hey everyone - thank you for all the great comments. the whole four hour 20 minute interview is now available on the Rebel Wisdom website for subscribers. we make most of our content available for free - but have to recover costs that allow us to keep making these films. to subscribe - go to: www.rebelwisdom.co.uk/plans
I think that would horrible. After an initial hugfest of mitual respect, Ken would be ever so subtly smuggly superior and Jordan would tire of Ken's over conceptualising. Ken would definitely LOOK LIKE "the winner" ... to all those who like winners and losers and who are already "on his team". And Jordan's fan base would say Ken was full of wanky woo, not relevant to real life personal development. But I do think Peterson would come away with some insightful gains. Ken "already knows it all" but some more exposure of his ideas WOULD be good. He might even learn some humility from Peterson.
@@thedolphin5428 As a Jordan Peterson fan, by your argument, they should do it. If Jordan Peterson learns from it, that's a win in my book, because it will only make him even better.
I feel like I’ve been waiting my whole life for the ideas of Wilbur and Peterson to collide. Two of the most comprehensive and dynamic thinkers alive today. Thanks so much for this!
Absolutely stunning conversation! Wonderful compliment to Peterson... adds insight and perspective. Great not to have someone who is competing or dismissing... simply elaborating and stressing essential distinctions. PERFECT! Thank you.
I have read pretty much read everything Ken Wilber has written. Your introduction to Integral Theory is one of the best. I have watched all of Jordan Peterson's lectures, university and the ones on the Bible as well as many others, and I am reading his book. I would love to see a conversation with the two of them. May be Rebel Media could facilitate that conversation? As always love your work.
I think this list of books is in the order I read Ken Wilber rather than by data of publication. Grace and Grit The Atman Project Up from Eden Sex, Ecology, Spirituality, the Spirit of Evolution A Sociable God The Marriage of Sense and Soul The Theory of Everything Integral Psychology Integral Spirituality I am sure I'm missing a few.
Ken Wilber articulates an integral perspective that, to me, offers us a far more complete understanding of JP's teachings. I pray that Ken's work permeate our cultural consciousness... rapidly.
@Donald Anderson: Yes. And it's obvious that Wilber has been paying close attention to Peterson's arc -- which we didn't know before. Nevertheless, I sort of wonder why it took Wilber so long to speak out about it . . .
@@QED_ My guess is that Wilber is fully aware that commenting publicly on Peterson will give him visibility, for the better or for the worst. As much as I like Wilber, he never ever put forward his philosophy to the test in public debates or hard interviews. I would bet that emotionally speaking, he's not equipped to handle live confrontation very well. Of course, that's my opinion.
@@donaldanderson6578 Very true Donald. Ken was almost a recluse for over 20 years. This was pre-internet and just the odd interview that was published in magazines. Also no lecture tours. Despite this he has a large following which includes the likes of Bill Clinton and Tony Robins. The low profile maybe understandable. If Peterson is an intergral thinker and he has gone very public look at the reaction and backlash! I feel Ken's work will be picked up by others after he has passed on and when the world is ready or has exhausted the current political, economic and social structures.
Ken Wilber has stood on the shoulders of giants to create one of the most comprehensive philosophies that humans have ever come up with. He has spent his life integrating many fields including consciousness/psychology, culture/religion and science/systems, and done so in an evolutionary context of how these evolve over long periods of time.
@@daviddeida Aside from my point of "look how smart and wise I am", my other points included appreciative support of Ken Wilber's voice being amplified and a satisfied anticipation of how it plays out. I think his AQAL model would be helpful in bringing insight into the culture war for many people.
Can we please have a four day conference, exclusively with Jordan and Ken having a dialogue for 12 hours a day? I don't care if it's only digital and not setup in an arena, but this needs to happen. Make it happen! Please.
very helpful. i have struggled with a "passionate ambivalence" (haha) toward Peterson, wondering how a person could be so right and so wrong at the same time. Wilber puts this into brilliant perspective and builds a(nother) truly integral view. thank you!
Wow, I should have been following Integral Theory. I'm completing Wilbur's sentences as he speaks them. I am in no way near his level of sophistication, obviously, but man his ideas make perfect sense to me. Applying a sort of nomological network, across time, to understand the values and knowledge of past generations is absolutely brilliant. Great video!
In a sense Peterson is trying to slay the dragon that kept Wilbur’s work out of academia - pluralistic reductionism, anti heirarchies, an interest in span at the expense of depth, etc
Ken suggested that he and JP both have a green shadow. What do you make of this? Specifically, the idea that perhaps green; 1) needs more time to do smooth off the rough edges of various conveyor belts in society 2) is working on top of a broken orange/broken blue/broken red, and therefore the problems are more 2nd/3rd tier's responsibility.
Light And Shadow Interesting, I’ve never heard point 2 before. As far as point 1 goes, I really don’t think the criticisms JP and Wilbur level at green (in Wilbur’s case, since 1994!) have very much to do with implementation, manifestation, or specific details. They are both criticizing foundational, cornerstone assumptions/structures within the postmodern ethos. I think the smoothing out of the conveyor belts will continue to happen naturally, without the need of postmodern ideology, because human self-reflexivity always increases. Besides, those smoothing-out mechanisms is precisely what Wilbur and Peterson openly praise as postmodernism’s benevolent piece of the puzzle. They both have the green shadow because that’s who the enemies of depth are at this time in history. Full stop. Back to point 2 - when you read SES, you find that it’s not easy to kick the can down the road in terms of personal development. No one else but you is going to do it. Which is *precisely* why mean green is the stickiest stage to get out of. They are the most conceptually self assured. They are the most arrogant, pompous, and ironically narcissistic wave of development, due to several confluent factors. Nothing can pierce the force field of their aperspectival, pluralistic, seemingly all inclusive conceptual fortress. I would love to know more about exactly how blue and orange are “broken”, but I simultaneously think no one *can* be as broken as green can be, and no one ever *will* be as broken as green is about to be, due to simple structural factors of development
Been studying Wilber intently for the past 6 years, and this was one of the better interviews I have seen. He looks like he is coming back to life and it is SO very nice to see. I had an opportunity to meet him when I was going through Naropa between 03-06, but did not realize how brilliant/impactful/influential he was a the time. If America our species makes it another 500 years, he will no doubt be regarded as one, if not, THE, most influential American philosopher of all time. Thank you Ken, as you inspire me to show up, grow up, wake up, clean up and live to my highest potential🙌🙌🙌!
Grof and Wilber go back many decades, and they have major disagreements - here's an old critique Grof wrote of Wilber. IMO Grof is correct and Wilber's models (AQAL, Spiral Dynamics) are riddled with error and vanity of ego. And all the cultish elements of The Integral Institute is of course a whole other thing. primal-page.com/grofken.htm
I cannot but be sure that Grof is pretty much against everything Peterson is saying, and with good reason. Peterson is just a paranoid reactionary with a superficial social darwinian "jungianism" whereas Grof, though still unrecognized, is the greatest psychologist since it's founding fathers and mothers.
richidpraah Well... I know such a ”chat” is not likely to happen, but the reason for that shouldn’t be that they do not agree on everything. Right? Of course Peterson is not anywhere close to Stanislav Grof, no matter how you look at it... but he isn’t completely meaningless either, regardless of his many shortcomings. He’s not stupid and he is pretty good rhetorically... and if he were to talk to Grof, that would certainly help bring Grof’s invaluable work into contemporary spotlight.
Fred Cory Ok where did all the cool kids get the books? I thought I hit a goldmine but then you come along with years of knowledge and perhaps application and experience of Ken Wilber's works. How would you recommend seeking out great works?
@@mufasao6776 Seek and ye shall find. Hi Mufasa, I think high quality public broadcasting can give a toehold. Sadly here in Canada, the public broadcasting and education is now deeply infected with regressive progressivism. Also the like-minded people you inevitably meet along the way help too. It only takes one crumb that fits your heart to point the way. One crumb leads to another.
Mufasa. Having said that, the universe just reminded me that social media is being censored and they are taking away the crumbs as it were. But consider yourself to have arrived since you have found Rebel Wisdom. Go to Jordan Peterson's recommended reading list and you'll find several lifetimes of crumbs to follow.
Thank you, Rebels! This is what I needed right now. I've read some of Ken's books some 15 years ago and somehow lost sight of his work. Living in Europe, seeing the cracks in the postmodern EU becoming wider by the day and seeing nationalist movements rise up as a result of the regressive left, made me turn to the alternative media to make sense of it. There I discovered Peterson and others. I have mixed feelings about Peterson, especially his apparant lingering anger and the contradictions that sometimes don't quite add up. This all now makes sense to me after this interview. It's so good to have Ken's bright mind again in the arena. In these turbulent times, I hope that more real integral, second tier voices will be heard soon.
Jordan Peterson has brought much goodnes, truth, and beauty to our mainstream culture. I appreciate Ken Wilber acknowledging and supporting Jordan's work. I believe that after Ken begins to encourage us to integrate more integrity in our lives and actions that our integral communities will also begin to get more beneficial traction out in the bigger world. 🙏 Thanks for sharing this talk.
Glad that you've stepped out of the mainstream media. Now you can flourish. And you've showed this already in almost all your content. But now you've done something extraordinary. Thnks. Your next big thing? Bring JP & KW together on stage.
Yes very true what Wilber says about Peterson leaving out the different developmental stages of consciousness in his discourse. If Peterson would include that regularly he very possible might create a huge steam releasing breakthrough in the hyper boosted green field and transform it into a healthy green. And it would smoothen the extreme tensions between the fields and ready things for the integral approach for the public. These two guys need to go face to face asap.
IMPORTANT NOTE: the spiral, levels of development (orange, green, etc.), tiers, and so forth are taken from SPIRAL DYNAMICS (Don Beck) and CLARE W. GRAVES. ken got those ideas from them. they are the original source. Great interview- thanks!
