Clarifying a “Ken-Fusion”

In Integral Spirituality (2007, pp. 233-234) Ken Wilber basically writes that metaphysical structures/levels described by Plotinus and other metaphysicians now require being defended after modernity's "demand for objective evidence," postmodernity's demand for "intersubjective grounding" and  modernity's plus postmodernity's "critical turn."   In other parts of his "Integral Post Metaphysics" chapter Ken SEEMS to be in favor of "jettisoning" all metaphysical assumptions and-or only those that cannot be demonstrated. What is he really saying? The language may be confusing to the reader not paying attention to the slightest details.

I favor the latter idea that involves thinking of a demonstration of pre-existing involutionary necessary metaphysical levels as I think that there are methods which can be shared (following the advice of modern and postmodern requirements) and used to disclose aspects of those pre-existing realities "out there" even if by doing so we are also co-structuring them in "kosmic addresses" along with our interpretive subjective spaces, mostly according to altitude & method. This can be understood as recognizing ontology while revealing aspects of its reality inextricably through epistemology.  The way Ken's original writings were worded SEEMS to forget, dismiss (or even relegate) ontology and to privilege epistemology, the consciousness with a perspective. This misunderstanding was increased by the phrase circulating here and there that "reality is composed of holons that are perspectives." This seemed to equate holons only with perspectives but should have also been understood as "holons" (or "part-wholes"/wholes which are "parts" of more inclusive "wholes") which are not things or processes but which involve in all of their quadratic expressions ontologically real objects AND perspectives.

However, the sacrosanct historical knowingness (and EVIDENCE) that there indeed are other levels of reality besides the physical (and with which we are also inextricably related) SEEMED to have been offhandedly questioned.   I didn't like how Ken went about trying to bring in a Post Metaphysical "turn" on this issue. I thought he was neglecting evidence on the important existence of other realms which need to be better understood for scientific purposes and to know how/where we are situated in the Kosmic scheme of things. Another source of confusion (Kenfusion?) may be the emphasis on "post-metaphysical levels" conceived of as "forms that have developed in time, evolution and history." This SEEMS to say that non-physical pre-givens do not exist unless disclosed but perhaps the key idea here would be if conceived (strictly) as "post-metaphysical levels."

What Ken doesn't seem to emphasize is that we may have a greater access to experience and interpret/to disclose ontological aspects of the non-physical Subtle and Causal realms, both in an experimental/objective and collective manner. In fact the thre "eyes of knowledge" may function simultaneously in the three realms mentioned by Vedanta if our situated consciousnesses include three bodies suitable to experience these realms. In each realm there will always be exteriors, mental interior relations and the spiritual principle (s). Therefore, we may also have many more ways to access, perceive and disclose the Subtle and Causal realms that co-exist with us and with our own constitution right now.   Therefore, we may also have many more ways to access, perceive and disclose the Subtle and Causal realms that co-exist with us and with our own constitution right now.  

I think that the Ground of Being/Consciousness that Ken refers to (with a big "C") is not epistemic subjective perspective per se but gives rise both to (and in an inextricably linked manner) being and perspective. This takes place when Consciousness (with a big "C") operates within the (three) realms of distinction or duality. Since the word "consciousness" also is specifically used for epistemic perspectives it can be confused with (big "C") Consciousness. 

I would say that epistemology and ontology are inextricable and that what Ken SEEMED to emphasized was the necessary con-struction of metaphysics as per our situated awareness. He didn't actually deny ontology (be it physical or non-physical). However, what I also objected to in previous writings was to think that metaphysical realities necessarily were thought of as static pre-givens. I posited an interplay and relational exchange (under three logics and modes of being) among three main realms of being and knowing referred to in Vedanta and other wisdom systems (including the Quechua-Inca) and I posited that we could consider non detected-non disclosed realities as actual in their own level but as POTENTIAL to our perception/consciousness. I still think that even as "potential" (for us if undetected/undisclosed/uninterpreted) they exist and I think that as "actual" they also possess interiors and exteriors in singular and plural forms albeit with different degrees of intensities that allow inter-realm differentiations, interactions and other forms of relation. 

Discovering how realms relate should be part of the next stages of development of Integral Theory and might even be useful for this Meta theory to become more useful for interpreting quantum mechanical phenomena and phenomena related with the Mind-Body problem, "interdimensional" phenomena and the interpretation of 'critical' evidence steadily accruing on the survival of a situated consciousness after the demise of the physical body.