Talk:Ken Wilber

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as b-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] See comments

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ken Wilber article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies


Archive
Archives


Contents

[edit] Andrew Cohen connection

Has anyone checked out wiki page on Cohen of being a cult leader, etc. It seems that Wilber has another case of supporting an unsavory character like Da Free John. Is there anything worth mentioning on the wikipedia page of Wilber??? ForrestLane42 04:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)ForrestLane42

That sounds rather POV to me. Wilber's association with Cohen is clear on this page and anything relevant to Cohen can go on the Cohen page. --Backface 20:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Not when there are allegations of misconduct on Cohen's part. And Wilber is clearly associating with him regardless of it, like Free John. Shows a history of Wilber supporting unsavory characters. ForrestLane42 22:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)ForrestLane42

I fail to see how you are going to say 'unsavory' while keeping in line with WP:POV. Cohen is clearly a loon, but wikipedia has rules about these things.--Backface 00:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Can we say of Cohen just that he has been suspected of being a cult leader? I mean even his mother says it... I just think it says a lot of Wilber, who he hangs out with. I mean the I C S A at least has classified Da Free John as a cult leader. http://www.icsahome.com/idx_icsa.htm ForrestLane42 15:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)ForrestLane42

First of all, I think the jury's still very much out on Cohen being either a "loon", an "unsavory character", or much less a cult leader, so I think any mention of that in the Wilber entry is definitely out of place. As for Wilber's association with Adi Da (once known as Da Free John), this dates way back to the 80s and there's a link in the Adi Da references section (note 10) to an article by Wilber (1996) that clearly dissociates him with Adi Da, the teacher (although not necessarily his "teachings"). So I don't think we can question Wilber's integrity based on his alleged "history of ... supporting unsavory characters", as this is clearly non-neutral POV in my opinion... OK, you're free to question his integrity on your own, but it has no place on his Wikipedia entry. --Grey 12:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Grey, the jury out?? When his mother is one of his main accusers, his mother!? As for Wilber - at this point it might be POV but I think it is commonsense when you have people around that are unsavory, it is reasonable to expect that it will rub off. ForrestLane42 19:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)ForrestLane42

Since when did all families become little Utopian islands where everyone is perfectly supportive and understanding? I mean, I've tried to have philosophical discussions with my mother (which is far from trying to be her guru... although I have tried teaching English to my wife, which was just about as disastrous) and soon learned that it was best to just avoid it because of how much I made her cry. And have you ever heard of "crazy wisdom"? So what if Cohen had the odd follower punched in the arm or dipped in cold water. If he did that to everybody as a general rule, that's one thing, but nothing I've read so far indicates that he's done that with anyone other than the occasional long-time follower who made a conscious choice to follow him and knew exactly what they were getting into. Without having all the facts and being well aware of the whole context in which the event took place, we're in no place to judge. So I guess, no, the jury's not out. There's not even enough hard evidence yet to have a trial in the first place. --Grey 11:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Revising Idea section

I think this page needs to be shortly a bit...as Wikipedia says this page has to many buzzwords. I think the Ideas section needs to be trimmed down. First thing that should be done is revamping the section with the Wilber 5 section which seems more linear to his ideas. Sections with Absolute/relative truth section, Wilber-Combs lattice, etc add information that those more interested in studying wilberian thought can go find in a library. Statements like "In a recent (dated 2006) online article/interview on his Shambhala website, "On the Nature of a Post-Metaphysical Spirituality: Response to Habermas and Weis",[11] Wilber speaks of Post-Metaphysical Spirituality. On another page, "Future Excerpts from Kosmic Karma and Creativity to Be Posted",[12] he presents an outline that includes "Excerpt F: Integral Post-Metaphysics", but (as of 28 January 2006) no further material has been posted regarding this." Can be written in a much smaller sentence, like "In a recent (dated 2006) online article/interview on his Shambhala website, Wilber has spoken of a post-metaphysical spirituality and has been in the process of elaborating this thought into his work. In fact I plan to make the switch now. Basically, can we trunicate the words into a more concise page.ForrestLane42 01:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)ForrestLane42

If you want to edit the prose in the article, go right ahead. But stop deleting entire paragraphs. I will continue to revert your deletions. And it's not "Wikipedia" which claims that a section contains buzzwords, it's whatever editor added that tag. — goethean ॐ 18:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Then, goethean, to avoid an edit war, an arbitrator should be called in because from how I see and how I watched how you work on other pages, you seem to edit with little concern for consensus. I will have to revert your reverts, and then after the third time, you revert me, wikipedia should step in. ForrestLane42 19:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)ForrestLane42

Backface, can you please have someone come take this page over since goethean and myself can not resolve our differences. 19:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)ForrestLane42

Hi, friends, ForrestLane42 asked me to look in here and see if I can be of any use mediating. My position is that I respect Wilber but I'm not a believer — I've read one of his (longer) books, and it wasn't my cup of tea, but I was impressed by his writing and scholarship. So maybe I occupy some kind of middle ground. If you both ask, I'll review the argument and let you know what I think, but not necessarily real soon, because I do have a job ... Cheers, Eleuther 21:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok. I look forward to hearing your suggestions. — goethean ॐ 21:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy to help too, although I am not sure that Goethean would necessary want me to as he seems to believe that I am not acting in good faith. --Backface 22:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Backface and Eleuther, I welcome your imput and I do not believe that goethean has acted in good faith, if you read his reverts there are little discussion, just done, no talk, I suggest you look at his talk page and look at his activities, there is a pattern of tyrannical editing. I think when you look at my edits they have been reasonable and sensible. I too am not a believer of Wilber, but I been as objective as I think anyone can as a human. Goethean has reverted in the past three times without real discussion and has not acted in good faith as an editor. If you get a chance look at other pages he has edited, there is a pattern! I welcome some more objectivity... ForrestLane42 23:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)ForrestLane42

Why don't you go to other articles and start deleting entire paragraphs without discussion. See how far you get. — goethean ॐ 15:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Mediation

Okay, I think the main parties have now been heard from. If you want me to go ahead with this, we need some ground rules. I'm going to have to do a significant amount of work here, studying not just the article, but also edit histories and external sources, and I don't want to do it if it's not going to do any good. I don't have a personal oar to pull with regards to Wilber, but I do want to help Wikipedia to work right.

So, the rules:

  • Our goal is to produce a top-quality Wikipedia article, encyclopedic and appropriately detailed, properly sourced, and free of WP:POV and WP:OR problems. (Note that WP:POV doesn't forbid POV, it only requires it to be properly expressed.)
  • We are doing this cooperatively and dispassionately, with no more personal attacks or passion or anger among ourselves, so please, no more good faith or bad faith. We hereby re-boot the old debate from scratch, and leave all that stuff behind. In particular, we are not discussing the propriety of past edits or reversions — we are only discussing the form and language of the future article.
  • There's a non-binding presumption, but still a presumption, that when I rule on a disputed issue, you will respect it. (Otherwise, why am I doing this?)

If this seems reasonable, please sign on by adding a line of the form "*Agreed (optional comment) (four tildes)" to this block, and when all three of you are there, I'll start my slog through the horrific pile of relevant prose. Cheers! Eleuther 02:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Agreed, but thinks that past edits should be looked at by merits of worthiness in future edition of page. ForrestLane42 06:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)ForrestLane42
    • Good, I do plan to look over past edits, but only for the quality of the content, not to judge who was right or wrong on any particular day. Eleuther 11:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree. I also request that ForrestLane42 stop attacking me personally and begin to assume good faith per Wikipedia policy. If he refuses, I will bring the situation to the attention of an administrator. — goethean ॐ 15:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Goethean - Perhaps you could extend that courtesy to others too. Your remarks on the Michel Bauwens deletion page did not assume good faith on the part of either myself or ForrestLane42. --Backface 16:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • On that page, I pointed out that your activities under this username consist almost entirely of nominating articles from the integral thought category for deletion. Users who appear suddenly with an intimate understanding of the process and who evince a clear agenda often have their identity and motivations questioned. You fall into that category. Seriously. This was your fifth edit under this username. That's so suspicious, it's funny. — goethean ॐ 17:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Very happy to have amused you. However, I can assure you that there is no more to me than meets the eye. I have no connection with ForrestLane42. In fact, I have no concern with Goethean that needs mediation, but would like to be involved in any concerted effort to improve the page. Wikipedia is not very difficult to work your way around - the policies are clear enough for anyone to see. The thing is that I am a keen integralist (pro-Wilber, very vaguely connected to II but no uncritical disciple, for the record.) The state of the integral pages here at the moment is very poor. Some of them terminally so. Fortunately, the wikipedia policies seem to be helpful in putting that right. I appreciate that you like some of the pages, I have nominated or proded and I am sorry if I have offended you.

Anyway, this page is a rather different kettle of fish. I would very much like to discuss it with you, but I need to ask you for at least some initial trust if we are going to get anywhere. If you like I am happy to have an off-line discussion and let you know who I am in real life.

I guess I want to ask you - What is your overall intention on the shape of this article? What are you wanting to convey in terms of biography, theory and criticism and what balance are you wanting to strike between the three? What level of prior familiarity are you expecting of a reader?

Anyway, I agree to Eleuther's approach. I suggest that he can probably read selectively to avoid wasting a lot of his time. Perhaps Goethean can help point out salient areas.

--Backface 02:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

See Eleuther and Backface, how can we mediate with someone even during the mediation process doesn't act in good faith?? The past is the past, backface and I have only looked to edit where there has been POVs,etc. Look to his personal talk page, this is not the first arbitration or mediation page he has been involved, I do not think the same can be said for me or Backface. I have constisently said this page should be protected by wikipedia and be edited by someone who is more objective than u or me. Yes, I have been highly emotional and should know better, but when I see somone trying to dictate a page, its troublesome to me. ForrestLane42 00:23, 16 December 2006 (UTC)ForrestLane42

Backface, how can you say there is no connection between us, I thought we had a somewhat amicable relationship. ForrestLane42 11:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)ForrestLane42

Hey, I'm not saying we were not amicable, merely that we are independent of one another. --Backface 20:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Well I can see this is going to be no fun! I'll get to work and try to post something later today or tomorrow. Cheers, Eleuther 15:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Progress Report

I typed in "new age" and got this, which I think shows that the Wilber article is relatively sane. My idea was to see if it would be realistic to describe Wilber as a new age philosopher and religious leader. It seems I need to change my tack. Cheers, more to come, Eleuther 04:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Wilber specifically objects to being considered 'new age' although he accepts that being placed in the new age / mbs sections of bookshops is the best way to get sales, rather than psychology / philosophy.

Can I suggest that a good approach to sorting this out is to get a good idea of what each of the participants wants the page to look like and what approach they want taken to setting out Wilber's life, work and critics. Goethean has done a considerable amount of work and thinking on this, ForrestLane42 feels unheard and I want to bring some encyclopedeic discipline to the page. The best solution is going to satisfy all three views rather than introduce yet another one which none of us will agree with. I think it would be wise for us all to set out our 'objectives' for the page and then for a discussion to take place as to how these can be acheived. --Backface 12:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Hi, Backface, I agree, the last thing I want to do is introduce a fourth viewpoint. I was just browsing around, trying to get my bearings. I'm not planning to suggest new content, only a lot of removal, and principles for the replacement content. I also agree that encyclopedic discipline should be the watchword. Eleuther 14:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] View from the Backface

So to kick off here is mine:

The page needs to read like an encylopaedia entry, as for any other philosopher psychologist, writer, whatever.

Becsuse there is so much heat around Wilber in his attempt to increase awareness of his ideas, there is a lot of inward-looking and irrelevant waffle from people with various levels of ego investment in the community around his work. All these people seem to believe that they have a need to have their particular view expressed on the page, whereas in fact this is not necessary and not encyclopaedic. Because of the enthusiasm for the debate, the page has been hacked so many times that it is about 3 times as long as it should be. We do not need to offer a narration of a private blog flame war.

I would like to see the page give a clear overview of Wilbers life, his work (writing and II), the basics of his ideas (WP is not a philosophy text book and there is too much about this at the moment), an overview of the cogent criticism.

Criticism is the worst part of the page at the moment. There is far to much nonsense around this stuff from people hanging their cranky ideas onto Wilber's work. There is precious little notable criticism of Wilber, most of it is just people mouthing off on their blogs or web sites and seriously mixing up personal problems with Wilber. (Sorry, somebody expressing how they met Wilber once and he wasn't a very emotional guy is not notable even if he is a big name in Transpersonal Psych.) The notable criticism that exists, notably in the book "Ken Wilber in Dialogue" is very, very useful and this should be emphasised. Some of it is pretty devastating. I suggest that anything that is not published in a book is removed. This is in line with Wikipedia policy.

The problem here is that Wilber has been largely ignored by the academic community rather than criticised and therefore embraced by it. This is his own fault largely. However, the page can just note this rather than replace the missing cogent criticism with self-published drivel from self-declared esotericists.

An overview that stated that there is a growing integral community relating to his and others' work with various factions who disagree with one another would be enough, without listing and quoting every individual who has blogged some ad hominem attack. Only put them here if they are notable -ie have published material that is referenced outside the integral community (i.e. not dallman, bauwens, falk, WIE, zaadsters, IN, integralworld, integral review, integral leadership review, all the various blogs we people write etc. etc. etc.)

The starting point should in my view be to attempt to produce the right page for an encyclopaedia, not to produce the page the one particular aspect of the integral community or another would want to see, nor to try to create a consensus of the various parts of the integral community. Perhaps think about what would be important to people reading the page in 10 years time.

Where is there a really good article about a philosopher / pyschologist writer that we can use as a template?

End lecture here. Over to you Goethean, ForrestLane42, anyone else who is listening. --Backface 12:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Backface, I agree this page has always need to read more like an encylopedic page than what is there already. His biography is an example of trying to boost Wilber up - i.e. Taylor quotation, the page is way too long. His ideas section has become overblown and best left for those interested in Wilber to read on their own.

The criticism section is the hardest part, there is so much disdain for Wilber some for good reason, others for not so good reason. The present section misses the essence on why people dont agree with Wilber. I think you can say that Wilber has been attacked for reasons such as not answering the criticism given, his personality, etc. I am sure if you look to Hegel or Kant, they might mentioned the negative parts of their personality. All has to be brief and not to the point of exhaustion. I think his ideas should be done around his prposed five phases of work. I would also like to see at the final revision of this page, some sort of protection template given, so that no one can try to revert it back to its pre-historic days. ForrestLane42 18:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC)ForrestLane42

ForrestLane42, please try not to place your comments in the middle of another editor's comments. — goethean ॐ 18:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I suggest that readers of Backface's comments should consider his contributions to Wikipedia when evaluating them. His nominations for deletion were assisted by a deeply entrenched bias against transpersonal and integral theory on Wikipedia and rampant deletionism. Others of his nominations, like Michel Bauwens, were rejected by people who actually knew about the subject, but could been deleted had those people not shown up. This comment by Backface, in which he appaers to argue that an article should be deleted because it is not in the Encyclopedia Britannica, betrays an apalling ignorance of Wikipedia's mission, goals, and policies. Please see his other comments at that policy talk page before evaluating his comments here.
I disagree with Backface that Wilber's ideas should be de-emphasized. I also disagree with the idea that material cited to books should take precedence over material cited from published articles. Much of the rest of Backface's comments are rhetorical in nature and lack meaning. Of course we should emphasize encyclopedic material — who could disagree with that? The more difficult question is: what qualifies as encyclopedic?
Apart from the biography section (which was written by User:Blainster) and the criticism section (by User:M Alan Kazlev), I have almost singlehandedly written this article. I have also spent considerable amounts of time defending it from vandals, reductionists, and others. When I first began editing the article, it looked like this. I also wrote the articles on AQAL, SES, and others. So we are discussing my work here. I welcome constructive criticism, but I have not as yet seen evidence for it. — goethean ॐ 19:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


Whoooaa. hold your horses!!

