This video is misnamed. The "three shadows" aren't even mentioned until the end of the video, and aren't even defined in the video. In these 14.5 minutes only two shadows are described.
Now I understand that pure enjoyment on Doshin's face in the other video after that bastard said to KW: "You so clearly articulate what shadows are, It's the clearest articulation I have ever heard. Could you share the topic with the audiance..." ?
Yes, discovering KW's work helped me immensely in understanding my shadow aspects and how they might interact with a states/meditation practice. Now...a lifetime of work on them ahead ;) !
@@mwilliamson4198 Hi Mark, Yes, I am going to check his work out. Sincerely, to grasp something from these fragments of his talks is like telling the engine by the color of the car, that is why I laughed. But I have witnessed a few of "Mes" coming back to life and the energy release connected with it. Very much thanks to the good loving friends. And it seems he talks about this fenomenon of comatic parts of our soul in a very much scientific way. What is the "pillar" book of KW? I will get acquainted with it in a very very playfull way:-)
KW is so happy to offer models. But what are the intended function of the model at hand? Is it supposed to be descriptive, explanatory, reconstructive, predictive, normative and/or conceptual? He is almost never clear on this fundamental issue leaving us all in hopeless vagueness. So people work hard to make his models intelligible. But let us remember that any decent thinker would first and foremost clearly specify the purpose of a given model before showing a graphical representation of it. Only sub-par authors provide eye-candy and food for thought without that kind of clarity first. KW is at times creative. He is interesting as someone who has practiced spirituality and also thought about different traditions and their similarities and differences. But he is strikingly uneducated in basic methodology. His work lacks rigor. Sad but true.
Thanks for your comment Jonas. I post his videos here in the context of all of his written work, which goes into methodology extensively. I have personally studied them at a beginner level and have found them very helpful for my own practice and worldview, however I can totally see how what you said about them seeming to lack rigor is true without the context of the rest of his work, in all its detail. It's (very) complicated, but yes, overall he uses models for reconstructive purposes. Again this is discussed extensively in his book Eye of Spirit, and in the endnotes of Sex, Ecology, Spirituality. I can't say anymore than that here because it's simply not possible to do justice to his vast vision in this kind of forum. But I suggest you start with Brief History of Everything and if you enjoy that dive deeper into SES, Eye of Spirit and the Volume 2 excerpts (his most up to date and sophisticated work to date as far as I know)
The challenge of the "shadow" is formidable. Genpo Roshi eventually steps down for a sexual scandal. Marc Gafni gets outsted from the Integral tribe also for sexual impropriety. Was it their inability to assimilate shadow content, was it the context in which their trespass took place, was it the limits of this particular model of "shadow" work?
Nobody is defending their behavior, but their behavior doesn't have anything to do with Ken's model. The shadow isn't only their sexual improprieties, but also the expectations of naive followers giving responsibility and power away to a teacher.
@@FreekeeChakra this whole story is personality cult bull and always resorts to sexual manipulation, you are a poor deluded fool if yout hink there is anything spritual in this new age bull
Holy Cow! Spirituality CANNOT be this complicated! He was asked like 15 minutes ago to explain what is the shadow- what language is he speaking?.... is this coming out of Boulder, Colorado by any chance? Sorry “Spiritualese” is not my first language.
Like any discipline, it helps to learn some of the lingo if you want to go beyond a very surface understanding of a concept. With shadow psychology this seems to be particularly the case.
Hi Robin, this video and many others you see on youtube are part of a number of series of videos that Integral Institute have released over the years, some in DVD format, but mostly on their website Integral Life (www.integrallife.com) If you join you can access all of them. Also if you search ebay for "integral naked premier dvd" you'll find heaps of dvds available.
Hi Joy Heart, I think you may be right. It is likely to be on a physical DVD - but there are heaps of them and I don't know which one it is, and unfortunately I don't have a way to be able to find out
Yes, it's great that KW has been talking about shadow for so long now and has been pointing out that EVERYONE has shadow. It's personally helped me to continue on and do significant shadow work - which has helped me life and my spiritual practice very much. :)
Not sure Fred. I often wonder the same thing. Perhaps the "debate" that would ensure would not be particularly fruitful, seeing that they start from pretty different premises. From what I've seen Sam Harris is the closest to being in a position to have a useful debate/dialogue with Wilber. Harris actually quotes a small amount of Wilber's work in his book Waking Up, but from what I've seen Harris has only looked at Wilber's work a little bit.
