Despite Steve Paulson’s gushing over the Ken Wilber he still inadvertently shows us what most rational folks already know; that this new age emperor has no clothes. Take this question: “So where does God fit into this picture? Do you believe in God?” I won’t torture you with his answer because you can read it your self but Ken Wilber goes into a 166 word mealy-mouthed reply that confirms his new age credentials despite any criticism he may have of the mainstream Pooh-Bahs of the movement.

Wilber can prattle on about “super consciousness”, “Big Mind”, “Big Self”, “supreme identity," or “the identity of the interior soul with the ultimate ground of being in a direct experiential state”. But what he’s really getting at is that he is having feelings and sensations that he really can’t put a finger on and therefore must be ‘mystical’ in some way. Does it ever occur to these purveyors of woo woo that the feeling they may be having are the result of chemicals running around in their brains?

Charlatans like Wilber will always try to convince you that certain experiential phenomenon lay outside of the domain of scientific method. That by virtue of it being personal and untestable (a dubious assertion) we should accord it some sort of status that science can’t touch. This is precisely the kind of logic that dogmatic religionists have been foisting on us for hundreds of years. Wilber, like so many other new age gurus, likes to dress his touchy feely claptrap up in rational and scientific cloths. But hey, hogwash is hogwash by any other name.

Fortunately, for Wilber, there are plenty of marks out there that will line up to be fleeced and honswoggled by this tripe so he’s in no danger of losing what I can only imagine is a very good living.

I'm not knocking the experience. I'm knocking Ken Wilber's explanation of the experience and his divorcing science from it.

Experience away!

You said: "One of the things I think is among the great innovations Wilber has championed is his explication of the pre/trans fallacy. In so doing he faces directly almost the exact critique Chad raises!"

Please feel free to explain the pre/trans fallacy because I don't see it.

You said: "An interior science is an extension of the scientific method into the phenomenological domain."

I'm not trying to be snarky or cynical but those 14 words have absolutely no meaning to me. I know what they all mean individualy but when you link them together I look like a deer staring at headlights.

A few people have posted that rationalists and materialists just don't get it. Well they're right, I'm one of them and I don't-- so somebody please explain it to me. I may be a sceptic as you rightly point out but I like to think that my scepticism is tempered by reason, logic and healthy desire for at least a hint of varifiability.

I'm listening. But until I hear something that doesn't sound of new age hooey I'll maintain my sceptical position.

Thanks for the explanation.

You said: "The good news is that you can learn these technologies (like meditation) and make the observations yourself and see if they hold up. I've read that it takes about 5 years of daily practice for major results to turn up."

I still think this is a sort of special pleading. If I spent five years of daily practice trying to convince myself that I was Attila the Hun- I have no doubt that I could do it. Likewise if I spent five years searching for some inner something which was bound to an outer nothing in a labrynth of all of something...you get my point- I have no doubt that I would find it. The brain is an amazing little organ chalk full 'o' chemicals and all sorts of wacky stuff we know very little about. So yes, I do believe that people can reach states of bliss or nirvana- or whatever you want to call it- but I don't believe that they are accessing anything outside themselves or inside themselves except a physical manipulation of biological, chemical and neural processes. I also don't think that I am going out on a limb in saying that there is little or no evidence to the contrary.

On a personal note, if I was going to spend five years of my life practicing anything on a daily basis I'd go with the piano.

I like horses too much to ever support or participate in such a barbaric and inhumane sport.

Clark is looking like a good match. He's got the age,the southern pedigree and the military experience that Obama lacks.

I don't buy the "they stoped trying" bit for 'the Needham question'. It's silly and unsubstantiated.

For a better explanation read the last chapter of 'Guns Germs and Steel' by Jared Diamond. The chapter, titled 'Yali's question', gives a much more plausible explanaiton based on Chinas relative isolation, political climate and overall geography.

At first I thought you were being ironic,--with the nom de plom of turnip and all--a turnip being a symbol of stupidity. then I read your other letters an realized you are actually stupid!

If Hillary were the Democratic pick instead of Obama I would get behind her 100% without needing need any coddling or "winning over". Why? Because I'm a Democrat- and that's what Democrats do when facing Republican lickspittles like John McCain.

To suggest that Hillary's supporters need some kind of sop to lure them to the polls is silly and childish. Honestly, what are they really going to do? Stay at home? Vote for McCain out of spite?

Tomorrow, Clinton will concede. She will be gracious in defeat and throw all her support behind Obama. Why? Because she's a Democrat and a professional political opperative that understands the stakes.

I suggest that Hillary's supporters do the same-- instead of threatening to take their ball and going home!