Soul Groups / Cosmology / Archetypal Resonance
Posted on Feb 26th, 2006
by 
Jeff Mishlove
Jeff Mishlove
Matthew, thanks for commenting, and for highlighting the presence of Ken Wilber's integral philosophy here at zaadz.
I spent many years working with a teacher, Arthur M. Young, whose philosophy was -- in some respects -- parallel to that of Wilbur. Arthur was the inventor of the Bell Helicopter, and a cosmologist. Perhaps one major difference between his views and those you have described in your blog is that Arthur did emphasize hierarchy.
I had the privilege of living with Arthur and Ruth Young at the Institute for the Study of Consciousness that they opened in Berkeley, California, back in 1973, when I was a college student. Here is a tribute to him that I wrote in 1995 for his memorial service.
I've always been curious about Ken Wilbur and his work, but never really got into it deeply for two reasons. First, during the days when I conducted interviews for television, he refused an invitation to participate as a guest -- saying, as I recall, that he does not wish to be on television. Second, in his writings he occasionally made brief reference to Arthur Young's ideas concerning the photon and the quantum of action. And, I've always felt that his treatment of Arthur's work was overly dismissive and lacking in understanding. I actually think Arthur's work is far more profound and grounded than Wilbur seemed to give him credit for.
Those circumstances represent my history visa vis Ken Wilbur's philosophy. They certainly do not reflect any judements -- since I'm largely ignorant concerning the details of his thinking.
One of my other dear friends and teachers was a man named Dean Brown. Dean had a great appreciation for nature. And, unlike Arthur, he always emphasized the non-hierarchical side of things. He always felt that a blade of grass was just as significant in the universal scheme of things as a human being.
Dean wrote a fascinating book called Cosmic Law that is available online (at no cost).
At the time of Dean passing, two and a half years ago, I considered him my best friend. Oddly, I cannot say that I have mourned or grieved his passing, however. Our conversations were, usually, on such a timeless level that the joy I feel for having known him seems to almost completely overhwelm any sadness regarding the loss of his friendship. Here is a tribute I wrote for his memorial service.
It seems like I'm old enough now to have witnessed the passing of many people who were close friends and important influences in my life. And, I've found myself inspired to write tributes honoring their lives. Another of these important people in my life was the great psychic, Alan Vaughan, who I met through Arthur Young. He died in 2001.
Alan led an integral life in the sense that he was both a highly talented psychic and a researcher/writer about parapsychology.
I think that, in a future blog, I may examine the issue of soul groups as it relates to people who have been very meaningful in our lives (as Arthur and Dean and Alan have been in mine). It seems to me likely that the people coming together here on zaadz may represent something of a soul group. I am developing the idea of archetypal synchronistic resonance as a way to look at these soul group connections.
Access: Public
alan vaughan
July 2008
“Perhaps one major difference between his views and those you have described in your blog is that Arthur did emphasize hierarchy.”
Oh! I hope I didn’t give the impression that hierarchy is not emphasized in AQAL theory! Indeed it is! In fact, it is quite important. The “Levels” section is basically all about hierarchy. You go from stage, to stage, to stage… from ego-centric to ethno-centric to world-centric to Kosmo-centric… definitely a hierarchical structure. But only, we would more accurately refer to it as a “nested holarchy” in that with each “higher” stage of development, the previous stage is included. So, for example, when a holon transcends ego-centric and becomes ethno-centric, it still is aware of itself. It is just now aware of even more. And this new awareness emerges as a transcendent feature to the previous level of awareness.
”I’ve always been curious about Ken Wilbur and his work, but never really got into it deeply for two reasons. First, during the days when I conducted interviews for television, he refused an invitation to participate as a guest – saying, as I recall, that he does not wish to be on television.”
After Ken’s first book, he was thrust into the limelight. People were saying that his theory was the most inclusive of all theories. And for awhile, he believed them. Then he noticed that he was living in his ego, and this was a very dangerous place to be for a writer who is trying to piece together the most inclusive theory. This belief lends itself to defending a theory that, later, has holes punched through it. So, Ken decided to become a hermit of sorts and constantly refine his theory, dropping all pieces of it that turn out to be false, and filling in where it is lacking. As such, his work has gone through five stages… Wilber I, Wilber II, Wilber III, Wilber IV, and Wilber V, with more to come. Each stage transcending and including the previous :)
”Dean had a great appreciation for nature. And, unlike Arthur, he always emphasized the non-hierarchical side of things. He always felt that a blade of grass was just as significant in the universal scheme of things as a human being.”
The Wilberian take would be that a blade of grass and a human being have the same ground value. They are both equally Spirit. However a human being has far more depth value than a blade of grass. A human is a holon that is more transcendent and inclusive than a blade of grass.
Was that helpful?
Deep Bow,
~Matthew
Matthew, it’s so great to engage in this discussion. Since Dean’s death, the conversation space around these topics has been a bit empty for me. Thank you!
“The Wilberian take would be that a blade of grass and a human being have the same ground value. They are both equally Spirit. However a human being has far more depth value than a blade of grass. A human is a holon that is more transcendent and inclusive than a blade of grass.”
My friend, Dean, actually had a different view than this. And, he was a deep student of grass. He, and his wife Wendy, actually made a collection of grasses from all over the world. So, when I would travel, I would pick up handfuls of grass and bring it back for him. He was so delighted! It was just about the best present he could have had.
And, I think, that he would have even taken issue with the idea that the human “holon” is more transcendent and inclusive than a blade of grass. He might have said that such a statement comes from our ignorance of the power of grass. And, he might have gone on to point out how human beings function, on this planets, as the servants of the grass – helping grass to propagate and spread throughout the planet.
I did not necessarily agree with Dean on all points. But, he was a very wise man. And, I tend to think that his anti-hierarchical attitude was unequivocal – on all levels. He did not mean this lightly. He was a theoretical physicist who once studied with Einstein at the Institute for Advanced Studies in Princeton. And, his knowledge of biology and other sciences was quite extensive.
My own atitude is that it is useful to be able to hold contradictory positions simultaneously. This would be be in accordance with Buddhist logic – and probably opposed to Aristotelian logic. (And, I think Dean Brown would have approved.)
“After Ken’s first book, he was thrust into the limelight. People were saying that his theory was the most inclusive of all theories. And for awhile, he believed them. Then he noticed that he was living in his ego, and this was a very dangerous place to be for a writer who is trying to piece together the most inclusive theory. This belief lends itself to defending a theory that, later, has holes punched through it. So, Ken decided to become a hermit of sorts and constantly refine his theory, dropping all pieces of it that turn out to be false, and filling in where it is lacking. As such, his work has gone through five stages… Wilber I, Wilber II, Wilber III, Wilber IV, and Wilber V, with more to come. Each stage transcending and including the previous :)”
In this regard, I think Ken Wilbur was very wise. And, I don’t hold it against him that he would not allow me to interview him for television. That was his choice. I do know how people have raved about his theories. But, it did strike me as more about guru-worship than having to do with a serious, comparative study of the various holistic, cosmological theories of everything. And, of course, that kind of praise, while flattering, can be very dangerous.
Incidentally, when I lived in California, I got to know two of Ken Wilbur’s friends – Roger Walsh and Frances Vaughan.
Warmly,
Jeff
“And, I think, that he would have even taken issue with the idea that the human “holon” is more transcendent and inclusive than a blade of grass. He might have said that such a statement comes from our ignorance of the power of grass. And, he might have gone on to point out how human beings function, on this planets, as the servants of the grass – helping grass to propagate and spread throughout the planet.”
It is true that humans help grass propagate and spread throughout the planet, but this is of benefit to humans, as well as grass. One way to understand how depth in a nested holarchy works would be to think of the nested holarchy as a series of concentric circles. The greater the depth of the holon the more outside of a circle it is. So, animals would have more depth than plants. They would appear on a more outer circle. Note, that their circle is outside of the circle of plants and that the circle of plants is included inside the circle of animals. That would be to say that animals “transcend and include plants.” Animals showed up on this planet after plants. They emerged from plants. They transcended plants but include plants in their existence. So, looking back at that picture of concentric circles, if you wipe out the layer of animals, plants go on about their daily lives just fine. However, if you wipe out the layer of plants, all transcendent layers (including humans) would be wiped out. Animals include plants in their existence. But plants do not include animals as a necessity for their existence. That is to say, the animal holon transcends and includes the plant holon.
So, this is certainly not to say that there is no beauty in nature. It is abundant. Indeed, we are dead without plants. Plants are the basis of our existence. We couldn’t have emerged without them. But it is a fallacy to try to chop depth out of the picture. We DO have more depth than plants, as defined above, because we emerged from plant life and added the Noosphere on top of the Biosphere. And with that emergent came more depth.
“My own atitude is that it is useful to be able to hold contradictory positions simultaneously. This would be be in accordance with Buddhist logic – and probably opposed to Aristotelian logic. (And, I think Dean Brown would have approved.)”
True that holding contradictory perspectives would be in accordance with Buddhist logic, but I don’t think it would necessarily be opposed to Aristotelian logic. For example, one seeming contradiction stated by an Indian Sage was the following:
The world is illusory
Brahman alone is real
Brahman is the world
This seems to be a contradiction in Aristotelian terms, unless you stack it on a developmental wave sequence where the first line corresponds to the egoic realm, the second line corresponds to the transcendence of the egoic realm where Spirit is recognized to be all that is True and non-fleeting, and the third line corresponds to the marriage of the relative with the Ultimate, when nondual reality sets in. The final transcendence and inclusion!
Matthew, are you suggesting above that Aristotle would have understood the “developmental wave sequence” to which you have referred?
In any case, I think we’re in agreement that apparent contradictions can be resolved by understanding the different levels of discourse relevant to each supposition.
Warm regards,
Jeff
Not that Aristotle necessarily would have (I didn’t know him all that well), but that Aristotelian logic could… I think.
Yes, I think so. Aristotle did speak of four distinct levels of causation – they would be simultaneous, and might appear to contradict each other (although they would not).
Arthur Young’s cosmology made a great deal of the fourfold division we think of as body, mind, soul & spirit. His emphasis on the significance of the number 4 was rather like a Pythagorean appraoch to the universe. And, he had a very interesting way of unifying the fourfold universe with a seven-fold perspective. Both of these were linked to the topology of different solid objects, the sphere (fourfold) and the torus (sevenfold).
Actually, I have written a summary of Arthur Young’s cosmology that is now on the web. It was written in 1975, Matthew, when I was just a little older than you are now.
whoah! serendipity has brought me to this party but i'm afraid i was a bit late to partake in this very very interesting conversation. but what the heck, blogging transcends time and (cyber)space so here's a couple of thoughts.
Jeff said : “In this regard, I think Ken Wilbur was very wise. And, I don’t hold it against him that he would not allow me to interview him for television. That was his choice. I do know how people have raved about his theories. But, it did strike me as more about guru-worship than having to do with a serious, comparative study of the various holistic, cosmological theories of everything. And, of course, that kind of praise, while flattering, can be very dangerous.”
exactly.
but for the record, i really like and resonate with Wilber's version of Integral Theory though I don't take as THE UBER theory (in fairness to Ken i think he said that about his theory more than a number of times too).
my personal gripe with Wilber's theory is that he doesn't expound on the “esoteric/occult/paranormal” stuff. i think he has valid reasons for this, but it is not for me to speak on his behalf.
this is another reason why i think Ken should have a or an open forum (or a blog) so that these kinds of intelligent and valid criticisms are addressed more transparently. because not everyone who pokes holes at Integral Theory are clueless.
my two cents.
~C (for Cosmology)