David:  Ken has no inhibitions about throwing grooves and morphic fields into his books as if they are established facts, and I do have to say - as Balder points out on another thread - that this is the kind of thing which keeps his work at the 'pop' level when someone like Jurgen Habermas, who ploughs some of the same fields as Ken, is revered worldwide as a 'serious' philosopher.

Very nicely said.  I've seen so little actual criticism on these forums that I've been wondering if I was the only one here who was actually noticing these things.

Speaking of Rupert Sheldrake, I'm just dying to try his online telepathy experiment.  I've actually had startling telepathic experiences with two of my closest friends, which is exactly how many you need to participate.

---

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

Sheldrake's work has received praise of recent in circles far removed from those of Integral after not being taken seriously for a long time. But from what I understand there is now substantiating evidence -brought forward by those other than Sheldrake, who then returned to his work for reference-that is beginning to show he was right, or at least on to something significant.

 

Further, the beaten path of Neo-Darwinism and “conventional” evolutionary theories not only have profoundly significant holes, they are lost in Flatland and very happy with irrational denial. (As Ken opens SES with, to those question "don't ask.") Lastly, I think Ken makes it clear that these are his theoretical proposals based upon the evidence that is there (from all quads) and that if more comes forward it will be included if warranted. The central theme in Wilber is that it is irrefutable that there is some kind of Eros in the Kosmos-and of course, he ascribes this ultimately to Spirit itself. No, you wont find that in “respected circles” or whatever you want to call them. Nor will you find the ability to enter highest samadhi/delta brain waves at will . . .

 

As far as Sheldrake, I personally take it very seriously and did so, through my own personal experiences and observations, years before I ever heard of a morphogenetic field.

 

It is because of my work in theatre. (And this is actually a topic for an upcoming book I am in the very early stages of writing.)

 

Basically, after not too long, it became extremely obvious that something was going on like this with regard to how well, how quickly, how easily and how deeply people –including children-would learn plays.

 

Consider that nature of the art form and/or the technicals involved. First and foremost a cast of actors has to memorize their lines. Line memorization is a several step process for the stage, because it is completely possible to go home and memorize them, literally know them in your head perfectly while sitting at home on a couch, but when you actually get up on stage during a rehearsal situation, you basically have to re-memorize them all over again because there is so much else now involved in the situation (so much else to align you mind to, be aware of, pay attention to). The third step is then actually in front of an audience where an entirely new set of circumstances and necessary learning and adaptation unfolds.

 

But word for word memorization is just the beginning. Actions, directions, meanings, emotions, reactions and responses have to be memorized along with them. Further, this entire many layered pattern –all of which is more or less written into the text of a play (though most of it not obvious to simply reading the words as words)-basically has to form in an actor’s and entire cast’s mind(s)-perhaps collective mind or collective mind-unity - and remain their, accessible, strongly and stably to be called upon as a guide during a live performance where and when anything can happen, usually does, and needs to be genuinely living and spontaneous anyway.

 

Okay, so that’s the run down (in a brief nutshell).

 

Time and time again I would observe first, the notable difficulty of a cast when learning an original, never before produced, performed or even widely read, play. There was something basic and naturally about that process –with a never before produced, new, original play-that was just 10 times more difficult than normal. This might seem ordinary, natural and understandable, but really think about it. Why should it be more difficult for anybody to learn a brand new play that it would be to learn an old and well known play that they have never read or seen before? There was always a difference, and again I remind that this observation including children. (i.e. sure, the play version of Peter Pan is well known, but not to a child who has only begun to be able to read, much less ever read it and endeavoer to put it into action with their own being.)

 

But here was the most significant observation. At the theatre I worked at 15 years or so ago, we were not only always doing new and original plays, but if they were successful they would be brought back again the next season. More often than not it would be with an entirely different cast and often with those who had never even seen the last years production.

 

And the entire process of staging, learning, memorization and most importantly apprehending of depth necessary for acting . . . was just 100 times easier. It would go off the second time without a hitch and, again, I stress most importantly, the actors would learn the depths of their roles not only more easily but more deeply. It would be better, fuller, more precise, sharper, simply "more there" than the year before, where and when everyone –including audiences-were plowing their way through it for the first time.

 

In subsequent productions –no matter if the actors had seen, read or been involved in it before-just, yes the proper word is, “morphed” into it much more easily, and then added something to that overall form in terms of depth, scope, creativity, advance, meaning, etc.

