Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1999 20:58:14 +0100

To: ken-wilber-l@listserv.azstarnet.com

From: Thomas Jordan <Thomas.Jordan@redcap.econ.gu.se>

Subject: [theory] SES Ch. 7 (always out of synch . . .)

Sorry if I make a mess of the SES discussions [SES=Sex, Ecology, Spirituality by Ken Wilber], but it just happened that the topic I wanted to raise relates to ch. 7 in SES. I am reading John Heron's book "Sacred science. Person-centered inquiry into the spiritual and the subtle," and there are some considerations in this book which might be interesting for wilberries. Some of you are familiar with John Heron, who has been one of the strongest critics of KW's work [KW=Ken Wilber]. Heron has often a polemical style, and I find he tends to exaggerate the positions of his presumed opponents somewhat, but I still find his perspective refreshing. Some listmembers got angry last time I summarized Heron's arguments, and that will probably happen this time too. However, why not consider his argument, rather than get angry at his style?

If I find time, I'll summarize some of his arguments later. This time I'll just raise one point Heron makes in relation to KW's claim that the Eastern spiritual schools employ standard scientific methods for researching the transcendental realms (see SES, p. 273-276, and Eye to Eye). Many of you are familiar with the argument KW makes: To gain valid knowledge, you have to (1) follow an injunction (investigate, do an experiment); (2) apprehend the results (what did I observe?); and (3) offer the conclusions for consideration and confirmation or refutation by a community of adequate scholars/experienced persons.

I found this argument very convincing until I read Heron's critical comments. Heron points out, though, that there is a problem with this procedure:

"This account is mistaken because it confuses inquiry with training. All the examples Wilber gives of his three inquiry steps presuppose that established knowledge is already built in to the practical instructions of step one. […] What this means is that the checking of step three is to make sure that you have followed the instruction properly and have had the experience that pre-existent knowledge says you are supposed to have had. This kind of checking is no more that the assessment of experiential training within an established field of practice and discourse" (p46) "The whole procedure only becomes inquiry when presuppositions built into the instructions for step one are questioned. […] And this is precisely what many traditional spiritual schools don't like and can't handle. […] The teacher in experiential *training* tells you what experiences you are able to have, tells you how to have them and checks whether you have had them. The peers in experiential *inquiry* [the model Heron advocates] ask whether a defined experience is what it claims to be, enter the experience in ways that are open to reframing the definition, then check with each other to see whether their experiential data does or does [not] require such reframing." (p. 47)

I think that another way of expressing this is that the procedure Wilber describes is valid for what Kuhn calls "normal" science, that is, science that does not challenge the prevailing paradigm. Kegan might agree that this is 4th order (rational) science, a perspective that does not include reflecting on the perspective *as* a perspective. 4th order science employs systematical reasoning, but has no means of reviewing if the basic assumptions, the basic concepts and models are really valid. It looks for internal consistency. 5th order science (corresponding to vision-logic, or Torbert's action inquiry) includes the ability to reflect on and transform the perspective itself. The conclusion would be that Zen is essentially a 4th order (rational) paradigm for inquiry into the transcendental.

I'm personally not as critical as Heron in relation to Buddhism and other traditions. However, I think it would be a good thing to be open to the possibility that within each and every spiritual school there are persons who approach the subject matter from magical, mythical, mythic-rational, rational, vision-logical (etc. ??) positions. Some spiritual masters are very rigid about praxis and hierarchy, because they interpret what they are doing essentially in terms of a mythic-rational logic. Others are less rigid, but still unable to integrate their own approach with other approaches, which corresponds to a rational outlook. A few can construct a conception of spirituality that transcends the concrete forms that have evolved in different cultures and lineages. (BTW, Heron mentions the Dalai Lama as such a person.) I'm sure KW himself belongs to the last category, but maybe he is not very inclined to apply his analytical skills to the traditions he is involved with himself.

Heron's website:

http://zeus.sirt.pisa.it/icci/

Thomas