Hello dear friends,

I wish I had posted this earlier as I had intended, but here is the link now.

http--www.normaneinsteinbook.com-ebook-Norman_Einstein.pdf

I happened upon the information contained within an e-book entitled NORMAN EINSTEIN earlier this month and have been upset by what I learned there. In this e-book entitled NORMAN EINSTEIN: THE DISINTEGRATION OF KEN WILBUR BY GEOFFREY D. FALK much of what I have believed to be true of Wilber is challenged! (To say the least.) Is this old news to any of you? The information seems backed up in a scholarly way. What am I to think? What do you think? Who else of you have been deeply effected by what you have read here? If you have not read the Norman Einstein E-Book, I hope you will do so. I would very much like to have a conversation about this at one of meetings. Perhaps for our April meeting? Any way, I do feel disheartened as I am sure you will too upon reading it. I will be at our March meeting, but for now at least have put down several of the Wilbur books I was reading. Things are ruminating. But for the present at least I have lost steam in the pursuit of Wilbur.

Thanks for listening,

Ianne Lavigne

Thanks for the heads up, Ianne! I think a valuable part of learning about something/someone includes questioning and critiquing them/the teachings. Would you be willing to give a brief synopsis of salient points from the book for those of us who are so buried in urgent reading material that we might not get to this one for a really long time? Thanks!

Hello Tely and all,

Following is a summary of Geoffrey Falk's critiques of Ken Wilber from Falk's own website, http://www.geoffreyfa...

Since they were collected from the chapter in the book Stripping the Gurus entitled "Norman Einstein", I would imagine some of the same critiques are included in the book, Norman Einstein: The Disintegration of Ken Wilbur.

Thanks for beginning this discussion, Ianne.

Lynne

Critiques of Ken Wilber


Norman Einstein chapter in Stripping the Gurus.

As summarized by Jim Andrews, the chapter details that, in his career, Wilber has done the following:

Provides glowing endorsements of his work in his books and at his website.

Claims kensho (glimpses of enlightenment) which are merely confirmed by his teacher.

Professes need for free exchange of ideas in consciousness-studies marketplace, yet may have obtained pre-publication knowledge of Christian de Quincey's paper and known about alleged attempts at its suppression.

Misrepresented basic concepts in evolutionary theory in ABHOE denying the fundamentals of natural selection and that evolutionary processes are blind, and asserting that "absolutely nobody" (later changed to "very few theorists") believes in chance mutation and natural selection anymore.

Misrepresented the basic ideas of David Bohm's ontological formulation of quantum theory despite his claims that his writings are balanced with appreciation of the positive contributions of those he criticizes.

Despite his claims that he greatly appreciates responsible criticism, he has ignored:

David Lane's deconstruction of his worldview.

V. Walter Odajnyk's questioning of his representation of Jungian archetypes.

Christopher Cowan's criticisms of his comprehension of Spiral Dynamics.

Misstated Pythagorean theorem.

Denigrates as pre-rational magical/mythical the New Age suggestion that we can overcome any disease or hardship if our faith in our own minds in strong enough, yet accepts the existence of psychic phenomena, subtle energy currents, hands-on energy healers, and possible effects of his wife's death on the weather.

Praises spiritual teachers that he never met (Ramana Maharshi and Aurobindo) based solely on their extant writings despite their grandiosity, hubris, and narcissism.

Fails to show level-headed discrimination of the guru-disciple relationship by naïvely asserting that "rude boy crazy wisdom" occurs in very strict ethical atmospheres, devoid of authoritarian pressure, without having lived under the respective disciplines.

Seems not to allow free and open criticism in his own community, especially a critical appraisal of his own teaching, and his Q&A sessions are not dialogues with meaningful exchanges of opposing viewpoints.

Claims that Integral Institute has hundreds of the finest scholars in the world, ignoring the skeptical objections to the mysticism-influenced work of many of them.

Advocates community verification of meditation which may be merely a shared delusion based on self-fulfilling expectation?an appeal to popularity and conformity; there are no controls in place to guard against meditators simply experiencing what they expect to experience, and then viewing that as a confirmation of the truth of the metaphysical theory previously taught to them.

