![[tmbchr]™](/journal/popocculture-blog-logo.jpg){kind=logo}
The Last Word on Wilber
I’m going to try and put down my Ken Wilber axe pretty soon, but there’s really one final argument I feel like I need to make before moving on. And I don’t mean to pick on Nicq here, because you’ve brought a lot of useful insight to this inquiry. But I wanted to use one of your quotes as a jumping off point:
And, similiarly, the better, more inclusive, and more life-promoting the model, the better- we can’t live without modes of social control, but we can try to develop better and better ones.
Rather than refute this outright, I think Wilber himself creates a decent argument against this, although he really doesn’t seem to follow his own advice:
[…] if that is true - and all stages are shown to be primitive and false in light of further evolution - then we will have to admit that our own views, right now, are also false (because future evolution will move beyond them).
In other words, we’re caught in an endless loop. If we say that Wilber’s model is better than other models, we have to admit that another model will eventually be better than Wilber’s. This is the loose thread that unravels Wilber’s philosophical sweater. If our goal is merely to create a better system, then rather than accepting Wilber’s system, shouldn’t we spend all our time trying to move past it, rather than trying to implement something we know to be flawed?
Maybe someone will make the argument that we’re limited by language, by concepts and by models. Okay, so what? Again, that means that if we choose to wholly adopt any model, then we are doing so at the detriment to our common sense. We are ignoring reason rather than incorporating and transcending it. We are intentionally limiting ourselves to something that we know to be flawed.
If that’s what you want to do philosophically, the best most flawed thing you can ever ally yourself is the human spirit. It’s weird, it’s inconsistent, it’s ornery, it’s crazy, it’s stupid, it’s beautiful - and you don’t need any type of philosophical system to prove it. Just look at yourself. Look at your friends, at your family, at your co-workers, at your neighbors. None of those people fits perfectly into a system. And when you start thinking that they do, you rob them of an element of their humanity. They become a caricature, a short-cut to really truly understanding all the weird marvelous idiosyncracies that make this big crazy fucked up world go round. In philosophy, flaws are weaknesses which we attack and defend. In the realm of the human spirit, our flaws make us who we are, and paradoxically they are also our strengths. I’d much rather be a flawed human than a perfect philosophy. And since I really don’t have the option to “become” a philosophy, I may as well just be happily flawed.
- Ken Wilber Critique, Part 5
- Wayne Dyer’s Power of Intention
- Ken Wilber Critique, Part 7
- Ken Wilber Critique, Part 4
- Text, Subtext & Context
- Prev: Dalai Lama on CIA Payroll?
- Next: Gatto on Literacy
July 25th, 2005 at 9:00 pm
well it’s all well and good to be a happy flawed person, but there are plenty of folks out there who aren’t happy with who they are, or with who you are, or much of anything, really.
as long as you’re surrounded by agreeable people who will let you do your own thing, then there’s no need for a system of any kind.
the odds of that are rather slim though. probably why so many people are happy wilber puts the work in to help others communicate, imperfectly or no…
July 25th, 2005 at 9:06 pm
Okay, I can respect that. How is Wilber helping you or others to communicate?
July 25th, 2005 at 9:21 pm
personally it helped me understand the folks who were grinding culture down into a soup of politically correct mush.
it helped me understand why the way science apporaches religion smells so bad.
it gave me hope that i personally could grow to become better than i was, that it was natural to keep growing my whole life and feel good about leaving behind my old views on things.
it helped me see my growth was not just mine, but part of a muturity and expanding circle of compassion that has been creeping forward in humanity since the dawn of mankind.
it helped me examine the childish assumptions about the benefits of modern civilisation that most everyone seems to accept uncritically, to seperate the good from the bad instead of simply thinking that everything about liberalism and democracy was inherently good and salvific in and of itself.
and particularly it helped me to pull myself out of a sinkhole of bitterness and rage that i was mistaking for a spiritual rebellion against the way things were, and do something healthy and constuctive with my life, while still honoring my old understandings of things.
so I’m happy to listen to people say we’re all perfect the way we are, and no one really evolves or whatever, but in my case i know it to be untrue.
i think in the ultimate spiritual sense we are indeed all inherently sublime and perfect, but in functional sense we do indeed and should indeed work to beome better than we are.
July 25th, 2005 at 9:24 pm
Throwing down the gauntlet, are we?
(this is going to sound a bit vitriolic- I am not attacking anyone here, however, and keep in mind that I’m saying it all with a smile on my face)
Okay, I’ll bite. While I’ve been defending Wilber, while I use his model in various ways on a frequent basis, while I’ve read all his books- despite this, I am not a “Wilberian”. I don’t buy into the model as anything more than a useful tool that I can throw out at will, when it doesn’t work for me. I’m a terrible integral, nor do I claim to be one- I’m way too “Orange” for that. Or am I more “Red”. Nevermind. I’ve never cared much for spiral dynamics to begin with.
