Creative people are just high functioning schizophrenics

What's more (and germane): he considers magic "pre," and the siddhis "trans!"

This is true; I once heard him say in an interview that he didn't speak about psychedelics much because he didn't have much experience with them.

His own work is pretty heavily influenced by eastern non-dual traditions, and I think that comes through pretty strongly in his writings. As an example, I think what he's written on the Pre/Trans fallacy is interesting but he falls short of every really making a cogent argument as to what is "pre" and what is "trans" (other than saying, in so may word, "trans is the group of things that I believe").

But his "Integral Spirituality" was a bit different and I could see how one might think it a bit "closet" reductionist. My personal opinion is that Ken Wilber hasn't done very many if any psychedelics, and some of these would really throw some wrenches into his mind. In other words, he's a bit too sure of himself at times and makes some hidden assumptions about reality - a good strong dose of mushrooms would send him reeling and blast him out of certainty and into the heart of the mystery.

To the extent that psychedelics reflect a Buddhist worldview, Wilber's ideas mesh well with the ideas of living in illusion or maya and our brain limiting our awareness. However I think a lot of Buddhists and Wilber would learn a lot from psychedelics. In short, Buddhist just don't go far enough. I get the feeling from them that this really is all there is. It's true in a way, but if you smoke DMT, you'll realize that the present moment is nothing like normal reality. Hyperspace really is raging all around us! I wish more experiments would be done with Buddhist monks and DMT. I have no doubt that some have gotten there, but very, very few.

On another note, I appreciate your wariness of systems and hierarchies that might limit the uniqueness and creativity of individuals. Maybe the integral stuff is just something for the rational mind to say, ok, this spiritual stuff is really is justified and there's some solid, logical stuff behind it. But then the intuitive, creative mind steps in and says, ya, but lets check that need for analysis and order at the door and just see where the mind takes us (let's go on a crazy psychedelic adventure).

Because let's be honest, the psychedelics are just unreasonable and truly confounding to the rational mind!

I think the me to us to all of us idea is about ultimate identification with the all, and doesn't have to limit creativity at all. In a way, such a transpersonal expansion of identity allows you to be free to be yourself, and is a doorway to the greatest freedom of creative expression there is!

I was never attracted to materialism or the more reductive ways of looking at things that scientists often are drawn to, out of, I suppose, professional caution. I imagine a fair portion of people visiting this site have a similar attitude as we do. I think there are good perspectives coming from the rationalistic explanations that science comes up with, but a lot of the time different scientists come up with equally "plausible" explanations for mysterious/ineffable experiences. Time and again, supposed certainties get overturned, in the history of science itself. There are cultural biases, as well as personal ones, not to mention the reaction against such biases in others. And I agree that spiritual or psychedelic experiences point to things that science doesn't seem to have any hint of, and in a particularly convincing way.

What concerns me is that a movement to unify, or create the "best schema" for spirituality, and provide guidelines for how people should try to "grow" is going to reflect the values/interpretations of the system's creators. It is fine to take a stab at it, and to try and convince people, but I don't think we can expect everyone to be convinced by any particular take on all of this. I can't help but think that the suggestions and insights of these thinkers might take hold in the minds of some of their readers, representing a sort of short-cut to somewhere, crafted in the image of the writers. There might be a recognition that everyone will pass though such a system for "growth" in their own unique way, of course, but there will still be some bias in the signposts and the shape of the general approaches presented. Perhaps this sort of bias is inevitable, and has been occurring as long as people have been reading and listening to sermons, and following some shaman through techniques that s/he prefers. I'd just like to see "integral" approaches stop somewhere before actually seeking complete integration of all systems via a reductionist standardization, colored by a fetish for efficiency.

Despite the call for "integration" here, I think it is unavoidable that the drive for maximum standardization and efficiency (of consciousness and/or spirituality) is going to represent a reductionist view of spiritual approaches/perspectives. The "integral" approach relies on the reduction of individual elements--a reduction of minds to variations on universal "maps," a reduction in the styles for assessing "operating systems", and a certain reduced delineation of important spiritual values.

