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.

Essentially, because they don't believe in it.

Saw this post on Holistic and Integral Education about virtual realities.

All that I've really done on virtual realities is, a demo for a couple of days.  It was pretty interesting, but there wasn't a so-called "group" that I knew of, to be interested in.

Are there any virtual - with avatar - groups devoted to integral out there? 

If not, who would be interested in avatar "get-togethers"?  At least one or two, to get a sense of things.

Looking forward to this book.

Ideally, in the job situation, at some point, I want to go from a six or seven assessment  (like my job, good pay, interesting) to an 8 or 9. 

And I've always liked the idea of working for myself.

We'll see.  I may be too lazy to do that...

Found a terrific site.  Some of the goodies:

Holistic Education Model

Maps and Models

and a blog too.

The new post of KW's is interesting, both for what it says, and what it implies.

The content of the post is very good, particularly the various self-awareness injunctions in the post - I'll quote some - bear in mind I'm picking and choosing my quotes, so you may be better served reading the original material, then coming back:

“Let the next sentence out of your mouth be integral or second tier.”

The point here is that, even if you are afraid that your center of gravity is orange or green, you can still think turquoise, you can still talk turquoise, you can still light up turquoise, and the Road Rules help you respond integrally by helping you talk turquoise. The more your talk is second tier, the sooner your walk will be.

It is a good a very good injunction - similar to "be your highest self" - but the only issue is who decides what is 2nd tier, what isn't?  I understand that to Ken this is obvious - but as 2nd tier-1st tier is clearly contextual  - [note to self: why is it when I curse, I'm being an asshole, when Ken says it, he's freeing people from their shadow, as well as illuminating your highest self, as well as creating a self-aware version of high blogart? - you have to admit, the jokes DO write themselves...], it may be a good idea to delineate in a neutral manner what 2nd tier consists of.

“Any time that you are not sure whether you are being integral or not, turquoise or not, second tier or not, then feel the thinker; be aware of the thinker.”

I love this injunction - and this shows the presence in Ken of awareness beyond the thinker, with this clarity.  In meditation this happens frequently, if not always - the "thinker" can be felt, as an object - not the Self, not what is so.  An object, not a subject.  As such, it is a good tool for making the mind transparent.

“Are there any of my shadow elements in any of my sentences or posts?”

I'm not so sure of this one - as Ryan says, most of the time - if not all of the time - the answer is going to be "yes". 

Does this mean you do not go forward with the perspective that IS present now?  The truth of this moment IS your perspective now, even if there are shadow elements.  Most of the time, I would say - yes - go forward.  Just be open to your errors, and be willing to be- and admit you are partially/mostly/all wrong.

Now, what is hinted at, implied in this post, is that the forums are going to be "watched", because I-I is an "...attempt to provide authentic commons spaces, not those clogged with shadow elements"

But at the same time, Wilber says to not go "shadow-hunting", and hopefully the refraining from shadow hunting goes both ways - from the staff and the participants. If you look at the experience of Daily Kos - where the injunction is "don't be a troll", the hunting part, can get seriously out of whack.  Go read this post at Daily Kos though, especially the "major types of trolls", or troll typology.  I'm sure some creative/humorous mind will come up with "shadow typologies" over at the IN Forums soon!

We'll have to see the direction this takes, if any.

Lastly - this metacommentary , or at least the implication is - "these are the rules for I-I going forward".  I'm not sure it is best to included a "teaching lesson" with rules, as it simply distorts the fact that you are laying down the rules of the place.  I'd rather clear and consistent rules simply be posted. But, I may be reading too much into this - because this is an favorable interpretation, so don't take this last observation too seriously.

Corey announces this on KW's blog

This post from How to Save the World is titled Why We Hate Complexity.

It's a good post - I especially like his posits of why we hate complexity:

I think the reason is that the acknowledgement of complexity, of a system's being beyond our understanding and analysis

    * reduces our sense of power and control
    * increases our sense of helplessness and insecurity, and
    * reduces our confidence in the predictability of the future.

This also reminded me of a classic book by Alan Watts titled The Wisdom of Insecurity.

