![[tmbchr]™](/journal/popocculture-blog-logo.jpg){kind=logo}
Ken Wilber Critique, Part 1
I have to love any author who incorporates past negative criticisms right into his work. On page 41 of A Theory of Everything, Wilber quotes a critic who called his book Sex, Ecology and Spirituality:
This is one of the most irritating books of the year, pompous and over-bloated.
I’ve never read the work that refers to, but it’s certainly an interesting tactic to try and assimilate criticism in an effort to diffuse it. In any event, I’d like to thank Alistair for sending me a copy of TOE so I can finally see for myself whether or not it truly is irritating, pompous and over-bloated.
Who needs theories, anyway?
My first and probably biggest question about this book and Wilber’s work in general is: Why on earth do we need a Theory of Everything? Life already gives us the everything, so what’s the use in having a theory about everything? Doesn’t the extra layer of theory add also a layer of distance, a separation between us and the everything? Do I need a theory about how locomotion works into the grand scheme of the universe in order to run across a field in spring-time with a dog? Do I need to know the biological mechanisms that control love, sex and attraction to be totally captivated by the sleeping face of the woman I’m in love with? I guess I’m beginning to feel less and less interested in theory for it’s own sake. I find myself drawn increasingly to the approach that fields like Neuro-Linguistic Programming take; they say, “we don’t have a theory” and instead just focus on what works and what doesn’t.
Throught TOE, Wilber overtly discusses theories which stand in for people. He seems to think it’s a positive thing. He opens the discussion with something called Spiral Dynamics. Now he doesn’t seem to have invented spiral dynamics, but he certainly champions it like crazy. In a nutshell, Spiral Dynamics is one of those systems that’s supposed to describe modes of human existence. For better or for worse, it’s really quite similar to Scientology’s 8 Dynamics and Leary’s 8 Circuits of Consciousness. In any event, the levels in Spiral Dynamics are referred to as “memes” and are organized according to colors. On page 7-8, Wilber discusses a bit about the origin of the meme-color system:
Beck and Cowan [the system’s originators] use various names and colors to refer to these different memes or waves of existence. The use of colors almost always puts people off, at first. [emphasis mine] But Beck and Cowan often work in racially charged areas, and they have found that it helps to take peoples’ minds off of skin color and focus on the “color of the meme” instead of the “color of the skin”. […] The lines of social tension are redrawn; not based on skin color, economic class or political clout, but on the type of meme a person is operating from. […] The focus is not on types of people, but types in people.
To me, this seems like it can be paraphrased by saying that the focus is not on people at all, but on a made-up system. Maybe it’s a good system, maybe it’s not. But it seems like what happens with thinking like this is that people end up debating the merits of the system rather than engaging each other for who they are outside all systems. Wilber spends a great deal of time in this book trying to pigeonhole people and behaviors according to this system. There is a whole lot of ridiculous finger-pointing, “You’re a green meme!” or “You’re operating from an orange meme, when I’m operating from the much higher turquoise meme!” Does that sound like a worthless game to anybody else? I think the thing is that it’s just that: a game. It’s not reality. People aren’t memes, and they aren’t colors, and they aren’t “integral holonics” or “spiral dynamics”. These are just things that people made up. If you can keep that in mind at all times, then fine. The second you cross the line and start accepting this system as real, then I’m going to come after you and rip you a new meme-hole.
PS. Before you come at me with a big explanation of how I don’t understand Wilber’s system, consider that the very thing I don’t like about Wilber is that all his arguments are based on a system (3rd semantic circuit, for Leary-ites). You won’t get anywhere with me arguing from that perspective. And whatever you do, do not try to peg me according to which meme-color you think I belong to.
To be continued…
- Ken Wilber Critique, Part 5
- Ken Wilber Critique, Part 7
- Ken Wilber Critique, Part 4
- Ken Wilber Critique, Part 8
- Moral Relativism
- Prev: The Question Book
- Next: Ken Wilber Critique, Part 2
July 18th, 2005 at 2:42 pm
“But it seems like what happens with thinking like this is that people end up debating the merits of the system rather than engaging each other for who they are outside all systems.”
Right on. Well said.
One of my favorite books is RAW’s Prometheus Rising. The ONLY reason I took that book seriously (well, not too seriously) was because he constantly reminds the reader that the 8 circuit model is just one map of reality.
