Integral Idols
On Ken Wilber's blog I found the following "call for papers", titled: You're Going to Be a Star: Post Your AQAL Essays on This Site. It starts:
"I have some really good news and a little bit of bad news. The really good news is that you might become famous, right here. If you've got any truly Integrally (i.e.,"AQAL-ly") informed article, essay, review of any sort, or any other communication that is truly AQAL-energized, I will post it on this website where thousands and thousands of people will see it. [What is AQAL? See "IOS Basic and the AQAL Map."] "
Sounds like the Integral Institute is now getting down to the level of American Idol (as the famous dutch TV program Idols is called in the US). You too can become famous! If you can't sing, doesn't matter. Here's a link where you can learn how to sing!
"It can be an essay on any topic, from psychology to economics to art to religion. It can be the review of a current (or past) movie, whether it's attempting to be integral or not; or of a CD, in terms of the actual lyrics or the states that are evoked. It can be a defense of my work, where somebody has criticized my work without fully understanding it, or where their view understood it well enough but can be easily responded to and outcontextualized by a truly AQAL response. It can be a critical essay on a past theorist or writer, showing how they can be AQALly transcended and included. And so forth."
No mention here of possible valid critiques of the AQAL model, it is just a one-way street here. We have the Truth on our side, critics are always wrong, they can and should be exposed. What about Derrida? Evolutionary theory? The states of consciousness debate?
"If you have a website, we will link to that and give it significantly increased traffic, and where, on your site, you might wish to engage in online responses and discussions of your piece, whether friendly or more like blog wars."
In the past decade, Wilber has never taken the trouble to link to Integral World, where over 200 hundred essays on integral matters have been written and the authors have engaged in sustained and well referenced debates. That's basically not Wilber's interest. He is just interested in promoting his ideas. We can leave that to Wilber - validating his ideas is an entirely different matter. That requires a critical distance, lacking in the integral scene.
The bad news mentioned by Wilber, by the way, is that, due to shortage of resources at Integral Institute, you shouldn't expect any feedback on your submissions, and just have to wait and see if it gets posted. But IF it gets posted, that's your road to immediate fame.
This really can only be done in America. Over in Europe, that cultural component is found to be tasteless.
Fame! - I'm gonna live forever!
"I have some really good news and a little bit of bad news. The really good news is that you might become famous, right here. If you've got any truly Integrally (i.e.,"AQAL-ly") informed article, essay, review of any sort, or any other communication that is truly AQAL-energized, I will post it on this website where thousands and thousands of people will see it. [What is AQAL? See "IOS Basic and the AQAL Map."] "
Sounds like the Integral Institute is now getting down to the level of American Idol (as the famous dutch TV program Idols is called in the US). You too can become famous! If you can't sing, doesn't matter. Here's a link where you can learn how to sing!
"It can be an essay on any topic, from psychology to economics to art to religion. It can be the review of a current (or past) movie, whether it's attempting to be integral or not; or of a CD, in terms of the actual lyrics or the states that are evoked. It can be a defense of my work, where somebody has criticized my work without fully understanding it, or where their view understood it well enough but can be easily responded to and outcontextualized by a truly AQAL response. It can be a critical essay on a past theorist or writer, showing how they can be AQALly transcended and included. And so forth."
No mention here of possible valid critiques of the AQAL model, it is just a one-way street here. We have the Truth on our side, critics are always wrong, they can and should be exposed. What about Derrida? Evolutionary theory? The states of consciousness debate?
"If you have a website, we will link to that and give it significantly increased traffic, and where, on your site, you might wish to engage in online responses and discussions of your piece, whether friendly or more like blog wars."
In the past decade, Wilber has never taken the trouble to link to Integral World, where over 200 hundred essays on integral matters have been written and the authors have engaged in sustained and well referenced debates. That's basically not Wilber's interest. He is just interested in promoting his ideas. We can leave that to Wilber - validating his ideas is an entirely different matter. That requires a critical distance, lacking in the integral scene.
The bad news mentioned by Wilber, by the way, is that, due to shortage of resources at Integral Institute, you shouldn't expect any feedback on your submissions, and just have to wait and see if it gets posted. But IF it gets posted, that's your road to immediate fame.
This really can only be done in America. Over in Europe, that cultural component is found to be tasteless.
Fame! - I'm gonna live forever!
posted by Frank Visser at 4:12 AM
10 Comments:
I agree. Good connection to American Idol. The subversion of academic integrity for celebrity continues...
