Simply Too Much...
While preparing a review of Integral Spirituality I was -- again -- struck by the many times Wilber uses the word "simply". In my opinion, this is a rethorical device that has run out of hand. For those who did not follow the Wyatt Earp saga, the first time I mentioned this phenomenon in my blog posting Boldness Revisited, it earned me the following, historical and revealing comment from Wilber: "... simply suck my dick." However, when you look at it more closely, it's really weird.
For the fun of it, I did a word count of "simply" in the manuscript of Integral Spirituality. What do you think? It doesn't occur 20 times, 50 times, 100 times. It occurs 268 times. Simply too much...
The tendency to simplify things in this book is stretched to the limits. It's as if Wilber is making a desparate attempt to explain Foucault or De Saussure or Nagarjuna to the hip hop generation, but is constantly afraid of losing their attention. (We are assured ad nauseam: "Don't worry if these terms are unfamiliar, we will cover that important topic later." "Don't worry, we will summarize this later." "Don't worry, it is much simpler then it sounds!").
The book -- the cover of which wouldn't look bad on a Wicca manual, by the way, with it's moody colors and sharp forms -- has a lot of integral, but little spirituality in it. And the connection between the two is almost absent. We read about 8 types of methodology. But never does it get applied to religion or spirituality, except for the first two or three, and even then. We get presented with the Wilber-Combs Lattice -- the theoretical center piece of the book -- but never does this get fleshed out with empirical findings, or even striking examples. Nor are possible objections to this model raised -- quite a normal procedure in scientific literature.
What is more, it takes Wilber 178 pages to get to the topic of religion proper (in a book the main text of which is little over 200 pages). By then, the reader has had to endure shameless self-promotion ("If you like this, join Integral Institute!", "integral is the best, the most comprehenseive, the most effective, the most..."), many, many claims and even more statements (that get repeated over and over again -- "As we have seen..." where it should read "As you have seen me state..."), but very few good and solid arguments, or even detailed, real life examples.
And when, at rare occasions, research does get mentioned (but not quoted, not referenced), it is the same old research (the boomers' protest against Vietnam, meditation speeds up development, etc.) that has been mentioned in Wilber's previous books, the use of which has been critically evaluated by many (Harris, Falk, Evans). All that has by now become part of integral mythology, I am afraid.
But stay tuned! Coming up, after the break! Keep visiting this blog, and Integral World, where hundreds of the world's best Wilber critics have gathered for a historical meeting... Ooops, sorry.
For the fun of it, I did a word count of "simply" in the manuscript of Integral Spirituality. What do you think? It doesn't occur 20 times, 50 times, 100 times. It occurs 268 times. Simply too much...
The tendency to simplify things in this book is stretched to the limits. It's as if Wilber is making a desparate attempt to explain Foucault or De Saussure or Nagarjuna to the hip hop generation, but is constantly afraid of losing their attention. (We are assured ad nauseam: "Don't worry if these terms are unfamiliar, we will cover that important topic later." "Don't worry, we will summarize this later." "Don't worry, it is much simpler then it sounds!").
The book -- the cover of which wouldn't look bad on a Wicca manual, by the way, with it's moody colors and sharp forms -- has a lot of integral, but little spirituality in it. And the connection between the two is almost absent. We read about 8 types of methodology. But never does it get applied to religion or spirituality, except for the first two or three, and even then. We get presented with the Wilber-Combs Lattice -- the theoretical center piece of the book -- but never does this get fleshed out with empirical findings, or even striking examples. Nor are possible objections to this model raised -- quite a normal procedure in scientific literature.
What is more, it takes Wilber 178 pages to get to the topic of religion proper (in a book the main text of which is little over 200 pages). By then, the reader has had to endure shameless self-promotion ("If you like this, join Integral Institute!", "integral is the best, the most comprehenseive, the most effective, the most..."), many, many claims and even more statements (that get repeated over and over again -- "As we have seen..." where it should read "As you have seen me state..."), but very few good and solid arguments, or even detailed, real life examples.
And when, at rare occasions, research does get mentioned (but not quoted, not referenced), it is the same old research (the boomers' protest against Vietnam, meditation speeds up development, etc.) that has been mentioned in Wilber's previous books, the use of which has been critically evaluated by many (Harris, Falk, Evans). All that has by now become part of integral mythology, I am afraid.
But stay tuned! Coming up, after the break! Keep visiting this blog, and Integral World, where hundreds of the world's best Wilber critics have gathered for a historical meeting... Ooops, sorry.
posted by Frank Visser at 11:10 PM
12 Comments:
Frank has some good points in this post.
Have you guys read Frank's "Seven Spheres" published in his Integral World website? Better stuff than Ken's writings? More scientific?
Wouldn't it be interesting if Jeff Meyerhoff reviewed "Seven Spheres"?! I would like to read that review!