 

I would also observe this just with the simple fact of a play –especially an original-suddenly seeming to fall more stably in place the moment it was finally performed in front of an audience for the first time. (This is also a common practice with professional -open the show weeks before "the opening" and let in an audience.) So, i.e. it seemed clear this form now being in some measure in the minds of an audience (the larger the better) added to the overall morphogenetic form (and it would help the actors).

 

I didn’t use those words at the time. I though, “collective consciousness” or “psychic impressions” but the bottom line is it seemed obvious that there was some kind of form created in the space with regard to and directly related to each and every play. And it could be strengthened over time, performance and participation.

 

I could go on about this with regard to individual characters (apprehending past forms and interpretations) and also with a most amazing phenomenon associated with Shakespeare. i.e. once you’ve memorized it . . . it’s there like it had been branded.

 

Peace, Tim

 

PS- I want to add that I hope it should be clear of the difficulties invovled with perhaps performing an injuntion on this, and to actually collect data. The time of which I speak involved many, many people over long periods of time. But even as such, I think this is an area ripe for study. Though if it has already been done I am not presently aware.

---

I wish I could have writte this with my cool, black -I+I- pen! . . . but now the INK is running out! Drat.

Tim, just to repeat that I too am attracted by Sheldrake's ideas and take them seriously.  As for Wilber, as he is always emphasising, integral needs to be taken seriously by the 'intelligentsia' - this is one of his primary strategic aims.  Its why in this very book he insists on junking the 'ontological baggage' from spirituality, not for the sake of it but because these ideas will otherwise end up in the garbage as far as serious thinkers are concerned.  And its why, for example, he has no time for stuff like astrology - its because the empirical evidence is unsound.  To be consistent with this approach, he should at least be careful in what he pins AQAL to - again, I repeat that Sheldrake himself has recently lamented his inability so far to substantiate the theory of morphic resonance. As a matter of strategy, its a good idea for Ken to be guarded in his use of this theory, however well it fits his own.  And I love the example you gave - though I know you're well aware that personal anecdote doesn't count as the scientific evidence which Sheldrake needs.  Now, that telepathy experiment which PP mentions is another matter - its very scientific and very well designed... Watch that space.... (Of course, I hardly need mention that scientific evidence isn't flatland where right quadrant issues such as morphic resonance are concerned - its entirely appropriate, as Wilber has often emphasised himself).

 

David, I hear you. But you know, it's one of those things, basing your whole theory on satori or the words and work of Aurobino, Ramana Maharishi or the postulation of nature mystics, subtle saints, causal sages and nondual siddhis, well, doesn't quite get your foot in the door either.

I do understand what you are saying though. As far as my personal anecdote above, boy would I love to be able to set up a long term, wide ranging experiment.

As a matter of fact, unless I am just biased or crazily obsessed, I think there are an extraordinary number of things that could be learned from various types of long term and wide ranging injunctive investigation into the live theatre. (In all areas too, not just professional.)

But regarding my anecdote above, in reflection what I feel I was able to eventually easily observe (and, yes, even predict!), could not have been so easily observed (or tracked or seriously investigated) in ordinary circumstances. I am talking about, say, a period of four to eight years, hundreds to thousands of people and in dozenz and dozens of various theatre productions of all kinds.

Basically, in that circumstance, time was, in a sense, "sped up" I think. So what ordinarily might take who-knows-how-long to observe, might be able to happen in a relatively short amount of time.

Wow, the possibilities. Rupert, if you are reading this give me a call.

On a note more related to some of the questions discussed earlier in this thread, I think development -and some of the factors which might be responsible for causing it to occur-could be investigated and tracked in the right theatre arts (education or professional) circumstances as well.

And that though brings me to a last thought. Remember David how we were talking about acting being ILP (and or ITP).

Isn't a large part of development-maybe even the most important and critical factor-an injunction?

If I want to learn something and to grow, I have to do something. I have to perform an action or an injunction or whole series of them.

Is what happens to most people that when they reach a certain age the specifically active injunctions for growth are over?-and “time to settle down?” Whereas, let me tell you, my children are performing injunctions and personal investigation all the time! And at an astonishing rate!

What do you think?

