I see that Ken has posted his 3rd part of the "Earpy" posts.

A mixed bag, as the post tackles a lot of things at once.

The positive:

Regarding I-I as a cult, as I've mentioned, I-I is FAR from a cult, and while that concern is there long-term, pretty far away regarding the conformance on behavior required from cults.  Ken ably refutes this.

Also, as far as Ken personally, I pretty much agree with Dan.

"That being said, my take on Ken Wilber is based more on my own experience with him as a person than on his ideas and theory. I've been lucky enough to get to hang around the guy quite a bit in the past year and a half, and interact with him from time to time. And from what I can tell, he's a swell fella. He's got his shortcomings and funny quirks, like all humans. But in general, in my experience, he seems to have a warm heart, and he's got an interesting take on things."

I've had "friends of friends" who I've heard - for at least a decade - and they have offered the same personal observations about Ken Wilber.  Pretty much across the board.

Moving on, Ken continues with lots of positive emails sent to him, and then commenting on those.

One of the emails Ken posts reminded me I need to get Ken Wilber In Dialogue, at least if I want to contribute to this theory thing...

The negative: 

In terms of the actual first "Earpy" post, there were a lot of fallacious arguments - these still remain unadmitted, unrecognized, having been overshadowed now by the 2nd tier and marketing purposes of the post. 

At some point, it would be good to see that addressed.

Also, saw this from Shawn, from the Lightmind Ken Wilber forums, on some of Ken's responses to Meyerhoff. 

From the strictly logical perspective, this makes some great points. 

My concern over the long haul, is the mixture of persuasive rhetoric that Ken employs, mixed with the selective reading of the literature, of what Ken integrates.

But, when it comes to employing a faithful reading of the literature, guess what?  This is a task that is EMINENTLY suited to the blogosphere, and those suited for internet research in general.

As a strictly numbers game, what is generally true will get pointed out, and where Ken Wilber's generalizations depart from this, that will get pointed out as well.