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?