Letters to the Editor
-
But what does it mean?
No one should doubt that a person can be aware very differently from the usual. But no one should think that it is possible to say what this means. That would be misusing analytical thinking.
It is good to see at least a partial recognition that the difficulties in describing the small scales that quantum mechanics analyzes has nothing to do with human consciousness. The idea that it does is no more or less silly than the turtle.
-
The attachment some have to the assertion that God has a separate existence
seems to cause the most trouble. There is often such possessiveness, a guardedness around a particular perception of God, which makes sense, I suppose, since those who feel and behave this way are, according to Mr. Wilber's description, either pre-verbal or stuck in their intellect. It's a very constrained existence! They simply have not experienced the blissfulness which accompanies the trans-rational, at-oneness experience, where there is a suspension of ego and separateness. At times, some New Age enthusiasts appear as if they have just swapped the Bearded Guy for a Ball of Light, but at least they are usually smiling and not bullying from the pulpit.
-
The Emperor Has No Clothes
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.
-
Missing the forest for the trees.
Chad Bagley, your ego or your intellect or both is/are in your way. It doesn't matter whether that you are capable of experiencing "trans-rationally" due to brain chemicals, or some other reason. It's the experience which is great, not why.
-
Hey look at that, Ken Wilber!
Bravo, Salon. He's a really interesting and vital participant in the grand dialogue.
I feel I have positive but not uncritical thoughts about Ken Wilber. However, commenter Chad has made one statement that I think shows a misunderstanding:
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? (...) 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.
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! It's basically the problem that so many people assume equivalence between prerational experiences and insights and transrational experience and insight. Wilber's particular brand of woo woo confronts precisely the problem that people have inexplicable feelings and sensations and then immediately leap to say "these are mystical wisdoms." You know, the people who say "Oh babies are so unfettered, so uninhibited." Babies are these things. Then these people go on to say "They're so wise! We must find our inner baby." etc . etc. (Or for that matter, for people to go the other way and declare reductively that "This stuff is infantile regression.")
It's a significant achievement to ask people—challenge people—to discern the differences in the nature of their experiences of the rational, irrational or extraordinary. It's also significant to attempt to map out the territory which will help people explore those insights. How is this hogwash again?
-
Excellent interview
It's great to see Ken Wilber's ideas getting more coverage. The integral or AQAL framework honors and synthesizes more truth, beauty, and goodness than any other approach in history.
I find it encouraging that Ken's work is hitting the main stream even if some readers can't help themselves from deconstructing their own projections. They could be learning and growing in profound ways instead.
-
Tosh & Nonsense To Me
Count me in the "woo-woo" clan. I find the "pre-rational" bit wickedly egotistical -- the "I'm enlightened and you're not" rap. I don't think the evidence of evolution shows that evolution has any normative values. So too I don't think one's "spiritual journey" (ugh!) has any "story arc." If most people walk around "pre-rational," but with effort and guidance can become "transrational," that to me implies some sort of progress, some sort of normative value that the "trans" is somehow better than the "pre." Hence "tosh and non-sense."
I'm often struck by how egomaniacal we humans are. The grand scheme that produced wonderful, amazing us! Surely that shows some sort of guidance!
Or, it shows a coupla billions years of trial and error -- basically value-less chance played out over a really, really long time. It makes humans much less consequential, which comes closer to putting us into accurate perspective.
Reason is a wonderful thing. So is the ability of schools of fish to swim in unison. One trait is not "better" than the other.