I am very sorry that Goethean has chosen to take this approach, which does not seem tremendously constructive and is certainly far from assuming good faith. He does not appear to show himself in a very good light. I don't quite know what I have done to annoy him so much and I guess I have to answer his points one-by-one, but it seems rather tiresome to do so when I would much rather talk about the page. Anyway, here goes.

  • Goethean believes that I have a deeply entrenched bias against transpersonal and integral theory. This is far from the case. I have written elsewhere positively on integral theory and I am a keen integralist. I have other credentials in this area which I decline to state in order to protect my privacy. As I have stated before, my sole aim here is to improve the quality of the coverage of integral topics in Wikipedia. Goethean makes his accusations based on assumptions that are incorrect and are easily put right but I do not understand the extreme anger with which he seems to put them.
  • I stated clearly that my objection to the Bauwens page is that it has no reliable sources and that I would withdraw my objections to it if some were made known. Goethean could easily have done so if he had any. Nobody did. This is not an anti-integral stance but one that is pro-Wikipedia. Trust me; I do know what I am talking about. There is an awful lot of self-publicity in this arena and a small amount of tremendously valuable work such as Wilber's. Wikipedia's policy, if followed closesly, will ensure that coverage emphasises the good and minimises the dross. I do not see this as 'rampant deletionism' but as a correction of a tendency of the integral community to spread its internal debates outward. By all means check the history of my changes, all of which are consistent with improving the quality of coverage of integral matters, even if that involved proposing the deletion of things Goethean happens to like when they breach WP policy. Perhaps this is the source of the rancour which seems to be causing him to lose his balance.
  • Goethean has deliberatly missed my point about Britannica in order to paint me in a poor light here. (I am sorry to suspend assumption of good faith but I am defending myself from a personal attack here.) Please read the page as Goethean suggests that you do, you will see that I am responding to a particular statement by Kazlev. Kazlev states his disappointment that Wikipedia is not competing with Britannica which he blames on events such as the deletion of a particular article. I pointed out that Britannica does not cover that suject either in order to question Kazlev's pessimism. I certainly do not believe that Britannica's lack of coverage of the subject is a reason to keep it out of Wikipedia. Sheeeesh! The reason to keep it out of Wikipedia is that it is not notable and has no RS as I stated on the afd page and in the debate to which Goethean refers. That, as I was observing, is what keeps it out of Britanica also. He states that I show an "apalling [sic] ignorance of Wikipedia's mission, goals, and policies". This remark is wrong but it is also way over the line. Goethean, try to keep a lid on it, my friend.
  • This is not the first time I have had to defend myself personally from his ad hominem attacks. I have made no similar attacks on him. I appreciate that I have proposed the deletion of articles that he liked. These were handled by the proper process and the relevant policies and I have no objection where decisions of the community have not gone my way. I have offered to speak off-line to Goethean and verify my real-world identity to begin to build some trust and this offer has not been taken up. Many of the things I mention here, I have already written in such responses before. I ask, once again, Goethean, that you cease this line of attack and begin to address the work in hand rather than me personally. I trust that I will not have to repeat these comments again.

As I stated before, I acknowledge that he has thought long and deeply about this subject and congratulate him for the work he has done. I would like to again extend my invitation to him to set out his vision for the page. I can appreciate that a reconsideration of the page such as the exercise we are now attempting may not be easy for him since he has contributed considerably towards the current version. So have many others. I appreciate the work that he and others have put into it and hope that, in this exercise, we can use this work as a firm basis on which to build to create an article worthy of featured status. I certainly do not want to throw away baby with bathwater. --Backface 22:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Goethean believes that I have a deeply entrenched bias against transpersonal and integral theory.
I should have been more clear. I meant that your nominating articles for deletion was assisted by an entrenched bias against integral thought among Wikipedians. I was talking about a bias against integral thought on Wikipedia, not your personal bias. The "rampant deletionism" phrase also referred to a trend on Wikipedia in general. — goethean ॐ 22:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I have made no similar attacks on him.
If my contributions to Wikipedia consisted of removing content and attempting to have articles deleted, I might expect some resistance. — goethean ॐ 22:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I have offered to speak off-line to Goethean and verify my real-world identity to begin to build some trust and this offer has not been taken up.
See your talk page. — goethean ॐ 22:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I have no intention of "setting out my goals" for the article here on the talk page. Apart from the haggling that I had to do with dismissive, skeptical editors, the article is my vision. (Except for that "Wilber's five stages" section. Who put that ugly thing in?) — goethean ॐ 23:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "the article is my vision"

This quote must be highlighted for it is evident that goethean does not plan to work in good faith and feels entitled to run this page to his whims. Sorry that is not how wikipedia works. Eleuther, goethean has attacked backface unprovoked, he says this article is his vision, how can there be mediation with such a tyrant? Eleuther, if you know how to contact Wikipedia to get involved, it would be appreciated.

as for a bias against integralism, that is bogus and a false front to protect your own agenda. There is no bias, if there is rampant deletionism on integral pages, it is because most of them have no substance,not noteworthy, and end up being a waste of space. Take the Matthew Dallman page for example. Wikipedia is not a place for advertisement of integralism. I fully endorse Backface's statement:"I do not see this as 'rampant deletionism' but as a correction of a tendency of the integral community to spread its internal debates outward."

As for goethean's statement "I welcome constructive criticism, but I have not as yet seen evidence for it." He has never set a standard of good faith in this area, he reverts without explaining them, without having a democratic discussion on the deletion, it is his view of constructive criticism - if I didn't know better goethean is Wilber himself. Seems to define the game and wants you to play by his rules.

Lastly, goethean I do not understand how I put my comments in the middle of anyone's statements. Sorry if I did, but please a minor mistake. goethean, wikipedia is not a place for the war in the integral world, how bout you start a clone of wikipedia for all things integral. Infact isn't there such a thing called Integral Wiki?????

backface, sorry that you had to face such remarks from goethean. ForrestLane42 00:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)ForrestLane42

Whoever wants to can look at the article history and see that other editors have edited the article successfully. But when someone vandalizes the article, I undo their changes. When you deleted entire paragraphs, I undid your changes. This is reasonable. As I suggested earlier, why don't you try deleting paragraphs from other artifles and see what happens? See also Wikipedia is not a democracy. — goethean ॐ 01:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

You mention wikipedia is not a democracy but look at the fine print - "Its primary method of determining consensus is discussion" - this seems like a democracy, if it walks, quaks, and sounds like a duck, its a duck... primarily the emphasis is on discussion, which looking at your style of editing has been clearly lacking. As to the charge of deleting entire paragraphs - this is not vandalism, this is called editing, when one finds paragraphs that make no sense, talks with a high brow - meaning someone who knows integral knowledge inside and out, this page is a primer, not a textbook for integralism, IMO. There has been paragraphs that either are there for self-advertisement, non-sensical,etc. Why dont' you post those paragraphs for Eleuther to look at - to see if they warrant inclusion or can at least be retooled. Sorry Eleuther, its hard to back off when you have one partner who has made it clear that this is his page. let me know if i signed right, Eleuther. 04:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)ForrestLane42

If the paragraphs that don't make any sense are from Wilber, then rather than deleting them, introductory material needs to be introduced that will guide the reader into the quotation. Eleuther is fully capable of reading the article for himself. — goethean ॐ 04:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reboot!

Hi, crew, sorry to have been missing in action, my network router was down for awhile. I see you have managed to stay busy.

  • Backface, I liked most of what you said in View from the Backface. I would happily turn this whole mediation job over to you, if only you could moderate your language and swallow your pride a bit.
  • ForrestLane42, when you add a comment, it's best to do it after the signature line of the previous talker, and maybe to indent it to make it clear who is responding to whom. This is a minor formatting error, not a major sin.
  • Goethean, it's improper in the current context (where we're all trying to cooperate) to attack ForrestLane42 over a minor formatting error, and to go on to attack Backface over his past contibutions. Past conflicts are not relevant to the current discussion.
  • Goethean, you go on to say that you have singlehandedly written most of the article. Thanks for your work, but Wikipedia articles are not owned by single editors, and it's clear the article can't stand in its current form. Backface has invited interested parties to describe what they want the article to look like. Please contribute to this – give us a paragraph or two about what you think the content should be. I'm waiting for this before I give my opinion, since you seem to be the main skeptic.

Over all, all of you, stop it! No more personalities, no more history, no more breast-beating. Only polite discussion of the content of the article. Cheers, Eleuther 03:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Eleuther, I apologize, but I have sincere doubts that goethean will ever reach consensus with mediation. ForrestLane42 04:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)ForrestLane42

Hi, ForrestLane42, I said stop it — forget it, let it be.

-Ouch. -ForrestLane42

Eleuther, I didn't attack Forrestlane, I made a polite request of him. I also didn't mean to imply that I owned the article; but merely that there is no need for me to give a vision for the article when I have already made that vision into reality. But since Backface has successfully framed the debate in this way, I suppose that I should say something so that I do not appear obstructionist. The article should consist of two major sectons: biography and ideas. The biography should highlight when he released which books and should describe his five phases. The ideas section should be organized the way it is now -- into subsections on his major ideas, plus a section on major criticism. Much of the recent criticism has taken place online, and the criticism section should note that. — goethean ॐ 04:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Eleuther, goethean's comment "I also didn't mean to imply that I owned the article; but merely that there is no need for me to give a vision for the article when I have already made that vision into reality." It seems to be a contradiction in terms...if he does not own this article, which is a truth statement, how can it be "no need for me to give a vision" when "I have already made that vision into reality, come on, are we that obtuse?? —ForrestLane42

[edit] Wilber as Philosopher (revisited)

(The following comments arrived in the middle of some conflicting edits in the previous section (Reboot!) — I've moved them to a new section because it seemed to make more sense, please revert or comment if you disagree. Eleuther 05:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC))

Excuse me if I am trespassing on this dispute, but while Eleuther is considering, I'll throw in a cent or two. My main concerns about this article are at the top of the page, in the "Wilber as philosopher" discussion. The article has been modified (mostly for the better) since then, but some of what I said there is still worth mentioning. In particular, this article's principal failure as an encyclopedia article is that it does not present a realistic view of Wilber's unimportance among everyone outside the Integralist community. Someone coming to Wikipedia with little knowledge of (say) philosophy, psychology, or the study of consciousness, might read this article and, from its lengthy and mostly uncritical presentation of his ideas, draw the conclusion that Wilber is a major figure in contemporary philosophy or psychology, when in fact virtually no experts in these fields bother to even notice his work. Unless this article prominently notes this, it is biased by default. 271828182 04:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I, for one concur with 271828182 above statement. He or she has put things into a nutshell. —ForrestLane42 05:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)ForrestLane42

271828182, I read your editing to the introduction - Heidegger, a very controversial philopher - very well-balanced and continue to welcome your thoughts on this page 'wilber as philosopher revisited'.

[edit] So what should it be?

So what is the proper term, then? If I had to pick a single word for what Wilber does, I personally would pick philosophy — but I also acknowledge that he's not a university professor, and there seems to be a presumption that only university professors can do that thing. So what's the right word, eh? Eleuther 06:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

No, Eleauther, he can at best - at best be considered a pseudo-philosopher IMO. IMO, what Wilber does, is he picks and chooses ideas from different thoughts and attempts to synthesize them into what he calls integral. He is not accepted by academia because he is not a philosopher. He remains in the religious realm. He might be a New Age author, IMO. His books would I presume be found in that section in Borders. The person above who started wilber revisited, is right, if someone less knowledgeable on Wilber, sees this page, they would think that he was actually "the Einstein of consciousness" clearly he is not. He is too his fans no doubt, but to academia, to the world outside of integralism, he is a New Age author. But by what standard do u think he is a philosopher? In the past, someone tried to say he was a psychologist, which is not! To be a psychologist, one has to be accredited as such. One who happens to be well-versed in psychology or philosophy does not mean they owe the title of psychologist or philosopher, and to give them that title would make the word rather naive. -ForrestLane42 06:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)ForrestLane42

ForrestLane42, you are correct, IMO. He's basically a new age author and thinker who attempts to weave various ideas (often derivative) into an integral pattern, which has resulting in a following; has endorsed highly flawed gurus (Adi Da, former followers of Da like Deida, Saniel Bonder etc, and Andrew Cohen); and more recently, has taken on the role of a spiritual transmitter in his own right. He can be soundly criticized for everything from his new age psuedo-scientific views to his new age belief in an evolutionary enlightenment. He may be influential in new age circles but he's hardly the influence his followers would like to have one believe. --Dseer 07:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I think "writer" is a reasonably NPOV way to describe Wilber, despite its vagueness. I'm not saying that only university professors can be called philosophers, by the way (see the discussion above). 271828182 07:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I disagree, "writer" is a weasel-word. Sure, he writes well, but that's not the point. The important thing about him is his ideas, not his wordage. If you can't stomach philosopher, call him a religious thinker, or whatever. Eleuther 08:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I disagree with Eleuther. Writer is not a weasal word. Wilber writes on many subjects: psychology, sociology, philosophy, science, new age, religion, spirituality...he is a general non-fiction writer. (And he wrote a novel.) — goethean ॐ 16:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
A weasel word, as I understand it, is a qualifier that implies something dubious: e.g., "Leaves glasses virtually spotless", or "Wilber may be the greatest thinker of the 21st century". Describing Wilber as a writer, then, is not to weasel. It is vague, as I said, but the problem is that Wilber's own work is exceedingly vague. "New Age writer" or "New Age theorist" are both agreeable to me -- more specific than "writer" but basically neutral. (I don't think calling him a New Age writer would be much of an insult to a supporter, since someone sympathetic to Wilber will tend to think that New Age ideas are on the right track.) 271828182 05:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
A weasel word is a word that is being used to avoid the real issue. Eleuther 10:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Calling him a religious thinker would fall into what Dseer is saying which would legitimize his works as something mainstream which clearly it is not. I openly wonder, can he not be seened and called a cult leader?? -ForrestLane42 11:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)ForrestLane42

I now tend to describe Wilber as a New Age writer. Wilber fans will reject this as an insult, as Wilber considers himself a philosopher/psychologist. "Cult leader" is clearly POV and original research, as I don't think that he's ever been called that in print. In difficult situations like this, Wikipedia should describe the controversy rather than taking a side (pro- or con-). I recommend that Wikipedia say that Wilber's admirers see him as a contermporary philosopher or psychological theorist and that his detractors see him as a new age writer. There was a long conversation about this up towards the top of the page. — goethean ॐ 16:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi all, quite a lively discussion you have going here. I just finished "A Theory of Everything", as well as the Wikipedia article and the talk page (when combined, about the same length as the book!) and some critical pages, and perhaps I can add another voice to help with finding a consensus.

