Passion And Ambition.

[Ryan Rudolph]

I wanted to explore the difference between these terms, and what connection exists between them.

First of all, when I think of the term ambition, I define it as the desire to want to work towards some end, whether it be a goal, a cause, an activity, and so on.

And when I think of the word passion, I think of the emotional drive that fuels ones ambition. Passion is often times egotistical, and so that is why most people's ambition is almost always strictly related to survival, and if there is any attempt at achieving anything higher than the amibition is usually misguided, if there is ego present.

So it is safe to state that the ego distorts passion, which in return distorts the object of ones ambition. One's ambition becomes outwardly striving to become famous, rich, a sexual icon, a successful scientist, which is the result of ones distorted passion - probably the desire to be noticed, special, be the center of attention, be remembered after death, and so on. All seem like egotistical obsessions.

Moreover, authentic passion comes from logical realizations, from truth or wisdom, when one realizes the nature of the ego, the nature of the world, and then ones knowledge fuels ones passion, and therefore ones outward ambition.

So ambition without passion is blind.
And ambition with egotistical passion is blind.
However, ambition that is the result of wisdom is alive and creative.

[Ming on Mongo]

Ambition is the drive, Passion is the reason why. Although it's only one of many reasons... others being, "Dad wants me to", "I'll get rich", "I'll be famous", etc.

But compared to those other reasons, I think few folks actually choose to follow their passions (or else they just confuse 'em).

[Ming on Mongo]

delete (double post)

[Robert]

Moreover, authentic passion comes from logical realizations, from truth or wisdom, when one realizes the nature of the ego, the nature of the world, and then ones knowledge fuels ones passion, and therefore ones outward ambition.

Passion for the truth leads to the obliteration of passion itself once truth has been realised. Living a life of truth then becomes the ambition.

[Ming on Mongo]

Moreover, authentic passion comes from logical realizations, from truth or wisdom, when one realizes the nature of the ego, the nature of the world, and then ones knowledge fuels ones passion, and therefore ones outward ambition.

Passion for the truth leads to the obliteration of passion itself once truth has been realised. Living a life of truth then becomes the ambition.

Dunno, we might be talking about different definitions of "passion". I think of it as something that's really beyond ego, expectations, knowledge, or even intellect, truth & wisdom. That's in a way, not unlike sexual passion.... visceral, all-consuming, and a force of nature that just "is".

I think of passion as a state where we actually "lose" ourselves, or as someone I can't recall once described it, "we are our most authentic selves when we are doing what we love".

Perhaps we're talking about 2 aspects of the same thing, like the Buddhist concept of Right Livelihood, where the goal is not only to do what fulfills your needs, talents, and passions, but also to become "liberated" thru it.

[Blair]

They are both dances around the truth.

See me dance Lord, see my dance?

I am not ready for you yet.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Robert,

Passion for the truth leads to the obliteration of passion itself once truth has been realised. Living a life of truth then becomes the ambition.

I agree to a point, but there is still a subtle passion there after ego destroying truth has been realized, meaning one still has interest in philosophy, scientific knowledge, world affairs and all the rest of it. However, the flame of passion is not as wild, it is more like a concentrated blue flame, rather than a the yellow flame from a wild fire.

Personally, I have no choice but to be interested in the progression of science and technology, the psychology of the ego, world events through the eyes of political and economical analysis, and all the rest of it...It all seems like a sort of passion to me, an uncontrollable interest...

And what is at the source of this uncontrollable drive for human knowledge and understanding? the desire to survive? the desire to socialize with others in some higher way? the desire to improve ones intelligence? probably all of the above.

Ming,

I think of passion as a state where we actually "lose" ourselves, or as someone I can't recall once described it, "we are our most authentic selves when we are doing what we love".

by losing the ego, we gain ourselves, our true self, but the goal is to not need activity to lose the ego, wisdom can do that, we can reason our way out of ego, but it is emotionally painful at first to see oneself as flawed, to see the irrational tendencies within.

Eventually, we can admit our psychological flaws without any sort of egotistical pain at all, meaning the ego can dwindle away, leaving only some hardwired imperfections of the biological organism.

Perhaps we're talking about 2 aspects of the same thing, like the Buddhist concept of Right Livelihood, where the goal is not only to do what fulfills your needs, talents, and passions, but also to become "liberated" thru it.