I would like to respond to one of the criticisms of Ken made by Geoffrey Falk:

Denigrates as pre-rational magical/mythical the New Age suggestion that we can overcome any disease or hardship if our faith in our own minds in strong enough, yet accepts the existence of psychic phenomena, subtle energy currents, hands-on energy healers, and possible effects of his wife's death on the weather.

When I listened to the conversation between Ken and Julian Walker on this subject, I did consider their denigration of The Secret to be somewhat excessive both in tone and in their argument against the law of attraction. Here I think Falk makes a case for a bit of a contradiction when Ken allows for the existence of subtle energy currents, but does not let them affect the world in any way to create favorable or unfavorable circumstances for ourselves? Perhaps someone on this board has read an article by Ken in which he deals with this subject.

On the other hand, I do not believe Ken's allowance for psychic phenomena or hands-on healers necessarily undermines his case against the law of attraction. Contingent upon what Falk is defining as "psychic phenomena", this occurence could be simply the "downloading" of a song or poem (as I discussed in this message board's previous "Ed Kowrlczyk" thread), or even inter-octave communication between earth-bound and celestial beings (which Ken says he believes is a possibility [ISC Discussion 13-4]). What distinguishes these forms of psychic phenomena from the law of attraction is that they are not causing another person or group of people to act in a particular manner, which is supposedly one of the primary characteristics of the law of attraction.

So I would like to know more about what types of psychic phenomena Geoffrey Falk is referencing when he says Ken "accepts the existence of psychic phenomena".

Regarding "hands-on healers", it can be argued that they are causing another person to act in a certain manner, since it is doubtful that a person can be healed "miraculously" against his or her will. However, here I think the case can be made that affecting a person with whom you are interacting in such a physical manner is different than influencing a person you have never met--a prospective boss or university applications processor--to deal with you in a favorable manner. So in my view this argument does not hold up well either.

Regarding the remainder of Falk's critiques, they were either claims about subjects with which I am not familiar ("Misrepresented basic concepts in evolutionary theory in ABHOE denying the fundamentals of natural selection"), or with which I did not agree ("Praises spiritual teachers that he never met (Ramana Maharshi and Aurobindo) based solely on their extant writings despite their grandiosity, hubris, and narcissism. ")

Once again, thanks to Ianne. I'm looking forward to seeing what others come up with regarding these critiques or the Norman Einstein book.

Hi Ianne , Tely, Lynne and all;
This is an interesting topic, that is really a set of topics: 1. criticism of integral theory, 2. criticism of Ken Wilber personally, 3. analysis of the criticism, and 4. reaction to the criticism.

My opinion on these points, as "short and sweet" as possible, is that:

1. Most (almost all?) of the criticism of the set of integral meta-theory seems egotistically motivated by First Tier writers whose behavior shows a clear pattern of "If I can put you down, I can raise myself up." As support for this opinion, allow me to point out that there are very few (if any?) suggestions for an "AND" type of solution/resolution to the asserted performative contradictions highlighted, just an "OR" type of solution that replaces the "errant" chunk of theory with the critic's own pet thought. First Tier delights in OR, Second Tier delights in AND. We can do well to remember that objective data are selected by subjective perspectives, and those subjective perspectives often have an agenda built on an attitude built on an intention built on an underlying spirit - we should look at and question every link in the chain, as the quality of our questions determines the potential quality of our answers. The first thing that we should acknowledge is that integral theory, like human development, is an open-ended dynamically evolving system. Wilber himself has been very forthcoming about his errors in earlier versions, and the re-framing that transcended and included these realizations (i.e., the Wilber I through Wilber V iterations of Integral Methodological Pluralism). Much of the criticism against integral theory is no longer valid against the Wilber V model. If one has a human form, one is inherently partial, and therefore biased to some degree - however, I am not aware of anyone who works as hard to be (at least cognitively) objective to the structural limitations of the mind-brain interface. As new discoveries and emergent truths and their artifacts continue to arise, we will see the unfolding truth of the principle behind the statement, "New technology creates new ignorance". I really enjoyed Wilber's own reply to his critics, and highly recommend reading it, and reading every link (at the bottom of the page) here:
http://www.kenwilber....

