Authored by Christoph Schaub

We cannot see "what is" by mere marveling at our own reflection of self
If our worldview is the only perspective we have to look at life, then we are prevented from having a perspective on our worldview, simply because our worldview has us, in such case. Regardless how evolved or differentiated our worldview is, as long as it is the only perspective we can assume, we, quite frankly, can’t take the perspective of anyone else; just as we can’t shake hands with a clenched fist. This is not to say, however, that we have to renounce our own perspective in order to assume the perspective of another. For example, a mother does not relinquish her own point of view in order to relate to her child; although she has to be able and willing to look at or reflect on her mothering, otherwise it is based on ignorance rather than insight. Otherwise, her mothering is self-caused rather than directed by what emerges in the relationship between mother and child.

To take a perspective on our worldview, we have to put it in relationship to a worldview that is different than ours, just as we have to relate to another to gain a perspective on ourselves. For example, if the Christian faith is the fundamental perspective that defines our outlook on life, we must put it in relation to another faith to gain perspective on our own creed. The lack or unwillingness to do so causes our tunnel vision derived from self-righteousness that prevents us from seeing ‘what is”to deepen. Without seeing the other’seeing ‘what is”we can neither relate to nor re-cognize them, regardless of whether we feel compassionate toward them or consider them our arch enemy. We do not become more knowledgeable about our worldview by simply immersing ourselves in it and relating to it as if it would be the only expression of truth there is. Truth is not found by staring into a corner, but by looking out the window. Truth does not present itself to us in isolation, but makes itself known to us in relating to ‘what is.’ Truth is not a concept we design or create, but something that reveals itself to us in accepting ‘what is.’

How could we possibly claim to accept ‘what is,’ if we defy the existence of the other on the grounds of our own faith, philosophy or conception of self’ How could we possibly assert to accept ‘what is,’ as long as we postulate that our worldview is the only right one there is’ However, this is not to imply that all worldviews are equal, because they aren’t. The worldview of a child is not as complex as that of an adult, just like the worldview of an educated person is more refined than that of an uneducated one. Hence, there is a hierarchy of orders that is derived from the complexity of the worldview or perspective held. To object to this hierarchy is to deny the natural hierarchy that constitutes life. To cut a flower from its stem is of a different order than to cut off a limb of a mammal. Equally, to slaughter an animal is of a different order than to slaughter a person. We simply cannot deny the natural hierarchies of orders that constitute our very existence. Similarly, to pronounce all worldviews equal in complexity only speaks to our simplistic perspective of life. Worldviews evolve, just as life does’it is not a static event, but in constant change. ‘Integral,’ as defined by Ken Wilber, is the most complex worldview there is to date, but is bound by the same requirements as other worldviews, as for all the other ones, in regard to putting it into and taking a perspective on it’we must relate it to another worldview that is as comprehensive as ‘integral’ is. How could we possibly do that, if ‘integral’ is the most complex worldview there is’ The relative world in which we live comes in pairs: it is an expression of polarities, as in man and woman; wakefulness and sleep; life and death; knowledge and wisdom. Wilber’s integral worldview is an expression of knowledge, while its ‘pair’ is an expression of wisdom. In contrast to knowledge, which is derived from learning, wisdom is gained by insight into the orders of love. Wisdom is neither explanatory nor descriptive, as is the case with knowledge; wisdom simply states ‘what is’ and those who can see it can verify its existence. Knowledge and wisdom are like body and mind; they go together and where one is seen, the other is present as well. In the shadow of wisdom, knowledge is found; just as in the shadow of knowledge, wisdom can be seen. ‘Integral’ is only half of the worldview that is emerging at the horizon of our collective consciousness; the other half consists of the orders of love.