To get right to it, I'd also opt for "author" or "writer" over philosopher, though I think "author" is better as he does author books, not just write articles/essays/etc. Given the long list of books that he's published, I think calling him primarily an author or writer is most accurate, and not disparaging in any way. If he gets most of his income from the sales of books (which seems likely, from the number of books written), calling him an author sounds most accurate and appropriate to me.Pro crast in a tor 16:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I say keep it as author not philosopher or psychologist because he is not accredited nor recognized by academia and to be recognized as a philosopher it will take 100 plus years. Cult leader might be POV but then again look at Adi Da or Andrew Cohen people whom he associates with are all seen to be accused of being a cult leader. BTW cult leader does not neccessarily mean evil, for Jesus Christ or Paul were once cult leaders! -ForrestLane42 16:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)ForrestLane42

My vote is to call him a writer (pretty much undeniable since he has published books) and explain that he draws upon the philosphical etc. traditions but from outside the mainstream of academia. This can all be done with a very small change and may just about satisfy us all. Let's see what you all think. --Backface 19:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Backface, I am not sure of your justification for traditions instead of interpretations....I would like interpretation to stay or be incorprated to the present translation because it encompasses the fact that he has knowledge in each of these subjects and has taken his knowledge and intrepreted it into his own "integral thought" - being that this is a subjective endeavor. -ForrestLane42 21:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)ForrestLane42

[edit] A nice solution

I heartily approve of Backface's change to the second sentence [1]. His opening phrase, "Working outside the mainstream of academia," opens the door to unweasling the rest of the paragraph in a way that (maybe) everyone else can agree on (I wish I'd thought of it), for example something like:

K ... is an American philosopher, writer, and religious thinker. Working outside the mainstream of academia, he has drawn on a variety of disciplines including <existing list> to formulate a theory which he calls the integral theory of consciousness. <Defer discussion of kosmos, etc. to Ideas, spare us the story-teller bit, go directly to factual founding of Integral Institute, etc.>

Reactions? Eleuther 09:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


Sounds good to me.--Backface 09:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds mostly good to me, except the philosopher part, IMO a philosopher is someone that has been awarded that title by society, everyone in reality is a philosopher, but those who are called philosophers have achieved exceptional notice by the society at large, not by a small subculture-community. just my thoughts -Truthiness406 16:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)Truthiness406

Would you describe Wilhelm Reich as a physicist? Or Immanuel Velikovsky as an astronomer? Or L. Ron Hubbard as a psychologist? All of them have as comparable a claim to those titles as Wilber does to "philosopher", i.e., they all wrote works putting forward substantial, complex theories about physics, astronomy, and psychology. However, none of them had any professional training in those fields, and no experts in those fields take their theories seriously. Calling Wilber a philosopher would be as bad as a Wikipedia article calling Hubbard a psychologist. "New Age theorist" is the most specific appellation I'm comfortable with for Wilber. 271828182 21:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I was hoping the "outside the mainstream" bit in the second sentence would be enough, but I guess not. My own opinion is that Philosophy is not the same kind of thing as Astronomy, i.e. there's a general consensus about where the boundaries of Astronomy are, more or less, but Philosophy is a different matter — it's more like what's left after all the science has been subtracted out.[1] But I'm certainly not going to push it! As for new age, Backface says Wilber himself dislikes the term, so I was avoiding it, but it may be the best we can do. I'll leave it to you all to work out ... Eleuther 23:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Philosophy can't be just the non-science "leftovers", since that would lump theology, much of the social sciences, and the humanities into philosophy. Philosophy does have general consensus boundaries, just as any discipline or science does: look at what the experts talk and write about. And Wilber doesn't make that cut. I'm not attached to "New Age" as a label, but considering the company Wilber keeps, it seems descriptive rather than POV. 271828182 02:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
"New Age" writer (and I would add thinker) is perfectly appropriate discriptively and not POV. A number of "New Age" figures claim they personally are not "New Age" despite falling within that spectrum, and the simplest way to see this is to ask how Wilber would have fared writing books in pre-"New Age" times? "New Age" also captures the religious quality of his work.--Dseer 08:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
He would not have written these books in pre-New Age times - I think because he is post-New Age. BernhardMeyer 11:23, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References

  1. ^ James, William, Some Problems of Philosophy, 1911, Chapter One. (reference added 23 December 2006)

[edit] So who is a philosopher?

I wish someone would reply to the William James chapter I cited above. I think it's relevant, unless perhaps you don't count James as a philosopher. He defines philosophy as a mode of thought, rather than the proprietary activity of a particular class of people, which seems to be what you all are advocating. He also describes modern philosophy as the residuum that remains after the parts that have been understood have turned scientific — I'm not sure if he originated this idea, but he surely expresses it. Anyhow, that's what I was referring to in my remark.

Can anyone provide a source for the idea that philosopher refers to a social position, rather than an activity? As Wikipedians, we ought to be basing our arguments on sources, not on personal prejudices. I haven't been able to find a reputable source for this, but of course I haven't looked everywhere — please provide — thanks! Eleuther 14:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

as to social position - i.e Karl Marx, is what I come up with ---I think the difference lies in being a philosopher and being a recognized philosopher. Wilber is recognized only as a philosopher by his followers, not by third parties being either academia or the general public. ForrestLane42 18:23, 26 December 2006 (UTC)ForrestLane42

I already responded to James's definition, and pointed out how it is a bad definition: it is too broad to fit usage, as it classes all the humanities (and maybe mathematics and all the social sciences, too, depending on how you define "science") as philosophy. If you ask me what I do, and I say "oh, I philosophize", and you later discover I'm a historian (or an art critic, or a psychologist), you'd be right to think I was misusing the language. I don't think I'm basing my estimation of who is and who isn't a philosopher on mere personal prejudices, as you imply, nor would a footnote make a proposed definition unprejudiced. How we use titles, in particular, are always strongly influenced by social position, often ignoring activity entirely -- why else do you think L. Ron Hubbard, who purportedly devised a rigorous and infallible "science of the mind", is nonetheless not seriously considered a psychologist? 271828182 17:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi, 271828182, I know you responded to my remark, but from what you're saying, I suspect you haven't actually read the James text I cited yet. He says a great deal more, all relevant to this discussion — the bit about modern philosophy being a remnant (residuum) is just a small part of it. I recommend it. Eleuther 14:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

271828182, I don't think you are prejudiced, I think you keep hitting the nail on the head each time!!! ForrestLane42 19:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)ForrestLane42

But still no source, sigh. I appreciate the difficulty, I haven't been able to find one either. Cheers, Eleuther 00:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Sheesh. It's not that difficult to find a source: type an exact phrase search for "philosophy is what philosophers do" into Google Books and, presto, you have multiple sources, for all that that's worth. Some are (understandably) critical, but several are accepting, including a Well-Known Author, Bryan Magee.
I'm not trying to push a POV definition of philosophy, by the way. In fact, my intent here has been to sidestep the endlessly contentious conceptual debates (just see the Wikipedia page for "philosophy") and aim for a practical, operational definition. I fully realize (as I have repeatedly stressed above) that the university does not have a monopoly on philosophy, any more than it does on any field of study or science. There are, e.g., astronomers and mathematicians who are not professors, and they certainly are astronomers and mathematicians. How do we tell? Well, we look and see if their results are accepted by professional bodies and journals, or if their work is discussed by other experts in the field. If it is, we call that person a mathematician or an astronomer, regardless of whether they live in isolation in the Russian hinterlands or not. Nietzsche is a perfect example. Wilber, however, fails this simple, pragmatic test. I'll also note that this definition is falsifiable -- if someday a bunch of articles on A Brief History of Everything start flooding The Monist, I'd reverse my classification. But I'm not holding my breath. 271828182 01:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I get the joke, I'm not totally obtuse! Though sometimes I wonder. A philosopher is someone who does philosophy, and philosophy is what philosophers do, tra-la. You can have both those statements, but I don't think you can treat them both as definitions — one of the terms has to be defined externally. The usual approach is to define philosophy, and then to say that a philosopher is a person who does it. You seem to advocate defining philosopher first, in terms of some kind of social sanction regarding journals and associations, and then philosophy is the stuff that such people do. That's okay too, I just wish you could cite a philosopher of some weight who advocates that position.
(The google book search you suggested was interesting but not very helpful, since it returned only one or two lines of text around the requested phrase in each book, so it's impossible to tell what the authors are actually saying. Similarly for The Monist — maybe you should modify your operant definition to say that a philosopher is a person whose computer allows access to the text of The Monist ... which leaves me out).
Separately, you've buttressed your argument with a number of mixed examples, so here's some mixed response:
  • Nietzche was an academic, so I'm not sure what you're trying to say.
  • Reich was a respected psychologist and psychoanalyst until he lost it in his later years. (PS. I asked a Physics Ph.D. friend about Reich, and he said sure Reich was a physicist — a flawed one, to be sure, but he did experiments, so he was a physicist.)
  • Hubbard was a minor science fiction writer who embarked on a second career as a more-or-less self-admitted con man. An interesting boundary case, but you shouldn't base your whole argument on him.
  • Velikovsky was also a nut, in hindsight, but we tend to forget how young a science astronomy is. In 1950, the calculations proving the long-term stability of the planetary orbits were still being done, Venus was still estimated to be a wet tropical planet, etc. Even so, I read his book (ca. 1970) to be science fiction, not science, and I suspect most people did so.
  • Arthur Koestler may be a more relevant example. He seems to have had no more academic credentials than Wilber, though he had a much more eventful life. Anyhow, calling him a philosopher doesn't seem to be controversial.
Best regards, Eleuther 14:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, you asked for a response to James. I responded. You asked for sources; I gave you sources. A google book search gives lots of leads; take them to a good university library and you can unearth the rest of the context. And that's only one phrase. If I were being paid for this, I could think of others and systematically work through the sources. As it is, some philosophers might not care much for this definition, since it's extensional and pragmatic rather than intensional and conceptual. But then, that's the price you pay for avoiding the thorny POV issues.
As for the specific examples:
Nietzsche was (briefly) an academic, but not a professional philosopher; he was a classicist by training.
Do physicists use Reich's work? Write articles about it for professional journals? No, so one physicist's generous expansion of his definition of "physicist" doesn't hold much weight. (Shall I call up my buddy who's a managing experimental physicist at SLAC for a dissenting opinion?) Remember, the intent of the definition is to avoid the subjectivity of conceptual definitions in favor of citable sources like articles and books.
You are awfully dismissive of Hubbard and Velikovsky, without any real argument or sources. I'm sure the magic of the internet could turn up advocates who'd defend their theories as science. (In the case of Hubbard, there'd be lots, some of them happy to sue.) Now, I agree with you that they are not scientists, but cranks. But how do we make that judgment? I don't think it's because you or I have pored over the texts of Dianetics or Worlds in Collision. It's because, as a matter of practical timesaving, you and I have noticed that no professional astronomers or psychologists take their work seriously. I humbly suggest that, as a matter of consistency, you extend the same principle to the evaluation of Ken Wilber's oeuvre as philosophy.
Although I like Koestler's The Sleepwalkers quite a bit, I don't consider him a philosopher (again, using my proposed functional definition), and the Wikipedia article doesn't call him one. It says that he wrote "social philosophy", but this is pretty vague and the only reference to philosophy I can see in the article. Certainly in my career in philosophy, I can't recall anyone referring to him as a philosopher. The "British philosophers" tag isn't justified AFAICT. "Polymath" and "writer" are much better fits.
Best, 271828182 21:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi, 271828182, per his article, Nietzche was a professor of philology at Basel for 11 years before giving it up for health reasons, which is hardly briefly.
As for Reich, I may have failed to convey the humorous tone of my friend's remark. In a sense he was trying to do the same kind of thing you are — offering an operant definition of physicist (in his case) rather than a substantive one. He also told an amusing story about how he and a fellow student actually built some orgone boxes (this would be in a 1960s time frame) and tried to duplicate Reich's results, but failed. This was unpublished (they were in high school), but I imagine established physicists did much the same thing at the time, just to see if there might be some substance to the furor. There wasn't, and that, not Reich's social standing, is why he is not cited today in physics journals. (Or rather, perhaps I should say that Reich's current social standing is a consequence of the fact that his experiments could not be duplicated...? In any case, the point is that his physics was flawed, not that his social standing was flawed — his social standing was apparantly quite high until he fell off the edge.)
I haven't read Dianetics, but I did read Battlefield Earth, which was enough. I also read Worlds in Collision, and found it fun, but it didn't occur to me even then, in its heyday, that people might take it seriously as science. (As I recall he got most of it from the Bible, rather than from looking through a telescope, i.e. he didn't really claim to be an astronomer.) I was more a fan of the Lensman series.
I haven't read The Sleepwalkers, but I've read The Lotus and the Robot and The Ghost in the Machine and The Act of Creation — all clear works of philosophy. (Close your eyes, empty your mind while counting 100 slow breaths, imagine Ph.D. after Koestler's name, then think purely of the texts of the books as things in isolation, and you will see what I mean.)
Getting back on point, my remark about philosophy being what's left after science has been subtracted was my own feeble attempt to repeat an idea that I thought I was a commonplace. I didn't find the James source until a few days later, and what he says is a great deal more inclusive and interesting than what I said. In other words, you've responded to me, but not really to James. No need to belabor this, I would just recommend that you read and enjoy James's chapter on the subject if you ever come across it. (I haven't been able to find it online; it's in the Library of America volume of his later works.)
As for the idea that philosophy is whatever is done by people who have been socially sanctioned as philosophers — I asked for a notable source for this, and you've given me some leads that you think might help me to research the question in a good university library. Well, thanks for that! I'll keep my eyes out the next time I'm in such a place. In the meantime, pardon me for treating this as an admission that you don't have an actual source you can cite.
There's no real need to continue this, i.e. I'm not planning to edit the article to say that Wilber is a philosopher or a Tralfamadorian or anything else, in the absence of consensus. I thought it might be useful to move the discussion out of the area of individual rhetoric and into a discussion of sources, but I guess I was just being obtuse. Sorry about that, and thanks for the enjoyable dialog! Eleuther 19:33, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Nietzsche's Basel teaching duties were slight by modern standards: I think the most he ever taught were 12 students in a class, he more typically taught two to four students, and his offerings were frequently cancelled for lack of interest. He took multiple semester-long leaves for poor health from 1875 on, and resigned completely in 1879. Maybe not "brief", but certainly not lengthy. And he was definitely not a professional philosopher, which has been my whole point in him forward as an example.
When you say "the point is that his physics was flawed, not that his social standing was flawed" you appear to misunderstand me. I have not argued that the socio-professional standing alone determines the philosopher (or the physicist), rather that the standing is a reflection of, or a shorthand for, the achievement. You and I have not tested Reich's orgone theory ourselves -- we take the word of professional physicists that it is bad. Likewise, why don't you take the word of professional philosophers that Wilber's work isn't worthy of notice? In any case, I'd suggest it is appropriate for an encyclopedia, which isn't supposed to make the judgments, to reflect the best evidence of expert consensus.
College libraries being on holiday, I strolled through two used bookstores, and found Koestler's The Act of Creation and The Roots of Coincidence (neither, btw, shelved in 'Philosophy', but in psychology and parapsychology/occult respectively). Neither read like philosophy (no matter how hard I squinted). Not crank material, but, much as I remembered The Ghost in the Machine, almost entirely psychology. Koestler's stuff is much closer to pop-science or meta-scientific speculation (a la some of the works of Carl Sagan, Stephen Jay Gould, E.O. Wilson, and Richard Dawkins) than it is to philosophy.
Finally, I never claimed to have a source, nor do I think citing a source about this definition is important or decisive, since (in this example) it's bound to be strongly POV. If you want sources, why stop with James? You can get dozens of different definitions of philosophy from hundreds of sources, some thoughtful, some terrible. So what good would a discussion of sources do? We'd still have to sort it out. I am suggesting that, instead of trying to define "what philosophy is", the best Wikipedia can do is highlight the NPOV fact that the overwhelming consensus of experts in the field called philosophy almost totally ignore Wilber's work, and draw from that the conclusion that Wilber is only a "philosopher" in the same sense that someone like Hubbard is a "psychologist". 271828182 02:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
I didn't plan to continue this, but you've left me slack-jawed. Are you really expelling not just Koestler, but also Gould and Dawkins and Wilson from the sacred glade? I assume also people like Penrose and Bohr, etc? Not to mention the entire discipline of philology? I will have to think about this for a few days, then maybe I will have something to add. Until then, best wishes for a happy and prosperous New Year, Eleuther 14:35, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
We seem to be misunderstanding each other, since I have no "sacred glade" attitude of the sort you ascribe to me. I am thinking, as a matter of simple description, that calling Gould or Dawkins (or Penrose, or Bohr) "philosophers" would be a misuse of plain English. Imagine: "allow me to introduce the philosopher, Richard Dawkins". That would induce quite a bit of jaw-slacking. In fact, we could test that: add the word "philosopher" to the Wikipedia entry for Stephen Jay Gould or Richard Dawkins and see how that goes down. And philology is not, and never has been, a branch of philosophy. In 19th century Germany, it was what we would today call "classics" (i.e., ancient Greek and Latin language and literature). 271828182 17:58, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Pardon me for saying sacred glade, I keep forgetting how humorless you people are. I meant to say The Monist, of course. Eleuther 18:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
So I take it you have no substantive rejoinder to my reductio here? If I had wanted to make jokes, I could have pointed out your ignorance of the meaning of the word "philology" much less gently. 271828182 19:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Pardon me again, but I understand the boundaries of philology fairly well ... and physics was part of philosophy as recently as Newton's time, so to say that philology never was ... well you may want to qualify that. Eleuther 03:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
If you want to go back before the late 18th-century, then, sure, you can show that everything, including physics and mathematics, is "philosophy". But then you are ignoring the practical context of the discussion entirely in favor of pedantry. Who's being humorless now? 271828182 15:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
In the meantime, to dispose of the simpler issues,
  • Nietsche was, is, and always will be an academic darling — claiming he is not, or that he was uncredentialed, is silly.
  • Hubbard was a unique situation. If you think Wilber is running a similarly cynical, pseudo-religious con, you should say that directly, rather than continuing to imply it by association. If so, and if you can source it, a section can be added to the article for the allegation. If not, you should drop it..
  • I know you "never claimed to have a source" — that's my point too. I've asked you repeatedly for a source, other than your own rhetoric, nicely formed as it is, and the result so far has been — zilch.
  • You state the underlying issue excellently as, "why don't you take the word of professional philosophers that Wilber's work isn't worthy of notice?" To this I reply:
    • The idea of professional philosophers is invidious.
    • The idea of not worthy of notice is very different from false. It means, "I refuse to think about it," rather than, "I can disprove it."
More to come ... Eleuther 17:52, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  • You are missing the point about Nietzsche. I know perfectly well that he was an academic, and have never claimed otherwise (are you reading what I'm writing?). The point is that he never took a degree in philosophy (like Ken Wilber). Nonetheless, it is appropriate to call him a philosopher (in, say, a Wikipedia article). Why? Because his works are extensively studied and discussed by the community of experts in the field called "philosophy". I am trying to illustrate how my proposed operational definition fits with usage.
  • L. Ron Hubbard published several books presenting a supposedly profound theory of the mind which purports to supersede existing scientific theories of consciousness, which have sold lots of copies, and have numerous supporters, despite universal disinterest in said books among academic experts. That is an exact parallel with Ken Wilber's claim to fame. There is no need for me to source this, as (1) it isn't part of the article, it's part of this talk page discussion as an example of a parallel case of inappropriate nomenclature, and (2) the relevant parallel is undeniably true.
  • As I said above, citing a source defining philosophy is futile, since it will not reflect any sort of expert consensus. You can find dozens of different definitions of philosophy. Instead, I'm proposing an operational definition that would be based on NPOV facts, and I'm supporting my case, not through mere "rhetoric", but with reasoning and concrete examples showing how calling Wilber a philosopher would invite multiple parallel abuses of nomenclature. None of these you have managed to gainsay. So (to write like you) shall I take this as an admission of the bankruptcy of your position?
  • The "idea of professional philosophers" may be invidious, but, even if that is true, so what? There are professional philosophers, whether you like it or not, just as there are professional physicists, professional mathematicians, etc. You acknowledge that professional physicists know more about physics than you do, yes? Will you make a parallel admission about philosophy?
  • You are right that "not worthy of notice" ≠ "false". However, "not worthy of notice" need not mean willful ignorance, either. It can mean "it's so vague and untestable that it could never be proven false or true" or "it's buzzword-laden banalities" or whatever. After all, the vast majority of physicists have not actually read or tested Reich's or Velikovsky's theories. Nonetheless, I imagine you would not say that the community of physicists are pigheadedly "refusing to think about" orgone energy. I offer you the following argument (not rhetoric): if Wilber's theories were philosophy, then professional philosophers would take notice. You can execute the modus tollens yourself. 271828182 19:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shortening the article

