Transpersonal Psychology: Invitation to Dialogue

[pamela]

I refer to the capital "I" in "real-I-zation" as the one true Identity in all, which is only 'realized' after ego is either surrendered... usually through some kind of intentional spiritual discipline of ego-surrender or through circumstances through which the ego/false-identity gives up in total despair of the meaning of life... as sought by the despairing seeker.

what pray tell, are the characteristics of the one true Identity?

 

 

After the "I, Me, Mine" finally disintegrates (totally!, leaving a void!) the Universal Identity is automatically realized as the Reality which the illusion of personal identity had always obscured. Reality is what is left after the illusion disappears.

this is unrealistic. Where i can see at times being able to set self aside and its desires, to totally lose self and be void, is impossible. Is it self preservation to run when the lion attacks, or is it human animal instinct? are these offspring mine, and hence my responsibility to care for them? Would you simply reduce me to animal kind or a mere shell of a human whose mind is bereft?Or

would you have me to lose myself in order to become you or your collective soul?

[enorbet2]

It is impossible to argue with the fact that we are not separate from the Universe since nobody knows of anything separate from this Universe. So, yes, truth does exist and at it's most basic form it is Identity, "A" is "A". That is self-evident truth. It has been further said that "we are the Universe experiencing itself" and as stated that is self-evident also since it does not imply in any way that we are the only entities experiencing. It may imply that the Universe as a whole is incapable of experience but that is an assumption based on extremely limited data as well as processing power. Like it or not we are stuck with our tools and their limitations of working with what we know and what we can know with just a little imagination and extrapolation to test and define the cutting edge. This would seem to require a point-of-view since the first glimmer of experience is self-identification even if it only first takes place as gratification of the requirements for continued survival.

 

I maintain that it is not provable, let alone self-evident, that

 

1) Science is ignorant of humanity - I think Science exactly recognizes humanity's strengths and limitations by working out a systematic, testable method by which to know ourselves and the Universe, what we are apparently here to do.

 

2) Science rejects humanity's need for freedom of anything - Science requires freedom.

 

3) Religion exists apart from perception - unless someone knows something about whale, porpoise, or alien intelligence that even implies religion let alone proves it (this doesn't even address the hundreds of millions of years of lifeforms that show evidence of perception but no evidence of religion), it's simply unverifiable or false.... or entirely egocentric. Hmmmm? Paradox?

 

4) Science has feelings of superiority - Science has feelings?

 

5) Science must get over itself - If it ain't broke, it doesn't need to be scrapped, or apologize, especially when so easily upgraded.

 

It is especially not provable that there is any Higher Truth, Supreme Identity, nor any value to surrendering one's ego, one's sense of self-identity the very thing that gives one the point of view to survive and learn without depending on some "enlightened" guru to hand it to you pre-digested since "surrendering" history so often shows is a progressuin from "to the Higher Truth" through "to my Truth" to finally end at "to me". One may have the best intentions but if you abandon what works in the reality in which you presently live, you may find yourself in that egoless state you seek when you discorporate. Why not deal with that when you come to it, should there be a "you" and should you be able to deal with anything?

[Eclogite]

I need a definition of radical honesty before I can digest your other words without emotion. Honesty seems to me to be close to an absolute. Qualifying it, especially with a buzz word such as radical, is redolent of agenda pushing in its worst sense. Perhaps your reply can persuade me their is value in your application of the word.

[Michael Mooney]

I need a definition of radical honesty before I can digest your other words without emotion. Honesty seems to me to be close to an absolute. Qualifying it, especially with a buzz word such as radical, is redolent of agenda pushing in its worst sense. Perhaps your reply can persuade me their is value in your application of the word.

 

Radical Honesty

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:

Radical Honesty is the name of a self improvement program developed by Brad Blanton PhD that challenges people to give up their addiction to lying. The method focuses the practitioner on being present with what is happening within themselves and separating their objective observation from their subjective judgment and having a higher level of consciousness as to which is which.

 

The Radical Honesty technique includes having practitioners state their feelings directly and in ways typically considered impolitic. For example, "I resent you for X" where X is a statement of objective observation about the person who the comment is being directed towards.