 

---

I wish I could have writte this with my cool, black -I+I- pen! . . . but now the INK is running out! Drat.

hi david,

i'm picking up on this subthread a little late, but it's an important one, i feel.

i was taught as an undergrad to go back to the primary sources. but ken wilber hadn't yet showed up. now that he's become my principal, secondary source, i'm faced with the difficult situation that i can't even keep up with him, let alone the colossus of his primary sources. looking at this subthread, i suspect i'm not the only one.

with regard to morphogenetic grooves, my memory is that we want to first go back to the excerpts, and i'm going to guess B--someone needs to check this out. my limited memory is that this notion, apart from the more recent terminology, goes back at least to (ahem!) the great american philosopher, c.s. peirce-- to what he called habits in contradistinction to laws.

already more than a hundred years ago, before the theory of relativity and quantum physics, i believe, he realized that the modern notion of 'laws' just wouldn't cut it. he came up with the surprisingly postmodern notion of habits to replace it. i think that ken indicates that sheldrake is only one of many, also including habermas, who have, in effect, grabbed onto peirce's coattails. he references sheldrake and uses his terminology because it is relatively well known and much more easily accessible than the thought of a genius like peirce.

another advantage is that sheldrake has been working more or less within the framework of RQ, scientific methodology. in other words, he is posing theories (strictly speaking, hypotheses) that can be tested scientifically (with time), whereas peirce was, i believe, AQ and, not only that, a philosopher, i.e. not likely to be taken seriously by scientists. i'm guessing, but wouldn't sheldrake say he's a theorist, and not a philosopher?

it's important to keep in mind here that integral is not about 'the truth'. it's about coming up with the best partial truth we can for now. tomorrow we may come up with a better one, but in the meantime let's do the best we can instead of playing wyatt earp and trying to shoot down any such attempts.

my guess would be that ken has concluded, after going through all the primary sources, that something like morphogenetic grooves is a valid contribution postmodernity has made to our kosmological knowing/being.

more later,

ralph

---

tim,

your previous post to this thread was just great. it's a little early, but if you're ever wanting someone to look over any part of the book you're writing, you can count on me. i'd be thrilled to do it.

ralph

---

Thanks Ralph, I will most definitely keep that in mind. (It a big motivator too.)

---

I wish I could have writte this with my cool, black -I+I- pen! . . . but now the INK is running out! Drat.

Hi Ralph

I'll defer to you on Pierce -  I know a bit of him but not enough to comment.  I hope that I'm not coming over as harshly critical of either Sheldrake or Wilber on this: as I mentioned, I love the idea of morphic resonance.  My only point is that, yes indeed, while Pierce was a philosopher and thus entitled to speculate, Sheldrake is very much a scientist.  As right quadrant as can be.  And a very adventurous and fascinating scientist he is.  Being a scientist, he's in the business of scientific method.  He can speculate as long as he makes it clear when he's speculating and when he is offering empirically supported theories (the test for right quadrant truth, not for left quadrant).  Much to his credit (unlike his fellow scientist Lyall Watson in the instance I gave) he does make it clear when he's speculating.  At the beginning of 2024 he was one of a bunch of thinkers who were asked to name something they believed in but couldn't prove.  Sheldrake named morphic resonance.  All I'm suggesting in regard to Ken is that when he cites morphic resonance, or similar intriguing conjectures, he takes the trouble to state for the reader that they are conjectures awaiting adequate evidence.  If you try submitting a paper to Integral University, you can bet that they'll require you to do exactly that for any conjectures of your own - check out the rules they post here.  Its important for the reputation of the growing integral movement that academic standards are maintained....

Good wishes

hi david,

you make some really good points, just the sort of things we need to discuss. the problem we're both admitting we have is a lack of the knowledge to bring that discussion to a successful conclusion. i know a bit more about peirce, which leads me to suggest where a successful conclusion might lie, but i haven't been there either.

i have read enough of him to be convinced he was a genius. among other things, he was a damned good scientist, someone even present day scientists would greatly benefit from studying. to treat his thought as speculative is to completely misunderstand him. he was the inventor of pragmatism as well as a logic that has yet, a hundred years later, to come into its own.

incidentally, i forgot to mention the british scientist c.h. waddington. the origin of the notion of morphogenetic grooves goes more directly back to him than to peirce, who most scientists aren't even aware of.

