# Why are Universities dominated by the Left?



## Makalakumu (Apr 2, 2004)

Check out this website and let us know if you agree or disagree.  Why?

http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1077342/posts

My quick opinion is that the site looks like a guy who is whining about why he doesn't have any smart conservative friends.

upnorthkyosa


----------



## TonyM. (Apr 2, 2004)

He's obviously never been to Dartmouth where the men are men and the livestock are frightened.
A sample school song presented to the dean at Dartmouth med school graduation dinner.
"We're super phalic facist racist sexist h o m o phobics, our daddies are all millionaires our mommies take aerobics. Super phalic facist racist sexist h o m o phobics.)


----------



## Touch Of Death (Apr 2, 2004)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Check out this website and let us know if you agree or disagree.  Why?
> 
> http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1077342/posts
> 
> ...


Didn't Hitler start out spouting crap like this? This guy sounds like a man who grew up as a kid listening to his parents tell him his teachers were stupid. The whole thesis is loaded with terms that drip with hate. In fact the whole thing stinks. 

A couple of points he made has proven to me that this guy is a few bricks short: punishment detours crime. That is a crock; because we have more prisons than any nation and will be sporting the prison system as our largest gross national product in the very near future. With all the people we are punishing, you would think crime would be non-existant. One man's punishment is another man's oppression, it just depends on who's holding the whip.
Intellectuals are nerds who couldn't play sports or find social acceptance. Again this sounds hatefull to say the least. Sounds a lot like saying femenism is for ugly chicks; which, I am sure he will say in his next dissertation.

Sean


----------



## heretic888 (Apr 6, 2004)

Well, it *is* true that most Western (not just American) universities are, on the whole, predominantly liberal-oriented. Now, this isn't necessarily a bad thing --- but it is true.

My guess is due to the nature of the institution (higher education generally promotes free-thinking and questioning accepted ways of doing things), as well as the idealism (some would say narcissism) of the young.

Hey, but this is nothing new. We all know these "factions" have their own little "cliques" in various parts of the culture: conservatives have talk radio, Fox News, and most of the governmental positions of import.... liberals have most other news networks (i.e., "the media") and most of the schools.

*shrugs* Watchah gonna do??

I'll admit though that that article was full of half-minded idiocy, polemic, and aggression. Biased, to say the very least.

Laterz.


----------



## someguy (Apr 7, 2004)

Why do so many people use theory when hypothesis is a better word.  Never mind thats just a little thing thats beginning to drive me crazy. 
He must not be livin down here in the bible belt.  I go to a LIBERAL arts college.  Most people here are christians and do not think that"traditional religious belief, especially of the Christian sort, rests on ignorance of modern scientific advances, cannot today be rationally justified, and persists on nothing more than wishful thinking"
"Western civilization is uniquely oppressive, especially to women and "people of color," and that its products are spiritually inferior to those of non-Western cultures" eh sort of not really.
AS for captialism and socialism yeah right how many of my classes here have basically said capitalism good socialism bad. Politics and society, Phillosophy, are the only two this semster.  
My experience probably are different than some peoples.


----------



## heretic888 (Apr 7, 2004)

Hrmmmm.... well, ultimately, it does depend on what school you go to (with the region of the country being a BIG factor here).

But, it is more or less correct --- as a *generalization* --- that the majority of public universities in the West are liberally-oriented. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it is a common trend.

Then again, it also depends on what kind of educational program you go into: the liberal "bias" might be more readily apparent in a humanities program than in a "hard science" program.


----------



## Ender (Apr 7, 2004)

*L...well I can't say what the guy is saying is completely wrong. But it's easy to try to label someone who doesn't agree with you as a whacko or "Hitler in training". Yes the colleges and universities have become increasing liberal since the mid to late 60's. So much of the "General Ed" classes I had to take were more based on opinion or point of view. And I can truly say the none of these classes actully took "cause and effect" in account when the lecture was presented.

I've had several professors blame all the worlds ills on the United States or on male dominance. Poverty, Greed, War, Hunger, Disease in even the remotest parts of the world are the fault of the US. No logic, No analysis or no look at the real causes of these problems, just blame the US.  Any classes that don't involve math or the hard sciences should really be taken with a good dose of skepticism or with the full knowledge that the material is open to interpretation.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Apr 9, 2004)

Well, are there such things as poor teachers in colleges? Sure, and in my considerable experience they come from all parts of the political spectrum.

I wish that colleges and universties were indeed, "dominated by the left." They are not, and never have been. If they're dominated by anything today, it is by business, by money, and (to some extent) by the military. You could look that up, but nah, why bother?

The problem that a lot of people have is that for all their problems, colleges and universities very often do a good job of exactly vhat they're zupposed to be doing, which is to educate students. Often--not enough, in my professional opinion, but often--this means that students learn something about the silly blindness, bias and stupidity they were taught from childhood.

For example, some historians actually teach Western history/American history. All of it. Since these involved a lot of murdering, pillaging, looting and assorted crappy behavior on the parts of white guys and Christians, since the victims were often what are euphemistically called, "people of color," some folks get upset. I guess reality isn't very fashionable. 

Are there irresponsible--and worse, dumb and uneducated--leftists in colleges and universities? Sure. Are there irresponsible--and worse, dumb and uneducated--rightists in colleges and universities? Sure. 

Most of this nonsense comes out of Republican political campaigns, like Reagan's running for governor in California. For other right-wing politicking on the subject, see: D'Souza, "Ill-Liberal Education," and Charles what's-'is-name's, "Profscam," or George Gilder's hilarious books, or any issue of, "American Spectator." 

But for a good book on the subject, I recommend Richard Ohmann, "English in America." Much better scholarship and discussion.


----------



## heretic888 (Apr 9, 2004)

While there is a great deal of truth to what Robert says, particularly in regards to the Republican politicking tactics, the truth still remains that many (perhaps most) public universities in the West (not just America, folks) are indeed "dominated" by "the Left".

Sure, its a generalization. Never said otherwise.

And, sure, it ultimately depends on what school you go to, where said school is located, and even the program you get yourself into. Never said otherwise.

But, as before, its just a generalization --- an observable trend. Nothing more.

I believe the basis for a lot of these claims come from the "cultural elite" in the West --- you know, the guys (and gals) writing and speaking about stuff like politics, philosophy, ideology, culture, social theory, interracial issues, literature, art, history, and so on.

In other words, the humanities (you're not gonna hear too many engineering or biology professors ranting about social issues or the like). The humanities of the West are, without doubt, liberally oriented. Not saying that's necessarily a bad thing (nor am I saying its a good thing, either). But, that is the way it is. Right now, anyways.

For a really good exposition on such trends (not just in universities, but in the culture at large), written in an entertaining (and pseudo-fictional) format, I would suggest Ken Wilber's "Boomeritis". A real eye-opener.

Laterz.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Apr 9, 2004)

Ah. You really mean to say that colleges and universities are presently dominated by middle-class baby-boomers. Pretty much true. Problem is, you're associating their class-and-history based---elitism?--with a left-wing political view. 

Only on the surface, only on the surface. It's like Buddhism lite---all the maundering, and no meat beneath the skin....they might teach Marx, but they still won't see why the janitors should go out on strike for decent health care when their office needs cleaning.

Problem is, too, that these, "leftists," share something fundamental with their opposition: privilege.


----------



## bdparsons (Apr 9, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Problem is, too, that these, "leftists," share something fundamental with their opposition: privilege.



Ah Robert... my left-leaning Kenpo brother! I do believe you've hit the proverbial nail on the head. Those that haven't got want, and those that have want to keep.

There once was speculation that a conservative was just a liberal who had gotten mugged. Wonder if there's any truth to that?? :boing2: 

Have a terrific weekend.

Respects,
Bill Parsons
Triangle Kenpo Institute


----------



## rmcrobertson (Apr 9, 2004)

Ey, I believe that's, "Dr. Communist Rat-Bastard," to you.

Thanks, and have a great Easter holiday, Mr. Parsons.


----------



## heretic888 (Apr 10, 2004)

> Ah. You really mean to say that colleges and universities are presently dominated by middle-class baby-boomers.



Errr.... sorta. The title to Wilber's book is, in a sense, a little misleading as 'boomeritis' refers more to certain cultural/social trends in the West rather than strict generationalism.

You honestly would have to read the book. It explains the issue much better than I ever could.



> Problem is, you're associating their class-and-history based---elitism?--



I said "cultural elite". I did not say their views were "elitist".

The "cultural elite" are the cultural policy-makers, the ones that greatly influence not only how the current generation sees the world, but trends in music, art, historical criticism, literature, politics, and the like.



> Only on the surface, only on the surface. It's like Buddhism lite---all the maundering, and no meat beneath the skin....they might teach Marx, but they still won't see why the janitors should go out on strike for decent health care when their office needs cleaning.



What you are saying sounds more like a lack of extremism or, if you want to be mean, a lack of conviction. These sounds like differences of degree rather than type, and don't seem to really contradict anything I said.

After all, Foucalt and Derrida are as "liberal" as they come, writing extensively about the virtues of postmodernism, relativism, and deconstructionism --- yet, neither of them ever refused the paychecks that their ethnocentric, patriarchal, imperialistic society gave to them.  :asian: 

Then again, I suppose it ultimately depends on what your definition of "liberalism" is in the first place (although I realize with this rather relativistic statement, I myself am being quite "liberal"  :uhyeah: ).

Laterz.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Apr 10, 2004)

Well, that post further reinforces my point: y'awl got capitalism and ideology tangled up together. And neither Foucault (dead, now) nor Derrida are classifiable as "liberal," in any meaningful sense. Nor are, "post-modernism," and, "deconstruction," liberal philosophies, nor strictly speaking philosophies at all: the former, where it is not chic style, refers to a discussion of the collapse of the history that legitimated terms such as, "liberal," and the latter involves a particular approach to language and the underlying assumptions of Western philosophy. Want the references?

Again: much of the complaining about universities being full of libs and lefties is a translation of class-based ressentiment.


----------



## heretic888 (Apr 11, 2004)

> Well, that post further reinforces my point: y'awl got capitalism and ideology tangled up together. And neither Foucault (dead, now) nor Derrida are classifiable as "liberal," in any meaningful sense. Nor are, "post-modernism," and, "deconstruction," liberal philosophies, nor strictly speaking philosophies at all: the former, where it is not chic style, refers to a discussion of the collapse of the history that legitimated terms such as, "liberal," and the latter involves a particular approach to language and the underlying assumptions of Western philosophy.



Heh. Depends on your definition of "liberal".  :uhyeah: 

One of the interesting things that Wilber acknowledges in his books are the dilineation between what could be called "vertical liberalism" (seen in a developmental process model) and "horizontal liberalism" (seen more as a different emphasis of the same 'level' of development).

'Vertical liberalism' seems to refer to the levels of development regarded as the formal-operational and post-formal modes of consciousness within developmental psychology (in Clare and Graves' Spiral Dynamics system, these are associated with the orange and green memes) --- with 'vertical conservatism' being more associated with the concrete-operational mode. 'Horizontal liberalism' seems to refer to the emphasis (or overemphasis as some would say) of external factors as the cause and solution of human problems (i.e., its society's fault not yours, so we need affirmative action, medicare, external social reforms, etc), with 'horizontal conservatism' associated with a focus on internal factors (i.e., you're poor because you're lazy and need to work harder, borgeouis values, good work ethic, personal conviction, etc).

Just some things to think about.  :uhyeah: 

In general, however, things like relativism, multiculturalism, pluralism, and the like (all generally associated with postmoderism and deconstructionism) are usually identified with "liberal" philosophies. That's the popular understanding, anyway.

Laterz.  :asian:


----------



## rmcrobertson (Apr 12, 2004)

Well, in response: nope. Indeed, fiddlesticks.

In the first place, the source you're using has confused needlessly-complex terminology with intellectual discussion. "Spiral Dynamics?" The, "orange and green memes?"

Moreover, at least as you've cited it, this is simply a ripoff of Cornel West's arguments about liberals and conservatives in "Race Matters," translated into far more-tortured terms. 

Yep, I agree, all them pointy-head intellectuals look alike. To people who aren't familiar with the real deals. But since I assume you actually know what you're talking about, I'm not sure I understand why you're collapsing very different sets of ideas together in such a fashion.

I looked up this Ken Wilber guy....you're not taking that stuff seriously, are you? I mean, c'mahn: "Ken Wilber is the author of over a dozen books, including Sex, Ecology, Spirituality; The Spectrum of Consciousness; Up from Eden; and Grace and Grit. The Spectrum of Consciousness, written when he was twenty-three years old, established him as perhaps the most comprehensive philosophical thinker of our times. Credited with developing a unified field theory of consciousnessa synthesis and interpretation of the world's great psychological, philosophical, and spiritual traditionsKen Wilber is the most cogent and penetrating voice in the recent emergence of a uniquely American wisdom." 

Looks like the intellectual equivalent of  Ashida Kim to me.


----------



## heretic888 (Apr 12, 2004)

> Well, in response: nope. Indeed, fiddlesticks.



Ummm..... ok.  :idunno: 



> In the first place, the source you're using has confused needlessly-complex terminology with intellectual discussion. "Spiral Dynamics?" The, "orange and green memes?"



It was an example of one of the several theoretical models found within developmental psychology. And, its not very complex at all (nor "intellectually deprived" as you somewhat ignorantly implied) if you bother to listen to what the theorists (Clare and Graves) have to say.

Then again, based on your later condemnation of Ken Wilber also (another theorist you seem to know practically nothing about yet feel perfectly authorized into labeling as the "intellectual Ashida Kim"), you seem to have some personal problem with varying viewpoints. A shame, really.



> Moreover, at least as you've cited it, this is simply a ripoff of Cornel West's arguments about liberals and conservatives in "Race Matters," translated into far more-tortured terms.



I'm unfamiliar with the source you cited, so I can't really comment on that (some advice you may want to take into account when discussing Wilber and Clare/Graves in the future).

The particular terms were my own, although the definitions are used within Wilber's books from time to time. And, by no means does he ever claim they are original to him --- he in fact cites various theorists and writers that use similar definitions of conservatism and liberalism.



> Yep, I agree, all them pointy-head intellectuals look alike. To people who aren't familiar with the real deals. But since I assume you actually know what you're talking about, I'm not sure I understand why you're collapsing very different sets of ideas together in such a fashion.



You would have to be a little less vague here for me to answer your querry.



> I looked up this Ken Wilber guy....you're not taking that stuff seriously, are you? I mean, c'mahn: "Ken Wilber is the author of over a dozen books, including Sex, Ecology, Spirituality; The Spectrum of Consciousness; Up from Eden; and Grace and Grit. The Spectrum of Consciousness, written when he was twenty-three years old, established him as perhaps the most comprehensive philosophical thinker of our times. Credited with developing a unified field theory of consciousnessa synthesis and interpretation of the world's great psychological, philosophical, and spiritual traditionsKen Wilber is the most cogent and penetrating voice in the recent emergence of a uniquely American wisdom."
> 
> Looks like the intellectual equivalent of Ashida Kim to me.



Yes, I do take his work seriously. Namely, because I -- unlike yourself --- have bothered to actually _read_ his works and make an informed opinion about what he writes. You know, as opposed to making somewhat ignorant generalizations based on nothing more than a paragraph that he did not write and the names of some of his book titles (most of which have a very specific context).

I'm sorry, Robert, but your willingness to condemn writers whom you are *completely* unfamiliar with is rather repugnant behavior in my opinion. It is somewhat reminiscent of many fundamentlist arguments against the theory of evolution --- in which they condemn the conclusion as completely in error, but know (and say) nothing about the evidence from which said conclusions arise.

A shame. :shrug:


----------



## rmcrobertson (Apr 12, 2004)

Well, I confess being so put off by your initial quotes that I posted, checked some websites just in case, and edited the original a coupla minutes later. So be as repugnated as you like: it's still pseudo-intellectual quackery. 

For those who aren't familiar (because out of good sense or good taste they don't bother with this stuff) genuine intellectuals simply don't write  this way, and they also simply don't have these sorts of silly pufferies written about them, accompanied by steely-eyed publicity stills of the, "most cogent and penetrating voice," his own self. 

Similarly, beware of martial artists with twenty-eleven black belts, who have been enlightened gifts to the rest of us since they were twenty-three, or eleven, or six or whatever. But I strongly recommend checking out the various websites devoted to this Ken Wilber character, and deciding for yourself.

"Developmental psychology," my left...ear. If you want to read reputable stuff in developmental, my advice is go back to Piaget, or try somebody recent such as Elizabeth Bates, who's very smart. But don't settle for this sort of guff.

It's funny that you're unacquainted with Cornel West, who's really very well known, and whose "Race Matters"--the book that Mr. Wilber appears to be ripping off for his  account of the libs vs. conservatives dead-end discussion--was on the "Times," and other best-seller lists about, oh, six or seven years  ago now. He's probably as well known an intellectual commentator on such issues as there is--you know, "Nightline," "Charlie Rose," etc. etc. etc. Beyond his considerable writing on such subjects and his work on Bill-Bradley's ill-fated Presidential campaign,  he can be seen as, "Councellor West," on the disastrous last, "Matrix," movie. Still, he's pretty smart, and he certainly is the real deal, even if I personally find his writing a bit pontifical for my taste. 

I agree that it would be better if I slowly--and it would be slowly--waded through all of Mr. Wilber's books. But I 've seen this sort of stuff before, and well, life is short. I admit I'll probably look up his essay on Habermas--always fun to see someone wade in completely over their head--but that's it. Hell, I still haven't gotten around to Hobsbawm's, "Age of Revolution," and it's sitting about 18 inches from my keyboard.

"The most cogent and penetrating voice in the recent emergence of a uniquely American wisdom," my foot. My advice is run screaming from such, "wisdom," and for that matter from anybody who comes at you with such a phrase...and especially avoid taking any Kool-Aid from them....but hey, your privilege, I'll pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

Given the theme of this thread, what was Mr. Wilber's university affiliation again?


