Hating on Ken Wilbur and all those Know-it-all Buddhist Yoga Rationalist types

I just talked to my friend Julie, another big Ishmael and rewilding fan, and she called Ken Wilbur a “Philosophical Imperialist”. Hah! Take that, mister!

I couldn’t agree more that ken wilbur is scary looking. I also dislike a lot of his terminology. He uses lots of prefixes, always talking about pre- pre-(insert abstract word he may have created himself) and post-post-trans etc. He might even have a pre-post-trans category. The result is a sort of mind-numbing over-conceptualization that requires a farmiliarity with his own terminology to follow. Who was it who said if you can’t explain what you want to say in terms simple enough for a seven year old to understand, it probably doesn’t mean much?

Nevertheless, his stupidity was potent enough to have many trees chopped down to elucidate them, and enticing enough to elicit more than a few hate-filled remarks (via use of pollluting electricity). Gotta give him credit at least for that.

If I’ve read you correctly (and I may not be), William, it looks like your response to Wilbur comes from a feeling that he has devalued the archaic by putting it at the bottom of the totem pole, before rational. And since you identify with “primitive” culture, this part of you is affronted. In the continuum that he outlines (archaic – magic – mythic – rational – pluralistic – integrative) he seems to be saying that that which is archaic is of lesser value than that which is rational, which he definately (in my understanding) is not saying.

In what I recall reading of his model of integration, all parts make up the whole, and one stage is only reached by transcending and INCLUDING what came before. That means that other stages of consciousness development are not discarded as worthless when they are overcome - in fact they are the foundation and are totally necessary for the functioning of any other development. The example he gives is: take out a cell and you no longer have a tissue, much less a leg.

So, Wilbur’s form of hierarchy is one of ORGANIZATION and functionality, not moral value. He addresses this tendency of people (especially new agers) to have an extreme aversion to any sort of hierarchy since they equate it with the societal supression that comes when a dominator culture (such as ours) forms a system of organization to manage behavior via moral ideas flowing downwards through the hierarchical model. However, this is a warped form of hierarchy.

From what I understand of Wilbur’s views, dominator cultures exist because it has surpressed (rather than transcended and included) other valuable levels of existing (such as more animistic levels). According to this model of evolution (ie, evolution is the ability to transcend and include) there is a definite reason why leftist sentiment is floundering in this country. While many liberals and leftists have reached a level of pluralistic awareness (and the constant “processing” that goes along with it), they have also surpressed their mythic side represented by the Bush administration (archetype of the honorable soldier, the ritual of war as protection of the “tribe”). So long as the left dis-identifies with the mythic (or any other level) in itself and instead relies only on rationalistic or pluralistic ideas, it will not be able to evolve to its full potency . . .

At least that’s how I understood Wilbur, or what he would like to believe he believes. It’s true he does look pretty devilish for a Buddhist. Doesnt’ seem to have that calm abiding characteristic of other Buddhists. Maybe he’s trying to pull one over on us. Didn’t fool you guys, tho, did he?

Ken Wilbur is afraid of the shamanic experience, and is trying to push the spiritual envelope. That makes him a hack. everything else is a reflection of his own ego holding onto reason. He’s stck in his own narrative, and as long as he tells the story the way he is telling it now, it’s not going to make sense.

there is a lot to pay attention to, the idea of creating a system of understanding, but why not create one’s own that’s not based in euclidean geometry?

hotspring-
i indeed haven’t done a whole lot of reading of his stuff, for reasons that you point out.

i can say right off the bat, that to create an “organization” with a structure that runs linearly, from archaic to magic to mythic to rational to pluralistic to integral, not only implies some kind of “progression” (yes, i know including the stages that came ‘before’, but still a progression), but also presumes that somehow one needs the ‘later’ stages for a whole or complete paradigm.

The ecologist Louis Liebenberg’s experience with and reliance on the Bushman trackers of the Kalahari shows them to display all the traits of rationality one could ask. But they have no interest in exploring the belief systems of other cultures, to attain ‘pluralism’, and then later ‘integrate’? Yet how can an ‘archaic’ (what, they’ve lived there for over 40,000 years, with a practically unchanged culture as far as we can tell) culture include rational behavior?

