Ken Wilber and Judaism

[dauer]

Since BB's reading Wilber now I thought I'd start a thread to discuss both Wilber's integral philosophy and how it might be related to Judaism. I'm going to include an image in this post for reference:

(Clockwise from left)Stages of development+gender typology, the four quadrants, W-C Lattice, lines of development/psychograph: (including a link instead of the image because it broke the thread's formatting)

http://integralrising.org/documents/AQAL_chart9.jpg



Personally I find Wilber helpful for perspective-taking. Some aspects of his theory that I think might be worth discussing:

the relationship between the global shifts he mentions (as they relate to the progressive development of his holarchy in humanity) and R' Zalman's paradigm shift

how much his perspective is influenced by Buddhism and New Age and how/whether that ought to be taken into account when relating Wilber to Judaism

His assumption of a holarchy that develops from simple to complex in the right quadrants and from localized focus to universal focus in the left quadrants and the specific areas of this theory that might be overreaching (might overlap with the question of global shifts and R' Zalman's take on paradigm shift.)

Pre-trans fallacy.

If/where Wilber's maps conflict with Jewish sources.

If/where Wilber's maps agree with Jewish sources.

Further sources:

A couple of talks (most don't require membership) on Integral Judaism between Ken Wilber and R' David Ingber: Rabbi David Ingber | Integral Life

Jay Michaelson appying wilber to Judaism:

Zeek | Spirituality in a Time of Seriousness: Levels and Religion | Jay Michaelson

and Jay Michaelson offering criticism of Wilber among some other musing:

Zeek | Religion and Insanity | Jay Michaelson

I'm generally quite fond of Michaelson's perspectives.

and lastly, a site of Wilber critics who nonetheless are fond of integral theory: Integral World : Exploring Theories of Everything.

[nativeastral]

theres also an interview [not specifically judaic] with him here
Shambhala Sun - The Kosmos According to Ken Wilber

charts n systems can be pretty daunting but hope l can find time...would like to understand more and keep in touch with thread but hebrew terms get me lost but l know it would be tedius to explain them as you go along...but for a wider audience...

[dauer]

Are you unfamiliar only with Jewish terminology and also with Wilber's terminology? If that's the case, to pariphrase Obi-Wan, "This isn't the thread you're looking for." If you're familiar with Wilber, as he says, IOS can be applied to different disciplines while allowing for communication between them. I will in my own posts make an effort to clarify Jewish terminology that I use.

[nativeastral]

l have only read his article in journal of consciousness no.4 1997 and liked his eclectic/holistic approach; he was dealing with chalmers 'hard problem' in philosophy of mind and dualism.
Judaism l know little because of the terminology/detailed 'theology? but am here to understand all 'religions' especially the meta physical/natural and subject/object questions and how divine is defined/conceived and the common 'thread' therof.

[Avi]

Dauer, I like the idea of an holarchy. I think it relates to the notion of filtering ideas from the Abrahamic and Eastern religions. There are some ideas which will rise to the top and be fundamental to all traditions.

An example of this might be to examine the overlap between the Ten Commandments, Eightfold Path, etc. There may be common themes which arise.

[dauer]

Avi,

I don't know how familiar you are with Wilber but that's essentially what he does, is compare different ways of organizing data and different perspectives of reality and organizing them within that holarchy. One example of that is the extremes that develop in individuals focused on one particular quadrant to the exclusion of the others. Wilber identifies the extremes as extreme idealism in the UL, extreme scientism in the UR, extreme postmodernism in the LL and extreme systems theory in the LR. The idea of the quadrants is that all four are unfolding at the same time. One doesn't explain the other. It merely offers a different perspective of the same thing. In every moment there are both the interior and exterior perspectives of both the individual and the collective.

He eventually went a bit further than that, dividing each of the quadrants in two. There's an inside and outside perspective for each of the four quadrants. And then on top of that there are various stages, states, lines and types.

[Avi]

Dauer,

I have not read any Wilber, but the poster that you linked is very interesting. It looks like it is at the interface of psychology, philosophy and complements religion nicely.

I read the bio of R.David Ingber, in your link, and one concern I have right off the bat is that it states that he is a "certified Astrologer". I do not know your opinion about astrology, but that is an issue for me. What are your thoughts about astrology ?

I look forward to reading your thoughts about the interface between Renewal and Integral Philosophy.

[Avi]

I would like to take this thread on a brief tangent for just a moment, if you will please bear with me. I will return to the current topic, momentarily.

