aurum

@Davino I'm mostly staying away from attempting too much at cogniziing what it might be like. Seems like one of those you probably just need to experience. That said, I've had some thoughts. If we can say that hyper-mind is to the human-mind what the human-mind is to an ant-mind, then shouldn't there be a hyper-hyper-mind compared to hyper-mind? And shouldn't there also be a hyper-hyper-hyper mind? How far does it go? Does it even make sense to think about an end point, or is it just an infinite fractal pattern? It's definitely interesting to contemplate.

We could choose to define "whole" in many different ways. For the purposes of this discussion, we can think of "whole" in terms of holons. A human cell is whole, which makes up a whole set of tissues, which makes up a whole organ, which makes up a whole human, which makes up a whole population, which makes up a whole society ->>> to infinity. So we have lesser wholeness within higher wholeness. But it's not just physical stuff that are holons. The psyche also functions as a holon, as seen with the Tier 2 integration of all Tier 1 stages. This holonic thinking is fundamental to Wilber's work.

I would like to see studies as well. I'm pro-empirical data. The problem is that Wilber's work is inherently not academic-friendly. Saying doing studies would be "really hard" is an understatement. To really do a convincing study, you need a narrowly defined quantifiable question and an ability to eliminate as many variables as possible. Wilber's work is broad, subjective and arguably trans-rational. It's the opposite of academically rigorous, which is why it's not taken seriously in academia. In addition, studies cost millions of dollars that need to be funded and published by someone. And usually you need a whole bunch of them to really convince the scientific community.

Wild that some people seem to think that Trump's chances of winning the presidency are actually higher now than in 2020. Biden has spent four years doing a decent enough job as president. Meanwhile, Trump has spent four years mostly getting indicted and crying on social media. And this is already after Trump lost as an incumbent. Even if he wins this trial and it galvanizes his base, I still think he is in a losing position.

However much self-deception exists in conscious development, it is less than the self-deception of unconscious development. Those are your only two choices. Conscious development also includes working through self-deception. Also, the entire function of this forum is for people interested in conscious development. So I’m not sure why else you would be here. Yes, he encourages people to development themselves. This is what most people need. If it becomes neurotic at times then that is admittedly a problem. You cannot escape making prescriptions in life. You are making prescriptions right now, in this conversation. Stop telling Wilber that he ought not take an is and turn it into an ought. You can mix the two just fine. Ethics, philosophy and development all interconnect. As far as evidence for Wilber’s prescriptions, I can see them work in my own life. Test them out for yourself. You’re not going to get a scientific study proving his work.

Sure there is definitely some of that. Although at the same time, I’d also argue you are not going to find a teacher / community who doesn’t suffer from the same fate. The question is to what degree and how toxic it is. Development is happening either consciously or unconsciously. Why would unconscious development be superior to conscious development? That’s your particular, limited perspective on wholeness. How do you know there aren’t other more inclusive perspectives?

Not from a holonic perspective. Which is at the center of Wilber’s work.

He probably could have. But most likely he is setting up a comparison between lower degrees and higher degrees of wholeness. This is in alignment with his holonic philosophy of integration. Thus, “radical” wholeness. In addition, it could also be a reference to integration along multiple lines, i.e his ideas around Growing Up, Showing Up, Waking Up, etc. That’s a pretty big assumption based on just a simple book title. What is your beef with Wilber? Not saying the guy is right about everything, but it seems like you really don’t like him.

This is actually incorrect. There are degrees of wholeness. So the title is likely appropriate. That said, I don't suspect there will be much new ground covered in this book.

Fair enough, perhaps I jumped the gun and assumed too much. My only real critique of your vision was timeline and expectations. If those things are in check, then I have no issues.

We don't know any of those things are likely. Wait for more information to come out and avoid catastrophizing.

I wouldn't say it's useless. I think his best contributions were actually his engineering projects. He might have been better off sticking to engineering and staying away from economics / government. He was a good engineer, that was his strength. As far as his work providing the North Star for humans, I'd say that's debatable. Very few people actually even know who he is or anything about his work. It's way too fringe because it's totally impractical from a policy perspective. Maybe in 100 years that will change.

What's utopian is to not understand how far away we are from something like Jacque described.

That is not at all what you implied with your original post. Your original post: "This world here isn't interested in hoarding anything, people are free to do anything, but alone. The goal is that one doesn't interfere or even passively impact the other. There is no need to earn money, or even contribute to the society, you can live a perfectly good life, doing nothing. Infact doing nothing is the norm, it is the best thing to do. Activity is neither encouraged nor discouraged. Flowering of an individual's true nature is celebrated." ^^^This is only possible at a high level of development. Otherwise if everyone is free to live at any level of development, then slavery needs to be allowed. Slavery not only exists at a certain level of development, it's assumed to be a good thing. Are you going to argue slavery is not a contradiction with your vision? Of course it's a contradiction. Because you are advocating for a society that can fundamentally only exist at a high level of development.

That's too far. They have some bad anti-establishment takes, yes. It's very easy to lose balance in politics.