The end of dialectic? 1 Oct 2006 by Edward Berge
He goes on noting that this is the highest mental realm but that there are realms beyond it. However, we must use this level to communicate higher levels:
“Now, I do not myself believe that dynamic dialectical systems is the very highest level of worldview development possible. As is the case with such studies–and precisely because evolution produces greater depth, less span (i.e., there are fewer representatives of the higher levels)–exactly what constitutes ‘the’ highest level is open to further research. In my own system, for example, the stage of dynamic dialecticism–which is generated by what I call vision-logic–is simply the opening to even higher stages of transrational, transpersonal development. That is, dynamic dialecticism (or mature vision-logic) might be thought of as the highest of the mental realms, or the highest philosophy capable of being grasped by the ordinary mind, beyond which lie transmental or supramental developments altogether (psychic, subtle, causal, and nondual).
“Nonetheless, this mature vision-logic, with its dynamic/dialectical/developmental worldview, is the level through which most of the great modern philosopher-sages (such as Hegel, Whitehead, Gebser, and Aurobindo) have written and continue to write, even though they are often expressing insights seen at the even higher, transpersonal, transmental levels–and for the simple reason that, in order to mentally communicate at all, the mental realms must be used. These great philosopher-sages speak through the highest of the mental realms–the vision-logic mind–even as they are trying to communicate even higher transmental truths and realities.”
So for Ken there is something beyond the dialectic, and as I suggested in the fascist acts of 2006 blog it’s nondual awareness, which appears to be the final resolution of the absolute and the relative. What d y’all think? Or if thinking is too low a level, what do y’all intuit or perceive directly from your over- or supermind?
This entry was posted on Sunday, October 1st, 2006 at 6:25 pm and is filed under Integral Metatheory. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
2 Responses to “The end of dialectic?”
alan kazlev Says: October 2nd, 2006 at 6:40 am
Hi Edward
You quote KW as saying “Nonetheless, this mature vision-logic, with its dynamic/dialectical/developmental worldview, is the level through which most of the great modern philosopher-sages (such as Hegel, Whitehead, Gebser, and Aurobindo) have written and continue to write, even though they are often expressing insights seen at the even higher, transpersonal, transmental levels”
My reply.
First I can only speak for Sri Aurobindo, not having studied the others.
Is what KW says correct? Yes and no. In Kabbalah for example there is the ideas of different levels of truth when reading a scared text, with each level more profound than the preceeding. These are (from lowest to highest):
o Peshat – literal interpretation
“Now, I do not myself believe that dynamic dialectical systems is the very highest level of worldview development possible. As is the case with such studies–and precisely because evolution produces greater depth, less span (i.e., there are fewer representatives of the higher levels)–exactly what constitutes ‘the’ highest level is open to further research. In my own system, for example, the stage of dynamic dialecticism–which is generated by what I call vision-logic–is simply the opening to even higher stages of transrational, transpersonal development. That is, dynamic dialecticism (or mature vision-logic) might be thought of as the highest of the mental realms, or the highest philosophy capable of being grasped by the ordinary mind, beyond which lie transmental or supramental developments altogether (psychic, subtle, causal, and nondual).
“Nonetheless, this mature vision-logic, with its dynamic/dialectical/developmental worldview, is the level through which most of the great modern philosopher-sages (such as Hegel, Whitehead, Gebser, and Aurobindo) have written and continue to write, even though they are often expressing insights seen at the even higher, transpersonal, transmental levels–and for the simple reason that, in order to mentally communicate at all, the mental realms must be used. These great philosopher-sages speak through the highest of the mental realms–the vision-logic mind–even as they are trying to communicate even higher transmental truths and realities.”
So for Ken there is something beyond the dialectic, and as I suggested in the fascist acts of 2006 blog it’s nondual awareness, which appears to be the final resolution of the absolute and the relative. What d y’all think? Or if thinking is too low a level, what do y’all intuit or perceive directly from your over- or supermind?
This entry was posted on Sunday, October 1st, 2006 at 6:25 pm and is filed under Integral Metatheory. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
2 Responses to “The end of dialectic?”
alan kazlev Says: October 2nd, 2006 at 6:40 am
Hi Edward
You quote KW as saying “Nonetheless, this mature vision-logic, with its dynamic/dialectical/developmental worldview, is the level through which most of the great modern philosopher-sages (such as Hegel, Whitehead, Gebser, and Aurobindo) have written and continue to write, even though they are often expressing insights seen at the even higher, transpersonal, transmental levels”
My reply.