when sheldrake says that morphic resonance is something he believes in, even if it can't be proved, i think we have to give him the credit that he's talking about a scientific theory, and not just some amber myth of his. by definition, a scientific theory cannot be proved--it can only be disproved: popper's falsifiability, the third strand of knowledge. of course, if it can't be disproved, then it has no place in science, but surely we don't think that that's what sheldrake is up to. i think tim mentioned that this theory is beginning to be tested and, so far, it's holding up. of course, eventually it will be replaced no doubt by a better theory, but, in the meantime, it's the best we've got. it's certainly alot better than assuming everything is just a matter of chance.

i hope this at least goes part ways in answering your questions, even if neither of us can go all the way,

ralph

---

Hi,

 

I'm very pleased to hear that I-I is reaching out to Pannikkar. He is one of the few people within the Catholic Church who I think is pretty much on the same level as Ken. As Ken himself  points out, there are a number of people working at second and even third tier levels within the church who are able to continue to do so without getting reined in too much by by the hierarchy, eg Fr Laurence Freeman, the head of the World Christian Meditation Community, Fr William Johnson who has worked for many years in Japan developing links between mystical Christianity and Zen Buddhism, and of course Fr Thomas Keating (all male though, which says something). And in the second half of last century, we had Fr Thomas Merton, Fr Bede Griffiths, Swami Abhishiktanda (formerly Henri Le Saux) and Fr John Main, all pushing into indigo and non-dual states and stages, while continuing to be loyal to and accepted within the church.  The fact that they have  been able to remain within the church has given me great encouragement to stick with it also. They also show that the conveyor belt within Christianity isnt jammed at amber but is able to take us all the way to non-dual  these days. In some respects we've come a long way from the days of Eckhardt and Bruno, and the heresy trials.

While it is true that the Catholic Church, the one I'm most familiar with, still has very amber institutional structures and couches much of its public teachings in  mythic terms, I think there are grounds for hope and optimism eg the growth of the World Christian Meditation  Community, the Common Ground movement in the US, the introduction of an integral organisational leadership course at Notre Dame University, the growing popularity of theology courses among lay people, and the spread of small exploratory discussion groups eg Spirituality in The Pub, and Pearl seeker groups here in Australia.

Evolution within the Catholic church may be happening slowly but it is happening. I'm sure the same  can be said of the other religions and of the interfaith dialogues between them, as the Spirit moves within religions as well as outside them.

 

Love and peace to all,

Johno

While it's true that the church as an institution hasnt yet come to terms with orange scientific rational modernity and green post-modernity, and it's teachings are still very much cast in mythic amber terms and concepts, there are grounds for optimism and hope in small scale developments eg the teaching of Wilber's work on integral organisational leadership in  Notre Dame, the leading Catholic Uni; and in small Christian Meditation groups, the people meeting  for exploratory conversations eg in "Spirituality in the Pub" and Pearl Seeker groups in Australia, the Coomon Grou

 

Thanks for this post Johno. It brings me back to a though, a quite wonderful though actually, that I have had in the past. I have thought of it in terms of a "tipping of the scales." If and when the scales finally tip -that is, say, for example the Catholic Church's dominant center of gravity shifts fully to orange (and/or green or for that matter, whatever!)- the entire world is going to eventually change in such a dramatic way it is hard to even imagine.

Perhaps this is "wishful" thinking, even with a tinge of "new age" fantasy. But none the less, the power of the church -and Christianity as a whole -is already there. Literally embracing over 1/3 of the world, and geographically, one way or another the whole world. How would it change the world if and/or when the center of gravity is fully shifted?

Again, maybe I am just being overly idealistic and dramatic. But . . .

It sure is nice to hear the things that you say.

Peace, Tim

---

I wish I could have writte this with my cool, black -I+I- pen! . . . but now the INK is running out! Drat.

Thanks for your comments, Tim. I really like your thoughts about what a dramatic impact it would make when the centre of gravity of the Christian churches, in particular, the Catholic Church, with its huge membership and global reach.eventually makes the shift to orange and then green and then higher. I think it will happen, and this is part of the vision that Ken is holding out in this chapter.It would have major transformative effects on world consciousness. I hope that it happens sooner rather than later and before the churches get left too far behind the onward movement of evolution. What gives me optimism is that the old authoritarian responses of  the hierarchy no longer can work to control the thinking and consciousness of those prepared to think for themselves and develop their consciousness, largely because church members particularly in the West are exposed along with everybody else to the prevailing modern and post-modern world-views. The genie is well and truly out of the bottle and there is no way that it can be put back in there again.

