Click the link - please, I beg you!!

Here are the blog round-ups for the Ken Wilber rant provocation.

Initial provocative rant.

Follow-up to provocation of rant.

Both of the links above should remain active going forward - so new posts will be picked up by the Google Blog Search, for those who bother to link.  Now there are posts ABOUT the Wilber blogs, that don't link to them.  These won't be picked up.

There are two great anonymous comments that I have found in the blogosphere, that are worthwhile pointing to -

One was posted at Matthew Dallman's place - Matthew realized the quality of the comment and used it for a separate post, so I'll just link to that:

The other I am trying to find, and right now I can't - it is one of the ten active integral blogs, so you know who you are - please help me out if you can, but it was something like (and this is a paraphrase):

I wrote my masters thesis on Wilber, and was very enthusiastic, but the review board kept pointing out that a lot of the Wilber writing was (rhetoric?) rather than good research.  As such, it couldn't be validated even in the type of validation used for the "softer" disciplines."

Maybe someone will help me out with that.

Also - one good great thing that has happened because of this -

I never realized that Michael Bauwens had been moving ahead with his Peer to Peer Foundation.

But not only is he moving forward - he has both the site, the blog, and the wiki!!

UPDATE: 

Shawn points me to the relevant comment - which was on WilberWatch - see Shawn's comment below.  What is relevant:

As I was defending my honors thesis on Sex, Ecology, Spirituality, my committee tried to get me to see that because of his style of presentation, Wilber gives himself the opportunity to categorize others as is convenient for his models. Because he tends to speak for them, he puts the burden on himself to represent them fairly.

In my case, because I was exposed to so much of what Wilber talks about via Wilber, it didn't occur to me that he could be misinterpreting. And when his statements were backed by assertions that everyone in the particular field was in agreement, I didn't think to go and check if that was true. I took him at his word, thinking that if there weren't the consensus he claimed, I would be hearing about it. But from where? Certainly not in his books.

His straw man arguments have kept Wilber from being taken seriously in academia. He gets away with this by skipping one of the very steps in the scientific process that he extolls in his writing: peer review. Without an open dialogue, Wilber forgoes the integrity of his work.

That, I think, is Visser's main point: that Wilber needs to open himself to criticism for the sake of his project, not that a generation reading Wilber is dim-witted.

That's a very good point on the academic side of the ledger.