There are only a very, very few people at present who have an understanding of either one of those worldviews and there are even less who have the ability to relate to both of them equally; we can count them on the fingers of our hands. Out of six billion people, this indeed is a small number; equal to a drop in the ocean or a grain of sand in the desert. The chances, in other words, for the co-arising of these two worldviews, in mass awareness, prior to destroying our planet, is very, very slim; they are non-existent, mathematically speaking. So why bother’ While the odds for our self-destruction are innumerably greater than that of our long-term existence, the orders of love do not care about outcome, but whether we can submit to their guidance. The orders of love are a reality of their own, they are not affected by what happens to our world; just like the law of gravity does not change, whether or not we continue to exist on this planet, or cause our own extinction by asserting our righteousness of self that is based on ignorance and from which arrogance is derived.

Arrogance not only prevents us from seeing ‘what is,’ it also prevents us from holding the space for truth to reveal itself between us. Arrogance hinders us from becoming aware of our own short-sightedness, while it entitles us to criticize others in the name of love, compassion, insight or what have you. Arrogance causes us to point a finger at others who, for whatever reasons, question our own unquestioned options; like Jesus, for instance, who remarked that ‘those innocent of guilt throw the first stone.’ He shed new light on Judaism by questioning the interpretation of its fundamental principles, just as he questioned the purpose-driven life of the Roman Empire, which occupied his native country at his time of life. It is by no coincidence that he ended up on the cross, not because of the claim that he was the Son of God, but because he inquired into our so-called religions of love and social establishments of justice.

We cannot see ‘what is’ by mere marveling at our own reflection of self, thinking that is the most exalted philosophy there is. Truth be told, we all are the most exalted manifestation of consciousness or the most exalted creation of God. However, to confuse our reflection with the relationships in which we exist will neither cause us to become aware of our own self, nor enable us to relate to others with an open mind; an open heart and an open hand. Relating does not happen in self-defense; the difference that makes a difference, for example, between such martial arts as Kung Fu and Aikido. The latter does not ‘defend self,’ but simply relates to ‘what is,’ causing those who attack to fall over their own ’self.’ Rather than relating to ‘what is’ by stepping out of the way, a person who practices Kung Fu fights whatever stands in his or her way.

Similarly, we may think that we have re-cognized our own narcissism by being aware of it and addressing it, as such. However, as long as we engage in it, we cannot claim to have re-cognized it; re-cognition is displayed by refraining from that which we have become aware. Once we have become aware of the fact that there is no Santa Clause, we do not continue believing in him or the rituals that goes along with this story. In other words, once we have become aware of the fact that beating our spouse hurts him/her, we cannot simply go on beating, all the while stating that we re-cognize that it is hurtful; unless we consider ourselves sadistic. Once we have truly re-cognized that we are continuously looking into our own reflection, as in the case of Narcissus, we will renounce doing it and instead start to relate to others; we will no longer spend our time admiring our own reflection, but instead look out the window and marvel at creation. We cannot accurately say that we have transcended our ’self’ and then put ourselves front and center on our website; nor can we have a ling at such a site, labeled ‘narcissus’, where we display all kinds of pictures of and related to ourselves, while claiming, at the same time, that there is no attachment to them or the ’self’ they are depicting. Neither the umbrella of ‘integral,’ nor any other construct can make this congruent, simply because once we have re-cognized something, we won’t do it; whether consciously or unconsciously, not if we have any insights into the orders of love.

Insight is not something we gain through study, nor is it disclosed to us by learning. Insight does not depend on our intelligence; how many books we’ve read, or wrote, or how many famous people we know; just as insight does not care about our bank account or our status in society. Insight is utterly and deeply impersonal; it is cold and indifferent to any experience of meltdown we have in the process of re-cognizing and integrating it. Insight does not bend to our will, or ask us about our dreams. To awaken to insight is like dying, because in the realm of the orders of love there is no space for our personality’we have to be ready to leave it behind to awaken to the insights of the orders of love. There is no party, no congratulations given at the gate of the orders of love, leading to wisdom. Quite the contrary, one becomes aware of a profound aloneness that one must be willing to carry in order to proceed. One must be prepared to stand alone in order to awaken to the insights of the orders of love. There is no debate or argument, but an ever increasing renunciation of the person one was believed to be; a process that happens in the dark. It is like dying while being alive; dying to the known in order to awaken to the unknown. If we would truly know of this process, we would not seek and strive for it, but simply appreciate the life we have. It is neither a process that can be instituted nor taught, and the insights gained in the course of it cannot be transmitted from one to another; those who claim so are charlatans and deluded by their own ignorance. Insight is not a concept that can be passed on, but an awareness to which one can only awaken, as indicated in one’s ability to see, re-cognize and name ‘what is.’ The rest is just commentary’the response to the naming of ‘what is.’

