Below is the Reader's Digest version of my Nonduality vs Ken Wilber's: 1) description of phenomenal experiences of nondual realizations - I can identify

with KW's account and understand and even resonate with much of it 2) a nondual epistemic approach, in my view, is an indispensable complement to the dualistic for optimal human value-realization but KW's epistemology (AQAL) runs off the rails of epistemic virtue when he introduces his 3rd Eye 3) while all philosophies of mind are necessarily tautological, the most taut to me is the nondual, but a physicalist and not KW's essentialist account 4) while all metaphysics are also tautological, a nondual account of the created order, while incomplete, is the most consistent, in my view, but this is my provisional closure and i remain metaphysically agnostic 5) theo-ontology - a vague nondual (unitary & intraobjective) god-concept is an indispensable complement to our dualist concept (unitive & intersubjective) and I resonate with KW's panentheism although important distinctions remain between our approaches (my panen-theism, or, more accurately, panSEMIOentheism, vs KW's pan-entheism, the former implying an indwelling, the latter a whole, The One, that is greater than the sum of its parts, The Many.) Ergo, for me, Item #2 has the more significant practical implications by virtue of making KW's epistemology arational rather than transrational, or inclusive but not truly integral. As for the lexicon of the nondual, its etymology grows out of inter-faith dialogue, and efforts to translate Eastern scriptures into English, mostly, but also modern philosophy of mind approaches (over against Cartesian dualism). I find it helpful (necessary really) to use it, since that's the present convention, but I have also felt led to introduce some neologisms to better capture important nuances that are lost in translation and which can lead to profound misunderstandings. Finally, in a post above from several years ago, playing off of Daniel Helminiak's critique, I remarked on the practical implications of KW's pantheism. But Daniel had this wrong and so I withdraw my older conclusions. At some point, after clarifying the categories and terms of the practical science of our theology of nature (which is theo-ontology, a poetic venture, not an onto-theology or natural theology, a speculative philosophic venture) and perhaps constructing a glossary of sorts, we hope to segue into matters of practice vis a vis formative spirituality and the life of prayer.
1

The next topic I wanted to treat was how the 4 senses of scripture cohere with our categories. I still haven't fully developed the compare and constrast of these hermeneutical spirals but I'll share my heuristic below to evoke others' imaginations: quote: 1) what can i know? or literal or descriptive (science) or awareness 2) what can i hope for? or anagogical or evaluative (culture) or hope 3) what must i do? or moral or normative (philosophy) or love 4) what does this mean? or allegorical or interpretive (religion) or faith.

Also, in our sorting out of matters re: Ken Wilber's system, in addition to the rather obvious metrics by which we might guage (not suggesting that methods are presently available, though) the efficacies of a faith's implicit (or explicit) formative spirituality, such as its fostering of Lonerganian conversions, one very salient feature might come to light in response to the question: quote: What practical consequences might ensue from the nature of any given numinous experiences, more importantly from any interpretation of same (which can be rather common sensical and not weighed down by the heavy baggage of arcane, even esoteric, metaphysics or onto-theology), vis a vis 1) somehow, amplifying those numinous encounters 2) enhancing the alignment of the ego-self axis 3) toward the end of augmenting such human-value realizations as articulated in Lonerganian conversion?

This concise question is dense because it is loaded with jargon that requires extensive unpacking. Perhaps we can do that after Lent and some of this will likely be unpacked when Phil shares his Wilber presentation. If you want to engage this depthfully, let me provide some pointers (maybe Phil can provide some hyperlinks when he gets more time).
2

RE #1 - I am suggesting that complementary (albeit vague) unitaryintraobjective and unitive-intersubjective, God-concepts would be optimal. This is all explicated above in this thread. The nondual aspect of this intuition would ordinarily come last developmentally, sometimes via post-experiential reflection or perhaps a deep metaphysical intuition or otherwise even via philosophical contemplation and might be considered higher in that narrow sense. But it would be otherwise incoherent (inprinciple and by definition) to suggest that such complements, whether epistemological or ontological, could somehow transcend but include each other. In Christianity, our theo-ontologies speak to God's determinate nature via general and special revelation vis a vis the Creator in relationship to creatures but maintains a respectful silence on God's essential, indeterminate nature. Buddhism remains a respectful silence regarding ontological origins, in general, but takes a great deal of metaphysical liberty regarding teleological destinies, which works out well enough, formatively, I reckon, since it allows for significant developmental impetus, personal dignity/integrity and devotional aspiration (although not as cultic, still with pronounced transformative aims). As far as Advaita, Wilber's own panentheism is a case in point that Advaita needn't present the developmental conundrums of unnuanced pantheisms and panpsychisms. Of course, Advaita also allows for prominent devotional elements on the pragmatic level. In each of these traditions, this all serves to mitigate against such obstacles as might be implicitly inferred vis a vis an improperly nuanced (or appropriated or misinterpreted) monistic stance. Of course, quietism can occur in any tradition where elements are 1) explicitly incoherent anthropologically 2) misappropriated 3) misinterpreted or 4) insufficiently nuanced, albeit for very different reasons. RE #2 I believe Phil's dissertation is available for download somewhere on this or a sister site. Or at least some graphics or summaries? RE #3 Phil has much of Helminiak's schema a la Lonergan archived at Shalomplace, also.