I submit that I believe this article is too long for an encyclopedia. The article on Gandhi is only a little longer than this article currently is! I've removed the "stages of development" stub section, reference to it, the "evolution of his work" section (all author's work evolves: this is not notable), collapsed a quote down, and a few other minor things. These seemed simple and not too contentious, and I will defend these cuts. To cut further, I recommend the following for removal, but would like to discuss it here first:

  • current work - Let's wait for his new ideas to be published, see if they are notable, then add them to his profile if they are. At the very least, the quote should be removed: it's too much detail without any possible references since the book is not out yet.
  • the forum post quote under "Wilber on Darwinism" - again, too much detail, esp. as it is contradicted in the next sentence (!). We should be summarizing, not quoting.
  • the biography should be shortened to about half the current length, which I think can be done with judicious editing and without affecting the quality of the article. I don't have time right now, but perhaps I'll take a stab at it later, if there are others in agreement that it is too long. Pro crast in a tor 16:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I think that the evolution of his work should be incorporated into the biography. It is a self-description and can be presented as such. I tried to get all of the nuances into Wilber's stance on Darwinism; hence the quotation. I would prefer for some of the material to be split out using summary style rather than deleted altogether. "Current work" is now a bit of a misnomer now that Integral Spirituality has been released. Ideally, someone would update the section with a description of that material. — goethean ॐ 16:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Pro crast in a tor, especially on the Wilber on Darwinism, you have supported what I have been saying for weeks on that section. Wilber is certainly no Gandhi! -16:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)ForrestLane42


Goethean, I believe that you're working against your interest in Mr. Wilber by trying to include too much information about Mr. Wilber's life and thinking. By being too long and too detailed, the result is that fewer people will read the full article, and his thinking will have less of an impact on society. The first time I came across this article, I only read the first two screens of it, which didn't even get me to the "ideas" section, before giving up on the article (and then returning to it later to help with the editing of it). An encyclopedia article should summarize and try to distill the key points, not detail the entire life journey. The reason for this is not that Mr. Wilber is not notable, rather, it gets in the way of seeing the notable ideas he's had. A detailed biography should be linked to in the references section, if one exists.
Put another way, you've got three, maybe four screens to get your reader: make them count, don't try to include everything. And this is why I think the article needs to be shortened, and maintain that the above recommendations are a good start towards getting to an article that people will read. Pro crast in a tor 17:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't oppose shortening the biography. — goethean ॐ 17:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Great! Re-reading your early comment, "Capturing nuances" is most certainly not a feature of an encyclopedia: generally, you or I average folks might have our entire lives brutally condensed down to one sentence with name, year of birth & death, and a reference to our 15 minutes of fame (if that). I'm making an edit that isn't nearly so brutal, but I think will capture salient info. Pro crast in a tor 17:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
OK, let me rephrase it. I tried to present Wilber's stance on Darwinism accurately. If you can do that with fewer words, go for it. — goethean ॐ 17:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Ok, cut made. It seems clearer to me now: no comment, takeback of comment, and description of tetra-evolution (which, though it uses the term "evolution", does not appear to refer to darwinian evolution. Pro crast in a tor 17:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I also edited his "current work" section to be a bit briefer.

On the flip side, one addition to the article that I'd like to see is a four quadrant graph: I think this would go a long way towards describing what he's getting at. If someone were so inclined, they could get permission from him to reproduce the graph on this page. Comments? Pro crast in a tor 17:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

That is at AQAL, which used to be part of this article. — goethean ॐ 17:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


I, for one, applaud Pro crast in a tor's edit. It retains the sense and makes the article readable. --Backface 19:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

While I applaud Pro crast in a tor's editing, it is not like the same editing had not occurred before when I did and I got lambbassed by goethean as saying its not readable, I did the same exact things in the wilber/darwin section. How can it be that goethean seems to work in "good faith" with pro crast in a tor, but can not show the same respect to my edits?? I have always tried to be reasonable with goethean, but how can you be reasonable with someone who has reacted with venom towards me in the past. I guess we are all on the green meme and not the second tier! lol... I feel goethean owes me that respect in that the edits pro crast has made are nearly identical but has not shown for the time-being the same courtesy. Pro crast in a tor, I applaud your edits and am not meaning to drag you into the previous edit war with goethean. goethean, I have made more than reasonable edits and you stubborned would not acknowledge their correction or you would automatically revert 3x..... -ForrestLane42 21:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)ForrestLane42

I'm assuming good faith on goethean's part, and when it was a 1-1 deadlock, it's a toss up. Now we have Backface, yourself, myself, and goethean, and a 3-1 decision (as is the case for my most recent edits) makes it clear what a majority thinks is best for the article. Pro crast in a tor 08:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not clear on what you mean Pro crast in a tor, but I also think that a few days does not give clear consensus on these matters IMO. -ForrestLane42 23:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)ForrestLane42

I think the paragraph on Wilber-Combs lattice should either be taken out or reframe, it sounds too technical, something that an intermediate or advanced student of Wilber would only know or left for the interested reader to find out more. It does seem to add to the content of the section.. -ForrestLane42 21:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)ForrestLane42

I'm ambivalent on this point. Normally I wouldn't say anything, but with as much contention as there is around here, thought I'd put it out there. Pro crast in a tor 08:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to see the whole section rationalised to be less intricately technical, rahter than point at specific paragraphs to be deleted. Some of the more detailed technical stuff could be moved to AQAL. I'll have a go at it later today. --Backface 14:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Pro cast in a tor: While the text related to Adi Da's as an influence on Wilber deserves pruning, your edit which states only that "On several occasions, Wilber has singled out the work of the American-born guru Adi Da" seems to obscure the context and meaning, especially when added to the end of a paragraph about influences on Wilber's "conception of evolution or psychological development". I believe your edit is too severe and glosses over the broader importance of that influence and relationship on the evolution of Wilber's writing, for example: [2],[3]. Also, that influence can be found in Wilber's use of the Da concept of "self contraction" and of Da's defense of his own behavior in Ken's defence of the superiority of "the outlaws, the living terrors, the Rude Boys and Nasty Girls of God realization" if you want enlightenment: [4]. His strong advocacy of "rude" and "nasty" gurus as needful for attaining the goal of enlightenment is controversial and noteworthy since his writings advocate enlightenment as the goal.

Therefore I submit for comments the following proposal:

Influences on Wilber
Wilber's conception of the perennial philosophy has been primarily influenced by Madhyamika Buddhism, particularly as articulated in the philosophy of Nagarjuna.[8] The nondual mysticism of Advaita Vedanta, Tibetan Buddhism, Zen Buddhism, Plotinus, and Ramana Maharshi, along with the works of Adi Da, who Wilber has on several occasions singled out for the highest praise, are also strong influences. Wilber has been a dedicated practitioner of Buddhist meditation since his college years, and has studied under some widely recognized Buddhists, such as Dainin Katagiri, Maezumi Roshi, Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche, Kalu Rinpoche, Penor Rinpoche and Chagdud Tulku Rinpoche.
Wilber's conception of evolution or psychological development draws on Aurobindo, Jean Gebser, the great chain of being, German idealism, Erich Jantsch, Jean Piaget, Abraham Maslow, Erik Erikson, Lawrence Kohlberg, Howard Gardner, Clare W. Graves, Robert Kegan and Spiral Dynamics.
Influences on Wilber's conception that those desiring enlightenment should seek out "the outlaws, the living terrors, the Rude Boys and Nasty Girls of God realization" flow from from Zen traditions and his assessment that: "Every deeply enlightened teacher I have known has been a Rude Boy or Nasty Girl".

--Dseer 05:39, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Dseer, hope you don't mind that I moved your comment to the end of this section, it was placed in the middle of an earlier discussion, which was a little confusing.
Anyway, the first two paragraphs you suggested sound great to me, but I'm ambivalent about the third paragraph. It's a nice, shiny new paragraph, and I don't know if it's worth inclusion because it's interesting, or should be omitted to aid in reducing the length of the article (which there is strong support for, judging from the ). I think I just like it because it's not just a list of names, making it more interesting for people that don't recognize all those names (which, I would guess, is 95%+ of article readers). Does anyone else have feedback? Pro crast in a tor 09:44, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Appreciate the kind response. I'm all for shortening the article, I just want to cover the significant and controversial elements of Wilber's thinking. In the proposed third paragraph, I tried to present a NPOV approach to one of the more controversial aspects of Wilber's teachings, his concept of enlightenment and the qualities of those he asserts are enlightened. Wilber advocates an evolving enlightenement as the pinacle of human development. His stance on enlightenment, and the prevalance and superiority of "rude" or "nasty" gurus he considers enlightened, is in direct opposition to a long standing integral principle in non-dualist traditions. From descriptions of the enlightened in ancient texts like Tripura Rahashya ("All perfect Sages are one"), and Pantanjali, through the great Zen Master Bankei, up to recent figures like Ramana Maharshi and Nisagadatta, one finds scant support for Wilber's ideas. For example, Ramana Maharshi (who Wilber calls the greatest realizer of the 20th Century) states that Buddha's enlightenment was identical to his, and asked about the qualities of the enlightened, he quoted the following passage from Pantanjali's Yoga Sutras: "Friendship, kindness, happiness and such other bhavas (attitudes) become natural to them. Affection towards the good, kindness towards the helpless, happiness in doing good deeds, forgiveness towards the wicked, all such things are natural characteristics of the jnani." Whether Wilber is really in a position to determine who is enlightened as he asserts is controversial, and I've tried to let Wilber speak for himself there. --Dseer 21:47, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Pro crast in a tor, nice work cleaning up a lot of language. Some subsequent repairs are inevitable, and that process seems to have gone civilly too, so thanks to everyone! I especially won't miss the It should be noted... sentences (thanks to goethean here too) — tendentiousness belongs on the talk page, if anywhere; it's nice to get it out of the text.