Hi Frank,
You write:
That's basically not Wilber's interest. He is just interested in promoting his ideas. We can leave that to Wilber - validating his ideas is an entirely different matter. That requires a critical distance, lacking in the integral scene.
I would only add the slight correction, to my eyes, that it isn't the "integral scene" you are talking about. Rather, the "Wilber scene". That scene holds is centered firmly around Wilber's ideas, and uses them to directly frame their own. Whereas the "integral scene" doesn't, yet seeks to amplify and live a life of fullness.
I would suggest that "Wilber" and "integral" thus are not synonyms.
md
What's wrong with the American Idol? What's wrong with a non-violent new age cult? What's wrong with the popular culture in general?
I expect Ken Wilber to play by academic rules as much as I expect the American Idol to play by academic rules. So what's the fuss? Especially as Integral Wolrd itself is not much more academic than any other website.
Once again it all seems to boil down to Frank's ego problems: "In the past decade, Wilber has never taken the trouble to link to Integral World, where over 200 hundred essays on integral matters have been written and the authors have engaged in sustained and well referenced debates." Uuh.. these thing are so important! We are doing important things here!
Frank, let it be!
While I see your point, I have no objection to Wilber associating with the rabble. It's healthy for him to mingle with the unwashed that he holds in contempt.
He has never treated blogging respectfully. [Need I cite examples?] He's gotten lazy with his books. His new I-I publication is amateurish. And his life is rattled with all sorts of weirdness.
Ken Wilber is simply not going to save the world like I once thought. Climate change, terrorist attacks and a worldwide depression will get us first and humans will cede the planet to some sort of super-intelligent desert lizard.
Soldier on with Integral World, Frank. But forget Wilbergral.
[Note how I sneaked a link to my blog in the text. I'm gonna live forever!]
"all is vanity"
King Soloman"
"and the rest is lust"
zak
I assume these dreadful guest spots on Wilber's flog (sic) are picking up where "The Integralist" seemingly failed? The submission guidelines are rather familiar, at least.
BTW, has anyone reposted the AQAL Journal pdfs? I would have actually bought them with real money individually, but refuse to sign up on a monthly plan for the pleasure.
We folks (especially Frank!) spend way too much time, effort and energy trying to deconstruct KW.
I recommend two things...
1) With all that time and energy spent critiquing and reviewing every word, breath and fart of Ken's, we could construct a new, beautiful, enduring, accurate and useful integral map (do not just shape it from nor call it "AQAL" - that's Ken's model) and leave Wilber entirely out of the conversation... Why bother spending so much time and energy on him at that point?
2) Take a bit more responsibility for our personal (and collective) Shadow or Reflection. Own, admit and be accountable for all those faults we see in Wiber as being (largely) our own denied and dissowned emotional baggage. This reqires maturity, courage and humility... three things that I do not see in us any more than I see it in Ken (or anyone else for that matter).
Integral World has, sadly, degenerated into something quite paradoxical and even pathetic. On the one hand there is a perverse obsession with everything to do with KW & I-I; on the other hand there is a nasty and compulsive rejection of all things related to Ken. I believe that the appropriate perscription for us here is... "GET A LIFE!".
This whole obsession/complulsion thing is not generating nor creating a thing. Worst of all it has become just plain boring. Ken doesn't link to IW because he neither needs nor wants to and has other stuff to do. Let's take a lesson from that and move on, already!
Kulu Sadira said
With all that time and energy spent critiquing and reviewing every word, breath and fart of Ken's, we could construct a new, beautiful, enduring, accurate and useful integral map
Actually this is what I'm doing with my book in progress, Integral Metaphysics. It would be good to see many other such initiatives as well.
I think Frank is just acting out. After Ken was his 'father/idol/guru' for many years he's fighting him now to find his own identity. Classical coming-to-age-story, but so tiring that he does it in public.
Let it be, Frank. Wed have got your point and support you in growing towards adulthood! We've been there, done that etc.
Wrong! At least one slipped through. Frank Visser et al., I just had a fairly critical essay posted on Ken's blog. Probably the first ever. :) Seriously though, I'm after the whole evolutionary bio thing and taking it one given at a time.
Here's the link:
http://kenwilber.com/blog/show/292
Following Ken's own incomplete example, I want to actually peel back every assumption in order one by one, like a paleontologist, and see how they fit. The ontology of our goofus metaphysics.
And why are so many of you so freakin' bitter?
MAD props on your recommendations, Kulu Sadira.
michaelgarfield.zaadz.com
Post a Comment
<< Home