Why are Universities dominated by the Left?

[rmcrobertson]

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]

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]

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]

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:



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



*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:

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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:

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

 

[Cruentus]

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

heh.

 

[loki09789]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Yay!! :asian:

 

[Makalakumu]

Yay!! :asian:

Whew! :boing2:

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

 

[heretic888]

*sighs in satisfaction*

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

 

[Tgace]

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]

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.