Yeah.

His idea of archaic presumes that somewhere in the world, cultures started out as ‘archaic’, right? As far as I can tell, no wisdom/indigenous culture misses out on nourishing spiritual beliefs and the benefits of rational behavior. So what on earth can Ken Wilbur seek?

Of course his journey occurs as a member of his own culture, a culture noted for its own spiritual and human poverty. Of course to him the journey requires one to first (now that our culture has achieved the enlightenment of ‘rational’ behavior) collect and honor the strands of many different spiritual traditions, and then weave something whole out of them…because he/we had nothing to start with.

As an animist, however, I can go directly to the land, supported with mentoring from elders who have that relationship already, and have my spiritual experiences that already seem richer and deeper than the ones Ken Wilbur believes possible (one advocate of his scoffed at the idea of a shaman’s prayers influencing the clouds to rain).

And the idea of ‘transcending’…I just find the whole model a really poor fit for my experience. Others I know seem to really get a lot out of it, and I would leave well enough alone, except for the paradox of ‘honoring pluralism’ while simultaneously poo-pooing things that don’t fit in the ‘integrative’ box.

By archaic, who else can he mean but ‘primitive’ peoples? Yet they exhibit whole traditions (do the Hopi hunger for pluralism and integration? do the Navajo? do the Lakota?). So archaic can in fact only refer to the superstitious behaviors of a slave culture - our culture. Which, yes, has plenty of dysfunctional ‘magical’ thinking that has not fed our lives meaningfully - witch hunts and so forth.

I don’t know. Medicine Wheels have a cyclical design to them for a reason. For Ken to complain about the new age bias against organization strikes me as rather disingenous.

maybe I haven’t written this very clearly…sorry if so. In any case, I know you see some of the same glaring faults with his medium and message as I, so perhaps I don’t need to go on and on here.

You make a fantastic point about the need for simplicity and clarity (not dumbing down, of course) in writing about these things. I worry about this all the time with my own writings on animism…death to jargon and technobabble!

Tonyz-
A hack! Ha ha. Yes, a spiritual hack! I love it. yeah, that big bald head just radiates ego, funny enough. as far as crafting an image, he has made an interesting one for himself.

that’s a good bit to digest, thanks Willem.

Willem -

I agree that what Wilbur describes indeed looks like a progression rather than a functioning whole and that a series of progressions do indeed imply a value statement. Most people equate evolution with progress, tho as Stephen Jay Gould points out, this is a mistake.

As for the whole transcend and include concept, it could stem from a cold rationalist who simply is not at home in his body or the sensuality of the earth. But it could also come from a very real observation (and this is where it makes sense for me, not necessarily Wilbur) that the animate and material world is in constant flux. The Buddhists would call it impermanence, emptiness, or dependent arising. In any case, we can’t hold on to anything at all by simple fact of the passage of time. We are always transcending, but sometimes we resist this and become neurotic as a result, and sometimes we are able to move forwards into the new bright dawn of the present moment. So transcending to me doesn’t mean avoiding the incredibly rich present, it means overcoming my tendency to muddy my perceptual screen with constant obsessions on the dead past or future. It means to transcend my mind’s nitpicky entertainments, and enter into Mind.

Also, it could be that Wilbur was not actually saying that archaic people were not rational. Maybe they were just fully integrated.

Whether we’re seeing real holes in Wilbur’s philosophy or not, though, can’t be clearly known, since we both admit that we haven’t read his work that deeply. WHich makes me wonder why he warrants so much hate, in a forum entitled “Rewilding Mind and Heart.”

I was actually drawn into the discussion more because I could be considered a Buddhist Yoga Rationalist, and a know-it-all too, by all outside appearances. Actually I don’t identify with Buddhism as a religion, but have found it to be one of the most clear and lucid wisdom traditions providing the most accurate description of the mind’s tendencies and a possible roadmap out of habitaul ways of approaching the world. I’d be interested to know what your experience in exploring Buddhism consists of, and what you consider its faults to be.

