Moving beyond old authoritarian models
Posted on Jun 26th, 2007
by 
M. Alan
M. Alan
Work on Integral Metaphysics continues to go well. With my constant revising and refining I've already modified the summary intro I posted earlier. Although only about half a dozen people have so far given feedback, their comments have still been invaluable. Integral Metaphysics may be a new type of book; one written in dialogue with the larger "new paradigm"/"cultural creative" community (of which the integral community is simply one subset). I want to get away from the old hierarchical idea of the philosopher or sage who gives pronouncements from on high (and this is what I intensely dislike about the Wilberian movement; it is so "old paradigm" in its intellectually authoritarian power structure). Michel Bauwens has the right idea with his peer to peer thesis. The age of lecturing pop gurus and passive and sycophantic devotees is coming to an end.
This whole old order way of doing things, was very evident when i went to listen to Gangaji last year. Gangaji would say something and everyone would sort of laugh, in that distinctive way that only passive devotees can. I heard the same in a soundfile from somewhere on the Andrew Cohen site (he was giving a talk on what he called Supermind, but if this was based on Sri Aurobindo's Supermind he got it completely wrong). And it is the same with Da Free John / Adi Da iirc (i used to watch some of his videos and also there were transcripts of talks in his old Laughing Man magazine). I have no experience of how people are around Wilber but i can only guess
(so-called) GURU: says something then makes a half-joking comment that isn't even very funny
AUDIENCE: titters as one.
Ok this is a cheap shot. But if the human race is to evolve spiritually, it needs to develop beyond this infantile worship of authority figures. People need to let go of this looking for substitute parent figures.
And this is why I am hoping that Integral Metaphysics won't just be about my ideas (although does anyone really have any "ideas"? We are all ultimately instruments of the Supreme), but will be just as much about the feedback and ideas others contribute too.
One thing I have been also doing in the book is replying to the sceptical arguments of academia and quasi-academia (e.g. Wilber) against metaphysics. .In the old days I would have just dismissed all these rationality- and modernity-based arguments. But now I have decided I should respond to them, even if fairly briefly (because there is more interesting stuff I want to talk about) . This has also made me more interested in the Traditionalists, not that I agree with their rejection of modernity and evolution. But they, like me, embrace a metaphysics that is based on gnosis rather than on mental reason. Huston Smith's book (actually compiled from a series of talks) Beyond the Post-Modern Mind is particularily good in this regard (even if i think he goes too far by dismissing Darwinism etc).
This whole old order way of doing things, was very evident when i went to listen to Gangaji last year. Gangaji would say something and everyone would sort of laugh, in that distinctive way that only passive devotees can. I heard the same in a soundfile from somewhere on the Andrew Cohen site (he was giving a talk on what he called Supermind, but if this was based on Sri Aurobindo's Supermind he got it completely wrong). And it is the same with Da Free John / Adi Da iirc (i used to watch some of his videos and also there were transcripts of talks in his old Laughing Man magazine). I have no experience of how people are around Wilber but i can only guess
(so-called) GURU: says something then makes a half-joking comment that isn't even very funny
AUDIENCE: titters as one.
Ok this is a cheap shot. But if the human race is to evolve spiritually, it needs to develop beyond this infantile worship of authority figures. People need to let go of this looking for substitute parent figures.
And this is why I am hoping that Integral Metaphysics won't just be about my ideas (although does anyone really have any "ideas"? We are all ultimately instruments of the Supreme), but will be just as much about the feedback and ideas others contribute too.
One thing I have been also doing in the book is replying to the sceptical arguments of academia and quasi-academia (e.g. Wilber) against metaphysics. .In the old days I would have just dismissed all these rationality- and modernity-based arguments. But now I have decided I should respond to them, even if fairly briefly (because there is more interesting stuff I want to talk about) . This has also made me more interested in the Traditionalists, not that I agree with their rejection of modernity and evolution. But they, like me, embrace a metaphysics that is based on gnosis rather than on mental reason. Huston Smith's book (actually compiled from a series of talks) Beyond the Post-Modern Mind is particularily good in this regard (even if i think he goes too far by dismissing Darwinism etc).
Access: PublicTagged with: academia, Sri Aurobindo, authority figures, Michel Bauwens, book, Andrew Cohen, community, culture creatives, Da Free John, devotees, Gangaji, gnosis, guru, integral community, Integral Metaphysics, metaphysics, modernity, passivity, peer to peer, scepticism, spiritual immaturity, Supermind, Traditionalism, Ken Wilber
academia
July 2008 
Hi Alan,
I really appreciate this blog. And you know that we are on the same page regarding authoritarian movements, and the feudalistic style of spiritual teaching.
The I don't know, though, if what you write regarding the laughter is a sign of this - I just had to think of comedians and their audiences. It seems to be the same phenomenon. People go to gurus and comedians maybe for the same reason?
I don't know, if discussing metaphysics or non-metaphysics really is important. There's really no way to know in a ”Ding an sich” fashion if something out there exists - we sure know, there is something, but what it is in itself … how could we know?
Let's do a little thought experiment. Imagine you are a Buddhist brought up in Thailand, and you go to one of these forest monasteries and meditate for 10 years or more under the guidance of a very good teacher. Now imagine you have a deep enlightening experience. Do you think that you would be encountering the Trinity? Do you think you would describe it as Meister Eckhart does?