----------



## 8253 (Apr 13, 2004)

the guy in that link sounds like a nazi or a communist BAD MONKEY NO BANNANA


----------



## heretic888 (Apr 13, 2004)

> So be as repugnated as you like: it's still pseudo-intellectual quackery.



According to someone who has yet to read a single Ken Wilber book, and is clearly completely unfamiliar with his writings. I doubt you could tell me a single major component of Ken Wilber's entire theoretical system. Not a one.

Ok, so you went to a couple of websites and went by what _other_ people told you about Ken Wilber's writings. Secondary source, anyone??

Uninformed opinions are always that --- uninformed.



> For those who aren't familiar (because out of good sense or good taste they don't bother with this stuff) genuine intellectuals simply don't write this way, and they also simply don't have these sorts of silly pufferies written about them, accompanied by steely-eyed publicity stills of the, "most cogent and penetrating voice," his own self.



Once again, Ken Wilber didn't write any of that. An editor from Shambala Publications did.

But this still brings to light your major problem here, Robert. Namely, that you feel authorized and justified to make condemning generalizations about Wilber based on nothing more than a publication blurb (which, again, he did not write) and the names of some of his book titles --- while being _completely ignorant_ about any of the elements of his theoretical system.

In other words, your major (and only) argument against Wilber is his book company's means of self-publication --- and _absolutely nothing_ to do with his theoretical system (which you are apparently completely ignorant of).

"Real intellectuals"?? Gawd, this smells of such elitism... I would think a "real intellectual" would be rational and look at the man's theories and not making ignorant generalizations based on a publication blurb.

Uninformed opinions are always that --- uninformed.



> But I strongly recommend checking out the various websites devoted to this Ken Wilber character, and deciding for yourself.



I did something better --- I actually read his books. You know, instead of listening to what secondary sources had to say about him, I went to the source itself. 

You know, I developed....  an informed opinion??  :uhyeah:



> "Developmental psychology," my left...ear. If you want to read reputable stuff in developmental, my advice is go back to Piaget



This might be a shock, oh uninformed one, but Wilber references and cites Piaget numerous times throughout his works --- as well as various other developmental psychologists, such as Abraham Maslow and Carol Gilligan (even mentions Freud every now and then).



> But don't settle for this sort of guff.



Oh, but _do_ settle for uninformed opinions derived from secondary sources. Please do.  :shrug: 



> It's funny that you're unacquainted with Cornel West, who's really very well known, and whose "Race Matters"--the book that Mr. Wilber appears to be ripping off for his account of the libs vs. conservatives dead-end discussion



"Ripping off" implies that Wilber claims the ideas are original to him. He does not. Of course, you wouldn't know that as you haven't bothered to read anything he's written.

And, as a side note, Wilber has been positing the externalist vs internalist position on liberals/conservatives since 1981, with "Up From Eden." Of course, once again, you wouldn't know that as you haven't bothered to read anything he's written.

An uninformed opinion is just that --- uninformed.



> I agree that it would be better if I slowly--and it would be slowly--waded through all of Mr. Wilber's books. But I 've seen this sort of stuff before, and well, life is short.



Its funny how someone so utterly ignorant of the man's entire theoretical system can conveniently label him in a group, as with the title "this sort of stuff". Then again, I guess this group is "everything Robert doesn't like even though he hasn't read it yet --- but still KNOWS he doesn't like it anyway".

An uninformed opinion is always that --- uninformed.



> "The most cogent and penetrating voice in the recent emergence of a uniquely American wisdom," my foot. My advice is run screaming from such, "wisdom," and for that matter from anybody who comes at you with such a phrase...and especially avoid taking any Kool-Aid from them....but hey, your privilege, I'll pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.



Once again, not a single utterance of a single factor found withing the man's theoretical system. Only more secondary-source polemic derived from nothing more than a publication blurb.

An uninformed opinion is always that --- uninformed.



> Given the theme of this thread, what was Mr. Wilber's university affiliation again?



None that I'm aware of. He's a writer, not a professor, and his books are (usually) published by Shambala. He did, however, help found some institute or some such thing --- but the name eludes me at the moment.

Well, we've waded through Robert's entire post here. And, as expected, he has not once presented a critique of any facet of Wilber's theoretical system --- only referencing the same publication blurb over and over (such blurbs are fairly common among Shambala Publications).

To all others interested in Wilber, I would suggest actually reading one or more of his books (or essays, which are available online). Don't settle for secondary sources and hearsay.

Because, after all, an uninformed opinion is just that --- uninformed. Laterz.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Apr 13, 2004)

First off, I again recommend to anyone interested that they go look at the easily-accessible Internet references. It's a mountain of guff; notice, for example, that the sentences don't actually make a bit of sense, when closely examined. 

Second off, here's a little excerpt from a critic, reviewing Ken Wilber's
"A Theory of Everything: An Integral Vision for Business, Politics, Science, and Spirituality."

"Several people had recommended Wilber to me over the years. I was a bit hesitant to delve into any of his works as, on the surface, he appeared to be yet another new age guru along the lines of a Deepak Chopra. Then this book came out which from the publisher's description appeared to be something I may be able to get into since it was supposed to be concise and comprehensive. Plus, with a title like A Theory of Everything, even the skeptic in me was curious to see if any author could back up such a claim. 

Well, my first instincts were correct. Wilber is just another new age guru doing whatever it takes to sell as many books as possible and try to build a sort of cult-like following. That's not to say that his works are completely worthless. There are some good things in his ideas but... 

This book is loaded with contradictions and mumbo jumbo. But that's not the worst aspect. By far the most annoying component is the self references. Nearly every page contains one or more references to another title of Wilber's. He may as well have written a one page "book" which contained one sentence saying simply to read all his books. For that really is his "theory of everything"--to read all his books and get your friends and family to read them too. If you want his "exhaustive reasons" (p. 78) or details, he'll tell you along the way which of his other books you'll need to purchase and read to understand his points as they arise. 

Wilber loves to categorize and classify everything in life, it seems, into a series of ranks or quadrants. I was first introduced to this quadrant approach several years ago by a human resources consultant who charged business executives hundreds of dollars an hour to tell them what color their personalities were so that they could understand their associates better. Everyone in the department who had their color given to them quit within a year so I guess it wasn't a very effective tool for the company. 

Anyway, Wilber, borrowing it seems from Beck and Cowan, assigns everyone a consciousness level color. There are better colors and lesser colors. Wilber, of course, has obtained the highest state of consciousness, the color turquoise. Only .1% of the population can claim such an elite rank and color. The rest of us, for the most part, are stuck back in red, blue, orange, or green. The real reason why we may not understand or agree with Wilber isn't because he is wrong. It is because we haven't evolved to his higher state of consciousness. 

Nothing that can be said in this book will convince you that a T.O.E. is possible, unless you already have a touch of turquoise coloring your cognitive palette (and then you will think, on many a page, "I already knew that! I just didn't know how to articulate it"). (p. 14)

From the above it sounds as if he is more like a cult leader than one seeking a universal holistic system. The paradox/contradiction/hypocrisy doesn't end there. Throughout the book, and especially in Chapter 2, Wilber rails on Baby Boomers, calling them all egocentric, narcissists who care only about overvaluing their own selves. Hello? Can this really be coming from a man who sounds as if he thinks he is God's gift to humanity, the author of dozens of books he expects his audience to know by name and be completely familiar with in order to understand him, and the self-proclaimed articulator for the exclusive club of rare and special humans who have risen to the level of turquoise consciousness? 

I do agree that decreasing narcissism and increasing one's ability to put one's self in another's shoes is an important part of mental maturation; I'm just not sure that Wilber is the best poster child given his, sometimes, less than humble, and self-referential, attitude. Robert T. DeMoss's approach on this subject, for instance, is far more straightforward, readable, and rewarding. 

Another favorite of Wilber's is to toss around words like soul, spirit, and spirituality without explaining what he is talking about. In addition, these items are thought by him to be "higher" (see p. 65 for one of many examples where science is dubbed a lower realm) and better than things of a scientific or material nature. Indeed, us scientific materialists, secular humanists, and skeptics of those presenting claims without evidence are stuck back in an orange consciousness level, a full three levels below Wilber and the turquoise elite. 

Not until page 73 (and even then only in a footnote at the back of the book which many people probably don't even read) does Wilber give us a clue what he means by his favorite word of "spirituality." In that instance, at least, the word is equivalent to "experience." Why not just say so? Probably because that is not what he always or usually means. Typically he is probably referring to the more pie in the sky, mystical meaning used by traditional religions. If he really thought spirituality was the same as experience then he could hardly knock scientific materialism like he does since it is based on experiments. 

I was being a bit sarcastic above when I said that his theory of everything is to buy all his books. His actual theory of everything is pretty simple, nothing new, and hardly a true theory of everything (in the sense of what physicists are striving for which he uses as a comparison, albeit a comparison he thinks he can do better than since his theory is supposed to encompass all of life--which includes non-matter in his world--and not just the physical laws of the universe). Wilber's theory of everything is to "invite each and all to develop their own potentials" (p. 82) and to realize that "everybody--including me--has some important pieces of truth, and all of those pieces need to be honored, cherished, and included in a more gracious, spacious, and compassionate embrace." (p. 136) These are important things, to be sure, but they can be found in dozens of self-help books, pop-psychology manuals, or liberal/non-fundamentalistic religious movements, and they aren't erroneously dubbed a "Theory of Everything." 

I will wrap up this review with a mumbo jumbo, single sentence quote from Wilber's final paragraph. It contains many big and pretty words but little meaning to an Orange like myself. Perhaps you are a Turquoise and will recognize the call of the articulator of your higher state of consciousness. 

'The integral vision, having achieved its purpose, is outshined by the radiance of a Spirit too obvious to see and too close to reach, hence the integral search finally succeeds by finally letting go of the search itself, there to dissolve in a radical Freedom and consummate Fullness that was always already the case, and one abandons a theory of everything in order to simply be Everything, one with the All, in this endlessly fulfilled moment.'"

The final paragraph is from the master himself. Now if you happen to find this   Deeply Meaningful, well, I feel sure that I will not be able to persuade you otherwise. (Spare me the comments about taking things out of context--guff is guff, and it's important to recognize guff at the level of the sentence.) However, note the signs of classic American quackery: capitalization for Deeply Meaningful words that are never going to be explained, only linked to other Deeply Meaningful words; a recycling of general ideas that have been around forever as if they were brand new (like, Be Here Now, dude); the positioning of the writer/author as the One Who Knows vs. the Ignernt Reader and Quester After Truth; the appeal to basic desires and aspirations that pretty much everybody has (a hallmark of psychics, spiritualists, mentalists and faith healers everywhere); the hushed, pompous, pseudo-religious tone.

Assigns everyone a consciousness-level color?  C'mahn--I'm supposed to take this seriously? 

I also see that Mr. Wilber's name comes up in conjunction with two other things: NLP--"neuro-linguistic programming," while we're on the subject of quackery--and Naropa Institute, where they actually teach his stuff in psych courses. As it happens, I know a little something about Naropa, having been there when it was founded--and while they often have wonderful courses in writing and Buddhist practice, they also have always had a history of quackery and cultism. Scope out their founder, Chogyam Trungpa--dead for some time now, dead from alcohol abuse and rumored AIDS, since this particular self-elected spiritual light screwed as many of his  students as he could get his hands on--and ask how such a history reinforces such guff.

I also haven't read Deepak Chopra's books, Susie Orbach, John Grey, or a horde of the other horde of pseudo-intellectual self-helpers who get paid very, very well to talk self-justifying ******** to lonely, unhappy, vulnerable people and self-aggrandizing yuppies alike. 

We don't have a problem with leftism in the universities, despite the idiotic abuses of leftists that I have upon occasion encountered over the last twenty-five years or so. We have a problem with corporatist ideology passed off as Deep Thought and mass-marketed in capitalist society, which is what Mr. Wilber's books are. We have a problem with phrases and ideas and images being ripped off (the iteration of, "always already," comes immediately to mind--a good Derridean phrase that Wilber completely decontextualizes and probably doesn't understand anyway) and recycled to sell as product.

Anthroposophy, scientology, NLP, them women who run with the wolves, those guys who do "Native American," rebirthing ceremonies in their back-yard hot tub--it's all quackery. 

The real thing--in intelllectual life, spiritual life, or martial arts for that matter--takes time and work and sweat of one sort or another. And it don't come in turquoise, and it don't come from gurus, and it ain't like this stuff. Among other things, the real deal and the people really worth listening to don't make Wilber's sorts of promises. 

Sit down with, say, Eugen Herrigel. Read back through D.T. Suzuki and Alan Watts. Pick up, say, Foucault's "Discipline and Punish;" Althusser's "Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses;" Thompson's, "Making of the English Working Class," Lukacs' "History and Class Consciousness." Wade through Freud's metapsychological essays, the great stuff written between 1914 and 1918. Hell, read Adrienne Rich's, "On Lies, Secrets and Silences," Trilling's "Sincerity and Authenticity," Auerbach's "Mimesis." Whatever. They'll open up your brain-pan. But don't waste your time with this stuff, which will close your mind and limit your thinking.

"I say it's spinach, and I say the hell with it." Now that Thurber--he knew a thing or two.


----------



## heretic888 (Apr 13, 2004)

Finally, some actual critiques. Oh well, time to dispell the lop-sided misinformation....



> It's a mountain of guff; notice, for example, that the sentences don't actually make a bit of sense, when closely examined.



When taken out of context, of course they don't.



> Well, my first instincts were correct. Wilber is just another new age guru doing whatever it takes to sell as many books as possible and try to build a sort of cult-like following.



A very interesting, and unfounded, claim --- considering Wilber is _extremely_ critical of "New Age spirituality" in most of his books (for many of the same reasons that the critic in question erroneously lobs at Wilber). I'd suggest looking at "One Taste", in which he critiques the "movement" in detail.



> This book is loaded with contradictions and mumbo jumbo.



One must love the irrational polemical rhetoric like these, in which the critic fails to provide a concrete example to back up his claim.



> By far the most annoying component is the self references. Nearly every page contains one or more references to another title of Wilber's.



What this critic failed to realize is that "A Theory of Everything" is little more than a brief summary of key points of Wilber's theoretical system, which he goes into much more depth in other books. For example, chapter 4 only briefly touches upon the integration of science and religion --- a subject Wilber devoted an entire book to ("The Marriage of Sense and Soul"). 

I'm sorry it was annoying to the critic, but he obviously didn't understand what exactly the book was in the first place (a primer for beginners to his theoretical system). I guess his English must be a little lax, as Wilber explains this all quite clearly in the prologue to the book.



> Wilber loves to categorize and classify everything in life, it seems, into a series of ranks or quadrants. I was first introduced to this quadrant approach several years ago by a human resources consultant who charged business executives hundreds of dollars an hour to tell them what color their personalities were so that they could understand their associates better. Everyone in the department who had their color given to them quit within a year so I guess it wasn't a very effective tool for the company.



This particularly quotation is little more than repugnant.

In addition to taking Wilber's quadrant and level conceptualization completely out of context, he tries to further invalidate it with a secondary-source anecdotal example that the audience has no means of checking themselves. Bravo.



> Anyway, Wilber, borrowing it seems from Beck and Cowan, assigns everyone a consciousness level color.



Wilber references Beck and Cowan quite often in this particular book, but he also "borrows" from several other developmental theorists --- including Abraham Maslow, Carol Gilligan, Jean Piaget, Clare Graves, Jane Loevinger, Sri Aurobindo, and even ancient models like Plotinus and the kundalini yoga system.



> There are better colors and lesser colors.



This is a completely false claim, as anyone that has actually read the book _completely and fully_ will tell you.



> Wilber, of course, has obtained the highest state of consciousness, the color turquoise.



I don't recall Wilber ever claiming to "be at turquoise" (a kind of stupid statement, if you take his dilineation of several developmental "lines" into account). Nor, do I ever recall him stating turquoise was the "highest" --- in fact he mentions post-turqoise levels intermittently throughout the book.

Sounds to me as if the critic never actually read the book in-depth and is simply making base assumptions based on his own preconceptions (Freud would call that projectionism).



> Only .1% of the population can claim such an elite rank and color. The rest of us, for the most part, are stuck back in red, blue, orange, or green.



I find this critique not only amusing, but somewhat desperate.

He clearly has a problem with the conclusion, but knows he can't argue with the cross-cultural empirical _evidence_ that Beck and Cowan have collated, so he resorts to simply attacking the author with implications of egotism.

This reminds me of religious fundamentalists that have a problem with the theory of evolution, but can't combat the evidence in support of it, so they create personal attacks on Darwin.

Very, very sad.



> The real reason why we may not understand or agree with Wilber isn't because he is wrong. It is because we haven't evolved to his higher state of consciousness.



I smell a quote taken out of context coming....



> Nothing that can be said in this book will convince you that a T.O.E. is possible, unless you already have a touch of turquoise coloring your cognitive palette (and then you will think, on many a page, "I already knew that! I just didn't know how to articulate it"). (p. 14)



I knew it!!  :uhyeah: 

Still, for all his attacks on Wilber, the critic has yet to come with a reasonable critique against the developmental model. Namely, because this "logic" could be used by someone, to use terminology from Jean Piaget, at a concrete-operational stage to argue why someone at the formal-operational stage is "wrong". It smells of sheer childishness (and fear).



> From the above it sounds as if he is more like a cult leader than one seeking a universal holistic system.



When taken out of context, sure.



> The paradox/contradiction/hypocrisy doesn't end there.



If we're going by the critic's rather erroneous claims, it doesn't look like it ever began.



> Throughout the book, and especially in Chapter 2, Wilber rails on Baby Boomers, calling them all egocentric, narcissists who care only about overvaluing their own selves.



Yet another false claim, taken completely out of context. By no means does Wilber call "all Baby Boomers" such names, nor does he call *anybody* such labels. He, in fact, is only labeling people's viewpoints the entire time.



