A couple more issues from the Ken rant - and these in particular are regarding Frank Visser and Integral World. 

It’s gotten to the point that one critic cringes when I simply use the word “simply” (as in the previous paragraph), because it means something horrible is going to follow. In this case, true—the horrible thing that followed was this critic’s charge. But simply still, I simply cannot stand this simple criticism of simply anything, let alone “simply,” so simply suck my dick, whaddaya say?

Since I had been away awhile, I didn't know what was being referred to, but last night, I found Frank Visser's post about this.

Over the years I have grown wary of this very approach. Especially phrases like "everyone from A to B to C believes this" (fill in your favorite authority) or "Absolutely nobody believes this anymore" (e.g. in evolutionary biology) have made me suspicious. The many times Wilber uses the word "simply" have made me pause ("For the wisdom traditions, a [subtle] “body” simply means a mode of experience"-- simply? Or simplistically?)

Okay - now this is something that we can sink our teeth into. 

I would like others' feedback, but - the point of Visser here, is that when you make a "bold statement" - really an assertion, such as "everyone from A to B to C believes this", or yes, even "simply" - that this is being deployed as a rhetorical device. 

As such this is a style that is deployed - and without the accompanying sources, it remains an assertion without any example to back it up.  It's a form of propaganda, rather than a investigation into truth.  Now that propaganda MAY BE TRUE.  But it isn't a settled question, because this is the classic example of the fallacy of Begging The Question.  So Frank is merely stating that bold assertions are often an example of begging the question.

So for me - that seems like a valid point that Frank is making.

And the truth is -Wilber completely misrepresents Frank's point.  Completely. 

Now, one could say - this was supposed to be a scathing post, and not engaging any points. 

But still - it leaves a queasy feeling in my stomach, to see the distortion of Frank's point - in at least two cases - be so obvious.   What ELSE is being distorted?  Is this common to Wilber's work?  If so, that would be profoundly disappointing to me.

The next Wilber fallacy:

But Frank’s website has an ungodly mixture of some real fires and ten times that amount of fraudulent fires, fake fires, and idiot fires—and Frank can’t seem to tell the difference. But he claims that if you don’t address fake fires, you are avoiding fire entirely because you are afraid to confront fire. This is lunatic.

This is addressed by Bill at Integral Options in a comment:

I agree with Tuff Ghost that Frank has done little to deserve such public scorn. Yes, he hosts Wilber critics, many of whom are daft. But Frank has been an ardent supporter of Wilber's work for a very long time.

To expand on that - this is Guilt By Association.

Somehow Visser is "guilty" because he hosts inane critics, as well as good critics, because he "can't tell the difference".

I believe Frank simply provides a place where critics can expound and get a voice.  Now - it would be good if there were ratings - to separate out the wheat from the chaff at Integral World - but because this isn't provided isn't an indictment of Visser, as Ken claims.

What is also disturbing, is simply the venom in which Ken Wilber is going after Frank Visser.  Visser has never stooped so low, has been deeply supportive of Ken's work, and the Integral Project in general. 

If he is going to use that type of venom, it should be used against those critics  whose criticisms fall short on a lot of levels.   Not someone who is one of his "biggest fans" so to speak. 

Well, this sucks - not that I'm surprised.

And we can already see the consequences of a lack of Net Neutrality. 

Craigslist appears to be being blocks by Cox Communications

The corrosive effect of big money, and lobbyists willing to spend it to buy legislation.