In a sense, Integral Practice, is an attempt to navigate the world in a way that a way that is true to our spiritual, emotional, social, and physical selves.  And this involves participation - hopefully participation that WORKS - for the most part. 

But in the end - the emptiness/fullness of phenomena, and the encounter with dissolution of the self - this will never be fully solved by any practice, any way, any belief system.

We build sand castles out of our lives, and invest these sand castles with our selves, our sense of ownership, our loves, our projects, our communions, and our creativity.

Because this is what humans do.  Scorpions sting.  Humans seek meaningful activity.  

The confrontation with dissolution, with death, beyond that meaningful activity, is almost an anti-integral practice.  But spiritually and existentially necessary, just the same.

READ THIS FIRST - before watching the video below.

One of the things that I think is very important to understand - in spite of our blogs, in spite of our intelligent minds, in spite of our wise, synthetic analysis -

Blogging - at this point - is coming from a specific band of human capability.  And this band - the intellectual, the silent awareness, the peaceful watching - is actually one of the least satisfying ways to touch the Divine.

Now - it happens to be the way that I am most comfortable with.  But there are a lot of assumptions about "how to behave" that come with this perspective - that are important to be aware of.

I spent enough time in my 20's "checking my mind at the door", that I can assert that the other ways in which we touch God - matter more to people.

The bliss-devotional aspect of the Divine, is, for most people, simply more important to the Spirit - to connection - then any amount of theorizing and satori.

When you are really INTO the bliss-devotion aspect of your SELF - at least in my own experience - the analytic portion of self is pretty "checked out".   I would say that to the analytic portion of self, the bliss-devotion aspect seems fundamentally ALIEN.

"WTF are those crazy people doing??"

But they aren't crazy, really - they are riding on a wave of bliss-devotion. 

It goes without saying that this wave of bliss-devotion is RIPE for manipulation of people - which makes it dangerous.  But it also is the juice of Spirit - and as such, needs to respected, and be accepted in the integral conversation.

I found the following on YouTube - watch it when you get a chance.  I don't know anything about this particular guru - not the history, not anything - but I can pretty much tell you, simply by the characteristics -that as silly as this guy seems to be, it most likely is the case that this guy, and a large percentage of the worshippers - are riding on a wave of bliss-devotion - where you must dance! 

Finally, a real question - if you find the following soccer behavior acceptable and fun (which I do), do you feel similarly about the below?  If not, why not?

For anyone who ever played a video game fighting game - here's a fun "live action" Tekken match.

I'm not going to provide the link, since no reason to bring up the hacked page - but hopefully, this will get fixed up soon.

One rating tool that is out there, and is pretty easy to use - is Yahoo Local.  You can use Yahoo Local to rate any organization that is listed in Yahoo's pages - which happens to be most organizations.

Take a look at the ratings of Integral Institute. 

Feel free to rate as well!

There's no way to tag the review so far - and I am waiting for this.

At any rate, this is the first stop on my tour of assessment and evaluations.  Let me know your thoughts!

And then we wouldn't get stories like this.

If every single other country that CAN afford universal health care, DOES have universal healthcare - and pays less percentage of the budget than the United States does - there's a problem here.

1 out of every 7 americans do not have health care.  46 million people. 

We can do better.

We've been hearing for awhile now - from me and others - do the practice, collect the research.  Peer to peer.  Yadda yada yada.

I am VERY interested - at this point fanatically - on getting this going. 

I've been tapdancing around this topic for a long time.  And a lot of the recent postings by Ryan are having me take a look at this again.

Here is a grouping of some relevant posts:

Integral Criticism:  The Solution is Easy
Is Self-Help A Sham?


For the next two months, I will be blogging - pretty consistently - on the following topic:

1. What would a results-based 3 month practice change project team look like?
2. What are the softwares out there these groups would use? Evalution software?  Results software?  Project software? Group task management software?
3.  What would be the operational requirements - both in social structure, tasks, expectations, steps, to take to have a group process project and evaluation.

