Talk:Ken Wilber/Archive 1

message: The Article mentions wilber as a founder of Transpersonal psychology, but he has become somewhat critical of the movement of late; if I can find the time, I'll track down the interview on the Shambhala site where he criticizes the Transpersonal movement.Tom Radulovich 02:59, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I have incorporated Wilber's disasociation from transp'ism into the article.Goethean 17:08, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

text: No. This term was used by Carl Jung, albeit in German, as "Ueberpersonlich" as long ago as 1918. More recently, in 1965, Abraham Maslow began to refer to transpersonal psychology, which generated its own journal in  1969 (The Journal of Transpesonal Psychology). I am open to any one who can think of any usages of the term "transpersonal" in any language that predate Jung's. English is my first language, but I am aware that a more direct translation of Jung's term would be "overpersonal" although the term is typically translated as "transpersonal". Does any have any knowledge of whether William James, who died in 1910, used the term? ACEO 08:31, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I have heard that James used the term, but I can't remember where. I read about it in a book on the Esalen Institute by Kripal. Would Jung have gotten it from James, or come up with it independently, I wonder? — goethean ॐ 15:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

text: changed it to "a founder". Goethean 21:54, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

text: Would anyone be offended if the page was changed to state that Ken Wilber is considered the father of Transpersonal psychology?  From my experience and the recommendations of others, it seems like this is a closer expression of the sentiment.  Thanks.Quantumlotus 18:27, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine with me. — goethean ॐ 18:43, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Transpersonal psychology

message: I have removed two links to essays critical of Wilber and replaced them with a link to Visser's "Reading Room". There's no reason to privilege the two essays that were linked to, presumably by the authors, over the other essays at Visser's site. And there's no reason to link to each essay written on Wilber when they are already collected at one site. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Goethean (talk • contribs) .
:So you agree then Goethean, the six articles that Wilber writes on beliefnet.com shouldn't be listed individually, since it is already in one site? So, goethean, go ahead and erase the 5 individualized articles under beliefnet.com? Since there is no reason to privilege Wilber's six essays over other articles to use your arguement here?
--Dasein512
::Well, this article covers essays by the subject of the article more closely than articles about the subject of the article. I personally find that to be appropriate. Presumably, readers came here for information on Ken Wilber, not on Michael Zimmerman, for example. This question should really be dictated by Wikipedia's policy on external links rather than by debate between fans and opponents of Wilber. If this is the worst form of bias you can come up with, then I'll take that to mean that we are doing pretty damn good here. So thanks for the unintentional compliment. — goethean ॐ 16:19, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Reading room articles

message: Goethean, there is already too strong of a bias in favor of Wilber when, I first started editing this page. Let's make this page of facts. 
I have removed the following two paragraphs from the Ken Wilber article. I feel that they were redundant, POV, and inaccurate. I will try to integrate any new material that I can find in them into the current article more smoothly. 
:What separates him from so many other philosophers of this time and previous ones is that he sought out an "integral world philosophy" that explains everything. From the time he started, Wilber felt that all the knowledge spheres and disciplines fit together in an overall spectrum, that they all had something important to say, they were all true, but only partially true. This led to his attitude that "Everybody is right"! With that, he has integrated the contributions of numerous thinkers from all times across all cultures, pre-modern, modern, post-modern, east/west...a truly remarkable effort.
:The other aspect that makes him unique is that so much of his knowledge and wisdom is grounded in practice. He has been an intense practitioner (of Zen and Tibetan Buddhism) and has always urged his readers to take up a spiritual practice intstead of merely reading "book junk". That attitude is found nowhere else in today's world, not the philosophers and thinkers who largely try to explain society, nor is it found in the "new age" style pop-seminar world, where people talk about things without grounding it in practice, the result being that the philosophy is dry and detached and the seminars are anemic and diluted. 
--Goethean (2 August 2004)
Hi - Regards, but I had to remove the reference that Wilber has influenced many 'New Age' writers.  Anyone familiar with his work would know how far he dissociates himself from this genre.  I have also added a bit more about why his work is (currently) not embraced by academic philosophers.  
--Kosmoan (29 March, 2005)
:I seem to have a much broader sense of the term New Age than you do. I consider Andrew Cohen, Michael Murphy and other authors who have appeared on Integral Naked to be New Age writers. Thus I feel that my description is accurate.
:I personally agree with your characterization of analytic philosophy as remaining at the rational/strategic level of consciousness. But no philosopher would accept that characterization. Thus it is not really a neutral characterization. 
:As a fan of Wilber, I tried to be objective in my writing on him. I caution you against making the article too positive towards Ken Wilber. As is clear from some of the posts on this talk page, there is a great deal of animosity against progressive, integral thought on wikipedia. If this page were to erupt into a flame war, I am afraid that the fans of Wilber would lose, due to our smaller numbers. We do not want this article to be written by opponents of Wilber. That is why I was very careful to give a balanced, neutral account. --Goethean 15:49, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  text removal/revertion 