I went back and re-read some of the earlier discussions about Shechina that Dauer and BB have discussed recently. It seems that the context that you both interpret it is in the nature of the "Sabbath Queen", and I understand that.

However, I will describe another characteristic of G-d, that of of non-corporealism, that makes sense to me. I am not sure whether there is a school of thought that corresponds to this notion, please let me know what you think. My own belief is that G-d is present (perhaps embodied or even embeded) everywhere. In every molecule of air, water and all matter in the universe (including humans). I believe, simply, that is the best (and simplest) definition of non-corporeal, non-anthropomorphic and omnipresent (although not necessarily omniscient).

I think this idea relates to the present thread, in the sense that Renewal and Integal Philosophy must also describe ideas of G-d in ways that we can understand and I wonder if this idea of non-corporealism is consistent with what their view(s) might entail ? Can you please give your thoughts about that ?

[dauer]

Avi,

It looks like it is at the interface of psychology, philosophy and complements religion nicely.

Wilber began in transpersonal psych before working on integral philosophy.

I read the bio of R.David Ingber, in your link, and one concern I have right off the bat is that it states that he is a "certified Astrologer". I do not know your opinion about astrology, but that is an issue for me. What are your thoughts about astrology ?

Having taken an astrology course with Reb David while I was an intern at Elat Chayyim (he was the rabbi-in-residence), I can go a step further and share his own thoughts on it. xD But my own thoughts first.

Firstly, most astrology today is post-Jungian. It deals less with attempting to predict the future, more with typology. The signs, planets and houses are all seen as archetypal forces that exist within us (there's actually a correlate planet and house for each sign which represents a similar archetype but exercises itself as a different part of speech, in a sense.) The question still arises, even if these archetypal forces exist within us, why might a natal chart tell us something relevant to ourselves? My own personal opinion is that (and if you've ever seen a natal chart read in the way I presented above you'll understand what I mean) the chart itself is so complex that it can highlight for us certain aspects about ourselves, and it only serves as a jumping off point for the intuition of the astrologer which comes through in the interpretation.

Reb David's perspective, or at least what it was when I spoke to him, is that we've been projecting these energies onto the different celestial bodies and sectors of the sky for so long that they exist in a very real way for us. It's somewhat in line with the thinking of Rupert Sheldrake. He's also stated explicitly that before a reading he gets to know the individual he's working with, asks them deeper questions that will be relevant to the reading. And the particular methodology he taught us is less rigid, which means it's going to rely even more heavily on intuition. He went further to say that, while he offered a number of ways the signs, planets and houses could be interpreted, we had to figure out which of those worked best for us including not only what made sense in applications to ourselves, but extending out to other people.

When I studied with him, one of the first things we did is look at the Talmudic sources on astrology, which are diverse. Some assert that mazal really does effect Jews, but that through certain actions we're able to circumvent the force of mazal. The most common opinion voiced today is that there's no mazal in Israel.

It seems that the context that you both interpret it is in the nature of the "Sabbath Queen", and I understand that.

More the opposite. I interpret the Sabbath Queen's nature in the context of the shechina.

However, I will describe another characteristic of G-d, that of of non-corporealism, that makes sense to me. I am not sure whether there is a school of thought that corresponds to this notion, please let me know what you think. My own belief is that G-d is present (perhaps embodied or even embeded) everywhere. In every molecule of air, water and all matter in the universe (including humans). I believe, simply, that is the best (and simplest) definition of non-corporeal, non-anthropomorphic and omnipresent (although not necessarily omniscient).

Can you explain what you mean by something being both non-corporeal and in every molecule? I understand that you don't mean to suggest that there is actual physicality but your precise meaning is unclear to me.

That book I mentioned in the previous discussion (The Hebrew Goddess by Patai), it suggests that shechinah originally did not imply the Divine feminine, that it was just the word hazal used in place of kavod.

I think this idea relates to the present thread, in the sense that Renewal and Integal Philosophy must also describe ideas of G-d in ways that we can understand and I wonder if this idea of non-corporealism is consistent with what their view(s) might entail ? Can you please give your thoughts about that ?

In Renewal there are multiple perspectives on G!d. Some are more traditional in their theology. Some maintain a temporal panentheism (rather than spatial.) Some are pantheists though that's a little more controversial. Some consider G!d to be a verb, an unfolding process. Some stick closely to kabbalistic perspectives of the Divine or hasidic perspectives. Some are influenced heavily by the views of other religions (one example of that is the JuBus who focus heavily on monism and don't connect much with personal G!d-Language.)

