Ken Wilber Responds to Critics (ala Wild West)

LOL!

man, kw really pulled it out of the bag (as I like to say). that was some funny shit. While I enjoyed the dick-sucking and eye-peeing I must admit my favorite part was the “Second, just let me know if there are any common milestones that humans go through, or if every single person goes through a completely different pathway in their development, so that if there are, say, 6 billion people on the planet, there are 6 billion COMPLETELTY different growth pathways. And if they do go through different pathways, then describe what those pathways are like. That description itself is a context-transcending sentence, and I’ll be glad to work with that.” part..

HA-ha-ha-ha… oh god.

in any case, Yes that end part pleased me enormously AND…..

I like how spiral dynamics has been RELOCATED to the status of ‘heirarchic value structure/developmental line’ cause’ it kind of felt like it was a self-sense, cognitive stream, belief-structure, and value structure all in ONE. It’s practice has been freed by LIMITATION! huzzah.

Brian David

What we are, that we see, says Emerson, and says kw. Well, in a previous post, I saw an angry person taking a stand in a way that I characterized as unskillful and self-congratulatory. Wag, wag, goes the finger.

In this saga of Wyatt Earp taking some podshots at midgets kicking him in the shins, I see something that makes me “stare in disbelief for minutes, pie-eyed, slack-jawed, say whaaaaaat?”, to quote Wyatt. In a good way. I friggin' love this shit. It's liberating, I can finally breathe again, with the filthy, grasping hands off of my throat at last.

So, if I am what I see, then what does that make me? A bad case of schizophrenia, or a guy in the process of transcending the radical egalitarianism, the levelling of the Kosmos? I think (and sincerely hope) it's the latter. Although I like to think of myself as a very cool yellow-turquoise dude, that's not the whole story. I'm not going to fall for the false modesty thing and humbly pull myself down by the hair. In many ways, particularly cognitively, I am surfing those yellow-turquoise waves of reality, baby. But when it comes down to the rest of me, the insecure, emotional, actual guy inside of me, then what about him? He hasn't made up his mind, that's what. Much of the time he's climbing up on the surf board with me, being all 2nd-tier. But when you kick me in the nuts (or any other weak spot, for that matter), he regresses and starts fighting me. From green. There, I said it.

Seeing this is really opening me up, and I'm gaining some much-needed fresh perspectives on things. Including the I-I organization, the way it deals with criticism, and a couple of other things. I'll finish up by taking a shot myself at my own critical midget: I fully endorse Wyatt and look forward to doing some more transcendin' & includin' with the posse. (And for once, I'm not following up on that sentence by going all 'however', 'on the other hand', 'then again', 'still', or 'But really I can't stand taking a stand so allow me to go back and tear it down again'.) Muhahahahaha.

wow deidereck. that is really cool. seriously. i bow down in acknowledgement to some serious coolness.

I feel like cognitively I am surfing higher waves (streams, properly speaking) then my value-structure and my methodology for relational exchange, but I’m enjoying figuring all that out and differentiating it and whatnot.

Here's my take.  After we all forced (he he) Ken to blog, he's having a kick-ass time doing so.  I am pleasantly somewhat surprised albeit certainly satisfied with the result.  Kudos to all of us!  I think Ken sees how (and perhaps always has) he can use this blogosphere to further the cause he so passionately embodies (when he's focusing on that side of his nondual nature).  I'm happy.

Stop copying me!  I already asked that question!!

Overjoyed,
~M for my interiors are all over Zaadz.

Diederick, I'm with you. After discussing this with Annie, I have a whole new perspective on the thing. I mean, we've all seen Ken do the “level-headed scholar” thing a hundred times on Integral Naked. We know he's capable of it. This is obviously a deliberate style of communication, and not a thoughtless rant - an attempt to go all Ann Coulter on the asses of critics and friends alike, and see how everybody responds. This wasn't a response to critics so much as an attempt to get people WITHIN the Integral movement to raise their game. 

I saw this response as a big-ass challenge to take all of the rhetoric I've swallowed about detachment, the Centauric Self, second-tier thinking, ego transcendence, and not seeking to control the behavior of others, and put my money where my pseudo-spiritual mouth is. It was eye-opening. I was buzzed the rest of the night.