> Hello? Can this really be coming from a man who sounds as if he thinks he is God's gift to humanity, the author of dozens of books he expects his audience to know by name and be completely familiar with in order to understand him, and the self-proclaimed articulator for the exclusive club of rare and special humans who have risen to the level of turquoise consciousness?



Another repugnant quote, filled with lots of over-emotionalism, rhetoric, and polemic. But, not a single calm, detached, _rational_ critique.

Attack the theory, not the theorist.



> Another favorite of Wilber's is to toss around words like soul, spirit, and spirituality without explaining what he is talking about.



I will refer above that "A Theory of Everything" is just a primer. He goes in-depth on such things in other books.



> In addition, these items are thought by him to be "higher" (see p. 65 for one of many examples where science is dubbed a lower realm



Once again, taken out of context.

I'm honestly beginning to think this critic didn't actually read the book at all. Wilber, in fact, later _debunks_ the notion that the "spiritual" is necessarily better than the "scientific". In fact, he devotes an entire chapter to integrating science and religion.

Of course, you'd actually have to read the chapter that page 65 is a part of, and not just look at the pretty pictures and graphs, to find this out.



> and better than things of a scientific or material nature.



Material, yes. Scientific, no.

I suggest referencing where Wilber dilineates between "narrow science" and "broad science". Of course, that would imply the critic actually read the book --- which he apparently didn't do.



> Indeed, us scientific materialists, secular humanists, and skeptics of those presenting claims without evidence are stuck back in an orange consciousness level, a full three levels below Wilber and the turquoise elite.



This, again, smacks of inadaquecy or inferiority issues, rather than giving any kind of rational refutation of the developmental model.



> Not until page 73 (and even then only in a footnote at the back of the book which many people probably don't even read) does Wilber give us a clue what he means by his favorite word of "spirituality."



If anyone is wondering, Wilber doesn't actually reference any kind of "spirituality" until the chapter that page 73 is a part of.



> In that instance, at least, the word is equivalent to "experience."



A certain type of experience, anyway.



> Why not just say so?



Ummm.... he did.



> Probably because that is not what he always or usually means. Typically he is probably referring to the more pie in the sky, mystical meaning used by traditional religions.



I noticed the word "probably" used twice above, and "typically" used once.

Speaking as one that has read a few Ken Wilber books, I can adamantly claim that the quotation above is demonstrably false. Wilber's notion of "spirituality" *always* entails experience of some kind.



> If he really thought spirituality was the same as experience then he could hardly knock scientific materialism like he does since it is based on experiments.



This, again, is taken out of context.

Wilber does not knock on science or the scientific method. In fact, he evinces a great deal of respect for them. He *does* knock on what he calls "flatland materialism", which is a philosophical position and not necessarily having anything to do with the scientific process per se.

I seriously suggest the critic re-read the chapter in question. It would help next time before making more uninformed opinions.



> His actual theory of everything is pretty simple, nothing new, and hardly a true theory of everything



This I would actually agree with.



> in the sense of what physicists are striving for which he uses as a comparison, albeit a comparison he thinks he can do better than since his theory is supposed to encompass all of life--which includes non-matter in his world--and not just the physical laws of the universe



Wilber's point during the prologue is that physicists claim what they are working for is an actual "theory of everything" --- when it would tell us nothing about biochemical reactions, social relations, economic growth, human psyches, spirituality, interpersonal relationships, and the like. It would only tell us "everything" about insentient matter, which is not what I would classify as "everything".



> Wilber's theory of everything is to "invite each and all to develop their own potentials" (p. 82) and to realize that "everybody--including me--has some important pieces of truth, and all of those pieces need to be honored, cherished, and included in a more gracious, spacious, and compassionate embrace." (p. 136) These are important things, to be sure, but they can be found in dozens of self-help books, pop-psychology manuals, or liberal/non-fundamentalistic religious movements, and they aren't erroneously dubbed a "Theory of Everything."



Apparently the critic doesn't know what a play on words is. A pun, anyone??  :uhyeah: 



> I will wrap up this review with a mumbo jumbo, single sentence quote from Wilber's final paragraph. It contains many big and pretty words but little meaning to an Orange like myself. Perhaps you are a Turquoise and will recognize the call of the articulator of your higher state of consciousness.



More very emotional, rhetorical, polemical, and projectionist attacks on the theorist. Still, no detached and rational refutation of the theory.

Honestly, its like half of the critic's basis for critiquing Wilber is "because his theories make me feel bad about myself". If we were all to attack a theory for no other reason than we find it threatening, then we'd never get anywhere in life.

Very childish.



> The final paragraph is from the master himself. Now if you happen to find this Deeply Meaningful, well, I feel sure that I will not be able to persuade you otherwise. (Spare me the comments about taking things out of context--guff is guff, and it's important to recognize guff at the level of the sentence.) However, note the signs of classic American quackery: capitalization for Deeply Meaningful words that are never going to be explained, only linked to other Deeply Meaningful words; a recycling of general ideas that have been around forever as if they were brand new (like, Be Here Now, dude); the positioning of the writer/author as the One Who Knows vs. the Ignernt Reader and Quester After Truth; the appeal to basic desires and aspirations that pretty much everybody has (a hallmark of psychics, spiritualists, mentalists and faith healers everywhere); the hushed, pompous, pseudo-religious tone.



See above.



> Assigns everyone a consciousness-level color? C'mahn--I'm supposed to take this seriously?



Isn't it funny how such a "scientific materialist" absolutely despises something validated with scores of cross-cultural psychological evidence??

Also, assigning a person, as a total entity, a memetic color is to completely misunderstand the stystem completely.



> I also see that Mr. Wilber's name comes up in conjunction with two other things: NLP--"neuro-linguistic programming," while we're on the subject of quackery--and Naropa Institute, where they actually teach his stuff in psych courses. As it happens, I know a little something about Naropa, having been there when it was founded--and while they often have wonderful courses in writing and Buddhist practice, they also have always had a history of quackery and cultism. Scope out their founder, Chogyam Trungpa--dead for some time now, dead from alcohol abuse and rumored AIDS, since this particular self-elected spiritual light screwed as many of his students as he could get his hands on--and ask how such a history reinforces such guff.



A lot more personal attacks, this time on other groups. Still no logic I can see anywhere, and no rational, detached critiques.



> I also haven't read Deepak Chopra's books, Susie Orbach, John Grey, or a horde of the other horde of pseudo-intellectual self-helpers who get paid very, very well to talk self-justifying ******** to lonely, unhappy, vulnerable people and self-aggrandizing yuppies alike.



Funny.... considering Wilber deeply criticizes many "self-help" books and seminars. See "One Taste" for examples.

Deepak Chopra, by the way, does not fall into the aforementioned category. Its evident you haven't read his books, as you evince extreme ignorance of his positions as well. Seems to be a trend here.



> We don't have a problem with leftism in the universities, despite the idiotic abuses of leftists that I have upon occasion encountered over the last twenty-five years or so. We have a problem with corporatist ideology passed off as Deep Thought and mass-marketed in capitalist society, which is what Mr. Wilber's books are. We have a problem with phrases and ideas and images being ripped off (the iteration of, "always already," comes immediately to mind--a good Derridean phrase that Wilber completely decontextualizes and probably doesn't understand anyway) and recycled to sell as product.



For some reason, I'm suddenly reminded of the analogy of the fish not knowing its wet.



> The real thing--in intelllectual life, spiritual life, or martial arts for that matter--takes time and work and sweat of one sort or another. And it don't come in turquoise, and it don't come from gurus, and it ain't like this stuff. Among other things, the real deal and the people really worth listening to don't make Wilber's sorts of promises.



That's quite funny.... considering Wilber would completely agree with everything you've just said above. I _sincerely_ suggest you bother and look into his stuff yourself, and not go by second-hand accounts by someone that obviously had not read the book he was critiquing (save a few pretty pictures and phrases), and was obviously emotionally threatened by the theories.



> Sit down with, say, Eugen Herrigel. Read back through D.T. Suzuki and Alan Watts. Pick up, say, Foucault's "Discipline and Punish;" Althusser's "Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses;" Thompson's, "Making of the English Working Class," Lukacs' "History and Class Consciousness." Wade through Freud's metapsychological essays, the great stuff written between 1914 and 1918. Hell, read Adrienne Rich's, "On Lies, Secrets and Silences," Trilling's "Sincerity and Authenticity," Auerbach's "Mimesis." Whatever. They'll open up your brain-pan.



What makes you think I have not read the aforementioned??



> But don't waste your time with this stuff, which will close your mind and limit your thinking.



Together, class: an uninformed opinion is just that --- uninformed. 

Next time, go to the source yourself. Don't settle for second-hand ego-babble.

Laterz.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Apr 13, 2004)

Piffle. The man assigns color codes to different levels of thought. And I note, incidentally, that you seem reluctant to quote the genius himself...but hey, if you're happy with statements such as:

"The integral vision, having achieved its purpose, is outshined by the radiance of a Spirit too obvious to see and too close to reach, hence the integral search finally succeeds by finally letting go of the search itself, there to dissolve in a radical Freedom and consummate Fullness that was always already the case, and one abandons a theory of everything in order to simply be Everything, one with the All, in this endlessly fulfilled moment..." 

Nicely Wagnerian, straight outta "Parsifal," but brilliant philosophical insight...nope. Not with a fifty-knot tailwind. 

I'm pretty sure that you haven't read the aforementioned books because you're taking this guy seriously, and because--or so it would seem--you're taking old Deepak Chopra (whose appearance on PBS, along with Susie ormond, I take to be one of the signs of continuing decline under Republican harassment) seriously as an intellectual.

Hey, tell ya what: you're so insistent on this guy's (he color-codes states of consciousness!) theory--so, tell us exactly what it is. Preferably in English. 

It is, however, fascinating to see that you've adopted so many bits and pieces of the languages of criticism and psychology. 

He color-codes states of consciousness. He assigns himself a higher level of consciousness that the rest of us poor dopes, right? He rips off ideas like, "always already," which he doesn't understand--what with the phrase being fundamentally incompatible with any assertion of becoming, "Everything, one with the all, in this endlessly fulfilled moment," since--in its context, it is meant as a radical deconstruction of any and all such fantasies of absolute Origin. (See also Derrida's stuff on, "supplementarity," in "Of Grammatology," portions of which I actually think I understand though I could be wrong.) I've seen this stuff before.

Oh yeah, almost forgot--Freud, who wrote, "The Future of An Illusion," woulda seen through this joker in a trice.

It's poppycock, O gentle readers. Hell, this guy makes Emerson look lucid. Accept no substitutes--read the read stuff, look in your own heart, practice meditation, study martial arts hard. 

Or, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. And buy, buy, buy them there enlightenments. Be sure to get the latest.


----------



## TonyM. (Apr 13, 2004)

Tried to read some of Wilber and could not. Seemed to me he has an agenda and that is sex.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Apr 13, 2004)

Well WHY didn't somebody say that in the first place? If I'd known it was sex, I'd have read all his damn books  by now...or to quote Susan Sarandon's character in, "Bull Durham," "Course, a guy will put up with anything, if he thinks it's foreplay."


----------



## heretic888 (Apr 13, 2004)

Finally. Enough with the second-hand copy and paste treatment, and on with an actual point-for-point discussion. Here goes....



> Piffle.



Well, Robert, I'm sorry if I had to burst your bubble there. You stopped pressing the Cornel West matter when I mentioned Wilber first posited his definition of liberalism and conservatism in 1981 (well, the first time he did so explictly anyway). So, its obviously not the first time I've done so on the thread.

I hope you weren't really riding on anything that critic said as actual truth. When he wasn't lobbing around overtly emotionalized, irrational polemic and personal attacks ("poster boy for narcissism", "God's gift to humanity", "New Age quack", etc.), he was horridly misrepresenting what Wilber actually wrote --- so much so than I honestly believe that he didn't really read the book but merely skimmed it over in no more than 10 minutes.

I could give the examples: Wilber does not posit any meme is necessarily "better" then another, he does not "reject" the scientific method, he does not "rank people" with the memes, he is an adamant opponent of not only the so-called "New Age" movement but also many so-called "self-help gurus", he does not present himself as being at the "highest" level of development, he does not believe the answer to humanity's problems is to simply follow him and read his books (in "One Taste", in fact, he explicitly criticizes someone for holding such a viewpoint), etcetera ad infinitum.

And, throughout it all, the critic didn't provide a single iota of evidence (whether empicial or logical) to refute the Spiral Dynamics developmental system that Wilber was citing. Just a lot of polemic that sounds to a third-party observer as childish whining because he simply disagrees with Wilber's conclusions.

Sorry, but that critique was, at best, amusing. At worst, very sad.



> The man assigns color codes to different levels of thought.



Errr.... sorta.

Wilber is citing the Spiral Dynamics system of Beck and Cowan, originally developed by Carol Graves. They utilize a "color-coding" system as you so aptly put it, but that's mostly for convenience (its a lot easier to remember and say "blue meme" than "sociocentric/mythic-membership wave"). The memetic levels themselves are described in a fair amount of detail, given various names, and parallels are drawn between the memes and other developmental systems (mostly commonly with Carol Gilligan, Jane Loevinger, and Jean Piaget).

Wilber himself simply cites the Spiral Dynamics system as one example of the "levels of consciousness unfolding", as he puts it. Up until 1999 or so, he never mentioned the meme system (probably because he hadn't come across it). Before then, he referred to the various stages of development as archaic, magical/animistic, mythic-membership, rational-egoic, vision-logic, and so on.

Its typical Wilber, honestly. He draws parallels between dozens upon dozens of developmental systems, East and West, ancient and modern. The Spiral Dynamics seems to be the one that has most recently caught his eye.



> And I note, incidentally, that you seem reluctant to quote the genius himself...



I don't exactly have any of my books right in front of me.



> but hey, if you're happy with statements such as:



Quite happy, actually. I personally found the statement to be quite inspiring. Of course, then again, I actually know what he's talking about there and have an affinity toward mysticism, the perennial philosophy, Buddhism, and similar systems.



> Nicely Wagnerian, straight outta "Parsifal," but brilliant philosophical insight...nope. Not with a fifty-knot tailwind.



Oh, I agree completely. Then again, its not supposed to be a brilliant philsophical statement.



> I'm pretty sure that you haven't read the aforementioned books because you're taking this guy seriously



This intimates that anyone who takes Wilber seriously cannot have read the various works you cited, which smacks of nothing short of extreme egotism and arrogance. Are you seriously claiming that, out of all of Wilber's readers, none have read those works??

In any event, your claim when applied to me is false (well, mostly --- I haven't read ALL the sources you cited). I, again, suggest you read Wilber yourself before making such uninformed claims --- virtually everything you have said about him so far is a lie.



> and because--or so it would seem--you're taking old Deepak Chopra (whose appearance on PBS, along with Susie ormond, I take to be one of the signs of continuing decline under Republican harassment) seriously as an intellectual.



I never claimed to take Deepak Chopra seriously "as an intellectual". I do think he is a talented spiritual writer, and objected to you classifying him as a "self-help guru". But not an intellectual.



> Hey, tell ya what: you're so insistent on this guy's (he color-codes states of consciousness!) theory--so, tell us exactly what it is. Preferably in English.



Wilber writes about a variety of subjects --- everything from ecology and feminism to politics, religion, science, and cultural evolution. And, by no means have I read everything he's put out.

So, what I'm basically saying is that you are gonna have to be more specific with your request. A lot more.



> It is, however, fascinating to see that you've adopted so many bits and pieces of the languages of criticism and psychology.



I'm not quite sure how to take that comment...  :uhyeah: 



> He color-codes states of consciousness.



He doesn't. Graves, Beck, and Cowan do. Not that that's a real problem, anyway.



> He assigns himself a higher level of consciousness that the rest of us poor dopes, right?



I couldn't tell you. Wilber does not once reveal what "stage" he is at --- or thinks he is at --- in any of the books I've read (including "A Theory of Everything"). He does admit, however, that he is not at the highest discovered state of consciousness (the Nondual).

Also, one of the major elements of Wilber's works is that no one is simply "at this level". He delineates several lines of development (psychosexual, aesthetic-artistic, moral, 'spiritual', interpersonal, emotional, consciousness, etc etc), and notes that a single individual can be very "high" in one line while being extremely "low" in another. Furthermore, he posits that certain environmental conditions can greatly alter what "level" and individual is in a particular line of development (such as in periods of extreme stress).

So, no. He does not posit than anyone is simply "at" a particular stage (he does admit, however, that an individual may be at a certain stage within a given line of development).



> He rips off ideas like, "always already," which he doesn't understand--what with the phrase being fundamentally incompatible with any assertion of becoming, "Everything, one with the all, in this endlessly fulfilled moment," since--in its context, it is meant as a radical deconstruction of any and all such fantasies of absolute Origin. (See also Derrida's stuff on, "supplementarity," in "Of Grammatology," portions of which I actually think I understand though I could be wrong.)



You are aware that the entire basis for your criticism in the above quote is that Wilber uses the words "always" and "already" right by each other in ONE paragraph in ONE of his books?? The way you're using it is like he intentionally ripped off Derrida, or that he uses the phrase commonly.

Sorry, but no dice.



> I've seen this stuff before.



Of course, you've never actually read Wilber (and are apparently going by a completely erroneous critique of one of his books), so it doesn't appear as if you're completely sure of anything you're seeing.



> Oh yeah, almost forgot--Freud, who wrote, "The Future of An Illusion," woulda seen through this joker in a trice.



Funny. This "joker" has some very choice words about Freud and his theoretical system in many of his books (while still valuing the accomplishments and contributions Freud made to psychology).



> It's poppycock, O gentle readers. Hell, this guy makes Emerson look lucid.



You would know, of course, based on the extensive number of his works that you've read.



> Accept no substitutes--read the read stuff, look in your own heart, practice meditation, study martial arts hard.



Funny.... that sounds eerily similar to the advice Wilber gives in his books. 



> Or, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. And buy, buy, buy them there enlightenments. Be sure to get the latest.