Yes, I think learning about the nature of the ego is also liberating, but ego-shattering psychology doesn't have to be ones only interest. Any empirical discipline that requires reasoning can be an intellectual interest. One of the main points of the Buddha is that ones work should not conflict with ones philosophy. For instance: if you believe jewelery is a redundant, wasteful and shallow product, then you should not run a jewelry company. The challenge in life is finding a way to survive that doesn't promote irrational values and behavior, and one that doesn't contradict ones ethics/morals/values.

***Notice- you cannot tell, but I'm making a value judgment about jewelery without any sort of negatively charged emotional reaction, which should be the goal - as huge emotional deviations into the positive or negative emotional realm are a movement of ego****

[Ming on Mongo]

Robert,

Passion for the truth leads to the obliteration of passion itself once truth has been realised. Living a life of truth then becomes the ambition.

I agree to a point, but there is still a subtle passion there after ego destroying truth has been realized, meaning one still has interest in philosophy, scientific knowledge, world affairs and all the rest of it. However, the flame of passion is not as wild, it is more like a concentrated blue flame, rather than a the yellow flame from a wild fire.

Personally, I have no choice but to be interested in the progression of science and technology, the psychology of the ego, world events through the eyes of political and economical analysis, and all the rest of it...It all seems like a sort of passion to me, an uncontrollable interest...

And what is at the source of this uncontrollable drive for human knowledge and understanding? the desire to survive? the desire to socialize with others in some higher way? the desire to improve ones intelligence? probably all of the above.

Ming,

I think of passion as a state where we actually "lose" ourselves, or as someone I can't recall once described it, "we are our most authentic selves when we are doing what we love".

by losing the ego, we gain ourselves, our true self, but the goal is to not need activity to lose the ego, wisdom can do that, we can reason our way out of ego, but it is emotionally painful at first to see oneself as flawed, to see the irrational tendencies within.

Eventually, we can admit our psychological flaws without any sort of egotistical pain at all, meaning the ego can dwindle away, leaving only some hardwired imperfections of the biological organism.

Perhaps we're talking about 2 aspects of the same thing, like the Buddhist concept of Right Livelihood, where the goal is not only to do what fulfills your needs, talents, and passions, but also to become "liberated" thru it.

Yes, I think learning about the nature of the ego is also liberating, but ego-shattering psychology doesn't have to be ones only interest. Any empirical discipline that requires reasoning can be an intellectual interest. One of the main points of the Buddha is that ones work should not conflict with ones philosophy. For instance: if you believe jewelery is a redundant, wasteful and shallow product, then you should not run a jewelry company. The challenge in life is finding a way to survive that doesn't promote irrational values and behavior, and one that doesn't contradict ones ethics/morals/values.

***Notice- you cannot tell, but I'm making a value judgment about jewelery without any sort of negatively charged emotional reaction, which should be the goal - as huge emotional deviations into the positive or negative emotional realm are a movement of ego****

Ryan.... I get the sense that you place alot of stock in the power of "reason", "empiricism" and "logical thinking". I do too, but there are a couple things that I've come to feel also need to be taken into account there.

One is just the general human capacity for rationalizing and self-deception. The other is the psychological concept known as the "shadow", where we not only deny the parts of ourselves that our ego finds unacceptable, but we still deal with it by "projecting" them onto others ("oh, I'm not prejudiced, controlling, dogmatic, etc., etc. ..... they're the ones!").

Seems that techniques like meditation (among others) help get past the limits of "logic" (and ego), but what do you think about all that? For example, whether it's recognizing our own "shadow", or just telling "passion" from ego, how do we know when we're being honest with ourselves?

[divine focus]

Personally, I have no choice but to be interested in the progression of science and technology, the psychology of the ego, world events through the eyes of political and economical analysis, and all the rest of it...It all seems like a sort of passion to me, an uncontrollable interest...

And what is at the source of this uncontrollable drive for human knowledge and understanding? the desire to survive? the desire to socialize with others in some higher way? the desire to improve ones intelligence? probably all of the above.

Yup. What is there to know without passion? Passion says, "stick to this."

[Ryan Rudolph]

Ming,

One is just the general human capacity for rationalizing and self-deception. The other is the psychological concept known as the "shadow", where we not only deny the parts of ourselves that our ego finds unacceptable, but we still deal with it by "projecting" them onto others ("oh, I'm not prejudiced, controlling, dogmatic, etc., etc. ..... they're the ones!").

