(no subject)
The comedy of Hierarchy.
I’m having an e-mail discussion with a guy, call him Bob, that is in the men’s organization that I belong to. It seems like he and I disagree on almost everything. It is hilarious in some deeply spiritual sense. It's almost like we live in different universes, but he is about the only other man in the organization that we stick with a disagreement in rather than just conceding that there is a disagreement. That is we have this one connection point that keeps us both here, able to meet, etc. And, that connection point is a deep stubbornness about self-determination.
He is one of my true tests of not knowing, of surrendering to not knowing, if I am right or wrong. Do I exist? I think one of the things we mean when we ask if we exist, “do I have some everlasting truth in me that can survive beyond this mortal life?” That is the question GOD asks? We are here to answer that question.
In the beginning was the void and with the void the echo of the void. When the void heard its voice it asked, “is there anything everlasting in the me?”
I will analyze my own godarma here. I have god say “me,” because that is the event in which the universe arises. Of course at the same event god also knows that it is nothing and that therefore the echo cannot be real. That is, god always holds both the alpha and the omega. Nonetheless, for those of us in the universe (that’s so funny) we are busy answering the question that was never asked.
This guy had me listen to an MP3 that is the start of the dialog between Ken Wilber and Robert Kegan. I know a little bit about Wilber, but nothing about Kegan. When he first gave me the link to the website, http://integralnaked.org/talk.aspx?id=335, I could not get in w/o paying. Bob has some hierarchical model of development, which is described on the page. I tell him, “Nothing that it says on the page interests me at all. Generally, systems that describe a system of hierarchical development turn me off. I have tried to read Ken Wilder several times and I get bored by it immediately.” Now, this discussion has already had several rounds so while I realize it is harsh and we are missing some context. I am just trying to knock this off because based on my response to these things in the past and my current state of interest studying someone else’s h-system will not hold me. Now I’m sure that Ken W. says many good things. My wife is a fan of his and I know a little of him refracted through her, and I am sure for some people he is serving a real need. I’m sure in fact that if I got through the style I would enjoy reading Wilber. But the truth is, I was yanking by friend’s chain.
Here are some quotes he gave me from the audio,
All values are relative ... but middle-class values are really screwed up.
Postmodernism got hoisted on it's own petard louder and more sharply than anyone else because they came down so hard saying that "there are no universals" (except their's), "there is no meta-context" (except their's) ,and "'there is no 'big picture'" (except they gave a gave a very big picture about why everyone else's big picture doesn't work ... except their's).
There is no frame on the world for which we have less sympathy and generosity than the one from which we have only newly, and perhaps perilously, begun to extricate ourselves from. It's the phenomena of the reformed smoker.
Many postmodernists tell us that all knowledge everywhere is culturally bound, there are no context-transcending claims, all knowledge is social construction and all knowledge is hooked to interpretations that cannot be reduced to empirical facts. They maintain that all of those are true, for all cultures, at all times, for all humans. It's a universal statement that says that no statement is universally true. Then they created a meta-narrative of their own that was loaded with all their absolutes and universals that were not open to interpretation, not open to disagreement but were simply true for all people at all times ... or you are a swine for not seeing that this is true.
He took these from the audio - I know ‘cause as you will see I did listen to it.
By bud’s response to my brush off was to ask if he could e-mail me the 3Mbit audio. How could I say no?
So, I listened to it and told him:
My reactions.
You did a perfectly good job of representing it.
From what I heard, I do not believe they would object to anything I said about hierarchy as a model for the way the world works, or about the inability to make statements about absolute knowledge.
They never described what their system was in this talk and I can't seem to get back to the website, so I have no specific comments about their system. I have no idea whether their model is useful or not, but my sense is that these sorts of models don't really help to explain the world and they don't help the people that are looking at them to change who they are in any meaningful way. I don't deny that there appears to be development, but it is my experience that systems of thought that are hierarchical don't lead to growth. They may be useful for people trying to get their heads around supporting people in personal growth. I.e. to map out the general system of development for most people may be useful to someone that needs a place to hang their coat before entering into therapy with a client. NTL, to ascribe one state as more evolved than the other is get confused about the difference between individual development and purpose (there is definitely confusion for me here, it is hard to identify what the opposites are here).
I have experienced a great deal of personal change that I usually call development. I believe that many people are experiencing similar growth and change and that this is having a great affect on the world and the way it is run. Even W. is affected by this kind of personal growth/change. But, this does not mean that the net outcome of all this change is good or bad. Or that all the people experiencing these kinds of change have the same vision for where the world should go. Good and bad will depend completely on what you use as your (culturally determined) measuring stick. To the point, I think that the right to choose abortion (just heard this subject discussed on the radio) is good, but there are plenty of people that it is bad. Where does this fit in the hierarchy?
