How Do We Know Stuff? | Ken Wilber & Corey deVos
Вставка
- Опубліковано 15 тра 2021
- Watch the full conversation: integrallife.com/integral-epi...
Learn how to apply integral theory to your everyday life: bit.ly/byim-integrallife
How do we know stuff? Like all of the great philosophical quandaries, it’s a fundamentally straightforward question that can lead us into an endlessly branching series of chicken-and-egg meditations on the nature of existence (ontology) versus the nature of knowledge (epistemology). In this fascinating episode of The Ken Show, we take a look at a dozen of the most popular schools of epistemological thought - idealism, pragmatism, empiricism, constructivism, etc. - noting their respective contributions and limitations, and how they can all be pulled together into a more Integral epistemology.
Participate in our daily Integral Life Practice sessions: integrallife.com/calendar
Watch all episodes of The Ken Show: integrallife.com/category/per...
What is Integral? integrallife.com/what-is-inte...
Follow our news on Facebook: / integrallifeofficial
Integral thoughts on Twitter: / robbsmith
Integral Life is a member-driven digital media community that supports the growth, education, and application of Integral Philosophy and integrative metatheory to complex issues in the 21st century. Integral Life offers perspectives, practices, analysis, and community to help people grow into the full capacities of integral consciousness in order to thrive in a rapidly-evolving world.
Thank you for this. I love you Ken Wilber!
I'm glad to see Ken Wilber is still in the game.
Love Ken’s rock-band look.
Thanks Ken . From Germany .
I'm glad it's back, haven't time to watch it initially
Excellent as always guys.
Baller intro
More!
Please Water your plant in the Background 💚
I found this discussion of epistemology to correlate, compare, or parallel well with my studies of astrology to, for, of, by, as,
and with an epistemology of astrological ontology. Although I have always found difficulty with Ken's long time use of color codes to categorize, in a comparative way that many project, assume, assert, misinterpret, misunderstand, find duality or may find a difficulty with astrology (because that group consensus is so paramount.) But I was grateful to listen to his efforts to rationalize his use of color codes, and agree that the difficulty Ken discussed, I see as is how that type of analytical color coding can be problematic. In other words that is why I prefer a language of astrology rather than a color coding ontology, even though within astrological teaching there have been color coding correlations made. For some of the seemingly similar reasons Ken discussed in depth. I prefer non-racist, not segregative, non-deconstructionist epistemologies, which seems to be a similar dilemma in rationalizing many parts too, to, or with a wholistic ontology. ☯️ Peace. As If & if it is implied a missing piece, like mystery, poetically ♏️ speaking, can rest, ⛎ I suggesT, with generative communities.. 💕♐️ more so as stated too,♉️, ⚮ ♓️ whenever as many as possible ♋️, ♍️, ♌️ can agree ♑️.♈️/?\♒️/⚛, ⚚, & if i may impute freely, ♊️ but advise against speaking for we, however if we see duality, please forgive i & I for the sake of those who also assert we, even as I & i, as I see ontology, it seemed it was a representative flaw, even in good faith, a telephone game conveying representative flaw in faith, like within a representative government. Governance to me epistemologically need noT be so beneath a ♎️ like a similar subtile duality when Ken color coded. Do you aGreen? As I need noT ' To be poetic too, & to prefer a release..☮️. 2, too, & to convey free.
Thanks, Peace & blessings ~ Journey
Good morning from Marquette Michigan!
the one discrimination that is still legal in the capitalist system is discrimination against non-owners as workers, not paying them the full value of their labor while owners pocket the surplus of their labor for themselves. that's called class discrimination, one among multiple ways in which it occurs, and it's the peculiar, inherent, and largely unrecognized pathology of capitalism.
When Ken says things like "20% of the population is at Green". Which line is he referring to? The moral line? The value line? The self line? The cognitive line? If I'm not mistaken, these lines develop independently, so all of them can be at different levels, right?
Hi everyone, great work! Is there a way to get in contact with Ken through email or phone for a conversation on integral theory in education? I just graduated with a PhD in education using the Four Quadrant framework and am looking to continue finding ways of using integral theory within academia. Any thoughts on contact? Cheers, Eric
TLDR: Integral epistemology seeks to understand truth through a holistic approach that integrates different schools of thought and levels of consciousness, ultimately aiming to bridge divides and embrace multiculturalism and inclusivity.
1. 00:00 🧠 Integral epistemology is discussed, exploring how we know things in today's media landscape and addressing various schools of thought on knowledge.
1.1 Ken Wilber and Corey deVos are excited to be getting a new puppy, an English golden retriever, for an eight-year-old girl and are looking forward to a trip to New Mexico to pick it up.
1.2 The discussion is about integral epistemology, which is essentially the question of how we know things.
1.3 The speaker discusses the importance of understanding epistemology in today's uncurated media space and the need to navigate through conflicting epistemologies and broken beliefs.
1.4 Epistemology explores the core concepts and questions of knowledge, addressing various schools of thought such as empiricism, rationalism, skepticism, and pragmatism.
2. 04:26 🔍 Truth can be understood through correspondence and coherence of parts within a whole system, and different approaches to understanding truth are true but partial when viewed through an integral lens.
2.1 Correspondence theories and coherence theories of truth have been at odds with each other, but integral theory sees the world as made of wholes and parts.
2.2 Truth can be understood through correspondence and coherence of parts within a whole system.
2.3 Different approaches to understanding truth are true but partial, and when viewed through an integral lens, they can start to make sense and fit together, although some may not fit with anything.
3. 09:08 🧠 Epistemology seeks truth through fitting data and seeking confirmation, but it leaves out individual truths, and the level of consciousness determines what is considered true.
