His work is, in my view, a largely successful attempt to tie together what can be learned from the application of hermeneutics, as I described in a comment up-tread, with what has been found using the more general "positivist" scientific approach. He describes his approach as "integral" in that he seeks to integrate that knowledge we can obtain by looking within ourselves and others with that knowledge that can be gained by looking at objects that are separate from the observer.
AQAL is an acronym for All Quadrant, All Levels. This is a conceptual format that he has expressed in a diagram with four quadrants drawn on graph paper which emoller has posted down-thread. Emoller has also posted other diagrams of Wilber's. These can be helpful as mnemonic devices and illustrations if you are familiar with his work.
From the late '60s through the early '80s I was interested in psychology both intellectually and as a practical matter. I needed to understand the mental processes of various people I was dealing with at that time in Hollywood, in part so that I could get my work done, in part to maintain my own sanity and in part to protect my own life and those of people I cared about. I read such works as Ego Development by Jane Loevenger, Ego Psychology by Gertrude and Rubin Blank, Temperament and Development by Thomas and Chess, Cognative Development by Luria, The Analysis of the Self by Heinz Kohut and many more. This self study did largely succeed in its objectives, although many may question my sanity, but had the disadvantage of not being something I could share with most people I knew.
I have only read one of Wilbur's books to this point, Integral Psychology. I found it not only to take account of the psychology I had read but to illuminate that work with his own insights. I found it to have, among other things, an excellent, concise treatment of the whole subject of pre-modern or traditional societies and thought, modern society and thought and "post-modern" variations. He also develops a perspective from which he can resolve the infamous "mind-body" dualism conundrum, though not in a manner that will be satisfying to all.
What I find perplexing in the responses to emoller's diary is all of the attention from Coleman and Ted Welch for something which, from the tenor of their remarks and questions, I do not believe they are truly interested in attempting to understand. If this belief is unfounded, I would certainly be pleased to do what ever my own limited abilities would allow to assist. As the Dutch said while fighting the Spanish: "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
I think with these topics and understanding them it is like with any other area, you have to learn the language and its vocabulary. The 'Chinese' here on ET for me is the 'Economese' language. I have a very hard time understanding what is being said as i do not have the vocabulary and the meaning behind it. If I want to understand, for example, one of Migeru's diaries on economy I have to continuesly look up the words with google. Slowly I am learning the language. I guess the same goes with any other topic. I remember learning physics and chemistry, etc., which to be able to learn what it is all about I had to learn first their language. After I got the basic vocabulary it slowly started to make a little sense to me.
What I find perplexing in the responses to emoller's diary is all of the attention from Coleman and Ted Welch for something which, from the tenor of their remarks and questions, I do not believe they are truly interested in attempting to understand.
What do you mean "all of the attention" ? I made ONE response to one of Sven's comments, not the diary as such - then I responded to comments on my comment. So there is no "perplexing" gap between my "attention" and my supposed lack of interest in understanding. Perhaps you'd care to retract ? This seems on a par with the perplexing gap between claims of "closed minds" in ET and the actual evidence for them.
Nor do I see why you assume Colman is not "truly" interested in understanding when he made some perfectly reasonable requests for clarification. Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.
Then, on Thursday, Coleman commented on one of Sven's posts:
Has anyone in this discussion ever done any science? It's turning into a recital of nonsensical stereotypes about how science is done. Or about how Art is done for that matter.
Previous to this, but down thread, in a response to my comment, Coleman had asked me:
What aversion to studying the human mind?
Then there ensues a series of comments between yourself, Coleman and others conducted from your perspective. By the end of Thursday such comments outnumbered those actually attempting to respond to the subject of emilmoller's diary by two to one. I have seen such activity described elsewhere as "hijacking." I did wonder if you felt impelled to change the terms of discussion to ones within which you felt more comfortable.
I have made this response at your request as a courtesy to you. I had the time due to a cold snap that has quelled my desire to do more landscaping. If my comments have upset or offended you, that was not my intent. I was just informing you of how I saw things. I usually do not find such "he said," then "he said" dialogues useful, but I am always willing to try to further understanding of the sort of discussion that I believe emilmoller was offering. As the Dutch said while fighting the Spanish: "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
Then, on Thursday, Coleman commented on one of Sven's posts: Has anyone in this discussion ever done any science? It's turning into a recital of nonsensical stereotypes about how science is done. Or about how Art is done for that matter. To me this seemed, (perhaps unintentionally,) dismissive. Coleman seemed, to me, annoyed by the whole thread and seemed to complain that it was not confined to his preferred scientific perspective.
To me this seemed, (perhaps unintentionally,) dismissive. Coleman seemed, to me, annoyed by the whole thread and seemed to complain that it was not confined to his preferred scientific perspective.
It's really up to Colman top respond, but I don't see how his comment entails that he: "seemed to complain that it was not confined to his preferred scientific perspective." He was just saying, as he's entiitled to do, that he felt science - and art - were being caricatured. If you think that's wrong the appropriate response is to explain to him why, not allege that he is insisting on "his preferred scientific perspective."
OK, after the accusation that "all my attention" - pretty minimal in fact, is "perplexing" given your opinion of my interest in the subject of the diary, we now get the absurd accusation that I was involved in "hijacking" ! Paranoia rules.
I did NOT "change the terms of discussion" and frankly I resent the accusation that I did, supposedly to ensure "ones within which you felt more comfortable". I simply responded to a comment by Sven and that response was about how the arts and sciences are linked by things like the creative process and an interest in beauty - not so alien to the themes in the diary. That then led to some comments by Colman and TBG and I responded - it's a discussion. Your accusation about "hijacking" is absurd not only because my comment was not alien to the spirit of the diary, but also because there is no limitation on the number of comments which can be made. So the lack of many other comments on the diary is not because someone "hijacked it" - but because there weren't enougn people making comments - blame those who didn't comment, not those who did. Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.