Seems that techniques like meditation (among others) help get past the limits of "logic" (and ego), but what do you think about all that? For example, whether it's recognizing our own "shadow", or just telling "passion" from ego, how do we know when we're being honest with ourselves?

It seems to me that we deny the existence of the shadow when we believe that we are perfect from the outset, without flaws, and so on. We sweep things under the rug so to speak when we have an image of ourselves that doesn't reflect the reality of what we truly are, so whenever information is presented that contradicts our belief in a perfect image, we deny its existence. So yes, it takes an honest man to deny all image making, and conclusions, and simply observe ones behavior logically.

For instance: there are tendencies left in me that are not rational, but I seem unable to go beyond them. The bizarre nature of the sex drive, disdain and anger towards stupid behavior, subtle worrying with survival related affairs. These types of cognition are not rational, but I'm stuck with them for now, but always open to going beyond them. So do I believe that I am perfectly enlighened? No. Do I believe that one can acheive that ideal totally? I'm not sure because the hardwiring of the biological organism is fixed in many ways. Logic can fix many delusions and irrational tendencies, but perhaps we are stuck with some, I'm still not sure.

And I don't know what you mean by mediation, but if you mean sitting in stillness, and becoming presently aware, or analyzing the content of your thoughts as they arise, then I agree, mediation can be an asset.

And egoless passion and egotistical passion is a tricky one because great deeds can be done in the world as a result of egotistical passion, so it seems like egoless passion. The work of Bill Gates is one possible example. He is doing good work to cure disease and teach population control methods in the third world, but perhaps his passion is the result of the guilt he experienced after years of playing the role of shrewd cut throat business man. He bankrupt a lot of companies, and stole the ideas from other companies still. Perhaps his unethical behavior weighed on his conscience for years, and his present life's work is merely an egotistical reaction to it all. So it can indeed be tricky to know for sure...

or look at the life of Michael Jackson, he believed that by setting up the Never land theme park, he would create the best play area for children, but perhaps his own obsession with the lives of children were the result of an abusive and sexually perverted father that stole his childhood away, and such deep wounds were inflicted into his ego that he never matured himself, he remained childlike. So every attempt to make the lives of children better were simply his own feeble attempts at overcoming his own childhood demons that never healed.

"For the ego, it often times creates a life passion from its most traumatic event"

One more example: In my city, there was recently a suicide awareness march in the streets to bring awareness to suicide, but it was a farce in my opinion. All the walkers there had lost children to suicide, but they all thought of suicide as a mental illness, as a disease where the person needs to be medicated. And even though this is true some of the time, there assessment is incomplete because suicide is often times the result of an individual getting emotionally attached to things and then losing them abruptly, whether it be a wife, kids, bank account, career, house, and so on. However, no one puts this sort of spin on suicide because then they would be forced to own up to their own attachments, and the possibly that every one walking in that march could commit suicide. They wanted to make it seem like suicide is a rare mental disease that people are just predisposed to, but such an analysis is incomplete.

[Ming on Mongo]

Ming,

One is just the general human capacity for rationalizing and self-deception. The other is the psychological concept known as the "shadow", where we not only deny the parts of ourselves that our ego finds unacceptable, but we still deal with it by "projecting" them onto others ("oh, I'm not prejudiced, controlling, dogmatic, etc., etc. ..... they're the ones!").

Seems that techniques like meditation (among others) help get past the limits of "logic" (and ego), but what do you think about all that? For example, whether it's recognizing our own "shadow", or just telling "passion" from ego, how do we know when we're being honest with ourselves?

It seems to me that we deny the existence of the shadow when we believe that we are perfect from the outset, without flaws, and so on. We sweep things under the rug so to speak when we have an image of ourselves that doesn't reflect the reality of what we truly are, so whenever information is presented that contradicts our belief in a perfect image, we deny its existence. So yes, it takes an honest man to deny all image making, and conclusions, and simply observe ones behavior logically.

For instance: there are tendencies left in me that are not rational, but I seem unable to go beyond them. The bizarre nature of the sex drive, disdain and anger towards stupid behavior, subtle worrying with survival related affairs. These types of cognition are not rational, but I'm stuck with them for now, but always open to going beyond them. So do I believe that I am perfectly enlighened? No. Do I believe that one can acheive that ideal totally? I'm not sure because the hardwiring of the biological organism is fixed in many ways. Logic can fix many delusions and irrational tendencies, but perhaps we are stuck with some, I'm still not sure.