I recognize a certain need for some attempt at a best-possible universal perspective on morality. I support the Universal Declaration of Human Rights ( [link] ). Of course, it might not be perfect, and might need careful and debated amending or re-interpretation, in the face of changing times. Beyond that sort of thing, I think it is enough to suggest that people should get along, and that in order to live together, we should appreciate and respect each other. Curiosity and reasonable tolerance should be encouraged, but we need not engage in some effort to decide what's the best system for everyone to coordinate and get on the same page with, spiritually. Especially considering the fact that mixtures of rationality and the ineffable can take on the compelling flavor of analytical argument, while maintaining a built-in defense against critical rational assessment.

I consider spirituality a personal matter. Not to suggest that we live in isolation, but that we should respect the value of variety, our different perspectives, and our uniqueness. We have (blessedly) different perspectives, and I think that we should recognize the importance of this aspect of who we are. Surely, in addition to the unifying trend you mention that goes from "me" to "us" to "all of us", there has also been a liberating trend from "familial" to "tribal" to "citizen" to "individual" in our relation to responsibilities, power structures, and value systems, and it could probably be revealed by changing the wording and focus of surveys. I'd like to see the emergent properties come out of the variety inherent in our individuality, as we seek to be more creative as individuals, rather than in our conforming to some suggested structure/hierarchy in which some particular thinkers feel it should happen.

I am concerned sometimes about the never before seen, but troubling potential of universal/integral evangelicism in an age where the power of networking (an often reductivist/standardized, dehumanizing trend, despite its usefulness when tempered properly) is being leveraged in so many contexts. I wonder if some of the urge towards massive integral systemization is perhaps the result of using the shaman/guru role as a business-model, or the result of some other more innocent misconception.

While we're in a particular stage, say rational, we think everyone who doesn't fit those values is categorically wrong. The integral stage sees partial truth, value and necessity in all stages.

It's hard to argue with the evidence that people only develop in one direction. For example, people are surveyed in 1990 and then in 2000 and their value structures or world views always move in the direction of archaic, magic, mythic, rational, pluralistic, integral.

Another way to look at it is always more inclusive - egocentric, ethnocentric, worldcentric or me, us, all of us. Similarly, atoms to molecules to cells. Including and transcending. Emergent properties coming forth.

I do agree that it's an attempt at maximum standardization and efficiency. This helps communication among disciplines but also is efficient in terms of figuring out which developmental lines we can work on to improve our lives.

Back to the importance of the rational stage - I was a committed atheist, reductionist and even determinist. My experience could not reasonably lead me to conclude there was anything going on besides random events with no purpose. This was okay, but hardly satisfying. I silently kept an eye open to things that would challenge my assumptions of a material world. It was only a matter of time before I stumbled upon psychedelics and other rabbit hole related ideas and experience. Nothing in my rational world could make sense of just one mushroom experience. Seeing the world like that brought me back to the innocence of being a child and seeing that the mystery of was indeed real and could not be reduced away.

It's akin to "getting" a Zen koan for a moment and then coming back to the rational mind and saying, "that's ridiculous! that makes no sense!" But for a moment, it did, the paradox was real. I find it fascinating how many physicists come back to only describing the world with paradoxes, just like koans.

I really just wanted to express caution in regards to claims about "the mystery", spiritualism, consciousness, etc. Having taken umbrage at rationalism's shocking demotion, I wanted to suggest that the "evolution of consciousness" (as you say) thing that Wilbur suggests is sort of "valid" according to interpretation only. For some it might seem like a quite elevated way of creating 'brotherhood' and complete minds, but for others it might seem almost a sort of anal-retentive or obsessive-compulsive drive to bring maximum efficiency/standardization to spiritual conceptualization. Some of the ideas are probably excellent food for thought, and potentially effective in many situations for many people. But I am not comfortable with the claim that some certain set of values/metrics simply represent a higher spirituality, or that a more integral system is always best.