Nicely said, it's easy to fall into the trap of seeing any one person as an almighty philosopher and give them exclusive credit for "their" work, rather than seeing them as part of a long and ongoing chain of contributors. Clare Graves "got" the underlying concepts of growth from Maslow's hierarchy of needs, and wasn't fully happy with the theory, so he evolved it. Graves didn't use colors, and had really hard to remember names for things, including his whole model, which he called "Emergent, Cyclical, Double-Helix Model of Adult BioPsychoSocial Systems Development" Don Beck (and Christopher Cowan), evolved them into what is known as Spiral Dynamics, including the colors. Ken Wilber did the same, by integrating many developmental frameworks and building the AQAL model. One thing to note, is that Ken had already built a sophisticated meta model built on many theories, and then later added the easy to understand color system, rather than starting with the color system and building on top of it. Ken's book, Sex Ecology Spirituality, was already a sophisticated system when it came out in the same year as Spiral Dynamics (1995). If you want the literal "original source" of all this, how far back do you need to go? You would probably have to go back hundreds of thousands of years (if not millions or billions). If you want the ultimate end product of it all, in terms of the "best model with Earth origin content that will ever exist before the heath death of the universe", you might have to go many years into the future.
@@georgegrader9038 I'm not sure what homework facts you're discussing, but from everything I've seen of Wilber, he tends to cite SD in passing, if he does at all, and rarely mentions Graves. This is odd to me, as it seems the concept of the spiral still resides at the core of Wilber's work, despite later modifications / extensions.
Chaos is something you do not understand...kinder to say complex. There is order in chaos t you have to live it. Excellent thought encouraging talk. Thank you.
I think a discussion with Peterson, Wilbur and Iain McGilchrist would be epic. Peterson has in my opinion some blind spots that both these guys could illumiate for him...and I feel he would listen to them very respectfully. The short chat between Peterson and McGilchrist was wonderful and it seemed to bring to light in different ways some of Petersons developing notions...so I think a long form discussion between these 3 would be amazing.
@@transmissionfarmproduction946 everyone has blind spots...there are none of us with the complete set of pieces to the jigsaw puzzle and often we have an incomplete picture of the problem we are supposed to be solving. That's why dialogue between all these great innovators of ideas is important.
Many hours after watching this, it is still very much on my mind. I really liked his point about Jordan not talking much about "waking up" in Ken's "waking up", "growing up", and "cleaning up" triad, which I like a lot. His point that if these get too imbalanced in progression it can lead to real problems is an excellent point that perhaps cannot be emphasized enough. However, I'm going to turn this around on him a bit. In my view, Ken is the one who doesn't talk about cleaning up enough. My view is that focusing on cleaning up is the _only_ completely safe way forward. In focusing on this, you won't go crazy and the other two will follow inevitably and naturally. This is my experience. Emphasizing either of the other two will run into problems when this one falls behind. Jordan covers this a fair amount talking about the shadow integration, which is exactly right. Jordan's self-authoring also had a solid focus on this. Ken does talk about this also. However, for my taste, neither emphasize this enough.
I like what you say Kon Berner...but I think if all teachers were the same, then there wouldn't be any growth...maybe you could teach your unique view of expanding on both these points in the spirit of the true growth hierarchy.
Alexandre Ls Matthew Pirkowski spoke with JP via video call and asked JP about SD near the end of the call. It’s up on RUclips. He briefly looked into it in that moment.
@@EmcBraz Yeah, would love to see them connect. I think Jordan could learn a huge amount from Ken, and Ken could get some mainstream influence through Jordan's reach and resonance around the world.
@Ev MIles Sometimes RUclips video links don't work. Just search for "Matthew Pirkowski Jordan Peterson". The video is called "Jordan Peterson and Matthew Pirkowski on Iterated Gameplay and Evolutionary Game Theory"
Resources from Wilber’s integral theory offer a lot for making sense of why Jordan Peterson has been such a polarizing figure who is immensely appealing to some and immensely appalling to others. I find Wilber’s integral perspective make some of the best sense of these things myself. Definitely worth watching for understanding the potential meaning behind Peterson as a lightening rod of polarization at the center of certain culture wars today.
True, but what makes Peterson more POTENT in our times than Wilber is that he pushes people's psychological buttons (good on him). He also gives them actions for change as well as ideas. But Wilber is a philosopher-thinker, so his work is overlooked by tbe5 masses and will change little in the real world for maybe decades or centuries.
Wonderful interview. Years ago I worked in temple. Wilber's work was often a popular lunch time topic at the monastery. Monks geeking out on Wilber. Truly fun. Girls who hang w monks...we're hopeless :)
Deep appreciation for this. Ken at his finest. Clear, distinct and yet so soft. A brilliant summary of the plagues and promises of our time. I feel this is one of the most important interviews I've seen in years - tears and all :-)
The distinction Ken draws between dominance hierarchies and growth hierarchies is masterful. For me, it is represented by the confusion about the word "authority." A dominance hierarchy makes sense when those at the top have demonstrated themselves to be at the top of a growth hierarchy. In other words, authority makes sense when those who hold it are so experienced in the field that A) People follow them willingly because their advice is helpful, and B) People who disagree with them generally fail of their own accord because they are rejecting the reality that the authority identifies. We have allowed the dominance hierarchy to crush the growth hierarchy.
Ken is here to help Jorden finish cleaning his room properly! Make no mistake. This mans work contains all of JPs...so the Peterson fans might want to listen to this.
Unfortunately it does not. Ken has his own blindspots, and stage theories have their limitations, despite being useful tools for understanding the world. If you’re interested in one place where Peterson’s thought is likely a more accurate picture of reality, see my other top-level comment concerning the dominator / growth hierarchy abstraction used by Wilber.
Additionally, “transcend and include” is not how our cultural evolution works, at least not in totality, and is a convenient escape hatch for some of reality’s tougher questions. For example, no one is attempting to “transcend and include” the concept of slavery. Some concepts and aspects of modes are simply pruned, given their incongruity with later stable modes, which leaves the question: what to prune, and when? T & I glosses over these details, whereas Peterson obsesses (perhaps excessively) over them.
Matthew Pirkowski well said. Unfortunately I'm finding this integral theory stuff to be quite too simplistic and shallow myself. Biggest issue being there's a political trichonomy, not a dichotomy. The far sides are too far for their reasons, not because they forgot to include the others. Ofc the perfect balance is in the middle, don't need fancy spiral theories to make that discovery. A simple look at the political trichonomy chart makes it quite clear.
Slavery was transcended, without a doubt...once it was no longer needed econmically. But the need to get the lower classes to do the dirty work down in the muck is still included in our world. Ask any construction worker if slavery is a thing of the past. The lower down u go the less choice one has over their fate in The Wall! (PF) To prune is itself a new perspective on the overgrown subject...its included always by just not tearing the thing out by the roots. What to prune n when could easily be restated as transcend n include. Yes the view within the forest is more detailed, always. But the view of the whole forest in relation to other forests is just as important. We need both. We need Ken n Jorden. And if these conversations keep evolving like this who knows, us common folk chatting here may just transcend n include Wilber n Peterson in some new more relevent system but include everything that got us there by defination. No mistakes or errors in progress as progress is mistakes n errors. Bang in Alberts quote here n youll get the idea. "A problem cant be solved by the same level of consciousness that created it"
Please yeah, i enjoy yr thinking so i would like to hear it. Agreed we are squeazing a bit to much into this utube thread but why not i suppose. I had more to say in my slavery response to u but had to compress my thinking into a little soundbite...sorry it wasnt the clearest. Also, im not being argumentive in it...just pushing up against yr point. I agree completely with u in the danger in being dogmatic with Kens work n using these ways of talking to explain away everything. Your point seems to be coming from an advanced place of critiscism which needs to happen with these conversations. Thanks for yr perspective ✌
Brilliant. To take such complexity and boil it down to this essence is deeply appreciated. I hope to find more of your conversations and perhaps, if we are truly fortunate, to hear an exhaustive conversation between Mr. Wilber and Jordan Peterson. TYVM!! A++
"Growth Hierarchies" and "Dominator Hierarchies" are not categorically separate entities. They are two emergent modalities within complex adaptive systems, which invariably form hierarchical structures as a feature of their scale-free connectivity. This scale-free connectivity follows from the basic mechanism of preferential attachment within networks. The Growth / Dominator dichotomy is what emerges when we track the interactions taking place with respect to self-organization and stabilization. Growth fundamentally destabilizes prior collective structures, and creates the need to generate systematic stability, which is felt by those of the growth mindset as domination. This is one reason I often find Peterson's articulations of systems dynamics more compelling than Wilber's, as Peterson does a far better job of communicating the inextricably connected nature of these tendencies, rather than treating them as separate categories.
Nicely said. I think there is a tension between finding usable terminology, and finding accurate terminology. Which ultimately boils down to the Peterson V Harris conceptions of truth. Someone might say "I want to receive tools to grow as a leader and inspire others". They could also say "I want to be dominated into acting more effectively and dominate others to do the same." Or they could say "I want to expanding my circle of love and pour that love into all living beings so their circles can expand too", or "I facilitate a process of self reorganization in myself and other systems", or "Lets celebrate the ever more glorious dance of Lila". At different complexities of self organization, different terms "feel" appropriate as ways of resonating with people at the same level of complexity. When Genghis Khan was slaughtering thousands, he didn't look each in the eye and say "I kill you as part of expanding love for humanity", or "this sword swing is an emergent reorganization" or "Your head rolls off in a divine play of Lila". Life is extremely painful to face directly, we need some sort of stories as mediators to give meaning and direction and justify that pain. At higher stages of development, say 3rd tier, I imagine this looks very different. If you experience the entire manifest world as an an object, then you can use any stick to poke at it, because you are no longer primarily concerned with how your integrated your personal conceptions are, it's all just trees rustling in the wind. I think Ken's shadow around green, (and green's negative reaction to post green), may have contributed to some of Ken's explanations being fine tuned to appeal to green. Saying "this is a growth hierarchy, not a dominator hierarchy", might be a way of Ken denying the shadow fact that he is prematurely trying to get green in society to self reorganize, while also skillfully attempting to speak the truth of the fact that green urgently needs to self reorganize. Again, would love to hear your perspective on this.