If there is any thinker I’ve spent as much or more time studying than Wilber (well, other than Aleister Crowley), it’s Friedrich Nietzsche. To Nietzsche, the act of creating a philosophical system is an expression of the will to power- hence his admiration for Hegel, and my admiration for Wilber (and Leo Strauss for that matter). There is not necessarily “truth” in the philosophy- it is the philosophy that makes the truth. One goes through the process of learning the existing systems and models, nay, mastering them- and then, if one’s will is sufficient, they overcome the philosophy and destroy it, imposing their own will on the world, whatever it’s consequences.
Are you starting to understand what I’m getting at?
All philosophies, all models, all languages are expressions of the will to power. They are imposed on us- and most of us just take it. Some people try to “break free” of them in various ways, but most of their efforts are silly and futile. (I can’t help but think of all the postmodern academic circle-jerks I’ve witnessed, all the blustering socialists I’ve listened to whining in coffeehouses, the pointless protests, the silly posturing of “chaos magicians” who don’t really have a clue what they’re talking about… all represent the same mentality of faux victimhood and false liberation.) There is no liberation without turning the tables- you’re either the master or the slave. You either learn to express and impose your will, or you will be imposed upon. Your call. You can’t free yourself through escape- you can only free yourself by learning the “codes” that lie behind the system you’re in, and surpassing them. You’re either a slave to the illusion, or the illusionist- there is no other option.
If your goal is to create a better system, you adopt the best systems you can find- and then work past them from there. The will to power makes ever greater expressions through this process. The idea isn’t to ally yourself with the most flawed system or idea, but the one that is, provisionally, the “least flawed”, or most life-giving- and go from there.
I’ve adopted a number of systems. The english language. American culture. Crowley’s Thelema and A.’.A.’. system. Modern science, esp. cognitive neuroscience, psychology, computer science, and pharmacology. Nietzsche. Straussian political philosophy. Wilber’s integral philosophy. They are all tools that I am attempting to use to my advantage, for expressing my own will, and I will have to build on all these structures eventually, in work that will at least take decades. It will be extremely difficult, and I’m sure I’ll leave a trail of corpses behind me, but I know what I’m doing. I’m doing the only thing I can do.
I am becoming who I am.
July 25th, 2005 at 9:35 pm
I absolutely understand. It’s what I’m trying to do. You just happen to be on the receiving end. Anyway, I’m not throwing down the gauntlet or admitting defeat. I’m merely moving on, because I’m already starting to repeat myself. I don’t need to read every one of Wilber’s books to know it’s not for me. Greener pastures await!
PS. Zac, those were great insights. I don’t feel much resonance emotionally with Wilber’s work, so it’s helpful for me to understand other’s experiences. For what it’s worth, I basically just had other life mentors when I went through the stuff you’re describing above. They aren’t better or worse, but it’s important for me to articulate where I’m at right now and what’s important to me now before I can move onward. Cause honestly, I don’t know what’s next. I’m flying totally blind. And I’m trying to admit that to myself - my own flaws so that they don’t become blindspots as I go along.
July 25th, 2005 at 9:56 pm
well if this is the last word then let me just say that i’m grateful to you, tim, for reading wilber, so i don’t have to. thanks especially for trying to be fair and intellectually honest in your appraisal. thats really what makes the difference between your insightful analysis and my half-baked carping.
July 25th, 2005 at 10:07 pm
Tim: Hmm… well, I must say that I’ve seen fewer intellectual pastures greener than Wilber’s, at least where I’m sitting, but your goals and mine are very different I’d imagine. In all honesty, Wilber isn’t that helpful to an occult investigator (though, as you noted, the four quadrants do provide some interesting ways to analyze such matters). He’s of great use to a political philosopher, on the other hand.
albion: Ah well, write a thinker off without even really exploring him. Heck, what am I saying, I do that all the time!
I’ve just argued that, while you call his work bullshit (and it is), it is to the same extent as everything else… I’ve merely found a great deal of personal empowerment through it. YMMV.
July 25th, 2005 at 10:19 pm
hmm, no i would say to a greater extent. astrology, for instance (as jeremy noted earlier) has considerably less bullshit in it than wilber.
but, okay.
July 25th, 2005 at 10:28 pm
Really? If you think astrology has more explanatory power than Wilber, then it’s proof you don’t know jack.
July 25th, 2005 at 10:38 pm
well as you know i’m arguing with little more than nerve, so i’ll let someone else have The Last Word on wilber. i will just say that it’s not the ‘personal empowerment’ part that i have a problem with, it’s the pseudo-objectivity.
but, what do i know?
cheers!
July 25th, 2005 at 10:53 pm
Well, I would say that astrology has thousands of years of history from all over the world, so by that sheer fact alone it HAS to have more to it than Wilber, who’s only been with us a few decades as a thinker. In any event, I’m not going to sit here and battle anyone on that though.
July 25th, 2005 at 10:54 pm
I’m not looking for an intellectual pasture, I’m looking for an actual pasture!
July 26th, 2005 at 12:33 am
Maybe someone will make the argument that we’re limited by language, by concepts and by models. Okay, so what? Again, that means that if we choose to wholly adopt any model, then we are doing so at the detriment to our common sense. We are ignoring reason rather than incorporating and transcending it. We are intentionally limiting ourselves to something that we know to be flawed.
