Ken Wilber, in his first interview with PBS in 20 years, blasts the
current quantum physics-consciousness farce popularized by the TM
org, Deepak Chopra, The Tao of Physics, Dancing with the Wu Li
Masters, What the Bleep, etc. etc.
"To the Best of Our Knowledge" Interviews Ken Wilber. Part 2.
Enlightenment, A.I., and Quantum Physics.
Steve Paulson is the Executive Producer of, and an interviewer on,
"To the Best of Our Knowledge," a Peabody Award-winning radio show
produced by Wisconsin Public Radio, and distributed nationally. As
part of a 5-hour series on science and religion that will be airing
this fall, Ken agreed to speak with Steve. This is the first time in
over 20 years that Ken has agreed to appear on National Public Radio,
and it is an exciting event indeed.
http://in.integralinstitute.org/talk.aspx?id=710
Topics include:
-Why the popular attempt to have quantum physics explain or prove
mysticism is doomed to fail, and ends up violating the essential
tenets of both disciplines. Ken goes on to explain why many of the
founders of quantum physics were in fact deep mystics, not because of
the explanatory power of physics, but because of the questions
physics had no answers for.
-The relationship between interior consciousness and exterior form,
and how increasing complexity of consciousness co-arises with
increasing complexity of form (known also as the "law of
consciousness and complexity").
-The metaphysical approaches of the great wisdom traditions, and how,
from an integral or post-metaphysical view, spiritual realities
aren’t meta-, or beyond, the physical, but intra-physical; they are
not beyond matter, but interior to it.
-The role of awakening or satori in artificial intelligence, and the
startling ramifications of what it could mean if a computer became
enlightened.
-The importance of multiple intelligences in explaining how people
considered by many to be spiritual masters can sometimes also be
rotten individuals (just because one is highly developed in one
intelligence or line doesn’t mean one is necessarily as highly
developed in other lines—this general distinction is known as levels
and lines).