Insight is not a belief one subscribe to; it is not a theory that can be studied or a construct, like the integral map of consciousness. Insight cannot be found in any maps, just like God cannot be found in any books; how ever holy we may consider them to be. Insight gives rise to such a map as ‘integral,’ informs such writings as so-called Holy Scriptures. But, be it map or Scripture, we have finally to let go of them, because insight cannot emerge where something is standing in its place. Similarly, once we re-cognize our own narcissism, we simply renounce it, for it looses its attraction. In other words, once we re-cognize something, it resolves itself effortlessly and on its own accord. To become or be aware of something is not the same as re-cognizing it. To become or be aware of our ’self’ is different from re-cognizing what ’self’ is. The difference is like that between the theistic religions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam and the reality of reincarnation’defied by these three religions. Rather than inquiring into their proposed belief that one’s fate is decided for all eternity, according to a mere seventy or eighty years spent on Earth, they assert that the reality of reincarnation is a concept with no base. Think again about it: seventy or eighty years on Earth should decide over one’s fate for all eternity. Who wants to believe in such a God’ Indeed, one would have to be fanatic to subscribe to such a nihilistic faith. Hence, it may not surprise that we self-destruct in every possible way, for our ideology of life is based on nothingness and hate, even if it is dressed up as ‘love thy neighbor as yourself.’

Relating happens for the sake of seeing; it does not happen because of you or me. God, whatever we make this word out to be, does not disclose ‘itself’ to us so that we can own it or make a philosophy out of it, but so that we can relate to ‘I & Thou”where meeting takes place and ‘what is’ can arise as truth. Life is not based on our image, nor is it caused by the philosophies we create about it. Life emerges in relationships, like the language that affords us to express not who we are, but how life appears to us and is experienced by us. So, why attack it or attempt to make it into something different than it is’ Why argue with ‘what is,’ especially if we are not even aware of, nor able to re-cognize ‘what is.’ Life is not Christian; it is not Jewish or Muslim. Life is not integral or postmodern. It is neither a construct nor a philosophy. Life is all of that and more. In essence, life simply is. It is not a feeling or an insight, nor is it a realization or a thought, for life just is and such is life. Ours is that of the deep dreamless sleep, in which we think that we are awake. In this deep dreamless sleep, we create the world of tomorrow by the words we speak today.

To awaken to our true self means to awaken, from our deep dreamless sleep, to the reality of lucid dreaming and then to awaken from that reality to the reality of our human being. Instead, we think that there is something greater to awaken to; something that is beyond ourselves, which we think because we cannot see ourselves. This is like believing that we can transcend the wheel of becoming and being by retreating, to contemplate the cause of existing in isolation. Transcendence happens effortlessly once we have paid back the debt we owe to our ancestors, for without them, we wouldn’t be. Thinking that our life comes free is a fallacy that only Narcissus and the like believe in. Thinking that we can liberate ourselves from existence by staring into our own reflection not only lacks perspective, but is devoid of wisdom. But few have the ability and clarity of mind to see that and even fewer can re-cognize the implications of the words stated here, which are simply a reflection of ‘what is,’ as it arises, reveals and makes itself know in the interdependent manifestation of relationships. This is reason enough for God to exist, who discloses itself to us in seeing ‘what is,’ and in re-cognizing ‘what isn’t.’