From what I see Growth vs Dominator is a false choice. First thing, heirarchies arent only that binary choice. They can be primarily that though and flavored by other attributes. For example, as you mentioned a Growth hierarchy can have Dominance attributes. Inside a Growth hierarchy we could call it Competence. In order for the Growth hierarchy to form, we have to put Competent people near the top of the hierarchy. We also have competent people in the middle of the heirarchy, they provide structure and support (not sure what you would call this attribute, maybe Stabilizing). And the bottom of the hierarchy has competent people who could be both learning (so to advance up the heirarchy) and the bulk of the more mundane task which are important and require bandwidth to process that the top doesnt have. Now that I think about it, Competence might be too broad a term. I suck at giving names to thoughts. We could also have attributes given to the Dominance hierarchy. Stability is important for that hierarchy as well. What Ken did mention that I think Jordan has failed to discuss in depth is what makes a hierarchy one or the other and how do those traits manifest. I suspect the heirarchy forms traits much like the Big 5 in individuals. You can use that to (sort of) predict trajectory and performance.
@@ApacheMagic I have it right here on the shelf next to me. You'll note that, if you look at the Glossary of Terms, there's no mention of SD or Graves.
I’ve been a Ken Wilber fan for over 20 years and am deeply grateful to his enormous capacities to digest and systematize information of such breath and scale. And while I see that as his hugest strength, it also reveals his greatest weakness: he rarely brings it in to concrete examples or subjects himself to strong critique or debate. Sadly, the few times that has happened it seems he’s defaulted to defensive retorts and ad hominem attacks. There’s no denying his brilliance, but it feels like he came up with a great paradigm decades ago and he’s been content to just swim in his pool alone or with those who aren’t willing to challenge him to go to a less abstract realm. I wish the interviewer had pushed him harder to give concrete examples and not hide in his theoretical model, where he’s clearly cozy.
This may be the only proper, sympathetic criticism of Peterson I've ever heard. In all the others I've heard, I've always been able to find some flaw rooted in misinterpretation or insufficient knowledge of his thinking. Ken Wilber actually gets him and isn't out to score cheap points. Fantastic.
Yea the colors are annoying but helpful once you get the hang of them. Once you start selling "SD" to your friends, you realise 99% aren't going to read the books! Only your i
Two edged sword. When you use philosophical terms alone it can lose people. The colors are easy and help people learn but they also oversimplify. Wilber knows this and tries to play both sides.
@@mdav30 I don't think they are easy. I think they are generalizations and that natural language is a key part of philosophy. Also give a distinct "woo" feeling, but perhaps fans of his work like that.
@@janetmcgregor775 Yes. If there was some kind of link with the color that goes beyond something arbitrary it might be something. But having looked at various color systems including chakras, astrological, and similar, I'm not seeing it. I also really like his grow up, wake up, clean up trio also. It it natural language even though he defines these in special ways... no real "woo" there and I agree 100% on how all of these aspects are very important and somewhat separate... certainly worth labeling in my view. I use different terms, but his make sense too.
Sir, I am so happy to say that my dad was healed in the hospital without the surgeon's intervantion - while he was gone to a conference for 2 days. At his return, the doctor was amazed my dad had nothing to work on and called it a miracle. Gods magic :)
Integral Theory is a superb meta theory of reality. Thank you for the slides. They help those who are newbies in Integral thought to reframe and understand better.
Very good to see Wilber back on stage at this moment. It seems almost as if he'd been consigned to oblivion or to just a small esoteric group. Those who know his work realize it's a perspective practically absent from any of the current cultural and social debates. Whatever neglect Wilber's ideas have suffered, is no problem because he was doing some deep thinking in the 70s and 80s that will become increasingly more relevant as the work of those academics who dismissed him find their way into the dustbin. Wilber's perspective on consciousness, in particular, was never mainstream physicalist - man is merely a biological unit in which consciousness emerges when all the complex parts come together - nor the conventional religious body-soul dualism. But Wilber arrived way too early on the scene and was examining issues that will become increasingly more relevant in the 21st century. Great to see this exchange regarding the ideas of both Peterson and Wilber: 2 top-notch thinkers. Wilber's thought had always been far too complex for the kind of platforms Peterson uses, and I agree, he is far more conceptual than Peterson. But perhaps now we'll begin to see bridges being built between diverse perspectives. We need thinking against the grain and out of our ideological boxes. No one has mentioned it, but here in Brazil there is an interesting book written in the 1930s by a certain Pietro Ubaldi called 《The Great Synthesis》which was even praised by Einstein in its time. It is essentially the first outline (spiral graphs and all) of the integral theory that Wilber would offer many decades later in far greater detail and making use of many disciplines. Ubaldi was an intuitive thinker who claimed he was connected to the "noussphere"...the dimension of the circulating currents of thought (the "nous") in the universe. Essentially, Ubaldi was a panpsyquist. Irregardless of such claims of authorship (which is saying that the book was "channeled" and this, I know, would put off many readers), those interested in integral theory would most definitely enjoy examining the ideas presented in Ubaldi's book and see how some individuals in humanity's history and development at any stage have always had a perception, intuition or inkling of a holistic perspective regarding a greater whole. I could also cite Ralph Waldo Emerson, especially his essay "Circles".
00:47:25 I think Doctor Peterson insists on using the classic symbolic language of “Feminine=Chaos/Masculine=Order” PRECISELY because modern young people are unfamiliar with it: HE WANTS THEM to BECOME familiar. This ignorance is incredibly normal as such symbolism was universally understood just 100 years ago going back to the dawn of history. Wilber’s dismissal of his use of this language as “Not useful” is like saying training an older child to use a sledgehammer is not useful because he didn’t have the muscle strength to begin with! He’s training them to think more like their ancestors! How is this not useful, to go back to First Principals? The modern ignoramus hears: “Feminine=Chaos”, then concludes, “Chaos=negative=Bad/wrong/evil=Feminine=Woman”, and Vice Versa for Order and men. This is nonsense, because Feminine does NOT necessarily mean “woman”, Chaos does NOT mean Negative, Negative does not NECESSARILY mean evil. This degeneration Of Semantics and definitions is a big part of the problem, and Peterson is not wrong to re-educate his students regarding the proper use of such terms. In this instance, Dr. Wilber strikes me as being lazy and impatient.
You are onto something. Perhaps Peterson should have mentioned how this association was common in the classical world and that it may even be associated with the grammatical "genders" associated with classical languages. For example, the words for water, sea, and cave were all considered "feminine," and that association continued for anyone with a classical education. It's also part of Nietzsche. It could be that Peterson doesn't know this. There isn't much evidence that he knows Greek or Latin, and his understanding of Dante is also limited to the Inferno, which isn't even the best (necessarily) part of the Divine Comedy. He seems completely unaware of the deeper discussions that take place in the Paradiso and in the Purgatorio.
I wonder if Dr Wilber isn't omitting it as a "noble lie" to attract and include folks who might be offended by such associations. Not to apologize for him
I'm more familiar with "Vedic": Male = Purusha = unmanifested God principle = unlimited formless source containing every possibility. Female = Prakriti = manifested creative Goddess principle = Limited dimensional "Form" where the great "nothing" becomes "something" Which kinda aligns with Egyptian: Male = Sun = undifferentiated universal power souce, God Ra Female = Earth = using the Sun's raw power to create beauty, nature, and all living creatures, Goddess Isis Which seems like the opposite of JP's description of Male vs Female.
@Ev MIles All very interesting. I can't imagine Wilber could be more into Eastern mysticism than Pertson is into Christianity, so that seems like an unusual place for their boundaries to end. Dawkins consistenty strikes me as no fool but somebody in serious need of an ego check. The party responsible for the Intellectual Dark Website doesn't seem all that reliable (I certainly don't agree with all of their choices or categories). While I'm disappointed to hear that Wilber probably won't be diving headlong into the fray I can't say I'm particularly surprised or offended. Ah, well.
Finally, at 24 minutes he mentions "broken Green". It's healthy vs unhealthy at each vMeme. Anyone not making that distinction is missing the essence of second tier perspective.
It's so good to hear this way of describing the world that gives me an anchor to explain my way of thinking that doesn't get reduced to 2-dimensional 'centrist'. I've tried to explain as levels from the individual to the outcomes of social systems that emerge from the behaviour of the individuals just as how this applies to subatomic particles, atoms and life. Big picture vs small. That was still too oversimplified so Ken's descriptions are gold.
So for clarity it should be pointed out that you've decided to use Wilber's colour categories rather than Beck and Cowan's originals - which are in wider usage. Not saying this to gripe at Wilber but folks could get confused. So Amber is usually referred to as Blue etc etc. For example Leo on the actualised.org RUclips channel which has 100,000s of views uses Beck and Cowan's original colour categories (not difficult to translate back and forth so the confusion is easily overcome). Also some of the colours are the same (Orange, Green for example) to add to the confusion. For Beck and Cowan, the Green MEME is defined as 'Communitarian' with postmodern as a sub-feature. Wilber tends to emphasise the Green MEME as postmodern first and foremost.
The obsession with postmodernism is what Wilber shares with Peterson. This obscures the actual complexity that is not limited to postmodernism. I suspect such ideological obsessions indicate unprocessed shadow. In Peterson's case, some have noted that his own views are clearly postmodernist, at least partly, in criticizing leftist and liberal meta-narratives. But Peterson lacks the self-awareness to recognize and acknowledge this in himself.