2. These are "cheap shots", the desperate attempt of a writer of low character to fool a reader of low intelligence, the classic logical fallacy "ad hominem" attack. Wilber has never set himself up as an exemplar of behavior, or called himself a "Guru" or "Spiritual Teacher". Most of these low attacks focus on his emotional writing at the time of his wife's death - what inhuman cowardly scumbags...er, critics! If time is kind, we can watch them twitch when their hearts are ripped out, & see how their behavior compares to Kenny's. Marquis de Queensbury my ass!!!

3. Bearing in mind both points 1. and 2. above, we should always be truly open to finding holes and errors in our thoughts, models, assumptions and processes. Wilber appears to be open to growth, at least so far (integral integrity? At least cognitively), evidenced by his willingness to re-frame the whole model as needed. Jana saw the holes in the Wilber IV model, and soon after that Wilber V emerged.

4. Growth into clarity, balance and non-attachment in consciousness that is passionately alive is a huge piece of the puzzle - the pain one experiences when one's pet thought/model/object/belief is attacked/wounded/threatened/revealed is both a death and a birth, more freedom and pain in both, God's double-edged sword both knighting and piercing. Embrace growth with intelligence, compassion, empathy and love. Let go of sentimentality and defensiveness. How do the Angels fly? They take themselves lightly. Remember, the word BELIEF hides the word lie in its center. Get clear about the two truths doctrine.

Lynne, thanks for the wonderfully comprehensive list of criticism against Wilber personally, and against his set of meta-theory. Good job!

On a personal note, I truly love and appreciate Ken for his great work and contributions, AND I see his humanity, both good and bad (just like me!). He shows wisdom and self-awareness in keeping the focus on his work and model, and not on himself personally. Bravo!

Ultimately, I think we decide who and what to allow to enter our lives based on the balance of Goodness, Truth and Beauty versus Evil, Lies and Ugliness. To me, Kenny very easily and comfortably makes the cut, and I have my own criticisms of some of his choices, as I expect he would have of some of mine. That's free will, that's evolution's unfolding, and that's life! As it should be. When I disagree with reality, I realize that I'm in disagreement with God, and, my friends, no matter how strongly I think I'm right, that's one argument I'm probably not going to win! Gotz ta keeps yo sensa Humor!

All the best,
Eliot.

Just a small point in response to Eliot's thoughtful post. "If I can put you down, I can raise myself up" seems as much a Wilberian attitude as it is the stance of some of his (possibly) First Tier critics. Ken's version of "and" sometimes seems to be more of a "but" posing as an "and." In fact, in a way, I wonder if Ken's taking this absorb-or-destroy attitude towards other people's work is part of what generates such vehement criticism back at him!

Good point, Tely.

In my opinion, what is going on here is the battle Boomeritis (pluralistic relativism) is waging against anything and everything that is not itself, as the First Tier vMemes can only see their own image in the mirror as OK, everything higher or lower can only be seen as lower (their zone 2 determines what can arise in zone 1).

Healthy Green, that can stand to include hierarchical valuation and developmental genealogy (remember, Boomeritis / unhealthy green excludes all genealogy, including its own, while establishing no valuation as equal valuation [the performative contradiction that creates flatland]) is the gateway to Second Tier. If I can be forgiven for quoting myself, as I advanced the argument in IMP v 2.0; innocence doesn't just die on its own, our choices kill it (which begin in spirit long before emotion or thought enter the picture).

"Character equals destiny." Sigmund Freud

This all feels like an attack of an encroaching dominator hierarchy to Boomeritis, which says, "Nobody tells me what to do!", which, in this case, contextually equals "Nobody can see my genealogy and valuate me, but ME!" This is precisely the resonant equivalent (an octave or two higher) of the underdeveloped childish psyche that plays "hide and seek" by covering their own eyes (because they ARE vision, their vision IS vision, from their perspective [pre-egoic to egoic], which is all that they have structural [and therefore phenomenological] access to).

This emergent behavior can be cute in children, far less so as egotistical regression and contracted assertion in so-called "spiritual / integral adults". LOL!

"AND" plus "IMP" equals "BUT" (Big ol' Stinky Butte, to Boomeritis' zone 1 immanent [smelling?] feeling)

Integral Methodological Pluralism is a multidimensional framework in which developmental and genealogical stage / level "location" can be accurately and objectively discerned and verified, using the three strands of valid truth. This feels like oppressive "judgment" to Boomeritis, hence the "vehement criticism" and emotionally violent reactions, slightly filtered (actually, rationalized) and largely unmodulated through what the Mean Green Memers call their "intelligence".