There will be many questions about the following -

What is a good assessment for a 3 month/1 year project?
Depending on the project, should the assessment be self only, or peer? 
What online collaborative project will be utilized?
What tasks tracked? 
Will tracking be negative or positive?  (I did this list of things, I didn't do this list of things)
What is the baseline?

However - all of the above will be dependent on there being an online group  assessment/evaluation tool.

So I am going to spend some time researching some of the tools I find - and if anyone else finds other tools that are promising, please let me know.

Ryan asks - nay, demands! - share your projections!

I used to be much bigger about sharing openly, in my 20's.  There is both a certain beauty, and a certain innocence, in sharing "what is happening in me now".  However, I also discovered that sharing can sometimes be - simply embarrasing.  TMI is a phrase that was coined for a reason.

Now, I like to be embarrasing sometimes - this is also true.

For now, I'll go the easy way - share a projection I have, that gets across a "point I'd like to make", but also includes a shadow element, because in this case - DEFINITELY  I have 9 fingers pointing back at me, for every 1 figure pointed at that other guy.

I think there is a disease - in the blogosphere, and, in the world - called the "I Am Right" disease. 

People who are RIGHT - engage in propaganda and fallacious arguments, rather than dialogue - just because they are RIGHT.

People who are RIGHT, brook no argument, justify their position constantly, and - around being called wrong - react in all types of strange manners.

People who are RIGHT - especially combined with POWER - commit some of the worst crimes on this earth.

However - sometimes someone IS right.  If I say it's DAY and you say it's NIGHT - guess what?  There is a right answer and a wrong answer here.  Look outside.  (Yes, yes, the wise guy there in the back in Ireland is saying "it's night over here! nya nya nya!" - but that is beside the point.)

And especially for those on the cutting edge of something, they may be right, when other are wrong - for awhile.  (Galileo being the prime example.)

Integral "solves" this problem by saying "every perspective is valid - but my perspective is MORE INCLUSIVE than yours".

But guess what?  We are human.  Especially here in the "read what I have to write!" blogosphere, we can often be wrong, our perspective can often be off.  And what we are writing about - is NOT whether gravity exists, or whether it is day or night outside, or whether 2 plus 2 equals 4.  As such - the "truth" is not so clearcut all the time. 

I prefer to think of good analysis and commentary as using inquiry, intelligence, and analysis, combined with perseverance, openness, and honesty - and constantly re-discovering  the "truth" as more data and perspectives are considered.  

But that attitude gets lost in pissing matches of "I am Right"ness. 

So here is my request.  I would like everyone who both reads this blog and who has a blog - to point out one time (at least) where they were in obvious disagreement in the blogosphere - where YOU were wrong - and the OTHER person was right.  

So - in THIS particular game - the more "moral" and upstanding person is - refreshingly honest about saying - "Dude, I totally whiffed on that post!  Sometimes I'm an IDIOT!!".

Who's with me!!

Now, one would think - I would LEAD the way - and I will!

The other day, I posted that Cox Communications was blocking Craigslist.

Well, I totally totally whiffed on that post.  If you read a comment to the post, apparently,  it was the security software provided by Authentium, that had a glitch in the software driver. 

Sorry!  Sometimes I'm an idiot!!

Anyone else?

Also - I'll provide more, since of course I am less identified with the content of that post - this blog isn't called "Security Software".  But I'll need to time to find out when I've been wrong [editor - yeah, he needs time - since I guess he thinks it doesn't happen very much...].

Of course, feel free to help me out with that!!

Saw the most recent entry at the P2P Foundation.  It's a good cautionary tale, that is worth reading. [Edited out since dead link]. Although I would urge everyone to keep in mind PROPORTIONALITY. 

As I've pointed out - Ken is mainly guilty of lumping ALL criticism into the "mean green" territory - but he DOES have a lot of independent thinkers that he associates with on a daily basis, he ISN'T an actual destructive guru.  Right now we are talking about being defensive about ideas.  NOT about a full totalizing environment. 

