Quote:
The fact that all perspectives are relative does not mean that no perspective has any advantage at all.
That all perspectives are relative does not prevent some from still being relatively better than others all the time!
Worldcentric is better than ethnocentric is better than egocentric, because each has more depth than its shallower predecessors.
But forgetting that, and focusing merely on the relativity of perspectives, throws you into aperspectival madness, a dizzifying paralysis of will and judgment.
"It's all relative, so there is no better and worse, and no stance is better than another." Overlooking the fact that that stance itself claims to be better than the alternatives--the standard performative contradiction. ...
The aperspectival space of vision-logic simply means that Spirit is looking at the world through infinitely wondrous perspectives; it does not mean it has gone blind in the process.
This is simply a further decentering, a further transcendence, another spiral in the evolution against egocentrism.
--Ken Wilber, A Brief History of Everything, p. 193
|
IOW, we have advanced to the stage of vision-logic, in Wilber's evolutionary scheme of progressing from egocentric to worldcentric stances, but have veered off into aperspectival madness--the (self-contradictory) postmodern allergy to assigning relative values to perspectives.
OTOH, I also have an allergy to assigning
absolute value to perspectives, a la David Hawkins--big red flags come up around that fellow for me.
Like Wilber, Hawkins gets some things right, IMO, but let's not create another Fundamentalist religion around Hawkins or Wilber, shall we?
Aperspectivals Anonymous