I saw this post by Ken - for which I first have to thank  C4.

Well.

I started the post, reading the setup - that Ken gets tired of wrongheaded critics.  I totally got that, and looked forward to Ken blowing off some steam, and then getting into at least one actual issue - meaning, I hoped I could learn something.

I'm used to, in the blogworld, that a good acerbic post, will have the following:

a. Heavy duty of snark/scorn, to begin with - setup why someone is wrong.
b. An explanation of what the issue is, what the wrong person thinks.
c. A explanation of why that someone is wrong, which, is replete both with examples, a strong sense of intellectual rigor and discipline, and then the argument made.

This particular post of Ken's has none of this - and exhibits many example of fallacious argument.

Argument from hasty generalization:

The scholarship in these criticisms is so deranged as to be laughable (or pitiable, it’s hard to say), were it not for the perverse attention it receives, usually from those even less gifted

There is a lot of this - and as I say above, most of it is simply blowing off steam.

Straw Man Fallacy:

One of the most loudly aired criticisms is that developmental studies are in trouble—are, in fact, in “complete disarray,” as one critic quaintly put it. Well, developmental studies are not in trouble. Absolutely the opposite. After a two-decade banishment by the mean green meme, they are back with a wonderful vengeance.

This may well be true - But a lot of the criticisms are going after particular areas of development, not of "development in general" - and questioning whether these areas are developing in the manner which Ken's "orienting generalizations" imply.

Fallacy of Circumstancial Ad Hominem:

The fact is, Frank feels left out. He feels abandoned by me and by the integral folks over here, and he is lashing out, using some real and wonderful fire (e.g., Edwards) and tons of first-tier and/or fake fire (e.g., Meyerhoff). Frank is mad that we didn’t include him more in Integral University as it developed. When he was over here for a meeting of Integral Institute, most people found him combative and difficult and unyielding; I’m afraid I had to agree with them. Frank saw this as real fire; we saw it as fake fire and Frank’s shadow fire. But in any event, it is true that Frank got slowly left out of I-I, and for this, he lashes back.

As I am sure you can see, whether Frank feels left out or not, has really nothing to do with whether The World of Frank Visser arguments that are presented are true or not. It's a side issue.

Lastly, there is an Appeal to Authority:

As for applying the AQAL model to specific fields, check out the 3000 plus pages of new academic material written in 24 specialties—in the 24 colleges of Integral University—coming this fall

Umm...well, we need to SEE the 3000 pages of new academic material, to see how it works when applying it to specific fields.  Then there will be "meat on the bones", so to speak.

Now, Ken is absolutely correct when critics ALSO engage in ad-hominems - for example - anyone who uses the phrase "Wilber's minions" shouldn't be taken too seriously, as that isn't an argument - AT ALL - either.

But - weird.  I would have expected better for Ken, and I must say, I am dissapointed.  There are much better - but still "Wild West" arguments - coming from political partisans in the blogosphere, every single day. 

And also, I know he can do better - the endnotes from SES are better than this, and engage critics in the way I described above.

Now, a couple of ruminations - remember - NOT arguments.

I'm wondering if there might be some additional pressure because of the fallout from Marc Gafni? 

As well, as my own pet peeve issue, that others have raised as well - which I do completely own as mine - the friendly relations with - what seem to me - the obvious cultist Andrew Cohen.

Or - since controversial posts tend to generate "clicks and links" - this could also be the opening marketing salvo for Integral University. 

If so, I still say it would have been better to lead with a less immature argument style. 

I mean - some of us are still on your side.

We see the promise of "integral", in the cross-pollination of different areas of knowledge and being.

The last thing I want to do is to be driven back to my previous philosophy - a pragmatic phenomenology.

That is the philosophy that the areas of life are investigated in and of themselves, and the results and progress are attained in those areas.  (Morals, science, spirituality, relations, social science, etc).  But the "better way to go" - the "phenomena" discovered in each of those areas - never meet.   They remain separate.

I haven't been the deep reader of Integral World - while I have a philosophical degree, as well as experience in debate - I grew tired of that fairly quickly after the first life-altering experience of the nondual.  (All the debates seemed fairly pointless.)

Of course, that may be my own "category error" - in the real world, perhaps we need to keep our skills, such as they are - creative, rhetorical, clear thinking, etc - sharp.

What are others thoughts on this?  Is Ken just blowing off steam, so should be given a pass for some of the silliness in this post of Ken's?