And I don't know what you mean by mediation, but if you mean sitting in stillness, and becoming presently aware, or analyzing the content of your thoughts as they arise, then I agree, mediation can be an asset.

And egoless passion and egotistical passion is a tricky one because great deeds can be done in the world as a result of egotistical passion, so it seems like egoless passion. The work of Bill Gates is one possible example. He is doing good work to cure disease and teach population control methods in the third world, but perhaps his passion is the result of the guilt he experienced after years of playing the role of shrewd cut throat business man. He bankrupt a lot of companies, and stole the ideas from other companies still. Perhaps his unethical behavior weighed on his conscience for years, and his present life's work is merely an egotistical reaction to it all. So it can indeed be tricky to know for sure...

or look at the life of Michael Jackson, he believed that by setting up the Never land theme park, he would create the best play area for children, but perhaps his own obsession with the lives of children were the result of an abusive and sexually perverted father that stole his childhood away, and such deep wounds were inflicted into his ego that he never matured himself, he remained childlike. So every attempt to make the lives of children better were simply his own feeble attempts at overcoming his own childhood demons that never healed.

"For the ego, it often times creates a life passion from its most traumatic event"

One more example: In my city, there was recently a suicide awareness march in the streets to bring awareness to suicide, but it was a farce in my opinion. All the walkers there had lost children to suicide, but they all thought of suicide as a mental illness, as a disease where the person needs to be medicated. And even though this is true some of the time, there assessment is incomplete because suicide is often times the result of an individual getting emotionally attached to things and then losing them abruptly, whether it be a wife, kids, bank account, career, house, and so on. However, no one puts this sort of spin on suicide because then they would be forced to own up to their own attachments, and the possibly that every one walking in that march could commit suicide. They wanted to make it seem like suicide is a rare mental disease that people are just predisposed to, but such an analysis is incomplete.

I totally agree, that whether it's the potential for suicide or the foibles and motivations of others, most of us would rather look "out there" than closer to home! BTW, have always appreciated that famous description of suicide, as basically, "a permanent solution to a temporary problem".

Yes, I was referring to the technique at the heart of most meditation practices, of simply sitting quietly, focusing on our breath, body, or a mantra, etc., as we observe the ego, quietly allowing our thoughts and feelings to come and go without judgment. I think that recognizing our own motivations and ego is pretty essential to discovering our passions (among other things), because all the logic and "rationality" in the world ain't gonna help if we're still blind (or worse) to any parts of ourselves!

Re: the subject of ego and consciousness development in general, in recent years have personally become influenced by the work of a fellow named Ken Wilber. You can Google or Wiki him and there are plenty of links, but I like his basically logical, rationalist, but multi-disciplinary approach to dealing with many of the issues you raise.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Ming,

Re: the subject of ego and consciousness development in general, in recent years have personally become influenced by the work of a fellow named Ken Wilber. You can Google or Wiki him and there are plenty of links, but I like his basically logical, rationalist, but multi-disciplinary approach to dealing with many of the issues you raise.

I think WIlber has some decent work, but I see him as a flawed teacher in many ways. In my opinion, the truth should always be simple, concise, and easy to understand. Wilber, often times, expresses himself in an overly cryptic, complicated, wordy, and flowery way. That isn't to say that he hasn't had insights into human nature, but his approach is ineffective. The truth is difficult enough to grasp, and he adds to that difficulty with unnecessary jargon, concepts, and language.

I have a feeling that Wilber's complicated way of expressing himself could be a cover up for the fact that he himself has a lot of mental blocks that he hasn't addressed. But maybe not...

In my opinion, the truth should be expressed to resemble clear transparent water, whereas Wilber's writings are a little murky in some ways.

[Ming on Mongo]

Ming,

Re: the subject of ego and consciousness development in general, in recent years have personally become influenced by the work of a fellow named Ken Wilber. You can Google or Wiki him and there are plenty of links, but I like his basically logical, rationalist, but multi-disciplinary approach to dealing with many of the issues you raise.

I think WIlber has some decent work, but I see him as a flawed teacher in many ways. In my opinion, the truth should always be simple, concise, and easy to understand. Wilber, often times, expresses himself in an overly cryptic, complicated, wordy, and flowery way. That isn't to say that he hasn't had insights into human nature, but his approach is ineffective. The truth is difficult enough to grasp, and he adds to that difficulty with unnecessary jargon, concepts, and language.

