A Quote by Ken Wilber on ken wilber, fred koffman, healthy, communion, agency, eros, pathological, repression, agape, regression, holon, self-transcendence, self-dissolution, self-immanence, phobos, and thanatos
KW: Fred's first criticism had to do with the four drives of any holon. In SES, I listed these as agency (horizontal individuation) and communion (horizontal linking), and self-transcendence (vertically moving up) and self-dissolution (vertically moving down). Fred pointed out that the first three drives were, correctly, the healthy version of those drives; but for the fourth drive, I had incorrectly given the pathological version of the descending drive. The healthy downward drive -- the drive of the higher to embrace and enfold the lower, which I call agape or compassion, or what might be called self-immanence (the dialectical opposite of self-transcendence) -- I actually gave as thanatos, which is not the embrace of the lower by the higher but the dissolution or regression of the higher to the lower. When it came to vertically moving upward, I had correctly given that as Eros or self-transcendence, seeking out higher and wider wholeness. The pathological version of Eros is phobos, which is not the transcendence of the lower but the repression of the lower. But when it came to vertically moving downward, instead of giving the healthy agape -- where the higher embraces, enfolds, and "loves" the lower, as a molecule embraces its atoms -- I inadvertantly gave the pathological thanatos, where the higher merely dissolves into the lower, dies or decomposes (e.g., the molecules dissipate into their constitutive atoms). So the four drives should be agency and communion, and self-transcendence and self-immanence (not self-dissolution).
This is a brilliant criticism, and of the hundreds of thousands of people who went over those ideas, only Fred spotted it. (Incidentally, I still sometimes list the fourth drive as self-dissolution, simply because that is so much easier to understand in an introductory statement. But my actual position should now be clear, thanks to Fred...
The main reason I love this quote is because I believe it shows a Shadow that I have “seen” in him and have not had enough outward evidence of to point to. This is a blind-spot. He passes it off as an intellectual mistake, but I believe it to be more than that. I don't realy have any condemnation for KW about this, but I do ask that he confess it. There are all sorts of other things in his life and demeanor that hint at this same blind-spot which are each passed off as some other thing. Avoiding the truth in this makes other people feel crazy and/or provokes them to try and taxonomize him - create distance.
This is what I think:
I think he Shadows his own “drive of the higher to embrace and enfold the lower, which I call agape or compassion, or what might be called self-immanence (the dialectical opposite of self-transcendence)”. For whatever reason it has paid off better for him to keep his drive to self-transcend or move up vertically front and center. Lord knows there are plenty of rewards and positive reinforcements for him to do that. He has also had a very well-known traumatic experience with the drive to descend with Treya. There is no shortage of good reasons why he might want to avoid this drive personally, so blessings and compassion to him.
AND
I want to see some truth-telling about that. Avoiding such truth-telling has created a toxic spill over into many areas that have effected me personally, and my involvement with Integral. I think it's a safe ass-u-me'tion that I'm not alone. When he rants about people with mindsets which cannot/will not ascend he uses ALOT of excited polemic, whereas there is much less for those who cannot/will not descend. Because his pov is common in the enlightened crowd, there seems to be a group-think which invalidates descending paths - mutually reinforcing one another's limitations. This also has had an unintended result of discounting the practices and paths of women and preferring the paths of men - which was socially acceptable until the last 50 years or so. It is women who tend to have more skill in descent than men, and men who have more skill in ascent than women - for many reasons. This is well-known and is an event which tetra-arises both in the right and left side of the quads simultaneously and symbiotically. Again - no condemnation here. It just is.
This polemic can motivate ascent in many people, but it uses the lower functions to do so: shame, embarrassment, ridicule, fear, pain, etc. Such transmissions rely on the same neurotransmitters responsible for taboo - and Shadow. It seems to me that true ascent will disarm both sides of this conflict instead of escalating it. A new way of motivating must be found besides the type that shares the same space as “Heaven and Hell”. As long as he avoids the truth-telling about this, his gigantic leadership is weighing us all down like a 60,000 ton boat anchor. Can we find a way to transcend these motivational functions, or are we going to remain at the same level of the problem?
As a woman, I want to stress the importance of a lack of condemnation, while at the same time holding space for the expression of deep and primal pain and fear and anger. This seems like part of the Tantric goal of remaining fully awake while inhabiting the lowest impulses (Agape) while also being awake and inhabiting the highest impulses (Eros). Avoiding one or the other and remaining asleep about it keeps us at the level of the problem and anchors us in both Thanatos and Phobos.
Thank you, Fred, for showing us the door. Now we have to walk through it.
~Ww