Discussion in 'Religion' started by Master J, Apr 27, 2004.
Ignoring the other quadrants.
Thanks for the book recommendation, I will check that out.
Could you explain what you mean by "integral altitude"?
It does kind of sound as if, when you say "maturity", you mean "people who's views chime with my own internal narrative".
I guess I'm still looking for why we should privilege religious beliefs with a need to consider all quadrants when we don't make similar criteria for dismissing say, the belief that women should be subservient (or any other noxious belief). It seems like you're just asking for special treatment of religion without any clear reason why, beyond the fact that religious people say we should, which, of course they would.
THE FIRST RULE OF TAUTOLOGY CLUB IS THE FIRST RULE OF TAUTOLOGY CLUB.
I'm stealing that.
Preparing a seminar and I haven't got time to answer any of this.
Cool, it's been a fun discussion so far
That's the subject of Wilber's books, and that of the people he cites therein. He and his buddies gelled together a comprehensive framework through which to see everything, and relate everything, and make sense of everything, and compare everything, between and within academic and professional disciplines. It cannot be explained in a matter of paragraphs, but fortunately his books are easy to read.
There is that danger, yes, but ... there needn't be any judgment attached to the statement, say, that calculus is more mature than arithmetic. Ideally, that's the idea with "altitudes." The next step up absorbs and includes the lower, and then goes beyond it. New science is more mature than old science but there couldn't be new science without the old. Each successive level up required the one before it. As Isaac Newton said: "If I have seen farther than others, it is by standing upon the shoulders of giants." This is true across all disciplines.
The quadrant idea applies across the board to all subjects, not just to religion and not just to biology.
But that is falling into the trap of transcendental hierarchy. The use of the Y axis to measure "progress" is a dead give away
What, objectively, makes this Wilber guy more more spiritually advanced than a Thuggee cult member or a medieval crusader?
Hey, if we give religion as much credence as we give the rantings of a lunatic in an asylum, I'm fine with that. :]
I'm with David - how do you measure progress in the spiritual sphere? Does Christianity deserve any more respect than say, the cargo cults that worshipped John Fromme? Or must we consider the individual and social development that comes from creating false airports and praying for deliveries of guns and glasses from the gods? Let's call a spade a spade and say that humanity has come up with some very bad ideas.
Hierarchy, yes. Trap ... well, if multiple researchers working independently and pier-reviewed come up with the same measurable results (which they did -- that's the point, and the basis of the integral theory), then why disparage it by calling it a "trap"? Maslow's eight basic needs are measured upward, right? I don't think that is bad. :dunno:
The measurable results of researchers that he cites, who independently discovered and mapped out the same hierarchies. I said it's one of those lightbulb "Oh. ... OH!!!" moments.
Oh jeez, I haven't laughed that hard in a while! :happy:
EDIT: Also, this thread is amazing. That is all.
For anyone wondering: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_theory
I read around a bit about him. Sounds like pretty standard 60's transcendentalism to me. Pretty similar to Leary, but with more associations with dodgy gurus.
His place in academia is hardly secure, either.
I will get that book at some point though.
Transcendentalism is a symptom of dualism. The idea that complexity=progress is a symptom of modernism.
One of my favourite sketches is that an unnamed prophet has indeed come to earth but has been locked away in a mental ward after being a crazy person in the street ranting about the end f times - I like the sketch because it shows how we would treat a true prophet.
If any god was 100% true to the beliefs in the relgious texts or organisations then I think if be okay with damnation.
Also how does a religious person remain open to other religious which have principles fundamentally opposite of their own? Usually with followers making "allowances" in their belief system to accommodate it or destruction of the other. By making allowances are you still true to your religion?
Lol, sounds about right.
My wife always used to joke that if Jesus ever did come back for any reason, he'd have to come back as a 50 foot tall wizard for anyone to even attempt to take him seriously.
Yeah, me too.
I remember going to some born again thing when I was at college (because they had free food, and I wanted to save my money for beer), and being told that Jesus died for my sins. I felt insulted. I'll take responsibility for myself, thank you.
Separate names with a comma.