Integral philosophy maintains an integral perspective of the Divine. That's to say, G!d exists in all quadrants, on all lines, at all levels, states, and so on and, his map is heavily informed by a universalist perspective of mysticism. From Wilber's Integral Spirituality p.266:

...there are levels of God... of the answers that spiritual intelligence delivers to the question, "What is the ultimate concern, or ultimate reality, or ultimate ground?" There is a magic Ground, a mythic Ground, a rational Ground, a pluralistic Ground, a second-tier Ground, a third tier Ground, and so on. As well as a gross, subtle, causal, and nondual version of each of those. But all of those signifiers have real referents in the only place that referents of any sort exist anyway: in a state or structure of cionsciousness. All referents exist, if they exist at all, in a worldspace, whose address is given minimally by quadrant (perspective engaged) and altitude/level (structure of consciousness engaged.)

Although one could take from the above that he reduces G!d to psychology, he does not. Spirit for him exists in every quadrant, at every stage and on every line. He sees the structure he's mapping as integral to the kosmos where to say that G!d is happening inside an individual, or to say that G!d is happening outside (supernatural) would be incorrect.

That levels exist is connected to the idea that they've been reached/discovered. That goes back to the evolution toward complexity (Right quadrants) and more inclusive/unitive consciousness (left quadrants.) As we reach new stages, according to Wilber, those stages become embodied and real for the Kosmos.

[Avi]

Dauer, these are very interesting thoughts about astrology.

Avi - I read the bio of R.David Ingber, in your link, and one concern I have right off the bat is that it states that he is a "certified Astrologer". I do not know your opinion about astrology, but that is an issue for me. What are your thoughts about astrology ?

Dauer - Firstly, most astrology today is post-Jungian. It deals less with attempting to predict the future, more with typology. The signs, planets and houses are all seen as archetypal forces that exist within us (there's actually a correlate planet and house for each sign which represents a similar archetype but exercises itself as a different part of speech, in a sense.)

I think the notion of interpreting astrology as a psychological concept has some validity. It is interesting because this is quite different from traditional astrology.

Dauer - Reb David's perspective, or at least what it was when I spoke to him, is that we've been projecting these energies onto the different celestial bodies and sectors of the sky for so long that they exist in a very real way for us.

I do not understand this concept. What is the nature of these “energies” which are projected into space ? Please keep in mind that the physics of energy transmission is well known and at this point is really considered classical physics.

Dauer - It's somewhat in line with the thinking of Rupert Sheldrake. He's also stated explicitly that before a reading he gets to know the individual he's working with, asks them deeper questions that will be relevant to the reading. And the particular methodology he taught us is less rigid, which means it's going to rely even more heavily on intuition. He went further to say that, while he offered a number of ways the signs, planets and houses could be interpreted, we had to figure out which of those worked best for us including not only what made sense in applications to ourselves, but extending out to other people.

Now this sounds more like traditional astrology (please correct me if I am not understanding). And it has been known since the time of Newton (1500’s) that traditional astrology was not science at all. Isn't that the case ?

Dauer - When I studied with him, one of the first things we did is look at the Talmudic sources on astrology, which are diverse. Some assert that mazal really does effect Jews, but that through certain actions we're able to circumvent the force of mazal. The most common opinion voiced today is that there's no mazal in Israel.

Can you please explain how mazal really affects Jews ? It makes sense to me that there is no mazal in Israel, or for that matter anywhere else in the world, and never was.


This brings me to a related idea, which I brought up briefly with Seth and perhaps you and BB could give your thoughts. One of my concerns about some of the newer approaches (such as mysticism, and I know you could include Hasidism here, which is not new) is that they seem to me a lot like "superstition". And in some ways superstition, to me, is reminiscent of idolatry. In this way, I think my views may be a little more traditional. What do you think ?

[dauer]

Avi,

I do not understand this concept. What is the nature of these “energies” which are projected into space ? Please keep in mind that the physics of energy transmission is well known and at this point is really considered classical physics.