Now imagine you're a Christian monk on Mount Athos. Again you read, work, and pray every day for 10 years or more, also under the guidance of a very good teacher. Now imagine you have a deep spiritual experience. Do you think you would describe it, and even experience it as Shunyata?
It feels to me that it's about time that we start to embrace both metaphysical and non-metaphysical views. In my mind an integral spirituality must in its essence be pluralistic that means that it is looking much more towards the relationship between forms then at the correctness of forms or even maps of these forms.
Love,
Mushin
hi Mushin!
You commenbted (perhaps tongue in cheek) “Maybe people go to gurus and comedians for the same reason…” I love it! :-D
Monk in Thailand and on Mount Athos - incompatablity of experiences. Jorge Ferrer (Revisioning Transpersonbal theoery) saysd this too. My understanding is that the differences are
(a) the interpretations of the surface mind and subconscious
(b) genuinely different realities - ie.,e. there are many paths up many mountains
But we are in complete agreement re pluralistic spirituality superior to old monolithic centralised and authoritarian spirituality
well, back to my book now…
love & light
alan
Nice entry, Alan
Yeah, all the things you mention about the old-style of guru worship are heavily rooted in that mindset, “this or that person is so enlightened,” and we as a world are finally moving past that; it's lost its usefulness and it's time to discard that model. Instead, all the mystics, seers, sages, oracles and prophets will work together, whether directly or indirectly (via the overmind/supermind maybe?). Of course, individual enlightenment is also a prerequisite, but it is not the final step! Although looking back I guess I didn't really say anything new here but whatevs =)
-arachnid
When will humanity grow out of its infantile worship of authority figures?
When we start living in total dependence on the only true authority, the Divine.
Btw I'm really glad you'll be addressing the metaphysics issue from an integral point of view. Metaphysics need not be limited to Traditionalism at all. I just read this on the Ken Wilber Shambhala site and found myself shaking my head:
”Integral Post-Metaphysics–and its corollary, integral methodological pluralism–is important, I believe, for many reasons. First and foremost, no system (spiritual or otherwise) that does not come to terms with modern Kantian and postmodern Heideggerian thought can hope to survive with any intellectual respectability (agree with them or disagree with them, they have to be addressed)–and that means all spirituality must be post-metaphysical in some sense. Second, as Einsteinian physics applied to objects moving slower than the speed of light collapses back into Newtonian physics, so an Integral Post-Metaphysics can generate all the essentials of premodern spiritual and metaphysical systems but without their now-discredited ontological baggage. This, to my mind, is the central contribution of an Integral Post-Metaphysics–it does not itself contain metaphysics, but it can generate metaphysics as one possible AQAL matrix configuration under the limit conditions of premodern cultures.”
Uh, what on earth does Ken even mean by this? And how does his position not come with its own metaphysical and ontological baggage?
hi Ned!
Hey, why do you think I originally called my book Integral Metaphysics (without the “post”) ;-) Except that metaphysics is not enough, hence the practical aspect, i.e. “Transformation”, is needed well
The simple fact is, Ken is a modernist and he is stuck in modernity, as his comment above shows. His words betray the fact that he is lacking gnosis. It is all head head head, the external rational mind (which he has developed to a supreme degree), without heart, without intuition. Dry, sceptical, unbalanced. That's why he can't handle ontology and metaphysics. He has to make them into dirty words.
If you want an authentic integral perspective, see Jean Gebser (Ever Present Origin), anything by William Irwin Thompson, or of course Sri Aurobindo. For integral science, Erich Jantsch (Self-Organising Universe) and D'arcy Thompson (On Growth and Form) are my favourites.
Real Integral (all-inclusive, transformative) philosophy is metaphysics is gnosis. That's why Ken still doesn't get it. All his arguments, his citing Kant and deconstructuralism and all the rest, have long been refuted by Huston Smith (Beyond the Post-Modern Mind), Henry Corbin, Fritjof Schoun, and co. Except that the Traditionalists, as we know, are unbalanced to the other degree. They have gnosis but can't incorporate modernity,. Just as Ken has modernity but can't incorporate metaphysics/esotericism/gnosis.
“And how does his position not come with its own metaphysical and ontological baggage?”
haha, hit the nail on the head! It's funny isn't it, so often people are so good at judging others, so blind at looking at themselves.
This is one reason I am concerned to get feedback for my book, to make sure i'm not fooling myself either. It really helps to have someone judge your work objectively. If not, it's easy to slip into self-delusion and narcissism. And this seems to be the trap Ken has fallen into; he has surrounded himself with adulatory fans and followers for so long that when someone does hold up the mirror, like Frank, he can't handle it.
I just looked up D'arcy Thompson – On Growth and Form seems to be a really beautiful book! A bit reminiscent of Goethe.
Yeah, I think it's good to get feedback, just as long as you cling to your own inner psychic anchor – that gives you something objective against which to measure everyone's opinions. I'm sure the book's going to be great, Alan. :-)
Yes, the inner psychic gives the most important feedback of all :-)
That's the spirit Alan. If people like yourself don't right metaphysics on an exoteric level at least [ which most are woefully ignorant about] it might not get done.
By exoteric I mean the theory, which includes the esoteric also.
As for these gurus, well the best we can say is that some people are trying to get it easy. It won't work.
This path is very hard work.
The Guru personality worship is part of man misdevelopement or on another level his fallen nature.
Good psychotherapy, self knowledge, and the practice of true religion/metaphysics is the antidote to this.