Final Comments to Wilber's Recent Blog Postings Frank Visser July 3, 2006
A way out of this is, in my opinion, describing integral without the hype, the arrogance, the overconfidence, the exaggeration, the hyperbole. Let's get back to business, and rethink the real issues of integral philosophy, Wilber's or anyone's. Starting today, Integral World will proceed with a different focus: a wider definition of integral, including and transcending Ken Wilber. As a start, read part one of Alan Kazlev's series: "Towards a larger definition of the integral. Part One: Historical and Comparative use of Integral''". Let's remember that integral philosophy is wider then Ken Wilber's version of it – a fact he readily acknowledges – and that other versions of it can and should be explored. But also, I would like to add, that a critical analysis of Wilber's theoretical proposals outside of the in-group context of the integral organizations, would be very timely. So not only "integrally informed", but "sceptically informed" as well. Integral World has been a productive website with many essays freely contributed from all over the world, securing a stable readership by those who are appreciative of this effort. Thanks to everyone who responded with encouragement in the past weeks!
[Oct 16, 2009
ReplyDelete(title unknown) from For The Turnstiles by DGA
I got an email from Ken Wilber. His email address, by the way, is "noreply@integrallife.com." Grates me, the sum:
"This is Ken Wilber, and I wanted to take a moment to write you and tell you of the first and only organization that is the exclusive outlet of my Integral work and all projects connected with it. The organization is called Integral Life, co-founded by myself and my CEO, Robb Smith."
First, claim a monopoly on the means of production, in this case on the means of legitimation: this institution, "Integral Life," is the only source for anything branded as "integral" (implicitly suggesting that the only integral work is "my Integral work"). As I have suggested before, the particular quirks in Wilber's work habits, particularly in his explosive attitude toward actual criticism of his problematic project, are a function of his intention to capitalize or privatize the integral thing. He is producing a line of commodities, inclusive of knowledge-commodities and community-commodities. Not knowledge or community as such, which are not private but dialectical, "open-source" if you will.]