I personally don't think a full totalizing environment will work for Wilber.  Those that end up being interested in Wilber's work, despite the idiot tag "Wilberphiles" "Wilberoids", etc - mostly tend to be electic, intelligent, and sensitive non-conformists, that probably expect WAY TOO MUCH perfection when it comes to groups.  If anything, paranoia of joining is rampant in those interested in Wilber.  So unless Wilber wants to cut into his natural base, I can't see anything like that happening.

UPDATE - Ken Wilber continues his explanation.

The image below isn't sized right- leads off the screen.  But the Perry image is taken directly from an episode of Punk'd.  (UPDATE:  Who can spot the six pop culture references? 4 movie, one TV TWO TV?)

Or rather -

I have found Tuff Ghost's Avatar! 

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.

Here's the link - if you haven't seen it.

Now that Ken Wilber has revealed that the blogrant post was a deliberate provocation - as many of us NOT in the know suspected - there isn't much that I would have to retract, yet, of my posts of the last few days.  At least at this point - although I'm sure that is coming. 

a. I initially was puzzled,
b. the logic didn't make much sense
c. Visser is still being distorted, and
d. In the last post, I speculated that this was deliberate, as well as anticipated Ken's appeal to the 2nd tier.
e.(I also in the beginning speculated that part of the reason for Ken's post was to pick up clicks.)

Here's the relevant passage: from my previous post - written before Ken reveals that his initial blog rant was a deliberate provocation:

1. I feel that Ken is being pretty honest here.  He truly sees almost all critics that address him as not being able to either understand his theory, or attacking his theories for nefarious reasons.  And he feels that about Visser, though clearly his logic on that is skewed (as I've demonstrated.)

2. At the same time - he is "blowing it up" - taking his normal arguments and exaggerating them, for effect.  In this sense, he is playing with his normal reaction, and, to a degree, spoofing it, with a wink and a smile.  ("I'm just kidding with all the dick references, can't you tell?")

If you are going to stick in the verbal shiv - the best way to do it, is to tell a joke while you are doing the sticking.  Then you always have an out - "I'm just kidding - don't you have a sense of humor?". 

3. And, I want to describe a very important point here, and I mainly mean this as a response to Jay Andrew Allen, and also a little to Bill -

When a person has some access to some higher consciousness - a higher truth, etc, that has been achieved in a particular bodymind, this truth shines through - even if the bodymind shining that truth is behaving in a particularly atrocious way. 

While I was (clearly) obsessing about Wilber's post and what it "means" (and what is a blogger but an obsesser?), I began to "touch", and "vibrate" with that sense of cosmic play.  In this sense, Ken's smiling mug, winking at me saying "see?  all this - these horrible words - these words too do not destroy the truth of your Self.  So open, live, love, play, be angry in the beneficience of God. Because this is the final Truth".

Now, why I am attempting to justify my recent posts of the last few days?  

While you may think it is just because of the natural tendency not to want to made to look foolish - and I'm sure that is part of it - but there is another reason:

This actually, for me, reaffirms the ability of blogs - using this type of communal analysis - to suss out truth.  Even while interpreting words on a screen.  For example, I was helped along in my perception, by hearing those people who were saying "do you get the joke?", and helped by pretty much all the posts I've read over the last few days.

Communally, we didn't do a bad job.  Maybe this blog thing has a future?

Okay.  Well, I have received very little argument on the fallacies I point out previously, in my other two posts about the Ken Wilber rant.

So I am going to take it as given, that the CONTENT that I am pointing to of Ken's post was silly and illogical. 
 
Let's all agree on that.

At the same time:

There were lots of well-written refutations in Ken's piece.

The only problem is that most of the well-written refutations aren't addressing the actual arguments that ARE valid, but either distorting the valid arguments, or lumping all arguments into various easy to shoot down strawman arguments (and thus the well-written refutations of those strawmen).

But what is more fascinating - is how the reaction was over the map - in the blogosphere.  Ranging from outright condemnation (Matthew Dallman gives a valid post in this vein) to near-outright condemnation (Tuff Ghost, others), to deep concern (myself, Bill) to concern-then-eureka (Jay Allen),  to "laugh my ass off", to "Ken's a brilliant genius, using mere works to liberate with authenticity, spoofing brilliantly, and being post-post-modern in a scintilla of words as play-of-lila - you go Ken!" (a lot of the Ken defenders in this thread.)

