Basically, if you aren’t a spiritual person Wilber derides you for having a ‘flatland’ cosmology. But just what the hell is spirituality? Wilber gives his version and if your’s doesn’t match his then you are assumed to be intellectually inferior. Not a very integral approach. Furthermore, it’s awfully conceited to think that everyone else on the planet has, in Wilber’s words, ‘partial truths’, but only some thoerist from Nebraska is smart enough to transcend all the world’s best thinkers and find the ultimate framework into which all the so-called ‘partial views’ fit. HA!!!

a side note: ken wilber likes to say that Tony Blair is the most integral leader there is today. while Don Beck told once that George Bush is such a nice guy who was ‘chosen by the spiral’ whatever that means

And yes, I generally have a tendency to trust my professors, tutors, and advisors, often a bit more than I should. I’m still in graduate school, and probably will be for another 6+ years, given that I want to someday have a decent, paying job. Earning $10 an hour doing clerical work for the rest of my natural life vs. pursuing a professorship in the Ivies or a career with a Washington think-tank… it’s a no-brainer. But hey, that’s my life. Each to their own. I’ve thought about dropping out more times than I care to remember- until I recall what the consequences are.

he seems to have no grasp at all of Hermeticism, Ritual Magick, Gnosticism or Alchemy-

And this is essentially where Jung really excels, where he blows away just about everybody else. And that’s probably why I like him so much.

Jung’s philosophy just strikes me as close to useless, and insufficiently systematic.

Again, what “uses” are you hoping to derive from a school of thinking? His fans and Wilber himself talks endlessly about applications and uses, but I honestly find it all a little vague (but then, I only read TOE). And then when I try to extrapolate how these things might be applied in a practical manner (here, or in the one about the personality types), people tell me that’s not what Wilber’s really saying - that his ideas aren’t meant to be used like that. Would somebody give me an example of how they ARE meant to be used? I also think it’s crap to put out ideas, ask people to apply them, and then criticize them for applying them in a way you didn’t intend. That’s just the nature of the beast! It’s what makes human cultural discourse so profound!

Unfortunately, if you want to understand Jung, you can’t start with him. I know I trashed Wilber for jargon, but Jung is also extremely dense in that regard. The best thing to do is to read his students. Marie Louise Von Franz and Edward Edinger are both fucking geniuses in their own right, and will give you the best foundation on Jung. Pick up any of their books which may interest you topically, and then go from there. Erich Von Neumann is good too. His book The Origins & History of Consciousness I think makes an excellent counter-point to Wilber’s talk of the “pre/trans fallacy”

Most of the scholars and professors I’ve talked to about Jung say he’s a waste of time, but they could be wrong…

Here’s a simple rule of thumb - don’t trust scholars or professors. But then, that’s why I dropped out of college after a year and started calling myself an *occult investigator* a few years later… I just like cutting my own way through the forest I guess.

Maybe I just haven’t read enough Jung, however. Most of the scholars and professors I’ve talked to about Jung say he’s a waste of time, but they could be wrong… they tend to prefer the Smith/Wilber view of development, or are hardcore Aristotelians…

As for Wilber being a Guru… well, I’d say he’s more of a “guru” in the style of Freud or Jung than Rajneesh or Adi Da. He’s created an intellectual cargo cult around himself and attracted a lot of big name followers. I doubt he’ll be building a compound or telling folks to worship him any time soon, however…

Ken Wilber’s Sex, Ecology, Spirituality is a very popular book with management trainers worldwide, and it’s a required part of Motorola’s management training programs (given they have tens of thousands of managers throughout the world, that’s definitely some influence).

why doesn’t that make me comfortable?

“who moved my cheese?” was also a huge management training book– doesn’t make it any better or worse.

Wilber never claims that he is a spiritual leader or guru, in fact he goes out of his way to say that he’s only a philosopher who deals with spiritual issues.

Doesn’t matter what people claim to be. What they are is what they are!

As for Wilber and One-World Government… yeah, I’d say it’s fair to say he supports the idea, and I think it will probably be inevitable, as it’s ultimately going to be the only way to bring multinational capitalism under control before every economy in the world is systematically raped. Though I’m guessing it will take a form more akin to the EU (only hopefully more libertarian and less bureaucratic!) than the UN, with membership being voluntary and members having to meet certain requirements regarding governmental openness, universal civil rights, free trade, etc.

KW and the New World Order? Well, here’s what I know:

Both Bill Clinton and Al Gore are very big fans of Wilber, and they’ve expressed interest in conducting dialogues with him (ala IntegralNaked, I’d imagine, if they’re not private).

Jeb Bush had his staff trained in Spiral Dynamics seminars. No other connections between Bush and Wilber that I know of.

Tony Blair also had much of his staff trained in Spiral Dynamics…

Ken Wilber’s Sex, Ecology, Spirituality is a very popular book with management trainers worldwide, and it’s a required part of Motorola’s management training programs (given they have tens of thousands of managers throughout the world, that’s definitely some influence).

Wilber has quite a few fans among the World Economic Forum, and probably the UN as well…

In any event though, an “integral” world government sounds better than what we have in place right now… yipes…