Does Wilber ever remind the reader that his theory is just one to be used among many others? Or is it pretty much Wilberism all the time as THE solution (I am guessing this is the case).
July 18th, 2005 at 2:44 pm
I’m seeing this in terms of “the map vs the territory.” The “theory of everything” seems like an attempt to make a map so good we no longer need the territory. I want to move in the other direction, to engage so well with the territory that I no longer need a map.
Also, the concept of the “meme” has always bugged me. I’m going to research some critiques of the concept and try to put my finger on why.
July 18th, 2005 at 2:47 pm
Ran, he’s actually not using “meme” in the same way as in “memetics”. It’s just a fancy bit of jargon for “level” or “mode.” He doesn’t mean it in terms of Richard Dawkin’s self-replicating “mind-virus” which I also have a lot of problems with, even though it is rather interesting. I’d be interested in seeing what you came up with on that topic.
July 18th, 2005 at 3:11 pm
[…] y FAQ page!
Ken Wilber Critique, Part 2
[For part one of this critique, please go here] Jargon Out the Yin-Yang One […]
July 18th, 2005 at 3:50 pm
[…] eck my FAQ page!
Ken Wilber Critique, Part 3
Part 1 | Part 2 The Burden of Evidence Throughout A Theory of Everythi […]
July 18th, 2005 at 3:54 pm
for me, wilber is demanding that we accept his map as the territory and come to live there. it`s good marketing………except that consciousness isn`t pepsi. when people take on jargon they can only communicate with others who have learned the jargon too. it`s a club. what`s the password? ken wilber….o.k. come on in. i learned the hypnotherapy and nlp jargon and it allows me to work in my field. i have rejected the jargon now that i can do the stuff. i don`t go to nlp seminars and have jargon conversations. that`s like speaking klingon at a trekkie convention. what stuff is there in wilber`s books that can be done, other than exchange jargon and buy more books containing references to the jargon?
July 18th, 2005 at 4:18 pm
“consciousness isn`t pepsi.”
that’s the quote of the day!
July 18th, 2005 at 4:20 pm
[…] of the Day
consciousness isn`t pepsi. — alistair, in comments to Tim’s Critique of Ken Wilbur, Part One
[…]
July 18th, 2005 at 4:46 pm
I’m not familiar with this colour coding but it sounds a lot like the games Jungians play with the Myers-Brigg categories. Jung actually created a kind of club for his analysands so they could share experiences as a group. One literal game consisted of everyone sitting in a circle with a ball that would be tossed from one to another in the circle. Jung asked that participants reflect on why they chose the particular other to whom they tossed the ball. Often, the other expressed complementary traits or, in this colour system, matching colours. I’d say that Jungians are mostly aware that they are indeed playing a game.
There is a nice series of alchemical images somewhere which depict a pair of alchemists starting on their quest with ladders to the heavens. In the final image the ladders have gone. It seems that we do need a framework in order to make some initial sense of the everything but success can be measured by our capacity and willingness to let go of these formulations, as alistair seems to have done with nlp.
July 18th, 2005 at 4:55 pm
I think that’s a great image with the ladders. Thanks
July 18th, 2005 at 4:57 pm
somewhere in the lyrics of a genesis tune, i believe it is carpet crawlers, there is the phrase,”you`ve got to get in to get out.” for me that sums it all up.
July 18th, 2005 at 5:53 pm
I got bones to pick with you! You’re making me see red memes!
First, the idea the NLP doesn’t have a theory, it just focuses on the practical–there’s a poverty to that thinking. Theories let us operate in unknown territory–it’s better to have a map than stumble blindly. NLP *does* theorize, constantly, to work up new techniques; the “map” and the techniques just follow each other closely.
You wrote, “Do I need to know the biological mechanisms that control love, sex and attraction to be totally captivated by the sleeping face of the woman I’m in love with?” I don’t know about you, but I feel damn better when I know–i.e., time-bind, i.e., think symbolically and use a system, to figure out what’s going on and what to do so I can maximize the hedonic factor–access the post-verbal. If you mean your opposed to extraneous detail, e.g., you prefer “A woman feels more trust when her skin is stroked” to “Biological females produce more oxytocin during skin-on-skin contact,” that’s fine, but then it’s a matter of aesthetics, not theory and practice.