First I can only speak for Sri Aurobindo, not having studied the others.
Is what KW says correct? Yes and no. In Kabbalah for example there is the ideas of different levels of truth when reading a scared text, with each level more profound than the preceeding. These are (from lowest to highest):
o Peshat – literal interpretation
o Remez – Allegorical meaning, allusion and parable
o Derash – Moral or homiletic meaning, exegesis
o Sod – Mystical meaning, mystery
Wilber’s vision logic, and dialectic, would presumanly correspond to the middle levels - Remez and Derash in this example (and obviously there are analogous understandings and concepts of levels of truth in Sufism, Platonism, etc as well). But to get to the truth of the thing you have to look at the mystery, the mystical meaning that is beyond all purely rational-mental understanding (including Vision-Logic). You have to take the words as gateways for the soul. If you don’t do that, then all you are left with is intellectualisation, which misses the entire meaning.
So was Sri Aurobindo writing at the “vision-logic” level? My understanding is that he was writing at all levels, but ultimately he was writing at the level of Sod, mystery. So it is not, as Wilber says, that he tried but didnt quite convey the real transcendent, so he had to scale down his message to the level of the highest level of the rational mind instead. Rather, he very much did suceed in saying what he said from the highest level. And it is not the case that “in order to mentally communicate at all, the mental realms must be used” because you can communicate even to one who is at the mental level, without words, or else with words but without the usual (and necessary to us normally) chain of logic; surely Wilber would have learned that through his study of Zen! Likewise this would be how other enlightened sages like Ramana Maharshi, Nityanada, etc, taught. But it is the reader’s rational mind (and self-absorbed ego) that is the limitation, not the teacher’s capacity. So really Wilber has it back to front. This is why one can only understand what a teacher is saying up to the degree of the level you are at (not the level they rae teaching at). This is true with all mystics - Lao-tse, Plotinus, Abhinuvagupta, Ibn Arabi, Luria, etc. So if you approach these teachings with a purely mental, “vision logic” mindset, you will only have that limited mental understanding. If you can go beyond that rational level, which means going beyond all theories and abstract mental concepts (and Wilber’s vision-logic is still very much rational-mental, as indicated by his highly intellectualised and abstractionist style of theory-making) then you get the experience of the actual transmisison of that teaching, an actual revelation.
Yet to go beyond the rational-mental without the necessary spiritual maturity - and without the connection to a genuine teacher or teaching - is also actually quite dangerous, because there is a whole region of mixed and fake revelations: the intermediate zone. Only if you are centered in your Heart consciousness, and allow yourself to be guided by your Divine Center, you can avoid falling into that trap. But that takes a lot of sincerity, and being able to rise above narcissism, which only few who have these powerful experiences seem to be able to do.
Edward you also said:
“So for Ken there is something beyond the dialectic, and as I suggested in the fascist acts of 2006 blog it’s nondual awareness, which appears to be the final resolution of the absolute and the relative. What d y’all think? Or if thinking is too low a level, what do y’all intuit or perceive directly from your over- or supermind?”
Ok I am certainly not at the level of over- or suypermind lol lol I remember my old tecaher at Uni Moshe Kroy (the same one KW speaks about in Boomeritis) after reading Sri Aurobindo claimed to have experienced Supermind, but he was still full of dualistic thinking. There are so many levels, more rungs on the ladder than anyone can imagine. But yes I think that nondual awareness is simply the state when you go beyond the rational mind. Compared to our normal consciousnes sit is pretty amazing, but that doesn’t mean it is the Absolute. And of course there are many types of nondual awareness. There are first various shunyatas and profound meditation states. And beyond that there is the nondual awareness of the Intermediate Zone, where there is the experience of the Absolute Reality, Brahman, Atman, Buddha Mind whatever you want to call it, and as you aptly said Edward this would be a state “which appears to be the final resolution of the absolute and the relative”. But even so there is still a subtle narcissism, and hence delusion, as we can see in the paradox of so-called gurus with powers and knowledge but who behave in an abusive manner (I have already discussed this elsewhere, so no need to repeat it here). Then there is the nondual awareness where the ego is transcended and one attains genuine liberation in that Absolute Reality. And there would be many other levels and forms and types of nondual awareness, some theistic, others nontheistic, but all authentic. And others like that but not authentic. And so on.