 

The Center for Radical Honesty conducts 8 day workshops which train people in the collection of techniques which shift them out of typically socially acceptable patterns of "white lying" and into a more truthful relationship with themselves and others. The material in the Radical Honesty workshop is drawn from an eclectic collection of sources including Sufism, clinical psychology, Gestalt therapy and the comic spiritual belief (developed by Blanton) called Futilitarianism. Futilitarianism claims it is futile to have any belief whatsoever. The significant majority of participants in the Radical Honesty workshops report dramatic changes in their lives after taking the course, though they are not always comfortable and positive.

 

These workshops are usually held in Stanley, Virginia at the Center's offices, and Blanton travels widely and occasionally gives workshops in other locations.

 

Blanton has written a series of books to help guide readers in the Radical Honesty technique.

 

I was practicing radical honesty and doing seminars on it at least ten years before Blanton"s work was published and he became famous as the presumed originator of radical honesty.

 

I am not making money off books and seminars like he is/has. I simply guide the residents at our intentional community to honor Truth above politeness or any form of acceptable social protocol.

 

Hurting personal feelings is forbidden in the tradition of acceptable "little white lies." The spiritual version of Honesty is that "personal feelings" are based on attachments which, like addictions, are requiremenrts for "personal happiness."

 

This is all illusion from spiritual or transpersonal perspective. Personal identity itself is an illusion from TRANS-personal perspective.

I suggest that you and Pamela read up on the TRANS aspect of the thread title before posting further.

 

Michael

[pamela]

well Michael, i have decided to post without reading further, how's that for radical honesty and blunt force trauma;)

It is possible to be honest and polite without lying or even the white lie. I don't lie period. Somethings are better left unsaid if they may hurt someone's feelings. You can convey, converse and even have an argument without being deceitful, rude or ill mannered.

The significant majority of participants in the Radical Honesty workshops report dramatic changes in their lives after taking the course, though they are not always comfortable and positive.

Now Michael, why on earth would any one want to be uncomfortable and negative? to what purpose would this serve? And... what good reason can you give me as to radical honesty being superior to kindness, when it is clearly capable of ostracizing you from others and loved ones? I cannot even begin to imagine the community in which you live.

[modest]

Honesty that originates from guilt and fear is insecurity and worthless.

If honesty originates from guilt or fear, it is absolutely worthless and not a quality at all. There is an old Zen story to illustrate the point:

 

Two monks were about to cross a river, when they came across a beautiful woman who couldn’t get across on her own. Breaking his vows, one of the monks carried her across on his shoulders. The other one was shocked but kept his anger to himself until they reached their destination. He complained to the first monk by saying: “You broke the rules and I will have to report this to the abbot of our monastery.” To this the first monk replied: “I left the woman at the river, but you are still carrying her now!”

 

Reiki Fire: New Information About ... - Google Book Search

 

Why would the monk tell the head abbot about the transgression? It was to allay his own guilt for not helping the woman.

 

I figure a person with a relentlessly negative, pessimistic, and mean personality who acts as a bully and despot (a person who others might call an *******) tells him/herself that he/she is “telling it like it is” which I figure amounts to self-deception or self-dissembling. If a person is not honest with themselves about their own nature then what they perceive as honesty is just as well the propagation of a lie. The monk in the story was lying to himself that he believed he did what was right in not touching the woman and telling the abbot about the transgression. His complaints to the other monk and his complaints to the abbot were a projection of that lie to others. But, he could not see it. Guilt and insecurity blinded him to his own nature.

 

Aware of the suffering caused by unmindful speech and the inability to listen to others, I am committed to cultivating loving speech and deep listening in order to bring joy and happiness to others and relieve others of their suffering. Knowing that words can create happiness or suffering, I am determined to speak truthfully, with words that inspire self-confidence, joy, and hope. I will not spread news that I do not know to be certain and will not criticize or condemn things of which I am not sure. I will refrain from uttering words that can cause division or discord, or that can cause the family or the community to break. I am determined to make all efforts to reconcile and resolve all conflicts, however small."