You make some rather amusing claims. Wilber makes it very clear that the only way to reach "enlightenment" is... meditation, meditation, meditation. That is one of the points he emphasizes the most. As I stated before, he in fact criticizes one person for thinking that reading his own books are some sort of "substitute" for actual meditative practice, and is heavily critical of many of the "New Agers" for making similar claims with their own books.

Once again, Robert, I suggest you actually go to the source and READ what Wilber has to say yourself. Don't accept second-hand substitutes. You've let your posterior do enough talking.

Heh. Laterz.


----------



## heretic888 (Apr 14, 2004)

> Nothing that can be said in this book will convince you that a T.O.E. is possible, unless you already have a touch of turquoise coloring your cognitive palette (and then you will think, on many a page, "I already knew that! I just didn't know how to articulate it"). (p. 14)



Just thought I'd put the above quotation, as well as similar comments in the book into context for the way observer. Let's look at the paragraphs the above quotation is situated in [with my own comments situated in brackets such as these]:

"This is why many arguments are not really a matter of the better _objective_ evidence, but of the _subjective level_ of those arguing. No amount of orange scientific evidence will convince blue mythic believers; no amount of green bonding will impress orange aggressiveness; no amount of turquoise holism will dislodge green pluralism --- unless the individual is ready to develop forward through the dynamic spiral of consciousness unfolding. This is why 'cross-level' debates are rarely resolved, and all parties usually feel unheard and unappreciated." 

[heretic888: Sound familiar, anyone? I'd say such sentiments are probably pretty commonplace around here. But, I digress...]

"Likewise, nothing that can be said in this book will convince you that a Theory of Everything is possible, unless you already had a touch of turqoise [heretic888: or yellow] coloring your cognitive palette (and then you will think, on many a page, 'I already knew that! I just didn't know how to articulate it')."

"As we were saying, first-tier memes generally resist the emergence of second-tier memes. Scientific materialism (orange) is aggressively reductionistic toward second-tier constructs, attempting to reduce all interior stages to objective neuronal fireworks. Mythic fundamentalism (blue) is often outraged at what it sees as attempts to unseat its given Order. Egocentrism (red) ignores second-tier altogether. Magic (purple) puts a hex on it. Green accuses second-tier consciousness of being authoritarian, rigidly hierarchical, patriarchal, marginalizing, oppressive, racist, and sexist."

("A Theory of Everything", page 14)

And, to those that mistakenly believe Wilber is just telling you to blindly follow what he says without variation or adaptation (as a true "New Agre quack" would):

"All of the theories presented in this chapter are just that: theories, or maps of the world. As such, they are a useful part of helping us attain a more integral vision. At the same time, the basic _capacity_ for integral, second-tier thinking does not demand that you memorize all these different systems. You do not have to memorize the various levels, or know all of the civilization blocks, or work on making comprehensive maps yourself. However, that second-tier capacity is exercised and encouraged by engaging these integral maps, because such maps open our minds, and thus our hearts, to a more expansive, inclusive, compassionate, and integral embrace of the Kosmos and all of its inhabitants. Big pictures and big maps help open the mind, and thus the heart, to an integral transformation."

"But if you have read this far, you already have the capacity for second-tier integral consciousness (or you would have stopped reading long ago). _What is required is not so much to learn my particular maps as to put your own integral capacity into practice._ [heretic888: Italics are mine.]"

("A Theory of Everything", page 135)

Yep. Real New Age quack there --- telling you to think for yourself and all, and submitting his theories as 'just theories'. I can see the cult forming already. Beware, beware. Piffle, piffle.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Apr 15, 2004)

Much as it pleases you to attempt to deflect this into some weird study of what you percieve are my own inadequacies, let me note this: it is vital to be able to recognize hucksterism, in intellectual life or anywhere else. Could I be fooled/ Could I be wrong? Sure. But in this case, I'm not. 

It is unintentionally hilarious of Wilber to write in the fashion you just cited. Comparing it on any level to, say Freud---sheesh. But am I going to wade through such a mish-mosh of crappy theory, pseudo-science, pop psych and turgid writing to get to the candy center? No, because there isn't one. And Wilber's clear ignorance of the complete contradiction between what he's arguing and what somebody like Derrida has in mind with a phrase like, "always already," perfectly illustrates why there's no point in reading this stuff. 

He simply has no clue that the stuff he's ripping off is diametrically opposed to his dream of a revamped bourgeouis subjectivity. 

Now you can claim all you want that I'm being unfair or closed-minded--scientologists used to try that on me, too, back when I lived in Boulder and sometimes hung out at Naropa. I ain't biting any more.  

To call this stuff heretical in any sense is hilarious. It is utterly in accord with middle-class ideology. 

Hey, so what's this guy's link to NLP?


----------



## heretic888 (Apr 15, 2004)

> Much as it pleases you to attempt to deflect this into some weird study of what you percieve are my own inadequacies, let me note this: it is vital to be able to recognize hucksterism, in intellectual life or anywhere else. Could I be fooled/ Could I be wrong? Sure. But in this case, I'm not.



Really??

You were wrong about him "ripping off" Cornell West. You were wrong about him "hating science". You were wrong about him being a "New Age guru". You were wrong about him "color-coding" consciousness. You were wrong about him intimating that there is any other path to what he calls the "transpersonal" levels other than contemplative or meditative practice.

You have assumed this arrogant stance of intellectual elitism and psychological rigidity for quite some time now. Your views are very reminiscent of religious fundamentalists that adamantly and smugly deny the theory of evolution --- even though they don't really understand what said theory entails, and absolutely refuse to look at the evidence behind the theory. Your only justification for this behavior is that "I've seen this kind of piffle before" --- yet, at every turn on the thread thus far, I have disproven one of your many misconceptions about Wilber and his theories. So, _what_ exactly is it that you think you are "seeing"??

If you choose to keep talking out of your posterior, that's your choice; I can't really convince you otherwise. I would personally never assume such an irrational and prideful stance: I would at least _listen_ to what the other side has to say, and actually _review the evidence_ before drawing any conclusions.

But, hey, maybe that's just me. I guess you "real intellectuals" don't need evidence. Or logic, it seems.

Piffle on.



> It is unintentionally hilarious of Wilber to write in the fashion you just cited.



I notice the lack of context or description in most of your critiques. A lot of mentions of "this way" or "that way", but no explanation of which _way_ "that" and "this" are supposed to be.



> Comparing it on any level to, say Freud---sheesh.



I don't recall comparing Wilber to Freud, except that Wilber has some things to say about Freud. But, honestly, who doesnt??  :uhyeah: 



> But am I going to wade through such a mish-mosh of crappy theory, pseudo-science, pop psych and turgid writing to get to the candy center? No, because there isn't one.



And, you would know because of your extensive knowledge and evidence on the subject, right??   

More elitism, I guess. *sigh*



> And Wilber's clear ignorance of the complete contradiction between what he's arguing and what somebody like Derrida has in mind with a phrase like, "always already," perfectly illustrates why there's no point in reading this stuff.



Actually.... what you just said is the complete and utter opposite of what Wilber actually writes.

I'm not quite sure why you've gotten it into your "real intellectual" brain that Wilber is "ripping off" Derrida, or that he intimates that Derrida endorsed some meditative/spiritual process of Becoming. I've read 4 or so of his books, and he always portrays Derrida as a postmodern deconstructionist (while differentiating Derrida with the extremist deconstructionism that Wilber is very critical of). He actually chides some for drawing parallels between Foucalt and Derrida's theories with Buddhist teachings (some apparently think that the "sliding nature of signifiers" and the "Nondual Buddha-Mind" are the same thing). I quote what he said in an interview, "[...] this was clearly _not_ what either Derrida or the Buddha had in mind with their respective theories."

I'm afraid you're taking what Wilber says out of context (again), and reading into it what you want to see. Just because you saw the words "always" and "already" in the same sentence does not mean Wilber was referencing Derrida, nor "ripping him off". Wilber does not posit that Derrida supported some type of perennial philosophy. I would, in fact, say Derrida would be diametrically opposed to a "perennial" anything --- unless we are talking about Derrida's own theories, that is.  :uhyeah: 



> He simply has no clue that the stuff he's ripping off is diametrically opposed to his dream of a revamped bourgeouis subjectivity.



*blinks*

"Revamped bourgeouis subjectivity"?? I'm not quite sure what you mean here, since its mostly polemic and rhetoric. If you could perhaps elaborate...

I do know that Wilber very much opposes what he sees as both extreme objectivism (some extemist forms of scientific materialism, in which the material is taken to be the only _real_), as well as extreme subjectivism (some extremist forms of deconstructionist/relativism, in which your perception is the _real_).



> Now you can claim all you want that I'm being unfair or closed-minded--scientologists used to try that on me, too, back when I lived in Boulder and sometimes hung out at Naropa. I ain't biting any more.



You are aware that you just implied yet another logical fallacy, correct??

Namely, that because a "fraudulent" group (the scientologists) called you unfair and close-minded, that EVERYONE that calls you unfair and close-minded is likewise "fraudulent".

More elitism and posterior-talking, from where I'm standing.



> To call this stuff heretical in any sense is hilarious.



Who said anything about 'heretical'??



> It is utterly in accord with middle-class ideology.



Gee, that would explain exactly why chides many of the current "middle-class" in Boomeritis.   



> Hey, so what's this guy's link to NLP?



None, that I'm aware of. He hasn't mentioned it at all in any of the books or articles I've read.

I do seem to recall Naropa being mentioned, but I couldn't tell you if it was in a positive or negative light (I do recall him being very critical of a certain "New Age clinic" or some such in _One Taste_).

As before, piffle on.  :asian:


----------



## rmcrobertson (Apr 15, 2004)

Another good solid tactic from 70s scientology: keep insulting the other guy, so that they'll keep up the conversation. As for the "heretical," part, hey, what handle are you using there, good buddy?

But this is just banter. Fact is, I do know what I'm talking about, and a good sign of that is I recognize a phony when I see one. And incidentally, I most likely wasn't wrong about Cornel West--I simply chose not to pursue a hopeless aspect of the discussion. And the other stuff--wasn't wrong, was quoting. 

I prob'ly shoulda just skipped the whole thing. After all, if I went after ever bit of quackery I see, or criticized every bit of pseudo-science there is, I'd do nothing else. And it's inherently annoying, to say the least, to have somebody you take seriously intellectually attacked, however valid the attacking. So, apologies for writing anything at all.

I see though, that you're now claiming things that obviously ain't so. If he's not color-coding consciousness states--and I notice that your last post says he didn't, while a previous post says there's nothing wrong with his having done it--what're the pretty colors for?

And how're you doing with, say, Derrida's "Grammatology?" Me, I barely got through the sucker--insufficient background in the Husserl, Heidegger etc., not enough knowledge of stuff like phenomenology. One thing I am sure about--this guy has no clue about that material. If you want to take this as intellectual arrogance, well, neat-o. Especially given your general intellectual posture towards others...

Here's a point you might contemplate: the point of philosophical language is to make difficult ideas easier to understand, to try and adequately and closely define the ineffable. That's why such language is difficult: the concepts are difficult. But  the point is not to make up color codes, moosh ideas together, employ a hushed and phonily-reverential voice, and give the same old biases brand new terms. 

This is how the guy writes: 

"As we were saying, first-tier memes generally resist the emergence of second-tier memes. Scientific materialism (orange) is aggressively reductionistic toward second-tier constructs, attempting to reduce all interior stages to objective neuronal fireworks. Mythic fundamentalism (blue) is often outraged at what it sees as attempts to unseat its given Order. Egocentrism (red) ignores second-tier altogether. Magic (purple) puts a hex on it. Green accuses second-tier consciousness of being authoritarian, rigidly hierarchical, patriarchal, marginalizing, oppressive, racist, and sexist."


Underneath it all, here's what this passage says: it's all just a state of mind, a personal view, in which critiques and cliches, prejudice and the unraveling of prejudice, are all just different ways to look at life. That's not any sort of deconstruction, which would involve tracing these imagined memes back through language and culture and history--it's an assertion that it's all just how ya happen to look at it, until of course (or so I presume) one achieves lofty turquoise status and Sees Through all lesser beings.

Mr. Wilber can quote Derrida or Freud or Marx till the cows come home and dance--it won't help, because he's simply raiding their work for bits and pieces that will fit where he wants 'em to fit. 

Maybe this is great stuff, and I've gone off half-cocked. Maybe. But so far, Wilber's writings--as well as your own--show me nothing to suggest that it is great stuff. One proof? In the unlikely event that anybody but thee and me is reading this thread, well, O smarter reader (smarter because silent)--whose arguments are easier to understand?

But keep trying to make your points by hacking away at my intellectual elitism and psychological rigidity. In fact, good luck. We get that forest chopped down, we can start on yours.


----------



## heretic888 (Apr 15, 2004)

> As for the "heretical," part, hey, what handle are you using there, good buddy?



My username has absolutely nothing to do with Ken Wilber. If you must know (and I explained this before on the "Historical Jesus" thread), its a play on words and concepts --- derived from the Greek gematria meaning of 'Jesus' (IESOUS), which is 888.



> Fact is, I do know what I'm talking about, and a good sign of that is I recognize a phony when I see one. And incidentally, I most likely wasn't wrong about Cornel West--I simply chose not to pursue a hopeless aspect of the discussion. And the other stuff--wasn't wrong, was quoting.



Hey, I can do that, too!!

I'm not wrong, I just don't feel like pursuing that part of the discussion. 

Whew! All burden of proof and prerequisite for logical discourse gone. I don't suppose you ever noticed that a large basis of your criticisms is your own "authority"?? To someone that doesn't know you, that comes across as nothing more than "I'm right because I say so".



> I prob'ly shoulda just skipped the whole thing. After all, if I went after ever bit of quackery I see, or criticized every bit of pseudo-science there is, I'd do nothing else. And it's inherently annoying, to say the least, to have somebody you take seriously intellectually attacked, however valid the attacking. So, apologies for writing anything at all.



*blinks* Ummm.... ok.



> I see though, that you're now claiming things that obviously ain't so. If he's not color-coding consciousness states--and I notice that your last post says he didn't, while a previous post says there's nothing wrong with his having done it--what're the pretty colors for?



*sigh* Please _read_ what I'm actually typing.

I said Graves, Beck, and Cowan utilize the color-association meme system. Wilber is citing it as an example of a "levels of consciousness" model.

There's a difference between citing something, and actually writing it yourself (as I'm sure you well know).



> And how're you doing with, say, Derrida's "Grammatology?" Me, I barely got through the sucker--insufficient background in the Husserl, Heidegger etc., not enough knowledge of stuff like phenomenology.



I know what I think know. I suppose I could leave it at that.  :uhyeah: 

C'mon, you know these guys never make it easy for the rest of us.... I'm still having migraines from Hegel.



> One thing I am sure about--this guy has no clue about that material.



Or... it could just be he partially disagrees with it?? Nah....

I mean, this might be a shock, but not everyone that reads a philosopher or psychologist you think utters the gospel truth will necessarily come out with the same impression.



> If you want to take this as intellectual arrogance, well, neat-o. Especially given your general intellectual posture towards others...



I really hate to say this, but --- honestly --- I'm just a mirror.

I reflect what gets projected at me. If I see personal attacks, unfair criticisms, or a lack of logic or evidence  --- I let you know it. Sometimes I'm right, sometimes I'm wrong. But, never do I assume any "intellectual attitude" just for the sake of doing it. You may notice that I have been quite civil and friendly towards Paul, whom I argued with quite a lot on the Jesus thread, on the Secret Societies thread. No worries, and no grudges.



> Here's a point you might contemplate: the point of philosophical language is to make difficult ideas easier to understand, to try and adequately and closely define the ineffable.



Bro, you're not telling me anything I don't already know.



> That's why such language is difficult: the concepts are difficult. But the point is not to make up color codes, moosh ideas together, employ a hushed and phonily-reverential voice, and give the same old biases brand new terms.



Ok... so, now you're saying that because Wilber doesn't write "smart enough" or "complicated enough" than that means his theories are keerap? :shrug:



> Underneath it all, here's what this passage says: it's all just a state of mind, a personal view, in which critiques and cliches, prejudice and the unraveling of prejudice, are all just different ways to look at life. That's not any sort of deconstruction, which would involve tracing these imagined memes back through language and culture and history--it's an assertion that it's all just how ya happen to look at it, until of course (or so I presume) one achieves lofty turquoise status and Sees Through all lesser beings.



You presume wrong. The entire point of a "layer of consciousness" model is that no one level is ultimately "right" and no one is ultimately "wrong". Wilber argues that, if this were the case, then all our present assumptions on life would have to be seen as "Santa Claus myths" as they would eventually be subsumed with further evolution and development.

Besides, its not really meant to be a deconstruction. Its an observation based on research done by quite a number of developmental psychologists. Sure, a lot of them differ on the particulars and the details, but most of the models do agree on the generalizations. No matter what time, culture, or thinker we look at.

I also curiously note that the process of deconstruction is never applied to the deconstructionist him/herself. I always find it intriguing to hear these individuals make absolutistic claims about the relativity of values and history --- in a world that's not supposed to have absolutes. The truth is there is no truth --- but, that itself is a truth, no??

Very intriguing.

Now, I'm not saying I disagree with deconstructionism or relativism per se... I just disagree with the extreme forms that go around claiming "Everything is relative --- except for my claim that everything is relative". Its amusing, in my opinion.



> Maybe this is great stuff, and I've gone off half-cocked. Maybe.



Maybe.



> But so far, Wilber's writings [...] show me nothing to suggest that it is great stuff



Perhaps, but please remember that that is just your opinion/interpretation. And, you've only read all of 3 paragraphs from 1 of his books.



> as well as your own



Gee, I thought you weren't going for personal attacks.   

Since when did I claim to ever be a "great philosopher" or "real intellectual"??



> One proof? In the unlikely event that anybody but thee and me is reading this thread, well, O smarter reader (smarter because silent)--whose arguments are easier to understand?



I was unaware that popularity conferred legitimacy.

