Spiraling Concerns - Part I

Recently I made a comment on Tuff Ghost’s blog regarding his request for more info on Wilber’s new book - The Many Faces of Terrorism. I quoted a passage from Wilber’s new online book/essay Integral Spirituality where Wilber describes his new book:

In research for The Many Faces of Terrorism, I looked at the last fifty of so major terrorist acts around the world, from the Protestant bombing of abortion clinics in the South to Buddhist subway attacks in Tokyo to Sikh separatists in India to Muslim terrorist attacks including 9/11.

Astonishingly, they all had the identical psychograph: amber [same level as conop cognition, blue values in SD] beliefs with red emotional driver.

And they all said exactly the same thing about why they did it (although not using these technical terms): The orange world will not make room for my sacred amber beliefs, and I am going to blow it up every chance I get.

Tuff Ghost then made a blog post regarding Wilber’s book and the approach he seems to be taking to analyze terrorism in the book. From the small blurb I quoted from Wilber’s Integral Spirituality, it seems Wilber is again focusing on a developmental/SDi approach to many of the terrorist attacks from recent years (similar to his The Deconstruction of the World Trade Center essay). One thing I noted is that Wilber now uses the colors of the spectrum of light to represent his basic-enduring levels/stage-structures of consciousness rather than relying on SD colors. I assume this addition is to aid a move away from the constant use and misuse of SD colors as shorthand for other lines of development. This may be too little too late to dislodge the remora like attachment that SD now has to Wilber’s model, one that has led to a strong tendency to view SD and “the spiral” as more myth and metaphor than model and theory/research (see Spiral Dynamics: A Fig Leaf Substituted for Science?).

Matthew Dallman then left an eye opening comment (here and here) regarding Wilber’s methods and I think he makes three profound points that hit home for me:

1) "His [Wilber’s] acknowledged method is to assume the validity of the ideas of other thinkers that he highlights and then to speculate beyond as if each were true."

2) "One thing we can do now is safely ask, 'Are you actualy qualified to diagnose the 'psychograph' of people without ever meeting them, talking with them, and doing neither while separated by great distances of time, space, and culture?' Sure, Wilber apparently invented the concept of the psychograph, but that too means that communal, peer-review verification is highly problematic. I mean, how do we know Wilber is right?"

3) "Since the evidence for SD (in Graves work) has been lost [also see the SD Newsletter from 2003], that means that SD is, in sober analysis of its merits, dangerously tautological and circular. When the admitted allure of one's initial discovery of the theory (yes, I know it is a theory, and largely hypothetical) wears off, we rightly look for proof, evidence, and practical benefit."

Great points MD. One of things that I have felt most uncomfortable about when it comes to Wilber’s model is his heavy use of SD as an intro to aspects of his own model of development. I also have been critical of Wilber’s use of SD colors to refer to other lines of development – something he has written about in Excerpt D and again in Integral Spirituality, but has continued to do in various contexts and settings. To me it seems that usage often leds to people, myself included, feeling and acting like they are amateur developmental psychologists/social scientists (see An SD Expert? A Dozen Tell-Tale Signs Of The Amateur) trying to apply a model (SD) based on theory and research we know very little if anything about other than ‘blue is republican/conservative’ and ‘green is democrat/liberal.’

Of course the responsibility to be informed regarding that theory and research is something I have to own, but the constant reliance/emphasis on SD in many of Wilber’s books, videos, etc. seems unwise given the uncertainty of evidence and research surrounding the various SD camps (more to come on this in Part 2). I can understand Wilber’s usage of SD to some extent as an easy intro to parts of his overall model, but tend to agree with Dallman when he says:

“One simply ought not treat a theory like SD (that rests on so little) as if it is proven and communally verified fact, at least if one expects to be taken seriously in the conclusions he draws from it. Wilber's work encouraged many many people to (mis)use SD terminology, and where has Wilberian SD gotten us? More confusion, if you ask me.”

Food for thought…more to munch on later…

Comments

[Stephen Lark]

SD, like AQAL, is a theory, a model, a map (especially when they are combined as SDi) - but (and yes I am quoting Ken Wilber here) the map is not the territory. Navigate using the map, and see how you go on your journey, sharing feedback on each of our journeys such as I am doing on this blog right now. So far so good with SDi as far as I am concerned.

Thich Nhat Hanh says "Do not be idolatrous about or bound to any doctrine, theory, or ideology. All systems of thought are guiding means; they are not absolute truth."

Wise advice IMO.

[david]

i think the practical benifit of using SD is how it aids the developement of compassion.