Dialectic
Jan 10th, 2005, 12:16 AM
Our boy Fux sent me a couple emails a while back asking a few questions on Third Tier awareness. My answers will not be comprehensive, as I admit to having little direct experiential knowledge, so I will answer what I can and perhaps just lay down a few ideas for what I am not certain about (which is much).
So I'm a bit further in listening to this Brief History of Everything. Right now Wilber is speaking of the Causal State. What I'm wondering about and want to ask you is that, since he describes the Causal State as Emptinesss/Wtness/etc. as free from objects, thoughts, etc. is he suggesting that this is something that is beyond God?
There are subtle distinctions between the four (and he admits this is somewhat arbitrary: he sees four fairly clear and differentiable "levels," but this is aking to splitting the rainbow into seven core colors) Third Tier stages or levels, and actually, the "final" stage is not really a "stage" at all, is not final, but at the same time is not separable from the rest of the "spectrum." We must remember that the universe is holonic, and that processes of development may be described in holarchical terms. We can go infinitely "high" and infinitely "low."
Causal precedes Non-Dual, and in that Causal state, "full" abiding realization has not yet occurred, though it is of course quite close. In Non-Dual, subjectification, objectification, and exclusivity "fall away," but we must be careful when we describe it thus, as everything that exists still exists: we are perceiving things from an infinitely expanding and open awareness.
Also, critical to our understanding and ability to answer the question is our conception of "God." When we refer to "God," we are referring to the "Witness," to "Emptiness," to the Non-Dual ground of manifestation, which can be conceptualized but is NOT a concept or thought or feeling, but that open ground in which concepts and thoughts and feelings (and time and existence and consciousness) arise.
Further, something which I've been trying to figure out in his theory, is what does this mean in regards to God? Is he suggesting God exists merely at the Subtle State; that is a creation for those that are experiencing deity mysticism?
No. "God," in our terminology is unmanifest and yet manifests as all things. It is "the One" and it is also "the Many" and is also "the One and the Many" and there are probably a few other combinations/ negations which apply/ don't apply, depending on what context you're speaking in.
From what I understand now, it seems that Wilber takes God to mean in the much broader, abstract, and general sense; that is the One Taste that is seen at the Non Dual Stage, is this correct?
This is what I refer to in an earlier thread when I said it's best to save questions 'til the end. The "God" he is talking about, while broad, is not abstract, it is quite real and perceivable. We must simply (and most difficultly) be open and aware, and eventually, things begin to clarify, and we realize just how wide our consciousness is, and we begin to let go of limiting First and Second Tier perceptions.
Also, going back to his description of The Witness at the Causal Stage, he describes The Witness as something that cannot be seen, i.e. as an object or perhaps an emotion(?).
No. The "Witness" can be objectified and discussed and seen and sensed, but this is not the "Witness," this is our idea of the Witness, and this distinction is important. Emotions and objects rise and fall; the Witness is the ground in which they rise and fall, and is also that which rises and falls, but is not exclusively so.
If this is true, how can there even be a knowledge of The Witness. That is, since The Witness cannot be seen and sees everything, as I understand it, or rather is outside of the "boundaries" that we humans are "trapped" in, how can we as humans even have knowledge of this?
Knowledge of the "Witness" may be developed both objectively and subjectively. Objectively by reasoning it out: we can be aware of many things: thoughts, feelings, sensations, identities, but none are permanent and all pass, but what is that which is aware? Something sees, wants, loves, hates, conceives of itself, but that something cannot be so easily pinned down, and much literature has been written, academically and popularly, concerning just how ephemeral a notion of real absolute identity is. Knowledge is developed subjectively via contemplation and experiential evidence.
Unless Wilber means to suggest that it's those things that we have absolute no knowledge of or existance in our minds.
No, he's not suggesting this at all. Even where there is great doubt, where we doubt knowledge or even existence, there is always something that is doubting, isn't there? There is something that realizes something is doubting. There is something that realizes that something that realizes something is doubting, etc. What is that thing? We have already proven that its existence is experientially unquestionable ("you" experience great doubt), but at the same time, it seems infinitely vast.
