Ken Wilber enters the Salon

Salon Magazine, that is.

I’ve always found Wilber’s Integral Philosophy to be unnecessarily dense, but he does make some interesting observations in his interview with Steve Paulson. Here’s some highlights.

On the nature of God:

“The word "God" is much more misleading than it is accurate. So there's a whole series of terms that are used instead by the esoteric traditions -- super-consciousness, Big Mind, Big Self. This ultimate reality is a direct union that is felt or recognized in a state of enlightenment or liberation.”

On whether neuroscience will solve the consciousness problem:

“I'm saying we'll never understand it. The materialists keep issuing promissory notes. They always promise they're going to do it tomorrow. But interior and exterior arise together. You can't reduce one to the other. They're both real. Deal with it.”

On the New Age “quantum consciousness” worldview suggesting that we create our reality:

“These are good people; I know them. But when they say consciousness can act to create matter, whose consciousness? Yours or mine? They never get to that. It's a very narcissistic view.”

On what he refers to as "Boomeritis Buddhism."

“Anti-intellectualism was rampant, and it continues to be rampant in a lot of meditative and alternative spiritualities. There's a tendency to explain the trans-rational states in terms that are pre-verbal. So instead of a Big Self, you're just experiencing a big ego.”

The entire interview is worthwhile, and his comments about his experience during his recent brush with death are especially fascinating.

David Brook’s New York Times column yesterday may have opened some eyes as well. In a piece speculating on the future of neuroscience, he writes:

“The cognitive revolution is not going to end up undermining faith in God, it’s going to end up challenging faith in the Bible . . . Over the past several years, the momentum has shifted away from hard-core materialism . . . In unexpected ways, science and mysticism are joining hands and reinforcing each other. That’s bound to lead to new movements that emphasize self-transcendence but put little stock in divine law or revelation.”

It’s rare to find ideas like these in mainstream media, especially from a writer maybe best known mostly for conservative political commentary. All in all, it’s a good week for an idealist.

Note: The NYT requires free registration, and I’ve been having trouble with the links at their site for a couple of days. If the above link doesn’t work, you should be able to access Brook’s column “The Neural Buddhists” through the link from his page.