I have a feeling that Wilber's complicated way of expressing himself could be a cover up for the fact that he himself has a lot of mental blocks that he hasn't addressed. But maybe not...

In my opinion, the truth should be expressed to resemble clear transparent water, whereas Wilber's writings are a little murky in some ways.

If folks don't buy into Wilber's ideas, that's fine. But I never understand the personal attacks on him, and more than anything else, they remind me of what politicians do when they don't like an opponent but can't refute his positions ... they try to attack him personally.

Considering Wilber draws from systems theory, transpersonal psychology, and cultural anthropology (among others), and thinkers as diverse as Hegel, Jung, Nitsche and Aurobindo, and that he basically attempts to reconcile the schism between science, psychology and faith... yes, I could see how his concepts and lingo might seem a little ambitious and difficult for some! But do we disregard biology, physics, or medicine, because they're not "simple" or "clear as water"? And the same complaints could easily be made of Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism, and even Christianity, plus some other so-called "truths".

But in a "nutshell", what Wilber is describing is a holistic, four-quadrant approach to thinking about the evolution of consciousness. The four quadrants encompass the inside and outside of the self ("I" and "it", the conscious and the physical) and the inside and outside of groups, or cultures ("we" and "its"). This leads to his ideas about world evolution, and how the world has evolved from archaic to magic to mythic to rational and on.

Drawing parallels between world evolution and personal evolution, he's stressing that the evolution of personal consciousness must be an integral approach, i.e., it cannot just be logical ("it") and it cannot just be spiritual consciousness ("I"), but must be an integrated, non-dualistic approach.

And basically I agree with all that, regardless of any of Wilber's supposed personal "flaws" (which we all have anyway). I also get the sense that you're very strong on the "logical" (Mr. Spock) approach, and what I especially agree with Wilber on, is that logic and rationality are simply not enough. Whether we're talking about spirituality, consciousness and "truth", or just the difference between passion and ambition, to see the "big picture", there seems to be other aspects that need to be considered and integrated as well.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Considering Wilber draws from systems theory, transpersonal psychology, and cultural anthropology .... do we disregard biology, physics, or medicine, because they're not "simple" or "clear as water"?

We could just as well draw from the art of digging deep holes in the ground. Or railroad work. Potentially more revealing about our situation.

Isn't it clear how confusing the scientific, systematic approach in this context could become for the ever hungry mind? One can make the connections, having the occasional ooh or aah moments and create a whole new daemon, a whole new inner world to get fooled by, where it all now "makes more sense".

Wilber appears to be using in a rather impressive way the reli-science symbols of the age (well, to each age its prophets of course): systems, integration, theory all the while building on the scientific method yet he proposes a 'broader science' - a plain contradiction, as science is meant to be rather narrow to do its work properly. Wilber's work is not just complicating or beautifying but rather nice where truth is ugly, it's rather structured where reality is more raw chaotic in its unison. His work doesn't seem to prepare anyone for the onslaught of waking up.

But let that not prevent anyone from getting important insight from his work!

[divine focus]

Wilber appears to be using in a rather impressive way the reli-science symbols of the age (well, to each age its prophets of course): systems, integration, theory all the while building on the scientific method yet he proposes a 'broader science' - a plain contradiction, as science is meant to be rather narrow to do its work properly. Wilber's work is not just complicating or beautifying but rather nice where truth is ugly, it's rather structured where reality is more raw chaotic in its unison. His work doesn't seem to prepare anyone for the onslaught of waking up.

But let that not prevent anyone from getting important insight from his work!

Broader science is actually the way of it since the deeper or more accurate you get, the more of the whole you can see. Some people like complexity, and since there is complexity, it is useful. Everyone doesn't focus on the same things or in the same ways. Without everyone's different perspectives, we'd be missing a piece of the puzzle.

[Ming on Mongo]

Broader science is actually the way of it since the deeper or more accurate you get, the more of the whole you can see. Some people like complexity, and since there is complexity, it is useful. Everyone doesn't focus on the same things or in the same ways. Without everyone's different perspectives, we'd be missing a piece of the puzzle.

Good point. In fact everywhere you turn these days, instead of specialization, the trend seems to be headed toward more multi-disciplinary approaches in everything, from cancer treatments and biology, to physics, artificial intelligence and robotics. It seems to require a different type of thinking (and individual) to be able to not only understand several disparate areas of expertise, but also to be able to see the underlying relationships and synthesize a solution. In many ways, the ability to see "Big Picture" solutions IS genius.

