Much Ado About Wilberism Redux

[Bright_Abyss]

PART ONE

As of late I have taken the wrong path. When I should have been concise and direct, and walked away, I played around and spent too much time -- losing my point in the process. So indulge me as I attempt to clarify and correct:

I think Wilber should be criticized, and I think critique is utterly important for healthy discourse, knowlege building and the wider integrative movement generally.

For me, 'the wider integrative movement' is simply a movement toward allowing more platforms for comparative thinking, and has as its goal bridging knowledges and the promotion of holism for the sake of inclusive cross-fertilization. Ken's IOS is a conversation starter within this niche.

But I think many 'integralists' get caught up in Ken's discourse and wrongly acuse him of dominating -- or trying to dominate -- the wider arena and potential of comparison, synthesis and academic reconciliation.

That is an idolization of Ken and his work by his crtics and supporters alike. That is what I want to avoid. For this wider 'integralism' to be valuable, it has to move beyond Wilberism.

So, for this reason I find tearing down ken's interpretive edifice a waste of time. BUT other's do not. They seem to enjoy working out their own visions in opposition to Wilber's views. So be it. Each to their own.

But that kind of activity is parasitic and creates a relation of necessity between one's own thinking and the 'thing' (hence a fetish-ization) the person is seeking to transcend.

By "attacking" ken's work so personally and passionately, people are only making it the center of the discussion. They are making much ado about Wilberism.

The more critics throw down idiosyncratic criticisms based on partial readings, and oddly psychologized angles, the more Ken's model will show how it can stand on its own. He provides too many caveats.

I am suggesting more is to be gained by including what is 'good' about Ken's work and then building on that -- using that -- not taking time to dwell.

So I'm saying BOTH that Wilber's work is interesting enough to read and consider, yet because of the very nature of the project (tragic in its certainty to not succeed), must not be taken too seriously.

We must not let Ken, his supporters, his critics, his fans, his haters, or even any of us make a movement out of a model. Too much is at stake

And that is why I am bothered by most of his critics, as well as many of his biggest fans.

I like the guy; I like some of his ideas. But "the rubber meets the road" when we can thinking beyond 'isms' and models and begin to dialogue and practice -- to live -- a more 'integral', healthy, holistic, compassionate and complex life and work-style.

That is all I would want to suggest with any type of conviction.

PART TWO

Let me truly finish (as I am getting sick of my own posts at this point) with saying sorry.

I apologize to anyone who I have mischaracterized, and I apologize for writing:

[Elias]

Amazing you would call Wilber's critics "parasitic".

Wilber is one of the most unoriginal thinkers I've ever read. He doesn't own any cattle -- he just tries to rustle everybody else's and put his brand on 'em.

Take that bit o' lead out of yer ass, Wyatt...

~E

[Broken Yogi]

You know, you're right, You have lost your point. I still don't think you have one. What's the deal? First you say that to criticize Wilber you have to become qualified to do so, which means being utterly obsessed with him, read eveything he says, be an expert in the fields he comments on, get all his tiny nuances, and only then is anyone ready to criticize him. Now you say anyone who does that is full of shit, and people who read too much of Wilber or make his writings the focus of their study, or even their conversation here (on a Wilber forum, fer chrissakes) are somehow unhealthy and messed up. Christ, can't you see that you're the one who is conflicted about Wilber and his critics to the point of sheer psychotic senselessness?

Here's a better idea: Why not just let people criticize or praise Wilber and his ideas as they like, and glean from those critics what is good and toss what is bad? Same with Wilber himself. Why make such a dysfunctional family issue of every critic? Why make criticism of Wilber an issue all by itself. And why lump all critics in one basket? Why do they all have to somehow march in lockstep to your idea of how all this should proceed?

One of the boring and meaningless aspects to many of your posts is the lack of sepcificity. Rather than focus on a critic you don't like, you make sweeping generalizations about all these critics, as if it's one mass of humanity. This reminds me so much of how loyal Daists like to lump all critics of Da into one basket, and then dismiss them all. Could it be that you are a recovering Wilber cultist and just don't know it?