Hi Frank,
Wilber's current book is I think aimed at a more modern/post-modern audience (suggested as much in the title). I personally applaud the fact that his model is being explained in a more simple - not to me necessarily simplistic - way. I think it's also now doing so in a way that's quite 'elegant' - a word that's used in the first few chapters.
Is Wilber's integral model really all that 'simple'? I don't feel that that's at all the case.
For whatever reason, you've become a far more negative critic. I think that's good in a way, but I also don't think you're totally examining your whole reasons for doing so, and I also think you're doing a certain amount of damage to anything 'integral' long term; for me any criticism is tempered by a more balanced inclusive perspective.
Phil Ord.
Wilber simplifies. It's good to have a discussion about wheter he oversimplifies or not. Isn't saying that "Wilber oversimplifies to the point of absurdity" a oversimplification itself?
Can we have any maps without simplification? I think a map is always a simplified picture of the territory. Shouldn't we be explicit about the purpose of the map when we are drawing the line between necessary simplification vs. oversimplification? For what purposes does Wilber's stuff give a good overview? For what purposes it is too simplistic?
Hi Frank,
found it an interesting critique, simply good!
I visited a event of "Whats Enlightenment?" about this book in Berlin. Also met the local Ken Wilber group there for the first time.
If I were to chracterize them I would say a rather masculine club. (17 men 4 women). Very brainy kind of people.
What is called "Integrative Spirituelity here should be called "Cognitive Spirituality".
Much Love,
Mushin
hi Frank,
I was just wondering whether you are in personal contact with Ken discussing the criticisms raised on your site in detail via phone or so...
if there was not more actual communication between you and Ken than his and your blog-entries I could simply not imagine how any form of mutual understanding should be possible...
and IF you are in personal contact with Ken, could you please ask him whether he could enable posting comments on his blog?
appreciate your work... salam
hey frank ...
those 3 dots "..." do they also stand for "simply"
isnt it just a simple symbol for silence and take a breath taking in "an notion"?
neu ree bah
cees
Thanks for the very informative review Frank!
Wilber's case is an interesting one; compare the tone of his earlier works with his current writings. Now he and his followers have no choice but to circle the wagons in order to defend his indefensible position.
Utimately, just another new age cult, headed by a brilliant and charismatic but self-absorbed leader.
Kyösti Tufalipessi said
Have you guys read Frank's "Seven Spheres" published in his Integral World website?
I have, and I was very pleased to see Frank posting some Theosophy. Gets away from the monotony of wilberian theory. A true integral paradigm or metaparadigm has to be built on and has to honour many perspectives; it cannot just be built on one while debegrating all the others.
Better stuff than Ken's writings? More scientific?
If you want pseudoscience, take a look at Ken's recommendation of Creationim / Intelligent Design. Theosophy is esotericism, it isnt science. So it isnt that one disproves the other. Whereas Wilber's creationism (such as his "half a wing" attempt at refutation of Darwinism in ABHOE) has been scientiofically refuted a number of times, including by myself.
Wouldn't it be interesting if Jeff Meyerhoff reviewed "Seven Spheres"?!
Why should he? Nowhere does Frank make claims to be (nor do his friends claim that he is) the greatest living philosopher, or to have included but also transcended Plotinus, Shankara, Sri Aurobindo, and every other spiritual teacher that came before him, while at the same time denegrating those same teachers by saying that because their teachings are "metaphysical" they are "abstractions" whereas he is the first to have the true explanation of things, to be a bodhisattva and act bodhisattvically in all that he does, to recommend his readers follow abusive gurus, to claim that his own followers constitute an elect above everyone else (second tier, turquoise), or that anyone who posts anything criticising him or supporting KW in this blog are "green" and "lower tier", etc.
If Frank, or I, or anyone else were to make such inflated claims, then by all means Jeff Meyerhoff, Geoff Falk, and for that matter you too, should criticise us and hold us to account for doing so!
Ultimately, the first requirement of any authentic spiritual path is humility.
It is not possible to have genuine enlightenment AND a big ego; the two are mutually contradictory. With an ego and higher experiences together, then you are stuck in what Sri Aurobindo refers to as the Intermediate zone, and that can be worse than having no experiences at all!
Frank -
A long time Wilber reader/fan myself, I have to agree with much of your review of Ken's new book.
Best,
Seth
Have you guys read Ken's new manuscript yet? It's called Integral Politics - The many faces of terrorism. What's the matter.. why isn't anybody bashing it already?! You can find the link in www.kenwilber.com
Dear Frank,
SIMPLY SUCK IT.
It's a sad blog, simply sad ...
why the hell are you wasting your time?
it looks like your goal in life is to become Ken Wilber
well, he's better than you in being Ken Wilber
you're simply wasting your time
Meaning is context-bound, yes?
"Frank V. is simple."
"Oh,no, Frank V. is simply the cutest guy in the blogoshere."
Still want to count?
Post a Comment
<< Home