In this blog I have attempted to create a snapshot of the American philosophy of Pragmatism. In doing this I have emphasized how ideas are developed as part of, and in response to, larger cultural currents. Pragmatism emerged and developed during the height of what is known as the modern era which began with the European Enlightenment and grew to become the uncontested champion worldview in western thought until the midpoint of the twentieth century. The economic, political and moral failures of two world wars, a great depression and then the lingering cold war, were seen as the failures of the overly progressive modernist spirit.
The disillusionment from these events accelerated the already growing introspective mood of 20th Century America. In the Beatniks of the 1950’s became the Hippies of the 1960’s and a popular infusion of Eastern Spiritual teachings and practices swept through the counter culture. Simultaneously interest in psychology, particularly the psychoanalytic methods pioneered by Sigmund Freud, was growing rapidly. This interest in psychological processing led to the growth of a plethora of therapeutic modalities and theories of human development that multiplied through the course of the 1960’s and 1970’s in America.
Any seeker after truth and development during this time found at their disposal a dizzying array of approaches, methods, systems, practices, philosophies and communities – east and west – to choose from. Zen Buddhism, Tibetan Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism, Christian Mysticism, Judaism, Psychoanalysis, Psychosynthesis, The Human Potential Movement, Meditation, Martial Arts and so on. With so many different paths to human development popularly available it was probably inevitably that someone would come along and try to sort them all out.
One young American was confused by all of the diversity represented in these human development systems and wanted to learn how to effectively compare such seemingly different systems based on such a wide array of different philosophical and intellectual principles. His name was, Ken Wilber, and his answer to the puzzle of how these different methods of development were related was his first book, “The Spectrum of Consciousness.”
The fundamental thesis of that book is simple and elegant and arguably not entirely original, but it was described with an elegance and breadth of scope that made it enormously compelling. Wilber was describing a theory that recognized that consciousness had different aspects, different functions, and that these aspects or functions could be seen as existing as part of a continuum that he was calling “the spectrum of consciousness.”
The different psychological methods and spiritual practices that had become so popular in the two decades since the midpoint of the century were all aimed at the development of consciousness, but they were not all aimed at the same aspect or function of consciousness. In Wilber’s book he describes in detail how the different aspects of consciousness lie within a spectrum that has an inherently hierarchal structure. Some aspects of consciousness are higher than others. He then proceeded to match different psychological approaches, spiritual practices and systems of human development with the aspects of consciousness that they address.
This book captured the attention of many people and sparked what became called the “Transpersonal Revolution” and what Wilber would eventually develop into his conception of Integral Theory. As his theory grew he would eventually describe the universe as a single evolving continuum. Aspects of his theory closely resemble and were in part inspired by, the thinking of the American Pragmatists.
The firstness, secondness, and thirdness of Charles Sanders Peirce in particular bear a striking resemblance to Wilber’s conception that reality can be mapped into four quadrants. Like Peirce, Wilber starts with the three perspectives represented by the first, second and third person points of view. In Wilber’s construction, however, reality is divided in half twice. For those who might not be familiar with these quadrants I will attempt the simplest possible explanation. The first time reality is vertically split into the inner dimension of existence and the outer dimension of existence – what I see inside myself and what I see outside myself. These halves are again split into individual and collective aspects. So the inner dimension is split into what I see in me, and what we share together in the form of inner ideas and values. The outer dimension is split into an external view of me or another and an external view of the world that we exist within.
And so Wilber in an attempt to understand the diverse forms developmental approaches that emerged after the fall of Pragmatism gave birth to Integral Theory.
Dave
/ January 29, 2010Jeff,
The first Wilber book I read was A Brief History of Everything, which lead me into Sex, Ecology and Spirituality (SES..a bench mark book) subsequently I ended up reading most of his other works. I commend you for your effort at a concise view of quadrant view….not an easy task!
I am wondering if you have ever run across the Construcal Theory of Social Dynamics byAdrian Bejan? The Constructal Law by Bejan (1996) states: “For a finite size flow system to persist in time (to survive) its configuration must evolve in such a way that it provides easier and easier access to the currents that flow through it”
Some deep thinking will reveal that this law appears to apply to our consciousness and conscious evolution as well. But the reason I started this response was to mention something else from this book. Speaking of social systems which would generally fall in the low right quadrant of Wilber’s theory, Edward A. Tirykian in an essay labeled Sciological Theory, Contructal Theory and Globalization, speaks about Talcott Parson’s theory of “four paramount differentiated functional areas of social (and, in particular societal) systems, involving adaptation, goal attainment, integration, and latent pattern-maintenence, with each of these four treated as a sub-system and collectively designated as the AGIL paradigm.”
