Why are Universities dominated by the Left?

[heretic888]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The source, Robert, was your own mouth. Or, fingers, rather.

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

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

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

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

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

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

EXCEPT!! For the viewpoint that there is no "Outside, privileged position" or "zero degree" that "all subjectivies [i.e., viewpoints] are to be measured" from. Y'see, this nice little viewpoint that Derrida (and yourself) just conveniently cling to sees itself as the Outside, the privileged position, the zero degree. And you sure are "measuring all other subjecitivies" from this position, with great frequency, I might add.

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

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

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

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

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

Think about it. Laterz.

 

[Tgace]

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

-Zen Koan

 

[heretic888]

Hee. :asian:

Isn't Nonduality grand??

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

Lesson?? You think too much, stoopid!!

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

 

[rmcrobertson]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Cruentus]

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

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

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

 

[heretic888]

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

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

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

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

If you say so.

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

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

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

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

Or not.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Depends on what circles you travel, I suppose.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No, I'm not.

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

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

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

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

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

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

*chuckles* Laterz.

 

[heretic888]

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

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

 

[Tgace]

Hee. :asian:

Isn't Nonduality grand??

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

Lesson?? You think too much, stoopid!!

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

:asian:

 

[rmcrobertson]

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

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

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

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


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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[heretic888]

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

*blinks* Ummm... ok.

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

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

Ummm... right.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Uhhhh.... no.

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

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

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

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

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

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

*laughs* Laterz.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Funny. STILL no specifics.

Meanwhile, here's another of the Gratest Hits:

Buy USA | Buy International


Portrait of Ken Wilber © 2000 Alex Grey, Pencil


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

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

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

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

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

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








Illustrated Glossary Pamphlet.

Read a new essay on Wilber

Join the Wilber affiliate program

Corrected Track Listing& Times*

Click on the icon
to hear an audio clip.

CD1

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


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

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



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

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

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

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

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

 

[heretic888]

Funny. STILL no specifics.

And who's fault is that, Robert??

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

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

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

Meanwhile, here's another of the Gratest Hits:

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

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

And its spelled 'greatest'.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I actually don't think that's the reason certain circles of academia are accused of being 'leftist', although I understand where you're coming from. I run into similar problems in political discussions a lot.

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

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

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

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

Laterz.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Well, the attempted beat goes on.

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[heretic888]

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

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

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

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

Gee, look at who's giving specifics now.

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

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

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

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

Then you should clean your bifocals, Robert.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Happy, happy day.

 

[rmcrobertson]

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

OK. Ya want an essay question:

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

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

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

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

 

[heretic888]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Laterz.

 

[Feisty Mouse]

in response to the original link....

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

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

 

[hardheadjarhead]

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

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

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

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

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


Regards,


Steve

 

[rmcrobertson]

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

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

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

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

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

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