{"title":"参与、形而上学和启蒙:对肯·威尔伯近期作品的反思","authors":"Jorge N. Ferrer","doi":"10.30664/AR.67573","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper discusses a number of key issues raised in the recent dialogue on the work of Ken Wilber between John Rowan and Michael Daniels, mediated by David Fontana and chaired by Malcolm Walley (Rowan et al., 2009). First, it responds to Rowan’s defence of Wilber’s work in the wake, of the paclicipalory critique. Second, it addresses the question of the cultural versus universal nature of Wilber’s Kosmic habits in dialogue with Daniels’ contribution. Third, it offers a critique of Wilber’s integral post-metaphysics and contrasts this with participatory spirituality. Fourth, it discusses the nature of enlightenment, as well as meditation, integral practice, and spiritual individuation. The paper concludes with some concrete directions in which to move the dialogue forward.","PeriodicalId":92595,"journal":{"name":"Transpersonal psychology review","volume":"63 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-09-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"37","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Participation, metaphysics, and enlightenment: Reflections on Ken Wilber’s recent work\",\"authors\":\"Jorge N. Ferrer\",\"doi\":\"10.30664/AR.67573\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This paper discusses a number of key issues raised in the recent dialogue on the work of Ken Wilber between John Rowan and Michael Daniels, mediated by David Fontana and chaired by Malcolm Walley (Rowan et al., 2009). First, it responds to Rowan’s defence of Wilber’s work in the wake, of the paclicipalory critique. Second, it addresses the question of the cultural versus universal nature of Wilber’s Kosmic habits in dialogue with Daniels’ contribution. Third, it offers a critique of Wilber’s integral post-metaphysics and contrasts this with participatory spirituality. Fourth, it discusses the nature of enlightenment, as well as meditation, integral practice, and spiritual individuation. The paper concludes with some concrete directions in which to move the dialogue forward.\",\"PeriodicalId\":92595,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Transpersonal psychology review\",\"volume\":\"63 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2015-09-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"37\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Transpersonal psychology review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.30664/AR.67573\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Transpersonal psychology review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.30664/AR.67573","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 37
摘要
本文讨论了John Rowan和Michael Daniels最近就Ken Wilber的作品进行的对话中提出的一些关键问题,该对话由David Fontana调解,由Malcolm Walley主持(Rowan et al., 2009)。首先,它回应了罗文在政治批判之后对威尔伯作品的辩护。其次,它在与丹尼尔斯的贡献的对话中解决了威尔伯的宇宙习惯的文化与普遍性质的问题。第三,它对威尔伯的整体后形而上学进行了批判,并将其与参与性灵性进行了对比。第四,它讨论了启蒙的本质,以及冥想、整体实践和精神个性化。文章最后提出了推动对话向前发展的一些具体方向。
Participation, metaphysics, and enlightenment: Reflections on Ken Wilber’s recent work
This paper discusses a number of key issues raised in the recent dialogue on the work of Ken Wilber between John Rowan and Michael Daniels, mediated by David Fontana and chaired by Malcolm Walley (Rowan et al., 2009). First, it responds to Rowan’s defence of Wilber’s work in the wake, of the paclicipalory critique. Second, it addresses the question of the cultural versus universal nature of Wilber’s Kosmic habits in dialogue with Daniels’ contribution. Third, it offers a critique of Wilber’s integral post-metaphysics and contrasts this with participatory spirituality. Fourth, it discusses the nature of enlightenment, as well as meditation, integral practice, and spiritual individuation. The paper concludes with some concrete directions in which to move the dialogue forward.