 

-

Elaboration of the 4th precept of Buddhism by Nhat Hanh

The true worth of honesty is expressed in that paragraph.

 

Personal identity itself is an illusion from TRANS-personal perspective.

We are none of us alone

even as we exhale it is inhaled by others

the light that shines upon me shines upon my neighbor as well

in this way everything is connected

everything is connected to everything else

In this way I am connected to my friend even as I am connected to my enemy

In this way there is no difference between me and my friend

In this way there is no difference between me and my enemy

We are none of us alone

 

-Life

~modest

[Michael Mooney]

what pray tell, are the characteristics of the one true Identity?

 

this is unrealistic. Where i can see at times being able to set self aside and its desires, to totally lose self and be void, is impossible. Is it self preservation to run when the lion attacks, or is it human animal instinct? are these offspring mine, and hence my responsibility to care for them? Would you simply reduce me to animal kind or a mere shell of a human whose mind is bereft?Or

would you have me to lose myself in order to become you or your collective soul?

 

A brief review... lest I repeat "over and over" what I've already said:

From my post 6:

All enlightened ones have found this same Universal Identity and realized that the "personal, separate identity' is illusory. Wilber's use of the term "Kosmos" denotes this One Universal Being in Whom the individual awakens into indentity-in-unity.

 

From post 7:

The Universal Identity into which one awakens is both an "inside job" of ego-surrender and realizatiobn that the whole cosmos is One Intelligent Being... the same Identity manifesting as all forms/individuals.

And:

In this realm one realizes that ones cultural conditioning is like robotic programing, and ultimately, one can not be FREE until the illusion of personal identity (and all its program) is transcended.

 

From post 8:

Transpersonal psychology addresses the field of consciousness beyond personality.

And:

It is not about who is the "most enlightened." "Light" is the universal metaphor for Consciousness. It is the same "Light" shining on and from all forms/individuals. The "real-I-zation" (if you will) of this is enlightenment, and it requires "getting over yourself."

 

From post 11:

I must tell you, however, that I do not aspire or intend to "cultivate (my) humility." I do not consider humility a virtue but rather one of those socially conditioned programs mentioned above... an obstacle to true freedom.

Post 14:

Personal virtues are all illusions created by ethnocentric/ religious cultural/moral conditioning. Obviously it is absolutely "immoral" to intentionally harm another person, for instance. But "humility" and "superiority" are really just moral values and judgments assigned by each culture, and they vary drastically cross-culturally.

 

I refer to the capital "I" in "real-I-zation" as the one true Identity in all, which is only 'realized' after ego is either surrendered... usually through some kind of intentional spiritual discipline of ego-surrender or through circumstances through which the ego/false-identity gives up in total despair of the meaning of life... as sought by the despairing seeker.

 

After the "I, Me, Mine" finally disintegrates (totally!, leaving a void!) the Universal Identity is automatically realized as the Reality which the illusion of personal identity had always obscured. Reality is what is left after the illusion disappears.

Universal Identity has many names. One of the most popular in transpersonal psych is cosmic consciousness. It can express the ultimate in kindness or 'hold the ego to the fire'... the essence of the Wilber "rude boy" quote above.

I believe the above has already addressed your objections and Modest's comments. If not please be more specific.

Michael

[Michael Mooney]

Pamela:

Now Michael, why on earth would any one want to be uncomfortable and negative? to what purpose would this serve? And... what good reason can you give me as to radical honesty being superior to kindness, when it is clearly capable of ostracizing you from others and loved ones? I cannot even begin to imagine the community in which you live.

Why? Because transcending ones personal attachments... those addictions required for personal happiness... is not always easy or comfortable. In fact it is often quite painful. Please review the Wilber "rude boy" quote earlier in the thread and see if it makes any sense in this context... contrasting the 'fire of purification' with "soft words of solace."

Ed: What the heck... space is cheap... here's the quote again for easy reference. If you don't like it argue with Ken Wilber and his buddy Andrew Cohen... whom he is promoting... founder of "What Is Enlightenment" magazine.

