due to that it's rife with self-deception.

However much self-deception exists in conscious development, it is less than the self-deception of unconscious development. Those are your only two choices.

Conscious development also includes working through self-deception.

Also, the entire function of this forum is for people interested in conscious development. So I’m not sure why else you would be here.

2 hours ago, SeaMonster said:

Let me explain something about Wilber -- his fatal flaw is that he takes something that is arguably observable (different people are at different stages of development) and turns it into a kind of ethics (this is the hierarchy you should climb.)

He takes an IS and turns it into an OUGHT.

Yes, he encourages people to development themselves. This is what most people need. If it becomes neurotic at times then that is admittedly a problem. 

You cannot escape making prescriptions in life. You are making prescriptions right now, in this conversation. Stop telling Wilber that he ought not take an is and turn it into an ought.

2 hours ago, SeaMonster said:

You can be a philosopher-ethicist or you can be a developmental psychologist.  When you try to mix the two you get dogshit.  Developmental psychology is about what actually works for people, not what we would like.  If my perspective is limited, can you provide any evidence that Wilber's prescriptions actually work in the real world?

You can mix the two just fine. Ethics, philosophy and development all interconnect.

As far as evidence for Wilber’s prescriptions, I can see them work in my own life. Test them out for yourself. You’re not going to get a scientific study proving his work.

[Leo Gura]

Radical Ass Wholeness

[zurew]

6 hours ago, aurum said:

As far as evidence for Wilber’s prescriptions, I can see them work in my own life. Test them out for yourself. You’re not going to get a scientific study proving his work.

I think thats irresponsible on his part. Making strong empirical claims without actually establishing with studies how effective those prescriptions are.

The level of confidence in claims should be aligned with the level of evidence you have for it.

Just because some of these studies would be really hard to conduct that doesn't give anyone a free ticket to just freely make claims without needing to provide tangible evidence for those claims.

[Thought Art]

@NoN-RaTiOnAL Haha, yeah I am wondering what made him write it. I am hoping it's a refinement and more well laid out book than what I found some of his books to be. Though I haven't read them all, or any of them to completion.

@SeaMonster There are degrees of wholeness I suppose. You could take an all or nothing lens but, perhaps there is a lens where people over time develop towards wholeness. Perhaps so many people are so fragmented that this degree of complete wholeness is radical in comparison. 

Which would make sense because most people are fragmented AF

In the description of the book it says Ken calls it "Big Wholeness"

Holons?

Yeee braaaa

Edited April 16 by Thought Art

[StarStruck]

So release date is April or June? Link says June while guys in the thread say April. 

Edited April 16 by StarStruck

[Thought Art]

@StarStruck Says June on Shambala website/ I think it was pushed back. 

When I placed my preorder local book shop confirmed it was June

[Schizophonia]

 

[Thought Art]

@Schizophonia UGH The Wilbur wig.

Do you Ken, do you.

Edited April 16 by Thought Art

[The Renaissance Man]

3 hours ago, zurew said:

Just because some of these studies would be really hard to conduct that doesn't give anyone a free ticket to just freely make claims without needing to provide tangible evidence for those claims.

I believe there's a compromise to make though. You have limited resources. You can either invest them more in creating solid proof for your claims, or you can invest them in pushing your exploration further.

As long as there's a philosophy of "don't believe me, test it on your own", and a positive intention to help rather than scam, ideas can be incredibly powerful, even if not traditionally proven. A LOT of scientific studies are worth shit for various reasons, so ultimately you need to test stuff for yourself anyway.

[LSD-Rumi]

3 hours ago, Thought Art said:

@Schizophonia UGH The Wilbur wig.

Do you Ken, do you.

Right! It is like he saw a wig while he was walking in the street and just bought it and put it on his head 
This is an accurate representation of post-enlightenment behavior ,