From the Imperfect Buddha Podcast.

Off we go with our first long-form interview/conversation for 2020, and it’s with returning guest Daniel Ingram! Are you ready for more? It seems that many of you are. Back in 2019 when Daniel was visiting here in Trieste, we discussed a range of material we might cover on the podcast and one topic that repeatedly came up for Mr Ingram was his take on Integral Theory. We finally got the conversation done before Christmas and here it is. For this one I play the devil’s advocate somewhat as my knowledge on Ken Wilber’s work was quite limited and I had heard mainly complaints about Wilber's work from our more educated listeners. As always, however, it was a pleasurable conversation and Daniel’s take on Wilber’s core theory seems pretty attractive as a model for understanding stages of growth, both for individuals and groups. We cove sex scandals, power grabs, groupy love, spaced-out gurus, religious fundamentalists, and how we are all too human.

See what you think! It's his first public conversation on the topic and a real treat.

63: Daniel Ingram on Integral Theory

For those new to the podcast, and crazy for Daniel’s enlightenment stories and pragmatism, there is a plethora of past conversations to enjoy.  From our first ever conversation with him years back, there’s a far more recent and fun series on non-Buddhism in which Daniel tackles the Speculative non-Buddhism project as well as an episode looking into the Practising Life; our theme for this academic year of podcast episodes.

55. IBP: Daniel Ingram Down the Rabbit Hole: Imperfect-buddha-podcast – 55-ibp-daniel-ingram-down-the-rabbit-hole
54. IBP: Daniel Ingram Meets Trash Theory: Imperfect-buddha-podcast – 54-ibp-daniel-ingram-meets-trash-theory
53. IBP: Daniel Ingram on the Practicing Life: Imperfect-buddha-podcast – 53-ibp-daniel-ingram-on-the-practicing-life

Our next episode will be with Adam Robbert, host of the Side View podcast and journal, before our first ever oral blog post series on…ideology.

I am grateful for Matthew being such a good conversational partner in this podcast and for providing the impetus and platform for discussing one of my favorite topics!

Thanks!

May you find something useful therein.

Daniel

Good stuff! I particularly liked the idea of "an ecology of modes", rather than a hierarchy of stages.

It's interesting... because while there is definitely a heirarchy, because 1) a certain critical mass of a lower stage is needed to support the higher stage, and 2) it's also true that higher stages transcend and include lower stages ---

BUT, and this is critical, when lower stages are included only what has been experienced in that lower stage can be included... which is another way of saying that being able to access a higher mode of development doesn't mean that you now have a cheat code to access everything in the lower stages. Your limitations in those lower stages still exist unless addressed. 

Ugh, that was probably unintelligble...

-j

Looking forward to listening to this. Been very interested in Integral Theory lately.

Perfectly lucid comment Shargrol. I tend to view these things as relational positions myself. That doesn't exclude the idea of certain stages of maturation being unavailable without certain changes, sacrifices, or learning taking place of course, ro the need for some sort or relativism. I guess I prefer the metaphor of life progressing along a winding trail through a rich and varied landscape than a ladder or some kind of assent; which remains too bloody Biblical for my liking!

Wow, that was great.  And Shargrol not only makes perfect sense, but points to a rich field of endeavour for the four right exertions.

Some other things I particularly liked.

1 - The ability to say both 'fucknuts' and 'oh my golly'.  From an anthropological perspective, these are verbal artefacts that surely provide a great deal of cultural triangulation. There must be very few people in the world capable of saying both 'fucknuts' and 'oh my golly'!  Perhaps the SNB crowd could be asked to comment - should keep them busy for weeks.  

2 - The comment at the end from Matthew (to paraphrase) that grappling with even a few of these bands as somehow co-equal provides a no-self insight practice. Right on! And I would add that seeing the bands as non-overlapping hierarchies might have the opposite effect - locking people up with the fetter of ego.

3 - The whole approach seems to provide a way to get more out of insight.  Buddhism for the general public appears to get tied down into Band 1 and Band 2. The system enumerated by Daniel in this podcast, based on Ken Wilber's work, may allow beneficial insights without having to explicitly shoot for stream entry.  

Very nice. Thank you both.

