 |
In this clip, Ken discusses some extremely important distinctions between individual and social holons, and the different sorts of influences they have upon each other. This has been a source of considerable confusion for many evolutionary thinkers, some of whom are able to easily grasp the holonic sequence of whole/parts, but often make the mistake of stacking social holons on top of individual holons—for example, one frequently-used model of evolutionary complexity looks like this:
atoms » molecules » cells » organisms » human beings » families » cities » nations » ecosystems » gaia » solar system » galaxy
To many, this sequence makes immediate intuitive sense, as each piece seems to envelop the previous piece, forming larger and larger magnitudes of existence. But when we take a closer look, we can see that there are in fact two very different types of hierarchies in play—individual hierarchies and social hierarchies—and these two different dimensions of hierarchical growth do not stack on top of each other, but grow alongside each other, as demonstrated here:
INDIVIDUAL |
SOCIAL |
atoms |
galaxies |
molecules |
planets |
cells |
ecosystems (Gaia) |
organisms |
families |
human beings |
tribes, cities, nations, etc. |
|
|
 |
Here Ken discusses the noble (though often misplaced) drive to help raise the consciousness of the world. This sort of spiritual urgency can be very difficult to work through—on the one hand, considering the fairly dismal state of this world, urgency seems the only appropriate response. On the other hand, many of our ambitions to transform the world might actually be coming from a somewhat less-than-bodhisattvic place within us, a sort of "spiritual ego" that thrives upon creating opportunities to display just how enlightened it is. Assuming the drive is authentic and selfless, how can we effectively bring just a little more light into the world, without spinning our psycho-spiritual wheels in the muck of ignorance, casting our most precious pearls of wisdom before the swine of self-deception?
|
 |
There's no question about it—an Integral approach to spirituality requires no small amount of brain power. With dozens of maps, models, charts, and graphs; a vast canon of essays and books; a seemingly inexhaustible body of community-generated content; as well as hundreds of hours of audio interviews and video clips—all in service of helping us to live as fully and free as we possibly can—it might seem somewhat exhausting. Doesn't all this fancy intellectualism actually get in the way of authentic spiritual experience? Shouldn't we learn to clear our mind of such mental concepts, reconnect with our feelings, and stay rooted in our bodies in order to more clearly perceive what is really real? Ken's approach to embodied spirituality disarms these sorts of questions entirely, as he discusses three very different types of "feeling," all of which dance naked upon the ceiling of awareness.
|
 |
Here Ken discusses one of the most significant, and perhaps least developed, applications of Integral practice: how to raise families in a more wholesome, balanced, and enlightened way. How can an Integral understanding of human development help offer future generations release from the fragmentation that currently defines so many of today's approaches to education and child rearing? |
 |
Here Ken discusses just what is meant by the term "transformation," a word that carries a tremendous amount of import for today's world, as consciousness continues to evolve through magic, mythic, rational, pluralistic, and Integral waves of development. Are we truly facing the most revolutionary transformation the world has ever seen? Is such global transformation even possible? Or are such ideals merely the remnants of a narcissistic ego seeking to impose its own values upon the rest of the world? |
 |
Here Ken discusses some of the overlap that exists between spirituality and science, suggesting that science itself can help people grow from prerational to transrational stages of development. He then explores three possible definitions of the word "spiritual," demonstrating how the relationship between science and spirituality changes significantly based upon which definition you are using: the highest reaches of any of our multiple intelligences, a developmental line in its own right, and a temporary state experience that can be had at any point in the self's development. |
 |
Here we explore the paths and pitfalls of what might be called "green science," describing a relativistic approach to knowledge, as opposed to a purely empirical approach. While modern science recognizes the fact that there are many different ways of looking at the world, using empirical testing as a way to understand the overall system, healthy forms of green science include these systematic views, while holding them alongside multiple other systems. Modern science was the first to properly differentiate art, morals, and science—though in the end, it tends to emphasize 3rd-person science over 1st-person art and 2nd-person morality, resulting in exactly the sort of materialism that green science tries to remedy. But a relativistic approach to knowledge can become just as pathological when left to its own devices, as Ken Wilber discusses in this clip. |
 |
When managing a company that contains positions that require varying degrees of conscious development, what is the best way to ensure your employees are up to the task? Here a seminar participant engages Ken about the merits of creating a sort of "scaffolding system" within the company that attempts to evoke this sort of development, versus creating specific hiring and firing policies from the very beginning in order to best match altitude, aptitude, and attitude with the needs of the position. |
 |
Here Ken discusses some of the challenges of emerging technology in today's world, most notably the creation of technologies by highly developed minds that can be used by the least developed members of the human family. He uses the example of the Colt revolver, a weapon that was created from a fairly sophisticated level of cognition, that can be used by absolutely anybody—which is precisely why these weapons are collectively known as the "great equalizers" of society, since they more or less place everyone on the same footing, despite enormous differences of strength, intelligence, or morality between individuals. |
 |
Here Ken discusses some of the core assumptions that underlie capitalism in today's world, placing particular emphasis upon implicit theories of what motivates people to move around in the world. With so many countervailing forces at work in the market, it can be very difficult to grasp the full complexity of private enterprise. However, one thing is clear: if a siginificant portion of humanity makes it to Integral consciousness, our theories of economics will not be able to move forward without taking interiors into account. |
 |
Here Ken discusses the "two arrows of time" of entropy and evolution— or, to put it another way, a universe that is simultaneously "winding up" even as it is winding down. We can feel the undeniable tug of these great impersonal forces in our own hearts, one pulling us toward death and the other toward life. We find ourselves engulfed by these contradictory currents, our lives little more than momentary eddies in the tides of being—spontaneous sworls of consciousness that open for a short amount of time, before being swallowed once again by the water. |
 |
Here Ken is asked about his own relationship with surrender, grace, and inner knowledge. He shares a glimpse into his own creative process, namely the need to make a choice to fully surrender to the creative impulse. |
 |
|
|