I won't comment further on content unless a war breaks out, except a few small points:

  • It should be made clear that Boomeritis is a novel, so I think I will add that word back.
  • It would be nice to restore the collaboration with Cornel West, if only to show that Wilber is not 100% absolutely and perfectly rejected by the professionals, only maybe 99.98% ... but I'll leave that to someone else.

Does anyone have any response to the proposal that our goal should not just be shortening, but also sourcing? Cheers, Eleuther 01:57, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Eleuther, yes, I expect more repairs, too, but I think the article looks much better now. I'm done with my round of editing, and since no one else is doing major editing from what I can see, I removed the "under development" and "neutrality" tags. I think it's OK to do this, right? I'm not sure if there's a process, but things have been pretty tame recently. I lean towards leaving out the matrix quote, as the article is just at the right length now and it's mentioned in his list of works already, but either way is fine by me. Pro crast in a tor 07:00, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi, Pro crast in a tor, fine by me, but all parties have not been heard from yet, so hold onto your hat! You've been a big help so far, please stay around. Eleuther 07:15, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Please place back the under development and neutrality tags clearly I think this article is far from being finished and having a NPOV. Too early to remove. ForrestLane42 10:39, 26 December 2006 (UTC)ForrestLane42

OK, ForrestLane42, I put back in the "under development" tag, though the "neutrality" tag seemed redundant so I didn't put that in. Are you sure that it's needed? If so, please feel free to add it back in, I just don't see the need.
Eleuther, I'm going to be around less the next few weeks, so my input in this discussion will be minimal. Pro crast in a tor 12:37, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Im sorry still think it should have neutrality tag, though I get your point, but I am looking more towards the uninformed reader.So for now it should stay. ForrestLane42 18:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)ForrestLane42


Dseer, I saw your Wilberian influence section above, I dont care for the last paragraph - bout living terrors, etc. I just think it is too brash, although Wilber comes off brash at times, I am not sure that his entry should have a hint of it. ForrestLane42 18:30, 26 December 2006 (UTC)ForrestLane42


A self-described storyteller and mapmaker- this phrase was reinstated and I don't see the logic of having it. Are there any other biographies on wikipedia that have listed as their jobs a self-described storyteller and mapmaker. It seems juvenile at best. I am taknig them out and going back to "Working outside of academia'ForrestLane42 18:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)ForrestLane42

  • Hi, ForrestLane42, I didn't like that phrase either, thanks for removing it. As for the bibliography, it should be inclusive by nature — if it really gets to be too long, it can be moved to a separate article. Eleuther 09:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

On the matter of bibliography, I am a deletionist by nature, I don't favor putting it into a page onto its own, I dont think we have to list every single book an author has written, but only the ones that are seen as major works, or are pertinent to the article at hand. I looked at Plato's page and noticed that Wilber's page is slightly larger than his, now no one could disagree that Plato far out ranks Wilber. ForrestLane42 16:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)ForrestLane42

[edit] Bibligraphy

Can we shorten this as well? Wilber has written so many books, etc and we have a section of those who have written about Wilber. I looked at Plato's entry, and he doesn't nearly have as much. Can we condense the two sections into one at least and maybe highlight Wilber's major works - i.e. Sex, Ecology, and Spirituality, etc?? What do you think Eleuther, pro crast in tor, and dseer and backface? ForrestLane42 18:30, 26 December 2006 (UTC)ForrestLane42

[edit] Clinton quotation

I recommend that the Bill Clinton quotation be restored that Forrestlane42 deleted with the following edit summary: deleted clinton comment, only placed in for self-promotion for wilber. First of all, that edit summary does not assume good faith. Second of all, it is not your typical new age writer that can boast a quotation from a US president. I submit that the quotation is highly notable, was not placed for promotional purposes, and should be restored. — goethean ॐ 21:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

By your own words, it shows bias, it shows how it is put in there to advance Wilber's cause, it should be DELETED again you fail to show good faith with me. I gave a perfectly valid explanation for the deletion. Having someone like Clinton advertise for Wilber, is clearly used to boose one's image of Wilber. Does no one not see that is clearly self-promotional purposes and not meant to educate those who do not know Wilber?? REVERT to my deletion, please Eleauther... -ForrestLane42 21:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)ForrestLane42

Seconded, the Clinton quote seems like name-dropping to me, and does not add enough value to the article to justify the length. Pro crast in a tor 08:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I see nothing wrong with leaving the quote there. It is verifiable, relevant, in-line with npov and nothing to do with self-promotion. Apart from anything else it is quite interesting--Backface 14:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC).
It seems premature to make this decision now, because of the implications of using that quote in that context, until the article is fleshed out more. Why? Look at the quote itself. "If ordinary people don’t perceive that our grand ideas are working in their lives, then they can’t develop the higher level of consciousness, if I can use a kind of touchy-feely word, that American philosopher Ken Wilber wrote a whole book about, called A Theory of Everything. He said, you know, the problem is the world needs to be more integrated but it requires a consciousness that’s way up here, and an ability to see beyond the differences among us". Right away, you have a popular ex-President defining Ken Wilber as a philosopher, and that has an impact on the writer and/or philosopher discussion. In reality, all Clinton is really doing is saying is he agrees on a macro scale with an idea he read in Ken Wilber's book, and it is that Clinton liked the idea and used it that makes in noteworthy. I think at this stage it makes more sense as a reference or possibly a wikiquote than in the body of the text, because it is noteworthy that he was referenced by Clinton, so I would not delete all information regarding the quote, but I'm not convinced yet based on where the article seems to be headed it belongs in the text of the article where it could give it more weight than deserved. --Dseer 17:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

It is name-dropping clear and simple. The fact that Clinton said doesn't mean much presidents can be wrong in their information, plus the strong likihood exists that it was not from Clinton, but from his speech writers who wrote the quote. -ForrestLane42 22:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)ForrestLane42

[edit] Youtube videos

There seems to be a dispute over whether to include Youtube links to videos. The first question should be: "are the videos copyrighted?" If they are, and if they have not been released under a free license, then WP:EL#Restrictions on linking indicates that we should not link to them. The guideline is that we should avoid linking to copyright violations. Are there other issues as well? -Will Beback · † · 22:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Will Beback, I can not verify if they copyrighted, I would assume so. Besides the point, the point is that the videos have nothing whatsoever to do with Wilber or his ideas, do you care how second-tier people have sex? Do u think you would see this in any other encyclopedia? No these are just there to sex up Wilber's page. And if no one can verify it, goethean, then STRONG DELETE -ForrestLane42 00:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)ForrestLane42

The sex video has been deleted. I recommend keeping the other video: it was uploaded by "Integral Naked" and is listed as the director, so I'm assuming that it was released by them for viewing online. It was interesting to me to see him talk "in the flesh", and think it is worth a one-line link near the end of the article. Pro crast in a tor 08:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

To clarify: the sex video is no longer hosted on YouTube, having been removed by the director, Integral Naked, who is indeed the creator of the content. I added back in the existing link to a video of Mr. Wilber, as I found it note worthy to see him in person. Pro crast in a tor 03:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I continue to protest inclusion of How to stage 2nd Tier protest, while it is entertaining and interesting, its not encyclopedic material, its there to sex up the page, if you look at the youtube page, there are many other Wilberian videos, are we to include the rest? Where does it end? There are some things that are best for the interested reader to research on their own, an encyclopedia is meant IMO to briefly summarize the person or idea and give some starting points for further research. I think people are savy enough to research on youtube to find if Wilber is there or not, I mean if can find on youtube, a dog doing tricks, or someone doing amateur comedy bit, you will find Wilber, etc, etc. I ask in this light to see that even without the copyright issues, the larger point is the case made above. Does anyone see my point?? -ForrestLane42 03:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)ForrestLane42

ForrestLane42, I agree that an encyclopedia is meant to "give some starting points for further research", as you put it. As such, a single link to a single video to let the interested reader know that there are videos out there, filed at the end of the article under "external links", does not seem at all inappropriate to me. After all, how best to know someone that to see them "in the flesh", hear their voice, etc? Which video it is doesn't matter to me, only that it's just one. I maintain that a single link to a video is good for the article.Pro crast in a tor 05:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Just my two cents, but I have been listening to ForrestLane42 and Pro crast in a tor, and I can see your point Pro crast, but I think ForrestLane42 is right on this one, an interested reader is certainly going to be savvy enough to look on his own, putting a link from youtube does sound like a way to sex up a page to me. just my thoughts.... -Truthiness406 16:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)Truthiness406

[edit] So where are we at after all of this?

Time for a mediation summary, eleuther, before we descend into chaos... --Backface 14:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been swamped with work and haven't managed to keep up. Things seemed to be going productively with you all for a few days, so I started to hope I wouldn't be needed, but maybe no such luck. Let me study it for a few hours and get back to you -- thanks for being civil, all of you that have been! Eleuther 03:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The (21-Dec) view from Eleuther

Here are some unorganized points in no particular order. First, as to sources:

  • I agree with Backface that blogs, in general, are not good sources for this kind of article. I would make an exception for bloggers that are particularly eminent for some reason, but that would have to be justified.
  • I don't go so far, however, as to say that only books should be admitted as sources. Reputable journals and newspapers and magazines (and their online presences) should be respected, as well as things like Citebase and university course catalogs and other serious online material.
  • I may be too old to be saying this, but YouTube is worse than blogs -- it's just as unedited and unreviewed, and even more ephemeral and (I would say) intentionally unserious (i.e. much of its content is edited/faked for non-documentary, farcical reasons). I think there would have to be a really compelling reason to cite something from there. (To be clear, I don't object to citing video, but it should be from a weightier source – the YouTube citations should be removed.)

As for recent edits:

  • Hello, Pro crast in a tor, I'm glad to see a new con struc tive voice here.
  • The recent edit wars seem to have been conducted reasonably civilly – good for you all.

As for the article's content and organization:

  • The goal should be more shortening. (If you think this statement is amusing, you may have been born in the South like me.)
  • The introduction is about the right length, but it could be more factual. In particular, I continue to think that describing Wilber primarily as a writer is weasly, but I will argue that elsewhere, not here (it's my personal opinion, not my mediator opinion, and for the time being I don't think I should be editing the article myself).
  • The Ideas section, of course, is where the heavy lifting occurs. This section should be shortened considerably. Partly, this can be done by separating sceptical viewpoints into a separate Criticism section, and partly by collapsing some of the text into references to other sources. But the main problem is that the section reads like (and is) a collection of sentences that have been inserted at different times for different reasons by different editors, so that the overall organization has been lost.
  • Our main problem, as I see it, is therefore to figure out how to organize the Ideas section so that it makes organic sense – i.e. so that its concepts and examples follow logically and chronologically from each other. The best, encyclopedic, way to do this, I think, would to be to source the discussion externally, based on one or more relevant review articles, if these can be found. In other words, we're really not supposed to be inventing this stuff ourselves.
  • I don't think it's a problem if the Ideas section is based on sources sympathetic to Wilber, as long as we present the material in a non-proselytizing manner, and allow properly sourced criticism in a separate section. The same consideration is owed to any philosopher – present the ideas in their own terms in one place, and the criticisms in a later place.
  • If we can't find an agreeable external source for the organization of the Ideas section, then we will have to embark on the problem of forming our own outline, but (as I said), I don't think this should really be our role.
  • I will weigh in with more on this subject later, but for now I hope this will be enough to start some discussion.

Eleuther 05:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello Eleuther, nice to me et yo u too.  :) I'm in agreement on most of your points, the one disagreement being the specific Youtube link. I think Youtube should be treated just like a blog, with a big "it depends". In this case, the source of the video is the institute that Mr. Wilber founded, and they appear to be using Youtube as a free repository/hosting site for their videos rather than hosting on their own site. As such, I maintain that the video is a worthwhile link to. Youtube, as a site, is neither good nor bad IMHO, it's just that it usually has insipid content uploaded haphazardly. If you look at the "Integral Naked" director (not random uploader, but "director"), you'll see that the uploaded content is not haphazard.

As far as the rest of the article, I agree further shortening is warranted, and that the ideas section is where the heavy lifting needs to happen. I don't really know this material, and don't have ideas on how to proceed at this time. Your comments are much appreciated. Pro crast in a tor 07:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Pro, I don't have any objection to a YouTube link in the See Also area like now, as long as it's on-topic and not silly of course. I would just be wary of using YouTube as a source, because links to there tend to evaporate, at least that's been my experience. Eleuther 00:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Chaps - let's not have a template war. Can I suggest a nice cup of tea and a sit down. There are more important things to be doing --Backface 14:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that if the "ideas" section must be chopped, that material is moved to a subarticle on Wilber's philosophy. This new article can be merged with AQAL and the pre/trans fallacy. — goethean ॐ 15:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

goethean are you proposing two articles for Wilber now? -Truthiness406 16:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)Truthiness406

Hi, "Truthiness," I think he's proposing reducing the three existing articles to two. Eleuther 12:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, goethean, I'm not really proposing chopping anything. I'm just hoping that, with some reorganization, the section would become shorter naturally, and would also be more accessible to people coming in from the outside. Cheers, Eleuther 11:59, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Eluether, being an inclusionist, I am particularly interested in maximizing NPOV, and the idea that blogs can be appropriate depending on what is available, and in particular that when the subject of an article opens the door by using self-published materials like a blog to communicate ideas and respond to critics, critical blogs, if they are the best available sources and the person who wrote them is noteworthy relative to the subject and can be identified, can be considered. You say: "I agree with Backface that blogs, in general, are not good sources for this kind of article. I would make an exception for bloggers that are particularly eminent for some reason, but that would have to be justified."
In this case, the subject is a New Age writer not recognized as an authority by mainstream acadamia, and some of his critics are part of the Integral Movement or New Agers but do not see him as their leader, which triggers some caveats in the Wikipedia guidelines. because of dispute between inclusionists and deletionists which occurs on this and related sites, I have outlined the Wikipedian justification Wikipedian Mr Kazlev User:M_Alan_Kazlev and I have agreed upon a frameework regarding the inclusionist response in these matters as follows:
WP:V#Self states that: "Material from self-published sources, and published sources of dubious reliability, may be used as sources in articles about the author(s) of the material, so long as it is: relevant to their notability; it is not contentious; it is not unduly self-serving; it does not involve claims about third parties, or about events not directly related to the subject; there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it." But, the dearth of academic consideration as a New Age writer and thinker makes the arguments in Ken Wilber's publications themselves of dubious reliablity. Ken Wiber's blog is contentious, arguably self-serving, and makes unverified claims about third parties. Additionally, WP:RS states: "The websites and publications of political parties and religious groups (or websites of their critics or opponents) should be treated with caution, although neither political affiliation nor religious belief is in itself a reason not to use a source." Wilber is best described as a New Ager who advocates a form of Buddhism and his organization has a quasi religious function, complete with a number of gurus and spiritual teachers, and he himself gives "transmissions". Therefore, both the advocacy and critical publications and websites related to must be treated with appropriate caution, with a NPOV result in mind. Because WP:V, WP: NPOV and WP:NOR complement each other, "they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another". Relying only on published material of dubious reliablity from an academic position while excluding all blog material from known, noteworthy critics familiar with the subject (to whom Ken Wilber has responded on his blogs and thus opened the door), when that is the best available source, impacts NPOV. I think that selected critical blogs of former associates and recognized integral thinkers within the Integral community may meet the "particularly eminent" criteria relative to this subject alone for inclusion where other sources are not available and where the material is not libelous. The alternative view, which assumes that there is a ready economically justifiable market for published books critical of a New Age writer like Wilber, simply isn't realistic. Even Wilber's first book got turned down by every publisher before the Theosophical Society publishing arm took it on. Again, the lack of formally published, academically reviewed material is an unavoidable by product of the relative lack of mainstream academic interest in Wilber himself. That is why I continue to urge that we need to balance WP:V, WP: NPOV and WP:NOR here, both in letter and in spirit. I hope you take some of this into consideration. Respectfully, --Dseer 08:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Dseer, thanks — you addressed this to me, but I hope the others have read it too. Your first sentence hits the two main nails squarely. I'm an inclusionist too, but this obliges one to be very careful about NPOV. I also agree with your interpretation of "particularly eminent" to include selected respectable sources from within the integral community — excluding them arbitrarily would be a POV problem in itself. Thanks for thinking this out in more detail than I necessarily did when I wrote the comment! Eleuther 11:44, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please respect the integrity of the article