As an individual, I am not really attracted to the idea of moving into an integral/integrated arrangement with other consciousnesses, or receptive to urgings to join up with any particular system or framework regarding such matters. I don't think a single, worldwide established hierarchy is a good idea in much of anything, in particular regarding consciousness and spirituality.

I am not sure why Wilbur and others feel the integral step is necessary, or the inevitable next step beyond pluralism (in spiritualism, consciousness-es, etc.). We can look at some metrics (books, TV, internet) and see ideas/memes being shared more and more. That isn't *necessarily* a good thing, though, not always. And, except for criminal/governmental/corporate monitoring and theft, and Web 2.0 in general (see Jaron Lanier's writings), there is still a basic recognition that people are separate and have control over their ideas and information. If integral spirituality is about respecting and appreciating others, then I am fine with it, and that isn't anything so new. But if it is a highly systematized hierarchy, that people should agree with and accept a spot in--or else be regarded as inferior by definition--then it seems in bad taste, to say the least. I am skeptical of empirical evidence in these matters. I think it would most likely be selected trends, and interpretations, and the whole issue of "how do such things really matter" is bound to be subjective, as well as speculative.

It makes me think of the hive mind fad that is (I think...) maxing out, or at least coming back to Earth. Humans benefit from collaboration and coordination and sharing, sometimes. But as limits are removed, negative behaviors manifest, such as herd behavior, peer pressure/conformity, "wisdom of the crowd", etc. The individual can become more of a cog in a larger 'thing' which has its own ideas about proper goals, etc. Co-creation is sometimes a pretty inferior approach, and I think a grand, unifying spirituality would carry some risk, as well. Realizing oneself as a branch or path coming out of some larger cavern of oneness, etc. is not sufficient reason to make our spiritual values universal to the point where we try to make our paths (and/or "operating systems") more and more the same.

I admit that I have only read a very little Wilbur online (I had forgotten about him, but had actually read a bit maybe a couple years ago). Same with Steiner and de Chardin, just some stuff online. If what I've written above misses the mark in its particulars in regard to any (or all of them), well, it's the byproduct of me turning to other thinkers, and having other discussions, and so I apologize for any misrepresentation. But, I have to say, I think there is some evangelism going on online these past few years, and I've seen these names coming up for a while, and so I have read a bit, and gotten even more from secondary sources. Some proponents of Steiner, Aurobindo, etc. have seemed no more or less impressive/flawed than other people I know, really. And when such thinking becomes a person's very profession, well, it can get a little unattractive and dicey, imo. It seems to me that we face dangers in this rush to unify, at least as much as we stand to benefit. But resistance is not futile ;-)

I don't really mean to discourage anyone's exploration of these ideas about integral philosophy, or the noosphere, etc. However, I'd like to think that there was some respect for other ideas about where we should be headed, and how people might choose to approach and define "growth". We should be careful, in case some of these thinkers might lead us to feel superior or more evolved (spiritually? or just in consciousness, perhaps?) than others that aren't in accordance with their system. That is sort of stuff that seems like you'd have to buy into it.

Is the "rational" stage inferior to the pluralistic and integral stages? Would there be a rational explanation for such a state of affairs, this sort of arrangement of stages? Or is it just something one must "buy into"?

So, do you still think illusions are unnecessary? Aren't they useful? Would it do people any good to have awareness flow right past their filter mechanisms? Aren't they there for a reason? Wouldn't it make sense that the brain puts in place the very conceptual illusions necessary for one's growth and transformation?

I do still like saying that psychedelics allow us to realize a place outside of time, to experience the unfiltered, unconceptualized moment, and that when we come back to everyday existence in time, we see this moment as an infinite compression of time, a singularity in our future. The reason it's not now, is that there are strong beliefs or perspectives that we need to take on (get mired in illusion) and then grow through or beyond (transcend). The final realization of the singularity, of creation generated in the now, comes when all filters, all limiting perspectives are realized to be illusions, and all that's left is consciousness, the I-I, which is truly the only thing that has ever been.