It may even be possible to work these into parts of the AQAL system, which just helps the cause.
At the time I thought this was similar to what, not only Wilber was working with, but also some of Piaget’s and Erikson’s work, which Wilber drew from in his writings.
I guess the point of all this blathering is just to add on to the stream of thought. We all stand on the shoulders of giants and every now and then someone comes along to wrap it up nicely for use laymen to understand, before letting it unwind again into its nature to be expanded on again and again. Wilber, IMHO is one of those people.
Thanks,
Dave
Jeff Carreira
/ January 29, 2010Thanks for the post. I am not familiar with Adrian Bejan, but I will make sure I get acquainted. And I agree with you we are all standing on the shoulders of giants – and the more I read of the giants the more I realize that I have plenty to learn from them still. The first book I read by Wilber was No Boundary which was a “readers digest” version of The Spectrum of Consciousness. If you are curious to hear an interview I did with John White about how Ken Wilber got his start you can find it here. http://www.enlightennext.org/webcast/index.php?q=node/113
Liesbeth
/ January 30, 2010I do not know if people have time to listen to the interview, but it is very clarifying about verticality. Some lines of what it adds to the above: Wilber devised a way to place different approaches to the study of consciousness (both eastern and western, spiritual and psychological) into a linear sequential spectrum. Just like on an electromagnetic spectrum there are different frequencies: Infra-red, X-rays, gamma-rays, ultra violet or visible light that cannot all just be called ‘light’; so has consciousness different frequencies that cannot be all just called ‘consciousness’. Wilber showed that the different objectives of therapies (i.e. strengthening the ego or transcending the ego) could be placed in a rational way on a line, thereby creating a spectrum that was applicable to the process of human development from birth to Enlightenment.
Wilber has articulated the voice of second Axial age where so many breakthroughs in consciousness have taken place (first Axial age was 800 BC -200 AC was when great spiritual masters and philosophers articulated their thoughts in a way that radically reoriented western culture). Wilber has voiced our age, especially the notion of the stages of the enfoldment of human consciousness. Within these stages one can deepen and expand specific knowledge. But it is the consciousness itself that one functions in, that determines the perspective that the person has on that specific knowledge. There are clear stages of consciousness enfoldment beyond ego which eastern-, nowadays also western therapies, develop techniques particularly for problems that arise in these stages. To help a person to get through that stage of development. There is a shift in consciousness itself, not in specific knowledge, or in intellectual understanding, but in the basic ground of awareness from which a person operates that a way to define stages of consciousness enfoldment.
The transformation of human culture in the first Axial age which set the course of human civilization towards individuation of the human psychic. Ken as voice of the second Axial age describes the reorientation of human values: a beginning to see ourselves in a different way. The first age defines the human, the second age is a reorientation of our values, of what a human being is in a manner that is equally transformative as the first age. Wilber opens the way to what our human trajectory is, a different order, a change of the way, what our purpose is. We have the capacity to create something new in the human civilization.
There is more on the tape i.e. the time before the first Axial age and other stages of development. New stages arrive more quickly. A new stage is a fundamental shift in perspective from which we see the specific knowledge. A new stage cannot be ‘learned’, it is a much bigger deal than any kind of learning would imply. Before our second Axial age there wasn’t the capacity to see consciousness as a spectrum; the ability to step back and see that people are holding different perspectives: it is a new way of seeing ourselves: who we are and what we are doing here. It will take us beyond a place that we recognize as human now.
Carl
/ January 31, 2010Only thing that I think is important to point out is that Ken has used other people’s ideas to build a synthesis of them, including Adi Da’s original Seven Stages of Life, which became the foundation of much of Wilber’s early work, and more recently, Don Beck’s Spiral Dynamics. He is a great consumer and synthesizer of others’ ideas. But these are not exactly his ideas in every case, and we should give credit where credit is due.