And here you were criticizing Wilber before because he wrote too "simplistically", but now you cite as "proof" the one whose arguments are easier to understand?? Did you find Hegel easy to understand?? What about Derrida?? Aquinas?? Jung?? Neh??

Heh. Laterz.


----------



## Cruentus (Apr 15, 2004)

> If you must know (and I explained this before on the "Historical Jesus" thread)



Not That Thread AGAIN!!

I don't think you could keep that old arguement AND this one up at the same time without your head exploding, and your fingers falling off. lol...Hell, I'd have to quite my job and ask Bob Hubbard to pay me the big bucks in order to get that one going again!  :boing2:


----------



## heretic888 (Apr 15, 2004)

Heh.  :uhyeah:


----------



## rmcrobertson (Apr 15, 2004)

Haven't read the Derrida, have you? Logical contradiction if'n you haven't, nyah, nyah, nyah.

Dude, I'm presently operating on about the intellectual level of Bruce Lee ("be like water") and David Carradine ("bend like the willow") to refute this stuff. Among other things, no, I'm pointing out that Wilber is needlessly complicating matters that are complex enough all on their own--probably for the same reasons animating those guys who write in to the Patent Office with their plans for perpetual motion machines write in tangled fashion. Well, there is also the question of marketing. (Hm. Maybe paranoiac structures are essential to the marketing of intellectual materials in capitalist society? Must recheck Schreber.) 

"The entire point of a "layer of consciousness" model is that no one level is ultimately "right" and no one is ultimately "wrong"." Javohl, and exactly the problem with this mystifying re-asserter of privileged bourgeois subjectivity. (Suggestion: try getting through Kaja Silverman, "The Subject of Semiotics," and the aforementioned texts of Lukacs--"History and Class Consciousness," and Althusser, "Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses," then unpack the last sentence, then discuss it in clear terms, then get back to my intellectual inadequacies...sure right.) It's cultural relativism in its true--i.e. middle-class fantasy--form. What such a sentence really means is what an Jesuit interviewer from John Carroll College asked me about Derrida in 1988: "Is there not, indwelling withing the Word, an inherent teleological impulse towards Truth?" And it means that in the end, bourgeois subjectivity is not subjectivity at all (cf. Derrida, "Structure, Sign and Play," in "Writing and Difference," with regard to the non-center determining the center, the origin, of structuralist theories) but the Outside, the privileged position, the "zero degree" (see Barthes, "Writing Degree Zero," in relation to this concept), from which all subjectivitites are to be measured. And it means, hey dude, it's like all good.

No, it's not. There is a field of the Real; given Wilber's apologia, one would end up telling a farm-worker on strike for decent wages and health care, "You're just SOOOOO blue level. Don't you see, you're just interpreting the lived conditions of experience (Raymond Williams, O dude) as bad, and you boss is interpreting them as...." 

"I know what I think know." Hm. Love them parapraxes.

"I said what I have said/We come and we go/It's like a thing that we do/In the back of our head."

Gimme Paul Simon over this stuff for wisdom, any ol' day.


----------



## heretic888 (Apr 21, 2004)

> Haven't read the Derrida, have you? Logical contradiction if'n you haven't, nyah, nyah, nyah.



Now, now... let's not mention postmodern theorists and logical contradiction in the same sentence. It won't turn out pretty.  :uhyeah: 



> Dude, I'm presently operating on about the intellectual level of Bruce Lee ("be like water") and David Carradine ("bend like the willow") to refute this stuff.



And the "disguised" elitism once again rears its ugly head. Honestly, you would really benefit from reading _Boomeritis_. And I mean, really.



> "The entire point of a "layer of consciousness" model is that no one level is ultimately "right" and no one is ultimately "wrong"." Javohl, and exactly the problem with this mystifying re-asserter of privileged bourgeois subjectivity.



No offence, Robert, but I'll take that privileged bourgeois subjectivity, which is openly honest about ranking qualifiers in thought, as opposed to the priveleged bourgeois subjectivity you've been referencing, which pretends its something its not.

You say this view is "privileged". Or, elitist, as one could infer.

Yet your clearly regard your "non-privileged" and "egalitarian" way of thinking as _superior_ to this "priveleged" and "elitist" way of thinking. So, the obvious question is: why is your position any _less_ elitist and ranking??

Its the common performative contradiction of most of postmodern thought (not all, mind you, but most). Namely, "the truth is there is no truth, all is relative, a social construction". The problem is that _that claim in and of itself_ is a claim for universal truth!! So, what the typical postmodern is _really_ saying (and what you seem to be echoing) is "the truth is that only the relativist and deconstructionist truths that I in my narcissistic omniscience subscribe to is true, and everyone else but me is wrong".

Just look at the typical postmodern logic of "ranking is bad". That in itself IS A RANKING!! Can you say hypocrite??

There's a reason scores of books have been written about this stuff with such titles as 'Culture of Narcissism', 'Philosophy of the Ego', 'The Me Generation', and so on. The entire framework is not only very hypocritical (in denying to everyone else that which it itself does), but horridly self-absorbed and egocentric.



> Suggestion: try getting through Kaja Silverman, "The Subject of Semiotics," and the aforementioned texts of Lukacs--"History and Class Consciousness," and Althusser, "Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses," then unpack the last sentence, then discuss it in clear terms, then get back to my intellectual inadequacies...sure right.



I'll look into them, but I can "unpack" the last sentence now if you really want.



> It's cultural relativism in its true--i.e. middle-class fantasy--form. What such a sentence really means is what an Jesuit interviewer from John Carroll College asked me about Derrida in 1988: "Is there not, indwelling withing the Word, an inherent teleological impulse towards Truth?" And it means that in the end, bourgeois subjectivity is not subjectivity at all (cf. Derrida, "Structure, Sign and Play," in "Writing and Difference," with regard to the non-center determining the center, the origin, of structuralist theories) but the Outside, the privileged position, the "zero degree" (see Barthes, "Writing Degree Zero," in relation to this concept), from which all subjectivitites are to be measured. And it means, hey dude, it's like all good.



You are once again demonstrating the performative contradiction of the typical postmodernist.

You claim that Wilber's "bourgeois subjectivity" is not true subjectivity, as it is really seen as the "Outside, the privileged position", from which all points of view are to be measured. I will admit there is a definite truth to that, it is only human nature. Those coming from a concrete-operational stage of development (to use Piaget's system), for example, will measure all other subjectivities and points-of-view from within that reference and context. It is only natural (and logical) that this would continue among the "higher" levels of reference as well. This I do not deny.

The problem with YOUR position, however, is that YOU CLAIM FOR YOURSELF WHAT YOU DENY TO WILBER. In other words, you YOURSELF are treating your Derridian/Postmodern/Structuralist/Relativist/whatever-label-you-prefer view as being "above it all", as being privileged, as being ultimately and universally and timelessly true. You are judging and referencing my (and Wilber's) point of view, measuring them (as you put it) in accordance with your own "Other", which is apparently the Derridian/Structuralist position. You don't treat Derrida's theories as "mere subjectivity", but the postmodern relativistic theory(ies) becomes itself the "zero", as you put it.

In other words.... you are measuring all other viewpoints by your own. Your own viewpoint, your own philosophy, your own worldview... becomes the "Other" you lamented about. Too bad Derrida never thought to turn around his arguments and critiques onto his own thought system, neh?? Foucalt figured it out, of course. Eventually.

Its what I've been talking about throughout this post. Such claims as "the truth is there is no truth" is not only hypocritically nonsensical, but inherently egocentric and self-indulgent. What it really says is "the truth is my truth is right and all others are wrong". In other words: NOBODY CAN TELL ME WHAT TO DO!! Typical Boomer attitude. The Me Generation, for sure. And people wonder where all those frivolous lawsuits ("my kids aren't fat because of my poor parenting, its McDonald's fault!!") are coming from...

C'mon, if you're going to be ranking others and claiming your view as "the truth", then be honest about. Don't hide behind a bunch of postmodern rhetoric and pretend that, in your valliant quest to deconstruct all truths, that you aren't just trying to proffer your own truths in their place.

Amazing no one ever thought that cultural relativism might itself be culturally relative??



> No, it's not. There is a field of the Real; given Wilber's apologia, one would end up telling a farm-worker on strike for decent wages and health care, "You're just SOOOOO blue level. Don't you see, you're just interpreting the lived conditions of experience (Raymond Williams, O dude) as bad, and you boss is interpreting them as...."



One could, but that would be an anemic and pathological abberation of second-tier consciousness.

The entire _point_ of second-tier thinking is the health of the overall Spiral, not privileging any individual meme (now isn't that a kicker?). If someone isn't getting enough food, material compensation, or healthcare, the second-tier thinker would classify that as a definite imbalance in the Spiral. One that needs to be addressed. Your fictitious response sounds like what a first-tier thinker would say: namely, that since you're being "soooo blue level", you should grow up and be more orange or more green or whatever. Second-tier claims blue should be free to be blue, orange free to be orange, and so on.

As opposed to the erroneous Derridian postmodern green, which claims everybody should have its values and beliefs and ways of seeing things....  :uhyeah: 

Terrorists can use industrial technology (i.e., cars and guns) to commit heinous acts. Doesn't mean industrial technology (or the Industrial Revolution) is inherently "bad". They're just tools --- as is the Spiral Dynamics (or any philosophy, for that matter); they're just mental tools.

Sorry, Robert, but no dice.


----------



## loki09789 (Apr 21, 2004)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Now, now... let's not mention postmodern theorists and logical contradiction in the same sentence. It won't turn out pretty.  :uhyeah:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Heretic is my new Hero, YAH!


----------



## heretic888 (Apr 21, 2004)

W00t!! I got a fanclub!!  :asian:


----------



## loki09789 (Apr 21, 2004)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> W00t!! I got a fanclub!!  :asian:



Elitism, manifest as cultural currency/education or cash, is an ugly thing when it is just thrown around... or specifically in the face of others.  Keep it up.

Even with my lowly BS in English Ed., I prefer the 'every time you point your finger at someone three are ....' level of reality.  I don't want to confuse my chosen construct of how to view reality with what is real.


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 21, 2004)

Heretic888 - nice moniker by the way.  The numerology is impressive...

This discussion has been interesting.  Heretic888, you have me thinking about a few things.  Mainly, I need to read more philosophy...as a scientist, though, I tend to look at this through a deterministic lense.  How can this be counted?  Where is the definition?  These types of thoughts lead, inevitebly, to a paradox.  How can there be a relative universe when the definitions of so many physical aspects are so readily apparent?  (yes, there is Heisenberg, I know, still...)  It kinda puts the current body of philosophic knowledge in a spin when you think about it.  

PS - Jung is just as hard to read as anything quantum mechanical.  Try Schroedinger, now that is mind blowing...

Paul M.

I think I'm starting to see your point of view regarding political discourse.  You have uberhumility!  Although I disagree with many of the points you make across discussions, it doesn't excuse a lack of civility.  Synchronicity can be a weird thing sometimes.  

(I wish they had a smilie holding up a mirror...)


----------



## loki09789 (Apr 21, 2004)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Paul M.
> 
> I think I'm starting to see your point of view regarding political discourse.  You have uberhumility!  Although I disagree with many of the points you make across discussions, it doesn't excuse a lack of civility.  Synchronicity can be a weird thing sometimes.
> 
> (I wish they had a smilie holding up a mirror...)



I am willing to share the mirror with anyone willing to admit they are as fallible as I or any other human being regardless of profession, intellect or intention


----------



## rmcrobertson (Apr 22, 2004)

Um, duder, the whole point of my last three posts was that rigorously speaking, there doesn't seem to be any position outside ideology--no privileged place to stand and criticize innocently, in other words. You're welcome to turn this into an assertion of superiority if you like, but...

And throwing the Wilber at it isn't helping. It's fourth-rate, intellectually speaking---
"The entire point of second-tier thinking is the health of the overall Spiral, not privileging any individual meme (now isn't that a kicker?). If someone isn't getting enough food, material compensation, or healthcare, the second-tier thinker would classify that as a definite imbalance in the Spiral. One that needs to be addressed. Your fictitious response sounds like what a first-tier thinker would say: namely, that since you're being "soooo blue level", you should grow up and be more orange or more green or whatever. Second-tier claims blue should be free to be blue, orange free to be orange, and so on.

As opposed to the erroneous Derridian postmodern green, which claims everybody should have its values and beliefs and ways of seeing things...."

Derrida doesn't say that. Anywhere of which I am aware--could you offer a reference?

I realize that this is a fruitless conversation, and that outsiders won't distinguish between what I'm saying and what you're saying, but well--here's one difference: I don't throw adjectives at concepts nearly as much, and I don't settle for crude approximations of tricky ideas. 

Among other things, postmodernist discussions didn't say that, "ranking is bad." That was the accusation of, "cultural relativism," thrown at the whole line of discussion. Could you offer a reference for this claim?

Another difference: I think that capital and class are real, among other things. Stupid, but real.


----------



## heretic888 (Apr 22, 2004)

> Even with my lowly BS in English Ed., I prefer the 'every time you point your finger at someone three are ....' level of reality. I don't want to confuse my chosen construct of how to view reality with what is real.



Well, that is definately an important point to take into account.

But, one of the important emphases that K. Wilber makes in relation to objectivity vs. subjectivity is that _neither_ is ultimately and finally and exclusively "true".

We live in an interobjective/intersubjective world --- and we are interobjective/intersubjective organisms, contrasted to what both the typical modernists and postmodernists believe. Modernism generally made the claim of what could be viewed as an "extreme objectivism" --- namely, that there is some "pure objective world" out there, completely undiluted or filtered by our subjective perceptions and interpretations, that we can dutifully record and observe. This viewpoint is generally associated with what is often called the "Newtonian-Cartesian paradigm". Don't know if I really buy into that, but...

With postmodernism, they tended to go in the opposite direction. They endorsed what could be viewed as an extreme subjectivism, with such mental tools as deconstructionism, cultural relativism, and the social construction of reality brought to the forefront. Claims were often made (moreso by the extremists than the moderates) that "all reality is an arbitrary cultural construction" and "science tells us no more about the world than poetry". 

The problem, of course, is that those social constructions are _not_ just "arbitrarily created" in any sense --- nowhere will we find a cultural paradigm where men give birth or apples fall upward. Thus, although it may be a very exclusive, ethnocentric, and limited take on "reality", ALL those social constructions are thus "valid" ('true, but partial', as Wilber put it) reflections and interpretations of reality. This is where the more moderate postmodernists come into play, those whom endorse a developmental or evolutionary model in regards to sociocultural change, as opposed to mere arbitrary relativism (in its extremist forms).

The issue is further counfounded for the extreme postmodernist when we take into account that MUCH of the values, paradigms, and practices of various societies are, in fact, _not_ culturally relative (and thus not "merely arbitrary social constructions"). Many seem to be virtually culturally universal. Carl Jung and Joseph Campbell both make noteworthy claims here, as do more contemporary developmental psychologists, including Jean Piaget, Jurgen Habermas, and Abraham Maslow.

The position that Wilber takes could be seen as a moderate modernist/postmodernist view. He defines himself as an 'integral' theorist, in the sense that he aims to integrate the strengths and positive points of various paradigms and theories, while jettisoning their negative, limiting, usually exclusive ("only modernism is right!!") aspects.

The truth is that we are fully imbedded between subjective and objective phenomena --- neither domain is finally and exclusively true. Of course, one needs to take into account that even that viewpoint I have just presented is itself just a result of my own subjective qualifiers bouncing off the objective world.  :asian: 



> Heretic888 - nice moniker by the way. The numerology is impressive...



Ahhh... I see someone finally gets the reference!!  :boing2: 



> This discussion has been interesting. Heretic888, you have me thinking about a few things. Mainly, I need to read more philosophy...as a scientist, though, I tend to look at this through a deterministic lense. How can this be counted? Where is the definition? These types of thoughts lead, inevitebly, to a paradox. How can there be a relative universe when the definitions of so many physical aspects are so readily apparent? (yes, there is Heisenberg, I know, still...) It kinda puts the current body of philosophic knowledge in a spin when you think about it.



*blinks* Well, lemme see if I can tackle this...

Yes, of course Heisenberg and Einstein brought the wonderful viewpoints of relativity (of a sort) to the physical sciences. That is important, too. We cannot deny the validity of the various chaos or complexity theories, either.

But, just look at it this way: the very act of observing those "unalterable natural laws" as hard scientists often put it, INEVITABLY interacts with what we observe. That was the great contribution of Einstein. The very ACT of observing a photon or particle, somehow, someway, influences the behavior of said photon and particle.

Now, opposing traditional modernism (now isn't that a funny label to roll off your tongue??  :uhyeah: ), this seems to indicate that "pure objectivism" is an impossibility --- we just can't observe the "objective world" without our observations somehow being colored by our subjective filters (whether these filters be biological, cultural, historical, or whatnot).

HOWEVER!! Does this mean that all the observations quantum physicists make are "lies" or "arbitrary social constructions"?? Hell, no. A diamond still cuts glass, no matter what paradigm, values, or words we use or interpret for 'diamond', 'cut', and 'glass'.

Thus, we end up with a delicate balance: moderate subjectivism/objectivism, it seems. Neither extreme subjectivism (often endorsed by postmodernists) nor extreme objectivism (often endorsed by modernists and 'hard scientists') is finally and ultimately true. Because, well, both are.

The question can be posed, then, how do we differentiate between our culturally relative views and values from the more culturally universal ones?? Why, evidence, my dear boy. Evidence. The scientific process exists for a reason....  :uhyeah:


----------



## heretic888 (Apr 22, 2004)

> Um, duder, the whole point of my last three posts was that rigorously speaking, there doesn't seem to be any position outside ideology--no privileged place to stand and criticize innocently, in other words. You're welcome to turn this into an assertion of superiority if you like, but...



Nice try, Robert, but I can still see through it.  :uhyeah:

You seemed to miss the entire _point_ I was making two posts back: it is the now well-known performative contradiction of much of postmodern thought. Let's take a look, shall we??