I'm not sure what Ken is reacting to but I found it entertaining.  Here's my favorite part…

I might add, instead of even being able to lay blame where it in fact belongs, which is on its own sorry-ass, first-tier, lame-brain case of arrested development, a two-bit, no-fit, nobody-quoting, self-promoting, gas-floating, over-bloating, no deposit, lame composite, really lost it, never had it, wanna bees, felled at the knees, first-tier fleas, flick ‘em off his back and never look back: “Holy mackerel! let's go get a slurpee,” says lonesome rider, Wyatt Earpy.

Um, sorry.

Look out!  Saul must've been givin him lessons.  Pretty soon, KW will be comin out with a hip hop album.  Droppin lyrics like Salvium.  Pimpin the turoquoise flava, claiming to be every body's savior.  But then the head might just explode.  Spreadin' the integral load.  Then in the ultimate release, maybe all he'll know is………………………………………………………………..

PEACE.

No worries Diedrich, C4, and Brondu, from my perspective you all are 5th 6th and 7th tier.  I'm pushin' beige to get to purple…..as u can tell:)  …………………………………. but my ultimate davinci quest is to find that mysterious black vmeme!

I'm worried that I have way too much to say about all this. Bear with me.

First of all, I don't think it really matters what KW blogs. Regardless of who he is personally, and regardless of what it is he wants to express, he is also a figurehead. He is, for better or worse, a celebrity in this sphere, and as such he's going to be the necessary screen for the projections of a large community of intelligent individuals. His actions will also be a touchstone and talking point for the crowd – his posts serve as a sort of small-scale collective experience.

The one given is that they'll be attended to with greater care, and by more people, than most integral writings, and as such make for a nice excuse for us to engage with each other and learn more about ourselves in the process.  (Though isn't this always the case?) So that said, the more material he gives us, the better. I think we all enjoy the process of growth.

Secondly, I always wrestle with these I-I language-laden discussion. I have a hard time characterizing my own relationship to the integral movement. How to put it? I love the philosophy. I love the theory. I've found it invaluable to making sense of my reality and to easing the way I interact in the world. It's a beautiful system. At the same time, I don't consider myself that identified with it. I don't see it as a “cause” that I'd want to promote. I don't see it as a “movement” I want to belong to. It's a tool - a perceptual tool, and an explanatory one - I use, and I love (deeply!) engaging with others who share an appreciation for its value, but I don't see it as something that *needs* to be spread. If others discover it and find it valuable, that's great, but I'm not about to tell someone it's something they need to know.

I know there are those who disagree, who think the health of the planet and the future of the human race depend on getting as many people as possible to a high a state as possible as quickly as possible, and that the best way to go about this is to convince everyone they can of this truth.

It's not that I don't see value in education. I'm absurdly grateful to KW for articulating what he did. I'm heartbreaking grateful to anyone involved in any sort of “ITP” or “ITP.” I'm filled with appreciating for those people who've learned how important it is to love their own sweet divine natures. The integral vision, to me, is idealism at its finest, and what can I say? I'm an idealist at heart. Obviously.

It's just that it's not alway helfpul. It's just that sometimes I think the finger-pointing that goes on with respect to “mean-green” or “mean-orange” or the other varieties, is counterproductive and a little silly. Of course there's an unhealthy side; it's the necessary shadow to the brilliance. Of course there'll be perversions and knots and entanglements. We're all of us human; we all have them. But, to me, pointing these out as something to be fought against merely creates more resistance and more reactivity and most of all, more fear: fear that this might not work out, that the unhealthy will take over, that somehow this whole fantastic play will fall apart, or that it'll collapse in some conflagration of cosmic unconcsciousness.

What hubris!

I suppose I have a deeper trust in the greater intelligence of the cosmos. Of course there will be struggle and pain and suffering; what else is life? Of course it'll happen on a institutional scale; institutions are composed of individual human psyches. People will keep fighting; people will keep hurting each other; people will keep acting from a place of confusion and frustration and pain. But this is not helped by blaming! Who is there, really, to blame? There is just consciousness bubbling up, and there is, thus, no blame to be placed. There is just responsibility to be taken, and enjoyed, and reveled in, and grown through.