 

" If you want encouragement, soft smiles, ego stroking, gentle caresses of your self-contracting ways, pats on the back and sweet words of solace, find yourself a Nice Guy or Good Girl, and hold their hand on the sweet path of stress reduction and egoic comfort. But if you want Enlightenment, if you want to wake up, if you want to get fried in the fire of passionate Infinity, then, I promise you: find yourself a Rude Boy or a Nasty Girl, the ones who make you uncomfortable in their presence, who scare you witless, who will turn on you in a second and hold you up for ridicule, who will make you wish you were never born, who will offer you not sweet comfort but abject terror, not saccharin solace but scorching angst, for then, just then, you might very well be on the path to your own Original Face."

 

You have prejudged our intentional community without any understanding of the difference between egocentricity/"personal identity" (which is confronted and challenged) and the True/Universal Self in all... which, as I said, is accorded *absolute respect* and support in our community.

Ed: What the heck... space is cheap... here's the quote again for easy reference. If you don't like it argue with Ken Wilber and his buddy Andrew Cohen... whom he is promoting... founder of "What Is Enlightenment" magazine.

Michael

[pamela]

Michael, how can i judge that which i do not know? attempting to imagine your community, based upon your comments, and everything that i might have seen over the years, still does not define or qualify as the reality.I could only base upon judgement upon experiencing it myself. Now, with that said....

I cannot possibly view you as part of some larger identity and having none of your own. From your humour to your rudeness to that soft side of you that opened this thread, that is uniquely you. If i am a part of that identity, even on a very sublime level, then why does it hurt me, when you have ridiculed the members here. The part of the greater all that would unify us, would simply be love. To walk in kindness, giving of ones self to help another, is what is endearing to us as humanity;that which binds us together.

 

Why? Because transcending ones personal attachments... those addictions required for personal happiness...

this is truly an odd statement. Happiness does not come from things,addictions or attachments, it is built in love and expressed thru giving.Happiness is a room that has both an entrance and an exit and only in keeping both doors open, do we allow for that love to pass thru.

contrasting the 'fire of purification' with "soft words of solace."

it is only in the refining furnaces of the heart, that one is now capable of bestowing the words of solace and comfort to those that may be hurting

 

Michael, i do fear your enlightenment is merely the luminescent rocks that lie well below the earth in the darkest of places.Crawl out from that cave, breathe the free air, and see that love is all around you

[Michael Mooney]

Me:

Why? Because transcending ones personal attachments... those addictions required for personal happiness...

Pamela:

this is truly an odd statement. Happiness does not come from things,addictions or attachments, it is built in love and expressed thru giving.Happiness is a room that has both an entrance and an exit and only in keeping both doors open, do we allow for that love to pass thru.

 

The point was that one stuck in addiction to attachments will be unhappy to the extent they are not fulfilled. I don't know if you didn't see my post addressing that point or just can not understand it. Here it is again from post 7:

 

In this realm one realizes that ones cultural conditioning is like robotic programing, and ultimately, one can not be FREE until the illusion of personal identity (and all its program) is transcended.

All those "programs" are essentially specific versions of the following:

"This is who I am. This is what I want. To the extent I don't get what I want, I am unhappy, and I spread that unhappiness around as various forms of discontent."

 

Pamela:

Michael, i do fear your enlightenment is merely the luminescent rocks that lie well below the earth in the darkest of places.Crawl out from that cave, breathe the free air, and see that love is all around you

 

Do not fear for me or judge me falsely as you have just done.

 

This is one of the nastiest, most self-righteous judgements I have ever received actually! 'Crawl out from under the rocks of my dark, subterranean habitat'... indeed! Do you even have a clue how "nasty" this judgement is.

Love prevails in my life. Universal, unconditional love. Way deeper than "nice."

If you stick to self improvement programs, you will move from one "new, improved self" to the next until you are ready for the transformation beyond ego which is the subject matter for the field of transpersonal psychology.

Michael

[pamela]

The point was that one stuck in addiction to attachments will be unhappy to the extent they are not fulfilled. I don't know if you didn't see my post addressing that point or just can not understand it. Here it is again from post 7:

no, i get it michael, i just disagree

Do not fear for me or judge me falsely as you have just done.