Just heard University of Toronto psychologist Jordan Peterson getting nowhere with Harris's UR reductionist worldview on Harris's twitter. Peterson's amazingly seemingly UL/L but also UL/R integral but Darwinian-based clarion call is "The world is not made of matter, It's made of what matters." couldn't put a dent in Harris mechanistic worldview which IMO is locked into ORANGE like a stick in mud.
Fred, could you explain a bit more how Harris was articulating a reductionist worldview? I don't think that was the case, from how I understood his argument. He was merely pointing out that scientific truth has no bearing on moral truth, to which Peterson failed to offer a coherent counterargument.
Funny dichotomy: Our "finite selves" and our "infinite selves". This surely would not pass muster in even an introductory class in formal logic. It suffers from insuperable epistemological incoherence. Just one question should dispel the presumed veracity of this concept. How can we have so localized a phenomenon as "Our" and "infinite" coexisting in one person? And it goes downhill from there. Frankly, I had to cringe as this charlatan plunged from one syntactical absurdity into another - In truth, I think there is no need to go further and dignify this presentation with any kind of analysis. Students - save yourselves much confusion and disappointment and get out of this as fast as you can. There are better alternatives (or, less damaging ones) if you feel that you must buck traditional modalities of "enlightenment".
Don't wast your time with all this bullshit! Go enjoy your short little life. Be a good human being and enjoy the gift of life. Be grateful and generous! That's ALL the wisdom you need.
This video is misnamed. The "three shadows" aren't even mentioned until the end of the video, and aren't even defined in the video. In these 14.5 minutes only two shadows are described.
You're right. thanks for the feedback
Now I understand that pure enjoyment on Doshin's face in the other video after that bastard said to KW: "You so clearly articulate what shadows are, It's the clearest articulation I have ever heard. Could you share the topic with the audiance..." ?
Yes, discovering KW's work helped me immensely in understanding my shadow aspects and how they might interact with a states/meditation practice. Now...a lifetime of work on them ahead ;) !
@@mwilliamson4198 Hi Mark, Yes, I am going to check his work out. Sincerely, to grasp something from these fragments of his talks is like telling the engine by the color of the car, that is why I laughed. But I have witnessed a few of "Mes" coming back to life and the energy release connected with it. Very much thanks to the good loving friends. And it seems he talks about this fenomenon of comatic parts of our soul in a very much scientific way. What is the "pillar" book of KW? I will get acquainted with it in a very very playfull way:-)
KW is so happy to offer models. But what are the intended function of the model at hand? Is it supposed to be descriptive, explanatory, reconstructive, predictive, normative and/or conceptual? He is almost never clear on this fundamental issue leaving us all in hopeless vagueness. So people work hard to make his models intelligible. But let us remember that any decent thinker would first and foremost clearly specify the purpose of a given model before showing a graphical representation of it. Only sub-par authors provide eye-candy and food for thought without that kind of clarity first. KW is at times creative. He is interesting as someone who has practiced spirituality and also thought about different traditions and their similarities and differences. But he is strikingly uneducated in basic methodology. His work lacks rigor. Sad but true.
Thanks for your comment Jonas. I post his videos here in the context of all of his written work, which goes into methodology extensively. I have personally studied them at a beginner level and have found them very helpful for my own practice and worldview, however I can totally see how what you said about them seeming to lack rigor is true without the context of the rest of his work, in all its detail.
It's (very) complicated, but yes, overall he uses models for reconstructive purposes. Again this is discussed extensively in his book Eye of Spirit, and in the endnotes of Sex, Ecology, Spirituality. I can't say anymore than that here because it's simply not possible to do justice to his vast vision in this kind of forum. But I suggest you start with Brief History of Everything and if you enjoy that dive deeper into SES, Eye of Spirit and the Volume 2 excerpts (his most up to date and sophisticated work to date as far as I know)
The challenge of the "shadow" is formidable. Genpo Roshi eventually steps down for a sexual scandal. Marc Gafni gets outsted from the Integral tribe also for sexual impropriety. Was it their inability to assimilate shadow content, was it the context in which their trespass took place, was it the limits of this particular model of "shadow" work?
Oh. It wasn't their being disgusting perverts. It was the fault of the "shadow".
guts, I guess you have not really understood "the shadow"
Lais Da Silva Defend a sick fuck all you like.
Nobody is defending their behavior, but their behavior doesn't have anything to do with Ken's model. The shadow isn't only their sexual improprieties, but also the expectations of naive followers giving responsibility and power away to a teacher.