Ken has been one of my most important mentors. Like all mentors, I've eventually found areas where I break. One break is in his attack on what he sees as an absolutist left that has taken over. In doing so, he aligns himself with the right, Peterson included. And yet the lowest hanging fruit, in terms of problems, is clearly emanating from the authoritarianism of the right. And it's not as a dialectical reaction from the left as much as it is the same old thing that tyrannies have always thrived on, absolute power. The refuge of absolutist, tyrannical forms of government and being is force because their belief system is a near complete farce--at least what it's devolved to, and modern american conservatism's elitist core has a hard position to begin with anyhow. The left, while at times stubborn to change, hasn't been turned to stone, relying completely on violence to maintain its legitimacy. Circa June, 2020 the America with any kind of pulse isn't worried about anti-fa or commie professors. He, like Peterson, like Harris, like the lot of them, can't seem to fathom that polarization is asymmetrical, and that the extremes of the left are nowhere near as off the charts as the right. I for one am a fan of the German legislation that takes strong measures to attack fascism in their midst. The greatest problem with green, from my viewpoint, is that they are too weak in allowing for the diversity of opinion. There's a tremendous amount of pure, grade A, Prime BS steadily steaming from the right, but never a word. The tyrannical green (post-modernism) is most guilty of nihilism, or the opposite error of "knowing" that comes from the right. And it is problematic that they aren't pragmatic enough to settle on certain limitations to their openness. IN other words, like take a strong position. Like identifying the real fascist threat. Maybe Germany is onto something by not allowing their fringe elements to gain a foothold in public discourse. That maybe we can advocate for free speech, while recognizing the wolf at the door. The worst crime I see on the left is nievetee, while on the right just murder and mayhem. The truth is that I am not engaging in hyperbole here. If you think the left is equal partner in the current problems in America at this time, you simply haven't educated yourself yet. And yes, I reject the sick idea that Mao, Stalin, and Hitler were "leftists". That's another thread entirely
Outstanding! I just discovered this! I've loved Wilbur for years! And I'm grateful that he has a more positive opinion of Jordan Peterson than you can find in most of the web!
I seriously love both Ken Wilber and Jordan Peterson, but I dislike the way people try to compare and contrast two very different people with very different perspectives and very different areas of study and research. Also, asking one what they think of the other, or to assess each other's work, is a complete crock of shit. It allows/encourages Wilbur and his massive ego to condescend somewhat by first saying "he's good ... but .... " Such criticisms aside, this was a GREAT session by Wilbur, one of our greatest living thinkers.
Wow! Thoroughly enjoyed every minute of that. I'd never heard of Ken Wilber. Thanks to Rebel Wisdom for this upload. It has given me immense food for thought!
Wow, this guy’s good. Where has he been? This breakdown of inclusiveness of growth hierarchies is telling. Sort of a wake up call to nihilistic post-modern marxists to self-reflect. It’s not about throw the baby out with the bath water. Instead, course-correct toward a more sustainable endgame; instead of dogmatically adhering to a single pathology for the sake of adhering to something in order to belong. At the very least, Ken’s words should prompt contemporary Marxists to borrow from the successful Marxist governments; perhaps establish a ranking of best to worst Marxist governments.
From what I can tell, Hofstadter’s Surfaces and Essences draws a unique parallel with integral theory, using analogy as the ontological equivalent of growth hierarchy. The structure of cognition is the structure of the world and vise versa.
1:06:00 This is the first point that Wilber has slightly wrong, because Peterson strongly filters myth through survival bias. He roughly believes that only the best stories have come down to us-sometimes highly synthesized along the way-and that this wasn't necessarily an accident, because some of the ancient story tellers imbued their yarns with natural Jungian insights, thus setting them on their eternal track from the outset. Peterson would probably say that the primal Jungian spark is _never_ entirely literal, that it simply can't be entirely constrained to purely literal language of any kind, for any purpose-except possibly for counting expendable noses while amassing your next invasion force as drawn from allied peoples you can only barely manage to tolerate.
@Ev MIles oops, not index finger, ring finger- my mistake. Good guess about Treya. i read Grace & Grit a long time ago. I wonder if the string's on in older videos?
Is it necessary to know and differentiate everything that we know of or is it possible to quickly progress into a truly integral organism? And how do we make the biggest leaps forward in our development?
I think a lot of the Bible stories are from old oral stories. And oral stories being retold for centuries always had an underlying meaning that evolved over time and so when they were written down the depth of their meaning had already been incorporated into the tale. So no the guy who wrote "Moses parted the red sea..." may not intend it to have any other meaning. However the meaning was likely already there if there was a meaning at all in that sentence.
Peterson sidesteps the question consistently, but eventually you have to ask yourself if God does or does not exist. If He doesn't, your idea is one of many that could explain Moses, though you have no evidence and it is just speculation. If God does exist, your explanation falls pretty short of the mark. So it really isn't possible to wrestle with the authenticity of the story of Moses without first tackling the question of whether God exists.
Yes, I also wondered about this. I am not sure if he is saying that a transcendental meaning existed at that time, but the broader society could only comprehend it at the level of understanding they were at, resulting in the writer seeing it literally, or that the story was always literal. To me the parables of Jesus, or many other mystics, are a clear indication that an individual had an awakening which it was impossible to communicate and which transcended all the levels Wilber speaks of. The problem is that the receivers of the message interpret it at the level they are at. I think this is what WIlber meant too, but I am not sure. It's also supported by the way he described Sam Harris interpreting the myths. This would mean that to truly understand the myths you would have to experience ego death yourself, at which point you wouldn't need the myth, ironically.
![Chris Langan - The Interview THEY Didn't Want You To See - CTMU [Full Version; Timestamps]](/img/1.gif)
hey everyone - thank you for all the great comments. the whole four hour 20 minute interview is now available on the Rebel Wisdom website for subscribers. we make most of our content available for free - but have to recover costs that allow us to keep making these films. to subscribe - go to: www.rebelwisdom.co.uk/plans
Would you mind mentioning what the rest of the discussion covers?
Im joining to...This has made me so happy today. 4 hours 20 is still too short😆
I'll join if you promise to sit joe rogan down with ken for a few beers asap
Andy, Ken covers those perspectives intensely
@@SchoolOf5 mate you just have to read one of wilbers intro books and it will all make sense
Love to see Dr. Peterson and Ken Wilber get together for a discussion
That would be wonderful. I'd like to see a discussion with Chris Hedges!
Yes, and Alain de Botton.
I think that would horrible. After an initial hugfest of mitual respect, Ken would be ever so subtly smuggly superior and Jordan would tire of Ken's over conceptualising. Ken would definitely LOOK LIKE "the winner" ... to all those who like winners and losers and who are already "on his team". And Jordan's fan base would say Ken was full of wanky woo, not relevant to real life personal development. But I do think Peterson would come away with some insightful gains. Ken "already knows it all" but some more exposure of his ideas WOULD be good. He might even learn some humility from Peterson.
yeah, Zenmaster Roshi spoke in such high regard of Ken that i was so curious about the fella, i can see why he loves him so much.
@@thedolphin5428 As a Jordan Peterson fan, by your argument, they should do it. If Jordan Peterson learns from it, that's a win in my book, because it will only make him even better.
I feel like I’ve been waiting my whole life for the ideas of Wilbur and Peterson to collide. Two of the most comprehensive and dynamic thinkers alive today. Thanks so much for this!
For sure. It would be great to see Eric Weinstein there too!
i only thing left is for kens and petersons ideas to collide in a conversation between the two of them
Sorry to disappoint you but his (KW) thoughts are not original in fact they are Vedic Hindu wisdom.
I would love to hear Peterson and Wilber together! This guy is a genius
Absolutely stunning conversation! Wonderful compliment to Peterson... adds insight and perspective. Great not to have someone who is competing or dismissing... simply elaborating and stressing essential distinctions. PERFECT! Thank you.
@@pmcguinness3041 Hopefully Dr. Peterson will soon be able to resume limited engagements... his presence in our lives is dearly missed.
I’m in awe, Ken makes sense of it all!
Anna... it's such a wonderful relief, isn't it? I loved it.
I have read pretty much read everything Ken Wilber has written. Your introduction to Integral Theory is one of the best. I have watched all of Jordan Peterson's lectures, university and the ones on the Bible as well as many others, and I am reading his book. I would love to see a conversation with the two of them. May be Rebel Media could facilitate that conversation? As always love your work.
I think this list of books is in the order I read Ken Wilber rather than by data of publication.
Grace and Grit
The Atman Project
Up from Eden
Sex, Ecology, Spirituality, the Spirit of Evolution
A Sociable God
The Marriage of Sense and Soul
The Theory of Everything
Integral Psychology
Integral Spirituality
I am sure I'm missing a few.
So I just finished integral vision. What should I read next?
Ev MIles Just bought SES
Kens novel Boomeritis is the most fun id say...fits right into this snowflake generation topic JP is wading through now.
@@jeffreybrowy1979 Wow, you lead with Grace and Grit? That book is emotionally, intellectually and spiritually engaging.
Ken Wilber articulates an integral perspective that, to me, offers us a far more complete understanding of JP's teachings. I pray that Ken's work permeate our cultural consciousness... rapidly.
I'm a young guy talking abt him to everyone I know and integrating his ideas into the books I am currently working on.
2025
The big boy is in the house! When this guy talks, we listen.
@Donald Anderson: Yes. And it's obvious that Wilber has been paying close attention to Peterson's arc -- which we didn't know before. Nevertheless, I sort of wonder why it took Wilber so long to speak out about it . . .
@@QED_ My guess is that Wilber is fully aware that commenting publicly on Peterson will give him visibility, for the better or for the worst. As much as I like Wilber, he never ever put forward his philosophy to the test in public debates or hard interviews. I would bet that emotionally speaking, he's not equipped to handle live confrontation very well. Of course, that's my opinion.