I can only presume you went into that book with the intention to criticize him. It’d have been cooler–to me, at least–if you had mined it for its insights more, rather than extrapoliting almost entirely on the percieved short-comings of the model (which I think may have been taken more seriously than it should have.)
As it stands, models are often an effective way of integrating a new way of thinking for many people (something just about everyone would attest to–at least to some extent.)
The characteristic of a person who’s experienced enlightenment is to bring back and integrate the myriad of insights in way that they might become more accessible to others. Models, everywhere, you barely look any where in the occult world without seeing them. The beauty of experimenting with models is the eventual transcending and mutating of them.
The only limiting factor in “models” is people’s tendency to get attached; just like a hammer is only limiting if you use it exclusively to all other tools.
Take a look at Prometheus Rising! R.A.W. gives you a ton of models to work and grapple with. What about “Story-Systems”? More models.
July 26th, 2005 at 12:41 am
I’ve been open about this from the start. My biases are plainly expressed in each piece.
Again, I wrote several pieces explaining where I support Wilber’s ideas, and even tried my hand at applying them to several areas I was interested in. I think it’s utter bullshit to say that I didn’t give it a fair shake. And what’s more, why do I even need to give anything a fair shake? I’m not a professional. I’m not a professor. I’m a person exploring ideas.
So now I’m supposed to know exactly how seriously to take things before I study them? How the hell am I supposed to know that?
Yep, and I’ve been picking away at RAW for months, if you haven’t noticed. Although I must say that I think Wilson is far more open about what his biases are and why he has them than Wilber is. I might even say he’s openly mocking and silly so that you know not to take him too seriously.
As for the story-systems stuff, I haven’t worked on that in months either, because all the model-building started to feel not quite right for what I really wanted out of all this. It started become it’s own thing, rather than the thing that I was, that I am.
As Nicq said above, it’s a very useful exercise to spend time studying and even articulating your own models. I just so happen to be immersed in a time period where I’m finding it useful to tear down models. I don’t think it’s the “Right Way To Be” eternally, but it’s extremely worthwhile for me right now in order to help me break down and reveal what my biases and assumptions are, and hopefully move into new realms that are more mature and useful for myself and others. Criticize me for that all you want, cause it makes sense to me.
July 26th, 2005 at 1:00 am
the difference between r.a.w. and wilber is that r.a.w. doesn`t give a shit what others think and wilber is consumed by it.
July 26th, 2005 at 1:41 am
the difference between r.a.w. and wilber is that r.a.w. doesn`t give a shit what others think and wilber is consumed by it.
*shrug* he’s an academic, he’s gotta be up on the (mostly scholarly) criticisms directed at him, and I’m certain they’re constant. Part of the job, I would think.
July 26th, 2005 at 1:51 am
Criticize me for that all you want, cause it makes sense to me.
The approach you’re taking to the material just seems like it’s already slanted towards some of your preconceived conclusions.
So now I’m supposed to know exactly how seriously to take things before I study them? How the hell am I supposed to know that?
*shrug* I haven’t been sensing much humor in this series. I’m not getting any real sense of playfulness towards the material. Just an observation (YA DONT HAFTA BITE MY HEAD OFF LOL!!11)
July 26th, 2005 at 1:56 am
YES! What gave you that idea? Me saying it over and over?
You bit first!
July 26th, 2005 at 2:34 am
YES! What gave you that idea? Me saying it over and over?
it’s all well and good to recognize your own bias, but yer usually sposed ta’ get over it.
You bit first!
Maybe a sign of your increasing defensiveness. Tryin’ to be as mild as possible here.
July 26th, 2005 at 3:33 am
not much humor? hell i laughed out loud a few times.
course there are those who would call me dismisive.
but i don’t laugh in derision. i’m genuinely amused!
July 26th, 2005 at 11:55 am
According to whom? You yourself are operating under preconceived notions, and I don’t see you trying to get over them. What if the preconceived notions I had about Wilber turned out to be accurate based on my reading of him?
Sorry, I’m just tired of being put on trial every time I write something that asks questions or draws conclusions people don’t like. It gets old after a short while.
July 26th, 2005 at 1:25 pm
According to whom?
Common sense?
You yourself are operating under preconceived notions, and I don’t see you trying to get over them.
Gosh, you’re so inscrutable. Any way, I wouldn’t say my notions were preconceived (at least not the way you think), going into this post I actually expected your opinion on Wilber to turn around a bit.
What if the preconceived notions I had about Wilber turned out to be accurate based on my reading of him?
Well, as you know, what the thinker thinks, the prover proves.
Sorry, I’m just tired of being put on trial every time I write something that asks questions or draws conclusions people don’t like. It gets old after a short while.
ok, really, wtf. I mean, if you’re gonna criticize an established thinker on a blog with a comments option, someone is gonna put your opinions to the test. As far as I can tell I’m the only one here who seemed to crtiticized you, but you’re not exactly on trial.
July 26th, 2005 at 1:46 pm
Look, being adversarial wasn’t my intention and I apologize for it. I just tend to find these debates very polarizing and sometimes get carried away with that spirit. I’m trying to move on now though.