“WINNING THE INTEGRAL GAME?” - an article about conversion and critique
An interesting short article - interesting to me mostly because it is a conversion and disillusionment story, and I think conversion and disillusionment are extremely important and understudied topics in the field of self-development.
Does it say anything new about Ken Wilber? No, I don’t think so, it merely expresses a common arc in the various paths of the student. The attraction to a guru figure, and the inevitable subsequent disillusionment and seperation as the emotional glamour of the original attraction is unfulfilled, as it almost inevitably must be, because the original attraction to a teacher figure and parental figure is part of the nature of the “young mind”, and individuation and seperation is part of the self’s (inherent?) growth patterns.
I thought you might enjoy this fellows story.
“What interests me, personally… is what were the psychological reasons that I was so strongly drawn to Wilber’s work and is my present skepticism of Wilber due strictly to shortcomings in his work or also to a deeper skepticism of comprehensive worldviews in general, discomforting as it may be to wonder?”
“…the primary lesson should be methodological: that it will no longer do for a didactic celebrity to dictate Integral as dogma. It is because everyone is flawed, Wilber and his critics, that the appropriate method for philosophy is dialogue. Dialogue is what separates philosophy from dogma. This is what keeps our beliefs open for debate and reconsideration.”
August 24th, 2007 13:17
Hi Bill,
Just got around to checking out your site. Very nice…I’m in joy seeing your book lists/interest. So parallel with my own experience.
This article facinated me because I have been watching the hoohah at Frank Vissar’s site about Wilber/I-I.
One of the reasons I like Wilber & his work so much is that, from my perspective, he leaves one free from Guru worship. Perhaps he even shows his warts to shake off the puppy lovers.
I have been involved since the late 60’s with the TM movement/Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. I have been practicing TM since that time & still cherish the practice. I can say that I had a great deal of devotional feelings towards Maharishi and still do. But I never could “join up” because they seem to take their “purity” more seriously than I could…being an occasional user of entheogenics, being a ’smoker’ on & off (including the devil weed, LOL).
I think you’re correct in saying these writings in general say much more about their authors than about Wilber.
Does he have a shadow side (like I do)? I’m fairly certain. Perhaps that is why I enjoyed his ‘Wyatt Earpy’ tirade.
I’m glad to blog here a bit, wouldn’t do it on Franks site…seems too toxic.
Anyway, thanks for the contributions of your site. Those guys on the right side of the page are nearly all wonderful mentors for me.
Cheers,
Doug
August 25th, 2007 02:29
I think the “Integral experiment” is really very, very interesting, clearly one of the most interesting things happening in this country at this time, which is why I think everybody should learn at least something about it.
But for a string of reasons I’ve decided to position myself just slightly outside of Integral culture. There are a bunch of things that I’m interested in that Integralism doesn’t seem to cover, at least not in a way I find practical.
What I’m really looking forward to is a second generation Integralism. But I’m not sure I’ve seen it yet.
One of the dividing lines, for all this stuff, is as you mention, the molecules, the drugs. It’s a bit of an inherent fracture line in all of the cultures, including the post WW2 meditative movements like TM and all the many others, and Integralism too.
Hey, thanks much for coming by, and especially for leaving a comment, it was much enjoyed and appreciated.
Bill