Of course everyone has to find whatever “map” suits them best; the above is just my own take on Sri Aurobindo and other esoteric teachings.
Wilber’s vision logic, and dialectic, would presumanly correspond to the middle levels - Remez and Derash in this example (and obviously there are analogous understandings and concepts of levels of truth in Sufism, Platonism, etc as well). But to get to the truth of the thing you have to look at the mystery, the mystical meaning that is beyond all purely rational-mental understanding (including Vision-Logic). You have to take the words as gateways for the soul. If you don’t do that, then all you are left with is intellectualisation, which misses the entire meaning.
So was Sri Aurobindo writing at the “vision-logic” level? My understanding is that he was writing at all levels, but ultimately he was writing at the level of Sod, mystery. So it is not, as Wilber says, that he tried but didnt quite convey the real transcendent, so he had to scale down his message to the level of the highest level of the rational mind instead. Rather, he very much did suceed in saying what he said from the highest level. And it is not the case that “in order to mentally communicate at all, the mental realms must be used” because you can communicate even to one who is at the mental level, without words, or else with words but without the usual (and necessary to us normally) chain of logic; surely Wilber would have learned that through his study of Zen! Likewise this would be how other enlightened sages like Ramana Maharshi, Nityanada, etc, taught. But it is the reader’s rational mind (and self-absorbed ego) that is the limitation, not the teacher’s capacity. So really Wilber has it back to front. This is why one can only understand what a teacher is saying up to the degree of the level you are at (not the level they rae teaching at). This is true with all mystics - Lao-tse, Plotinus, Abhinuvagupta, Ibn Arabi, Luria, etc. So if you approach these teachings with a purely mental, “vision logic” mindset, you will only have that limited mental understanding. If you can go beyond that rational level, which means going beyond all theories and abstract mental concepts (and Wilber’s vision-logic is still very much rational-mental, as indicated by his highly intellectualised and abstractionist style of theory-making) then you get the experience of the actual transmisison of that teaching, an actual revelation.
Yet to go beyond the rational-mental without the necessary spiritual maturity - and without the connection to a genuine teacher or teaching - is also actually quite dangerous, because there is a whole region of mixed and fake revelations: the intermediate zone. Only if you are centered in your Heart consciousness, and allow yourself to be guided by your Divine Center, you can avoid falling into that trap. But that takes a lot of sincerity, and being able to rise above narcissism, which only few who have these powerful experiences seem to be able to do.
Edward you also said:
“So for Ken there is something beyond the dialectic, and as I suggested in the fascist acts of 2006 blog it’s nondual awareness, which appears to be the final resolution of the absolute and the relative. What d y’all think? Or if thinking is too low a level, what do y’all intuit or perceive directly from your over- or supermind?”
Ok I am certainly not at the level of over- or suypermind lol lol I remember my old tecaher at Uni Moshe Kroy (the same one KW speaks about in Boomeritis) after reading Sri Aurobindo claimed to have experienced Supermind, but he was still full of dualistic thinking. There are so many levels, more rungs on the ladder than anyone can imagine. But yes I think that nondual awareness is simply the state when you go beyond the rational mind. Compared to our normal consciousnes sit is pretty amazing, but that doesn’t mean it is the Absolute. And of course there are many types of nondual awareness. There are first various shunyatas and profound meditation states. And beyond that there is the nondual awareness of the Intermediate Zone, where there is the experience of the Absolute Reality, Brahman, Atman, Buddha Mind whatever you want to call it, and as you aptly said Edward this would be a state “which appears to be the final resolution of the absolute and the relative”. But even so there is still a subtle narcissism, and hence delusion, as we can see in the paradox of so-called gurus with powers and knowledge but who behave in an abusive manner (I have already discussed this elsewhere, so no need to repeat it here). Then there is the nondual awareness where the ego is transcended and one attains genuine liberation in that Absolute Reality. And there would be many other levels and forms and types of nondual awareness, some theistic, others nontheistic, but all authentic. And others like that but not authentic. And so on.
Of course everyone has to find whatever “map” suits them best; the above is just my own take on Sri Aurobindo and other esoteric teachings.
No comments:
Post a Comment