I read Ken's latest blog entry where it's a mult-level experiment and if you don't see the light you're not 2nd tier. And then your comments that there are many really bright, independent folks at I-I who are not cult followers. I would hope and think so. So to those of you that fit that category I plead: Do an intervention on Ken! Now! For his sake and the sake of I-I and the integral community in general. I know the idea has occured to you, so get off your asses and do it now before it's too late. (If it's not already.) THAT is your 2nd-tier test.

Dude, that's a fucking riot. :)

Glad u like it - looks like u r the only one. My attempt at "multi-level, multiple meaning" art.

a. Shallow pop as the background -
b. attractive yet slightly malevolent Wilber
c. perpetually confused-looking "Chandler" - with all the backstory that implies.
d. Reference - and appreciation of - the Punk'd show - maybe us integral bloggers simply don't have a sense of humor?
e. "Blowing up" Ken, into Cartoonish villiany - combination of Freddy Krueger and the violent cop from Training Day. Is it/isn't it a joke?

Apparently Mark Edwards is the only “valid” critic at Integral World worth listening to, according to Ken. So let’s listen to Mark now on basing an analysis of the critic simply on his “altitude.” This is from Mark’s essay called “On Being Critical” at Integral World. Also note that I quoted the appendix of this essay in an Integral Naked forum and Stuart Davis was delighted with it.

From “On Being Critical”:

Should the level of development (developmental profile) of the critic be taken into account when judging their criticism? To this question I answer a resounding NO. Here are my reasons. (All of these reasons are based on consistent interpretations of well known integral theory principles).

1. Development is complex, people are complex, and assessing the developmental profile of any individual is an extremely difficult and, even in settings were it might be possible, it is often inappropriate to do so. It is certainly not possible to do such a thing outside of a clinical, standardised setting by someone who is not professionally trained to administer the suitable tests and interviews. Thinking that we can assess the developmental nature of an individual on the basis of their critical comments or theoretical writings is not only naïve it is also almost certainly bound to be significantly deficient. Consequently we need to move our focus from the critic to the nature of their criticism. What's truly important here is the validity and the accuracy of the criticism itself and how we make use of it, not the developmental nature of the critic.

2. Integral theory is an integrated model that addresses and includes all levels of development. Therefore, any criticism from any level or relating to any level has the possibility of being valid for the relevant level(s). For example, integral theory deals with many postmodern issues such as pluralism, relativism, and contextualism. Consequently, postmodern critics of integral theory who are experts in these areas can make valid criticisms of the way integral theory deals with this “level”. This means the GREEN theorists can offer very pertinent criticisms that may need to be incorporated into the integral framework. The same is true for experts in the areas of physics, chemistry, biology, psychology, spirituality, etc.

3. There is much about integral theory that has nothing to do with levels. For example, quadrants, types, perspectives, lines, and dynamics have nothing essentially to do with levels. That's why the integral theory framework is called AQAL (All Quadrants, All Levels, All Lines, All types, All …) and not simply AL (All Levels. Full stop). Consequently, someone who is expert in, say, developmental dynamics might be able to offer very cogent criticisms of how integral theory deals with transitional issues irrespective of what level they are at.

4. No one is “at” a level. While people may have a general centre of gravity, that centre can change dramatically in any direction in particular circumstances. Mini transformations, peak experiences, sudden insights and flow experiences can overtake us at certain times. Individuals therefore might have some new insight into an integral way of looking at things that is valid and cogent and which might add to the storehouse of integral theory propositions irrespective of their standard modus operandi or developmental centre of gravity.

5. The inclusion of the ideas of developmental lines in integral theory means that development is idiosyncratic and ideographic. Individuals can be at several levels of development within different domains of life at the same time. They therefore may well be able to connect with a wider range of developmental worldviews than is commonly acknowledged (see APPENDIX for a further discussion on this). This argument simply warns us against making judgements related to the linking of criticism with the developmental profile of the critic. These are complex realms that have no real place in the judgement of criticism and its theoretical cogency.

For these and other reasons I maintain that attempting to assess the level of development of the critic (or their criticism for that matter) has no place in the judgment of whether that criticism has any cogency or validity for integral theory. Thankfully, that can all be left up to the standard practices of public debate and critical peer validation. Sometimes what issues forth from the Beginner's Mind is not only relevant but the most important thing that can be said. The moral of the tale of the Emporer's New Clothes by Hans Christian Anderson is one that we all might bring to mind on occasion.

Very good point - and GREAT quote from Mark Edwards!

I believe it is imperative that people see through what Ken is doing in his follow-ups to his original rant, which is: BLAMING THE VICTIM. The underlying essence of the 3-cards played by cultic leaders and apologists of the eastern religious/western psychological milieu is this: any negative response to the leader or inner circle of the group can only be ones own fault. You’re either not smart enough to understand (at a lower level), lack self-awareness and sufficient shadow work (are simply projecting), or have failed a deep test (when the group/leader hurts you, this is actually helping you). Classic Adi Da, folks. Regarding Ken’s latest posting, please notice the following:

(1) The evidence Helen offers in support of Ken’s actions is not at all relevant to the issues at hand, but is, instead, this: “(I’ve) SEEN YOU, SAT IN YOUR AURA, and HEARD YOUR VOICE”. Helen offers nothing of substance in regards to the actual intellectual issues being debated. This is nothing more than GURU talk and should be seen as a huge red flag to folks at II.

(2) Ken calls his previous Blogs “hooks.” This should also be a huge red flag to anyone with any awareness of how cults operate. This implies two things: (a) that Ken is the teacher, you are the student; and (b) that there is something wrong with you. Think about how this has all come about. Ken, after taunting someone into a fight, with derogatory comments and snide remarks, then tries to HEAL your angry nature by asking that you look at your own shadow, that is, if you have the COURAGE to do so. That is, if you listen and follow his instructions, you will not get hooked again. See, when Ken hooked you, he did so only because you don’t really know your true Self (IAMness). By listening to Ken, as your teacher, you can truly “RE-OWN” yourself, “RE-INTEGRATE” yourself. And, of course, future guidance will be coming soon on his Blog, because he does care and is filled with compassion for you, (notice he mentions he did this out of much love for Frank and Don). Finally, and predictably, he also FORGIVES YOU and tops it off by waxing spiritual about bathing in the infinite well of rehabilitation. Folks, outlining how and why this is classic cultic behavior is too elementary to even go into. Just pick up any book on the subject, or go read about the true root of all this: Adi Da.

(3)Finally, notice how Ken is trying to silence his critics by telling them they are…. (insert the three cards), and also by asking that they simply STOP, which is all he really wants (and I predicted as much in a post yesterday). He asks that they take a moratorium on judging others, on loathing and condemning him, because…. (insert three cards). Please also notice that none of this addresses anything of any real substance. There’s no substance to any of this stuff, and in real academic or spiritual circles (or within any adult community) such moves are considered completely out of bounds. They only work in guru and cultic environments. Ken, PLEASE, you are the one who needs to STOP.

Does anyone at II have the balls to tell him this?

This is a great comment. Thanks. Cool blog as well. I'm fine with KW blowing off some steam with some spirited writing. I would've loved it had he just said "suck my dick" and just left it at that. It's the ad hominem attack on Visser; the condescending "litmus test" crap; and the pathetically compulsive need to justify himself and his actions that makes me concerned for the man and the future of his work.