I’m an ordained minister in the Unitarian Universalist Association, with connections to the United Church of Christ. I’m currently serving as a hospital chaplain, but working to find a congregational settlement.
I was influenced by postmodernism in my late 20s and early 30s (1989-1994) when I became more modernist in my outlook under the influence of marxism and socialism.
Even then, I was heading towards ecosocialism and intersectional politics. I discovered Wilber in the early 2000s, and the effect was to push me further towards Leninism.
On the religious side of things, I was raised pentecostal, adopted anabaptism (Mennonite) in my early adulthood, deconverted to agnostic Quaker, and eventually became a pantheist Christian.
I’m a theologian, social scientist, and philosopher.
I just turned 62, live in the Chicago area with my spouse of 42 years, have 2 married adult children, a 13 year old granddaughter, and a 2 month old grandson.
Hi Rufus, thanks for the question, but my apology for not answering sooner.
I think Wilber’s attempt to integrate multiple developmental dynamics into a comprehensive system is impressive. I have thought through some of my own variants on the AQAL framework, such as developing an intersectional social movement analysis.
One disagreement with Wilber is my acceptance of a physicalist/materialist methodology. While I wouldn’t argue that physicalism is an entirely verified worldview, I do argue that there’s more evidence for physical realities than for non-physical realities. That said, I do think many physicalists unnecessarily flatten their analyses into overly mechanistic constructs. e.g. We (naturalists, physicalists, or materialists) shouldn’t reduce very meaningful experiences like love into simply “brain-states.” I’d say I think we physicalists can uphold science as a knowledge project, but recognize that lived reality is far too complex to take reductionism as the only truth. I’d argue for a relational naturalism as a necessary step beyond scientific reduction.
As for Second Renaissance, I’m always looking for conversation about the emerging future of our planet. I am glad that SR acknowledges that we need a future that is “beyond capitalism.”
My comment above about relational naturalism hopefully suggests that I’m also interested in interconnectedness, though I’m clear that there are violent disconnections at the very basis of our social systems such as patriarchy, ecocide, oligarchy, and capitalism to name only four.
Even though I’m a minister, I’m more activist than contemplative, so my vision of “inner growth” is fundamentally embedded in a vision of collective social liberation.