I experience/observe that process too, I guess I just don’t understand the use of the word “transcend”. Does a dying person ‘transcend’ life? Does a conceived embryo transcend ‘death’? Do cyclical processes (or processes of emerging from wholeness into individuality, and then returning to wholeness, then emerging again into individuality, etc.) involved transcending? The connotations of the word seem odd. I certainly understand the need for purification and renewal…cleansing old perceptions, renewing the freshness of one’s senses/ways of observing. These processes feel really important to me. Maybe it all just comes down to word choice…I’ve made such a concerted effort of evading the mental traps of this dominating culture, that I can get (overly?) picky about these things (word choice, convenience of conceptualization, etc.), much like one of my favorite authors, Daniel Quinn. I remember him harassing some questioner about their use of the idea “we need to live in balance with nature”. He responded that we already do…that explains why civilization has begun to implode. You can’t escape the ‘balance’ of nature. Ha ha. I don’t know - sometimes pickyness can get old.

Also, it could be that Wilbur was not actually saying that archaic people were not rational. Maybe they were just fully integrated.Whether we're seeing real holes in Wilbur's philosophy or not, though, can't be clearly known, since we both admit that we haven't read his work that deeply.

Too true! It puts me in a funny bind; how to evaluate my relationship with another philosopher and his impacts, when I find his writing unreadable and haven’t engaged in any substantive conversation with him. Several times in writing this thread I’ve seen the possibility of an emerging army of straw men, courtesy of yours truly…in any case, if I have created straw men, I’ve found their ghosts a helpful thing to clarify my relationship with.

WHich makes me wonder why he warrants so much hate, in a forum entitled "Rewilding Mind and Heart."

Well, hate (my word choice, I know) substantially overstates the attitude of gleeful jabs and japes (along with serious concern too!) that I’ve leveled at 'ol Wilbur, I think. Scout has a tradition of having “hate fests” which amount to a kind of celebratory emotional venting, something I meant to reference in this thread. I hope everyone here has enjoyed the mood and the sport, without it drawing them into unproductive stuff. Us animists have to stick together!

I was actually drawn into the discussion more because I could be considered a Buddhist Yoga Rationalist, and a know-it-all too, by all outside appearances. Actually I don't identify with Buddhism as a religion, but have found it to be one of the most clear and lucid wisdom traditions providing the most accurate description of the mind's tendencies and a possible roadmap out of habitaul ways of approaching the world.

A dear friend of mine, Richard, started the Zen Center in Rochester, NY, a couple decades back. Once I expressed some envy to him about how buddhism has this beautiful map of psycho-spiritual states, along with helpful metaphors to assist you in ascending them, whereas my animist/native mentors hadn’t given me squat to go on…they just point to the world and say “pay attention”, and expect me to figure it out.

He pshawed, and replied that actually he admired my path better - sometimes it makes the experience richer to have no direct guide, to learn it yourself through your own dirt-time.

I haven’t made up my mind about this, but I found it really interesting.

I'd be interested to know what your experience in exploring Buddhism consists of, and what you consider its faults to be.

As a salvation religion, it has the most glaring fault (the need to ‘transcend’ the world of suffering and illusion). Westerners often don’t see it as such - they see the mindfulness and so on. I have a hard time critiquing mindfulness, and the meditative training…I value that so much. I can only point to the separation of ‘sentient’ and ‘non-sentient’ beings, a really pernicious notion, and also quote this passage I ran across on what many might consider the most harmless and nature-based of buddhist sects, Zen, and its beginnings in China:

I found this pretty shocking, but also it made a kind of sense. Zen monks acted as a kind of jesuit black-robe amongst the “untamed” folk taoist-animist countryside. Some part of me still appreciates Zen, but any practicioner should understand the subtle memeplex that underlies a supposedly belief-free, experience-based sect of Buddhism, don’t you think?

Ken Wilber lives. My suggestion - write him a letter.

Stricken-

Please tell me about why you suggest this.