[Blair]

The trend is toward what enslaves you.

It always has been.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Broader science is actually the way of it since the deeper or more accurate you get, the more of the whole you can see. Some people like complexity, and since there is complexity, it is useful. Everyone doesn't focus on the same things or in the same ways. Without everyone's different perspectives, we'd be missing a piece of the puzzle.

To obtain a broader view, multi-discipline or even a certain cosmology, is not the issue here. One would be left arguing for the value of philosophy...

The whole notion of Wilber's "integral science", somehow finding the core of religions and make them compatible with an empirical view is highly doubtful. To me it looks like this is based on two major misunderstandings:

1. that religions have a true core that has been embellished over the ages with ritual and literalism. This is a matter of subtly redefining what religion means for its practitioners. For the majority it are the cultural and ritual elements which makes the religion for them. Any possible core teaching on some meta-physical or arch-typical level is just not of interest to them and frankly it never will unless they loose interest in the cultural and ritual liturgy, which some would say would redefine what it is to be human. Missing from this approach is also the exploration of religious elements of the secular life which are also highly ritual and liturgical. There's a lot of exploration, research and dialog about this already in the social sciences but I cannot find much of it in Wilber's work at all.

2. that all these cores merged together provide an essential spiritual view on consciousness. But translated to the context of human understanding and relating, one would, by attempting this unifying, only create new myths and movements, unless put in purely philosophical, logical terms. But we already have philosophy for those inclined to work in such abstracts. And in science we have consciousness studies pushing boundaries as we speak. It's therefore not a surprise Wilber is accused of guru behavior, shielding his privately financed "institute" off and responding poorly to critics. It's very easy to turn into the next Hubbard with this kind of stuff, the moment one disconnects from the academic mainstream debate like he seems to be doing.

What Wilber keeps describing as the limitation of empirical science is in my view not a limitation at all. The limitation acts more like a disinfectant, a form of self-limiting. Science provides method, not meaning or moral. That is unavoidably creates opportunities for severe errors or misinterpretations we just have to except. The principle of the method supplies on the long term many opportunities to self-correct and reinvent without the need to somehow include the assumptions of higher realms, outside the god-given logical realm.

Wilber wants science to investigate not only the "sensorimotor realm" but also "the mind and spirit realm". But the way it happens now with neuro-science, various social sciences and anthropology he doesn't seem to accept. He seems to require a certain flavor for it to be acceptable. But to me it seems like chasing the magic dragon, always flying just out of reach. Perhaps he should have stayed within professional field of bio-chemistry to balance the unrestrained cosmological modeling urges he suffers from, or in other words his religious urge ...

[Ming on Mongo]

To obtain a broader view, multi-discipline or even a certain cosmology, is not the issue here. One would be left arguing for the value of philosophy...

The whole notion of Wilber's "integral science", somehow finding the core of religions and make them compatible with an empirical view is highly doubtful. To me it looks like this is based on two major misunderstandings:

1. that religions have a true core that has been embellished over the ages with ritual and literalism. This is a matter of subtly redefining what religion means for its practitioners. For the majority it are the cultural and ritual elements which makes the religion for them. Any possible core teaching on some meta-physical or arch-typical level is just not of interest to them and frankly it never will unless they loose interest in the cultural and ritual liturgy, which some would say would redefine what it is to be human. Missing from this approach is also the exploration of religious elements of the secular life which are also highly ritual and liturgical. There's a lot of exploration, research and dialog about this already in the social sciences but I cannot find much of it in Wilber's work at all.

2. that all these cores merged together provide an essential spiritual view on consciousness. But translated to the context of human understanding and relating, one would, by attempting this unifying, only create new myths and movements, unless put in purely philosophical, logical terms. But we already have philosophy for those inclined to work in such abstracts. And in science we have consciousness studies pushing boundaries as we speak. It's therefore not a surprise Wilber is accused of guru behavior, shielding his privately financed "institute" off and responding poorly to critics. It's very easy to turn into the next Hubbard with this kind of stuff, the moment one disconnects from the academic mainstream debate like he seems to be doing.

What Wilber keeps describing as the limitation of empirical science is in my view not a limitation at all. The limitation acts more like a disinfectant, a form of self-limiting. Science provides method, not meaning or moral. That is unavoidably creates opportunities for severe errors or misinterpretations we just have to except. The principle of the method supplies on the long term many opportunities to self-correct and reinvent without the need to somehow include the assumptions of higher realms, outside the god-given logical realm.