 

This is one of the nastiest, most self-righteous judgements I have ever received actually! 'Crawl out from under the rocks of my dark, subterranean habitat'... indeed! Do you even have a clue how "nasty" this judgement is.

Love prevails in my life. Universal, unconditional love. Way deeper than "nice."

If you stick to self improvement programs, you will move from one "new, improved self" to the next until you are ready for the transformation beyond ego which is the subject matter for the field of transpersonal psychology.

Now Michael, if you were able to truly understand love, then that comment would have never entered your mind.My words were said to help you thru the blindness that you are experiencing. They are not hateful, nor nasty, but were contrived from a heart that cares for you. It is a judgement, yes, but only identified in order to help you see.It was not ego that prompted my remark, but kindness:)

[Michael Mooney]

Pamela:

Now Michael, if you were able to truly understand love, then that comment would have never entered your mind.My words were said to help you thru the blindness that you are experiencing. They are not hateful, nor nasty, but were contrived from a heart that cares for you. It is a judgement, yes, but only identified in order to help you see.It was not ego that prompted my remark, but kindness

 

If you look up "self righteousness" in the Dictionary of Perennial Wisdom (wish there were one!) you will find the above quote as a prime example.

I have been attacked by fundamentalist Christians with less self righteousness than the above! They tell me that Jesus is God Who is Love... and "enlightenment" is a device of the Devil imported from "The East"... those who are not yet "saved."

 

The tone of your post is the same. I do not not waste my time in argument with self righteous Christians or any other religious fundamentalists, nor will I with you... who knows True Love... and prostelytizes your version to save me from my dark world.

 

Goodbye... and good luck getting over your "self."

Michael

[pamela]

careful Michael, your lofty ego is showing through. To make such assumptions about me are both unwarrented and incorrect. Do you presume to know me? For the length of time you have spent here heavily depositing your point of view across both space and time, i have been kind to you. How dare you claim that i am attempting to save you? You know nothing of me and nothing of love for humanity, your very words wreak of contempt and hatred. I will not engage you in discussion, as your lies are all too clear. Your proselytizing has fallen on deaf ears

[Michael Mooney]

Whew! Glad that is over!

Now maybe we can go back to transpersonal psychology.

Michael

[modest]

Please review the Wilber "rude boy" quote earlier in the thread and see if it makes any sense in this context...

 

If you don't like it argue with Ken Wilber

 

Pamela, you might be interested: there are some good critiques of Ken Wilber available online.

 

With usual immodesty.. complete with treatments for the egocentric, narcissistic postmodern syndrome he’s incubating... yet another protracted interview by Ken Wilber with Ken Wilber about Ken Wilber - a portrait of the narcissist as a young man.... because he sounds authoritative, newcomers to SD will believe they're getting a valid overview of Graves/SD from Boomeritis. Quite the contrary – they’ll have been led down a rabbit trail into a labyrinth of all quadrant, all level nonsense. For the people who really know the Gravesian theory, reading it is a cringe a minute.... symptom of pluralistic relativism, egocentrism, and postmodernism in the virus he's spreading....

 

Boomeritis or Bust…

 

The book by Ken Wilber that the above website reviews (Boomeritis) actually has a protagonist named Kin Wilber—a brilliant student of artificial intelligence at MIT with frequent and explicitly described sexual escapades with a young girl named "Chloe". It's a spitting image of Steven Colbert's Tek Jansen :evil:

 

In any case, you can get a good idea of Wilber's game by the critiques of his peers:

 

Critics on Ken Wilber

 

And, speaking of criticism, there's an interesting description (a snippet and link follows) pointing out that the 'Ken Wilber movement' is becoming ever-more cult-like. One criticism is Wilber's absolute inability to deal with criticism. Do you know what I mean?

 

It has long been apparent that the movement around Ken Wilber, despite all the good people it is still attracting, is becoming a closed cultic environment. One of the key symptoms is a total inability to deal with criticism...