It's unfortunate that this needs to said, but many of the footnotes have now been deleted and replaced by "citation needed" templates. Please don't delete references unless you are deleting all usages of it in the article. — goethean ॐ 19:38, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

In terms of integrity, please don't revert my edits without a proper discussion...we are still in the midst of "perfecting" this entry...intepretation was placed because Wilber takes from a variety of sources - cherrypicking them to suit his worldview. For example, he sources Freud yet most of the psychology community has surpassed Freud (though I am an avid reader of Freud). The influence section adds Erikson, though I have yet to see him use Erikson in his writings. He makes passing references to many psychologists but in the core of his thought. So in the end interpretation is a more than neutral word, or u can use "understanding" in its place.

as for goethean's comment "his work draws on his own interpertation? whose dosn't" - well when u draw from outside your field of expertise - you are interpreting data to suit your own needs, for the layperson coming to Ken Wilber entry, this would not be obvious. His work at best is all subjective, and seeks to understand consciousness according to his own worldview beliefs, which can never be verified by the traditional scientific method - that Wilber so despises as "reductive." By adding interpretion we are letting the layperson know that he is taking the acculated data of psychology, etc and using it to his own ends and does not necessarily mean that he has every theory of psychology at his disposal and is not bending the data to his own end. ForrestLane42 16:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)ForrestLane42

intepretation was placed because Wilber takes from a variety of sources - cherrypicking them to suit his worldview.
Name a writer who doesn't.
He makes passing references to many psychologists but in the core of his thought.
This sentence fragment does not make any sense. If you expect people to respond to your comments, I suggest that you make a more concerted attempt to write in standard written English.
as for goethean's comment "his work draws on his own interpertation? whose dosn't" - well when u draw from outside your field of expertise - you are interpreting data to suit your own needs, for the layperson coming to Ken Wilber entry, this would not be obvious.
More nonsense.
His work at best is all subjective
I'm not terribly interested in your personal opinion of Wilber's work. If you don't have a reference to back it up, you can omit stuff like this from future comments. — goethean ॐ 16:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jeff Meyerhoff

Why has reference to Jeff Meyerhoff's scholarly critique been deleted? The whole page is starting to look like a sales pitch put out by the Integral Institute. M Alan Kazlev 22:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

It was deleted on October 28th by SSS108 with the description "Removing tons of original research, blogs, multiple links to one site, critical POV and references not in compliance with WP:BLP WP:RS WP:NOR)". Here's a link to the edit
It seems to me that none of the stated reasons are valid reason for removing the Meyerhoff link. I haven't followed any of the other deleted links to see what they contain, but given one incorrect deletion, it seems a good chance there are more poor deletions. I'm glad you mentioned the Meyerhoff article, as it's the best critique I've read yet, and I would like to see this re-added to the article as the criticism section seems small for ideas as large as Mr. Wilber's. Pro crast in a tor 02:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
That's interesting. SSS108 has some sort of trip against me because I have supported critics of his guru Sathya Sai Baba. In fact I myself used to be a devotee of Sai Baba for many years, and when the SSB controversy came up I had long email discussions with SSS108 as well as with ex-devotees, before coming to my own conclusions about all this (all this is documented on my website). So he may have seen my name associated with some of these edits and decided to remove them. In any case, he knows absolutely squat about Wilber (check his user contributions). Okay, I'm going to restore all that material he deleted, and I'll leave it to the rest of you guys to decide if you think it should be kept or not. M Alan Kazlev 03:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm unhappy with re-adding all this material, because a lot of it seems to be sourced on contentious blogs that don't seem to be proper Wikipedia sources. SSS108 did some good work to weed this stuff out, whether or not there was a sinister side agenda. My first instinct was to revert the whole change, and ask for the pieces to be re-added individually with proper sources, but instead I think I'll just remove the pieces that seem bad to me, one by one, over the next few days. If I remove a blog you think should remain, please revert my change and add a discussion here — thanks! Eleuther 03:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
That's my take, too, as there seems to be more good material here than bad. I removed one link already, and will probably try to find others over the next few days. Pro crast in a tor 11:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nomination of Bias Warning

I think that when we conclude editing this page to all parties satisfaction that the tag - Template:Bias Warning should remain since this has been a battleground for integralists and nonintergralists.Please give a yea or nay. ForrestLane42 23:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)ForrestLane42

If you do that you would have to slap that tag on every controversial page on Wikipedia! Most guru pages for example. Or Darwinism, which the creationists are opposed to. Or political ideologies. M Alan Kazlev 01:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

nay - there hasn't been an edit war in weeks, and it seems unlikely there will be more with the additional people watching this article these days. It may have been appropriate while edit wars were occurring, but not now, and certainly not in perpetuity. Pro crast in a tor 02:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Well M Alan, I think that across the line it might not be a bad idea to have such a disclaimer since edit wars do seem to happen around controversial pages. As for Pro crast in a tor, I can see you point, but once everyone finishs with final edits, and goes merrily on this way, I can see people coming and reverting back to their POV pages of Wilber, destroying what was accomplished, I am not an optimist on this matter that people will assume good faith. ForrestLane42 03:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)ForrestLane42

When we all become satisfied with this page, it is obvious that this tag should be in place since it is a site of FREQUENT edit wars and its obvious that once we conclude the business of editing, someone will come along and revert all the hard work. ForrestLane42 18:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)ForrestLane42

[edit] Thompson text

Procrastinator: in response to this edit, I find the deleted text important, because many critics dismiss Wilber's entire worldview without understanding it. Thompson, on the other hand, essentially agrees with Wilber's general perspective, and still thinks that Wilber's work sucks. That's a much more stinging critique IMO. — goethean ॐ 22:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi goethean, I agree that it helps, but it seemed like that sentence was a bit wordy. Perhaps we could just remove the "Cultural historian and poet" part at the beginning? He has a Wikipedia page, so the reader knows that he is wiki-notable, and leave the expounding upon their common admirations. I've made the change, let me know what you think.
Also, I still dislike the last half of the paragraph, where Thompson calls him a "compulsive mapp[er]...", and Wilber saying, "yes, I'm a mapmaker". It doesn't seem like it should be in the criticism section, as they are agreeing, and the words could be used to better effect. However, I'm not exactly sure how to proceed, so I've done nothing so far. Pro crast in a tor 06:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Removing "cultural historian" is fine. I think that leaving it in the criticism section is fine, because Thompson is pretty scathing regarding Wilber's scholarship. — goethean ॐ 19:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Wait a minute, goethean, removing it is okay now, did you not accuse me of doing this edit. But now when procrast,says its worded wrong, its okay and fine, another example of how u make allegations, then someone else does the very thing u accuse me of, and now all of the sudden you drop the matter. Does it not sound like you are stalking and harassing me at every intersection? ForrestLane42 05:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)ForrestLane42

[edit] Intro

I have removed the word "religious" from the intro. This mischaracterizes Wilber's work. Wilber is as much a writer on psychology, science and philosophy as on religion. A more accurate term would be "mystical" or "spiritual", but even more accurate is to leave it as "...a writer and thinker whose works draws on..." — goethean ॐ 16:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I set off a storm with my edit to the intro, which was the plan. I expected it to be reverted in toto, but that didn't happen — instead the fighting has all been over the first two sentences. Well, good! Here's what I see so far:

  • Nobody seems to miss the deleted material, which is good. Maybe I will strike at the biography next.
  • Everyone draws on his or her interpretations. This is understood in the 21st century, there's no need to say it explicitly.
  • I'm uncomfortable with describing Wilber as New Age in the very first sentence, if he himself disavows the association, as backface has said. But in the absence of concensus on another term, and lacking sources, I'm not going to contest it.

Thanks, everybody! Eleuther 15:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

In reference to everyone draws on his or her interpretations, I respectfully disagree. I don't think this is explicit to everyone, those who are well educated yes, but I am not sure of the general lay public. But Eleauther, you know better, and have a justified reason, so I respect your thought on the matter. ForrestLane42 16:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)ForrestLane42

Wouter Hanegraaff in his New Religion and Western Culture (a book I highly recommend, even if it unfortunately leaves out the influence of Eastern Gurus) considers Wilber to be New Age. As Eleuther points out, Wilber himself disagrees with that asessment, which Hanegraaff notes. I also have argued in an online essay that Wilberian Integral theory is indistinguishable from New Age as Hanegraaf defines it (although it may or may not be distinguishable from other definitions of New Age). I would suggest adding a citation to Hanegraaff after the "New Age" categorisaion in the opening category. Better still, qualify it by saying he is "considered New Age" M Alan Kazlev 01:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I would leave it alone for now — it's too small an issue to pick over in the Intro. It can be addressed further down someday if necessary. Cheers, Eleuther 14:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I disagree on it being a "small issue", at least not when it's worded the way it is and in the very first sentence of the Wilber entry. The way it's worded now, together with the way the New Age entry is written (should one click through to that article), make it sound like the New Age "movement" is something that Wilber actively ascribes to, which is clearly not the case. I think the intro would be just fine without any reference to New Age, since the next sentence describes what he writes and theorizes about, but at the very least, if the phrase "New Age" does appear in the intro, for the sake of factual accuracy it should be worded something like "...an American theorist and author often (although that in itself is a problematic word, I suppose, so maybe a better adverb could be found) associated with the New Age movement". My point being, I suppose, that positioning "New Age" as an adjective that directly describes what Wilber "is" places an inaccurate (or at least incomplete) label on him while making it sound like it's a key defining characteristic that he himself would agree with. --Grey 15:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Grey, welcome to the monkey house. I agree it's not a small issue, I'm only saying it's too small for the first sentence. The problem is that there is a faction here that refuses to allow Wilber to be described in any terms that do not belittle him intellectually. So the choice is between (a) swallowing something like "New Age" in the lede, and haggling about it later, or (b) haggling about it starting with the very first sentence. I prefer (a), haggling later.
Just for fun, I'm editing the sentence now to something more reasonable, so you can appreciate the storm it causes. Eleuther 06:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I like this new version better, but I'm not sure you needed to change "theorist" to "philosopher". You may cause more complaints about that than the removal of "New Age". I realize there are two diametrically opposed camps working on this entry, but I get the impression that the only way that we'll be able to do Wilber justice while remaining neutral is to keep the text as brief and as purely factual (and bland) as possible (while avoiding waffle words, of course). So I would avoid culturally loaded terms like "New Age" or specific labels like "philosopher" or "religious".
BTW, I would also remove all that stuff about Darwin in the science section because it's just too controversial a subject and doesn't really add anything essential to the article. And I agree that the critics section also needs to be whittled way down to just the most reputable ones.--Grey 09:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
It's not just two camps, it's a veritable tower of Babel. For myself, I'm not a believer, but I think Wilber deserves a factual and respectful (and shorter) article. And I find a certain hilarity in the idea that modern philosophy needs to be defended from thoughtful outsiders like Wilber, while clowns like <insert your favorite deconstructionist here> are running around inside. So, yes, I'm poking a stick in an anthill, but it's still the proper term. As for Darwin and the critics section, whittle away! The worst that can happen is that you will be reverted and dragged into a pile of endless petty discussion. Cheers, Eleuther 15:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Sigh. Eleuther, you continue to misstate and distort my views, while failing to answer any of the substantive arguments I have made rebutting yours. I never said, e.g., that philosophy needs to be defended from Wilber, and interested readers can simply read what I have written on this page to verify that. Instead you resort to strawmen and loaded language such as "petty discussion", by which I suppose you mean "discussion wherein my views are refuted". Whatever. As for reverting "integral philosopher", I have merely noted, as you did earlier, that it is effectively a circular description of Ken Wilber -- not to mention that Wilber refers to it as integral theory, not as integral philosophy. I would be happy with Grey's proposed "often associated with New Age thought" rider, since it is (a) more specific than "religious theorist", "psychological theorist", etc., and (b) can be referenced to the Library of Congress classifications Goethean cited. 271828182 00:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
And anyway, I didn't change it to philosopher, I changed it to integral philosopher — specifically because of the dark joy I will get from seeing the term reverted, when used to describe the person who more or less invented the subject area. Eleuther 15:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm fine with either term really. I've got no complaints with the current version ("integral theorist" minus "and author") either. I mean there's not a huge difference between "philosopher" and "theorist", but since Wilber always says that what he's done is created a "map" without its own specific content, I actually think "theorist" is probably closer to being the right term, and "philosopher", if anything, is limiting. --Grey 16:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

As expected, integral philosopher is a weasal word and I think escapes a tricky issue altogether, which shouldn't be the approach IMO. I favor "New Age" in the intro even though Wilber does not classify this label as his work, but I think most would classify it as New Age work. I think u have to remove philosopher altogether, integral theorist is much better, please think about reverting...I'm still thinking whether to go through a nother nasty battle with goethean over this ForrestLane42 22:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)ForrestLane42

I don't see how you can say that "philosopher" is a weasel word. It may not be accurate, but it definitely makes a specific statement, which a weasel word, by definition, does not. In any event, I also don't see how you can claim that "most would classify (Wilber's work) as New Age". New Age certainly falls within the scope of his work, but the term most certainly does not accurately define his work. The main thrust of his work is to establish a "map" by which it is possible to integrate... well, everything really, but in a scientific manner that most people would not associate with the New Age movement. Calling him "New Age" in the very first line of the article is severely reductionist for everything else that follows. At most, I would agree to removing "integral" before "theorist", but I will do everything I can to keep anything like "Wilber is a New Age whatever" out of the entry. --Grey 23:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

