The Cult of Ken Wilber
What can be a conclusion to all this? That Ken Wilber is an
undoubtedly interesting and stimulating author, with an interesting
Edifice. But that it is no substitute for reading primary material,
other competing interpretations, but most of all, one's own spiritual
and intellectual, and moral development. That it is not a fully critical
and emancipatory theory, and has increasingly become 'politically
reactionary', elitist, and used as a system of instrumental manipulation
for the leadership of large organizations (that's how Beck's SD is
marketed to corporations and politicians). That it is already now used
to justify spiritual oppression (Da Free John), war and occupation
(Bush), stifling internal debate, and creating an environment of cultic
adhesion. These are not trivial matters!
Can anything be salvaged? I must admit I personally still use the
four quadrant system, as it is a comprehensive system for a
phenomenology of the world. I believe it is of interest to grapple with
Wilber's interpretations, even the wrong ones. In this, he functions as a
'great author', despite the lack of acceptance in academia. Most of
all, I believe that the integrative impulse is a worthy enterprise. In a
world of such diversity to look at structure and developmental
processes (which are a feature of the natural , social and personal
worlds) is necessary. But the integrative, integral impulse does not
belong in any way to Mr. Ken Wilber; it is a general feature of
contemporary consciousness (one trend battling the fragmentation of
postmodernity), with many different pioneers and alternatives to Wilber.
Thus a first thing to do is to liberate yourself to a univocal adhesion to Wilber's form of it.
Furthermore, such impulse has to be seriously balanced with a
recognition of irreducible diversity. That some things, like differences
in a marriage, are just 'different', and have to be respected as such,
while seeking commonality in action. It has to be balanced with serious
attention to immanence, to the processes within, rather than to the
static forms sought out by nondual mystics. It has to be balanced by
serious attention to the participative nature of the universe, to the
co-creation of it by human beings and our partners in the natural world.
And that this requires participative, dialogic, co-creative processes.
And politically, we need attention to the concrete suffering and
injustices of the many, which requires action and our own moral
development, aided or not, by meditation or other spiritual practices.
This practice is best undertaken by a group of peers, as described by
John Heron in his Sacred Science, not in a traditional authoritarian
religion, and I would venture, be even more wary of the charismatic lone
leader who does not even have a tradition to balance him. We must
really guard ourselves of the very bad habits developed in the integral,
but especially SD milieus, to brand everyone with colored epiteths,
corresponding to their purported lack of cognitive development.
If divorced from the particular interpretations of Ken Wilber, the broad
integral four-quadrant scheme has still some usefulness as a broad
scheme to develop a understanding of the world, at least it does for me,
it is a very useful heuristic tool in my own work. Wilberism is a
particular world perspective grown out of the humanistic and
transpersonal psychology movements, which was an important moment of
intellectual and human history, but it is time to move on. My own way to
move on is to be on the lookout for the participative, egalitatarian
impulse, which is getting a new lease of life today, as described in my
own essay on peer to peer, which I'll gladly send to anyone who requests
it. It is one man's attempt to go 'beyond Wilber'.
What can be a conclusion to all this? That Ken Wilber is an
undoubtedly interesting and stimulating author, with an interesting
Edifice. But that it is no substitute for reading primary material,
other competing interpretations, but most of all, one's own spiritual
and intellectual, and moral development. That it is not a fully critical
and emancipatory theory, and has increasingly become 'politically
reactionary', elitist, and used as a system of instrumental manipulation
for the leadership of large organizations (that's how Beck's SD is
marketed to corporations and politicians). That it is already now used
to justify spiritual oppression (Da Free John), war and occupation
(Bush), stifling internal debate, and creating an environment of cultic
adhesion. These are not trivial matters!
Can anything be salvaged? I must admit I personally still use the
four quadrant system, as it is a comprehensive system for a
phenomenology of the world. I believe it is of interest to grapple with
Wilber's interpretations, even the wrong ones. In this, he functions as a
'great author', despite the lack of acceptance in academia. Most of
all, I believe that the integrative impulse is a worthy enterprise. In a
world of such diversity to look at structure and developmental
processes (which are a feature of the natural , social and personal
worlds) is necessary. But the integrative, integral impulse does not
belong in any way to Mr. Ken Wilber; it is a general feature of
contemporary consciousness (one trend battling the fragmentation of
postmodernity), with many different pioneers and alternatives to Wilber.
Thus a first thing to do is to liberate yourself to a univocal adhesion to Wilber's form of it.
Furthermore, such impulse has to be seriously balanced with a
recognition of irreducible diversity. That some things, like differences
in a marriage, are just 'different', and have to be respected as such,
while seeking commonality in action. It has to be balanced with serious
attention to immanence, to the processes within, rather than to the
static forms sought out by nondual mystics. It has to be balanced by
serious attention to the participative nature of the universe, to the
co-creation of it by human beings and our partners in the natural world.
And that this requires participative, dialogic, co-creative processes.
And politically, we need attention to the concrete suffering and
injustices of the many, which requires action and our own moral
development, aided or not, by meditation or other spiritual practices.
This practice is best undertaken by a group of peers, as described by
John Heron in his Sacred Science, not in a traditional authoritarian
religion, and I would venture, be even more wary of the charismatic lone
leader who does not even have a tradition to balance him. We must
really guard ourselves of the very bad habits developed in the integral,
but especially SD milieus, to brand everyone with colored epiteths,
corresponding to their purported lack of cognitive development.
If divorced from the particular interpretations of Ken Wilber, the broad
integral four-quadrant scheme has still some usefulness as a broad
scheme to develop a understanding of the world, at least it does for me,
it is a very useful heuristic tool in my own work. Wilberism is a
particular world perspective grown out of the humanistic and
transpersonal psychology movements, which was an important moment of
intellectual and human history, but it is time to move on. My own way to
move on is to be on the lookout for the participative, egalitatarian
impulse, which is getting a new lease of life today, as described in my
own essay on peer to peer, which I'll gladly send to anyone who requests
it. It is one man's attempt to go 'beyond Wilber'.