One place where I disagree with them is in the discussion where they seem to say that the woman who underwent therapy and became happier moved up the hierarchy. Then because the observers of this process all thought that this was good, that this somehow meant they agreed with this hierarchy. This just means that they have a set of shared values. I probably share those same values, but that is separate from the intellectual framework that I apply to what I see. Actually, I always try to apply multiple intellectual frameworks to all of these, because each tells me something different about the event.
Then here is his return e-mail and my reply inter-mixed.
Like it or not there is a large group that has reactions to hierarchies similar to yours. I can't help but notice the similarities between your objections, other objections that I have personally heard, and the ones Wilber and Kegan come up against.
I agree that there are many similarities. Since I now nothing about what those others might actually believe, there really isn't anything else for me to say about it. But my sense is that these sorts of models don't really help to explain the world and they don't help the people that are looking at them to change who they are in any meaningful way.
My personal experience, the therapists I've been studying with, and the experience of many other contradicts your sense. But speaking of boxes I wonder if you are putting all of us in a box. A box that assumes that we don't appreciate and account for stand the difficulties that you see, that we use the models in counter-productive ways. In other words that we aren't at least as aware as you are. Strange given that you acknowledge that you know little about the fields in question
I'm sure I would learn something from your experience in this.
Since I have read Wilber, Kegan, and several other developmentalists I think I have the advantage on you regarding the specifics. But there is a dark side to developmental models. They can be discouraging to those who see themselves farther back than they would like to be. And they can be used as a put down as in "call me when you get up to my level.”
That makes sense. Have you read Gödel?
If your wife is a Wilber fan then I can see real potential for frustration there.
I wish it was my wife's fault. Unfortunately, its all me.
Once again I make no bones about it. I think I am way ahead of you on this stuff.
I'm sure you are.
And frankly I question whether it makes sense to be having this discussion with you. If it wasn't for the fact that there are many others in your bind and I am curious about it I would have broken off the discussion a while ago.
I don't mind being your guinea pig.
Now if this is not comedy, nothing is.
r.slime
I’m having an e-mail discussion with a guy, call him Bob, that is in the men’s organization that I belong to. It seems like he and I disagree on almost everything. It is hilarious in some deeply spiritual sense. It's almost like we live in different universes, but he is about the only other man in the organization that we stick with a disagreement in rather than just conceding that there is a disagreement. That is we have this one connection point that keeps us both here, able to meet, etc. And, that connection point is a deep stubbornness about self-determination.
He is one of my true tests of not knowing, of surrendering to not knowing, if I am right or wrong. Do I exist? I think one of the things we mean when we ask if we exist, “do I have some everlasting truth in me that can survive beyond this mortal life?” That is the question GOD asks? We are here to answer that question.
In the beginning was the void and with the void the echo of the void. When the void heard its voice it asked, “is there anything everlasting in the me?”
I will analyze my own godarma here. I have god say “me,” because that is the event in which the universe arises. Of course at the same event god also knows that it is nothing and that therefore the echo cannot be real. That is, god always holds both the alpha and the omega. Nonetheless, for those of us in the universe (that’s so funny) we are busy answering the question that was never asked.
This guy had me listen to an MP3 that is the start of the dialog between Ken Wilber and Robert Kegan. I know a little bit about Wilber, but nothing about Kegan. When he first gave me the link to the website, http://integralnaked.org/talk.aspx?id=335, I could not get in w/o paying. Bob has some hierarchical model of development, which is described on the page. I tell him, “Nothing that it says on the page interests me at all. Generally, systems that describe a system of hierarchical development turn me off. I have tried to read Ken Wilder several times and I get bored by it immediately.” Now, this discussion has already had several rounds so while I realize it is harsh and we are missing some context. I am just trying to knock this off because based on my response to these things in the past and my current state of interest studying someone else’s h-system will not hold me. Now I’m sure that Ken W. says many good things. My wife is a fan of his and I know a little of him refracted through her, and I am sure for some people he is serving a real need. I’m sure in fact that if I got through the style I would enjoy reading Wilber. But the truth is, I was yanking by friend’s chain.
Here are some quotes he gave me from the audio,
All values are relative ... but middle-class values are really screwed up.