This is antedocal, but I have always seen Wilber's books not in the psychology or philosophy section, but in the New Age section ForrestLane42 09:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)ForrestLane42

Border's keeps Integral psychology in psychology. — goethean ॐ 17:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Borders' web site lets you inquire where a book is shelved if it's in stock. According to this, at my local store, pretty much everything in stock by Wilber is under General Metaphysics (including Boomeritis and Integral Psychology), so the shelving may differ from store to store. Eleuther 18:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe your Borders do, or could it be that u rearrange it to be that way.lol...cute reply. every borders and barnesnoble have it in New Age ForrestLane42 17:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)ForrestLane42

every borders and barnesnoble have it in New Age
Bullshit. Besides, the Library of Congress keeps it at BF311, along with other psychology books. — goethean ॐ 18:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Update: the official designation of BF309-499 is: "Consciousness. Cognition Including learning, attention, comprehension, memory, imagination, genius, intelligence, thought and thinking, psycholinguistics, mental fatigue" PDF file This is, obviously, more reliable than the Border's classification, which is based on marketing decisions. — goethean ॐ 18:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe more reliable, maybe based on marketing decisions, but maybe commonsense?? Those who think his ideas are occult or new age wouldn't look to the philosophy section but to new age section. Thats got to be more than purely marketing?? ForrestLane42 19:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)ForrestLane42


goethean, please refrain from cursing, I should have said every borders and barnesandnoble I've seen put them in the New Age section, in fact in the public libraries I've gone too, its in the New Age/metaphysical section. If you dont refrain from cursing, I'll speak to adminstrators. ForrestLane42 18:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)ForrestLane42

I just looked up 18 of Wilber's books in the Library of Congress. Here are the results:

  • Atman Project -- BF701 -- "Psychology: Genetic psychology"
  • Boomeritis -- PS3623.152 B66 -- "American literature, Individual authors, 2001-"
  • Brief History of everything -- BF1999 "Occult science"
  • collected works -- BF311 -- "Psychology: Consciousness. Cognition"
  • eye of spirit -- BL624 -- "Religious life"
  • eye to eye -- BD161 -- "Speculative philosophy. Epistemology. Theory of knowledge."
  • grace & grit -- BF311 -- "Psychology: Consciousness. Cognition"
  • integral spirituality -- BL624 -- "Religious life"
  • Integral Vision -- BL624 -- "Religious life"
  • marriage of sense & soul -- BL240-2 -- "Natural theology -- religion and science"
  • no boundary -- BF311 -- "Psychology: Consciousness. Cognition"
  • one taste -- BL73 -- "Religious biography"
  • sex ecology spirituality -- BF311 -- "Psychology: Consciousness. Cognition"
  • simple feeling of being -- BL624 -- "Religious life"
  • sociable god -- BL60 -- "Philosophy of religion"
  • spectrum of consciousness -- BF311 -- "Psychology: Consciousness. Cognition"
  • theory of everything -- BD431 -- "Speculative philosophy. Ontology"
  • up from eden -- BF1999 -- "Occult sciences"

This gives: six books classified under religion; six under psychology; three under philosophy; and two under new age. So it looks like the LOC considers Wilber to be a writer who primarily discusses religion and psychology, and secondarily philosophy and new age. He has edited two books on science and has written a novel. — goethean ॐ 19:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


Lovely, goethean, did you have fun looking this up? Still haven't responsed to your foul language.... ForrestLane42 22:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)ForrestLane42

Conflicts aside, new age tends to have religious overtones, so I don't see that as an impediment. Gothean, you have not responded to my point about KWs endorsement of gurus that are hardly mainstream as examples of advanced spirituality under his system, and while technically more accurately post new age, a common understanding of what is broader "new age" fits much of KW. While KW claims to be a Buddhist, there are many inconsistencies between Buddhism and what KW advocates and who he endorses. I favor something like "religious/(post?) new age".--72.199.185.19 06:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] protection tag

With 3-reverts from goethean, I believe this all should be brought to the attention of the editors and has his lead to serious attacks to the integrity of this page in that it should be decided by the editors - it seems to be a return to the page that was here before Eleuther and backface started to mediate a fairer entry. goethean's edits seem to disregard consensus and the integrity of this page and of fellow editors. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ForrestLane42 (talk • contribs) 17:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC).

Please undo this edit. You are not an administrator and do not have the authority to protect an article. Furthermore, you are edit-warring by reverting everything that I do to the article. Why did you remove the text about William Irwin Thompson without discussing it on the talk page? I gave good reason (in standard written English) for all of my edits. — goethean ॐ 17:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

First off, I didn't do the William IRvin Thompson editing, thats not me. Second off, by your own way talking down to me, u assume bad faith. I have spoken many times to Larry V about this ForrestLane42 17:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)ForrestLane42

I didn't do the William IRvin Thompson editing, thats not me.
Wrong. — goethean ॐ 17:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
by your own way talking down to me, u assume bad faith.
Here is the assume good faith policy. You may quote from it when accusing me of breaking policy. — goethean ॐ 17:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, I checked Wikipedia....there is no clause that its a tag only for adminstrators, if that is the case, I am sorry for the mistake, I just want this brought to Eleuther and backface's attention..ForrestLane42 17:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)ForrestLane42

Wrong. Revert yourself. — goethean ॐ 17:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, you are stating a falsehood when you claim here that your edits have the backing of consensus. Since no one has commented on the talk page except for us, your claim of support for your edits has no validity. I would appreciate it if you would attempt to avoid making false claims in edit summaries in the future. — goethean ॐ 17:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


goethean, they have been in place for a while now, so i think it was safe to assume consensus, no one has said otherwise except you, only you as far as I know. So again stop accusing me of accusations. I have already brought this to Larry V's attention ForrestLane42 18:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)ForrestLane42

Wrong. The words that I removed in my edits were not there yesterday. Please pay closer attention before making false claims. — goethean ॐ 18:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Wrong, Wrong, Wrong, etc... goethean I dont see me editing away in the places you claim, I look at the links you gave, still dont see it. Anyway, I dont recall editing the pieces described...you bore me so much at times with your "vision"ForrestLane42 05:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)ForrestLane42


Protection tags are only for use on pages which have been protected - please read one if you doubt this. I have removed it. Requests for page protection are made at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Please don't use protection tags on articles which are not actually protected. Thanks. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wilber's influence

However, almost all professional philosophers ignore Wilber's work: for example, his name goes entirely unmentioned in the titles of twenty-five years' worth of peer-reviewed articles and reviews in the academic journal Philosophy East and West (a philosophical journal specializing in Asian philosophy).

This passage constitues original research and should be removed immediately. — goethean ॐ 19:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi goethean, I agree the first half may be problematic, but the second half of the sentence appears to be a simple cited fact to me. I don't think anyone disagrees and claim that Philosophy East and West actually does have an article by Wilber, so this part is not really a debatable point.
So rather than striking the whole sentence because the first part may be problematic, perhaps we rework it and say, "Wilber has not been published in any peer-reviewed academic journals, and he has not been mentioned in twenty-five years' worth of the academic journal Philosophy East and West (a philosophical journal specializing in Asian philosophy).
Alternately, based on this (which takes a few minutes to run the search) I would think it is fair to say that Mr. Wilber is "rarely even mentioned in any peer-reviewed journal", and strike the whole part about Philosophy East and West. Or even use this to cite the phrase "almost all professional philosophers ignore Wilber's work". This is a search of >1000 academic journals hosted by Highwire as well as all of PubMed finding 115 instances of the phrase "Ken Wilber" anywhere in the text. Many are in the "Journal of Humanistic Psychology", which is a "forum" and not a peer-reviewed journal. There are 10-25 occurrences of his name of him in peer reviewed journals (I didn't look up all the journals, but 10-25 is close enough for our purposes). There are no peer-reviewed articles with his name in the title. There is certainly a discontinuity between the grandioseness of Mr. Wilber's professed solution, and the cool reception he has received in the mainstream. I say let's find a sentence that works, anyone else have thoughts? Oh, and thanks for discussing this on the talk page first! Pro crast in a tor 12:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
but the second half of the sentence appears to be a simple cited fact to me.
It is a fact, but one that was carefully selected in a POV manner. As is the current verbiage. — goethean ॐ 14:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I too appreciate using the talk page first, but I do think the first part is salvagable, if as Pro crast says that there are 10-25 potential articles, lets do a search of Albert Bandura, or B.F. Skinner, or Martin Seligman, see how many articles they have written to use psychologists as an example. Or use philosophers as an example name it Plato, Aristotle, Sartre,etc I think its safe to say that they will have 100 plus articles written about by the author above alone, not to mention the amount of articles that cite their work. So by most standards, the numbers do not look good for Wilber, so I think its accurate that so part of the first sentence can be salvaged ForrestLane42 00:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)ForrestLane42

Um, goethean? I disagreed with your removal, and you removed it anyway this morning citing the talk page. I'm assuming this is just an oversight, so I pseudo-reverted your edit, adding in my changes per the above. I don't like my phrasing all that much - it needs help - but the gist is there, and I think it's very important to the article. Pro crast in a tor 00:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I didn't see the talk page pop up on my watchlist so I assumed no one had replied. — goethean ॐ 03:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Wilber has not been published in any peer-reviewed academic journals, and his name is not mentioned in the titles of twenty-five years' worth of the academic journal Philosophy East and West (a philosophical journal specializing in Asian philosophy).

Is this relevant? Wilber is not an academic and doesn't claim to be. His writing is not similar in style or subject matter to academic philosophy. Most popular writers are not published in peer-reviewed academic journals. We already mentioned that Wilber "works outside of the academic mainstream." We could reiterate that Wilber is not an academic, but this seems like an attack, especially when you elide his presence in other journals. — goethean ॐ 14:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The statement stating no peer-reviewed articles is incorrect. Wilber has been published in the Journal of Consciousness Studies, which is peer-reviewed. The lack of citation in one particular journal is not a very useful fact. --Blainster 18:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Journal of Consciousness Studies is not found in any university's library resources, its not academic and is for the layperson. Someone in the past has tried to add this as proof to their cause and it was stricken for NPOV. ForrestLane42 18:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)ForrestLane42

This is simply incorrect. It is in the University of Arizona library for one. The statement that it is not academic would be disputed by its editors, who are nearly all academics[5]. The confusion may be because it is interdisciplinary and thus avoids provincial language.--Blainster 19:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Adi Da was at one time a major influence on Ken Wilber's work, and in fact Wilber himself said in 1984 that "Master Da is the single strongest influence on my work at this time, and has been for the past several years, and will continue to be so..." (Laughing Man magazine, Volume 5, Number 1, 1984, page 2). I cannot imagine any reason why this should not be included in an encyclopedia entry on Wilber's influences. I can think of reasons why someone who wants to protect Wilber from criticism might not want to include Wilber's own acknowledgement that Adi Da was at one time "the single strongest influence" on his work, but such a concern has absolutely nothing to do with concern for historical biographical accuracy in an encyclopedic entry. So who is editing that line out every time I add it to the influences section, and why? Adi Da is a much bigger early influence on Wilber than many of the other spiritual figures named in this section, yet the reference to Adi Da does not reflect this. It should. - Holotrope 15:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC).

OK, but let's at least use a more recent, more accessible reference than Laughing Man Magazine from 1984, which was clearly chosen only to overemphasize the connection with Adi Da. I've changed the entry to reflect this change in source and moved the reference to the notes section. --Grey 18:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

In all seriousness,why does it matter if it was 1984? I agree recent stuff should be added, but his past actions and thoughts should be included, unless you want to obscure the facts and not show Wilber's strange history/connection with Adi Da? ForrestLane42 20:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)ForrestLane42

The text doesn't obscure anything. It clearly states the fact that he agrees very strongly with his work, but not with the man. Dwelling on any misjudgments he may or may not have made early on in his career is purely an attempt to discredit him now in the present. --Grey 21:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Grey, you state that the quote from Laughing Man magazine "was clearly chosen only to overemphasize the connection with Adi Da." This is conjecture on your part and it has no relevance to the issue. The quote from Laughing Man is relevant to Da's influence on early phases of Wilber's work. It has nothing to with Wilber's "connection with Adi Da." How recent the reference is is also irrelevant, as it's no less part of the historical record as are references to Wilber's birth, education, early publishing history, and meditation teachers who Wilber was associated with before 1984. You say that "Dwelling on any misjudgments he may or may not have made early on in his career is purely an attempt to discredit him now in the present." The part about "purely an attempt to discredit him now in the present" is again conjecture, and to characterize the inclusion of that quote as "Dwelling on misjudgments" is not only a gross exaggeration - dwelling??? - but a case of you reading something into the quote that isn't there. No one suggested anything about misjudgments but you. My personal opinion is that Wilber did well to be influenced by Da back then, because Da wrote some cutting edge stuff about meditation, enlightenment, and development and as Wilber says in One Taste, Da (and Trungpa) attempted a radical "experiment." Back then it was radical, times have changed, but the historical record has not changed. Wilber WAS strongly influenced by the early Da, far more than Wilber was influenced by Katagiri Roshi, et al. Wilber may well want to distance himself from Da today, and Wilber apologists may want to distance Wilber from Da, but that's irrelevant, for we are talking about an encyclopedia entry, and "what's best for Wilber" and "what's best for Integral Theory" is irrelevant. What's relevant here is what does and does not belong in the "influences" section of this encyclopedic entry on Ken Wilber. I maintain that Wilber's statement that Da was the "single greatest influence" on his work in 1984 and had been for several years prior to that should be included in the "influences" section. There is nothing accusatory in that and no implication about "misjudgments" on Wilber's part, and your speculations about "clearly chosen to overemphasize " and "purely an attempt to discredit" and your exaggeration about "Dwelling on misjudgments" are frankly off the wall. I will not edit the section again until there is more discussion on this and I will go with whatever reasonable consensus may be reached. If no such consensus is reached, I will appeal to whomever one appeals to here regarding such matters. Holotrope 21:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

If I've misinterpreted your intentions, I apologize, but my accusations are not totally "off the wall", just possibly misdirected. There are other editors here who's motives are clearly to emphasize the negative in order to discredit Wilber and his work, and just yesterday or the day before an anonymous editor added a lengthy section concerning Adi Da that began very much like your sentence. I felt that such a lengthy discussion of Adi Da was unnecessary (and discriminatory given events surrounding Adi Da, the man) when the other influencers were all lumped together, and I (perhaps wrongly) assumed that your edit (given that you appear to be a new editor, too, I assumed you were the anonymous editor of before) was just an attempt to get that same overemphasis back into the text. In any event, I feel that a quote stating that Adi Da's book is one of "the very greatest spiritual treatises" makes it pretty clear that Wilber was heavily influenced by his work. But in the interests of compromise and consensus, I've added a bit of text to make this more explicit. --Grey 22:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

No apology necessary, but thanks. I don't think motives are relevant here, just facts and which facts should be included in the "influences" section of a bibliographical encyclopedic entry. Here is the text as it stands now (as you've edited it): 'According to Wilber himself, Adi Da's book, The Dawn Horse, is "one of the very greatest spiritual treatises" (pointing to the importance of Adi Da's influence on Wilber early on in his career), but further states that "the teaching is one thing, the teacher, quite another".' The book in question is titled The Dawn Horse Testament. Why not simply include a sentence in the "influences" section to the effect that at one point - in 1984 to be exact, when Wilber was in the third "phase" of his work - Wilber stated that Adi Da was "the single greatest influence" on his work at that time, and had been "for several years"? According to Frank Visser, Wilber's "Phase 3" was from 1983-1987, and his "Phase 2" was from 1980-1982. Wilber's book No Boundary was published in 1979 and in it he writes that "The works of Bubba Free John are unsurpassed." Wilber wrote a glowing foreword ("On Heroes and Cults") to a book by Da that was first published in October, 1980, and so I think it's reasonable to assume that when in 1984 Wilber said that Da was the "single strongest influence" on his work and had been "for the past several years," we can infer that Adi Da was a strong influence on Wilber's work during the first three phases of his work (the first phase being from 1977-1979 according to Visser). I really do think that fact deserves mention in an encylopedic reference to Wilber's influences. But I will wait and see what others think. Holotrope 23:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

In reference to Grey's comment: "I felt that such a lengthy discussion of Adi Da was unnecessary (and discriminatory given events surrounding Adi Da, the man) when the other influencers were all lumped together.." Adi Da is very much apart of Wilber's past, it ties into his belief that "nasty boys" are somehow the enlightened ones who people should really listen to and learn from. I guess having a criminal mindset and spirituality goes together in Wilber's system? Regardless, Wilber has had an odd history of endorsement, then backing away from the endorsement and then reinstating the endorsement while shying away from the man.