Finally, this whole issue of KW and antagonistic criticism comes down, in part, to the ridiculousness of engagement. The integral system deals with perspectives, and you can't attack a perspective. You can attack ideas, but the idea of going to battle against an contextual attitude is absurd. The best thing to do is to create an environment in which a more developed perspective can unfold. I know I'm not saying anything new here, and I know, too, that there'll be those who disagree. This is fine, though, because as you'll no doubt gathered, I could go on about this forever.

Are you still reading?

Yikes.

I think Jay has nailed it.  When I read that post, I was laughing and just filled with wonder.  He is shaking things up!  It was so obviously very well thought out and planned.  It was a mini-version of Boomeritis, except there are real people on the other end.  I think it's genius.

I've enjoyed playing voyer to these exchanges over the past 24 hrs (As well as checking in w/ Annie every now and again) and I have to say I love the dance. I thought it was time to offer thanks.

As a student of integral theory and a firm supporter of integral education, I can recite chapter and verse about how the cognitive line leads development (with the others wanton to follow), about how an individual needs to experience a sort of crisis (or at least dissonance) in order to motivate a change in memes, about how the subject of previous stage will then become the object of the next, etc, etc, etc. I've engaged in several lively dialogues about this process with several trusted friends.Hell, I've taught it to my students! I can honestly say the postings that Jay and Diederick have offered have been the first opportunity I have had to witness this process.
 
Thank you for being so brave, so authentic, so open, and so aware. It is an honor to be among your cyber-sangha.

Profound Blessings~

Korenna  

(Also, the post that's linked to up top made me just about fall head-over-heels in love with the intregral vision all over again. Sigh.). 

Does anyone have an issue with the fact that Wilber's post is all sound and fury, and no substance?  

Or do you believe this was intentional on Wilber's part?

I don't believe it was no substance, ebuddha. I found it quite substantial. Wilber's comments about Frank Visser's indiscriminate linking, e.g., was an eye-opener. Because Wilber's right - half of the “criticism” to which Visser links is dreck.

The most important thing he addressed in the post was OPP - Other People's Projections. Their projections about Integral, about themselves, about Ken, about “the movement”, about “being a good person”, etc. Instead of projecting my own shit back at it - my initial reaction - I “checked my premises” (as Ayn Rand would say), and took it instead as a personal challenge.

Viewed from that standpoint - dropping all of my anxieties and presuppositions about how a “good spiritual leader” should respond, about how other people would react - just made me fucking laugh at the whole exercise. I can't put it into words. It made me commit to a way of being in the world that, up until now, has been mere ego-posturing. 

Siona,

Here's how I see it.

Do I have the courage to point out what I believe needs to be pointed out? To engage ALL levels of my being with every thought, word, and deed? Can I engage life without endless hand-wringing over how other people are “communicating” to my precious ego? 

All of these discussions about who should or shouldn't call so-and-so this-and-that are fruitless. Let's all BE - as vibrantly and openly as we can - and worry about our OWN reactions to this chaotic, fucked-up world. Let's dare to be fully in the world without fear or apprehension, instead of obsessing over how other people will regard us.

We can't fully experience the dissolution of division and the collapse of all boundaries without first being radically ourselves. It's such a sumptuous, hard-won paradox…

Jay,

I hear what you are saying - but I don't get it.

On any type of content level, the post was pretty unsubstantial, filled with distortions and dishonesty.  Now, I understand that some of that may be parody.  

But even what he pointed out about Visser - the indiscriminate linking - is a guilt by association thing with Visser.  Visser has CONSCIOUSLY provided a forum for integral critics - both the stupid/lame, and the quality.  It will be good if there were some type of ranking mechanism - but I think all of us are smart enough to do that ranking ourselves, right? 

 Also - I have no problem here, with the tone - if anything I simply notice the bad arguments made.  And yes, perhaps some of this is parody - but it isn't clear.

“It made me commit to a way of being in the world that, up until now, has been mere ego-posturing”.  

Well, good for you.  It clearly did not have that effect on me. 