Postmodernism got hoisted on it's own petard louder and more sharply than anyone else because they came down so hard saying that "there are no universals" (except their's), "there is no meta-context" (except their's) ,and "'there is no 'big picture'" (except they gave a gave a very big picture about why everyone else's big picture doesn't work ... except their's).
There is no frame on the world for which we have less sympathy and generosity than the one from which we have only newly, and perhaps perilously, begun to extricate ourselves from. It's the phenomena of the reformed smoker.
Many postmodernists tell us that all knowledge everywhere is culturally bound, there are no context-transcending claims, all knowledge is social construction and all knowledge is hooked to interpretations that cannot be reduced to empirical facts. They maintain that all of those are true, for all cultures, at all times, for all humans. It's a universal statement that says that no statement is universally true. Then they created a meta-narrative of their own that was loaded with all their absolutes and universals that were not open to interpretation, not open to disagreement but were simply true for all people at all times ... or you are a swine for not seeing that this is true.
He took these from the audio - I know ‘cause as you will see I did listen to it.
By bud’s response to my brush off was to ask if he could e-mail me the 3Mbit audio. How could I say no?
So, I listened to it and told him:
My reactions.
You did a perfectly good job of representing it.
From what I heard, I do not believe they would object to anything I said about hierarchy as a model for the way the world works, or about the inability to make statements about absolute knowledge.
They never described what their system was in this talk and I can't seem to get back to the website, so I have no specific comments about their system. I have no idea whether their model is useful or not, but my sense is that these sorts of models don't really help to explain the world and they don't help the people that are looking at them to change who they are in any meaningful way. I don't deny that there appears to be development, but it is my experience that systems of thought that are hierarchical don't lead to growth. They may be useful for people trying to get their heads around supporting people in personal growth. I.e. to map out the general system of development for most people may be useful to someone that needs a place to hang their coat before entering into therapy with a client. NTL, to ascribe one state as more evolved than the other is get confused about the difference between individual development and purpose (there is definitely confusion for me here, it is hard to identify what the opposites are here).
I have experienced a great deal of personal change that I usually call development. I believe that many people are experiencing similar growth and change and that this is having a great affect on the world and the way it is run. Even W. is affected by this kind of personal growth/change. But, this does not mean that the net outcome of all this change is good or bad. Or that all the people experiencing these kinds of change have the same vision for where the world should go. Good and bad will depend completely on what you use as your (culturally determined) measuring stick. To the point, I think that the right to choose abortion (just heard this subject discussed on the radio) is good, but there are plenty of people that it is bad. Where does this fit in the hierarchy?
One place where I disagree with them is in the discussion where they seem to say that the woman who underwent therapy and became happier moved up the hierarchy. Then because the observers of this process all thought that this was good, that this somehow meant they agreed with this hierarchy. This just means that they have a set of shared values. I probably share those same values, but that is separate from the intellectual framework that I apply to what I see. Actually, I always try to apply multiple intellectual frameworks to all of these, because each tells me something different about the event.
Then here is his return e-mail and my reply inter-mixed.
Like it or not there is a large group that has reactions to hierarchies similar to yours. I can't help but notice the similarities between your objections, other objections that I have personally heard, and the ones Wilber and Kegan come up against.
I agree that there are many similarities. Since I now nothing about what those others might actually believe, there really isn't anything else for me to say about it. But my sense is that these sorts of models don't really help to explain the world and they don't help the people that are looking at them to change who they are in any meaningful way.
My personal experience, the therapists I've been studying with, and the experience of many other contradicts your sense. But speaking of boxes I wonder if you are putting all of us in a box. A box that assumes that we don't appreciate and account for stand the difficulties that you see, that we use the models in counter-productive ways. In other words that we aren't at least as aware as you are. Strange given that you acknowledge that you know little about the fields in question
I'm sure I would learn something from your experience in this.
Since I have read Wilber, Kegan, and several other developmentalists I think I have the advantage on you regarding the specifics. But there is a dark side to developmental models. They can be discouraging to those who see themselves farther back than they would like to be. And they can be used as a put down as in "call me when you get up to my level.”
That makes sense. Have you read Gödel?
If your wife is a Wilber fan then I can see real potential for frustration there.
I wish it was my wife's fault. Unfortunately, its all me.
Once again I make no bones about it. I think I am way ahead of you on this stuff.
I'm sure you are.
And frankly I question whether it makes sense to be having this discussion with you. If it wasn't for the fact that there are many others in your bind and I am curious about it I would have broken off the discussion a while ago.
I don't mind being your guinea pig.
Now if this is not comedy, nothing is.
r.slime