You claim, in your own words, that "there doesn't seem to be any position outside ideology --- no privileged place to stand and criticize innocently". That's all nice and all, and I'd say that viewpoint probably has very noble and non-marginalizing intentions...

The _problem_, however, is that the "there is no privileged position to judge all others" rhetoric that the position takes NEVER applies such criticism to itself!! 

Look at it this way: when we turn the argument around, it basically says "there doesn't seem to be any privileged position to measure all others against... EXCEPT for the position that there is not privileged position to measure all others against"! In other words, there is no privileged position to judge other positions EXCEPT for the postmodern position!! Its first-tier elitism!!

Its really just a grandiose and complicated way of saying "the truth is that there is no truth". Unfortunately, the proponents of such views _never take into account that that itself is a truth claim!!_ Sure, they may _say_ there "is no truth", just as they may _say_ that there "is no privileged position outside subjectivity" --- yet, then these same theorists go around criticizing and critiquing all other viewpoints _BY MEASURING THEM AGAINST THEIR OWN!!_

That is hypocrisy incarnate, in my opinion. Worse than that, its self-indulgent (typical Boomeritis response: "Nobody tells me what to do!!" --- thus the view that no view is any more correct than another, except theirs of course).

Yes, its tricky. And, yes, its a subtle deception (a _kyojitsu_, to use Ninpo terminology  ). Its perhaps even an unintentional deception. But, its a deception nonetheless.

The major problem with such a viewpoint is that it claims for itself what it denies to all others. The postmodernist DOES measure and critique all others' positions and viewpoints by its own, thus treating its viewpoint as somehow "outside ideology". I mean, your critiques of Wilber are obvious testament to that --- for a world that is "just ideology, just subjectivity", you sure seem confident that Derrida's viewpoint is _superior_ and [/i]more correct[/i] than Wilber's.



> As opposed to the erroneous Derridian postmodern green, which claims everybody should have its values and beliefs and ways of seeing things...."
> 
> Derrida doesn't say that. Anywhere of which I am aware--could you offer a reference?



I was actually referring more to the "postmodern ideology/paradigm" as a whole, rather than Derrida in particular. I realize that was a bit of a logical fallacy on my part, as while they are similar in many important respects, many of the postmoderns of various stripes have very different takes on certain issues. My apologies if there was a miscommunication there.

Of course, I still feel the point holds out and is valid.

Using your own words (brief quotations from Derrida, I believe):

'And it means that in the end, bourgeois subjectivity is not subjectivity at all (cf. Derrida, "Structure, Sign and Play," in "Writing and Difference," with regard to the non-center determining the center, the origin, of structuralist theories) but the Outside, the privileged position, the "zero degree" (see Barthes, "Writing Degree Zero," in relation to this concept), from which all subjectivitites are to be measured.'

The problem with such claims, as I pointed out two posts ago and throughout this post, is that Derrida treats his OWN structuralist theories as being ultimately true, as being "the zero degree", "the Outside", the "privileged position" from which all others will be measured. He condemns and criticizes others for something he himself does with his own theories. Its a disguised elitism, and don't think I'm gonna fall for that in a second!!

To put it in other words: "No view is Outside, capable of measuring all others... EXCEPT for the view that no view is Outside, capable of measuring others". Because, obviously (in the structuralist/poststructuralist mind, anyway), _all_ views should be measured and judged in accordance with the view that no view should be measured and judged.

Slippery, slippery slope. And the perfect tool for a "Me Generation" (in which you support a theory that claims nobody can judge your beliefs and behaviors --- i.e., "Nobody tells me what to do!!"), which was _precisely_ why it was so enthusiastically embraced at the time.



> I realize that this is a fruitless conversation, and that outsiders won't distinguish between what I'm saying and what you're saying, but well--here's one difference: I don't throw adjectives at concepts nearly as much, and I don't settle for crude approximations of tricky ideas.



More disguised elitism couched in pretty rhetoric to hide the fact that you're personally attacking me (and not my viewpoint). Touche.  :asian: 



> Among other things, postmodernist discussions didn't say that, "ranking is bad."



*blinks* Ummm..... ok.

I guess I must have been hallucinating when I read that "there is no Outside, no privileged position that all others can be measured against". That sure sounds anti-ranking (while itself being a disguised form of privileged elitist ranking of all others) to me, no matter what pretty rhetoric you want to disguise it with.



> Another difference: I think that capital and class are real, among other things. Stupid, but real.



Did I ever say capital and class are not real?? If so, I apologize, for I certainly don't believe such claims....

*shrugs* Laterz.


----------



## loki09789 (Apr 22, 2004)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Well, that is definately an important point to take into account.
> 
> But, one of the important emphases that K. Wilber makes in relation to objectivity vs. subjectivity is that _neither_ is ultimately and finally and exclusively "true".
> 
> ...



Um.... so basically you are referring to the over ruling theories that are simply, at some time have probably been called 'new age nonsense' within their own time, a recycling of those who believe in an 'absolute state of truth and reality' ie Pragmatism battling those who say it is all POV.  Somewhere in the middle ( at least through the different recyclings) of a combination of Nature AND Nurture do we find the truth.

Since most of these philosophical/theoretical systems of explanation tend to be reactions or counter points to the preceding one, as well as mixed with a little personal disillusionment from the individual about the times they live in (would that be the subjectivity in the motivation behind the rationale ), I tend to read the bios on claimers as much as I read the text they wrote.  Interesting how some bios are so thin....  Freud has even been accused of writing for fan appeal after his initial theories became so popular....


----------



## Cruentus (Apr 22, 2004)

> I realize that this is a fruitless conversation, and that outsiders won't distinguish between what I'm saying and what you're saying



That's the most true statement said so far. Although I understand the conversation (even if I am not well read on some of the references), as does Paul M. and UpnorthK. I think, most people have no idea what your talking about, nor do they give a crap.   

However, I'm entertained...carry on...  opcorn:


----------



## Cruentus (Apr 22, 2004)

> I tend to read the bios on claimers as much as I read the text they wrote.



Smart man...I think that is a good way to gain insight on the larger picture. It may not prove or disprove the theories/philosophies but background acts as a good reference point.


----------



## loki09789 (Apr 22, 2004)

PAUL said:
			
		

> That's the most true statement said so far. Although I understand the conversation (even if I am not well read on some of the references), as does Paul M. and UpnorthK. I think, most people have no idea what your talking about, nor do they give a crap.
> 
> However, I'm entertained...carry on...  opcorn:



You picked up on the arrogance as well.  I could follow it, on a laymans level, just didn't really care to follow the sophisticated level of detailing, and formallity that it took for R. to call all of us ignorant and stupid.  common practice. 

Here comes the defense:

"I didn't resort to name calling"

Response:

"You don't have to use the name specifically if you write a paragraph to allude to it, what an abuse of your sophisticated intellect.  What a total disregard for efficiency and brevity - call me stupid in one word and at least I can call you concise."

Love the PopCorn


----------



## heretic888 (Apr 22, 2004)

> Um.... so basically you are referring to the over ruling theories that are simply, at some time have probably been called 'new age nonsense' within their own time, a recycling of those who believe in an 'absolute state of truth and reality' ie Pragmatism battling those who say it is all POV. Somewhere in the middle ( at least through the different recyclings) of a combination of Nature AND Nurture do we find the truth.



Ummmm.... sure, I guess. 

For some reason, I am suddenly reminded of the Hegelian dialectic of thesis + antithesis = synthesis. Wilber himself put at as "evolution is a constant process of differentiation and integration, similar to the cell division of biological organisms".

That's why, when people often ask what my political orientation is, I just say 'moderate'. I little misleading, yes. But, amusing all the same...



> Since most of these philosophical/theoretical systems of explanation tend to be reactions or counter points to the preceding one, as well as mixed with a little personal disillusionment from the individual about the times they live in (would that be the subjectivity in the motivation behind the rationale ), I tend to read the bios on claimers as much as I read the text they wrote. Interesting how some bios are so thin.... Freud has even been accused of writing for fan appeal after his initial theories became so popular....



Heh.  :wink2: 



> You picked up on the arrogance as well. I could follow it, on a laymans level, just didn't really care to follow the sophisticated level of detailing, and formallity that it took for R. to call all of us ignorant and stupid. common practice.



Now now, guys... play nice.  :asian: 

Laterz.


----------



## Cruentus (Apr 22, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> You picked up on the arrogance as well.  I could follow it, on a laymans level, just didn't really care to follow the sophisticated level of detailing, and formallity that it took for R. to call all of us ignorant and stupid.  common practice.
> 
> Here comes the defense:
> 
> ...



ScREEEECH....Crash!

I didn't want to get caught trying to take sides in this auto wreck, or blow myself up with my big mouth(lol). :redeme: 

I just wanted to clarify that I am not taking sides, and I haven't been keeping up with the conversation beyond the last few posts to agree or disagree with the idea that "Robert is arrogent" or "Robert is calling everyone stupid."

I just thought I'd point out that most people "don't know don't care" about this conversation...(I take the stance that "I sorta know, am entertained, but don't care")

 :asian:


----------



## loki09789 (Apr 22, 2004)

PAUL said:
			
		

> ScREEEECH....Crash!
> 
> I didn't want to get caught trying to take sides in this auto wreck, or blow myself up with my big mouth(lol). :redeme:
> 
> ...



Guilt by association, You do take sides....MINE (as a member of the surname of Paul Club)


----------



## Cruentus (Apr 22, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> Guilt by association, You do take sides....MINE (as a member of the surname of Paul Club)



heh.


----------



## loki09789 (Apr 22, 2004)

PAUL said:
			
		

> heh.



Of course I am kidding.  I am perfectly willing to make such statements individually.  Now the question becomes is this me interpreting the motivations/tone/mood of the poster as part of my evaluation of the posts or is it just character bashing.  There is a difference.

Play nice, a matter of semantics and subjectivity here it seems.  Follow the formal discourse of debate - yet insult the validity of everyone else and you are being nice?  Not the way my momma taught me.


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 22, 2004)

PAUL said:
			
		

> That's the most true statement said so far. Although I understand the conversation (even if I am not well read on some of the references), as does Paul M. and UpnorthK. I think, most people have no idea what your talking about, nor do they give a crap.
> 
> However, I'm entertained...carry on...  opcorn:



By all means.  This is great.  If only we were down at the pub...

The determinist in me shrieks when I read that EVERYTHING is POV.  There are certain constants in our universe that have nothing to do with point of view.  For a brief time, Einstienian Relativity turned the physical world into a smoky realm of postmodernism, yet the newest reductionistic particle theories are beginning to unify the POV strands into a tightly knit weave.  In some ways, the universe is starting to make sense.  In others (dark matter and energy) our understanding is going to toilet - binge and purge style.  The presence of these mysteries does not negate the fact that they DO exist.


----------



## heretic888 (Apr 22, 2004)

> The determinist in me shrieks when I read that EVERYTHING is POV. There are certain constants in our universe that have nothing to do with point of view. For a brief time, Einstienian Relativity turned the physical world into a smoky realm of postmodernism, yet the newest reductionistic particle theories are beginning to unify the POV strands into a tightly knit weave. In some ways, the universe is starting to make sense. In others (dark matter and energy) our understanding is going to toilet - binge and purge style. The presence of these mysteries does not negate the fact that they DO exist.



*sighs*

Just because the understanding is that everything is a perception or interpretation, does _not_ necessarily mean all such interpretations are equally valid, truthful, or "factual". As before, a diamond still cuts glass --- irregardless of what word or interpretation we give to 'diamond', 'cut' and 'glass'. The same could probably be said for at least _some_ of the physical laws you are mentioning (I haven't studied them that much myself, so you'd probably be able to make the call better than me).

The point is that a "pure objectivism" is, well, impossible. We inevitably filter and 'dilute' what we observe -- whether it be biological filters, cultural filters, historical filters, or just plain personal filters. 

In addition, a "pure subjectivism" (in which reality is reduced to _nothing_ but points-of-view) is also impossible, as there are clearly phenomena in the world that occur and continue to occur independent of anyone's perception. Wilber gave a very good argument for this when he said that even the staunchest of the social constructionists, those that believe all 'reality' and all 'truth' is nothing more than an invention of our minds and cultures --- still believe you should move out of the way of a speeding truck.

Thus the call for evidence that I gave earlier.

However... don't get cocky!!  :uhyeah: 

It could very well be that many of the 'universal truths' that we hold to are nothing but cultural constructions or whatnot. It takes careful and sober examination (and re-examination) to truly tell the difference between the two...


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 22, 2004)

I guess I am arguing against a purely subjective universe and I would have to say that a purely objective universe is also impossible...so hey, we agree.


----------



## heretic888 (Apr 22, 2004)

Yay!!  :asian:


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 22, 2004)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Yay!!  :asian:



Whew!  :boing2: 

I was beginning to feel like a brought a knife to a gun fight!  :jedi1:


----------



## heretic888 (Apr 22, 2004)

*sighs in satisfaction*

'Tis good to be feared by other martial artists.  %-}


----------



## Tgace (Apr 22, 2004)

> HOWEVER!! Does this mean that all the observations quantum physicists make are "lies" or "arbitrary social constructions"?? Hell, no. A diamond still cuts glass, no matter what paradigm, values, or words we use or interpret for 'diamond', 'cut', and 'glass'.


Hmmm..havent been following the entirety of this thread (cant/dont care to/gives me headaches ) but this phrase reminds me of some Zen stories...

"Hogen, a Chinese Zen teacher, lived alone in a small temple in the country. One day four traveling monks appeared and asked if they might make a fire in his yard to warm themselves.
While they were building the fire, Hogen heard them arguing about subjuctivity and objectivity. He joined them and said:"There is a big stone. Do you consider it to be inside or outside your mind?"
One of the monks replied:"From the Buddhist viewpoint everything is an objectification of mind, so I would say that the stone is inside my mind."
"Your head must feel very heavy,"observed Hogen, "if you are carrying around a stone like that in your mind."

There are other stories where monks debate the subjuctive/objective "reality" of say a stick, when the master picks up the stick and drives them away by beating them with it.

I can see the virtual Zen Master picking up this digital stick and kicking all your overthinking ***es clean to nirvana.:rofl:


----------



## rmcrobertson (Apr 23, 2004)

1, Jurgen Habermas was not, to my knowledge, a, "developmental psychologist."

2. Campbell, Jung and their henchmen like Laurens van der Post, and even intelligent Jungians like Erich Neumann, are pretty easy to understand. See, "Hero With a Thousnd Faces," (Campbell) or, "Man and His Symbols," (Jung) or "Eros and Psyche (Neumann). It's essentialist philosophy, not fundamentally different from Plato's discussions of, "archetypes." They say that all human thought and action traces back to underlying, buried patterns--archetypes--that are engraved in the structure of the universe.

3. This is why Jung ended up supporting the Nazis, at least indirectly.

4. The discussion of "post-modernism," collapses far too many different things together, everything from say, a) p-m as an aesthetic/artistic movement, b) p-m as style, c) p-m as development from modernism, d) p-m as histroical development, e) p-m as an emergence of something "in" Western philosophy all along, and f) probably about four more things I haven't mentioned. Problem is--and it's the prob with that Wilber guy too--is that you are collapsing together very different ideas, and grossly oversimplifying arguments, apparently in order to reassert the Same Old Ideas.

5. Still waiting for the citations of sources. Still suspicious about the way they are not forthcoming except in very general terms and names. Still waiting for the new evasions, inclusing the fantasy that I am being merely arrogant.

6. Try, Foucault, "Language, Genealogy, Memory;" Barthes, "S/Z;" Franklin, "Robert A. Heinlein: America As Science Fiction;" and an assortment of the work of Rosalind Krauss, or the DIA Art Foundation on post-modernity, or Douglas Crimp, "The Museum as Ruins," (I think that's the title), or Fredric Jameson's stuff on the St Bonaventure Hotel in Los Angeles....

7. Not that it matters.


----------



## heretic888 (Apr 26, 2004)

> 1, Jurgen Habermas was not, to my knowledge, a, "developmental psychologist."



My apologies. I may have mispoken (although, at the moment, I'm not sure which quotation of mine you may or may not be referring to), as I was in somewhat in a rush when I formulated my first post since you last spoke... err, typed.



> 2. Campbell, Jung and their henchmen like Laurens van der Post, and even intelligent Jungians like Erich Neumann, are pretty easy to understand.



*blinks* Ummm.... ok. And did I ever claim otherwise??



> It's essentialist philosophy, not fundamentally different from Plato's discussions of, "archetypes." They say that all human thought and action traces back to underlying, buried patterns--archetypes--that are engraved in the structure of the universe.



*raises eyebrow* That certainly doesn't sound like essentialism as I've generally come across the term. Then again, you may have a different context in mind here.

In any event the Campbell/Jung system has quite a few subtle, although very important, differences between the Platonic (and Neoplatonic) one. Namely, the Platonic Forms are essentially _transrational_ in nature --- with similar notions found in other philosophical systems, such as the dharma-forms of Mahayana Buddhism.

The majority of the Jungian archetypes are, however, _prerational_ in nature --- often referring to biological instinctual drives or tribal power/safety needs.

However, such a mistake of confusing the two is fairly understandable. Particularly if one is not familiar with the particulars of the transpersonal structures, or the 'pre/trans fallacy' made famous by Wilber.

In any event, Plato most certainly did not claim that day-to-day human behavior was being actively and consciously molded by the Forms. In fact, he made it quite clear these existed solely in an etherial or 'otherworldy' context, and could only be contacted via contemplation or similar activities. Jung and Campbell, however, most definately claimed that their mythic archetypes were influencing human behavior, instincts, and thoughts in day-to-day mundane interactions.



> 4. The discussion of "post-modernism," collapses far too many different things together, everything from say, a) p-m as an aesthetic/artistic movement, b) p-m as style, c) p-m as development from modernism, d) p-m as histroical development, e) p-m as an emergence of something "in" Western philosophy all along, and f) probably about four more things I haven't mentioned. Problem is--and it's the prob with that Wilber guy too--is that you are collapsing together very different ideas, and grossly oversimplifying arguments, apparently in order to reassert the Same Old Ideas.