message: I have removed the reference to Nietzsche's Übermensch as a transpersonal entity. Apart from the question of whether Nietzsche could be considered a transpersonal thinker, transpersonal entities are psychic (soul-level) entities that are more ontologically expansive than the individual (e.g., Emerson's oversoul). 
Nietzsche's Übermensch, on the other hand, is an individual who creates values for a nihilistic culture. I feel that they are two different categories, but am open to debate. Goethean 16:44, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: From my opinion, Nietzsche's Ubermensch is pretty much the same as the "Yellow" in the Spiral Dynamics proposed by Wilber. It is not a physical man, but a way of thinking. I refer to you the "Three Metamorphosis" in "Thus Spake Zarathustra". It creates new values from a naturalistic moral point of view. It is not "personal" in this way. It is not really a man, but a type of man which has evolved through nihilism. Whether it fits your definition of transpersonal or not, I will let you decide, but I think it does. I did not read what you took out, so I cannot say if it is appropriate or not.--142.59.218.190 11:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nietzsche's ''Übermensch'' 

message: In regard to this edit, are ideas, poems, and theories holons? I'm not sure. --goethean 18:47, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: holons

message: The article states. in the section/subsection "Ideas > The neo-perennial philosophy":
"Others, including Georg Feuerstein, argue that this is a confusion between concepts of differentiated nondualist doctrines...."
I did not edit this, but I find the "this" a wee bit vague.  I'm assuming you mean "this" to refer to Wilber's "neo-perennial philosophy", but it's possible to take it to refer to Arvan Harvat's comment.  
I feel the article would be clearer, if you replaced the word  "this" with a clear phrase denoting what GF is critiquing.  
Acutally, I want to make sure (and am asking here whether) you mean that Feuerstein is referring to Wilber's neo-perennial philosophy.  Are you?  Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Centerlesscenter (talk • contribs) 03:39, 28 October 2005.
:Good point. Fixed. — goethean ॐ 14:38, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The neo-perennial philosophy - a question and suggestion for the author

message: I edited "The pre/trans fallacy" section thusly:
I capitalized "Divine" (a quibble) - 
I added - "....and can appear on the surface to be the same...." and "....a fallacy of reduction...." and "....a fallacy of elevation".
I also changed "Wilber characterizes his early work to falling victim to the pre/trans fallacy" to "Wilber characterizes himself as falling victim to the pre/trans fallacy in his early work."  This may be a syntactical quibble, but I think it is a tiny bit more on point syntactically.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Centerlesscenter (talk • contribs) 03:39, 28 October 2005.
:I liked the decapitalized "divine" for some reason. — goethean ॐ 14:39, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The pre/trans fallacy - a minor edit

