Why are Universities dominated by the Left?

[rmcrobertson]

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]

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]

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.]

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

 

[rmcrobertson]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Heh. :uhyeah:

 

[rmcrobertson]

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]

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]

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



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



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.



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



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??



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.

Heretic is my new Hero, YAH!

 

[heretic888]

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

 

[loki09789]

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]

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]

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