@@FreekeeChakra this whole story is personality cult bull and always resorts to sexual manipulation, you are a poor deluded fool if yout hink there is anything spritual in this new age bull
Holy Cow! Spirituality CANNOT be this complicated!
He was asked like 15 minutes ago to explain what is the shadow- what language is he speaking?.... is this coming out of Boulder, Colorado by any chance?
Sorry “Spiritualese” is not my first language.
Like any discipline, it helps to learn some of the lingo if you want to go beyond a very surface understanding of a concept. With shadow psychology this seems to be particularly the case.
Is this material in Ken's new book "The Religion of tomorrow"?
Good question. I'm not sure. But I imagine that he would cover some related issues and update some things
@Ev MIles Thanks for clarifying that Ev
The three shadows are your own.... from your multi- personality i.e almost insane, insane and totally insane. imo
i bow down to you, O Pandit
Is this a part of some dvd? Thank you for this amazing material!
Hi Robin, this video and many others you see on youtube are part of a number of series of videos that Integral Institute have released over the years, some in DVD format, but mostly on their website Integral Life (www.integrallife.com) If you join you can access all of them. Also if you search ebay for "integral naked premier dvd" you'll find heaps of dvds available.
Hi Joy Heart, I think you may be right. It is likely to be on a physical DVD - but there are heaps of them and I don't know which one it is, and unfortunately I don't have a way to be able to find out
I was wondering about the source of this clip as well. If someone knows the title of the whole video, please let us know!
The shadow of Adi Da, Andrew Cohen and Marc Gafni.
Yes, it's great that KW has been talking about shadow for so long now and has been pointing out that EVERYONE has shadow. It's personally helped me to continue on and do significant shadow work - which has helped me life and my spiritual practice very much. :)
Ken Wilber sieht aus wie ein Toter. ♥
Is it a fly that man's head?
most like likely ash, it must have been ash Wednesday.
Yes a fly the name of which is hinduism
Why hasn't KW engaged the New Atheists in debate?
Not sure Fred. I often wonder the same thing. Perhaps the "debate" that would ensure would not be particularly fruitful, seeing that they start from pretty different premises.
From what I've seen Sam Harris is the closest to being in a position to have a useful debate/dialogue with Wilber. Harris actually quotes a small amount of Wilber's work in his book Waking Up, but from what I've seen Harris has only looked at Wilber's work a little bit.
what does he quote in particular? curious
David Wu Don't have that info at hand, sorry.
Just heard University of Toronto psychologist Jordan Peterson getting nowhere with Harris's UR reductionist worldview on Harris's twitter. Peterson's amazingly seemingly UL/L but also UL/R integral but Darwinian-based clarion call is "The world is not made of matter, It's made of what matters." couldn't put a dent in Harris mechanistic worldview which IMO is locked into ORANGE like a stick in mud.
Fred, could you explain a bit more how Harris was articulating a reductionist worldview? I don't think that was the case, from how I understood his argument. He was merely pointing out that scientific truth has no bearing on moral truth, to which Peterson failed to offer a coherent counterargument.
Funny dichotomy: Our "finite selves" and our "infinite selves". This surely would not pass muster in even an introductory class in formal logic. It suffers from insuperable epistemological incoherence. Just one question should dispel the presumed veracity of this concept. How can we have so localized a phenomenon as "Our" and "infinite" coexisting in one person? And it goes downhill from there. Frankly, I had to cringe as this charlatan plunged from one syntactical absurdity into another - In truth, I think there is no need to go further and dignify this presentation with any kind of analysis. Students - save yourselves much confusion and disappointment and get out of this as fast as you can. There are better alternatives (or, less damaging ones) if you feel that you must buck traditional modalities of "enlightenment".
Do you have any alternative ideas? I am interested.
Takes all kinds I guess...
Complexity. Equals bulkshit
Don't wast your time with all this bullshit! Go enjoy your short little life.
Be a good human being and enjoy the gift of life. Be grateful and generous!
That's ALL the wisdom you need.
😄thank you for being frank, i like your wisdom of short and simple.
Cheers
Someone care to try and explain? I've watched this twice but I'm still having trouble understanding his model.
Which part are you having trouble understanding? This stuff isn't easy to understand, and I'm still trying after 17 years...so don't get discouraged.
thats because its mumbo jumbo personlity cult bull, there is little more to understand
@@ralphvandereb66 ua-cam.com/video/bAn4srmlRPA/v-deo.html
@@biffermas ha ha