Rainbowland

So Wilber has posted Part II of his rant – or rather an explanation of it on his blog. And as I suspected, his Wilber West post was actually an “Integral Litmus Test” to ruffle some “first-tier” feathers and identify the "second-tier" (note Ken’s use of “Turqouise” font to color code the ‘second-tier’ feedback from those he sent rough drafts to.). Very interesting and predictable, at least as far as I’m concerned yet still no actual substance to address any arguments critics have put forth. Like Tuff Ghost said in his excellent analysis, at least in the past Wilber would respond to some specific points of disagreement with others (the book Ken Wilber in Dialogue being another to add to Tuff’s list.) Oh well, I guess that’s that and now we all know where we stand in the 98% - 2% split in the spectrum of Rainbowland :-. All in all it was a fun ride to see all the reactions and follow posts last Friday – it did provide some good entertainment to pass the day.

With all the color and tier talk with these posts I'm reminded of a thread at Visser’s Wilber forum a while back called 'The Meditation Card'. Jim Chamberlain' post was inspired bya few members from IN who said:

How come we never see any debate in the clips? Or at least disagreement?
It's not just that at an integral level debate stops because we can recognize all truths, as this forum is a good example. Is there another reason?
The dangers of surrounding oneself with people who hold the same opinions and values are well known.

And…

I've never been happy with all the back-patting and hobnobbing that constitutes most of the interviews. Never mind debate, how about some true dialogue? Engage a critic once in awhile or someone who doesn't think in terms of AQAL and memes.

Jim then offered the following:

Let's say that Integral Institute does a research project that involves assessing thousands of people to determine how developed and enlightened they are, using Ken Wilber as the gold standard. And let's say that II manages to find two people who test out as being as developed and enlightened as Wilber. They are given SDi tests, they are tested by Dzogchen and Zen masters hand picked by Wilber, their brains are tested using EEG, SPECT, PET, fMRI, TMS, and other equipment used to locate the "neural correlates of consciousness," and all the tests indicate that these two people are at the same "subjective level of development" in "all quadrants and all levels," they are both awake, liberated, realized, enlightened, and they are operating at the highest level of post-postformal vision logic.

Is it possible that they could disagree on things like reincarnation, evolution, the nature of consciousness, paranormal phenomena, epistemology, psychology, politics, ethics, and aesthetics, etc.?

Or would two people who met Wilber's standards of development and enlightenment necessarily see eye to eye on all of that and more?

This goes to the heart of the questions Charles poses. I get the impression that Wilber and some Wilberians might actually believe that alignment with Wilber's opinions and values is a barometer of how developed and enlightened one is, meaning that the more aligned with Wilber's opinions and values one is, the more developed and enlightened one is, and vice versa.

I think there could and would be disagreement. Wilber himself has noted that integral is like a wave and his model/theory is just one of many surf boards (the best in his opinion) to ride that wave. Could there be '2nd tier' people, integral thinkers as shown by actual tests and research and not Wilber's assessment by their reaction to some mildly entertaining Tombstone Tierism Test that can logically critique his work and not be in the thousands of scholars Wilber is in touch with and who speak Wilberease? Can't there also be logical arguments made against Wilber's claims of meditation and development or the many other areas spotted by Falk, Jim Andrews, Meyerhoff, Visser, etc. or by anyone for that matter? I think so.

In response to another post which contained Wilberease lanuaging Jim noted:

You talk about "pre-yellow." Scientologists talk about "pre-OT." OT is the acronym for the "Operational Thetan" level. Talking about "pre-OT" and "OT" is great for Scientologists, and talking about "pre-yellow" and "The dawn of 2nd tier" is great for Wilberians.

It should be possible to discuss all kinds of things without any referencen whatsoever to Ken Wilber's "Integral Operating System" and "Integral Theory of Everything."