message: Wilber isn't a psychologist, a common misconception. From the American Psychological Association website: "Psychologists have a doctoral degree in psychology from an organized, sequential program in a regionally accredited university or professional school." I didn't feel it was important enough to put all that in the main article, but I'll put it here if anyone wonders what the difference is. - Memoryis 6 December 2006
:Perhaps that is a bit of overstatement.  The APA's definition specifically refers to a "professional psychologist", by which they mean a clinical psychologist, and rightly wish to restrict to persons with a terminal degree.  A mere "psychologist" on the other hand might be anyone who has studied the subject sufficiently to merit a bachelor's or master's degree.  Otherwise the APA might be bringing lawsuits against uncounted universities who award those other degrees.  --Blainster 22:51, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not a psychologist 

message: I'd dispute the understanding of tribalism as pre-rational and a classic example of the fallacy.  In the context it would seem to be directed towards indigenous, primitive cultures, but the quote from Brief History of Everything seems to be referent to cliquishness of nation-states, rather than indigenous societies.  It has yet to be demonstrated that indigenous societies are 'pre-rational,' Marvin Harris has described the apparentally irrational behavior that we see in tribal societies is in fact recognized to be functional, and quite rational. L Hamm 01:35, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a good point. I skipped BHoE for SES. — goethean ॐ 15:49, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Does this edit fix it? — goethean ॐ 15:58, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems more appropriate.  Thanks.L Hamm 17:48, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tribalism 

message: I've edited the article to add footnotes, comment out some unsourced quotations, and remove some of the more adulatory prose. I've noticed that there are some disputes about the section on Wilber's ideas and criticisms thereof, and if the editors here are willing, I'd be happy to act as an unofficial mediator to develop a version that is acceptable to everyone. --bainer (talk) 23:19, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reworking 

message: I've just added a whole lot more material to the critique section, to help in balancing this entry out, as some people have expressed concerns that the entry as it now stands is too one-sided.  We need to get more people to add aditional critiques, because I am not conversent in all aspects of Wilber's tecahings, or in what all his critics are saying.
I notice that we currently have two Critiques sections here, so either they should be merged, or one of them should be renamed.
I'm not sure if you guys want to keep all the criticism in one area (at the bottom of the page) or spread it throughout the page, so that the criticism of Wilber's anti-darwinism can go in the section "Wilber on Darwinism", and so on. Anyway I'll leave that to you  :-)  M Alan Kazlev 03:32, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Alan -- great job on the criticism section! — goethean ॐ 16:25, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Goethean :-)  M Alan Kazlev 08:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Critique section

message: I have removed the text on Patrizia Norelli-Bachelet's "critique" of Wilber, and moved the link to the external links. I don't find her critique – which is really more of a rant – notable. The claim that it will be published in the future is not something that Wikipedia would document. — goethean ॐ 22:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Patrizia Norelli-Bachelet's "critique" 

message: 'scuse a newbie for butting in, but here's a link to a ken wilber website that mentions an anthology put together by wilber; it includes such names as john searle, charles taylor, and howard gardner. i can't claim to have read or owned the book, but it does at least seem to establish a more than accidental relationship between taylor and wilber.  172.160.132.135  7 march 06  2059 est
:As far as I know Kindred Visions has been "about to be published" since 1999. — goethean ॐ 21:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  charles taylor 

message: provided a more direct route to "shunyata" entry (buddhist term transl. as "emptiness")
172.140.213.108 02:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ideas/critiques

message: The following material was placed on Truth. I have moved it here in the hope that you may be able to use it in the main article. If someone could be so kind as to summarise and place a short paragraph on Truth, I would be grateful. Banno 07:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did so and it was removed after about ten minutes. I'm moving the full text to the AQAL article. — goethean ॐ 16:20, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears that you did so in the middle of a brief (?) edit war. Perhaps you might try again when things cool down. Banno 23:16, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ken Wilber's observations on truth 

