« Seven days of sex -- religion I can get behind | Main | Spiritual ego worse than worldly ego »

November 19, 2008


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Bravo Brian..."We're" off the personal bantering with your lost 30 years and almost angerly trying to convince and/or question a cult member about their rational and beliefs in a guru or any other B.S. You were, will and never be any more successfully than you would have been convinced me over my 30 years worshiping a bottle that I believed held the answers. Jack Daniels was a pretty good satiguru for me and look...we occupy a connected reality...two corks down a stream, let loose on this planet about the same time, miles apart at one time. I read that analogy somewhere.

This topic is a fabulous transition/addition from your recent "stuff". (Including Sex which always "sells" and is the epitome of relative consciousness). Never-the-less, relative consciousness is the ONLY consciousness available when a brain is in the way. Which also likely means Absolute Consciousness may not exist because we may not beyond this brain attached physical manifestation.

Can't wait to find out.

Happy Thanksgiving to all. There is a lot to be thankful for in a relative sense.

Wilber wrote...
"When it comes to consciousness, we can talk about absolute consciousness and we can talk about relative consciousness..."

Yeah, with talking and thinking, we can create whatever type of ideas and distinctions that we like. It's like saying, "When it comes to people, we can talk about Good People who are headed to Heaven, and Bad People who are headed to Hell." Sure, we can think and talk that way. We MAKE these distinctions.

But our experience is before all these ideas. Just now, if you take a drink of coffee, is the taste Relative or Absolute? The experience is what it is, before thinking; "Relative" and "Absolute" etc etc are ideas superimposed on the original experience. ("Open your mouth, already a mistake.")

Wilber wrote...
"The integral structure is the value structure that is basically the truest to the real nature of absolute consciousness."

More ideas. The real nature can't be captured with any idea. We don't know what we are. "Consciousness" is a name for what we're experiencing right now; no thought-structure touches it.

> But some conceptual models come closer
> than others to reflecting the universe as
> it is (in contrast to how a human mind
> would like it to be, or imagines it to
> be). This is the goal of science: to
> describe as accurately as possible how the
> natural world works.

The goal of science depends on what the scientist wants. The success of science is in predicting what will happen... with a much much greater accuracy than any "spiritual" system acheives.

But it never tells us what true nature is. It's like gravity: science may predict very well what it will DO, but no one knows what it IS.

Just now experience is precisely what we've got. All these different interpretations come and go like clouds in the sky. "Simplicity" is putting down the ideas, and returning to the situation of this moment.


Stuart, good point about absolute and relative consciousness. I had the same thought, but forgot to mention it in the post. I understand what Wilber is getting at, or at least I believe I do, but your point is well taken.

When have we ever seen something called "absolute consciousness"? It does indeed seem to be a concept that's found in Buddhism and other faiths. I've been struck by the fact that Wilber has practiced Buddhism for a long time, and it just so happens that the cosmos is structured remarkably similarly to Buddhist notions.

Hmmmm? Makes me wonder how much of Wilber's cosmology is founded in reality, and how much in his own mind.

Hey there. I wonder alittle why no one takes in account that the sense of the integral theory lies also beyond spiritaul informing, it extends into every direction, revisioning all fields of knowledge, winding them up through bettering interdisciplinary methods of research, co-labo/ope-ration, and so on.


If you ..think that thinking is bad, you are identified with wanting to not think. You should not identify with anything concerning anything AT ALL, but stop to make that move(avoiding/contracting). That means, that you must not stop to make meaning, but you must stop to identify with the meaning YOU MAKE ANYWAY whithin relativity, duality, NOT stop being able to see it(avoinding/contracting)
. there is never nothing, and everything is, as relative and fading, as much being within the eternity happening right now.

All theories are holy, then, just like everything.

Wilber wrote...
> The interpretation of a spiritual
> experience is as important, or more
> important, than the spiritual experience
> itself.

Does Wilber even realize that when he talks about "a spiritual experience," he's ALREADY making an interpretation? He's taking the memory of some experience, and attaching the idea of "spiritual" to it. It's incoherent to talk of "spiritual experience" without clarifying why you're making ideas of "this is spiritual, that's unspiritual."

Further... how can you talk about what's "important" without clarifying who it's important to, and why?


Hey Stuart, tricky boy.

(btw, to make things clear, that wich i am chooses to be, me as relative person, is taking part in the integral MOVING-Ment)

WIlber is aware. if you would read sth. you knew that to Wilber, there is no Un-Interpreted Data at all, the disussion of pure vs. uninterpreted in his perspective is flawed as whole, cause it believes in the myth of the (possibity of a) given.

So to discuss this like that makes no sense at all. Did you read anything by WIlber? The questions you pose are sense less because all you have to do is open a book(no, not integral vision) and read. then we can discuss that(furthering the spiraling), but to tell you things you can read by your self seems sense less to me.

I agree with Sebastian, Stuart. Give Ken Wilber a little credit. He knows that our experience is before our ideas and that thought-structures don't touch Consciousness. He's a writer; he's going to try to write coherently about these things *anyway*. Whether he succeeds or not is of course up for debate.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)


  • Welcome to the Church of the Churchless. If this is your first visit, click on "About this site--start here" in the Categories section below.
  • HinesSight
    Visit my other weblog, HinesSight, for a broader view of what's happening in the world of your Church unpastor, his wife, and dog.
  • BrianHines.com
    Take a look at my web site, which contains information about a subject of great interest to me: me.
  • Twitter with me
    Join Twitter and follow my tweets about whatever.
  • I Hate Church of the Churchless
    Can't stand this blog? Believe the guy behind it is an idiot? Rant away on our anti-site.