P.13 .........  Eliot’s response to Criticism of Integral Theory

(Posted on the Integral-Matrix messageboard)

This is an interesting topic that is really a set of topics: 1. criticism of integral theory, 2. criticism of Ken Wilber personally, 3. analysis of the criticism, and 4. reaction to the criticism.

My opinion on these points, as "short and sweet" as possible, is that:


1. Most (almost all?) of the criticism of the set of integral meta-theory seems egotistically motivated by First Tier writers whose behavior shows a clear pattern of "If I can put you down, I can raise myself up." As support for this opinion, allow me to point out that there are very few (if any?) suggestions for an "AND" type of solution/resolution to the asserted performative contradictions highlighted, just an "OR" type of solution that replaces the "errant" chunk of theory with the critic's own pet thought. First Tier delights in OR, Second Tier delights in AND. We can do well to remember that objective data are selected by subjective perspectives, and those subjective perspectives often have an agenda built on an attitude built on an intention built on an underlying spirit - we should look at and question every link in the chain, as the quality of our questions determines the potential quality of our answers.

The first thing that we should acknowledge is that integral theory, like human development, is an open-ended dynamically evolving system. Wilber himself has been very forthcoming about his errors in earlier versions, and the re-framing that transcended and included these realizations (i.e., the Wilber I through Wilber V iterations of Integral Methodological Pluralism). Much of the criticism against integral theory is no longer valid against the Wilber V model. If one has a human form, one is inherently partial and therefore biased to some degree - however, I am not aware of anyone who works as hard to be (at least cognitively) objective to the structural limitations of the mind-brain interface. As new discoveries and emergent truths and their artifacts continue to arise, we will see the unfolding truth of the principle behind the statement, "New technology creates new ignorance". I really enjoyed Wilber's own reply to his critics, and highly recommend reading it, and reading every link (at the bottom of the page) here:
http://www.kenwilber....

2. These are "cheap shots", the desperate attempt of a writer of low character to fool a reader of low intelligence, the classic logical fallacy "ad hominem" attack. Wilber has never set himself up as an exemplar of behavior, or called himself a "Guru" or "Spiritual Teacher". Most of these low attacks focus on his emotional writing at the time of his wife's death - what inhuman cowardly scumbags...er, critics! If time is kind, we can watch them twitch when their hearts are ripped out, & see how their behavior compares to Kenny's. Marquis de Queensbury my ass!!!

3. Bearing in mind both points 1. and 2. above, we should always be truly open to finding holes and errors in our thoughts, models, assumptions and processes. Van Tharp, a financial genius in my opinion says that we learn more from disproving our theories than by proving them. Wilber appears to be open to growth, at least so far (integral integrity? at least cognitively), evidenced by his willingness to re-frame the whole model as needed. Jana saw the holes in the Wilber IV model, and soon after that Wilber V emerged.

4. Growth into clarity, balance and non-attachment in consciousness that is passionately alive is a huge piece of the puzzle - the pain one experiences when one's pet thought/model/object/belief is attacked/wounded/threatened/revealed is both a death and a birth, more freedom and pain in both; God's double-edged sword both knighting and piercing. Embrace growth with intelligence, compassion, empathy and love. Let go of sentimentality and defensiveness. How do the Angels fly? They take themselves lightly. Remember, the word BELIEF hides the word lie in its center. Get clear about the two truths doctrine.

On a personal note, I truly love and appreciate Ken for his great work and contributions, AND I see his humanity, both good and bad (just like me!). He shows wisdom and self-awareness in keeping the focus on his work and model, and not on himself personally. Bravo!

Ultimately, I think we decide who and what to allow to enter our lives based on the balance of Goodness, Truth and Beauty versus Evil, Lies and Ugliness. To me, Kenny very easily and comfortably makes the cut, and I have my own criticisms of some of his choices, as I expect he would have of some of mine. That's free will, that's evolution's unfolding, and that's life! As it should be. When I disagree with reality, I realize that I'm in disagreement with God, and, my friends, no matter how strongly I think I'm right, that's one argument I'm probably not going to win! Gotz ta keeps yo sensa Humor!