I wanted to bring up parallel situations that have happened recently. 

Very recently, there was a controversy about Anne Coulter, who described the 9-11 group of wives as "I've never found a group of women so enjoying the deaths of their husbands". 

Needless to say - this was a very divisive statement.  Most liberals (and the mainstream, actually) condemned these statements as hateful, abusive, etc.  But the apologists said something to the effect of  "she's just joking", "she is using humor to make her point", "don't take it seriously, but her POINT is valid".

Which of course - apologists do.  And there is a remarkable similarity in style between the apologists for Coulter and the apologists for Wilber.

On the other side - not long ago, there was a disturbance in the blogforce , when Stephen Colbert spoke at the White House Correspondence Dinner.  Some people found this hilarious.  Some people thought that Colbert was being rude.  Some people didn't "get it."  (sound familiar?) One of the suggestions has been, that Wilber was pulling a parody in the rant post, a spoof - and the question has been "don't you get it?".  And this reminded me of Stephen Colbert's appearance.

However, there is less similarity here.  Colbert is putting on the facade of a conservative blowhard, pretending to condemn the left, while actually showing how ridiculous his facade was. 

Wilber, of course, did not put on the role of an integral critic, spoofing integral criticisms, to show how ridiculous the integral critics were. 

In addition:

This particular blogrant of Wilber's is actually similar to verbal defenses that have been historically used by Ken Wilber. The enemies are the people who misunderstand his work, and haven't kept up with his theory.  Which usually seem to revolve around labeling critics either:

Mean green or
Stupid or
Out of date or
A misunderstanding

So there is less there than meets the eye.

So - in the title - I promised to clue you in on the truth.  Since you have read this far, noble reader, you deserve it, and here it is!  ALL the main 4 reactions above, explained!

1. I feel that Ken is being pretty honest here.  He truly sees almost all critics that address him as not being able to either understand his theory, or attacking his theories for nefarious reasons.  And he feels that about Visser, though clearly his logic on that is skewed (as I've demonstrated.)

2. At the same time - he is "blowing it up" - taking his normal arguments and exaggerating them, for effect.  In this sense, he is playing with his normal reaction, and, to a degree, spoofing it, with a wink and a smile.  ("I'm just kidding with all the dick references, can't you tell?")

If you are going to stick in the verbal shiv - the best way to do it, is to tell a joke while you are doing the sticking.  Then you always have an out - "I'm just kidding - don't you have a sense of humor?". 

3. And, I want to describe a very important point here, and I mainly mean this as a response to Jay Andrew Allen, and also a little to Bill -

When a person has some access to some higher consciousness - a higher truth, etc, that has been achieved in a particular bodymind, this truth shines through - even if the bodymind shining that truth is behaving in a particularly atrocious way. 

While I was (clearly) obsessing about Wilber's post and what it "means" (and what is a blogger but an obsesser?), I began to "touch", and "vibrate" with that sense of cosmic play.  In this sense, Ken's smiling mug, winking at me saying "see?  all this - these horrible words - these words too do not destroy the truth of your Self.  So open, live, love, play, be angry in the beneficience of God. Because this is the final Truth".

My supposition is this - Ken has some stabilization of realization, and this comes through in his work.  Most of us who have read his work, have experiencd this "lifting up".

I say this experience can come through, even if Ken is being a defensive jerk, defending himself with illogic, nastiness, and distortion.  Because that bodymind that has the stabilization radiates the truth - despite the particulars of what that bodymind is doing.

Wilber himself said it best, regarding Adi Da:

"In ways that we are just beginning to understand, some types of spiritual development can run way ahead of moral, social, interpersonal, and wisdom development in general. Da is capable of some truly exquisite insights, but in other areas, he has fared less well, and this has increasingly verged on the catastrophic."