I find it humorous that you necessarily preclude that a 'problem' that I am supposedly making in this discussion is something Wilber also does in his books. Not too surprising though, considering some of the other claims you have made on this thread thus far concerning Wilber. 

In any event, I did not intend to 'collapse' all the ideas together, as you put it. I am well aware that there are many differences and distinctions between the various postmodern writers. However, I am just aware that postmodernism itself (and its many associated subcategories) derives from a common consciousness structure, in much the same way that other consciousness structures throughout history have generated similar, although distinct, philosophies and theories (take, for example, Deism juxtaposed to Positivism).



> 5. Still waiting for the citations of sources. Still suspicious about the way they are not forthcoming except in very general terms and names. Still waiting for the new evasions, inclusing the fantasy that I am being merely arrogant.



The source, Robert, was your _own mouth_. Or, fingers, rather. 

I directly quoted you several times (a few of which you paraphrased Derrida himself, I do believe), and debunked many of the exclusivistic claims you were making. Your shifty evasion, as noted in the quotation above, does not change this.

The point I have been trying to make, and which you have been actively ignoring for some time now, is that the entire extreme (not moderate) postmodern complex is performatively contradictory --- whether we are talking about deconstructionism, cultural relativism, social constructivism, radical epistemological pluralism, and so on.

Namely, the deconstructionist will take great joy in deconstructing the 'truths' of history without ever applying his tools on his own system. The cultural relativist never considers that his own philosophy may itself be culturally relative. The social constructionist will claim all cultural paradigms are arbitrary constructions, without ever considering this rule may apply to his own paradigm as well. The epistemological pluralist is confident no point of view is any more 'correct' than another, excluding his own system from that very 'fact'.

But, hey, just for the hell of it, let's look at what you actually said _again_:



> And it means that in the end, bourgeois subjectivity is not subjectivity at all (cf. Derrida, "Structure, Sign and Play," in "Writing and Difference," with regard to the non-center determining the center, the origin, of structuralist theories) but the Outside, the privileged position, the "zero degree" (see Barthes, "Writing Degree Zero," in relation to this concept), from which all subjectivitites are to be measured.



Once again, the problem with Derrida's (and your) viewpoint here is that he claims that there is no "Outside, privileged position" or "zero degree" that "all subjectivies [i.e., viewpoints] are to be measured" from. 

EXCEPT!! For the viewpoint that there _is no_ "Outside, privileged position" or "zero degree" that "all subjectivies [i.e., viewpoints] are to be measured" from. Y'see, this nice little viewpoint that Derrida (and yourself) just conveniently cling to sees _itself_ as the Outside, the privileged position, the zero degree. And you sure are "measuring all other subjecitivies" from this position, with great frequency, I might add.

Translation: No subjective viewpoint is any more correct or truthful than another, except for the subjective viewpoint that claims this is so.

Further translation: I am right, everybody else is wrong.

Even further translation: Nobody can tell me what to do.

Coincidence such philosophies were openly embraced by the 'Me Generation'?? I don't think so, cap'n.

Once again, the problem here is that the extreme postmodern is claiming exclusively for himself what he _explicitly denies to everyone else_. If thats not hypocrisy, I sure as hell don't know what is.

Think about it. Laterz.


----------



## Tgace (Apr 27, 2004)

Shuzan held out his short staff and said: "If you call this a short staff, you oppose its reality. If you do not call it a short staff, you ignore the fact. Now what do you wish to call this?"

-Zen Koan


----------



## heretic888 (Apr 27, 2004)

Hee.  :asian: 

Isn't Nonduality grand??

Although, technically, I guess It would be both grand and not-grand, while simultaneously being neither grand nor not-grand.

Lesson?? You think too much, stoopid!! 

*Zen master wacks you on the head with said staff*  :asian:


----------



## rmcrobertson (Apr 27, 2004)

Hoo boy. Why I'm continuing to discuss this I dunno (must be them wacky archetypes) but you might want to reconsider your explanations. 

First, the Habermas clasification is very much yours...go back and check. 

Second, I seem to recollect an earlier conversation on this thread in which you did indeed assert that Jung was tricky. 

Third, Old Carl Gustav indeed did use the term, "archetype," which takes him back to Plato, sorry, no way 'round that. 

Fourth, you might want to actually look up the technical discussions of philosophy/post-modernism, rather than relying on this Wilber guy. Platonism, which grounds everything in fundamental archetypes, is indeed a branchof essentialism. Why? Because such philosophies hold that down under appearances, there are certain "essences," that are timeless, unchanging, unalterable, and applicable to everybody.

Fifth, I guess Wilber didn't make the, "pre/trans fallacy," all that famous. 

Sixth, Derrida's stuff does a far better job of explaining the problem in the materials I've already cited. Unless of course he too has chosen to plagiarize from that greatest of all thinkinkers of the age, Ken Wilber. (Not bloody likely)

Seventh, well, here're your words: "the entire extreme (not moderate) postmodern complex is performatively contradictory --- whether we are talking about deconstructionism, cultural relativism, social constructivism, radical epistemological pluralism, and so on." So good thing you're not collapsing a complex net of very different concepts together.

Eighth--shifty, eh? Shifty (To decipher, imagine Edward G. Robinson saying, "shifty, eh..."), shifty. Shity is whn you throw adjectives and concepts around willy-nilly, then claim that you've debunked.

Ninth? Thread topic: Universities being full of leftism. So, here's me question: where'd Wilber get his education? And with what university is he presently affiliated? Wait, wait, I know...he's better than all that.


----------



## Cruentus (Apr 27, 2004)

Curious question, having nothing to do with this thread, but...

How come you guys (mcrobertson and heretic888) have nothing in your profiles? yes, I know that your personal information does not make or break any arguement, however both of you seem to possess a somewhat educated background, yet there is no info for any of us to guess what that background might be.

I just wonder because peoples background lends credability...not for "status" reasons, but just because it lets us know where you might be coming from, and that you are indeed who/what you say you are.


----------



## heretic888 (Apr 27, 2004)

> Hoo boy. Why I'm continuing to discuss this I dunno (must be them wacky archetypes) but you might want to reconsider your explanations.



Dunno about that, Robert. You have yet to give a response to my claims that an extreme postmodernism is performatively contradictory ("All views are equal, except for the view that says this is so"). In fact, you seem to be flat-out ignoring it.

From that, I infer that my explanations ain't doin' too bad. 



> First, the Habermas clasification is very much yours...go back and check.



If you say so.



> Second, I seem to recollect an earlier conversation on this thread in which you did indeed assert that Jung was tricky.



*raises eyebrow* Tricky?? I honestly have no idea what you are talking about...



> Third, Old Carl Gustav indeed did use the term, "archetype," which takes him back to Plato, sorry, no way 'round that.



And Marx did indeed use the term 'dialectic'. Guess that means that he, like Hegel, proposed a timeless Spirit is the underlying essence of the universe and that we are all evolving towards knowledge of that fact.

Or not.

Just because a writer borrows a term or idea from an earlier writer does not mean they are expressing the exact same notion. As before, there are quite a few important differences between Plato and Jung's formulations on the nature of the 'archtypes' --- the most telling being that Jung believed his archetypes influenced day-to-day human behavior and thought. Plato did not.



> Fourth, you might want to actually look up the technical discussions of philosophy/post-modernism, rather than relying on this Wilber guy.



Nice going, Robert. That must be the 10th false assumption you've made so far. I should start a list or something...   



> Platonism, which grounds everything in fundamental archetypes, is indeed a branchof essentialism. Why? Because such philosophies hold that down under appearances, there are certain "essences," that are timeless, unchanging, unalterable, and applicable to everybody.



Ahhh.... then it is indeed a different context, as I thought.



> Fifth, I guess Wilber didn't make the, "pre/trans fallacy," all that famous.



Depends on what circles you travel, I suppose.



> Sixth, Derrida's stuff does a far better job of explaining the problem in the materials I've already cited.



No, Derrida's stuff does a far better job of _manifesting_ the problem. The entire viewpoint he endorses is inherently hypocritical, no matter what high-brow bookspeak he couches it in in some elitist attempt to make his works incomprehensible to the common man.

I will explain the problem here _yet again_: The man claims (in your own words) that there is no 'objective' standpoint from which to stand back and effectively judge, rank, and measure all viewpoints. Namely, that there is no great 'Other' or 'zero point', as you cited.

The problem with this extremist viewpoint is that _he himself_ is judging, ranking, and measuring other viewpoints on the basis of his own. He is explicitly engaging and committing what he plainly denies to all others. That is hypocrisy incarnate.

The logic is thus: Because there is no great Other, no subjective viewpoint is privileged... except for the subjective viewpoint that says this is so. Very, very slippery slope.

And no amount of high-brow rhetoric, shifty evasions, or perpetual referencing of works that manifest these very same problems is going to change that. Now, I'm not saying that Derrida doesn't have anything worthwhile to say, or that he is inherently 'wrong'. But the extremist deconstructionism he tends to endorse is ultimately a dead-end, and only with a more moderate deconstructionism can the position be made more viable.



> Unless of course he too has chosen to plagiarize from that greatest of all thinkinkers of the age, Ken Wilber. (Not bloody likely)



Ummm... actually, Wilber borrows from Derrida. At least conceptually.



> Seventh, well, here're your words: "the entire extreme (not moderate) postmodern complex is performatively contradictory --- whether we are talking about deconstructionism, cultural relativism, social constructivism, radical epistemological pluralism, and so on." So good thing you're not collapsing a complex net of very different concepts together.



No, I'm not.

If you bothered to put what I said in its proper context, then I pointed out expressly that all those philosophies have a fair amount of differences. At the same time, however, they derive their origin from a common consciousness structure and have far more in common than they do in contrast.



> Eighth--shifty, eh? Shifty (To decipher, imagine Edward G. Robinson saying, "shifty, eh..."), shifty. Shity is whn you throw adjectives and concepts around willy-nilly, then claim that you've debunked.



No. Shifty is when you ignore the arguments of others, and attempt a feeble response by citing the same works (whose quotations were directly challenged and refuted) over and over.



> Ninth? Thread topic: Universities being full of leftism. So, here's me question: where'd Wilber get his education? And with what university is he presently affiliated? Wait, wait, I know...he's better than all that.



Lots'a polemic. Very little logic. Superb. *applauds*

Apparently only those of us affiliated with universities are 'good enough' to write about philosophy. Ain't elitism grand??   

*chuckles* Laterz.


----------



## heretic888 (Apr 27, 2004)

> How come you guys (mcrobertson and heretic888) have nothing in your profiles? yes, I know that your personal information does not make or break any arguement, however both of you seem to possess a somewhat educated background, yet there is no info for any of us to guess what that background might be.



I honestly don't think it matters, and I'd prefer not to divulge any personal information over the internet (although I am well aware that others chose otherwise).


----------



## Tgace (Apr 27, 2004)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Hee. :asian:
> 
> Isn't Nonduality grand??
> 
> ...








:asian:


----------



## rmcrobertson (Apr 27, 2004)

Ah, time for the slanging to start. Let me just briefly mention that one of the differences between good academic discourse and this stuff is that good academic discourse isn't stuck with pushing Spiral Dynamics and whatever this Integral Institute jazz is.

But let's let Mr. Wilber speak, and let readers judge his clarity, philosophical rigor, and pomposity:

"During the course of that long discussion, the topic naturally turned to the war in Iraq: what it might mean, why it might be occurring, what the role of protest is, and so on. Up to that time, I had made one basic statement on the Middle East situation"The Destruction of the World Trade Center" [posted on this site]and that statement still contains my general orientation to this (or any) war. When I was asked to make a specific statement on the present war in Iraq, I released only the following: 

(KEN: do you have anything you would like to add since you wrote "Deconstructing the World Trade Center?") 


no, but just remember: if you are green, you are against the war. but if you are against the war, you are not necessarily green. there are second-tier reasons not to go to war. but there are also second-tier reasons to go to war. green doesn't have a choice--it won't go. second tier has a choice, so weigh the evidence carefully. second tier might indeed recommend war, it might not. but you can check and see if you are "merely" green by asking under what conditions you would recommend war. if you can't think of any, ahem, welcome to green. still, the issue is enormously complicated, even through integral lens, so again, weigh the evidence carefully. 


the problem with this discussion at large is that it is entirely first-tier. blue says bomb the hell out of the evil ones; orange says, okay, but hurry, because it's hurting the stock market; green says, no way, let's be loving. first tier has such a hard time seeing big pictures, so it moves around within the partial value structures that define it. this is a discussion that i have stayed out of since doing WTC essay. it's just a big first-tier food fight. 


unfortunately, the world needs integral action. unfortunately, it will not get it, whether we go to war or not. still, better to light one candle than curse the darkness. so we work on ourselves and attempt to increase our own integral consciousness to some degree each day, so that in the end we leave the world just a little bit more whole than we found it............. 

      I am going to make a few more statements now, not because I believe saner voices can be heard, and not because I believe I have a saner voice, but simply because the insane voices are so shrill, a few more worthless words can't hurt anything now. 

      Let me start by repeating a question Tami asked me. We had finished the "first half" of the interview, which covered the theoretical material, and we were now talking about its applications in the real world, nothing of which is more real than war. Tami asked, "If you could arrange the world situation, what would you do? What is your Utopian vision of how to handle war?" 

      As I often do, I used the terms from Don Beck's Spiral Dynamics Integral to make a few points. As students of my work know, in my opinion Spiral Dynamics focuses on one developmental linethat of values (vMemes)among at least two dozen other developmental lines (cognitive, interpersonal, psychosexual, mathematical, kinesthetic, etc.). But it is such an important line, and one that is easily grasped, that it makes a terrific introductory view. Don has also situated this stream in an AQAL framework (which he also calls 4Q/8L, "four quadrants, 8 levels in the line"), to produce Spiral Dynamics Integral, a wonderful version of an integral psychology. Of course, I am here speaking neither for Don nor Spiral Dynamics, but for my own integral psychology, but happily using a few SDi terms to get the points across. 

      As a Utopian point of departure in response to Tami's question, I therefore suggested a few things about what a world governance system operating at yellow might look like. "Yellow" is the level of consciousness at which "second tier" or truly integral awareness begins to emerge. It is thus contrasted with the previous 6 levels or vMemeswhich are called first tier, each of which believes that its value system is the only true, correct, or deeply worthwhile value system in existence. Those first-tier waves are, very briefly: beige: instinctual; purple: magical-animistic, tribal; red: egocentric, power, feudalistic; blue: mythic-membership, conformist, fundamentalist, ethnocentric, traditional; orange: excellence, achievement, progress, modern; green: postmodern, multicultural, sensitive, pluralistic."

How could I have been so wrong. Absolute clarity, no confusion of different issues nor nothin'. 

Note to readers: anybody who color-codes this way is either an idiot, or somebody who thinks you are. Personally, I don't address six-year-olds in such terms, but hey. That's just me. 

Again, "Heretic" (nothing heretical in your claims at all, I'd say), I'm still waiting to see the exact discussion of ideas and terms. So far, all I find are claims and ideas from these Spiral Dynamics guys.

It'd be moderately interesting to trace the SD folks back to sources--me, I'm betting they're somewhere in that whole twentieth-century pseudo-kaballah guys--you know, all that weird crap in Yeats and a buncha others about gyres, and masks, and etc....

It may be worth noting that in Yeats and in guys like Jung, similar ideas got used to justify Fascist politics of various kinds...let's hope that's not what's at stake here.

Incidentally, I realize that I wrote about Wilber's affiliations. No, you don't hafta to be at a university to have a brain...I'm not, and I'd like to think that...or maybe that just proves the point. 

But I also realize that there was a streak of, "why, them pointy-head intellectuals!" in the last post. Oh well.

If we can't get back to leftism (which is undoubtedly just a color code, right? just another viewpoint in a big spiral where hey, it's all good), I'll just keep quoting Wilber. That'll explode this stuff a lot better than I could...


----------



## heretic888 (Apr 27, 2004)

> Ah, time for the slanging to start. Let me just briefly mention that one of the differences between good academic discourse and this stuff is that good academic discourse isn't stuck with pushing Spiral Dynamics and whatever this Integral Institute jazz is.



*blinks* Ummm... ok.

I guess one of the divine rules of Robert's Good Academic Discourse is you can't support the work of anyone else but yourself. Not very integral or open-minded, but very 'Me Generation' I guess.....



> How could I have been so wrong. Absolute clarity, no confusion of different issues nor nothin'.



Ummm... right.   

I suppose the above condemnation given above, with absolutely no logical formulation or proof for its claims whatsoever, belies the point that that particular article (which isn't very similar to his writing style in his books) was intended for people familiar with his works.



> Note to readers: anybody who color-codes this way is either an idiot, or somebody who thinks you are. Personally, I don't address six-year-olds in such terms, but hey. That's just me.



Ok, I get it: Don Beck is an idiot, and you're a genius. More elitism, piffle.   

I still love the above quotation, where absolutely no logical justification is given for the claim. You know, outside of "It is because I say it is".



> Again, "Heretic" (nothing heretical in your claims at all, I'd say),



Well, talk about the pot calling the kettle black. *laughs*



> I'm still waiting to see the exact discussion of ideas and terms. So far, all I find are claims and ideas from these Spiral Dynamics guys.



Its quite simple, Robert: read one of his books.

That article was not written as some comprehensive overview of his philosophical system, which is actually fairly complex. He did not go into prepersonal or transpersonal consciousness structures at all. Nor did he go into the four quadrants. Nor did he go into research regarding various developmental lines. Nor did he mention altered states of consciousness, or horizontal personality types (not to mention subpersonalities).

The article was very off-key, casual, and intended for people at least somewhat familiar with his conceptual system to begin with. If you want a discussion of ideas and terms, buy one of the books where he does just that.