Speaking of the Ethics of Reciprocity……..

who/what am I? hard to tell. I’ll use SD Colors, cause I haven’t memorized the altitude rainbow yet. relationally/interpersonally I imagine I’m yellow or green. value structure? I imagine I’m a mixture of red (introjected opression caused copious quantities of repression = preconventionality pathologies) and turquoise (I’m just good like that). Cognitively? Everyone likes to be real high in this because it’s your degree of awareness so it is necessary but not sufficient for other developmental lines to grow. BUT… for me.. God, I don’t know. If I’m aware of my aesthetic sense clustered centre of gravity, my value structure, my gradation of spiritual intelligence, my visceral projections, and if I can objectify God (lol) then I guess that makes me: ….

DAMN IT! STAGE-STRUCTURES (even when applied to developmental lines) were never meant to be FELT INTERNALLY (although their evident manifestation can be adjudicated by the discriminate mind, which makes US fuckin’ S-M-R-T) that’s phenomenology (which won’t tell us WHO/WHAT we are but WHAT we are experieincing in our immediate awareness and a subsequent map of THAT) not structuralism (which is a THIRD PERSON AFFAIR) you goddam a-holes. (clearly I’m just hesitant to give in to narcissistic proclivities, but this interior game is not a pressing matter for me.)

Siona: cool. I read the whole thing and at the last paragraph I got a desire to reciprocate in the way of a little comment. I don’t think anybody knows more about creating fostering environments/the specifics of battling contextual altitudes then Ken. We must give him some benefit of doubt. Also: examine your resistence to I-I language laden discussion. I myself don’t use any particular I-I language in my stories or writings but it is an extremely useful system and if you have a group of people who all grok it (thoroughly) then there is a window (brought on by delicious commonality) for extraordinarily rich conversation that is not STEEPED in I-I language or LADEN with it but rather the i-i language is used as framework for ensuing discussion. it’s a content free system in which all sorts of rich and instantly contextualized pieces of thought can be inserted and much fun can be had if you’re willing to use it.

aeryck: man, I could not have said it better myself, which is why I hope I’ll be saying something DIFFERENT by the end of this and not just re-wording your super-sweet assessment of matters.

ebudda: not EVERYTHING can be intentional on Wilber’s part but I love how he set it up so that it can be looked at that way. ha-ha. Man, that’s cool. He could post, “I fucked a cat to death today.” and we’d all be like, “Hmmmm…….. I wonder what he means by this. What sorts of deliciously rich tenets could be implicit in a statement like that?”

But on the other hand I think he really knew what he was doing on this one.

which brings me to my last point, my own point:

I think KDub writing that to his critics and fans was one of
the greatest moves he’s made. if we put some of the specifics of the
content aside (not that there was much astray in there) and look at
the latent intent/narrative methodology I have to tell you I feel like
Ken is actually a real guy now ( I mean I did before cause he e-mailed
me a bit but, if he hadn’t….). When I read his books (integral
spiritualy kicks the largest, most inclusive ass ever) I’ll feel like
I’m reading something that the author believes in. It won’t be like
Ken, the impersonal wheel turning out new theories for all the world
to shit on or love or whatever, it will be Ken: the dude who works
really hard; coordinates, coalesces, innovates, and subsequently
manifests his expansive, inclusive mindscape. Ken….. Uh.. maybe I’m
not getting it across. In any case perhaps a tenet with writing is
that the more exposed the writer has allowed him or herself to become
the more the actual writing from the author can be looked at NOT as a
consumate expression but rather as the writer’s BEST offering and
consequently not something to be fucked with lightly.

and speaking of the word fuck, am I wrong or has Ken all loosened our tongues a bit? seems like because this is a forum about a post that spoke of pissing in eyeballs we’re all a bit more relaxed about fucking and shitting and whatnot, but I suppose there was never really any resistence to begin with.

Dude, I was saying “fuck” all across the Internet WELL before this. ;-) 

ebuddha, I know where you're coming from. But I just can't explain it to you. It's too specific to my own development, and hard to put into words. I've explained it rationally to the best of my ability. 

As for Frank Visser's site - sure we're smart enough. But why waste everyone's time with the stuff that's obvious crap? 

