Have you ever developed a theory based solely on your life experiences only to find out someone else had systematized a nearly identical idea much sooner? Well, I just did.
First, my theory
Since I’ve taken up to reading a lot more than I previously had, I started to notice how physically isolating a thing reading is. If you then, say, not only read a lot but also meditate, watch movies, work on your computer or browse the web, then you might literally spend your entire day by yourself and nearly immobile.
Such considerations didn’t come to me by deduction, but induction: after a few days of heavy reading I’d feel miserable and wonder why. Then I’d go out with a friend for some açaí and marvel at how loquacious I’d be. Clearly, I was thirsting not only for that great Brazilian berry of ours but even more so for meaningful human interactions.
Another thing started bothering me: my back. Being ever so responsive to my bodily cues it didn’t take me long to realize I had to alternate reading with movement. So I’d run/hit the gym and the pain would leave me alone.
These realizations became organically systematized in quadrants: 1a) things I do alone and still, 1b) things I do alone and moving, 2a) things I do with people and still, 2b) things I do with people and moving. And so I’d try to make sure I didn’t overdo any quadrant (quadrant 1a being the only one I was actually in danger of overdoing).
Fast forward to last week and I realize this Kim Wilber guy made a career by applying an astonishingly similar principle to, well, everything. The difference being that instead of movement/stillness, Ken named it subjective and objective. And, sure, he had a ton of other theories. Still, I was glad. I was, like, “way to go Marco, you’ve got what it takes to have partial world-class insights”.
I think from now on I’ll be more outspoken about my theories (I have other two or three).
Truth be told, besides the whole quadrants thing, Ken's got more to say. He thinks the millennia-old back-and-forth debate between what he called the ascenders, that is, people who claim the spiritual world is the only reality and disdain material existence and the descenders, that is, people who claim the opposite, has been raging throughout history for lack of a possibility we now have to integrate everything. So this is Ken’s thing, which he hints at with the name of his book. He tries to ever so pedagogically categorize and systematize everything. Religion, economics, spirituality, psychology, politics, biology… He is very well read (the world genius comes up sometimes when people refer to him) and as of today I am very much enthused by his work.
It's important to know (or is it?) that the guy has been around for some decades now, which seems to have been plenty of time for him to live quite a life: from opening his own institute, to becoming something of a cult leader, falling from favor and even getting deadly ill for decade and, recently, making a come back.
I’m enjoying catching up. If you haven’t checked him out, I very much recommend you do.