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.