Jay,

 I get that - a shift in meaning orientation, an existential centaurian shift, if you will - IS transrational.  And my own shifts - the “opening of an vastly new perspective” that orients the LIFE - gut, heart, mind - in a new way.  

I can only bow down to the beauty of that shift.

In a way, I feel like a spoilsport to interfere with that.  But I can only speak what I see as well.

Brondu!

I don't disagree with anything that's been said, and I am amazed and in love with this whole forum.  Thanks for the reminder that I-I language need not be necessarily EXclusive.

And I loved this of yours: 

– not EVERYTHING can be intentional on Wilber’s part but I love how he set it up so that it can be looked at that way. ha-ha. Man, that’s cool. He could post, “I fucked a cat to death today.” and we’d all be like, “Hmmmm…….. I wonder what he means by this. What sorts of deliciously rich tenets could be implicit in a statement like that?” –

It's a brilliant lesson, because can you imagine if we looked at EVERYTHING with  that degree of generosity and wonder and willingness to learn? And why don't we?  

 Matthew ended a post of his with

– And in the spirit of non-duality, I thank you for being both the author and the reader of this blog entry. –

 Exactly.

“In a way, I feel like a spoilsport to interfere with that.  But I can only speak what I see as well.”

That's the beauty, dude. Your perspective CAN'T interfere with it. If it could, it would just be me and my usual bullshit.

Annie,

 Eh, actually, I found your post more acceptable than Ken's, from a strictly logic and content perspective.  

 Your posts followed more the standard of blogs and commenting - and didn't abstract everything to the always popular strawman (and this is a simplification) “those angry mean green critics”.  

“we know ken is funnier (and fuckin smarter) but how come his anger is ok right from start?”

Annie, I was all prepared to get pissed off at Ken a priori before I talked to you. So give yourself some credit here, lady. :)  

Annie, I liked both your and Ken's posts right from the start… in fact, I've been all giddy since you started this.  

I'd like to offer up the following for discussion.  My brief, very brief, very very brief summary (which might surprise you) of Ken's post:

1.) Criticism is a good thing
2.) The critics are partially correct
3.) Let's take the good and leave the bad
4.) ”I essentially agree with ~Matthew” (J/K, but I still love that he said that)
5.) If you don't like how I vent, then too bad; I'm Wyatt Fucking Earp
6.) Bad criticism is a reflection of your interior

And I found his post to be absolutely inspiring.  He ultimately said, “If you can criticize my work well, we'll change the theory to fit the new Truths that unfold.”  And now let me add a little of my interior and understanding of Ken's work.  I've read just over a dozen of his books, and I think I'm starting to get an idea of wtf he's talking about. 

I also find it endearing (because I feel like I'm getting to know and really enjoy his writer's personality a little) that his “attack” against “bad” critics wasn't even as harsh as it could have been.  Even though he added the MGM lures (I'm Wyatt Earp, call me arrogant, suck my wee wee, I'll piss in your eye sockets, etc.), he still conceded that some of the criticisms are valuable and need to be integrated.  And that's right on target with how he's always criticized others' works.  Ken just can't stop being Ken even when he tries reallyl really hard.

Try Agnelli & Nelson’s - Holding Onto Nothing (Club Mix)… lol

My view could be summarized by the picture  on my blog here and my comments on wilber and second tier critical feedback are in a post there..

A couple of my friends and I recently shared a hot tub with a lady who was in town for an educator’s conference. She shared, with her own brand of humor, personal experiences, helpful tips and other information on the Calgary Stampede while I sat on the edge of the hot tub and smiled and laughed and sparkled my eyes so that she couldn’t tell I was interiorally bored and vacant. We discussed nothing of value, never exchanged names, and parted ways without a greeting to initiate the conversation or conclude it. What’s the point? There is none. Meat and consciosness shared some tepid, chlorinated yet suspicious hotel water, then showered, changed and left. The game plays on.

Very entertaining!  ; o )

Geesh, I have spent two hours of a lovely Sunday afternoon in the midst of a soap opera (or at least it feels like one!). Reading all of the related materials. From Frank to Annie to Ken back to Annie here and everyone else who has had something to add to the drama.

