Last Friday I mentioned that we would explore Cynthia Bourgeault's view of the next "reconciliation," and so I will, but with the addition of another writer's work, Ken Wilbur's "The Fourth Turning." What is remarkable about the two together is how well they coincide, even though they come from very different directions. And these coincide with many other spiritual evolutionist visions as well. Are we on to something here?
For Bourgeault, we are on the cusp of a new "apocalypse," in which she uses the original meaning of the word - "unveiling." This new unveiling will be the recognition of unity in diversity. In this period of transition, which we are well into, we will experience death as well - not only ordinary death, but the death of old ways and ideas. In this, she says, we must trust in the divine dynamism. Like any birth, there will be pain and anguish in the process, but we must have faith that it is the way it should be, and that beyond it is something better, new, and meant to be. We will find a convergence of human energy, as already seen in global transportation, economics and communication, which will lead not only to a change of consciousness as we understand it, but a change in our consciousness of reality that we do NOT understand. This will be a big deal. In her words, we will learn to live in a more "diaphanous" reality which is that which is experienced as we travel closer to the 'fullness of Love." This diaphanous reality is linked with the risen Christ,as he became both spirit and flesh in the 40 days of Pentecost after his mortal death, able to walk and eat as one of us, but also able to transcend ordinary reality as well.
Ken Wilbur comes from an entirely different direction, but arrives at much the same conclusion as Bourgeault. Personally, Wilbur is something of an old friend of mine. I first read him while nervously waiting to undergo the oral grilling of my thesis necessary to gain the PhD. His book was a shocking eye-opener at the time, and it reminds me of how little I knew of the ongoing spiritual movement only 20 years ago. In the long pages of that other work, he introduced me to the model of consciousness that I have long come to respect: that we grow through stages much as a person ascending a glass sky scraper built of one-way mirrors. In this, a person is able to see all the floors beneath him, but none of those above. That is, the higher one ascends, the more plains of reality are visible. Ultimately, all are seen and the meaning of the entire "building" becomes clear.
In "The Fourth Awakening," Wilbur finds his way to our present condition through Buddhism rather than Christianity because, as he puts it, Buddhism was the first truly rational religion. Others were founded on equally great spiritual principles, but they became prisoners of the reigning mentality of their times. And this is what the Fourth Awakening is primarily about: how we experience reality through "stages" of development. For him, people of all times have come to the upper state of "nonduality," where we see, as Bourgeault says, "unity in diversity," but according to Wilbur, this unity is encumbered by the stage of development of the individual, which is more often than not determined by the culture. Thus the problem, for instance, of a guru from India, which is still largely at a mythical stage of development, in teaching those of the US, which is well into the "rational" stage. While the State of the guru might be in Unity, his Stage makes him a patron of the hierarchy, paternalism, and other limiting factors of his culture - with often-times disastrous results for both teacher and student.
We will come back to Wilbur again, but here I would like to point out that Wilbur, too, sees a rapid ascension of humanity into a different "stage"of development, one that he characterizes as "integral" - with exactly the same meaning of Bourgeault's "unity in multiplicity." Wilbur, much more the statistician than Bourgeault, even has percentages to prove it, just as a former author reviewed here, David Hawkins, noted - the US population now moving from 5% to 10% "integral" in this very decade - with, as Wilbur puts it, "spectacular results" (to be seen in the near future). Again, leaving aside Wilbur's overall philosophy for now, the pattern is clear: many of the greatest pan-religious thinkers of our time see a positive leap of consciousness coming very soon to the world.
As an anthropologist, I must say first that this is not mere mumbo-jumbo; it is well known that such leaps in life-styles and thinking have occurred in the past: the rise of agriculture, cities, and certain inventions like the bow and arrow came to the entire world (outside of very hostile areas like the arctic) in relatively short periods of time, the reasons for which being something anthropologists still argue about. But it is also obvious to everyone who wants to see that the entire world is now changing at an unprecedented pace. Never before in known history have we seen such rapid change on such a large scale. Our authors, then, are only stating the obvious when they say that we are on a new cusp, or threshold.
What is arguable is the destiny of this change, something we have dealt with here and will do so again, because it is crucial. If indeed we are directly guided by a divine hand (so to speak), we might have faith in what our authors are saying. But it is not even necessary to postulate the atheistic-materialist view to show that this is not inevitably so. Coming together through technical devices does not necessarily mean that we will come together spiritually. For instance, ISIS, the new radical Muslim group that is taking over Iraq and Syria and god knows what next, is using texting and internet advertising techniques to promulgate an archaic, mythical-minded Caliphate. We do not know the outcome of this, but it can be seen that our current state of affairs might actually decline due to our togetherness-enhancing technology. What if ISIS gets its way? What if the simple, single-minded ruthlessness of developmental troglodytes is more powerful than our current fractured view of morality, right and wrong and social responsibility?