You could possibly influence the fellow ‘all the new agers seem to love’ - thus influencing all the new agers. Who knows, maybe you can find the right wedge and hammer to place a crack in the ego of a well known thinker.

Maybe all his previous ideas were the popular precursors to his next step, a world shaker of a book - and he’s just waiting for someone to give him a gentle prodding.

Maybe. Also, why hate in private? LET HIM KNOW.

I find it too difficult to make useful generalizations about different religions.
I manage to successfully combine Christian Gnosticism, Asatru and Taoism; Fukuoka-san combined Buddhism and Shinto.

I’ve also found that it’s important to be careful about religion/philosophy in relation to history. Many, many things have been done for the “sake of religion”, some good, some bad, but often for reasons other than the “sake of religion”.

Couldn’t agree with you more, jhereg.

I guess this just doesn’t interest me terribly much, ‘influencing’ Ken Wilbur. I don’t mind him espousing what he wants to espouse…I just also want to make sure people have access to other messages, or to insights into the possible cracks of his message. I don’t expect any special relationship with Ken Wilbur the person, but Ken Wilbur the philosopher has a lot of impact, that I’d like to offer alternatives to.

Who knows, maybe you can find the right wedge and hammer to place a crack in the ego of a well known thinker.

He needs to pay me for that kind of work. :slight_smile:

Maybe all his previous ideas were the popular precursors to his next step, a world shaker of a book - and he's just waiting for someone to give him a gentle prodding.

I’d rather we write that book. :slight_smile:

Maybe. Also, why hate in private? LET HIM KNOW.

Why hate in private? I call it venting. I reserve the right to vent. :slight_smile: Also, as I’ve said, the ‘hate’ remains more of a tongue-in-cheek use of the word. Real hate towards Wilbur would display a particularly pointless use of my capacity to direct anger.

If you’d like to engage Ken in conversation, I definitely support you.

[quote=“jhereg”]I find it too difficult to make useful generalizations about different religions.
I manage to successfully combine Christian Gnosticism, Asatru and Taoism; Fukuoka-san combined Buddhism and Shinto.[/quote]

I don’t know what you mean to comment on here…do you think I made non-useful generalizations in some of my comments? Did someone else?

Fair enough.

I have this romanticized image of the eccentric thinker, inspired and ecstatic, with a bottomless cup of coffee, a quill, and a stack of parchment, making many waves of many stinks throughout a community of contemporary philosphers - creating an interlacing of ripples from a handful of carefully chosen and polished pebblethoughts thrown in the pond of a burgeoning rennassaince - somewhat like how I would picture Voltaire, who in his lifetime produced a correspondence numbering somewhere in the vicinity of 21,000 letters.

I have no desire to write Ken Wilber either. Mayhaps I lack the conviction needed to step up to that ‘lofty’ plate, although I’d chalk it up to my current level of comprehension skills more than anything - still learning how to learn and not willing to waste time on things that do not magnetize or plop down in the sphere of my small small world.

I’d rather look at one of those marvellous Buddhist wood carvings or malevolent-spirit-frightening temple adornments for a few minutes than listen to him speak for an hour. Maybe someday I’ll feel comfortable pursuing such an ambitious correspondence campaign. For now I’d like to throw it out there, as a possibility, a potential method for amplifying the voice of those supporting the rewildering process.

Something I keep in the back of my mind. Letter writing. What a gas! Vent with a MEGAPHONE! ;D (fools recquire foolish grins)

I'd rather we write that book. :)

Aw, shucks. A book!?

Ooooh. One interesting aside. I noticed someone mentioned Zen. I don’t know much about it, but I do remember reading a story about how in the days of old Zen masters always tried to leave the world with a final shock (they liked shocks. they hit their students on the head with their staffs when they didn’t think enough attention was paid)

imagine you’re sitting down, participating in the sacred tea ceremony with an elderly zany zen master, and he stands up, says “fellows, sorry… time to go.” executes a flawless backflip and dies in midair.

Just some thoughts.