3.1 Epistemology seeks to establish truth through correspondence and coherence, which involves fitting together data, accumulating more data, and seeking confirmation through replication of experiments.
3.2 Epistemology and ontology are theories of knowledge and what is known, but they leave out truths that only one person sees, which is a killer of any type of epistemology.
3.3 There are multiple levels of consciousness that can know something, and the structure of the level of consciousness determines how something is known.
3.4 The level of consciousness assumed by an epistemological system is essential in determining what is considered true, and there are at least three major levels of consciousness that can be reduced for a simplified explanation.
4. 16:00 🧠 Science relies on multiple modes of knowing, including experiential evidence and discernible effects, and paradigms are not just theories but actual experiments used to create data.
4.1 There are three modes of knowing - the eye of flesh, the eye of mind, and the eye of spirit - all of which provide experiential evidence, and William James applied this belief to religious experience.
4.2 Science does not only rely on evidence from the five human senses, but also on the discernible effects on external behavior or the world, and there are three strands of good knowledge to consider.
4.3 A paradigm is not just a big theory, but an actual experiment or practice used to create data for an experiment, and there are several hundred paradigms including x-rays and batteries.
5. 21:04 🧠 Knowledge is gained through action and experience, verified with others to build probability and confirm correctness, and tested with a large population to determine truth.
5.1 Knowledge is gained through action and experience, not just by observing the world around us.
5.2 Use pragmatic means to generate data and direct experience, then verify with others to build probability and confirm the correctness of the inference.
5.3 To determine the truth of a statement, it must be tested with a large population, confirmed or refuted, and compared with other perspectives.
5.4 Science has three theories about what makes a good epistemology, including the dependence of all science, straight empiricism, and the idea that real science is not something that you get confirmation for but that you get a reputation of.
6. 27:59 🧠 Valid epistemology depends on the level of consciousness, leading to universal knowledge structures, with different cultures having different types of knowledge, and the importance of integrating all fragments for a cross-paradigmatic approach.
6.1 Valid epistemology depends on the level of consciousness engaged in the paradigm, with multiple stages of cognitive development beyond simple rationality, leading to universal knowledge structures.
6.2 Different cultures have different types of knowledge, such as protestant chemistry, hindu chemistry, and irish chemistry.
6.3 Metasystemic thinking divides up the world into multicultural structures, but second tier thinking integrates all the different fragments created by postmodernism, leading to a cross-paradigmatic approach like Darwin's theory of evolution, Einstein's theory of physics, and Ken Wilber's integral theory.
6.4 The level of consciousness driving your epistemology is incredibly important in today's society, as it allows access to higher levels of development and changes the types of ontological objects that can be seen.
7. 34:51 🧠 Moving from egocentric to ethnocentric stages is a positive development, but only the integral stage can cure polarization and embrace multiculturalism and inclusivity.
7.1 About 20% of the population are at green postmodern meta systemic stages, which allows for access to multiculturalism, diversity, and inclusivity, but only the integral stage can actually cure polarization by pulling together the fractured pieces created by postmodernism.
7.2 Moving from an egocentric to an ethnocentric stage is a positive development in embracing identities and extending compassion, but it can also lead to a strong us versus them mentality and create fundamentalistic and problematic religions.
7.3 The speaker discusses the prevalence of ethnocentric and lower stages of development in American culture, and the need to differentiate between exterior and interior stages in social justice activism.
8. 41:04 📺 Systemic racism and sexism have decreased, but there is still a divide between right and left-hand views on social justice, and the speaker plans to discuss integral ideas to bridge the gap in a future episode.
8.1 Systemic racism was evident in the legal system, as laws prohibited women from practicing law and mandated separate building regulations for white and black people.
8.2 Racist and sexist actions are illegal, and there are no laws that discriminate against giving loans to black people, so those who believe in the right hand quadrants believe the country has never been better.
8.3 Systemic racism and sexism have decreased, but there is still a divide between right and left-hand views on social justice, and the speaker plans to discuss integral ideas to bridge the gap in a future episode.
read rudolf steiner's philosophy of freedom or Theory Implicit in Goethe's worldview
Einstein and Tagore would have had a better understanding of why they disagreed with each other if Ken was in that conversation Einstein was seeing with the eye of flesh and Tagore was seeing with the Kosmic eye.
☯️
What is Ken wearing on his little finger?
I know it's shallow of me but would love to know why the wig oh dear mentor ?
I think IT Suits him perfectly, and suppose at least warms his skull
#Sapce is playing a game in space.
There is no existential ethics rather exsistence of ethics exsist in human conciousness due to the ability of conciousness to frame intention and ethics is also an intention to verify the righteousness of intention by analysing the righteousness of "how intention is getting framed?" and "for what purpose it is getting framed?" to ensure righteousness of means and end altogether.
The presence of matter in conciousness constitute human body which act as efficient cause for mind and mind act as final cause for material and both altogether act as ground for exsistence of ethics in human conciousness and when human conciousness rises above body and mind or human limits or to say when human conciousness transcends itself then that person becomes free from ethics.
The law of duality in conciousness is material, efficient, formal and final cause of epistemology therefore ethics is based on analysing the duality of means and end.
Duality appear as value vs fact, feeling vs logic, overview vs details, Communism vs capitalism, Empiricism vs Rationality.
This all game of epistemology is happening in the metaphysics of conciousness.
Ken has endorsed Adi Da’s Work but never mentions him
Overall I have found the constant doubt that epistemology introduces is a detriment on an individual level.
An interesting talk, sadly tainted with an overflow of adds.......
4 minutes of utter waffle before Ken was allowed to speak!