Posted by Diana on April 10, 19101 at 18:42:48:
In Reply to: radical empiricists & apophatic mystics posted by johnboy on March 27, 19101 at 23:58:47:
jb,
I think the essence of your question asks, 'Is it possible for people living in diverse states of consciousness to agree on enough points to either develop or discover an existing global ethic?' (I hope I'm at least a bit close in my interpretation. I'm trying!)
I finished reading Wilber's "Integral Psychology." In it, he talks about a materialist approach which "claims that there is only the physical universe described best by physics and other natural sciences, and nowhere in that physical universe do we find consciousness, mind, experience, or awareness, and therefore those "interiors" are simply illusions (or, at best, byproducts without any genuine reality). (p. 175.)
This viewpoint would be in contrast to a mystical viewpoint which places great emphasis on experience, awareness, and consciousness. If we look at Wilber's four quadrants, I think the materialist approach would fundamentally be the reductionistic flatland approach.
Now, W also points out that we have "two apparently absolute but contradictory truths: the truth of immediate experience, which tells me unmistakably that consciousness exists,and the truth of science, which tells me unmistakably that the world consists only of arrangements of fundamental units (quarks, atoms, strings, etc.) that possess no consciousness whatsoever, and no amount of rearranging those mindless units will result in mind. " (p. 174)
Now, as I understand it, problems are not solved in the same level of consciousness in which they were created so, in order for people of various
levels of consciousness to work through their various issues, they would all need to be willing to further develop their consciousness in order to learn the 'solutions.' Materialists could do the experiments simply out of curiosity. Openess to experimentation in consciousness development could lead to greater understanding among the group members.
This is where Swindler's "The Dialogue Decalogue" would come into play. The primary purpose of the exchange would have to be acknowledged from the start.
"Dialogue is a conversation on a common subject between two or more persons with differing views, the primary purpose of which is for each participant to learn from the other so that s/he
can change and grow." (p. 1) If the participants were not willing to learn and grow from exchange with each other, the development or discovery of a global ethic would have great difficulty coming into being. Domination or a know-it-all attitude have no place here.
Each person would also benefit from understanding how every single thought is embedded in all four
of W's quadrants and be willing to step back and
see how thoughts are generated in specific instances. I think self awareness or the ability of self-analyze would also be important.
In short, I think it would be a difficult but not impossible task. The attitude of openness to growth and change would be of paramount importance, perhaps even more so than the level of consciousness. I think it would certainly be a worthwhile experiment.
I hope I've been at least a tiny bit close to
what you've been suggesting.
I am a new "Wilberry" so I have much to learn.
Thanks for letting me have a try.
Diana