Here's the link - if you haven't seen it.

Now that Ken Wilber has revealed that the blogrant post was a deliberate provocation - as many of us NOT in the know suspected - there isn't much that I would have to retract, yet, of my posts of the last few days.  At least at this point - although I'm sure that is coming. 

a. I initially was puzzled,
b. the logic didn't make much sense
c. Visser is still being distorted, and
d. In the last post, I speculated that this was deliberate, as well as anticipated Ken's appeal to the 2nd tier.
e.(I also in the beginning speculated that part of the reason for Ken's post was to pick up clicks.)

Here's the relevant passage: from my previous post - written before Ken reveals that his initial blog rant was a deliberate provocation:

1. I feel that Ken is being pretty honest here.  He truly sees almost all critics that address him as not being able to either understand his theory, or attacking his theories for nefarious reasons.  And he feels that about Visser, though clearly his logic on that is skewed (as I've demonstrated.)

2. At the same time - he is "blowing it up" - taking his normal arguments and exaggerating them, for effect.  In this sense, he is playing with his normal reaction, and, to a degree, spoofing it, with a wink and a smile.  ("I'm just kidding with all the dick references, can't you tell?")

If you are going to stick in the verbal shiv - the best way to do it, is to tell a joke while you are doing the sticking.  Then you always have an out - "I'm just kidding - don't you have a sense of humor?". 

3. And, I want to describe a very important point here, and I mainly mean this as a response to Jay Andrew Allen, and also a little to Bill -

When a person has some access to some higher consciousness - a higher truth, etc, that has been achieved in a particular bodymind, this truth shines through - even if the bodymind shining that truth is behaving in a particularly atrocious way. 

While I was (clearly) obsessing about Wilber's post and what it "means" (and what is a blogger but an obsesser?), I began to "touch", and "vibrate" with that sense of cosmic play.  In this sense, Ken's smiling mug, winking at me saying "see?  all this - these horrible words - these words too do not destroy the truth of your Self.  So open, live, love, play, be angry in the beneficience of God. Because this is the final Truth".

Now, why I am attempting to justify my recent posts of the last few days?  

While you may think it is just because of the natural tendency not to want to made to look foolish - and I'm sure that is part of it - but there is another reason:

This actually, for me, reaffirms the ability of blogs - using this type of communal analysis - to suss out truth.  Even while interpreting words on a screen.  For example, I was helped along in my perception, by hearing those people who were saying "do you get the joke?", and helped by pretty much all the posts I've read over the last few days.

Communally, we didn't do a bad job.  Maybe this blog thing has a future?

Okay.  Well, I have received very little argument on the fallacies I point out previously, in my other two posts about the Ken Wilber rant.

So I am going to take it as given, that the CONTENT that I am pointing to of Ken's post was silly and illogical. 
 
Let's all agree on that.

At the same time:

There were lots of well-written refutations in Ken's piece.

The only problem is that most of the well-written refutations aren't addressing the actual arguments that ARE valid, but either distorting the valid arguments, or lumping all arguments into various easy to shoot down strawman arguments (and thus the well-written refutations of those strawmen).

But what is more fascinating - is how the reaction was over the map - in the blogosphere.  Ranging from outright condemnation (Matthew Dallman gives a valid post in this vein) to near-outright condemnation (Tuff Ghost, others), to deep concern (myself, Bill) to concern-then-eureka (Jay Allen),  to "laugh my ass off", to "Ken's a brilliant genius, using mere works to liberate with authenticity, spoofing brilliantly, and being post-post-modern in a scintilla of words as play-of-lila - you go Ken!" (a lot of the Ken defenders in this thread.)

I wanted to bring up parallel situations that have happened recently. 

Very recently, there was a controversy about Anne Coulter, who described the 9-11 group of wives as "I've never found a group of women so enjoying the deaths of their husbands". 

Needless to say - this was a very divisive statement.  Most liberals (and the mainstream, actually) condemned these statements as hateful, abusive, etc.  But the apologists said something to the effect of  "she's just joking", "she is using humor to make her point", "don't take it seriously, but her POINT is valid".

Which of course - apologists do.  And there is a remarkable similarity in style between the apologists for Coulter and the apologists for Wilber.