Much agreed and there should be critical thinking, dialogue and an open forum of debate as well in the integral community without the dismissal of someone as ‘first-tier’ and not worthy of response. And just what makes certain people (like Wilber) qualified to judge what is what tier anyway? Where is the specific research and tests? Is this the same as Wilber’s opinion that such and such a band is ‘integral’ and another is not? Seems like a weak proposition to me. Are those that were 'integral' and 'second-tier' in Wilber's and others eyes in the past all of sudden not (or are mushy green) just because they don't agree with his opinions or values on things? I took Wilber's Intro to Integral Theory course and got an A - I've read the books and studied the theory and happen to agree with a lot of the criticism out there that is not addressed. And of course there are others like Dallman, TG, Jim C., that know Wilber's system very well and also agree with that those criticisms that are promptly dismissed and "first-tier" whining. Is there room for all colors of the spectrum in Rainbowland or is it just 'transcend and reject' now? If I were taking a grad school course and the prof returned a paper to me with a C grade and fairly straight forward and logical critiques of my work and I dismiss her comments as "first-tier" and my paper is "second-tier" so thanks but no thanks. I'm pretty sure she would laugh in my face. Oh well - I’m beginning to not even care anymore and maybe this is the final push many of us needed to move to a post-Wilber integral.

Finally, I did find it interesting that a lot of the feedback that Ken received from people he sent his rough draft post to fell into the three forms of argument ('three cards of Wilber apologists' as MD has put it) put forth often in the integral community. These ‘cards’ were included in an anonymous comment over at MD’s site – here is a part of that comment which I find very compelling:

(1) The Higher Level Card (i.e. Sorry, it’s just over your head). Sorry, but you’re just not smart enough to realize I am smarter than you, because you’re on a lower (less divine) level.

(2) The Projection Card (i.e., I know you are, but what am I). By criticizing me, you are really just criticizing yourself, because any problem you see in me is just a projection of a problem in yourself.

(3) The Skillful Means Card (i.e., it’s all your own fault, dickhead). The most potent card of all! It’s not abuse; it’s not pathetic or ridiculous or wrong; it’s a crazy-wise teaching. You know, like Zen stuff. So when I call you a dickhead, it’s not because I’m a dickhead, it’s because you have a dickhead-complex that you need to evolve past, and I’m here to help you see that.

Note that these cards are not designed in any way, shape or form to prompt a discussion or dialogue. What can one possibly say to any of these cards? Nothing…and that is exactly the point. They are designed to end all discussion, and they are used only when folks know the actual substance of their beliefs has run, or is running, dry. Wilber’s latest attack of Visser, and the defense provided by his young (and getting younger by the day) followers, consists nearly in whole of these three cards.

It would be interesting to challenge Wilber and his followers to defend his attack on Visser, but only if they first promise to use none of these 3 cards. Wouldn’t it?

Indeed it would – Wilber says:

“I should mention that when IU opens we will be having specific classes, for those who want, where we analyze various forum responses for their altitude, their levels and lines, and their shadow elements.”

It seems to me it would be much more beneficial to offer a course in critical thinking and research first…

Comments

[Siona]

Hey! I know it's been ages since I weighed in here; I remember seeing your reflective post back in December about your ambivalence toward the integral 'movement' and wanting to chat. I've been writing a little about my own relationship to KW / etc. on my Zaadz blog -- if you're interested, try
http://siona.zaadz.com/blog

Thanks for the thoughtful post, though. I'm curious to see how this will continue to unfold.

[Sky]

Hi Dash,

Been a while since I looked at anything Wilberian, (a couple of years) . I used to be prolific on the IN forum (I remember you :)).

Just out of curiosity I looked him up the other day wondering if any of the criticisms had actually been answered and instead come across this. Sigh.

[~C4Chaos]

hey Sky, long time no see. so what's been happening? howcome you stopped blogging? ;)

and Dashh, man, i too love Rainbow Brite ;)

[Sky]

Hi Rommel

See your as active as ever!

RL kinda caught up with me.

Been thinking for a while of re-starting my blog, (that never really even started). But it takes so much time, so I don't know. It's cool how so many of you who used to write on IN now have your own blogs, and how sane they are.

Studied a lot of psychology, I'm not such a wilberian anymore. Still have respect for him, but can also see some gaping problems with his theories.

[~Matthew]

Hi Dashh, thanks for that thoughtful post. It's wonderful reading the analysis of all this!

[Shawn]

Thanks for the comment and for stopping by Matthew!

Sky - tried to email you but it bounced back...good to hear from you again and I do remember you from IN a while back. Hope all is well!

-s