Sarcasm? Moi?

"A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep."
Saul Bellow

My underlying point is, if and when valid (First or Second Tier) criticism appears (as I mentioned above, Jana spotted some holes in the Wilber IV model, that Kenny promptly fixed), then we can carefully watch Ken Wilber's response for appropriate incorporation of these deeper and wider truths into the integral model. So far, at least to me, it looks like he's doing good, solid work (i.e., Wilber I - Wilber V). Bravo! How many people are up to the task, in ANY dimension, of objective and accurate critique of their own creation, let alone themselves?

"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes." ("Who watches the watchmen?")
-- Juvenal, Satires, VI, 347
Quoted as the epigraph of the Tower Comission Report, 1987
(I got this from the great graphic novel [comic book], "Watchmen", highly recommended!)

Of course, all that being said, the ego can ALWAYS find a place to hide in structure - however highly developed zone 2 may be. To me, that's the deeper meaning of the story of the Devil, who was once the highest and brightest of all the angels, and the one closest to God. As we rise in consciousness, evil doesn't get LESS (that's a common delusion, in my opinion), it just gets less obvious, more beautifully subtle (I may be questioned on my use of the word beauty in this context, my opinion is that if you can't see the multidimensionally prismatic radiant display of the nondual dance of life and death [order and chaos], you haven't paid adequate attention), ironically layered and delicately complex (spiritually, is there much difference between A.C. being a whore for authority and D.D. being a whore for sex?). I think Lao Tzu got it right when he said "The sage allows all things to pass through him, both good and evil, none leaving a mark." That "none leaving a mark" stuff is the hard part, as many zen parables attest.

All the best,
Eliot.

Hey Guys/Gals,
Great discussion.

Eliot,
Thanks for the very cogent & fairly complete analysis.

One point that caught my attention while quickly reviewing the book was the total denial of what Wilber calls "broad empiricism". In other words, Geoffrey Falk's critiques demonstrated a strictly RH materialist, 'narrow empiricism' approach to valid knowledge. It sounded to me like his criticism was that Ken included the UL at all and that LL was completely unreliable...people lie to themselves & others (maybe they have a little shadow there, he he).

And, to be fair, Wilber has repeatedly pointed out the lack of appreciation of bodily health exhibited by Ramana Maharshi (and others in the 'Spiritual Traditions')...a denial of the RH world of matter.

Now, who is being 'comprehensive' & 'Integral' here??

And, Lynne...Hi,
I have some sympathy with your view... "I did consider their denigration of The Secret to be somewhat excessive both in tone and in their argument against the law of attraction".

I feel that many in the Integral community are rightly concerned about the lack of 'critical thinking' and many speak in a way to discourage 'magical thinking'. That should not deny the possibility of LH 'subtle' & 'causal' energies being reflected/correlated with RH physical events. We just don't know very much about these areas yet that we can call verifiable knowledge. I believe that is why Ken hedges a bit on these issues. I think you make a valid point.

Thanks Ianne for opening this discussion & drawing attention to the 'critique'...we luv em!...cuz they help us grow.

Thanks All & Cheers,
Doug

You guys are great! Everyone of you. Thankyou so much for your responses; for your thoughtful individually unique input. I really love that.

I am checking the message board responses for the first time today. It often takes me awhile. I am more than busy! No need to say much more at this point. I would have to go into the material and give it more energy! And that is just not a priority at this time.

For myself, as the month has passed, my concerns and upset have actually been falling away.

Jana's input at the meet-up about how at least most of what Ken was saying was correct, felt right and confirmed what I had been feeling on my own anyway. Also I listen to the Integral Naked interviews regularly which I find of great value. And that experience is so positive that it would be hard to stay stuck in fear and negativity. Also I was thankful for Jeff's support at the meeting. And his suggestion that we take up the subject of Wilber critique on a possibly regular basis. Sounds like a good practice to me. A Healthy one for our group! So thank-you Jeff! And Lynne, and Doug, and Eliot, and Tely and everyone of you for an amazing conversation. That's what keeps me coming back.

Love and appreciate you all!

Ianne