 

Wilber has never accepted such criticism, and has said so on occasion... Surely, the difficulty of dealing with critique is not particular to Wilber, it is a human frailty that is easily recognizable. Yet one must fight it, because if one wants to be recognized especially in the academic world, subjecting oneself to peer review is a must; and in the internet world, that is extended to the broader public at large...

 

But sadly, Wilber has gone one step beyond, and has published a long raging rant against mostly anonymous critics, which you have to simple read to believe. There’s so much wrong with it, that it is hard to know where to begin: 1) his critics are mostly anonymous, so that he is ranting against adversaries whom we cannot identify and who cannot defend themselves; 2) when named, the attacks are systematically ad hominem and very condescending and harsh. For Wilber, critics are simply morons. There is not a single paragraph where an actual argument is taken into account and a counter-argument offered; 3) critics are systematically described as being cognitively deficient, ‘constitutionally unable’ to give a reasoned account of his work; 4) he absolutes forbids any critique that does not take into account the full 3,000 pages of his work, with the permanent claim that any critique has already been superseded by his subsequent work, but no detail is ever given, you have to take it on faith.

 

The Cult of Ken Wilber revisited

 

This may pale in comparison to the exploits of:

 

and his buddy Andrew Cohen... whom he is promoting... founder of "What Is Enlightenment" magazine.

 

For whom there seems to be quite rational misgivings.

 

Andrew Cohen is an American guru, editor-in-chief of What Is Enlightenment?/EnlightenNext, and friend of Ken Wilber.... He seems to follow the basic Vedanto-Buddhist approach of many popular and western gurus. There have however been some serious accusations of cultic behavior levelled against him...

 

"The first third of Cohen’s “Autobiography of an awakening” I found intensely exciting. The last two thirds absolutely horrified me, as it reads as a long victim story of how how his guru betrayed him and how hard it is to be a teacher, of how his students, who lack his good fortune to have been totally awakened at once like himself, resist his teaching, how nobody understands the majesty and power of his teaching, etc."

 

Andrew Cohen

 

A particularly good source of Cohen's antics are from his mother (Luna Tarlo) who has written a book "Mother of God" telling how after years of being brainwashed as her son's disciple she was able to overcome his manipulation and break free of his cult-like movement—something that surely took heroic strength. It certainly cannot be easy to break away from these manipulating and charismatic gurus, but imagine if you were being controlled by your own son... it is truly inspirational the path that this woman took to freedom.

 

The Mother of God, by Luna Tarlo, relates the story of the author's three-and-a half years of harrowing spiritual bondage to her own son, Andrew Cohen, a well-known American guru. The book describes her travels in India, Europe, and the United States with Andrew and his earliest disciples, and reveals in stunning detail her parallel inner journey from loving observer, to slave-like disciple, to a final wrenching assertion of autonomy.

 

This book will be of interest to anyone concerned with the preservation of human dignity in the face of constant manipulation by the various "powers to be." It will be of particular interest to every individual who has ever been harmed by the influence of a guru and also to those individuals' greatly distressed families.

 

The abuse of power, the incessant fear, the psychology of obsession are all explored from an intimate perspective. Since brainwashing cults and their grandiose gurus are proliferating in this country and around the world, this book is not only a mother's lament, but also a finger pointing to the growing appeal everywhere of authoritarianism and absolutism.

 

The Mother of God - Luna Tarlo

 

~modest

[enorbet2]

Hello Michael

Since AFAIK meditation's primary goal is the clearing of the mind and not expected to be a method of arriving at conclusions

and

Since you came to reject "standing on the shoulders of the collective Giant of generations" as Psychology became a more scientific progression and instead reach back for mystical first steps

and

Since even as a casual student of psychology I was transfixed by the work of Edward Thorndike and especially Jean Piaget (and in philosophy, Dialectics)

 

I am curious as to your thoughts on these fields and the process by which you came to reject them. Would you care to expound on any or all?

[Erasmus00]

All enlightened ones have found this same Universal Identity and realized that the "personal, separate identity' is illusory....

 

This is tautological. You are DEFINING enlightenment with "discovering the universal identity." People who meditate for years and find that it induces a novel state in the brain but don't attach spiritual connotations are considered unenlightened.