@@donaldanderson6578 Very true Donald. Ken was almost a recluse for over 20 years. This was pre-internet and just the odd interview that was published in magazines. Also no lecture tours. Despite this he has a large following which includes the likes of Bill Clinton and Tony Robins. The low profile maybe understandable. If Peterson is an intergral thinker and he has gone very public look at the reaction and backlash! I feel Ken's work will be picked up by others after he has passed on and when the world is ready or has exhausted the current political, economic and social structures.
@@nichaeloz Yep, that's my feeling as well.
Yeah... No.
Reading Sex, Ecology, Spirituality was one of the greatest adventures of my life. I cheered out loud when I finished.
I would have cheered for you too, it was a marathon for me haha
Have not read it, but the first paragraphs of the book blew my mind
Really? I was put off by the cranky views on entropy and biological evolution. Not nearly as excited as when I read The Listening Society.
Agree, the most important book by the most of important recent thinker.
Best comment about the book ever! Merry me!
Ken Wilber has stood on the shoulders of giants to create one of the most comprehensive philosophies that humans have ever come up with.
He has spent his life integrating many fields including consciousness/psychology, culture/religion and science/systems, and done so in an evolutionary context of how these evolve over long periods of time.
And...what is your point?.
@@daviddeida human evolution... that's my best guess!
@@daviddeida
Aside from my point of "look how smart and wise I am", my other points included appreciative support of Ken Wilber's voice being amplified and a satisfied anticipation of how it plays out.
I think his AQAL model would be helpful in bringing insight into the culture war for many people.
Yeh,but what's the use of it?,if you can't think for yourself.
@@hermansohier8792
If 0.01% of my thoughts were truly original, meaning no on had ever thought them before, that'd be a great achievement.
Injecting my lobsters with serotonin in anticipation of this!
shit me 2, i got psilocibine, much better conductor of electricity
Don’t forget your lube
yes....
Happy to see the positive responses to Ken and his work. His view is helpful and could benefit many of us during these times.
Can we please have a four day conference, exclusively with Jordan and Ken having a dialogue for 12 hours a day?
I don't care if it's only digital and not setup in an arena, but this needs to happen.
Make it happen!
Please.
Ken Wilber is the original wise rebel
:) ah ..... not very Integral ;)
Not so convinced of hi wisdom.
very helpful. i have struggled with a "passionate ambivalence" (haha) toward Peterson, wondering how a person could be so right and so wrong at the same time. Wilber puts this into brilliant perspective and builds a(nother) truly integral view. thank you!
Wow, I should have been following Integral Theory. I'm completing Wilbur's sentences as he speaks them. I am in no way near his level of sophistication, obviously, but man his ideas make perfect sense to me. Applying a sort of nomological network, across time, to understand the values and knowledge of past generations is absolutely brilliant. Great video!
Heinrick192 this is your first time hearing of integral theory?
What's with calling him WIlbur? :D I see that so often
Like Jung, Freud, Maslow.... it's not uncommon to English speakers, especially academics and pseudes.
Beahaha ‘welcome to the family’
Bet you're going to love it! There's lots and lots of great Ken Wilber video content too and that might be a great place to start.
Finally! I’ve been awaiting Ken Wilbers much needed invitation to these discussions.
In a sense Peterson is trying to slay the dragon that kept Wilbur’s work out of academia - pluralistic reductionism, anti heirarchies, an interest in span at the expense of depth, etc
Ken suggested that he and JP both have a green shadow.
What do you make of this?
Specifically, the idea that perhaps green;
1) needs more time to do smooth off the rough edges of various conveyor belts in society
2) is working on top of a broken orange/broken blue/broken red, and therefore the problems are more 2nd/3rd tier's responsibility.
Light And Shadow Interesting, I’ve never heard point 2 before. As far as point 1 goes, I really don’t think the criticisms JP and Wilbur level at green (in Wilbur’s case, since 1994!) have very much to do with implementation, manifestation, or specific details. They are both criticizing foundational, cornerstone assumptions/structures within the postmodern ethos. I think the smoothing out of the conveyor belts will continue to happen naturally, without the need of postmodern ideology, because human self-reflexivity always increases. Besides, those smoothing-out mechanisms is precisely what Wilbur and Peterson openly praise as postmodernism’s benevolent piece of the puzzle. They both have the green shadow because that’s who the enemies of depth are at this time in history. Full stop.
Back to point 2 - when you read SES, you find that it’s not easy to kick the can down the road in terms of personal development. No one else but you is going to do it. Which is *precisely* why mean green is the stickiest stage to get out of. They are the most conceptually self assured. They are the most arrogant, pompous, and ironically narcissistic wave of development, due to several confluent factors. Nothing can pierce the force field of their aperspectival, pluralistic, seemingly all inclusive conceptual fortress.
I would love to know more about exactly how blue and orange are “broken”, but I simultaneously think no one *can* be as broken as green can be, and no one ever *will* be as broken as green is about to be, due to simple structural factors of development
Been studying Wilber intently for the past 6 years, and this was one of the better interviews I have seen. He looks like he is coming back to life and it is SO very nice to see. I had an opportunity to meet him when I was going through Naropa between 03-06, but did not realize how brilliant/impactful/influential he was a the time. If America our species makes it another 500 years, he will no doubt be regarded as one, if not, THE, most influential American philosopher of all time. Thank you Ken, as you inspire me to show up, grow up, wake up, clean up and live to my highest potential🙌🙌🙌!
I’ve spent a few years basically attempting to create integral theory... this shaved maybe a few years off of my work.
Ether Arch Very cool. What are some of your influences?
Any chance of getting Ken Wilber, Jordan Petersen and Stanislav Grof together for a chat?
I've been rooting for this to happen for a year now. When that happens it will be transformative dynamite !
Grof and Wilber go back many decades, and they have major disagreements - here's an old critique Grof wrote of Wilber. IMO Grof is correct and Wilber's models (AQAL, Spiral Dynamics) are riddled with error and vanity of ego. And all the cultish elements of The Integral Institute is of course a whole other thing. primal-page.com/grofken.htm
I cannot but be sure that Grof is pretty much against everything Peterson is saying, and with good reason. Peterson is just a paranoid reactionary with a superficial social darwinian "jungianism" whereas Grof, though still unrecognized, is the greatest psychologist since it's founding fathers and mothers.
richidpraah Well... I know such a ”chat” is not likely to happen, but the reason for that shouldn’t be that they do not agree on everything. Right?
Of course Peterson is not anywhere close to Stanislav Grof, no matter how you look at it... but he isn’t completely meaningless either, regardless of his many shortcomings. He’s not stupid and he is pretty good rhetorically... and if he were to talk to Grof, that would certainly help bring Grof’s invaluable work into contemporary spotlight.
@@richidpraahGood link, thanks a lot!
This guy knows so much and is a great communicator! So easy to understand him!
Ken is amazing, despite having had a bad stroke.
So great to see KW back in action! I have a whole shelf of his books.
Fred Cory
Ok where did all the cool kids get the books? I thought I hit a goldmine but then you come along with years of knowledge and perhaps application and experience of Ken Wilber's works. How would you recommend seeking out great works?
@@mufasao6776 Seek and ye shall find. Hi Mufasa, I think high quality public broadcasting can give a toehold. Sadly here in Canada, the public broadcasting and education is now deeply infected with regressive progressivism. Also the like-minded people you inevitably meet along the way help too. It only takes one crumb that fits your heart to point the way. One crumb leads to another.
Mufasa. Having said that, the universe just reminded me that social media is being censored and they are taking away the crumbs as it were. But consider yourself to have arrived since you have found Rebel Wisdom. Go to Jordan Peterson's recommended reading list and you'll find several lifetimes of crumbs to follow.
@@mufasao6776 Ebay is where I obtained much. I have half of his collected works series which only 1000 copies were printed
Thank you, Rebels! This is what I needed right now. I've read some of Ken's books some 15 years ago and somehow lost sight of his work. Living in Europe, seeing the cracks in the postmodern EU becoming wider by the day and seeing nationalist movements rise up as a result of the regressive left, made me turn to the alternative media to make sense of it. There I discovered Peterson and others. I have mixed feelings about Peterson, especially his apparant lingering anger and the contradictions that sometimes don't quite add up. This all now makes sense to me after this interview.
It's so good to have Ken's bright mind again in the arena. In these turbulent times, I hope that more real integral, second tier voices will be heard soon.
Jordan Peterson has brought much goodnes, truth, and beauty to our mainstream culture. I appreciate Ken Wilber acknowledging and supporting Jordan's work. I believe that after Ken begins to encourage us to integrate more integrity in our lives and actions that our integral communities will also begin to get more beneficial traction out in the bigger world. 🙏 Thanks for sharing this talk.
Glad that you've stepped out of the mainstream media. Now you can flourish. And you've showed this already in almost all your content. But now you've done something extraordinary. Thnks. Your next big thing? Bring JP & KW together on stage.
Yes very true what Wilber says about Peterson leaving out the different developmental stages of consciousness in his discourse. If Peterson would include that regularly he very possible might create a huge steam releasing breakthrough in the hyper boosted green field and transform it into a healthy green. And it would smoothen the extreme tensions between the fields and ready things for the integral approach for the public. These two guys need to go face to face asap.
IMPORTANT NOTE: the spiral, levels of development (orange, green, etc.), tiers, and so forth are taken from SPIRAL DYNAMICS (Don Beck) and CLARE W. GRAVES. ken got those ideas from them. they are the original source.
Great interview- thanks!
Nicely said, it's easy to fall into the trap of seeing any one person as an almighty philosopher and give them exclusive credit for "their" work, rather than seeing them as part of a long and ongoing chain of contributors.
Clare Graves "got" the underlying concepts of growth from Maslow's hierarchy of needs, and wasn't fully happy with the theory, so he evolved it.
