As part of my "light summer reading" I thought I'd dig into some more Ken Wilbur and his Magnum opus: Sex, Ecology & Spirituality. I've read some of Wilbur's other works, notably A Theory of Everything - back when it first came out and I lived in Berkeley and more recently toward the end of last year when he came up in one of my courses.
Since I am already familar with Wilbur and his concepts, SES is not challenging in shifting my worldview and understanding, but more in it's comprehensive and methodological unpacking of these concepts. Shining the light into every dark corner, opening closet doors, looking behind that wall of boxes to find yet another door - with another perspective, or understanding or way of looking at the world.
It's not shock that I've been obsessed with awareness, self-awareness, observation and so called "enlightenment" for decades. It's really tied into my desire to take full responsibility for who I am - including making who I am - which includes unmaking the person the world makes me be.
So when I found Wilbur's levels of hierarchy/worldview explanation, it was a few years after I had crossed over beyond the judgemental, my way is the right way perspective. Oh - don't get me wrong - I do digress from time to time, but that's to be expected - I'm merely human. It's a strange detachment when you can see the world from "conflicting" perspectives.
It was painfully obvious as I tried to read David Mamet's new novel - a massive raspberry in liberal thought. As I choked my way through three chapters last night over dinner, I couldn't shake the self-importance. OK, Mamet, go enjoy your mid-life crisis, but why don't you add some Ken Wilbur to your reading of Hayek. Also, just because you read Hayek, and are no longer a liberal, doesn't mean you are a conservative - there's another word for people like that - they're called Libertarians.
I should probably finish reading the book before attempting to review it further, lest I consider Mamet a genus in retrospect, but the substunce of his material was thin and read more like notes. Nassim Taleb, a thinker I adore, also has a difficult writing style. But where Taleb wins me over is his substance. Mamet, I don't know, I wish you the best in your self-understanding, but it as far as I can tell, you're re-categorizing things using different words, different judgements. You've cut off the head of one philosophy/political belief and replaced it with another - which has in no way transcended either philosophies/politics. Which is exactly the path that Wilbur paints.
At a certain point, level, you jump ship, you cross the water. To a place that can hold the validity of various view as valid (maybe not equal) - including the view that all views could (or not) be valid. Oh what I tricky mobius philosophy!!!
For me, I find it more interesting on the other side of the bank, holding my mind open (it's damn hard at times) to see the validity of any particular perspective. When I'm alone, it's often a lot easier than when I am around others, with their various influences. But what fun is it to hold your worldview in a room of your own - alone?
Comments