And if that's the case there theoretically should be no way to attain the feeling of The Witness, right?
That's not hte case, and the "Witness" is not merely a feeling.
Finally, for now, I think overall Wilber's teachings provide a good framework and theory for how the universe works especially in relation to humans.
ITP (which is quite deep, as a reading of SES will tell you) is a useful conceptual tool through which we may perceive and understand the universe in useful, insightful ways: it does not claim to be an all-encompassing absolute model, and it acknowledges that the future will bring even more comprehsive and insightful models.
I have a gripe however with his teachings, mainly in regards to religion. I understand that it's essentially a philosophy vs. theology stance and that taking any one stance would probably change things into what he describes as Flatland.
I'm not certain what you're getting at here. What I can say its that it's not essentially a "philosophy vs. theology" stance.
But, I honestly don't think one can simply take religions, especially monothestic ones, in the manner that he did when discussing the Ascending and Descending conflict. That is, from what I take it, that those monotheistic religions are results of the Ascendants and that the religions are the way they are because of that.
We would have to clarify your understanding of what "way" the religions are, as well as just what you perceive "Ascending" and "Descending" to mean. One of his central points with regard to the monotheistic religions and Christianity in particular is that they make "God" and divinity and divine awareness unreachable, unknowable, unattainable, and utterly separate from experience. This is a result of Ascending patterns (striving toward the "One") to the exclusion of Descending patterns (embraing the "Many"), to put it simply.
The result, of course, is that no one can really be divine or divinely aware unless he happens to be the son of God, and anyone claiming any sort of divine or deep and radical awareness becomes an enemy and a threat and must be neutralized or killed (which is what happened to a great many Christians, to say nothing of members of other religions). At the same time, it causes an internal block: my strong and abiding and utter faith and belief that Jesus is more special than me and that I can never know God in the way Jesus or even the Apostles did prevents me from moving beyond a certain point of development.
Anyways, any more insight would be great.
I hope this helps. I know I've been pretty vague. I've answered your questions as best I can at this time.
So I'm a bit further in listening to this Brief History of Everything. Right now Wilber is speaking of the Causal State. What I'm wondering about and want to ask you is that, since he describes the Causal State as Emptinesss/Wtness/etc. as free from objects, thoughts, etc. is he suggesting that this is something that is beyond God?
There are subtle distinctions between the four (and he admits this is somewhat arbitrary: he sees four fairly clear and differentiable "levels," but this is aking to splitting the rainbow into seven core colors) Third Tier stages or levels, and actually, the "final" stage is not really a "stage" at all, is not final, but at the same time is not separable from the rest of the "spectrum." We must remember that the universe is holonic, and that processes of development may be described in holarchical terms. We can go infinitely "high" and infinitely "low."
Causal precedes Non-Dual, and in that Causal state, "full" abiding realization has not yet occurred, though it is of course quite close. In Non-Dual, subjectification, objectification, and exclusivity "fall away," but we must be careful when we describe it thus, as everything that exists still exists: we are perceiving things from an infinitely expanding and open awareness.
Also, critical to our understanding and ability to answer the question is our conception of "God." When we refer to "God," we are referring to the "Witness," to "Emptiness," to the Non-Dual ground of manifestation, which can be conceptualized but is NOT a concept or thought or feeling, but that open ground in which concepts and thoughts and feelings (and time and existence and consciousness) arise.
Further, something which I've been trying to figure out in his theory, is what does this mean in regards to God? Is he suggesting God exists merely at the Subtle State; that is a creation for those that are experiencing deity mysticism?
No. "God," in our terminology is unmanifest and yet manifests as all things. It is "the One" and it is also "the Many" and is also "the One and the Many" and there are probably a few other combinations/ negations which apply/ don't apply, depending on what context you're speaking in.
