Ken Wilber Critique, Part 8

Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 What Colo [...]

Ken Wilber Critique, Part 7

Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 It’s All Goo [...]

Bless,

Cliff.

Ken Wilber Critique, Part 5

Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 Good Question Actually, this isn&#8 [...]

I think that’s a great image with the ladders. Thanks

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.

Ken Wilber Critique, Part 4

Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 Buy My Other Books! Zac made some useful cou [...]

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.

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.

consciousness isn`t pepsi. — alistair, in comments to Tim’s Critique of Ken Wilbur, Part One

[...]

that’s the quote of the day!

Ken Wilber Critique, Part 3

Part 1 | Part 2 The Burden of Evidence Throughout A Theory of Everythi [...]

Ken Wilber Critique, Part 2

[For part one of this critique, please go here] Jargon Out the Yin-Yang One [...]

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.

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).