I refer you to Rupert Sheldrake's research on morphic fields:

Articles and Papers - Scientific Papers - Morphic Resonance - Morphic Fields

I don't vouch for that perspective. I just share it because it is what Reb David taught. I openly questioned him during the course about the way he validated astrology. One text that he repeatedly referred to during the course, and I have since purchased, is:

Amazon.com: Choice Centered Astrology: The Basics: Gail Fairfield: Books

An explicitly Jewish example of approaching something similar can be seen in the BresLove cards:

the BresLove Cards

They're based on the story "Master of Prayer" by R' Nachman of Breslov. In describing how to work with the cards, R' Ohad is very clear that they should not be seen as predicting future events. Here, too, the cards represent archetypal dynamics at play to allow perspective on a situation.

Now this sounds more like traditional astrology (please correct me if I am not understanding). And it has been known since the time of Newton (1500’s) that traditional astrology was not science at all. Isn't that the case ?

I don't see how you're getting classical astrology from that. And I'm not certain many modern astrologers would assert their methods are a science. I can clarify what I meant by the above but I really don't know what you were reading in it, which will make it a little more difficult.

" He's also stated explicitly that before a reading he gets to know the individual he's working with, asks them deeper questions that will be relevant to the reading. And the particular methodology he taught us is less rigid, which means it's going to rely even more heavily on intuition."

In other words, an individual's natal chart doesn't have a fixed meaning. The read from one astrologer to the next can differ. It's a jumping-off point for intuition, pointing out different intrapsychic dynamics that might be overlooked. In classical astrology the chart was seen to have a fixed meaning which the astrologer communicated and this reading said something about the future for the individual, not their typology.

"He went further to say that, while he offered a number of ways the signs, planets and houses could be interpreted, we had to figure out which of those worked best for us including not only what made sense in applications to ourselves, but extending out to other people."

This means that, say there are a number of ways we can understand Scorpio, general as well as specific (transformation, life/death, expose and be exposed, etc.) Some of those ways will make sense to us in our own charts and in the charts of others that we come across. Some won't. I think Reb David's implicit assumption is that everything happens for a reason. If you end up giving a particular person an astrology reading at a particular time, that encounter was not chance. It was the will of G!d. What you see and share (which another astrologer might not have seen, might have shared something different) is what that person needed to hear for one reason or another.

Can you please explain how mazal really affects Jews ? It makes sense to me that there is no mazal in Israel, or for that matter anywhere else in the world, and never was.

The pdf I included on the birkat hachamah thread has a section of talmudic discourse on mazal.

One of my concerns about some of the newer approaches (such as mysticism, and I know you could include Hasidism here, which is not new)

You could also include things like heichalot literature and merkavah mysticism which are quite old. There is still no certainty on whether Ezekiel's passages on the merkavah fell within an existing tradition or whether they inspired one that followed. Additionally you can look at the ecstatic nevi'im who used to serve the community in that manner.

is that they seem to me a lot like "superstition". And in some ways superstition, to me, is reminiscent of idolatry. In this way, I think my views may be a little more traditional. What do you think ?

Not more traditional, just more rationalist. Generally people fall somewhere on a spectrum between extreme rationalism and extreme mysticism. The extreme rationalist's G!d is entirely abstract, the G!d of philosophy. He's understood through intellectual inquiry and questioning, often alongside a source of revelation (e.g. Torah) that is understood in terms of that rationalist worldview. For the mystic, G!d is known through experience. Mysticism is no less traditional, just a different approach to understanding G!d. When Heschel discusses Divine Pathos he's talking about G!d from a mystical perspective.

I personally think superstition has more to do with magical thinking than mysticism. Like if I think wearing a red string is going to protect me from evil forces or that if I step on a crack in the sidewalk I'll break my mama's back.

edit: since you asked in the Wilber thread, I'll suggest that your perspective might be addressed by pre/trans fallacy: Pre/Trans Fallacy

[Avi]

Dauer - Not more traditional, just more rationalist.

Yes, you are right. Would you agree that Vilna Gaon represents the ultimate of the rationalist school while Baal Shem Tov represents the mystical school ?

[dauer]

No. The Vilna Gaon was himself a mekubal, just not hasidic. Rambam is a better figurehead for rationalism. And I'd argue the Besht isn't the best figurehead for mysticism. Luria imo is better.

[Avi]

I am sorry, I meant Saadia Gaon. He was a much earlier rationalist than either Maimonides or Vilna Gaon.

Originally Posted by dauer

No. The Vilna Gaon was himself a mekubal, just not hasidic. Rambam is a better figurehead for rationalism. And I'd argue the Besht isn't the best figurehead for mysticism. Luria imo is better.

[dauer]

I don't know a lot about Saadia Gaon but a quick google search says he wrote a commentary on sefer yetzirah in addition to his other writings.