Graves didn't use colors, and had really hard to remember names for things, including his whole model, which he called "Emergent, Cyclical, Double-Helix Model of Adult BioPsychoSocial Systems Development"
Don Beck (and Christopher Cowan), evolved them into what is known as Spiral Dynamics, including the colors.
Ken Wilber did the same, by integrating many developmental frameworks and building the AQAL model.
One thing to note, is that Ken had already built a sophisticated meta model built on many theories, and then later added the easy to understand color system, rather than starting with the color system and building on top of it.
Ken's book, Sex Ecology Spirituality, was already a sophisticated system when it came out in the same year as Spiral Dynamics (1995).
If you want the literal "original source" of all this, how far back do you need to go? You would probably have to go back hundreds of thousands of years (if not millions or billions). If you want the ultimate end product of it all, in terms of the "best model with Earth origin content that will ever exist before the heath death of the universe", you might have to go many years into the future.
This needs to be said again and again and again, until Ken starts giving the proper amount of credit to Graves as the catalyst for all these concepts.
While Wilber is far more capable than Beck, I at least appreciated the degree to which Beck went out of his way to popularize Graves.
Wilber cites Beck (& includes & transends). But it is good it to repeat the homework facts for the Petersonians appearing on the scene.
@@georgegrader9038 I'm not sure what homework facts you're discussing, but from everything I've seen of Wilber, he tends to cite SD in passing, if he does at all, and rarely mentions Graves. This is odd to me, as it seems the concept of the spiral still resides at the core of Wilber's work, despite later modifications / extensions.
Chaos is something you do not understand...kinder to say complex. There is order in chaos t you have to live it. Excellent thought encouraging talk. Thank you.
I think a discussion with Peterson, Wilbur and Iain McGilchrist would be epic. Peterson has in my opinion some blind spots that both these guys could illumiate for him...and I feel he would listen to them very respectfully. The short chat between Peterson and McGilchrist was wonderful and it seemed to bring to light in different ways some of Petersons developing notions...so I think a long form discussion between these 3 would be amazing.
Kevin Tyrrell yeah that would be awesome!
All of them have blind spots.. As Wilber displayed in his analysis of Peterson's Chaos and Order symbolism.
@@transmissionfarmproduction946 everyone has blind spots...there are none of us with the complete set of pieces to the jigsaw puzzle and often we have an incomplete picture of the problem we are supposed to be solving. That's why dialogue between all these great innovators of ideas is important.
Ken Wilber have to be interviewed by Jordan Peterson. We all need it!
Many hours after watching this, it is still very much on my mind. I really liked his point about Jordan not talking much about "waking up" in Ken's "waking up", "growing up", and "cleaning up" triad, which I like a lot. His point that if these get too imbalanced in progression it can lead to real problems is an excellent point that perhaps cannot be emphasized enough. However, I'm going to turn this around on him a bit. In my view, Ken is the one who doesn't talk about cleaning up enough. My view is that focusing on cleaning up is the _only_ completely safe way forward. In focusing on this, you won't go crazy and the other two will follow inevitably and naturally. This is my experience. Emphasizing either of the other two will run into problems when this one falls behind.
Jordan covers this a fair amount talking about the shadow integration, which is exactly right. Jordan's self-authoring also had a solid focus on this. Ken does talk about this also. However, for my taste, neither emphasize this enough.
I like what you say Kon Berner...but I think if all teachers were the same, then there wouldn't be any growth...maybe you could teach your unique view of expanding on both these points in the spirit of the true growth hierarchy.
Dude.. I asked JP on patreon about spiral dynamics but didn't have a response.. So excited to see this here.!!!
Alexandre Ls
Matthew Pirkowski spoke with JP via video call and asked JP about SD near the end of the call. It’s up on RUclips.
He briefly looked into it in that moment.
@@LightAndShaddow5 we need to have a discussion between Ken Wilber and Jordan.. It's going to be way more productive than Sam Harris and JP
@@EmcBraz
Yeah, would love to see them connect.
I think Jordan could learn a huge amount from Ken, and Ken could get some mainstream influence through Jordan's reach and resonance around the world.
@Ev MIles
Sometimes RUclips video links don't work.
Just search for "Matthew Pirkowski Jordan Peterson".
The video is called "Jordan Peterson and Matthew Pirkowski on Iterated Gameplay and Evolutionary Game Theory"
@Ev MIles
ruclips.net/video/Q6RDL0JzOuY/видео.html
Not sure if that will work.
Resources from Wilber’s integral theory offer a lot for making sense of why Jordan Peterson has been such a polarizing figure who is immensely appealing to some and immensely appalling to others. I find Wilber’s integral perspective make some of the best sense of these things myself. Definitely worth watching for understanding the potential meaning behind Peterson as a lightening rod of polarization at the center of certain culture wars today.
Absolutely. Spot on Dan.
True, but what makes Peterson more POTENT in our times than Wilber is that he pushes people's psychological buttons (good on him). He also gives them actions for change as well as ideas. But Wilber is a philosopher-thinker, so his work is overlooked by tbe5 masses and will change little in the real world for maybe decades or centuries.
Wonderful interview. Years ago I worked in temple. Wilber's work was often a popular lunch time topic at the monastery. Monks geeking out on Wilber. Truly fun. Girls who hang w monks...we're hopeless :)
Can’t wait, this will be epic. Thank you, super excited!
Wow. It great to see so many dots connect.
Deep appreciation for this. Ken at his finest. Clear, distinct and yet so soft. A brilliant summary of the plagues and promises of our time. I feel this is one of the most important interviews I've seen in years - tears and all :-)
I m surprised at how much I m learning here...this channel s a blessing for our times....
Great talk and even better if you watch 1.25x. Faster and better flow to the excellent ideas!
The distinction Ken draws between dominance hierarchies and growth hierarchies is masterful. For me, it is represented by the confusion about the word "authority." A dominance hierarchy makes sense when those at the top have demonstrated themselves to be at the top of a growth hierarchy. In other words, authority makes sense when those who hold it are so experienced in the field that A) People follow them willingly because their advice is helpful, and B) People who disagree with them generally fail of their own accord because they are rejecting the reality that the authority identifies. We have allowed the dominance hierarchy to crush the growth hierarchy.
This conversation needs a bibliography!
The OG Yoda
gosh darn it i laughed...
Ken is here to help Jorden finish cleaning his room properly! Make no mistake. This mans work contains all of JPs...so the Peterson fans might want to listen to this.
Unfortunately it does not. Ken has his own blindspots, and stage theories have their limitations, despite being useful tools for understanding the world.
If you’re interested in one place where Peterson’s thought is likely a more accurate picture of reality, see my other top-level comment concerning the dominator / growth hierarchy abstraction used by Wilber.
Additionally, “transcend and include” is not how our cultural evolution works, at least not in totality, and is a convenient escape hatch for some of reality’s tougher questions.
For example, no one is attempting to “transcend and include” the concept of slavery.
Some concepts and aspects of modes are simply pruned, given their incongruity with later stable modes, which leaves the question: what to prune, and when?
T & I glosses over these details, whereas Peterson obsesses (perhaps excessively) over them.
Matthew Pirkowski well said. Unfortunately I'm finding this integral theory stuff to be quite too simplistic and shallow myself. Biggest issue being there's a political trichonomy, not a dichotomy. The far sides are too far for their reasons, not because they forgot to include the others. Ofc the perfect balance is in the middle, don't need fancy spiral theories to make that discovery. A simple look at the political trichonomy chart makes it quite clear.
Slavery was transcended, without a doubt...once it was no longer needed econmically. But the need to get the lower classes to do the dirty work down in the muck is still included in our world. Ask any construction worker if slavery is a thing of the past. The lower down u go the less choice one has over their fate in The Wall! (PF) To prune is itself a new perspective on the overgrown subject...its included always by just not tearing the thing out by the roots. What to prune n when could easily be restated as transcend n include. Yes the view within the forest is more detailed, always. But the view of the whole forest in relation to other forests is just as important. We need both. We need Ken n Jorden. And if these conversations keep evolving like this who knows, us common folk chatting here may just transcend n include Wilber n Peterson in some new more relevent system but include everything that got us there by defination. No mistakes or errors in progress as progress is mistakes n errors. Bang in Alberts quote here n youll get the idea. "A problem cant be solved by the same level of consciousness that created it"
Please yeah, i enjoy yr thinking so i would like to hear it. Agreed we are squeazing a bit to much into this utube thread but why not i suppose. I had more to say in my slavery response to u but had to compress my thinking into a little soundbite...sorry it wasnt the clearest. Also, im not being argumentive in it...just pushing up against yr point. I agree completely with u in the danger in being dogmatic with Kens work n using these ways of talking to explain away everything. Your point seems to be coming from an advanced place of critiscism which needs to happen with these conversations. Thanks for yr perspective ✌
Brilliant. To take such complexity and boil it down to this essence is deeply appreciated. I hope to find more of your conversations and perhaps, if we are truly fortunate, to hear an exhaustive conversation between Mr. Wilber and Jordan Peterson. TYVM!! A++
"Growth Hierarchies" and "Dominator Hierarchies" are not categorically separate entities.
They are two emergent modalities within complex adaptive systems, which invariably form hierarchical structures as a feature of their scale-free connectivity.
This scale-free connectivity follows from the basic mechanism of preferential attachment within networks.
The Growth / Dominator dichotomy is what emerges when we track the interactions taking place with respect to self-organization and stabilization.
Growth fundamentally destabilizes prior collective structures, and creates the need to generate systematic stability, which is felt by those of the growth mindset as domination.
This is one reason I often find Peterson's articulations of systems dynamics more compelling than Wilber's, as Peterson does a far better job of communicating the inextricably connected nature of these tendencies, rather than treating them as separate categories.
Nicely said.
I think there is a tension between finding usable terminology, and finding accurate terminology. Which ultimately boils down to the Peterson V Harris conceptions of truth.
