MAKBLOG

The writings of Ken Wilber have been a lightening rod in the transpersonal movement from early on, being both heralded as foundational theory and attacked for being too linear, hierarchical, complex, etc. Recently I have found myself straddling across two realms of the transpersonal movement, and the demarcation point appears to be pre-SES (“Sex, Ecology, Spirituality”) Wilber and post-SES Wilber influenced. The pre-SES realm of the transpersonal movement focuses on Wilber’s early works as foundational to the movement and continues to hold this early work as representational of Wilber’s theories in general while not seriously taking into account Wilber’s post-SES works as being essential to transpersonal theory. This dimension of the transpersonal movement I am calling Transpersonal 1.0, or pre-Integral Theory Wilber. With the publication of SES, Wilber shifted his theories away from his previous works in essential ways; instead of primarily addressing patterns and structures of psychology, spirituality, and consciousness Wilber moved into the development of a “Theory of Everything” attempting to integrate all dimensions of human perception and experience. At this stage, many perceive that a rift grew between the transpersonal movement and Wilber (and his followers).

To be fair, many contend that Wilber himself contributed to this rift by separating himself from the transpersonal movement and attempting to form a new approach based on his Integral Theory. The common perception is that Wilber’s reasoning for this was that the transpersonal movement was stuck in a limited worldview. In Wilber’s post-SES model or Integral Theory, he places a major emphasis on altitudes of consciousness and the corresponding worldviews. From this perspective, we can see that the transpersonal movement was born out of the pluralistic worldview, and for the most part, transpersonal 1.0 was and is essentially stuck in this worldview. One of the problems with this is that while being born in the pluralistic structure of consciousness, the transpersonal movement is attempting to explore realms beyond this structure. Wilber’s post-SES work introduces a perspective from the next evolutionary structure of consciousness, the Integral structure, which is a stage closer to the transpersonal waves of development.

Now, after several years of two fairly separate movements, the transpersonal and the integral, there appears to be some loosening of the boundaries. It seems that many transpersonalists are integrating Wilber’s post-SES model into transpersonal theory and many Integralists are reintegrating the transpersonal dimensions into their work. This emerging integrated movement is what I am calling Transpersonal 2.0, and to put it in post-SES terms…I would say that Transpersonal 1.0 is looking at the transpersonal waves of experience and development from the more limited perspective of the pluralistic wave (stage, worldview); Wilber’s post-SES Integral Theory introduces us to the missing stage of development between the pluralistic and the transpersonal, namely the Integral; and Transpersonal 2.0, as I am applying it, looks at the transpersonal waves from the closer worldview perspective of the Integral wave and brings the other structures of consciousness into greater perspective. To shack this out a little further, it seems to me that through a post-SES, Transpersonal 2.0 lens we could say that transpersonal studies is basically the theoretical and practical exploration of transpersonal (trans-egoic, non-ordinary, mystical, etc.) states and stages of development.

Okay, so how is this definition different than the one held by the Transpersonal 1.0 movement. Well, on the surface it is the same, but when we go deeper I believe there are some subtle differences. One of these differences is that those operating out of the Transpersonal 1.0 perspective tend to have a conscious or unconscious resistance to structure, since the pluralistic level of consciousness tends to be anti-hierarchical. When we cross the bridge into Transpersonal 2.0 we can accept holarchical structures, that is, we can more easily accept and work with structured stages of increasing depth and complexity without falling into the hierarchical judgment trap (thinking this stage is better or worse than another; or throwing the stage-structure baby out with the bathwater entirely). Understanding that development occurs through a process of transcend and include, each stage both transcends and includes the previous stage, we see that every stage is a whole that is part of another whole, or a holon that is part of a holarchy. So in keeping with this spirit I have to remind us that Transpersonal 1.0 is not inferior to Transpersonal 2.0, it is a stage that is transcended and included… Every stage has its blessings and its challenges; and every station on the path must be passed through on the journey…

A little over ten years ago I had my first encounter with what might be called “integral filmmaking.” I had been studying Ken Wilber’s Sex, Ecology, Spirituality (1995) and practicing George Leonard and Michael Murphy’s Integral Transformative Practice (ITP) on a daily basis. One day I performed my ITP Kata (a set of integrated body, mind, and spirit exercises) right before running a camera test on my new digital video camcorder. Still being in a post-practice transformative state, I had a profound cinematic experience. As I moved through the house with the camera on, I appeared to be fully aware and conscious of my inner experience, the camera in my hand and the space within which I was moving. I exited the house and was drawn to our koi pond. Once there, I felt drawn into the world of the pond and entered a deep state of pure presence or witnessing. My camera became my eyes, and my body, my awareness and the camera danced with the fish, the gently rippling water, the shimmering sunlight, the caressing wind and the material forms of the pond and its surroundings. I spent hours at the pond, lost in a deep cinematic meditation process. Afterwards I felt a profound sense of gratitude and grace.

When I viewed my footage I was amazed at what I had captured. There before my eyes appeared to be a cinematic example of the four dimensions/perspectives of Wilber’s Integral Theory (Subjective/I Space; Inter-Subjective/We Space; Objective/IT Space; and Inter-Objective/ITS Space): Besides the physical reality of the pond (IT Space) and the environment within and around it (ITS Space), I had footage of the individual koi fish in which I could sense their individual presence (I Space) and footage of the fish in pairs and groups that seemed to reveal a collective and inter-relational presence (WE Space).

I decided to continue my accidental experiment, spending the next few days editing the material while in a post-ITP state. I would basically perform my ITP Kata (Leonard & Murphy, 1995) and then sit down at the computer and edit in that state. It was a wondrous experience, and once I finished, the viewing of the final work sent me into the very state I experienced while shooting it. When I showed it to a few people they all said the same thing — that the video put them into a very relaxed state and gave them the experience of actually being at the koi pond.