That said, I don’t know how to “use” spiral dynamics to form a practice: the “game” comments hit Wilber dead-on, though; while he’s insightful, Wilber’s an arrogant, egomaniacal bastard sometimes. Sure, he can write hypnotic paragraphs and he’s probably more enlightened than me. I remember an essay two spiral dynamics types wrote suggesting that the green and orange levels were interchangable, and depended largely on the individual whether they might, in Leary’s terms, imprint as green or orange. Wilber launched an unsuccessful broadside against them–and when he did, he seemed very unwilling to take on new thought. Wilber has a very, very, very broad theory–but he doesn’t like changes to it. Now, I don’t like Spiral Dynamics for its blatant elitism, or its tendency to go into a Wilber-esque “It’s all okay!” consolation about things like murder being a red meme, and we need red memes, etc. This theory shows a detachment form the “lebensfeld,” as it’s called. People aren’t attacking the use of colors, they’re attacking the system in its rigidity.
As far as “engaging each other outside…” well, there’s this thing we do down south, and it’s called minding your own business; there’s other alternatives. I think what you’re suggesting is that people should “engage”, but often we need to engage for specific reasons, like to plan the layout of a soup kitchen–again, that requires time-binding, etc.
July 18th, 2005 at 6:19 pm
nlp has theories. or should i say it is a process of attaining and synthesising theories, then ripping the bits that are useful out and throwing the rest in a pile. the useful bits are put into another pile that is nlp. the process is continual. adding, editing and deleting. i might use some of wilber`s stuff. probably his acute marketing skills, if nothing else.
in nlp it has to work. it has to be practical. nlp has, it
July 18th, 2005 at 6:25 pm
`s self rejected parts that are inefficient as new processes are discovered. six step reframing used to be used until simpler ways of attaining the same outcome were found. it`s like writing code, the less lines the better, as long as the end result is indistinguishable from the former.
the basic tenets of nlp could be considered theories. the map isn`t the territory, etc. but i would like to think that is irrefutable fact.
July 19th, 2005 at 5:39 pm
[…] eck my FAQ page!
Ken Wilber Critique, Part 4
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 Buy My Other Books! Zac made some useful cou […]
July 19th, 2005 at 8:42 pm
I relocated the ladder image here: Spiritual Alchemy
Here are links to the first image with the ladder and the last image with the ladder discarded.
The commentary is, I think, worth reading. It touches on the distinction between mechanical and natural or organic solutions or resolutions.
July 20th, 2005 at 5:35 pm
[…] mizade recently left an exceptionally good comment in relation to this (specifically about Ken Wilber): There is a nice series of alchemical images somewhere whic […]
July 21st, 2005 at 3:02 pm
[…] eck my FAQ page!
Ken Wilber Critique, Part 5
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 Good Question Actually, this isn […]
July 22nd, 2005 at 2:33 pm
I’m passing the word. Everybody should read the information at website www.revelatorium.com. The site is jammed packed with something for everyone no matter what their faith or level of spiritual enlightenment.
Bless,
Cliff.
July 22nd, 2005 at 11:22 pm
[…] eck my FAQ page!
Ken Wilber Critique, Part 7
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 It’s All Goo […]
July 25th, 2005 at 2:50 pm
[…] eck my FAQ page!
Ken Wilber Critique, Part 8
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 What Colo […]
May 22nd, 2008 at 11:40 pm
[…] In the mid 00s a number of readers and students of Wilber’s writings began to criticize his tone and style, characterizing it as arrogant, pompous, patronizing, and elitist. Some also commented on how annoyingly repetitive his writings had become. And others noted that in his otherwise interesting recorded and published interviews and dialogues, Wilber exhibits an annoying tendency to do his guest or interlocutor the “favor” of explaining what he or she really meant by translating what was just said into the jargon of AQAL. […]
July 2nd, 2008 at 12:01 am
[…] In the mid 00s a number of readers and students of Wilber’s writings began to criticize his tone and style, characterizing it as arrogant, pompous, patronizing, and elitist. Some also commented on how annoyingly repetitive his writings had become. And others noted that in his otherwise interesting recorded and published interviews and dialogues, Wilber exhibits an annoying tendency to do his guest or interlocutor the “favor” of explaining what he or she really meant by translating what was just said into the jargon of AQAL. […]