Now I feel like I have to go ahead and write something here so that it won't feel like such a waste of time. Which is not to disparage anyone's precious involvement in inciting this lovely riot… contributing to it… or seekign to inflame it in some way. Like I said, it is very entertaining.

I do wonder if people need to defend (in the best sense of that word… as a way of affirming the value of some involvement or interest of theirs) what they have chosen to invest themselves in. So a critic has to defend their right to criticism. Ken has to defend and justify his right to ignore the critics–or even to make it clear how he engages criticism for the benefit of all sentient beings (a big aim, eh?). And Frank goes on to justify why he has seen it appropriate to provide a place for criticism/exposition of Integral Theory vis-a-vis Ken Wilber. All of which leaves me feeling like people are defending/affirming their past and present choices of involvement.

I sense a lot of Beauty (with a capital 'B') in that. It's precious to me to see people so passionate. I love it! Ken and Annie and Frank (and even a critic like Meyerhoff or Falk) are acting with something rare and precious. There is so much Heart and Genuine Sincerity. Everyone is making a statement about what they love… what they VALUE!!

Having myself had a few articles posted at the site maintained by Frank Visser I can honestly recommend Frank's genuine interest in there being an 'open forum' (some may argue too open–but then again, how are we to learn the 'art of discernment' if we don't have both the wheat and the chaff before us?).

I'd also like to recommend everyone give Frank his considerable due. If you don't know that Frank maintained one of the only Wilber-oriented sites on the Web (other than the Shambhala site) years before Ken Wilber was the hottest ticket then you don't know some relevant history. Frank's labour and genuine sincerity needs not be questioned. In fact, it hasn't been mentioned by anyone else… so allow me to serve notice on just how signficant Frank's work in Europe (in fact, globally) has been in popularizing Ken Wilber and Integral Theory.

You go to IntegralWorl.net and you find translations of Ken's work that you don't find elsewhere. Yes, you get some rubbish, I'll agree. There is stuff there that I wouldn't be paid to read… just as there is a lot of stuff at Integral Naked that I find to redundant as to warrant my precious time  ; o )

But everyone has a unique way of marking significance in life. Some find defending Ken's vision of Integral imperative because they find significance in what Ken is doing… in what I-I is doing. Others find lending a cautionary note a significant act and will defend their right to speak freely till the cows come home. Others find maintaining a forum open to all sorts of other perspectives on the merits of Ken Wilber's philosophizing and Integral Theories future significant (and let's bear in mind Gebser and Aurobindo here… the Renaissance Movement and the Samurai Class–as 'integral' relative to Ken Wilber is also part of a lineage–an Integral Lineage–or so I contend!). ; o )

I guess I just want top affirm everyone's right to act from their Heart… to speak with Big Balls… or not! I don't doubt that anyone involved is acting from a place devoid of Love. Just remember that Love is a kind of Madness too.    ; o )

Now… before Sunday is spent I am going to get the f*&k out of here. Go for a walk anyone. I know this lovely trail where the only colours are those of Flowers.

Love,
David

You know Annie, I had been wondering about that exact same thing: why did I snap when I read your post, and then went on and practically cuddled Ken's post to death?

I think Jay nailed it (once again) when he said:

”Annie, I was all prepared to get pissed off at Ken a priori before I talked to you. So give yourself some credit here, lady. :)”

I don't think I would've been able to see Ken's post as I did (i.e., as liberating), without reading your post first and then snapping and wanting to 'put you right'.

Then there's another thing, too. Ken's post is so immensely beyond the conventional and accepted way of doing things, that you can't help but wonder: “This can't be right, something smells funny here.” It's too way out there to take seriously, because you just know you're making a complete and utter fool out of yourself if you do. Which is fine, and which I did may times - but not this one, in great part thanks to you, Annie!

Anyway, the point is that the intention behind your post is much more fuzzy for me, where I can't really tell whether it's done on purpose or it's just 'self-congratulatory acid', to quote myself.

Then finally, there's probably a very stupid, down-to-earth reason why I reacted differently to your post than I did to Ken's (other than the things I said above, which are true for me). Ken is smart and Ken is great and Ken can't be wrong. Annie? Who's Annie? She can be wrong, sure! ;-)

I'm probably being too honest here, but I have a feeling you won't mind.