I had some very mixed feelings about Ken Wilber’s “No Boundary.” In a sense, I feel like it was kind of a philosophical roller coaster for me. I would find segments in the book where I thought Wilber was spot on with my own opinions and beliefs. However, I would turn a few pages and be very disappointed by his seemingly overzealous and exuberant joy in his transluminal approach.
I was not instantly set-off by Wilber. I finished the book with a rather neutral feeling. However, upon reviewing my notes I found that most of them reflected the book in a negative light. This was interesting because I was not preemptively trying to make a case against Wilber. However, it seemed that in the end I had many more concerns than compliments for him.
I certainly like the idea of pushing boundaries for the purposes of extending them. However, I disagree with Wilber that all boundaries are also connections. I would agree that many things are connected in “our world.” This helps resolve some of the other issues I have had with Maslow, Rogers, and Van Den Berg (for example) not paying enough credence to the physical realm of our experiences. However, I would say that I am certainly more inclined to take a Heidegerrian rather than Wilberian approach to pan- and panen- experiential issues. This brings me to my first major stumbling block with Wilber. He asserts oneness, gestalt-type ideas, and duality to the point of wholism. I very much agree that there are certainly tensions in our lives that create a fertile proving ground for our being, and yes, they are all connected. However, my concern is that wholism, by its definition, denies individuality. This is a major “sin” from my existential-phenomenological-hermeneutic viewpoint. I am aware that some Eastern traditions see wholism as an opportunity to express individualism by taking part in the whole. Nevertheless, I feel that something very significant to ourselves and our being is lost when it is absorbed to the being of the whole (ala Heidegger’s “das man”). When our being assimilates to the being of the whole, do our individual characteristics lose their stature and significance as we are no longer ourselves, but “the” self?
This brings me to my next question for Wilber. Theoretically speaking, what if I do not want to take part in the whole? What if I do not care about the transpersonal world? Perhaps my decision or concern are uneffective in rebelling against our “oneness” as it is inevitable and a constant connection whether recognized, acknowledge, accepted, or actively participated in. If this were the case the I reiterate my disdain for the idea of oneness for its lack of individual authenticity and culpable conviction.
Wilber speaks of transpersonality and transliminality as ways to happiness and to remove individual constraints of suffering by way of universal sharing of all burdens. However, the question, then, that begs to be asked is; “What if I am content with my suffering, satisfied with my misery? What if I prefer to bear my burdens alone as they contribute to my-self and I do not want to lose that part of my-being to the-being of us all?”
Furthermore, Wilber speaks of living “beyond” our suffering. Still, I hold to the concerns expressed above. I do not want to live “beyond” anything associated with my becoming or being. To move beyond is an implicit and concise detriment to the very notion of “being” as a present state of motion, of living, of expressing and experiencing. Being is not a state of reciprocity to the future or the past or even to any other being. I have connections, projections, and inspirations. I am not those things. In other words, I do not want to “live beyond” my sufferings (to do so also implies a move beyond my joys) because my being is defined by how I live in and live with them in this moment, by my own oneness, by being “one” with myself.
I was not instantly set-off by Wilber. I finished the book with a rather neutral feeling. However, upon reviewing my notes I found that most of them reflected the book in a negative light. This was interesting because I was not preemptively trying to make a case against Wilber. However, it seemed that in the end I had many more concerns than compliments for him.
I certainly like the idea of pushing boundaries for the purposes of extending them. However, I disagree with Wilber that all boundaries are also connections. I would agree that many things are connected in “our world.” This helps resolve some of the other issues I have had with Maslow, Rogers, and Van Den Berg (for example) not paying enough credence to the physical realm of our experiences. However, I would say that I am certainly more inclined to take a Heidegerrian rather than Wilberian approach to pan- and panen- experiential issues. This brings me to my first major stumbling block with Wilber. He asserts oneness, gestalt-type ideas, and duality to the point of wholism. I very much agree that there are certainly tensions in our lives that create a fertile proving ground for our being, and yes, they are all connected. However, my concern is that wholism, by its definition, denies individuality. This is a major “sin” from my existential-phenomenological-hermeneutic viewpoint. I am aware that some Eastern traditions see wholism as an opportunity to express individualism by taking part in the whole. Nevertheless, I feel that something very significant to ourselves and our being is lost when it is absorbed to the being of the whole (ala Heidegger’s “das man”). When our being assimilates to the being of the whole, do our individual characteristics lose their stature and significance as we are no longer ourselves, but “the” self?
This brings me to my next question for Wilber. Theoretically speaking, what if I do not want to take part in the whole? What if I do not care about the transpersonal world? Perhaps my decision or concern are uneffective in rebelling against our “oneness” as it is inevitable and a constant connection whether recognized, acknowledge, accepted, or actively participated in. If this were the case the I reiterate my disdain for the idea of oneness for its lack of individual authenticity and culpable conviction.
Wilber speaks of transpersonality and transliminality as ways to happiness and to remove individual constraints of suffering by way of universal sharing of all burdens. However, the question, then, that begs to be asked is; “What if I am content with my suffering, satisfied with my misery? What if I prefer to bear my burdens alone as they contribute to my-self and I do not want to lose that part of my-being to the-being of us all?”
Furthermore, Wilber speaks of living “beyond” our suffering. Still, I hold to the concerns expressed above. I do not want to live “beyond” anything associated with my becoming or being. To move beyond is an implicit and concise detriment to the very notion of “being” as a present state of motion, of living, of expressing and experiencing. Being is not a state of reciprocity to the future or the past or even to any other being. I have connections, projections, and inspirations. I am not those things. In other words, I do not want to “live beyond” my sufferings (to do so also implies a move beyond my joys) because my being is defined by how I live in and live with them in this moment, by my own oneness, by being “one” with myself.
Thanks for Reading!
Follow me on Twitter @Savaged_Zen
No comments:
Post a Comment