Jeff Carreira
/ February 1, 2010That is certainly true. Ken is a great synthesizer he has even borrowed from American philosophy. He has used the term “The myth of the given” for instance which comes from the philosopher Wilfred Sellers – I will have to do a post on Sellers sometime. But sure Ken has synthesized a great deal of information and come up with some important original contributions as well. Adi Da is some one else I would like to write more about when I next get onto more spiritual topics.
Brian
/ February 1, 2010Synthesizers make an important contribition – like Elvis Presley and Chuck Berry who, among others, synthesized country and blues to create rock n roll.
Ken Wilber’s integral quadrants help sort all those great ideas.
Catherine
/ March 14, 2010Hello to all,
I am late again and the post I am back on is about Ken Wilber.
Guys I don’t know what to tell you of positive about Ken Wilber. For me a synthesizer of ideas is just not a giant. There is a strict hierarchy there. A giant is someone who breaks THROUGH and gets something new for humanity, not only synthesizes what others have discovered.
I am not sure I would even call Ken a philosopher. Ken is juts not a Wittgenstein; not at all in the same category in terms of genius. In my opinion it is just saying something about the narcissism and shallowness of our western culture, if we end up to confuse a synthesizer with true giants.
I don ‘t see what is great with the quadrants. It is just completely trivial and any kid could have done the same.
Sorry I stop understanding you there.
I prefer to look completely old fashioned, but I will not betray my sense of what is true genius, because true genius is sacred for humanity, and to make a synthesis is not enough to get there.
Catherine
liesbeth
/ March 16, 2010There is another example of extreme simplicity: ‘ I think therefore I am’
Jeff Carreira
/ March 22, 2010I would agree with you that one of Ken’s strengths is as a synthesizer of knowledge, but that has also been true of many giants of thinking. I am not sure if Ken is of the intellectual stature of a Wittgenstein and I suspect not, but honestly I don’t know that much about Wittgenstein. I do think that it is only through time that the real genius floats to the top. Whatever is Ken’s genius – or if there is any real genius in his thinking – will be revealed by how much his thinking shapes the future. In that sense genius is partly in the originator and partly in those that carry the ideas further. Charles Sanders Peirece who I think really was a genius was ignored for about 50 years after his death until his work was rediscovered and many people realized that he had anticipated and in underground ways contributed to a number of very significant ideas that emereged after his death. So let’s not write Ken off completely.
Frank Luke
/ April 21, 2010I also began Wilber’s oeuvre with “Sex, Spirituality and Ecology” and was duly impressed. I’ve tried to disseminate the inside cover diagram of the Four Quadrants of Holistic Consciousness that gave me a true understanding of what consciousness entails. I also take away and have repeated here in my blogs Wilber’s pointing out that evolution continues and is ongoing and that the omega point of humanity’s evolution, indeed our destiny (!) is Enligtenment. I subscribe to this assertion that gives sense to much of what I have learned in my spiritual development. What has also added to my understanding of spirituality is what EnlightenmentNext propounds, that humanity is an interconnected web of consciousness and we all advance, some further some less so, toward Enlightenment en masse.
It’s occurred to me that perhaps a very black cosmic joke that were the planet to be destroyed in a nuclear apocalypse, that we, humanity, will all become “Enlightened”, reduced to the star stuff from which we come. ;o)
Frank Luke
/ June 21, 2010Jeff, re: “And I agree with you we are all standing on the shoulders of giants”
In the trajectory of evolution, there are those who present information of revelatory importance, what was not realized till their revelations. Sometimes this seems disclosures of new truths but more often it’s a case of sythesizing work and knowledge of others, not to be minimized. Thus we say we progress on the shoulders of others.
To point out the truths of others serves the purpose of reinforcing truths when that wisdom has maybe been put aside and neglected or unrecognized.
Catherine: it’s disappointing to note your characterization of Wilber’s 4 Quadrants as trivial. I believe to have presented those four aspects of holistically comprehensive areas of spiritual consciousness is something many may not have been as conscious of. May I ask if you yourself are so informed of those four areas of spiritual concern?Doesn’t the diagram serve as a strong reminder for your attentions of the four aspects? I would hope those sincerely interested in their spiritual practice and development do pay attn to Ken’s diagram. I often refer to it to remind me of my spiritual concerns.