But as Wilbur might put it, those higher up the wrung, like adults in an elementary school class, have the advantage of knowing the minds of the others while the others cannot understand the minds of the more progressed. It thus seems more likely that the "advanced" views would win (this has NOT been the case in ancient history in the short term, though - barbarians always crash the gates after civilization gets too proud and decadent). More from Wilbur soon, and on the probability of our impending leap into a new age. FK
For Bourgeault, we are on the cusp of a new "apocalypse," in which she uses the original meaning of the word - "unveiling." This new unveiling will be the recognition of unity in diversity. In this period of transition, which we are well into, we will experience death as well - not only ordinary death, but the death of old ways and ideas. In this, she says, we must trust in the divine dynamism. Like any birth, there will be pain and anguish in the process, but we must have faith that it is the way it should be, and that beyond it is something better, new, and meant to be. We will find a convergence of human energy, as already seen in global transportation, economics and communication, which will lead not only to a change of consciousness as we understand it, but a change in our consciousness of reality that we do NOT understand. This will be a big deal. In her words, we will learn to live in a more "diaphanous" reality which is that which is experienced as we travel closer to the 'fullness of Love." This diaphanous reality is linked with the risen Christ,as he became both spirit and flesh in the 40 days of Pentecost after his mortal death, able to walk and eat as one of us, but also able to transcend ordinary reality as well.
Ken Wilbur comes from an entirely different direction, but arrives at much the same conclusion as Bourgeault. Personally, Wilbur is something of an old friend of mine. I first read him while nervously waiting to undergo the oral grilling of my thesis necessary to gain the PhD. His book was a shocking eye-opener at the time, and it reminds me of how little I knew of the ongoing spiritual movement only 20 years ago. In the long pages of that other work, he introduced me to the model of consciousness that I have long come to respect: that we grow through stages much as a person ascending a glass sky scraper built of one-way mirrors. In this, a person is able to see all the floors beneath him, but none of those above. That is, the higher one ascends, the more plains of reality are visible. Ultimately, all are seen and the meaning of the entire "building" becomes clear.
In "The Fourth Awakening," Wilbur finds his way to our present condition through Buddhism rather than Christianity because, as he puts it, Buddhism was the first truly rational religion. Others were founded on equally great spiritual principles, but they became prisoners of the reigning mentality of their times. And this is what the Fourth Awakening is primarily about: how we experience reality through "stages" of development. For him, people of all times have come to the upper state of "nonduality," where we see, as Bourgeault says, "unity in diversity," but according to Wilbur, this unity is encumbered by the stage of development of the individual, which is more often than not determined by the culture. Thus the problem, for instance, of a guru from India, which is still largely at a mythical stage of development, in teaching those of the US, which is well into the "rational" stage. While the State of the guru might be in Unity, his Stage makes him a patron of the hierarchy, paternalism, and other limiting factors of his culture - with often-times disastrous results for both teacher and student.
We will come back to Wilbur again, but here I would like to point out that Wilbur, too, sees a rapid ascension of humanity into a different "stage"of development, one that he characterizes as "integral" - with exactly the same meaning of Bourgeault's "unity in multiplicity." Wilbur, much more the statistician than Bourgeault, even has percentages to prove it, just as a former author reviewed here, David Hawkins, noted - the US population now moving from 5% to 10% "integral" in this very decade - with, as Wilbur puts it, "spectacular results" (to be seen in the near future). Again, leaving aside Wilbur's overall philosophy for now, the pattern is clear: many of the greatest pan-religious thinkers of our time see a positive leap of consciousness coming very soon to the world.
As an anthropologist, I must say first that this is not mere mumbo-jumbo; it is well known that such leaps in life-styles and thinking have occurred in the past: the rise of agriculture, cities, and certain inventions like the bow and arrow came to the entire world (outside of very hostile areas like the arctic) in relatively short periods of time, the reasons for which being something anthropologists still argue about. But it is also obvious to everyone who wants to see that the entire world is now changing at an unprecedented pace. Never before in known history have we seen such rapid change on such a large scale. Our authors, then, are only stating the obvious when they say that we are on a new cusp, or threshold.
What is arguable is the destiny of this change, something we have dealt with here and will do so again, because it is crucial. If indeed we are directly guided by a divine hand (so to speak), we might have faith in what our authors are saying. But it is not even necessary to postulate the atheistic-materialist view to show that this is not inevitably so. Coming together through technical devices does not necessarily mean that we will come together spiritually. For instance, ISIS, the new radical Muslim group that is taking over Iraq and Syria and god knows what next, is using texting and internet advertising techniques to promulgate an archaic, mythical-minded Caliphate. We do not know the outcome of this, but it can be seen that our current state of affairs might actually decline due to our togetherness-enhancing technology. What if ISIS gets its way? What if the simple, single-minded ruthlessness of developmental troglodytes is more powerful than our current fractured view of morality, right and wrong and social responsibility?
But as Wilbur might put it, those higher up the wrung, like adults in an elementary school class, have the advantage of knowing the minds of the others while the others cannot understand the minds of the more progressed. It thus seems more likely that the "advanced" views would win (this has NOT been the case in ancient history in the short term, though - barbarians always crash the gates after civilization gets too proud and decadent). More from Wilbur soon, and on the probability of our impending leap into a new age. FK
RSS Feed