On the other side - not long ago, there was a disturbance in the blogforce , when Stephen Colbert spoke at the White House Correspondence Dinner.  Some people found this hilarious.  Some people thought that Colbert was being rude.  Some people didn't "get it."  (sound familiar?) One of the suggestions has been, that Wilber was pulling a parody in the rant post, a spoof - and the question has been "don't you get it?".  And this reminded me of Stephen Colbert's appearance.

However, there is less similarity here.  Colbert is putting on the facade of a conservative blowhard, pretending to condemn the left, while actually showing how ridiculous his facade was. 

Wilber, of course, did not put on the role of an integral critic, spoofing integral criticisms, to show how ridiculous the integral critics were. 

In addition:

This particular blogrant of Wilber's is actually similar to verbal defenses that have been historically used by Ken Wilber. The enemies are the people who misunderstand his work, and haven't kept up with his theory.  Which usually seem to revolve around labeling critics either:

Mean green or
Stupid or
Out of date or
A misunderstanding

So there is less there than meets the eye.

So - in the title - I promised to clue you in on the truth.  Since you have read this far, noble reader, you deserve it, and here it is!  ALL the main 4 reactions above, explained!

1. I feel that Ken is being pretty honest here.  He truly sees almost all critics that address him as not being able to either understand his theory, or attacking his theories for nefarious reasons.  And he feels that about Visser, though clearly his logic on that is skewed (as I've demonstrated.)

2. At the same time - he is "blowing it up" - taking his normal arguments and exaggerating them, for effect.  In this sense, he is playing with his normal reaction, and, to a degree, spoofing it, with a wink and a smile.  ("I'm just kidding with all the dick references, can't you tell?")

If you are going to stick in the verbal shiv - the best way to do it, is to tell a joke while you are doing the sticking.  Then you always have an out - "I'm just kidding - don't you have a sense of humor?". 

3. And, I want to describe a very important point here, and I mainly mean this as a response to Jay Andrew Allen, and also a little to Bill -

When a person has some access to some higher consciousness - a higher truth, etc, that has been achieved in a particular bodymind, this truth shines through - even if the bodymind shining that truth is behaving in a particularly atrocious way. 

While I was (clearly) obsessing about Wilber's post and what it "means" (and what is a blogger but an obsesser?), I began to "touch", and "vibrate" with that sense of cosmic play.  In this sense, Ken's smiling mug, winking at me saying "see?  all this - these horrible words - these words too do not destroy the truth of your Self.  So open, live, love, play, be angry in the beneficience of God. Because this is the final Truth".

My supposition is this - Ken has some stabilization of realization, and this comes through in his work.  Most of us who have read his work, have experiencd this "lifting up".

I say this experience can come through, even if Ken is being a defensive jerk, defending himself with illogic, nastiness, and distortion.  Because that bodymind that has the stabilization radiates the truth - despite the particulars of what that bodymind is doing.

Wilber himself said it best, regarding Adi Da:

"In ways that we are just beginning to understand, some types of spiritual development can run way ahead of moral, social, interpersonal, and wisdom development in general. Da is capable of some truly exquisite insights, but in other areas, he has fared less well, and this has increasingly verged on the catastrophic."

While in NO WAY is Ken Wilber as dangerous as Adi Da - (Wilber doesn't damage people, he simply sometimes defends integral THEORY dishonestly and nastily - but theory is one thing, people another) it remains the case that:

a. Wilber has some stabilization of realization.
b. Wilber has produced an incredibly theory, merging together many different strands of research and areas of life.
c. Wilber does not engage and enter into a valid, constructive feedback with critics of Integral Theory - and as such, there is, and remain, a lot of sloppiness and unexamined claims in the theory.
d. Given the at least 10 year history of C above, all should assume that valid criticism OF Wilber's theory is not going to come FROM Wilber. 

And that is normally the case from the creator of a theory.  It's made a bit worse here, in that Wilber was able to bypass the normal process of submitting theories to criticism, by being a successful popular writer.

That is how it stands now - from the perception of this bodymind.

As such, it is an interpretation of a mind - Ken Wilber's - that I have no direct access to. (Similar to when Wilber intrepreted Visser FOR Visser.)  As such this interpretation is filled with projection.

Nevertheless, analyzing the signs, signifiers, logic, and patterns of behavior in Ken's words and those who are in disagreement, is utilizing some of the same tools we use to interpet the world and our intersubjective reality.  So my hope is that this interpretation reflects a more accurate representation of reality.

Otherwise - why blog at all?