> It'd be moderately interesting to trace the SD folks back to sources--me, I'm betting they're somewhere in that whole twentieth-century pseudo-kaballah guys--you know, all that weird crap in Yeats and a buncha others about gyres, and masks, and etc....



Spiral Dynamics is based off of the research of Clare Graves, who did not use the 'color-coding' system you are so antagonastic of. As for the original sources of that??

I dunno... I'm guessing Fechner, Baldwin, Piaget, maybe Habermas. The overall developmental scheme is pretty similar to what dozens of other theorists have proposed: preconventional to conventional to postconventional seems to be the basic formula. Beck himself claims that the SD system has been tested with more than 50,000 people in dozens of different countries and, thus far he claims, there has been no major exception.

As for Kabbalah?? I don't think so. Beck, according to Wilber, is supposedly sympathetic to the notion of transpersonal consciousness structures, but does not advocate their existence himself. SD is more Piaget than Huxley.



> It may be worth noting that in Yeats and in guys like Jung, similar ideas got used to justify Fascist politics of various kinds...let's hope that's not what's at stake here.



Uhhhh.... no.

Can't really comment about your accusations concerning Jung there (although I have heard similar claims concerning Campbell, based on large part on misunderstandings and quotations taken out of context), but Wilber certainly isn't endorsing any fascist or totalitarian government style.



> Incidentally, I realize that I wrote about Wilber's affiliations. No, you don't hafta to be at a university to have a brain...I'm not, and I'd like to think that...or maybe that just proves the point.



*raises eyebrow* I'm sure there's a point hidden there somewhere.



> But I also realize that there was a streak of, "why, them pointy-head intellectuals!" in the last post. Oh well.



Nope, just "why, them arrogant elitists!".

Then again, you'd actually have to read my post in its entirety (y'know, in context?), to get that point across.

*laughs* Laterz.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Apr 27, 2004)

Funny. STILL no specifics.

Meanwhile, here's another of the Gratest Hits:

Buy USA | Buy International


Portrait of Ken Wilber © 2000 Alex Grey, Pencil


Ken Wilber is the most widely published philosopher in the world today. Sociable by nature, but reclusive due to the demands of his work, this is the first time he has agreed to have a live recorded interview made available to the public.

The interview, conducted by Jordan Gruber, Founder and CEO of Enlightenment.Com, covers a wide range of topics, from intimate discussions of Ken's personal life to his unmatched integration of science, psychology, and spirituality. From incredibly entertaining moments, to moments that solidly engage the intellect, there is something for everyone in this unique and heartfelt glimpse into the inner world of a man called the "Einstein of Consciousness."

A deep rapport develops between Ken and Jordan as the interview starts off with a behind-the-scenes look at Ken's Integral Institute and some of the challenges it faces. Soon the conversation turns to the shocking but entertaining "Two Truths Doctrine," "Reincarnation," and yes, "The Purpose of Being Here."

The highly charged and entertaining material on Disc Two is the perfect balance to some of the more theoretical topics in the first half, as the burden of fame, the importance of spiritual practice, and even the internet get discussed. 

Only an easy attention is required as Ken speaks about himself or about the theoretical system he has built over a lifetime. His warmth and humanity shine through as his intellect illuminates broad stretches of the psycho-spiritual landscape. 

During the production stages, everyone who heard the interview remarked that something special took place that was captured in the recording. Whether the topic is the mundane or the mystical, you will think, you will laugh, you will wonder, and you will be given a rare opportunity to look into the life and writings of one of the world's most profound and important thinkers. 








Illustrated Glossary Pamphlet.

Read a new essay on Wilber

Join the Wilber affiliate program 

Corrected Track Listing& Times*

Click on the  icon
to hear an audio clip.

CD1

ss 1. Introduction (4' 51")
ss 2. It's Not Every Day
ss 2. You Lose $100 Million (7' 39")
ss 3. Leading the Integral Institute (5' 39")
 4. Approaching the Powers
ss 4. that Be (4' 46")
ss 5. Boomeritis (3' 52")
ss 6. Only One Mind (5' 32")
 7. The Two Truths Doctrine (2' 42")
ss 8. Satori for Worms (3' 48")
 9. Reincarnation (7' 32")
ss 10. Got the Outline,
ss 10. Got the Framework (1' 41")
ss 11. The Purpose of Being Here (2' 45")
ss 12. Everybody's Right (8' 48")
ss 13. Now You've Done It! (3' 35")
ss 14. The Chinese Box (10' 10")


CD2
 1. Pathetically Obvious (6' 44")
ss 2. Wake Up to Nirvana! (8'21")
ss 3. Hallucinatory Nonsense (3' 44")
 4. The Burden of Fame (7' 34")
 5. Strumming the Strings (2' 51")
ss 6. Working Day Satori Blues (1' 48")
ss 7. Unraveling the Mysteries ofLife, Death & Pain (3' 24")
ss 8. A Celestine Prophecy of
ss 8. the Second Tier (5' 05")
ss 9. The Internet (10' 17")
ss 10. Drugs & Meditation (4' 09")
ss 11. The QLink (1' 28")
ss 12.Evidence of Powers (3' 50")
ss 13.Four Quadrants Forever (3' 26") 
ss 14. Which Practice for You? (3' 40")

*Thanks to Cosmin Decun for spurring us on to put up the corrected track listing (with time in minutes and seconds).



Damn, the pencil sketch didn't come through. And he had like Krishna springing out of his head, and the sun and moon and star and all.

Look, "Heretic." You're a believer. I'm not. No amount of invective will change that.

More to the point of the thread, one of the reasons that academics (and academia) frequently get accused of being leftist lies in the refusal to Simply Believe, and the insistence upon evidence for claims, and the demand for books and their interpretations.

Do academics, leftist and otherwise, fall into error? Do we have their own goofy lil' fads and shibboleths? Yep, all the time. Do we sometimes fail to read what we should? Yep, all the time--about like real people, same percentage. I realize it's tempting to place us as merely arrogant types who believe primarily in their own genius, especially when every time I ask "Heretic," for details, I get back some sort of claim that I'm being snooty...listen up: easiest, and most academically-correct way to shut somebody down who's being snooty? Start throwing details and specifcs at them.

And don't be fooled by ANYONE who just reels off names. Look for specific citings.


----------



## heretic888 (Apr 28, 2004)

> Funny. STILL no specifics.



And who's fault is that, Robert??

Very early on in the thread when you asked for details regarding Wilber's system, I asked for which specific areas you wanted to be elaborated. You neglected to give a response to my question, and went about bashing Wilber, myself, and making scores of erroneous assumptions about both of us (not to mention a few other guys).

I also find it interesting that you have constantly suggested reading so-and-so books and sources to elaborate some of your points (you yourself refusing to go into an in-depth discussion of the specifics or their logical bases), but when I do the same regarding Wilber you act like its a personal affront on all intellectual-dom.

But, honestly, if you really _want_ specifics, then just ask. But, again, you will have to elaborate on what areas in particular you want specifics on. Like I said before, Wilber's system is fairly complex.



> Meanwhile, here's another of the Gratest Hits:



As much as you may enjoy copying and pasting large portions of text on your posts, I would please ask you to stop. A simple link will do just as well, and save a lot of space.

It would be one thing if you actually commented, point-for-point, on what these websites and articles actually say. But you don't. All you do is copy-and-paste, provide next to no commentary on the actual content, and pretend like you've proven some supposed point by virtue of your knowing how to hit the 'Ctrl' and 'v' keys at the same time.

And its spelled 'greatest'.  



> Look, "Heretic." You're a believer. I'm not. No amount of invective will change that.



Then I suggest looking at the evidence and accompanying arguments, instead of just making half-assed assumptions about writers you know next to nothing about (that 'semi-Kabbalah mask-wearers' claim you made in relation to Don Beck actually made me laugh out loud).

I really don't think its that outrageous a challenge: give the man's stuff a try before condemning it. Does that really strike you as that insane of a request??

As before, I am also perfectly willing to give _my interpretation_ of what I have _personally read_ from Wilber. By no means will I claim, however, that my knowledge of his work is exhaustive, comprehensive, or perfect. I can just give my (limited) take on it, as with anything else.

But, again, you will have to tell me which specific area you wish to discuss. Right now the 'give specifics' request is too generic to, well, give specifics. 



> More to the point of the thread, one of the reasons that academics (and academia) frequently get accused of being leftist lies in the refusal to Simply Believe, and the insistence upon evidence for claims, and the demand for books and their interpretations.



I actually _don't_ think that's the reason certain circles of academia are accused of being 'leftist', although I understand where you're coming from. I run into similar problems in political discussions a lot.



> I realize it's tempting to place us as merely arrogant types who believe primarily in their own genius, especially when every time I ask "Heretic," for details, I get back some sort of claim that I'm being snooty...listen up: easiest, and most academically-correct way to shut somebody down who's being snooty? Start throwing details and specifcs at them.



You actually, um, have asked for specifics on Wilber all of 3 times (in 5 pages of discussion). And I am being very generous here.

Also, whenever I followed up by asking which particular areas you wanted specifics _on_, you replied by personally attacking either me and/or Wilber.

Still, I can give your specifics if you, well, ask specific questions. *laughs*

Laterz.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Apr 28, 2004)

Well, the attempted beat goes on.

For other readers--though why'd they'd read all this guff I can't imagine--the academic's response is to drop the name-calling, quote, explain, discuss relations.

"Heretic," if  you're into Wilber's stuff, that's assuredly your right. And to an extent I agree; I probably should've known better than to laugh at it as loudly as I  did the very first time I was stupid enough to post on this thread.

But having got into it, I have to say--as a matter of professional appraisal--that it's junk science and pop philosophy. No, I haven't trudged through all the Collected Volumes of this Einstein of Contemporary Philosophy. I also keep putting off wading through the collected works of Nostradamus, the complete Apocrypha, the Books of Mormon, Mary Baker Eddy's writings, Madame Blavatsky, "Men Are from Mars, Women Are From Venus,"and all those automatic writings Yeats' wife george supposedly produced on her honeymoon.

I notice--and readers should notice--that  all these requests for specifics just get ignored or sluffed off. Note: easiest way to handle a fool, if that's what I'm thought to be, is to quote, specifically explain, cite specific references, etc. It's not to write/speak in generalities, make cute remarks about character, avoid citing specific texts.

But hey, whatever floats yer boat. I'm just not going to be lining up  for Wilber's books and wisdom any time soon--and one last thing: real academics, real intellectuals, simply don't draw these adoring, sycophantic websites and comments. 

"Heretic," there's nothing heretical in the ideas you're citing. Nor is there anything remotely new.


----------



## heretic888 (Apr 28, 2004)

> For other readers--though why'd they'd read all this guff I can't imagine--the academic's response is to drop the name-calling, quote, explain, discuss relations.



I asked you for which particular areas you wanted to 'discuss relations' on. You have yet to give an answer.

I guess ignoring the questions of the other is the 'academic's response', too.  



> But having got into it, I have to say--as a matter of professional appraisal--that it's junk science and pop philosophy.



Gee, look at who's giving specifics now.  

Ok, how about this: why don't you tell me exactly _why_ you think it is, as you claimed, 'junk science and pop philosophy'??? 

And I don't mean anything about how he's not a 'real intellectual' or how his wesbite is grandiose, or color-codes being intellectually inferior.... I mean, actually discuss his _philosophy_, since you claim to know _something_ about it (or else your claims for 'junk science and pop philosophy' are completely baseless). 

What particular points in Wilber's system to do you find at fault?? And, what do you propose is a more viable alternative??



> I notice--and readers should notice--that all these requests for specifics just get ignored or sluffed off. Note: easiest way to handle a fool, if that's what I'm thought to be, is to quote, specifically explain, cite specific references, etc. It's not to write/speak in generalities, make cute remarks about character, avoid citing specific texts.



Then you should clean your bifocals, Robert.

I asked for which areas of discussion you wanted specifics on. You have yet to give a reply on that, instead making your perpetual attacks on me in some attempt to validate your pseudo-arguments.

Thus, for the sake of clarity, I will say it again: I will give specifics if you give me specifics. _Specify_ what particular area in Wilber's system you wish to discuss (mind/body problem, spectrum of consciousness, four quadrants, ecology, feminism, boomeritis, flatland, premodernity vs modernity vs postmodernity, multiple lines of development, pre/trans fallacy, moral development, aesthetics, nature of 'science', nature of 'religion', politics, so on and so on), and I will give you _specifics_.



> But hey, whatever floats yer boat. I'm just not going to be lining up for Wilber's books and wisdom any time soon--and one last thing: real academics, real intellectuals, simply don't draw these adoring, sycophantic websites and comments.



And, again, we see the tinge of elitism revealed: the qualifer of 'real intellectual' and 'real academic'. Lots of personal attacks and polemic, but no discussion of the philosophy of said individual. Just rationalizations on how the critic is _so much_ smarter and morally superior. Bleh.



> "Heretic," there's nothing heretical in the ideas you're citing. Nor is there anything remotely new.



Which implies you know anything about the specifics of the ideas in question. You apparently don't.

Happy, happy day.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Apr 28, 2004)

That's just so...so...orange of you.

OK. Ya want an essay question:

Please discuss Ken Wilber's account of feminism in a) its relation to what might be identified as the, "liberationist," aspect of feminist theory, with particular regard to the humanist theory of Marry Wollestonecraft's, "Vindication of the Rights of Women;" b) the structuralist and anthropological critique of gender positions advanced perhaps first by DeBeauvoir in "The Second Sex," (and in a nearly-simultaneous, more-utopian fashion by Margaret Mead; c) the marxist and, "economic-oriented," discussions of Dorothy Thompson and the subsequent m/f group (keeping in mind their considerable differences); d) the "lesbianism as politics," line traceable, most patently, back through Adrienne Rich (with especial referencee to her collection, "On Lies, secrets and Silences); e)  the "deconstructive," tactics of critique visible most obviously in Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, "In Other Worlds," and Julia Kristeva (but to some extent in the more-conservatively literary work of Barbara Johnson); f) the "backlash," represented in very different ways by Katie Roiphe and Camille Paglia; g) the psychoalytic and semiotic-oriented studies of Claire Kahane, Jane Gallup and Kaja Silverman.

Before you ask, no, didn't look nothin' up. 

Can't wait to read the evasion of response. Perhaps I can be color-coded. 

For others--if you look this stuff up, well, you may indeed get  the impression that the University is infested by leftists. Would that that were true.


----------



## heretic888 (May 20, 2004)

> I notice--and readers should notice--that all these requests for specifics just get ignored or sluffed off. Note: easiest way to handle a fool, if that's what I'm thought to be, is to quote, specifically explain, cite specific references, etc. It's not to write/speak in generalities, make cute remarks about character, avoid citing specific texts.



I found some links that may be of help to you:

- The following gives an outline of Wilber's "Integral Psychology" model: http://wilber.shambhala.com/html/books/psych_model/psych_model1.cfm/

- The following is an interview with Wilber in which he mentions the Naropa Institute you cited before: http://wilber.shambhala.com/html/interviews/Shambhala_interview.cfm/

- The following is a fairly long article in which Wilber addresses points that Jurgen Harberman and Hans-Willi Weis have raised against him in some of their works: 
http://wilber.shambhala.com/html/misc/habermas/index.cfm/

- The following is an article in which Wilber addresses the issue of critics misreprensenting his position: http://wilber.shambhala.com/html/misc/critics_01.cfm/

- The following is Wilber's overall viewpoint on religion/spirituality (this is one of my favorites): http://wilber.shambhala.com/html/misc/spthtr.cfm/

Hope this helps. I can try and clarify any particular points you may want to discuss.

Laterz.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Jun 18, 2004)

in response to the original link....

I have worked and studied at a number of universities.  My experiences do not match up with that list at all.  

Wow, talk about a chip on your shoulder.  I've met people at universities who are pretty conservative and pretty liberal.  Most people are a mix of the two.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jun 20, 2004)

TonyM. said:
			
		

> Tried to read some of Wilber and could not. Seemed to me he has an agenda and that is sex.




Well, Hell...that's good enough for me.  Let me hobble out the door and get my copy!

Robert and Heretic going at it...it reminds me of the battle of Jutland.  Watching the huge salvos go back and forth...the whooshing of the shells...the impacts...the explosions.  The struggle of brave men in desperate hours.  I'm really enjoying this.

My experience at the University is limited, of course, to my own experience.  Of those friends I have who are professors, all but one are liberal...but hardly have an aversion to capitalism or money.  As liberals they tend to look down upon fringe feminism and communism, and view themselves as progressives.  They don't define themselves according to any rightist stereotype.  Some, granted, do engage in mea culpa breast beating and openly express a sort of white guilt...others do not and drive SUV's and sip Starbuck's latte's, occasionally writing out a check to DNC.

Have we asked the question as to why the Right DOESN'T dominate the university setting?  In doing so shall we also whip out the stereotypes and list those on the Right at racist, creationist, fundamentalist, bible thumping, flag waving jingoistic fascists?  Always fun to do, but is it accurate and fair?


Regards,


Steve


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jun 21, 2004)

It depends on a) which departments you're talking about; b) which schools you're talking about.

I don't agree that the "liberal," and, "conservative," stuff means very much. I see colleges and universities, at this point, as being heavily invested by capitalism--and that tends to link the "different," political views.

As for why there's less "rightist," stuff, well, the problem is that in the humanites by and large the right hasn't been able to hang with the historians, cultural critics, literary theorists, artists and art criticis, musicians, etc., of the last couple generations. There are notable exceptions--W. Jackson Bate, for example--but by and large, their work just isn't very interesting.

Another way to see it is that the times just aren't right for interesting right-wing intellectual developments--most of the stuff you hear about from, say, "The American Spectator," is from third-raters at best.

Another way to understand it is that, well, of course the poeple in our society with the time and training to read, research, understand and teach tend to be opposed to the likes of our current Administration.

And a last one is that the privileged can afford intellectual opposition--the better question would be to ask, as many have asked, how their, "opposition," helps the development of the state of things as they are.


----------