From what I understand now, it seems that Wilber takes God to mean in the much broader, abstract, and general sense; that is the One Taste that is seen at the Non Dual Stage, is this correct?
This is what I refer to in an earlier thread when I said it's best to save questions 'til the end. The "God" he is talking about, while broad, is not abstract, it is quite real and perceivable. We must simply (and most difficultly) be open and aware, and eventually, things begin to clarify, and we realize just how wide our consciousness is, and we begin to let go of limiting First and Second Tier perceptions.
Also, going back to his description of The Witness at the Causal Stage, he describes The Witness as something that cannot be seen, i.e. as an object or perhaps an emotion(?).
No. The "Witness" can be objectified and discussed and seen and sensed, but this is not the "Witness," this is our idea of the Witness, and this distinction is important. Emotions and objects rise and fall; the Witness is the ground in which they rise and fall, and is also that which rises and falls, but is not exclusively so.
If this is true, how can there even be a knowledge of The Witness. That is, since The Witness cannot be seen and sees everything, as I understand it, or rather is outside of the "boundaries" that we humans are "trapped" in, how can we as humans even have knowledge of this?
Knowledge of the "Witness" may be developed both objectively and subjectively. Objectively by reasoning it out: we can be aware of many things: thoughts, feelings, sensations, identities, but none are permanent and all pass, but what is that which is aware? Something sees, wants, loves, hates, conceives of itself, but that something cannot be so easily pinned down, and much literature has been written, academically and popularly, concerning just how ephemeral a notion of real absolute identity is. Knowledge is developed subjectively via contemplation and experiential evidence.
Unless Wilber means to suggest that it's those things that we have absolute no knowledge of or existance in our minds.
No, he's not suggesting this at all. Even where there is great doubt, where we doubt knowledge or even existence, there is always something that is doubting, isn't there? There is something that realizes something is doubting. There is something that realizes that something that realizes something is doubting, etc. What is that thing? We have already proven that its existence is experientially unquestionable ("you" experience great doubt), but at the same time, it seems infinitely vast.
And if that's the case there theoretically should be no way to attain the feeling of The Witness, right?
That's not hte case, and the "Witness" is not merely a feeling.
Finally, for now, I think overall Wilber's teachings provide a good framework and theory for how the universe works especially in relation to humans.
ITP (which is quite deep, as a reading of SES will tell you) is a useful conceptual tool through which we may perceive and understand the universe in useful, insightful ways: it does not claim to be an all-encompassing absolute model, and it acknowledges that the future will bring even more comprehsive and insightful models.
I have a gripe however with his teachings, mainly in regards to religion. I understand that it's essentially a philosophy vs. theology stance and that taking any one stance would probably change things into what he describes as Flatland.
I'm not certain what you're getting at here. What I can say its that it's not essentially a "philosophy vs. theology" stance.
But, I honestly don't think one can simply take religions, especially monothestic ones, in the manner that he did when discussing the Ascending and Descending conflict. That is, from what I take it, that those monotheistic religions are results of the Ascendants and that the religions are the way they are because of that.
We would have to clarify your understanding of what "way" the religions are, as well as just what you perceive "Ascending" and "Descending" to mean. One of his central points with regard to the monotheistic religions and Christianity in particular is that they make "God" and divinity and divine awareness unreachable, unknowable, unattainable, and utterly separate from experience. This is a result of Ascending patterns (striving toward the "One") to the exclusion of Descending patterns (embraing the "Many"), to put it simply.
The result, of course, is that no one can really be divine or divinely aware unless he happens to be the son of God, and anyone claiming any sort of divine or deep and radical awareness becomes an enemy and a threat and must be neutralized or killed (which is what happened to a great many Christians, to say nothing of members of other religions). At the same time, it causes an internal block: my strong and abiding and utter faith and belief that Jesus is more special than me and that I can never know God in the way Jesus or even the Apostles did prevents me from moving beyond a certain point of development.
Anyways, any more insight would be great.
I hope this helps. I know I've been pretty vague. I've answered your questions as best I can at this time.