Wilber wants science to investigate not only the "sensorimotor realm" but also "the mind and spirit realm". But the way it happens now with neuro-science, various social sciences and anthropology he doesn't seem to accept. He seems to require a certain flavor for it to be acceptable. But to me it seems like chasing the magic dragon, always flying just out of reach. Perhaps he should have stayed within professional field of bio-chemistry to balance the unrestrained cosmological modeling urges he suffers from, or in other words his religious urge ...

Sorry, if you're already familiar with Wilber, then I'll leave defending his theories up to him, plus the many books, interviews and websites he has for dealing with those sorts of things.

And though gussied up in other terms, all your complaints about his "privately financed institute" and "guru behavior", etc. suggests that your quarrel with him is still basically a personal (and emotional) one.

As far as "finding the core of religions".... the idea of a "Perennial Philosophy" (coined by Aldous Huxley) and core "truths" that transcend religions and dogma, is widely known and understood, regardless whether you choose to accept it or split hairs about rituals and "liturgy".

But to actually appreciate that, requires other "tools" and broadening one's scope (and experience) beyond just the linear notions of "logic" or "scientific thinking". For example, do you have any experience with meditation (certainly one of the key practices of mystics and "seekers" of all stripes)? Unless of course that practice is considered anathema within your own "liturgy".

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Sorry, if you're already familiar with Wilber, then I'll leave defending his theories up to him, plus the many books, interviews and websites he has for dealing with those sorts of things.

You made the statement of being personally influenced by his work and liking his approach. When questioned you refer to elsewhere. Fair enough but I hope you understand it seems a bit disappointing: I'm interested in your view of his ideas. No need to introduce me to the textbooks :-)

And though gussied up in other terms, all your complaints about his "privately financed institute" and "guru behavior", etc. suggests that your quarrel with him is still basically a personal (and emotional) one.

It's the quarrels Wilber finds himself in and participates in online over the last years. This is a weak point of him and it's perfectly reasonable to point it out supplied with argumentation on where it connects to his theories. If you'd follow a bit the actual correspondence you'll notice the emotion involved is mostly Wilber's...

As far as "finding the core of religions".... the idea of a "Perennial Philosophy" (coined by Aldous Huxley) and core "truths" that transcend religions and dogma, is widely known and understood, regardless whether you choose to accept it or split hairs about rituals and "liturgy".

You do realize that "widely known" is not regarded as a mature argument in any serious discussion? [lol, that's a bit tongue in cheek]. It seems to me I didn't manage to get my point across. The moment you split the core truths from its religion, you'll end up with pure existential philosophy, or wisdom.

But what I tried to explain is that this doesn't "merge" with science somehow. Science just is born from the same source. So a new kind of science, "integral" flavored, is not the right approach. If Wilber would go much further he'd have demolished the life blood of religion (the fucking ritual) as well as the core of science (naturalism).

In the end this is what merging, unison, integration and holism ends up doing when left unchecked: it destroys that what is supposed to be divided, no, thrives by division. ["...they seek to unite what should be separated into a single effect of death and seduction" -Baudrillard].

It could be worthwhile to consider these ideas, they are not as unique and obscure as you might think, perhaps onlyunpopular and definitely not bestselling.

But to actually appreciate that, requires other "tools" and broadening one's scope (and experience) beyond just the linear notions of "logic" or "scientific thinking". For example, do you have any experience with meditation (certainly one of the key practices of mystics and "seekers" of all stripes)?

I can only tell you this: there's always a broader perspective possible which includes, not condemns earlier stands and experiences. Think about what I tried to convey, it's perhaps not what you might think right now.

[Ming on Mongo]

But to actually appreciate that, requires other "tools" and broadening one's scope (and experience) beyond just the linear notions of "logic" or "scientific thinking". For example, do you have any experience with meditation (certainly one of the key practices of mystics and "seekers" of all stripes)?

I can only tell you this: there's always a broader perspective possible which includes, not condemns earlier stands and experiences. Think about what I tried to convey, it's perhaps not what you might think right now.

It's a pretty straightforward question, and key to any discussion of Wilber's ideas (among other things): Do you have any experience with a meditation practice, or not?

Otherwise, it's like trying to discuss Julia Child's recipes with someone who's seen her on TV, but otherwise has never even boiled water.