Someone might say "I want to receive tools to grow as a leader and inspire others". They could also say "I want to be dominated into acting more effectively and dominate others to do the same."
Or they could say "I want to expanding my circle of love and pour that love into all living beings so their circles can expand too", or "I facilitate a process of self reorganization in myself and other systems", or "Lets celebrate the ever more glorious dance of Lila".
At different complexities of self organization, different terms "feel" appropriate as ways of resonating with people at the same level of complexity.
When Genghis Khan was slaughtering thousands, he didn't look each in the eye and say "I kill you as part of expanding love for humanity", or "this sword swing is an emergent reorganization" or "Your head rolls off in a divine play of Lila".
Life is extremely painful to face directly, we need some sort of stories as mediators to give meaning and direction and justify that pain.
At higher stages of development, say 3rd tier, I imagine this looks very different. If you experience the entire manifest world as an an object, then you can use any stick to poke at it, because you are no longer primarily concerned with how your integrated your personal conceptions are, it's all just trees rustling in the wind.
I think Ken's shadow around green, (and green's negative reaction to post green), may have contributed to some of Ken's explanations being fine tuned to appeal to green.
Saying "this is a growth hierarchy, not a dominator hierarchy", might be a way of Ken denying the shadow fact that he is prematurely trying to get green in society to self reorganize, while also skillfully attempting to speak the truth of the fact that green urgently needs to self reorganize.
Again, would love to hear your perspective on this.
From what I see Growth vs Dominator is a false choice. First thing, heirarchies arent only that binary choice. They can be primarily that though and flavored by other attributes.
For example, as you mentioned a Growth hierarchy can have Dominance attributes. Inside a Growth hierarchy we could call it Competence. In order for the Growth hierarchy to form, we have to put Competent people near the top of the hierarchy. We also have competent people in the middle of the heirarchy, they provide structure and support (not sure what you would call this attribute, maybe Stabilizing). And the bottom of the hierarchy has competent people who could be both learning (so to advance up the heirarchy) and the bulk of the more mundane task which are important and require bandwidth to process that the top doesnt have.
Now that I think about it, Competence might be too broad a term. I suck at giving names to thoughts. We could also have attributes given to the Dominance hierarchy. Stability is important for that hierarchy as well.
What Ken did mention that I think Jordan has failed to discuss in depth is what makes a hierarchy one or the other and how do those traits manifest. I suspect the heirarchy forms traits much like the Big 5 in individuals. You can use that to (sort of) predict trajectory and performance.
Hi! Can you point me to the original research or somewhere I can read more about it? I couldn't understand the authors names. Thank you
Read Ken’s ‘theory of everything’ for an overview and sources. It’s a good snapshot
@@ApacheMagic I have it right here on the shelf next to me. You'll note that, if you look at the Glossary of Terms, there's no mention of SD or Graves.
This was long overdue, hopefully the mark of more to come!
Yes! Waking up is so mysteriously missing, I completely agree!
Good questions from the interviewer as well. Really enjoyed this discussion!
Thank you this is gold.
Great job Rebel Wisdom. Get these two great minds together.
Absolutely top tier quality chat. 10/10
I’ve been a Ken Wilber fan for over 20 years and am deeply grateful to his enormous capacities to digest and systematize information of such breath and scale. And while I see that as his hugest strength, it also reveals his greatest weakness: he rarely brings it in to concrete examples or subjects himself to strong critique or debate. Sadly, the few times that has happened it seems he’s defaulted to defensive retorts and ad hominem attacks. There’s no denying his brilliance, but it feels like he came up with a great paradigm decades ago and he’s been content to just swim in his pool alone or with those who aren’t willing to challenge him to go to a less abstract realm. I wish the interviewer had pushed him harder to give concrete examples and not hide in his theoretical model, where he’s clearly cozy.
Wilber is a Treasure trove of Wisdom 🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥💯
This may be the only proper, sympathetic criticism of Peterson I've ever heard. In all the others I've heard, I've always been able to find some flaw rooted in misinterpretation or insufficient knowledge of his thinking. Ken Wilber actually gets him and isn't out to score cheap points. Fantastic.
As much as I like Ken and believe he is quite brilliant, I can't get past this color lingo. I might be old fashioned, but dealing with terms like orange©®™ is something that I would like to avoid in my philosophical discussion as much as possible. Heidegger was another brilliant person who got caught in a lot of lingo. In his case, he eventually admitted that this was not a good idea for the most part. We'll see if Ken ends up making a similar statement some day.
Besides that, I agree with Ken's points here, and he does a great job covering them.
Yea the colors are annoying but helpful once you get the hang of them. Once you start selling "SD" to your friends, you realise 99% aren't going to read the books! Only your i
Two edged sword. When you use philosophical terms alone it can lose people. The colors are easy and help people learn but they also oversimplify. Wilber knows this and tries to play both sides.
@@mdav30 I don't think they are easy. I think they are generalizations and that natural language is a key part of philosophy. Also give a distinct "woo" feeling, but perhaps fans of his work like that.
It seems rather like synesthesia to me and as a visual artist it’s actually more confusing- when I talk about colour I mean colour dammit! 😁
@@janetmcgregor775 Yes. If there was some kind of link with the color that goes beyond something arbitrary it might be something. But having looked at various color systems including chakras, astrological, and similar, I'm not seeing it.
I also really like his grow up, wake up, clean up trio also. It it natural language even though he defines these in special ways... no real "woo" there and I agree 100% on how all of these aspects are very important and somewhat separate... certainly worth labeling in my view. I use different terms, but his make sense too.
Sir, I am so happy to say that my dad was healed in the hospital without the surgeon's intervantion - while he was gone to a conference for 2 days. At his return, the doctor was amazed my dad had nothing to work on and called it a miracle. Gods magic :)
Ken Wilbur is a Master. Love Jordan Peterson, as well.
I'm sorry but I can't help myself. Ken Wilbur is literally looking at the world through rose colored glasses
JP has a better model with competence hierarchies. He never gives an example dominance as opposed to growth hierarchies.
Integral Theory is a superb meta theory of reality. Thank you for the slides. They help those who are newbies in Integral thought to reframe and understand better.
Wow, Wilber never fails to amaze!
Very good to see Wilber back on stage at this moment. It seems almost as if he'd been consigned to oblivion or to just a small esoteric group. Those who know his work realize it's a perspective practically absent from any of the current cultural and social debates. Whatever neglect Wilber's ideas have suffered, is no problem because he was doing some deep thinking in the 70s and 80s that will become increasingly more relevant as the work of those academics who dismissed him find their way into the dustbin. Wilber's perspective on consciousness, in particular, was never mainstream physicalist - man is merely a biological unit in which consciousness emerges when all the complex parts come together - nor the conventional religious body-soul dualism. But Wilber arrived way too early on the scene and was examining issues that will become increasingly more relevant in the 21st century. Great to see this exchange regarding the ideas of both Peterson and Wilber: 2 top-notch thinkers. Wilber's thought had always been far too complex for the kind of platforms Peterson uses, and I agree, he is far more conceptual than Peterson. But perhaps now we'll begin to see bridges being built between diverse perspectives. We need thinking against the grain and out of our ideological boxes.
No one has mentioned it, but here in Brazil there is an interesting book written in the 1930s by a certain Pietro Ubaldi called 《The Great Synthesis》which was even praised by Einstein in its time. It is essentially the first outline (spiral graphs and all) of the integral theory that Wilber would offer many decades later in far greater detail and making use of many disciplines. Ubaldi was an intuitive thinker who claimed he was connected to the "noussphere"...the dimension of the circulating currents of thought (the "nous") in the universe. Essentially, Ubaldi was a panpsyquist. Irregardless of such claims of authorship (which is saying that the book was "channeled" and this, I know, would put off many readers), those interested in integral theory would most definitely enjoy examining the ideas presented in Ubaldi's book and see how some individuals in humanity's history and development at any stage have always had a perception, intuition or inkling of a holistic perspective regarding a greater whole. I could also cite Ralph Waldo Emerson, especially his essay "Circles".
Spectacular! Keep up the great work Rebel.
Wilber's AQAL model brings such clarity to these most important topics.
This stuff is incredibly interesting.
Jordan Peterson should sit down with Ken Wilber.
The most loving thinker of our age! Many thanks to ken Wilber.
00:47:25
I think Doctor Peterson insists on using the classic symbolic language of “Feminine=Chaos/Masculine=Order” PRECISELY because modern young people are unfamiliar with it: HE WANTS THEM to BECOME familiar. This ignorance is incredibly normal as such symbolism was universally understood just 100 years ago going back to the dawn of history. Wilber’s dismissal of his use of this language as “Not useful” is like saying training an older child to use a sledgehammer is not useful because he didn’t have the muscle strength to begin with! He’s training them to think more like their ancestors! How is this not useful, to go back to First Principals?
The modern ignoramus hears:
“Feminine=Chaos”, then concludes, “Chaos=negative=Bad/wrong/evil=Feminine=Woman”, and Vice Versa for Order and men. This is nonsense, because Feminine does NOT necessarily mean “woman”, Chaos does NOT mean Negative, Negative does not NECESSARILY mean evil. This degeneration Of Semantics and definitions is a big part of the problem, and Peterson is not wrong to re-educate his students regarding the proper use of such terms. In this instance, Dr. Wilber strikes me as being lazy and impatient.
Elder Millennial You’re right, of course, but good luck with bringing that terminology back.... it seems pretty much hopeless
You are onto something. Perhaps Peterson should have mentioned how this association was common in the classical world and that it may even be associated with the grammatical "genders" associated with classical languages. For example, the words for water, sea, and cave were all considered "feminine," and that association continued for anyone with a classical education. It's also part of Nietzsche. It could be that Peterson doesn't know this. There isn't much evidence that he knows Greek or Latin, and his understanding of Dante is also limited to the Inferno, which isn't even the best (necessarily) part of the Divine Comedy. He seems completely unaware of the deeper discussions that take place in the Paradiso and in the Purgatorio.