References

Kaplan, M. A. (2002). The Pond [Digital Video]. http://www.markallankaplan.com/cine/pond.htm

Leonard, G. & Murphy, M. (1995). The life we are given: A long-term program for realizing the potential of body, mind, heart, and soul. New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons.

Wilber, K. (1995). Sex, ecology, spirituality: The spirit of evolution. Boston, MA: Shambhala.

I was standing in the rotating rooftop restaurant of the Atlanta Hyatt Regency Hotel, gazing out the passing windows and the moving cityscape beyond them. One of the buildings across the way had mirrored windows and was reflecting back a fragmented image of the Hotel I was in. In that moment I felt a strange mix of fragmentation and wholeness; as I stood inside a moving cylinder-shaped room, looking out at the image of the exterior of the space I was in reflected back at me in the fragmented mirrored windows across the way…it was like I was part of a spinning planet at the center of the whole universe, and at the same time, that planet was made up of pieces of something, that was a piece of something else. My mind went blank as I lifted my camera and captured the moment. Reflection upon reflection upon reflection, spinning and turning, a whole with parts of another whole…

I remember walking along the base of the Tetons’ and seeing the rays of the setting sun striking a giant cloud formation in front of me. I stopped dead in my tracks as the beauty of the sight filled my being and for a brief moment I was breathless. The giant cloud looked like an anvil.

There was something strange and wondrous about the juxtaposition between the fluffiness of the cloud itself and the heavy-mass-related anvil form of its shape. Several other people stopped and gazed up at the cloud. Some of us took photos, some just stared up silently, and others conversed about the sight they were sharing. For a few moments, we were a community of beings joining together in a shared mystical moment of beauty and grace. Then the shifting light of the sun, the currents of the wind, and the movement of the clouds began to transform the anvil-cloud back into just another cloud. The shared state of grace dissipated as well, and we all returned to our separate paths.

As I walked away and looked around me, I couldn’t help but wonder about the permanence and impermanence of any image or form…and I felt as though I had briefly touched the edge of formlessness. Deep gratitude and wonder filled me as I pondered the seemingly random string of simple everyday events and choices that brought me to this moment.

*Image: Anvil Cloud by MAK

Over his illustrious 60-year career, Bob observed that the perceptual consciousness of the cinematic audience appeared to advance along with the cinema in the ability to communicate more information, in more abstract forms, within shorter durations of time. He explained that when he first started in the film industry the motion picture audiences required very clear linear story structures, and that gradually throughout his career, the audiences seemed to develop the ability to more readily and quickly project meaning across discontinuous and non-linear cinematic structures.

To illustrate one aspect of this evolution, Bob used the example of a cinematic sequence that has a character driving to another character’s house for a meeting. In the old days filmmakers had to show the person driving the car, stopping the car, getting out of the car, walking up to the house, knocking on the door, and then going inside. Gradually over time, the audience has advanced to the point of being able to accept a direct cut from a person driving a car to them suddenly being inside someone’s house. Wise believed that these advancements in both cinematic expression and the perceptual consciousness of the cinematic audience were the product of an interdependent and co-evolutionary relationship between the cinema and the audience. This observation appears to concur with Jean Gebser’s (1986) contention that artistic movements and trends have a tendency to influence and be affected by the evolution of consciousness.

At the end of our time together, Bob was called away quickly, but before he left the editing room, he paused to compliment my work and then sweetly and genuinely said, “I hope I helped you a little bit…” Of course, I profusely thanked him and sincerely assured him that his help was beyond measure. As Bob walked off, I thought about his last words to me and felt a mysterious shift inside me. In that brief moment, it seemed as though I had received a kind of shaktipat, or life-lesson-energetic-transmission, from this amazing man. After all the awards, honors and accolades, Bob Wise was still a sweet and deeply humble human being, and his living presence and example penetrated me in ways I still cannot describe. I will never forget that moment, and every moment I was blessed by his presence. In my heart and mind, I believe Bob Wise was a true Cinematic Bodhisattva.

REFERENCES

Gebser, J. (1985). The ever-present origin (N. Barstad & A. Mickuns, Trans.). Athens, Ohio: Ohio University Press. (Original work published 1949)

The Transpersonal Cinema Project IndieGoGo fundraising site is now open for funding:

http://www.indiegogo.com/transpersonalcinemaproject?iggref=CAGN_PJLC

The Transpersonal Cinema Project is now on IndieGoGo at: http://www.indiegogo.com/transpersonalcinemaproject

Once complete, the TCP IndieGoGo site will act as a project funding, promotion, and social networking hub for those interested in supporting and/or participating in The Transpersonal Cinema Project.

Progress, 1974

All through my childhood, I struggled with finding a way to communicate with others. My stutter made verbal communication difficult and emotionally painful, and I searched for others ways of expressing myself. I began to draw at an earlier age, studying at the Art Institute of Chicago between the ages of nine and eleven. Gradually expanding into painting, still photography, and architectural design, I received numerous awards for my work. When I was sixteen I took a film class in high school. I teamed up with a friend, and we made a super 8 film together for our final project (Progress, 1974). I loved creating the film, and felt a sense of joy and purpose. When we showed the film in class, people laughed and cried. I felt a chill shoot up and down my spine as the flickering light and dancing celluloid images touched the hearts and minds of others. Time appeared to stand still, and I experienced a feeling of deep connection with everyone in the room. I also had a sense of great mystery, as though I had become a channel for something greater than myself. Suddenly, I knew that this was my path, my gift, my calling.