Last night I noticed some comments on an old post about pop-spirituality author Ken Wilber. I also have a much newer post about Wilber. Both might be useful to read as background for the interested. Frankly, the more I get to know about Wilber, the less I like him. But people who are into him seem to be absolutely rabid about this, which I find really interesting because I just can’t relate at all. Before I get too far into the bashing though, let me just point out that Wilber is exactly what I was talking about when I wrote that post about “slaying other MC’s” and how that’s a really important component in creative growth.

Okay, so the person who left comments in defense of Wilber’s work last night seems reasonably intelligent, so I thought I’d hear him out. He also checked back and left more comments after I responded. He didn’t leave an email address though, so I hope he comes back, and we can continue this debate here on the front page. Anyway, his name is Alec and actually, I just found his Amazon user profile (which does have his email - cool now I can write him). Okay, anyway, so here are Alec’s original comments:

First off, kudos on the site. It’s layout is unusually clean and appealing (that’s the web designer in me speaking), and you seem like a unique and intelligent person, whose ideas I’ve enjoyed hearing. But most importantly I’m impressed with your integrity: a refreshing quality, and one which often seems all-to-rare this day and age, and especially in the fields of study you (we) pursue.

I’m sorry to hear that you aren’t very impressed with Wilber’s work. Myself, I’ve read several of his books and essays, including those of his critics, and even wrote a paper comparing/contrasting his model of transpersonal development to the one proposed by Michael Washburn in _The Ego and the Dynamic Ground_ and _Transpersonal Psychology in Psychoanalytic Perspective_.

I’ll admit that when I first encountered Wilber I was ecstatic about his ideas, as many people are. I’ve since discovered that not everybody shares this enthusiasm, despite them having a seemingly solid understanding of his work. Why this is the case, I’m not certain. I tend to think it has something to do with the intellectual history of the individual, i.e. the types of questions they have wrestled with, and the sources of information they have been exposed to. To a person with the “right” background, Wilber represents a kind of intellectual “bolt from the blue”, illuminating and coalescing a great deal of disjointed pieces of information. For others, he’s *shrug* “no big deal” or worse, a fool. I once had an English professor, impressively well-read in many subjects, remark that he couldn’t decide if Wilber was, “a complete genius or a horse’s ass.” In my experience, this sentiment neatly summarizes the majority of opinions. My own estimation of Wilber leans more towards the genius end of he spectrum, on the majority of days, at least.

Perhaps one of the most important, and personally meaningful, contributions that Wilber has made to my own thinking stems from his ability to orient the “existential crisis” in a much broader perspective than most other philosophers. Although, this doesn’t appear to be the primary reason why other people admire his work, and I certainly wouldn’t consider it his most important contribution to the field of transpersonal psychology.

I must say, however, that I think the quote you chose paints a skewed picture of Wilber’s vision, intent, and rhetorical style. Although he does occassionally diverge into mental gymnastics similar to that in the quote, I find this to be the rare exception rather than the rule. I personally find the vast majority of his writing to be exceptionally lucid, and devoid of much of the mumbo-jumbo and fuzzy thinking so characeristic of many (most?) “transpersonal” writers. This is why I find it so surprising that you remark on his, “poor communication.”

I’m curious: what exactly did you read by him that was so confusing? If you ever again have the desire to read Wilber, I’d recommend _A Brief History of Everything_ as the most accessible introduction to his work. I wrote a short review on Amazon.com for this book, in which I elaborate more on the “existential crisis” aspect I mentioned above. If you are interested, I would happily post the text of that review here.

As for his photo and name being plastered on everything associated with him, you can’t blame Wilber for the marketing tactics of his publishers and promoters.

Well, looking forward to hearing your response.

Okay, to that I wrote back: hi alec. i pretty much only read what i could find by and about him online. i didnt read any books, and frankly im not interested. the quotes i chose are representative of the vast majority of what i saw of him online. anyway, i really like what you said about wilber being a “bolt out of the blue” for people who are coming at this all from a different perspective from me, and who havent been thinking about and following these types of questions for years. maybe im not giving him a fair shake, i dont know. i just know what i like and what i dont, and generally have to follow that intuition in deciding what it is that i spend my time immersing myself in. i will look for your review though. thanks. [If you’re interested in reading his review of that book, you can check it out on this page, scroll down.] Alec’s response was:

Tim, thanks for the response. I’d agree that Wilber fans are probably approaching his work from a different perspective, and with different life experiences, than you. However, I definitely do not agree that Wilber fans, “haven’t been thinking about and following these types of questions for years.” In fact, my experience leads me to conclude just the opposite. Those persons most likely to appreciate Wilber’s work are precisely those who *have* been struggling with these question for years. More precisely, struggling to integrate the vast number of seemingly divergent views on psychology, religion, spirituality, etc. As a side note, when Wilber published his first book _The Spectrum of Consciouness_ in 1977, he made a substantial impact on the field of transpersonal psychology, and continues to do so. And I’m not referring to people who take a casual interest in these matters, but to those who have devoted their lives and careers to the study.

Still, we haven’t really defined what we mean by “these types of questions.” It’s likely the case that you have different questions than Wilber fans. Questions for which Wilber provides no answer.

My latest response was: thats just it. i dont want answers. i especially dont want someone to provide them for me. im not interested in that at all. i think thats why you always see his photo, is because hes trying to associate himself with having the answers, and being recognizable as such. what wilber is trying to do is provide people with an intellectualized religion. hes all about terminology, systems and providing people with a logical conceptual framework for things that i dont think necessarily work that way. anyway, it was you who brought up the possibility that people into wilber havent been dealing with these questions, not me. i just reflected it back at you.

And that’s it so far. I’ll email him though and she if he’s into continuing the debate, cause I’m rather enjoying it. Anybody else who wants to get in on it, feel free. Oh, I should also point out that as much as I dislike what Wilber’s doing, I feel rather compelled to understand why people are so drawn to it, because he’s obviously got a very successful marketing technique and a pretty hardcore following. While I may not agree with all of it, I may try to steal a page or two from it when I get to the point of marketing my own books, which will hopefull happen sooner rather than later.