You were at your best when you were focusing your criticism on specific individuals - me, for example? At least there the contradictions in your approach become self-evident, and probably painfully so. So try to deal with Wilber's critics on an individual basis. They have less in common that they have anything like a shared viewpoint. And once again, if WIlber is the focus of so much attention, ask yourself who is responsible for this. It's Wilber, of course, who encourages the notion that Wilber is the "pope" pf the integral movement. And you, too, share some responmsibility for this, as you have been advocating in many posts that this is Wilber's baby and we have to play by his rules. That's not exactly an approach that is consistent with what you are trying to say here.

Yes, those interested in the general concept of cross-disciplinary integration dhould check Wilber out, and then move on to develop their own views on these matters. Those who want to help Wilber develop his particular model should do so, and stop pretending that criticism of this project, even "destructive criticism", is not only fine, but necessary and inevitable. Not everyone is going to agree with Wilber's basic model, and want to improve it. Not everyone wants to be a Jehovah's Witness either. Wilberists (and that's what you've been, face it) shouldn't think of it as a citadel to protect from barbarian onslaughts. They can if they like, of course, but that's just a sign that it has become a cult rather than a genuine spiritual movement.

[jimsun]

I think I'll jump on the dog pile for a second, too

It already is a movement, albeit a young and fledgling one
It's too late to do anything about that
The desire to make some kind of sense of a chaotic world, for those who for whatever reason are not yet fully seated in a leap beyond all structures, is too widespread and deep for a proposal like Wilber's not to gain dramatic traction

It's healthy and wise in such a situation, for there to be a critical community, a community of peers, giving feedback
The peers may be flaky, so what, at least there is some voice from outside the box
Wilber is just a person, he has a contribution to make like anybody and he can learn like anybody
We do a disservice to him and each other, if we don't give honest feedback

It doesn't really matter that the feedback even be perfectly formed, it's feedback
As a person learns to deal with feedback in some way, they mature and their ideas mature and this is good for everybody
The people giving feedback will also grow through the interchange

We can all aim high, and encourage each other, including Wilber to do so, and we can all make continuous improvements
But every aspect and every statement, even orienting statements, rules of the road or anything else, needs to be a valid object of study and feedback

We are quite capable as beings and we can handle it; we can learn how to handle it better and we can help each other grow, Wilber included
Rather than controlling the discourse, we can invest in inspiring and producing high-quality exemplar discussions

Life consumes itself and grows
Sometimes by weaving the new, sometimes chomping and transforming the old ... all part of one larger process
It's safe to play if we bring all of what we are to the table

[Jana]

First we have to consider that this is a new movement in consciousness, even tho it was prophezied by Gurdjieff, Osho, Aurobindo and everyone else in history that tried to make a whole human out of fractured parts.

I do appreciate Michael's pointing out the parasitic nature of individuals defining and honing their thought by using the Ladder of Ken Wilber...I did this myself in the 90's and when I got to the top and achieved my self, I immediately fell into archetypal remorse for having "used" Ken in that way. But this is what this "movement" is about I think, not so much a war of minds but a tornado of consciousness.

Michael: "I find tearing down ken's interpretive edifice a waste of time. BUT other's do not. They seem to enjoy working out their own visions in opposition to Wilber's views. "

I think what ever we see its only this leg of the journey...the oppositional building occurs on the first leg of the path, then after a while one genuinely gets sick of having ones adrenals pumping all the time over mere castles of thought. Then a mature worldview might arise that doesn't define itself out of the negative.
_________________
Enlightenment is a reflection of the unlimited abundance and potential of creation, not a greedy abstinence from the Good, the True, the Beautiful and the Pleasurable.

[kang]

Jana, sometimes you speak out against "mythic" thinking, but other times you're full on the business of propagating it.