message: There are some url links and footnotes.  The links need to be converted to footnotes, since footnotes are the more thorough method.--Esprit15d 13:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: I find this section deeply problematic.  It is being used to further critique wilber, so is not genuinely 'Wilber's reponse'. Wilson's June 8th responce is not mere polemic, he does argue.
Wilber's attitude to critics of his work is one of antagonism and hyperbole. This was especially brought out in two blog posts. In the first, dated the 8th of June, he compared himself to Wyatt Earp, launched an emotional diatribe against anonymous critics, while not addressing any of their arguments, and concluding with an ad hominem attack against his collegue Frank Visser, for no other reason than that Visser hosts Integral World, a website which contains a number of cogent critical essays against Wilber's work. 
This whole section is simply to misrepresent Wilber's responce.  His language is not the usual academic discourse, but this seems fair enough given its blogging context but he does clearly argue his case.  It seems that most criticts in trying to attack Wilber as 'puerile, ranting' are doing it themselves and the slant of this section is 'hyperbole' itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ketha (talk • contribs) 
:I have edited this section to include Wilber's rationale for this "outburst", which can be gleaned from having read the entirety of the blog texts surrounding it. I do not believe my characterization to be either flattering or denigrating, whereas the remainder of the text seems to have evinced a number of negative adjectives regarding Wilber's work without a corresponding "laundry list" of positive characterizations of his work. Experiment IV 11:32, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ketha, I put your response in the article. — goethean ॐ 15:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

text: It will be difficult to write on the incident in a way that will be acceptable to both Wilber's admirers, such as User:Ketha, and his more dismissive critics, such as User:Dasein512/68.194.114.191. The best policy is to describe exactly what happened in a concise and unimpeachable way. I found the original description by User:M Alan Kazlev to be largely accurate and fair. Does Wilber have permalinks to the blog posts? — goethean ॐ 14:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Dasein: Somehow you managed to delete Goethean's original question, which was "where can Wilber's posts regarding this subject be found as permanent links?" or some such and managed to replace it with your own bullshit "Wilberian" analysis. Please take your own Freudian issues and have them analyzed before you "project" them onto figures who are visible because they have made themselves so. Experiment IV 07:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Permanent links to the relevant blog entries are found at What We Are, That We See. Part I: Response to Some Recent Criticisms in a Wild West Fashion; What We Are, That We See. Part II: What Is The Real Meaning of This?; and The Unbearable Lightness of Wyatt Earpy. Followup #1. These are directly linked at Ken Wilber's Blog on kenwilber.com. Experiment IV 07:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: thanks. — goethean ॐ 14:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wilber's recent reaction to critics 

message: Hi,
I've changed the following passage:
"The reluctance of other academic philosophers to warm to Wilber's work is undoubtedly due to its embrace of mysticism. To put it in terms of Wilber's philosophy, much of modern philosophy remains within (...)"
to:
"Some of Wilber's supporters believe that the reluctance of other academic philosophers to warm to Wilber's work must be due to its embrace of mysticism. According to Wilber's philosophy, much of modern philosophy remains within (...)"
because it's simpy not a fact, much less an "undoubted" fact, that that's why academics in general don't "warm to Wilber's work." That's rather an *opinion*, and should be given as such -- in the reader's (and in honesty's) best interest and in conformity with Wikipedia's quality standards.
As for the second part of the passage, it's also not a fact that "much of modern philosophy remains within (...)" The only fact is that *according to Wilber's philosophy* "much of modern philosophy remains within ..." It's just a detail, but, especially in an encyclopedia, an important one. IsiSev 02:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Facts and opinions 

message: Academic authority is not absolute in its claims of who or what is important in a field like philosophy.  Here is a statement by Roderick T. Long, professor of philosophy at Auburn: It's a mistake, though, to think that the validation of <insert name here>'s legacy depends on academic approval. Human progress is often driven by people either outside or on the margins of the academic establishment, as for example the philosophes of the 18th century or the Austrian revival of the 20th.--Blainster 09:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Academic credentials

message: Substituted at 20:38, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment