Falk me!

Hmmm ya think I touched a nerve with my “What the Falk?” post regarding Geoffrey Falk’s chapter on Ken Wilber in Falk’s book Stripping the Gurus? I guess you can now officially add me to the “Wilber asslickers” society, although I think Stu Davis has the cuter ass don’t ya think?

Falk has already revised his post once adding plenty of more shots at my post and me so who knows what else he may find to ridicule. I’m kinda surprised he didn’t make fun of my social anxiety disorder and bouts with depression while he was ripping me a new one hehe.

Anyway, I’m gonna contemplate a response while I finish reading my copy of The Only Grammar Book You’ll Ever Need. But for now I need to go polish my new adding machine and fill my pocket protector – since I’m really just a bean counter anyway ;-)

Comments

[ebuddha]

Wow - that guy gets nasty, doesn't he? This is the thing with the blogosphere I guess - it brings out the worst in people.

Also, my own thought, but you may want to not come to any premature conclusions, and keep your mind open about any conflict between Matthew Dallman and Ken Wilber - there's probably a two-way street happening there.

[Shawn]

Hey Jim,

Yeah he doesn't hold back anything that is for sure! hehe

Much agreed on your comment regarding MD and KW, I think I even said in a blog post that there are always 2 sides to every story. I try not to jump to conclusions or presume anything on either side but go on whatever evidence there may or may not be. Thanks for the comments!

-shawn

[Matthew Dallman]

Keep your head up, Shawn. Mr Falk went way over the line in his criticism of your criticism. You have been courageous enough to openly consider both positive and negative aspects of I-I, and to some extent Wilber. And I have noticed that you have linked/copied a couple of the comments I've made, as well as others, to add to your ongoing analysis. All of which shows that you are giving honest reflection to Wilber the man, Wilber the writer, and Wilber the president. It is a complicated picture, eh?

I do think, if I may say so, that it is a welcome development to see Falk's no-holds-barred style. It is a style that can offer as much truth and reflection as any other style. Your style, as you say as one with compassion and respect, is certainly fine as well. Both, as well as many more, have a place at the table.

Whether Falk is accurate or not on each of his criticisms, I think time has yet to show. His points seem right on enough to merit continued consideration. Subtley, I think you indicated in your original post that you agree on that count. And while there are many ripe and useful points that Falk makes, his demonstration of Wilber's relationship with David Bohm is very revealing. I've only read the Wilber chapter of Stripping the Gurus; as far as that chapter goes, I find it to be generally accurate and helpful.

And having been around Wilber worshippers since 2001, and the way they respond to criticism and sarcasm, I know that Falk's work might as well be lemon juice in their paper cuts. Fine points, the real meat, flies right over their head, and they concentrate on tone and sarcasm.

One thing we have to consider, as we absorb the larger merit of Wilber's work, is that his books have largely been published by new age publishers. Shambhala, while largely Buddhist, has been a haven for new age writers and new age thought. The New Age genre of thought has been, to put it mildly, a mix-bag when it comes to sustainable truths.

Here is my point: the editors of new age publishing houses are not going to be the kind of folks who can accurately fact-check and give heavy editing to books such as Wilber's, heavy in philsophic content that endeavors to include many human specialties.

And I think there is the attitude of 'just get it out there and if it's wrong, we'll fix it later' with Wilber, because there were whiffs of that attitude all the time in my 16 months with IU. As another example, at the second IS of Art meeting, where Wilber appeared, he offered the advice that the only way to learn is to "fuck up in public".

As I say in nearly every public mention of Wilber, he offers many brilliant ideas. But, as Falk, Meyerhoff, and others are slowly demonstrating, Wilber's work also is rife with a lot of fucking up in public, when it comes to ideas and debates in various thought circles that he seeks to integral but often mistreats and manhandles. 'Orienting generalizations' has become a rhetorical tool synonomous with cop-out.

And as to Sri Ebu's presumption to not be presumptuous, I have given the long story of why I resigned only to friends and family. I have tried to mostly keep the long story private, because, ultimately, the best revenge is a good life.

But, when asked by those close to me and those I have developed a level of trust with, I have told the story. This includes Dashh, because he worked some on IU-Art, and I thought the story would be useful to him as he considered whether or not to get more involved with II. It is too long for a comment section like this, and because you, Sri E, don't know me other than my words, you will likely misinterpret until the wolves howl down the moon. I say that because of your already demonstrated misinterpretation that you have aggressively made public.

But I will say this, for what it is worth. I never once in any way shape or form, during my time as the Director of IU Art, wrote or said something to Wilber or about Wilber that was mean, disrespectful, or even the slightest way venemous. The vitriol, as I have publically indicated, was in no way a two-way street; it entirely came from him, towards me (and my wife, for god's sake, after she decided to pull a video donation to INaked, which, as anyone in the film biz knows, is entirely within one's rights, especially since no contracts had been developed or signed, and we had the integrity of our larger film project to protect).

One month before I resigned, after the two-hour me-him review of an initial version of my integral art manifesto, used in the Indiana University Intro to Integral graduate course (and now called "The Artist's Mind"), Wilber wrote me a short email that said "you are going to be a great iu art host". (host was the in-house term that is now 'director'). Up to that time, I never received nearly that kind of compliment from him, and it meant quite a bit. Why wouldn't it, ya know?

Yet the subsequent weeks of my IU tenure (which included Hannah's pull of the video donation) got pretty nasty, in terms of his communications to me, and so for that reason, as well as a couple other big ones simmering over the course of many months, I decided to leave.

There wasn't a single person in my circle of family, friends, or advisors, who suggested that I stay longer than I did. Not one. Most indicated utter dismay at the callous, pretentious, condescending, insensitive, mean, and ungrateful manner that he dealt with me and Hannah. I worked for free for 18 months, orchestated the game plan for how to develop the Art College, wrote over 250 of scholarship about integral art, contributed ideas and suggestions via conference calls and emails my entire stay, helped birth (along with two others) the first and only actual integral art seminar geared towards integral artists, recruited and courted many people still involved with IU.II, and demonstrated a fuck-load of patience for the development of an endeavor, namely IU, that was clearly being retarded by one man and one man alone, namely Wilber, and his awful mgmt style, and stubborn refusal to delegate. Several friends/advisors f mine predicted that his behavior and management style fortells doom for any sustainable organization that has his name on it. And those familiar with integral theory came to the unanimous conclusion: how unintegral of Wilber.

What I went through is sadly something that, while particular to me in the details, is common place for people who have been in Wilber's inner circle, over the years. Many of the people who attended the initial version of I-I (there have been a couple versions) have cut ties. Every I-I vet (current as well as past) that I've talked to responded to my story with deep understanding as to why I resigned, tacit aknowledgement that Wilber the man has deep and unusual problems, and stories of people before me who experienced a similiarly distasteful glimpse of the real Wilber. As for the longer story of my time in the inner circle of the so-called world's foremost philosopher, I guess wait for my memoirs. :)

Oh, by the way, I thought you might like this juicy detail of "Tales of Integral Institute Past':

You know David Deida's infamous 'Ken Wilber is a Fraud' essay? Contrary to its current image, it was real. Deida meant every word, visciously; he and Wilber had a very public flame war, and decided to never talk to each other again; Wilber was livid when it was published; only the patient mediation of a long-time friend of both slowly brought them back to a professional, working relationship. At the time, others part of the flame war thought they'd certainly never talk again.

And for why their INaked discussion of the matter papered over the actual circumstances of their feud, in the name of their preposterous 'masculine love' -- a handy invention -- well, it comes down to marketing. Probably for the same reasons Wilber has most of his relationships -- so that Wilber, and Wilber's work (as well as Deida's in this case), gains more public exposure. It was in the best professional interests of both of these cats to publically be friends. It makes for a more acceptable public story.

A lot of people decide, in rather cold-blooded fashion, to simply tolerate Wilber and his extreme personality/behavior towards others. Some like me learn the truth and then leave. Some leave and then slowly ease back, at an arm's length distance, but still in some sort of proximity and association. It comes down to socio-cultural power, and the perception people have that Wilber possesses it. Association with power figures begets the perception of power in those that associate with it.

The unfortunate aspect of this perceived power is that is it based in too large a measure on shoddy scholarship, public propaganda and straw men (mean green meme, postmodernists, others), an accuring skill in public relations, a culture of cultish followers who are generally quite intelligent, but who mostly don't verify Wilber's interpretation of primary sources (an arduous task), and a skillful leverage of the desire some people have to participate in some kind of social revolution, especially when they have money to spend on things like subscriptions and seminars. Wilber knows the BoBo class well. Boulder/Denver is one of the world's capitals for the BoBo lifestyle.

[ebuddha]

Nothing to add to this. Matthew's post can speak for itself.

[Joe Perez]

Shawn: Thanks for your original post on Faulk and this follow up. Hmmm... Speaking of doing pop psych analyses, I could do a fine one on Faulk after his "interesting" blog post. I will resist the temptation.

I will briefly say this much though, about Wilber and the cult worship phenomenon: in mythopoetic terms, for many people who are drawn to the integral movement, the man embodies the "king" archetypal energy. He is a magnet for our own "king"/"father" issues, and this can bring out the best ("king") and worst ("king killer") in all of us. Whether or not any of our projections are actually true about Wilber the man, they certainly reveal a truth about some part of ourselves. That's what I find most interesting. If someone has strong feelings (pro or con) about Wilber one way or another, where are they in shadow?

[Matthew Dallman]

"He is a magnet for our own "king"/"father" issues, and this can bring out the best ("king") and worst ("king killer") in all of us."

Whoa - let's reel in the generalization just a wee bit, ok? All of us? Come on. Not everyone is looking for a guru.

There is a partial truth to your point about projection, but let's not blow that partial truth beyond its britches.

People who approach his work as philosophy, in the academic, intellectual sense, approach his work in an entirely different way than people who are looking for a charismatic person to lead the revolution that they want to join. Count me in the former's camp, and largely uncomfortable with the latter. Maybe your words make some sense for the latter's camp, but even then, wow, that is quite a generalization. Can that really be backed up?

In my own experience, the best way to overcome the tendancy to criticize others based upon one's own shadow is to deal as much as possible with concrete actions and statements. This means things that were actually done. Things that we actually said. And be cautious in drawing conclusions, but by all means do so - scrupulously.

I mean, if someone slaps you forcefully in the face for no reason, it is not a projection to have strong, angry feelings against that person. It is a healthy and completely understandable reaction to what that person did to you.

We can keep things on the simple, earthy level, too.

SUCH AS:

He hit me, I don't like, I walk away, I tell people he hit me.

NOT:

He hit me, I don't like, I walk away, I tell people he hit me. Those people say that's a projection, and my own fault.

The thing I find most interesting when it comes to Wilber is the lengths people will go to apologize for his behavior. Truly astonishing. We can criticize Wilber the man and still find truths and merit to Wilber the ideas, Wilber the culture, and Wilber the internet start up. And you can criticize those, too, potentially, without doing so as an operative projection of shadows.

The allure of this shiny man makes people feel drunk. On the other hand, those who turn sober when still in his company start to see the goings on for what it is - a party with a mix of fun and shallowness - and not a reason to stay out very late, especially when you have a loving wife at home, some music to compose, philosophy to write, and a child to birth.

I'd rather start planning for the dawn.

[Joe Perez]

Hi Matthew! Hmmm... I'm not sure how my generalizations ("Wilber is a magnet for our own king/father issues...) are any different from some of yours (e.g., "The allure of this shiny man makes people feel drunk..."), so I don't know what I would want to reign in. But I do want to clarify that simply because there's a truth/shadow to be owned by reflecting on one's responses to Wilber, doesn't mean there's no objective reality that may be true about him. It's just that, as I said, what I find most interesting is what we can learn about ourselves based on our own reaction, not what judgments we can form about others. If a man hits me, he may "objectively" be an asshole. If a man tells me I'm brilliant, me may "objectively" have a good point. But when I respond emotionally and psychically to him in whatever way, pro or con, I am doing so based on the lifelong conditioning of my psyche to respond in a particular way. If I know myself, I can separate out that conditioning as best as possible, and respond with spontaneity in the situation. I don't want to open a can of works with Faulk, but I see his writing as particularly teeming with unowned shadow projections. I haven't read his whole book, but he's basically doing a hatchet job on king/father figures that he hates and despises. That doesn't mean he's right or wrong (that's a separate matter), but it's what strikes me as most interesting about his essay on Wilber.

[Victoria]

I admit, I suffered thru Faulk's excessively long slam of Wilber a while back. By the time I'd finished, I rather regretted loosing that 1/2 hour of my life. Come on. There's blogging, ranting and expressing what needs to get out, and then there are books and formal essays where dragging it out and going on and on (and on) are just tedious and painful. If you can't say something concisely and cohesively when published, don't bother. Venom is not the same thing as clarity.
There is something to Joe's king/father suggestion. We all project all the time, and if someone needs to write an entire book on why everyone else is wrong, well they're going to be open to that interpretation. The projection issue should not be used to discourage speaking up when one has been wronged (as I know Matthew was, and I don't think Joe meant to imply that at all), nor should it keep silent those of us who've noticed of late that the emperor is at times buck naked.
In the end though, I figure I can spend energy working to accomplish something or I can spend it tearing apart someone else's work. I'd rather make something. It's easy enough, with a leader I don't revere, who does not have actual physical or political power over me, to turn my focus back to my own work (life, etc.), which leaves the "leader" without much power at all.