I’ve noticed a strange thing about myself, that I don’t actually like to change people’s minds. I get a disappointed feeling when someone says, out of the blue (at least to me!), “alright, you’ve convinced me! I’ll [read Ishmael, eat paleo, unschool my kids, etc., etc.].” It can really shock me.

I actually like other people in the world to have strong opinions different to my own. I can’t explain why. I just do. I don’t mean this as some virtuous thing. I just like it. And I like to get annoyed at them too. And I don’t even come from Italian stock. My ancestors come from Denmark! Explain that!

I especially like to feel my own perspectives really strongly and passionately.

I guess more than anything, as a writer and a member of a rewilding renaissance, I want to provide support for people who can’t articulate how they feel, but need help feeling good about it. I want to help them articulate it so they can “defend” it. So they can stand up for their instincts. So they can feel sane!

The Ken Wilburs and such of the world fall way down at the bottom of my list, of people who I want to support. I give my care and concern away for free to the rewilder-at-heart, who just needs a little help understanding their predicament and inspiration. I’d seriously charge Ken Wilbur a hefty sum for the same service if he cared enough to pay it.

As time goes on, I see the renaissance happening on smaller and smaller, more and more local levels. At some point I may not leave my neighborhood, I may not leave my living room, anymore. Metaphorically speaking.

I took up Tonyz’s recommendation and checked “Zen and the Brain” out from the library today. If I hadn’t made it clear, I’ve always had a lot of curiousity about Zen (since my teenage years) and read up on it a lot. My stance on Zen certainly doesn’t come from a distaste for the practice…quite the opposite. Any meditative practice that puts one in the “now” I value a lot. I also value informed consent…one should have the opportunity to know the backstory…

Today I also visited a good friend of mine who carves Kwan Yin’s out of 6’ tall cedar stumps. He does an amazing job. Beautiful! We talk about mythic cartography sometimes. I really like Kwan Yin, because (from what I’ve heard and read) she represents a folk upwelling of the Earth Mother, from outside the confines of the buddhist priesthood, and essentially (like the church absorbing the solstice holiday) the buddhist religion had to absorb her and canonize her to retain control over the little Earth Goddess revolution happening in their backyard. I like it when that kind of thing happens. :slight_smile:

[quote=“Willem, post:18, topic:115”][quote author=jhereg]I find it too difficult to make useful generalizations about different religions.
I manage to successfully combine Christian Gnosticism, Asatru and Taoism; Fukuoka-san combined Buddhism and Shinto.[/quote]

I don’t know what you mean to comment on here…do you think I made non-useful generalizations in some of my comments? Did someone else?[/quote]

Eh, I guess I understand better now that it was just a vent. :slight_smile:

When I first read it, the ‘buddhism’ aspect seemed to be more of a target, but looking back over it (w/ your additional comments) I see that it’s less a generalization about a specific religion than it is a specific annoyance with a general approach to religion/philosophy.

I don’t want to focus any energy on hating. Who or what life does this belong to again anyway?

I don’t know who Ken Wilbur is but I’ll hate with you Willem. I’ve got no problem with a little genuine hatred now and then. Before anyone argues with me know this: I fell in love with a devout Buddhist once, a personal assistant (I’d say slave) to a well-known guru. He loved me too. But it was like having an affair with a married man and a self-righteous one at that. The guru and enlightenment always came first. Everything was turned all topsy-turvy. If I was hurt by his actions, there was nothing for him to be sorry about, for my pain and suffering were good and natural. Frustrating to say the least.

Penny,

I’ll third your hate. I used to have a haters club every week at a local bar. I called myself “Haters Club Captain” and invited anyone and everyone I didn’t hate to come and hate with me. It was a blast. One time my friend hated on me for not hating enough. Haha.

From an asshole abuser to a crazy Buddhist… Sounds like slim pick’ns in Pennsylvania. I hope Nick is the cream of the crop. :wink:

The others weren’t from here. One was from Long Island and the other DC area. Nick’s great. I told him to get off the the forum though because it would ruin it for me! Haha. It’s not his fault. I’m just too self-conscious.