 

love and peace,

Johnno

Johno:

Thanks for your comments, Tim. I really like your thoughts about what a dramatic impact it would make when the centre of gravity of the Christian churches, in particular, the Catholic Church, with its huge membership and global reach.eventually makes the shift to orange and then green and then higher. I think it will happen, and this is part of the vision that Ken is holding out in this chapter.It would have major transformative effects on world consciousness. I hope that it happens sooner rather than later and before the churches get left too far behind the onward movement of evolution. What gives me optimism is that the old authoritarian responses of  the hierarchy no longer can work to control the thinking and consciousness of those prepared to think for themselves and develop their consciousness, largely because church members particularly in the West are exposed along with everybody else to the prevailing modern and post-modern world-views. The genie is well and truly out of the bottle and there is no way that it can be put back in there again.

 

love and peace,

Johnno

Just a thought.

You know what is interesting is that, more or less, since Vatican II, the Catholic Church has incorporated a great deal of orange and green, although it has done so generally still within the amber/mythic contours. So, kind of like filling up a bubble. The "ceiling" is still there, but it houses a great deal more within it.

In a way, it seems like the best possible move from here, or the smoothest, would simply be the move straight to teal or turquoise.

So, rather than an all out shattering of mythic contours (which is what would happen with a full transformation to orange and then again to green, since both of those still see themselves as the one "right way," and would also result in schisms), rather, it seems almost entirely possible (especially with the existence of a strong central leadership) for just a shifting and reorganization to something more like the Conveyor Belt; where the mythic would remain largely untouched, and the full orange and green (and higher) interpretations would merely receive official (developmental) sanction.*

It just seems like the whole thing could happen, dare I believe it, . . . rather quietly. And as you say, it's already happening now. All the Church officially needs to do is say . . ."Okay" to orange and green and higher interpretations, and officially hold them within the "Catholic" embrace!

When I think of it like this, not only am I once again brought to the idea that the Catholic Church is really ripe to stand on the leading edge of an Integral Age, and to have a major impact, and to usher in a whole new human understanding of religion, but it also seem like . . . . it just might happen.

What do you think?

Peace, Tim

* There are things from all of the first tier interpretations that would need to change or to "bow down" in humilty to the new Holy See (one of the reasons that the stong central leadship is so important) but those changes would be all for the better to work as a pacer of vertical transformation and harmonious horizontal translation. For example, woman preists. Amber would "just have to live with it," yet in a couple of generations . . . the worries would be minimal to insignificant. Another example, the remaining in place of the central authority. Green . . . sorry, would "just have to live with it." The ackowledgement that I am not the only right one? Sorry orange, you "just have to live with it" etc.

Man, it would be awesome.

---

I wish I could have writte this with my cool, black -I+I- pen! . . . but now the INK is running out! Drat.

tim (and johno),

obviously, it would be great if it happened this way, but isn't Church power, cardinals, etc., anchored in blue? i think ken may have characterized pope benedict as somewhat reactionary, which certainly fits with his recent recourse to a medieval text critical of islam. they've reposted ken's april '03 thoughts about the war in iraq at his site, where he laments that the only world leader who might be 2nd tier is blair, who is now being pushed out of office by his own party. am i missing something here? what sort of time frame do you have in mind?

it looks to me like the Catholic Church is losing more and more of its base in south america, africa, east asia and other developing parts of the world to protestantism, which can serve as a weigh station on the way to flatland.

your lava dome analogy makes me wonder if the Church isn't headed for a volcanic eruption.

incidentally, i'm still hoping you can put together the summary of the ap.2 thread you promised us before you caught cold. it would be an amazing feat, if you could pull it off.

ralph

---

Ralph,

Perhaps my perspective here is just that from 50,000 ft . . . away . . .it just seems like it would not be all that difficult. But, indeed, yes, it would require the "view from the top"  to see it, and see that it is already happening . . .. (Which as you point out . . .) Or at least SEE that what is happening is not only good, but God . . .

incidentally, i'm still hoping you can put together the summary of the ap.2 thread you promised us before you caught cold. it would be an amazing feat, if you could pull it off.

 

Okay, okay, I'll do it. (Or try.)

 

Tim

 

---

I wish I could have writte this with my cool, black -I+I- pen! . . . but now the INK is running out! Drat.