In any case, I'm only interested in trading ideas, not quarreling about 'em (will leave that for the trolls). But thanks for chatting.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Ming,

Diebert dubunks Wilber's approach better than myself, but he's 100% correct about Wilber, as he attempts to turn wisdom into an empirical science with methods, systems, models, and many other things that just become an intellectual escape if one is searching for authentic truth. Truth is like a punch in the face to the ego, whereas Wilber's work creates a safe non-threatening haven for the ego to hide, and gain pleasure off a bunch of ideas that are so divorced from our direct experience that most are quite useless.

At least science solves pragmatic problems, whereas Wilber's writings do a very poor job of solving the problem of ego and delusion.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

It's a pretty straightforward question, and key to any discussion of Wilber's ideas (among other things): Do you have any experience with a meditation practice, or not?

First thing, I was replying to your implication I had to go beyond logic and thinking to appreciate your reasoning on the matter. It was not meant as reply to your "example question" although at some level it did address it I thought.

Even while I doubt the relevance of the question regarding the effectiveness and consistency of Wilber's thought, I don't want to give you the wrong impression by holding out: yes I have experiences and followed practices. Although I look back now to these "experiences" as merely transitions. Nowadays it's more like breathing. It is breathing of mind and body.

In any case, I'm only interested in trading ideas, not quarreling about 'em (will leave that for the trolls).

Trading is just skillful quarreling. In the end it turns out participants are always qualifying the exchange according to the attitude they take with them during the engagement. No escaping that one.

[divine focus]

Broader science is actually the way of it since the deeper or more accurate you get, the more of the whole you can see. Some people like complexity, and since there is complexity, it is useful. Everyone doesn't focus on the same things or in the same ways. Without everyone's different perspectives, we'd be missing a piece of the puzzle.

To obtain a broader view, multi-discipline or even a certain cosmology, is not the issue here. One would be left arguing for the value of philosophy...

You might say philosophy is a type of science, like psychology or social science but even broader. That would be assuming it was based more on observation/experience than a series of if/then statements (beliefs/assumptions). Non-academic, to be sure.

The whole notion of Wilber's "integral science", somehow finding the core of religions and make them compatible with an empirical view is highly doubtful. To me it looks like this is based on two major misunderstandings:

1. that religions have a true core that has been embellished over the ages with ritual and literalism. This is a matter of subtly redefining what religion means for its practitioners.For the majority it are the cultural and ritual elements which makes the religion for them.

I don't know if what he proposes is meant for everybody, or even any substantial segment of any religion.

2. that all these cores merged together provide an essential spiritual view on consciousness. But translated to the context of human understanding and relating, one would, by attempting this unifying, only create new myths and movements, unless put in purely philosophical, logical terms.

This is not such a bad thing. Even science attempts to tell a story (albeit very unexciting up till now). Stories are meant to change, since their audiences do not stay the same forever. There is a meaning to any sequence of events in relation the culture it is discussed within, and there is culture in any group endeavor.

Science provides method, not meaning or moral.

But there is meaning, since assumptions are held by everyone.

The 'method,' in my opinion, is just common sense. Experiment, pay attention to results, draw 'conclusions', experiment some more. Kids do this.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

I don't know if what he [Wilber] proposes is meant for everybody, or even any substantial segment of any religion.

Perhaps people too easily talk about an "essence" of religions, which of course the books and teachers they adhere to all confirm. But the "substantial segment" seems to have another view on what this essence is. This realization paves the way for the thought that we could be looking at an artifact of the desire to see unison and similarity, a desire born out of our very nature. A desire that doesn't always lead to the truth however.

Even science attempts to tell a story (albeit very unexciting up till now).

It seems to excite a great many of people. Why doesn't it excite you then?

Stories are meant to change, since their audiences do not stay the same forever. There is a meaning to any sequence of events in relation the culture it is discussed within, and there is culture in any group endeavor.

Agreed. Yet a story deviates from the essence quite naturally. No problem unless one confuses the story with the essence, yet again.

The 'method,' in my opinion, is just common sense. Experiment, pay attention to results, draw 'conclusions', experiment some more. Kids do this.

Sure, it all starts with reason. Although most would say the method starts with a hypotheses which the experiment can falsify. It's interesting how often the starting hypothesis and underlying question and information is forgotten: one does not happen to do experiments in a vacuum, figuratively speaking.