I wonder if Dr Wilber isn't omitting it as a "noble lie" to attract and include folks who might be offended by such associations.
Not to apologize for him
I'm more familiar with "Vedic": Male = Purusha = unmanifested God principle = unlimited formless source containing every possibility.
Female = Prakriti = manifested creative Goddess principle = Limited dimensional "Form" where the great "nothing" becomes "something"
Which kinda aligns with Egyptian: Male = Sun = undifferentiated universal power souce, God Ra
Female = Earth = using the Sun's raw power to create beauty, nature, and all living creatures, Goddess Isis
Which seems like the opposite of JP's description of Male vs Female.
This man is brilliant
Damn, I've never even heard of this guy before but I may have a new hero now.
IDW, I think we've found your Professor X.
@Ev MIles All very interesting. I can't imagine Wilber could be more into Eastern mysticism than Pertson is into Christianity, so that seems like an unusual place for their boundaries to end. Dawkins consistenty strikes me as no fool but somebody in serious need of an ego check. The party responsible for the Intellectual Dark Website doesn't seem all that reliable (I certainly don't agree with all of their choices or categories). While I'm disappointed to hear that Wilber probably won't be diving headlong into the fray I can't say I'm particularly surprised or offended. Ah, well.
Great interview! Love Ken Wilber, he is so well-educated, critical and insight-full!
If possible can we see another interview with Ken please, i feel like he was only just getting started. Thank you
4hr 20 mins version is on the website ;) - www.rebelwisdom.co.uk/plans
@@RebelWisdom oh my goodness!!!
Ahhhh, such a necessary film. Welcome back, Ken Wilbur! The wisdom is breathtaking.
THIS IS EPIC !
No doubt but Ken is a genius; a mind overflowing with insight and vision.
Finally, at 24 minutes he mentions "broken Green". It's healthy vs unhealthy at each vMeme. Anyone not making that distinction is missing the essence of second tier perspective.
It's so good to hear this way of describing the world that gives me an anchor to explain my way of thinking that doesn't get reduced to 2-dimensional 'centrist'. I've tried to explain as levels from the individual to the outcomes of social systems that emerge from the behaviour of the individuals just as how this applies to subatomic particles, atoms and life. Big picture vs small. That was still too oversimplified so Ken's descriptions are gold.
So for clarity it should be pointed out that you've decided to use Wilber's colour categories rather than Beck and Cowan's originals - which are in wider usage. Not saying this to gripe at Wilber but folks could get confused. So Amber is usually referred to as Blue etc etc. For example Leo on the actualised.org RUclips channel which has 100,000s of views uses Beck and Cowan's original colour categories (not difficult to translate back and forth so the confusion is easily overcome). Also some of the colours are the same (Orange, Green for example) to add to the confusion. For Beck and Cowan, the Green MEME is defined as 'Communitarian' with postmodern as a sub-feature. Wilber tends to emphasise the Green MEME as postmodern first and foremost.
Thanks, I was wondering about that.
The obsession with postmodernism is what Wilber shares with Peterson. This obscures the actual complexity that is not limited to postmodernism. I suspect such ideological obsessions indicate unprocessed shadow.
In Peterson's case, some have noted that his own views are clearly postmodernist, at least partly, in criticizing leftist and liberal meta-narratives. But Peterson lacks the self-awareness to recognize and acknowledge this in himself.
Thank you Rebel Wisdom et al your work is absolutely vital and appreciated
Ken has been one of my most important mentors. Like all mentors, I've eventually found areas where I break. One break is in his attack on what he sees as an absolutist left that has taken over. In doing so, he aligns himself with the right, Peterson included. And yet the lowest hanging fruit, in terms of problems, is clearly emanating from the authoritarianism of the right. And it's not as a dialectical reaction from the left as much as it is the same old thing that tyrannies have always thrived on, absolute power. The refuge of absolutist, tyrannical forms of government and being is force because their belief system is a near complete farce--at least what it's devolved to, and modern american conservatism's elitist core has a hard position to begin with anyhow. The left, while at times stubborn to change, hasn't been turned to stone, relying completely on violence to maintain its legitimacy. Circa June, 2020 the America with any kind of pulse isn't worried about anti-fa or commie professors. He, like Peterson, like Harris, like the lot of them, can't seem to fathom that polarization is asymmetrical, and that the extremes of the left are nowhere near as off the charts as the right. I for one am a fan of the German legislation that takes strong measures to attack fascism in their midst. The greatest problem with green, from my viewpoint, is that they are too weak in allowing for the diversity of opinion. There's a tremendous amount of pure, grade A, Prime BS steadily steaming from the right, but never a word. The tyrannical green (post-modernism) is most guilty of nihilism, or the opposite error of "knowing" that comes from the right. And it is problematic that they aren't pragmatic enough to settle on certain limitations to their openness. IN other words, like take a strong position. Like identifying the real fascist threat. Maybe Germany is onto something by not allowing their fringe elements to gain a foothold in public discourse. That maybe we can advocate for free speech, while recognizing the wolf at the door. The worst crime I see on the left is nievetee, while on the right just murder and mayhem. The truth is that I am not engaging in hyperbole here. If you think the left is equal partner in the current problems in America at this time, you simply haven't educated yourself yet. And yes, I reject the sick idea that Mao, Stalin, and Hitler were "leftists". That's another thread entirely
I agree with much of what you've said here.
Outstanding! I just discovered this! I've loved Wilbur for years!
And I'm grateful that he has a more positive opinion of Jordan Peterson than you can find in most of the web!
I seriously love both Ken Wilber and Jordan Peterson, but I dislike the way people try to compare and contrast two very different people with very different perspectives and very different areas of study and research. Also, asking one what they think of the other, or to assess each other's work, is a complete crock of shit. It allows/encourages Wilbur and his massive ego to condescend somewhat by first saying "he's good ... but .... "
Such criticisms aside, this was a GREAT session by Wilbur, one of our greatest living thinkers.
Wow! Thoroughly enjoyed every minute of that. I'd never heard of Ken Wilber. Thanks to Rebel Wisdom for this upload. It has given me immense food for thought!
Wow, this guy’s good. Where has he been? This breakdown of inclusiveness of growth hierarchies is telling. Sort of a wake up call to nihilistic post-modern marxists to self-reflect. It’s not about throw the baby out with the bath water. Instead, course-correct toward a more sustainable endgame; instead of dogmatically adhering to a single pathology for the sake of adhering to something in order to belong. At the very least, Ken’s words should prompt contemporary Marxists to borrow from the successful Marxist governments; perhaps establish a ranking of best to worst Marxist governments.
From what I can tell, Hofstadter’s Surfaces and Essences draws a unique parallel with integral theory, using analogy as the ontological equivalent of growth hierarchy. The structure of cognition is the structure of the world and vise versa.
Bravo!
1:06:00 This is the first point that Wilber has slightly wrong, because Peterson strongly filters myth through survival bias. He roughly believes that only the best stories have come down to us-sometimes highly synthesized along the way-and that this wasn't necessarily an accident, because some of the ancient story tellers imbued their yarns with natural Jungian insights, thus setting them on their eternal track from the outset. Peterson would probably say that the primal Jungian spark is _never_ entirely literal, that it simply can't be entirely constrained to purely literal language of any kind, for any purpose-except possibly for counting expendable noses while amassing your next invasion force as drawn from allied peoples you can only barely manage to tolerate.
Does anyone know the significance of the string around his right index finger? Is is a religious symbol, a reminder to be mindful, a gift..?
@Ev MIles oops, not index finger, ring finger- my mistake. Good guess about Treya. i read Grace & Grit a long time ago. I wonder if the string's on in older videos?
Interesting that this guy is not viral yet. Hope he gets there as soon as possible, he's thoughts are for sure worthy of it :)
Peterson sounds like Kermit. Ken sounds like Yoda. I see great meme potentials here...
Please make a meme and share!!
Both Kermit and Yoda were voiced by Frank Oz
Is it necessary to know and differentiate everything that we know of or is it possible to quickly progress into a truly integral organism? And how do we make the biggest leaps forward in our development?
I think a lot of the Bible stories are from old oral stories. And oral stories being retold for centuries always had an underlying meaning that evolved over time and so when they were written down the depth of their meaning had already been incorporated into the tale. So no the guy who wrote "Moses parted the red sea..." may not intend it to have any other meaning. However the meaning was likely already there if there was a meaning at all in that sentence.
Peterson sidesteps the question consistently, but eventually you have to ask yourself if God does or does not exist. If He doesn't, your idea is one of many that could explain Moses, though you have no evidence and it is just speculation. If God does exist, your explanation falls pretty short of the mark.
So it really isn't possible to wrestle with the authenticity of the story of Moses without first tackling the question of whether God exists.
Yes, I also wondered about this. I am not sure if he is saying that a transcendental meaning existed at that time, but the broader society could only comprehend it at the level of understanding they were at, resulting in the writer seeing it literally, or that the story was always literal. To me the parables of Jesus, or many other mystics, are a clear indication that an individual had an awakening which it was impossible to communicate and which transcended all the levels Wilber speaks of. The problem is that the receivers of the message interpret it at the level they are at. I think this is what WIlber meant too, but I am not sure. It's also supported by the way he described Sam Harris interpreting the myths. This would mean that to truly understand the myths you would have to experience ego death yourself, at which point you wouldn't need the myth, ironically.
Very very smart conversation, excellent merging of thought, validating!
“Molecules don't hate atoms. They don't oppress atoms.“😁
Mr. Wilbur is SO awesome. Thanks for all these presentations! Spreading the word.
Wilber may be the one that saves us
Good ro hear a reference to the contributions of Arthur Koestler.
YES! We finally have our Yoda!
It was real intellectual pleasure to listen to Mr. Wilber. Thank you.