All the best,
Eliot.

Tely responds: Just a small point in response to Eliot's thoughtful post. "If I can put you down, I can raise myself up" seems as much a Wilberian attitude as it is the stance of some of his (possibly) First Tier critics. Ken's version of "and" sometimes seems to be more of a "but" posing as an "and." In fact, in a way, I wonder if Ken's taking this absorb-or-destroy attitude towards other people's work is part of what generates such vehement criticism back at him!

Eliot responds:

Good point, Tely


In my opinion, what is going on here is the battle Boomeritis (pluralistic relativism) is waging against anything and everything that is not itself, as the First Tier vMemes can only see their own image in the mirror as OK, everything higher or lower can only be seen as lower (their zone 2 determines what can arise in zone 1).


Healthy Green, that can stand to include hierarchical valuation and developmental genealogy (remember, Boomeritis / unhealthy green excludes all genealogy, including its own, while establishing no valuation as equal valuation [the performative contradiction that creates flatland]) is the gateway to Second Tier. If I can be forgiven for quoting myself, as I advanced the argument in IMP v 2.0; innocence doesn't just die on its own, our choices kill it (which begin in spirit long before emotion or thought enter the picture).


"Character equals destiny." Sigmund Freud

This all feels like an attack of an encroaching dominator hierarchy to Boomeritis, which says, "Nobody tells me what to do!", which, in this case, contextually equals "Nobody can see my genealogy and valuate me, but ME!" This is precisely the resonant equivalent (an octave or two higher) of the underdeveloped childish psyche that plays "hide and seek" by covering their own eyes (because they ARE vision, their vision IS vision, from their perspective [pre-egoic to egoic], which is all that they have structural [and therefore phenomenological] access to).

This emergent behavior can be cute in children, far less so as egotistical regression and contracted assertion in so-called "spiritual / integral adults". LOL!

"AND" plus "IMP" equals "BUT" (Big ol' Stinky Butt, to Boomeritis' zone 1 immanent [smelling?] feeling)

Integral Methodological Pluralism is a multidimensional framework in which developmental and genealogical stage / level "location" can be accurately and objectively discerned and verified, using the three strands of valid truth. This feels like oppressive "judgment" to Boomeritis, hence the "vehement criticism" and emotionally violent reactions, slightly filtered (actually, rationalized) and largely unmodulated through what the Mean Green Memers call their "intelligence".

Sarcasm? Moi?

"A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep."
Saul Bellow

My underlying point is, if and when valid (First or Second Tier) criticism appears (as I mentioned above, Jana spotted some holes in the Wilber IV model, that Kenny promptly fixed), then we can carefully watch Ken Wilber's response for appropriate incorporation of these deeper and wider truths into the integral model. So far, at least to me, it looks like he's doing good, solid work (i.e., Wilber I - Wilber V). Bravo! How many people are up to the task, in ANY dimension, of objective and accurate critique of their own creation, let alone themselves?

"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes." ("Who watches the watchmen?")
-- Juvenal, Satires, VI, 347
Quoted as the epigraph of the Tower Commission Report, 1987
(I got this from the great graphic novel [comic book], "Watchmen", highly recommended!)

Of course, all that being said, the ego can ALWAYS find a place to hide in structure - however highly developed zone 2 may be. To me, that's the deeper meaning of the story of the Devil, who was once the highest and brightest of all the angels and the one closest to God. As we rise in consciousness, evil doesn't get LESS (that's a common delusion, in my opinion), it just gets less obvious, more beautifully subtle (I may be questioned on my use of the word beauty in this context, my opinion is that if you can't see the multi-dimensionally prismatic radiant display of the nondual dance of life and death [order and chaos], you haven't paid adequate attention), ironically layered and delicately complex. I think Lao Tzu got it right when he said "The sage allows all things to pass through him, both good and evil, none leaving a mark." That "none leaving a mark" stuff is the hard part, as many zen parables attest.

All the best,
Eliot.