Malcolm

For folks who are interested in the adult development side of things... my favorite framework (not saying this is literally true, nor is it completely false, its a framework) is:


https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/cc0e/81e8aaf82e6ec4faccbc3ed9889fe0cd2bb7.pdf


She is part of the Wilber universe, so is somewhat guilty by association with Wilber's genius and fucknuttery, so, like everything else, take it with a grain of salt.

That was great. Oh my golly.  

I found it all incredibly insightful, if not perfect (as is to be expected at this stage of scholarship in a complex field).  She makes the point well on p.73 saying "Any further differentiation within the same paradigm of increasing hierarchical complexity is reaching is manifest limits. Only the creation of a new way of knowing can hierarchically supersede and integrate all previous knowledge and ways of knowing in the symbol-mediated, personal world of meaning making."

Still, to me some of the later stuff was a mix of right on point and slight missing the mark, in the sense that some elements seemed to belong in earlier phases.  Also, the final phase to me conflated a Unitive and Distributed perspectives (that is unitive absorption in the ground, followed by distributing the self into the arising and passing away of the sense consciousnesses). I also wonder if there is another (dimly sensed) reintegrative phase beyond that, driven by the Doing dimension outlined on p14 (typically occupied by bodhisattva resolutions by default) ... Not sure, but I can sense a final reintegration is available - almost an alchemical or wizardly one.  Maybe I have just been spending too much time watching The Witcher, or reading Vinay Gupta.  Or maybe I am just emitting a latent azuric manifestation.

Anyway, what a great resource to understand with compassion the frames of reference of others, and to work within those frames of reference to the benefit of all.

Thanks Shargrol,

Malcolm

I thought it made sense, but I'm not entirely sure that I agree that a certain critical mass of a lower stage is needed to support the higher state. I happen to know a person, a fellow autistic person, who did not recognize himself in the mirror until he was 12. Before that, he was no individual. Instead he lived in a world that was a continuum. He says that the items within a continuum are uncountable and that each part of a continuum is a continuum by itself. Furthermore, he says that the concept of space as something empty in which objects can reside is based on a perception of oneself as being distinguished from the rest of the world. That's not how he perceived the world the first 12 years of his life. Instead he lived within a space which was entirely filled - without objects and without vacuum between them. There was no linear time either. Entities of perception - visual, auditory, olfactory or tactile - just popped up, the way he describes it. Time was like a network of moments, including branches and circles, tied together by associations rather than chronology. His memories from that part of his life are not related to time or place, but out of place and out of time. Fragments. Sometimes images, isolated from context. Sometimes when remembering, questions are associated with an image, like "Why is water coming out of my eyes?" At the same time, he was connected to the whole universe, to every animal, every plant and every object, as he describes it. It was peaceful. It just didn't work very well with society, as he had no understanding of any other mode.

This friend of mine learned reading and Maths all on his own, before starting school, and mathematics were his key to making sense of reality. He says that there are two fundamental approaches within mathematics, one of which includes a continuum. In order to be able to pick items out of a continuum there is a need for an axiom of choice, and an axiom of foundation to avoid circular conclusions. I'm no mathematician so this is beyond me. Anyway, he says that the other approach is based on relations, graphs, that allow things to built up step by step and to be counted. It uses algorithms and is used by computers. Today my friend finds himself living in both these worlds - the continuum world and the relational world - but getting to the point where he was able to do that was a long and painful process. 

A workshop led by this friend (that's where I started to get to know him) has been critical for my understanding of the dharma so far, or rather for my approach to developing an understanding, because it was a workshop where we explored how we use our senses in our cognition and how that often differs both beween autistic people and non-autistic people and inbetween the groups.

Now, I'm not very familar with those different band or modes in the model. Apart from this specific interview, I haven't heard much about it, so forgive me for speculating, but couldn't this be an example of someone functioning from a "higher" band before developing an understanding of "lower" bands? By functioning I mean how to make sense of the existence. In a different sense, most people in our society would probably say that he wasn't functioning. He is now, though. He has good relationships and is respected professionally and is highly educated (he recently got his PhD). I find him very inspiring.

My friend did need to develop an understanding of other bands as well, but he had to build that understanding from the other direction. 

(Sorry for all the editing, mainly typos)