I’ve lost track of how many parts this debate about Ken Wilber has extended to (here’s the most recent). I’m frankly rather tired of it, but there are still some important points that I need to clear up, if only for myself. Really, the key thing that I’ve taken away from this is that not everyone sees me and my work the way that I see it. This is an important realization. As much as I can project myself into other mindsets, I’ll always be myself, and I’ll always be blind to certain points of view, and that’s what is so important about having other people help you out.

There’s one main point that I feel inclined to rectify based on Alec’s latest round of arguments. I basically proclaimed that I made no particular claims to the rationality or validity of my own arguments. I see fit to change them at will, and I acknowledge that they are driven by sheer instinctual response and completely feeling-toned, however much I may dress them up in intellectual language. In response to all that, Alec said:

As far as I’m concerned, with that declaration you have effectively paralyzed our debate. If your “arguments” are based on nothing more than feeling, as you freely admit, then I’m under no obligation to take them seriously. You can certainly proclaim what you like, if it makes you feel good, and heck, you might even develop quite a following of similarly devoted “feel-gooders”, but I’d venture to guess that you’ll never be taken seriously by anybody with a shred of intellectual integrity.

Alec, you’ve really hit the nail on the head here. This is really the most important part of our whole conversation so far. I feel like we’re starting to understand where each other is coming from. No one is under any obligation to take anything I say seriously. I am honestly just some jack-off with a computer and too much free time on their hands. I mean, I am calling myself a “real-life occult investigator,” for chrissakes. I hope that the absurdity of that underlying premise is not lost on you. If I wanted to be “taken seriously by anybody with a shred of intellectual integrity” I would go become a professor at Harvard. Everyone can and should go out and think and feel and analyze and pick shit apart for themselves. This website is a record of me doing that for myself, and seriously as long as I “feel good” and am true to myself and to my vision, then I can give a flying fuck about everything else. Because I am on the right course, which is my course. I don’t want to develop a following, but if anybody feels good because they get a chance to follow tracks I laid down, then what greater good could I do?

As it happens, if you cannot agree that the best theory, model, what-have-you is the one which best stands to reason, then I’m playing the fool by trying to persuade you of anything.

I’m honestly not sure why you felt you had to persuade me of anything in the first place. I’m happy you tried though, because I’ve gotten a lot to think about from it, and have gained sort of a fresh outside perspective to the whole thing.

I’d argue that in the level of reality that most people occupy, and conduct their daily affairs, reason is a powerful tool and does possess the capability of guiding us toward wisdom. Not to mention that the act of having a discussion, like this one, is contingent upon the implicit assumption that what we are going to say should “make sense”, i.e. conform to reason.

I am absolutely steadfastly in agreement that reason is a powerful tool and that it’s an essential one in everything that we do. However, I couldn’t disagree more that reason is the one thing that everone uses to conduct their daily affairs. If it were, none of this would have even occurred in the first place. It’s not a rational act to sit on your computer and debate with someone you’ve never met and quite probably will never meet about the metaphysical musings of a third party who neither of you know. There are much more rational and practical ways for people to spend time. Besides that though, just look at the decisions that people make: who to love, who to hate, where to live, where to work, what to spend their money and time on. I absolutely challenge you to back up the notion that the majority of people base their daily affairs upon reason. If we did, there would be no need for advertising. There would be no need for government. Everything would run perfectly and magically like a utopian machine.

As for relativism: you accused me of adhering to that. I admitted it, and now you’re accusing me of it again. What more do you want? Should I admit to it again? I’m not embarrassed or ashamed by the term. I’m happy and proud to admit that no one person has the answers for all the rest of the people.

But in-as-much as you intend to guide people in a particular direction, you must be taken seriously by them, and that means speaking in a “language” they understand. Because most people attempt to think rationally, and therefore respond to reason, then appealing to reason is the most efficient way to establish communication. Perhaps there is an idealistic hope in this: that people are rational, when in actual fact many respond better to engagement of their feeling function.

I have one word for you my friend: COMPLETE AND UTTER HORSE SHIT!!!! And each and every one of us knows this, as much as we want to pretend otherwise. I applaud your idealism, but just look around. Is reason winning in the world? Has it ever?