Whither Ken Wilber?

Please check out Jim Chamberlain's new essay Whither Ken Wilber?, that is posted over at Integral World. Excellent in my opinion...

From the intro:

My interest in getting a clearer sense of Ken Wilber's philosophical stance on certain open questions about the origin and evolution of life, the relationship between psychological events and physical events, and the relation of science and religion was piqued when I began to notice that more than a few Wilberians seemed to use terms such as "flatland materialism," "quadrant absolutism," and "gross reductionism" to characterize and thereby dismiss from serious consideration just about anything they didn't happen to agree with. It occurred to me that they may have been inspired to resort to this kind of rhetoric by reading and listening to Ken Wilber (given that this is his jargon). And so I tried to get a sense of what might be behind Wilber's rhetoric about certain issues. What, I wondered, does Wilber actually believe about certain things? It is easy to talk about going in a "post-metaphysical" direction, but I wanted something much more specific. In particular I wanted to get a clearer sense of where Wilber might stand on the question, "Can spirituality be naturalized?"[1]

Comments

[Jim]

Here is one of many small bits of information that I did not include in "Whither Ken Wilber."

The term "the hard problem of consciousness" was coined by philosopher David Chalmers, who is a founding member of Integral Institute.

Chalmers says that the "hard problem" is "the central mystery of consciousness." The "easy problems" call for explanations to things like the ability to discriminate, categorize, and react to stimuli; the integration of information by cognitive systems; the reportability of mental states; the focus of attention; deliberate control of behavior; and the difference between wakefulness and sleep.

The hard problem calls for an explanation of why these functions are accompanied by experience.

Chalmers says, "A solution to the hard problem would involve an account of the relation between physical processes and consciousness, explaining on the basis of natural principles how and why it is that physical processes are associated with states of experience."

Wilber cites Chalmers in various places (including Integral Spirituality). In a piece of writing at his Shambhala Publishing website, Wilber says that something like Chalmer's "panprotoexperientialism" would be the most "integral" solution to the "hard problem."

Regarding his own views on consciousness, Chalmers tells an interviewer: "There’s some convergence with religious and spiritual views. It’s true that people who have those views often find some aspects of what I have to say congenial. Now I have to say I’m a complete atheist, I have no religious views myself and no spiritual views, except very watered down humanistic spiritual views, and consciousness is just a fact of life, it’s a natural fact of life."

From: http://www.abc.net.au/rn/science/mind/s919229.htm

- Jim

[Stephen C]

Methinks the most salient level of analysis of 'Wilber and Wilberism' is found in the 'small grains' of personality psychology and social psychology, analysis particularized by Wilber's personality specifics, and, the underlying nature evident in the closure his followers experience as members of an in-group.

Up a few levels, this reader cannot help but notice the entire integral framework has not been conceptually justified, or cogently psychologized; and thus there is no research program.

Why not consign this (my) critical sense to its quadrant and then suggest it cannot possess any grip whatsoever, because, in effect, the part cannot unpack the w(hole)?

By way of my prejudices, the gross metaphysical level is not interesting given the obvious under determined fine grain. But, it seems dodgy anyway.

Ahh, but how unsurprising to learn Wilberism has now evoked a Practice, and, a 'cottage industry' with 'credentialing' and a churchy 'chain of being'.