While in NO WAY is Ken Wilber as dangerous as Adi Da - (Wilber doesn't damage people, he simply sometimes defends integral THEORY dishonestly and nastily - but theory is one thing, people another) it remains the case that:

a. Wilber has some stabilization of realization.
b. Wilber has produced an incredibly theory, merging together many different strands of research and areas of life.
c. Wilber does not engage and enter into a valid, constructive feedback with critics of Integral Theory - and as such, there is, and remain, a lot of sloppiness and unexamined claims in the theory.
d. Given the at least 10 year history of C above, all should assume that valid criticism OF Wilber's theory is not going to come FROM Wilber. 

And that is normally the case from the creator of a theory.  It's made a bit worse here, in that Wilber was able to bypass the normal process of submitting theories to criticism, by being a successful popular writer.

That is how it stands now - from the perception of this bodymind.

As such, it is an interpretation of a mind - Ken Wilber's - that I have no direct access to. (Similar to when Wilber intrepreted Visser FOR Visser.)  As such this interpretation is filled with projection.

Nevertheless, analyzing the signs, signifiers, logic, and patterns of behavior in Ken's words and those who are in disagreement, is utilizing some of the same tools we use to interpet the world and our intersubjective reality.  So my hope is that this interpretation reflects a more accurate representation of reality.

Otherwise - why blog at all?

I got this from Ryan - funny as hell!

Also - for the last month, two months, Ryan's blog has been wonderful - lots of how-to, lots of tech how-to, etc.  Go read it, when you have a chance.

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. 

This is a particularly good sentence from the Ken rant:

But let me get one thing extremely—and I mean extremely—clear. Any honest criticism that I find I take seriously, at least long enough to see if there are any important truths that I might be missing. There is an old saying, “You do not understand your opponent’s ideas until you can argue them better than he can”—and I take that seriously. Some critics are fantastic in the number of new truths you can learn from them

Great!

But talk is cheap. It is merely an assertion to say:

But in general, good criticism shows me new areas that I can include. I FUCKING LIVE FOR GREAT CRITICISM, IT MEANS MORE TRUTH FOR A MORE INTEGRAL MODEL. I have a Geiger counter that clicks like crazy when the good stuff gets near, and the good stuff is any stuff I haven’t been able to make room for, to include, to not marginalize, to not , to transcend-and-include

Unless you BACK IT UP. 

I hate to say it, but, maybe I am simply used to a quality of argument in the blogosphere, that Ken hasn't developed yet.  This particular fast, off-the-cuff ability to pull in facts, argument, seriousness, honest, and snark - all on the fly - it's a skill, and the people that are good at it have thousands of readers reading them religiously.

I guess Ken's just too old to ride the new wave!  Evolution has come, and left him behind!

Well, Stu and C4 have his back.  They both are damn good at this blogging stuff.

Wildly divergent reactions to the blog provocation by the Wilberblog. This is the first day I've really spent some time on the internet since I've been back - I had a weekend application upgrade for work, and then the fallout from that this week, so I haven't been leaving work earlier than 7, while getting in at 8.  So maybe there is some leadup and history that I am missing here.

First, Coolmel simply reports, as I reference in the previous post.

I notice Bill's response is similar to mine - he thinks it's a bit weird.

However, Integral Valley is laughing his ass off

As is Kai, in Bill's comment section. 

Maybe one man's childish immaturity is another man's humor - well, I guess that is definitely the case.  I see there was a LEADUP at Ken's blog, to this particular post that strikes me as weird.  Maybe that leadup helped this post be funny?

That's all I've got so far -

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?

After much feedback, feel free to not have to login to post a comment - also, six simple html choices - link, bold, underline, italic, stikethrough, and blockquote.

It was time to leave the dark ages of 2004, and enter the new millenia of 2006.

In internet time, of course...

I go away from reading my RSS reader (in this case Google Reader), I come back - I have over 1000 posts in my reader.

Sigh.

To save me going through 1000 posts - integral, spiritual, and tech mainly - what articles over the last week and a half were really good?

Long, but worth reading.

Here is Gary's. 

And he points out an important issue - how to simply explain integral?

What is your elevator speech?