Holotrope, I think your edit is worthy of inclusion but my opinion doesn't matter. The big wigs have to weight in. You have my vote of confidence. ForrestLane42 00:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)ForrestLane42

[edit] Reception

Per this edit the "Wilber's influence" and "Criticism of Wilber" sections need to be merged into a "Reception of Wilber" section so that there is a place for any potentially positive material that might hypothetically make it past the gatekeepers. That would probably be an empty set, but we should be prepared just in case. — goethean ॐ 17:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi goethean, the new section title sounds good to me, but I'm still in favor of removing the Charles Taylor quote. It makes Mr. Taylor appear like a living legend, which perhaps he is, but it's odd that he's not referred to in such glowing terms on his own Wikipedia article (or maybe not: it's a very contentious statement from a periodical, not a person). The second part of the quote seems like empty praise to me, not really encyclopedia grade material. Neither part passes the sniff test, so I removed it again.

Also, from your comment, it appears that you think the article is unbalanced because positive material is not being included. Is that what you think, that there is not enough positive material about Mr. Wilber in the article? I thought the whole goal was NPOV, neither positive nor negative, just the facts. It's not supposed to sound like an ad, nor like an attack piece, and to that end, both this quote and negative quotes like "Mr. Wilber is full of himself" will get stricken. Pro crast in a tor 14:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

...it appears that you think the article is unbalanced because positive material is not being included. Is that what you think, that there is not enough positive material about Mr. Wilber in the article?
I agree with User:Eleuther's statement:
The problem is that there is a faction here that refuses to allow Wilber to be described in any terms that do not belittle him intellectually.
— goethean ॐ 00:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Involvement with Zaadz.com

Hello there. I think this article should include his hand/partnership with that networking website.

See http://yeago.net/works/jesus-buddha-ken-wilber for a synopsis. Yeago 20:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, as it's not notable. Wilber's relationship to Zaadz's is much less important than, say, a paragraph about a book he's written. Pro crast in a tor 14:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fact vs. Consensus

Or another title for this section could be "Mysticism vs. New Age".

In any event, what I want to say here is that even if, for the sake of argument, we were able to demonstrate that "most people" associate Wilber with New Age, that wouldn't justify our calling him a "New Age (insert noun)". At the very most, we could say that there appears to be some consensus that Wilber can be associated with the New Age movement.

In actual fact, however, Wilber is not a "New Age theorist (or philosopher)" because one of the key aspects of "New Age" is the idea of being an "alternative" to the mainstream (almost a protest against the mainstream), which Wilber is not. Wilber embraces the mainstream and all its truths, but then integrates and "transcends" them in a quest for something in some way more complete. (An aside: The important idea of "transcend and include" seems to be missing from the Wilber article in any explicit manner.)

He also talks a lot about "mysticism", but actually relatively little about anything "New Age" or purely "alternative". Let's not make the mistake of equating "spiritual" or "mystical" with "New Age". You wouldn't call a Buddhist, Catholic, Jewish, Hindu or Islamic mystic New Age, would you? And indeed any of these mystics can (and probably do) "integrate" teachings from other realms, not strictly following their own lineage to the exact letter, without having to be called "alternative" or "New Age". (And I'm not saying that Wilber himself is necessarily a mystic, just that he talks much more about mysticism than anything strictly New Age.)

Also, you may claim that most people consider parapsychology or psi research to be "pseudo-science", but that wouldn't justify calling it that in a Wikipedia entry. And indeed serious parapsychology is just as much a true science as any other and satisfies all the criteria of the so-called "scientific method".

So anyway, let's please be very careful about how we use the term "New Age" (or indeed any other label) in reference to Wilber so that we don't confuse fact with opinion (or even consensus). End of sermon. --Grey 09:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree with everything you've said, but I do think that "New Age" is a loaded term and should not be used in regards to Mr. Wilber. Pro crast in a tor 14:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Where did you come from Grey? All of the sudden, you are so involved in this page???? I find very interesting to say the least. Regardless...parapsychology is pseudo-science as far as anyone in the scientific community means... To say it is using the scientific method does not mean it is science. Saying Parapsychology is scientific is like saying astrology is a science. I am not sure if New Age fits for Wilber, but facts are that in general people view his work as New Age - or as the borders section label says general metapsychics. At least you agree that Wilber is not a philosopher ForrestLane42 18:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)ForrestLane42

Oh, I didn't realize this discussion was closed to newcomers. What the hell?! And anyway, somebody needs to offset your spouting of opinion as if it were fact. It's simply not true that "anyone in the scientific community" considers parapsychology to be pseudo-science. There may be a majority that consider it to be pseudo-science, but that doesn't mean that it is pseudo-science. In the very same way that there may (but you still need to prove it to me) be a majority that feel Wilber is New Age, but that doesn't make him New Age. Consensus simply does not equate with fact and never has. Centuries ago the consensus was that the world was flat, but that's obviously not true. Just a few months ago, the consensus was that Pluto was a planet, but that's no longer true either (except with a "dwarf" rider). But these examples are only partially relevant to this discussion because Wilber is only considered New Age by people who don't understand his work. Anyone who takes any time to understand his work will see that he speaks much more of mysticism (not to mention psychology, systems theory, and all the other things that are very clearly not New Age) than anything strictly confined to the realm of New Age. Unless you want to redefine New Age as anything that seeks to move beyond the current "mainstream", but again that's just trying to equate opinion with fact.
And I, too, wish you'd stop polluting the article with your opinion, like this recent edit war over "cool" vs. "poor". I mean, come on! "Poor" is obviously POV as opposed to the much more neutral "cool". And that nonsense over the "controversial figure" bit, especially since it refers to integral thought. He may be frequently controversial in academia, but he is at best "sometimes" controversial within the integral movement. You can't take the Wyatt Earpy episode and say that that's representative of all his work in the integral world. Given his position in the integral movement, if there are those who disagree with him, it should be they who are seen as "controversial" more than him. --Grey 20:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

i've been lurking myself because of just such vitriol (as Gray notes). but here's my two cents and an illustration of one of his points: the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research Lab. keep up the good work, guys, and here's to letting the constructive criticism flow! that is all. - Metanoid 21:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


No, grey I welcome a newcomer, but I was trying avoid saying what I am beginning to wonder: but I was thinking you are a sockpuppet of goethean. So there is where I was thinking since u and him have a need to act out with me. I used poor because it denotes the fact that academia doesn't know Wilber, doesn't take Wilber seriously, this is not opinion, this is fact. If they did know him or take him seriously he and his theories would be utilized in their given context. "Cool" is not neutral, it makes it sound like academia is not lukewarm about wilber, they are not, up til now, he is virtually ignored by academicians. So maybe ignored or dismissed by academia is better. I think you are looking to have your POV infused into this page. I am not trying to be POV, I am given my views throughly whether u disagree is a different matter. I believe I have said that I am not 100 percent for the New Age label, but its seem a fair label than philosopher. Mysticism is definately New Age - look to the bastarded Kabbalah that is being sold on New Age book shelves. Hence, Wilber is as you said more interested in mysticism. Of course consensus does not equal fact but the scientific paradigm is still in the use of empirical sciences, when the scientific paradigm shifts than consensus will be the new fact. The fact is that if 95% percent of people believe in something as a fact, for instance, we know the world is not flat, but there are still people out there who probably think this is not true - that the world is flat. Who is right? Who is? If the scientific community is sure of it, has proven it with their methods, does that mean that it is now consensus to the greater community - almost dare I say faith in that fact? Please do not take a nasty tone, I was just pointing out that your appearance and strong views seemed to be odd in timing.

As for, "Given his position in the integral movement, if there are those who disagree with him, it should be they who are seen as "controversial" more than him." You must be saying this to emphasize affect?! We are not talking about the integral movement, as for academia he is not controversial because he is practically nonexistant and dismissed. He is controversial in his community of integralists both pro and con, for his vitriolic attacks on his critics not just Wyatt Earp episode, so he is not just sometimes controversial. And he is simply controversial by the sheer fact that no one has a neutral view of him!!! The definition of controversial is "Marked by or capable of arousing controversy." Therefore by that definition, the man is controversial, not sometimes controversial, which is weaseling IMO.

As for your response about parapsychology, I do concede that I reacted too strongly but was trying to emphasize the fact that many see it as pseudo-science, and to use it as an example was I felt weakening your position.ForrestLane42 21:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)ForrestLane42

If you think that mysticism is New Age then there's clearly no point in debating any of this with you. Our views are obviously diametrically opposed. That nonsense about the "bastarded Kabbalah" is just nonsensical rhetoric that has absolutely no bearing on the argument. Is Mother Teresa New Age? Is the Dalai Lama (or pick your own Buddhist mystic) New Age? Just because you can find pseudo-mysticism on the shelves of Border's New Age section does not make all mysticism New Age. If you can't be more open minded, then there really is no point in discussing the matter any further. --Grey 21:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


Grey, there is mysticism that comes from within a religion... for the example I use Kabbalah, this is Jewish mysticism stemming from Judaism, not Madonna's hollywood center, thats "bastardized Kabbalah" if you are reading books about kabbalah from the new age section, you are not reading the real Kabbalah. Taken from wikipedia mysticism entry on Wikipedia "Kabbalah is a significant mystical movement within Judaism, and Sufism is a significant mystical movement within Islam. Gnosticism refers to both a mystical movement within Christianity and various mystical sects which arose out of Christianity." Go to a Rabbi and ask him if the books you see on the New age shelf are giving you what the Kabbalah is all about - they will certainly tell you that kabbalah is generally reserved for those 40 years or older and that you must be a Jew to appreciate the Kabbalah. Anything you see on the New Age section is a bastardized version of Kabbalah. ForrestLane42 21:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)ForrestLane42

When on earth did I ever say I was referring to mysticism off the shelves of the New Age section?! (And no, I am not goethean and have absolutely no connection with goethean.) When I say "mysticism" I mean "real, honest-to-goodness mysticism". Why would you assume I meant anything different? And why do you assume that Wilber talks about anything different. He talks about true mysticism with true mystics, not with Madonna!
And just because there are people like Visser (you picked the wrong example there, my friend) who adamantly disagree with Wilber does not make Wilber the controversial one. At most you can say that there is "controversy surrounding his work" (and would then need to provide reputable examples), but not that he "is" controversial. And taking the "sometimes" out of the current edit-war sentence is saying that within integral thought he is categorically controversial, which is simply not true, again within the integral world (which is what the sentence is referring to). --Grey 22:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

And goethean, obviously you didn't see the post to grey or since grey refuses to deny whether he is or not you, look at the definition of controversial I gave to grey and then tell me Wilber is not controversial, oh wait you will since you like to act out on me and are pissed that this page is not "your vision" anymore ForrestLane42 21:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)ForrestLane42

for what it's worth, i'm going to stick my big nose in here again and say that (as much as i hate to say it - and no offense intended by that), i think ForrestLane42 has a point when it comes to this dispute over the use of "controversial" (tho for the moment i'll keep my views on mysticism to myself). whether inside or out of the integral thought movement - whether you agree with him or not - wilber has raised ire, both near and far. - Metanoid 22:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Again, just because there are people out there who like to criticize Wilber does not make him categorically controversial. On very rare occasions (i.e. the Wyatt Earpy blog entry), he does actively "raise ire", but if there is controversy within the integral world surrounding his work, you need to first consider whether it is the others who are being controversial, not one of the founders and main proponents of the movement. And regardless, just because there is controversy surrounding anyone's work, you should be very careful about calling that person controversial themselves. A person "is" controversial if most of their work disagrees with the consensus in a given field, and since this particular sentence is talking about integral thought, it's just nonsense to say that Wilber "is" controversial. If you want to say he's controversial as compared with mainstream academia, then I can pretty much agree with that, but not when referring to integral thought. --Grey 22:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, you agree then that he is indeed controversal maybe the sentence should somehow be divided. He is a controversial figure - indeed in any given field he cherrypicks - (no POV meant by that) from psychology, etc. Maybe it could be: He is a controversial figure. He is also one of the founders of integral thought movement. Metanoid, thank you for your comments although I think from them that we disagree widely on a number of subjects :). ForrestLane42 22:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)ForrestLane42

In thinking more of your original point, the fact that New Age is as you stated an alternative to mainstream - then would not Wilber be in the same category? Yes he uses mainstream material for his own purposes, but can we say that other New Age authors do the same? I can't think of any that come to mind, but don't many New Agers utilize mainstream science as point to the rightness of their views. I'm thinking like meditation where New Agers utilize research stating that meditation is good for stress, etc.

As for your statement "Wilber embraces the mainstream and all its truths, but then integrates and "transcends" them in a quest for something in some way more complete. (An aside: The important idea of "transcend and include" seems to be missing from the Wilber article in any explicit manner.)" Does this not imply POV? ForrestLane42 22:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)ForrestLane42

ForrestLane42, your last edit looks fair to me - but then again, i'm not the final arbiter here. man oh man, it took pages upon pages to decide whether we should use a single particular word or not. where's a wittgensteinian when you need one? hehe - Metanoid 23:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


Indeed,Metanoid, indeed! ForrestLane42 23:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)ForrestLane42

I've got no problems with the intro as it stands now, but you continue to apply too broad a definition to New Age. Meditation is not a New Age practice per se either, any more than Buddhism or Hinduism is New Age. I was pointing out that a key aspect of New Age is the idea of "alternative-ness", not that anything "non-mainstream" is New Age. Was Einstein "New Age" when he first came up with some of his revolutionary ideas? Or for that matter was he being New Age when he wrote many of his more "mystical" writings? Newsflash: Einstein was a New Ager.... Come on. Let's not paint the world with too broad a New-Age brush.

BTW, I would use the example of how "New Agers" take quantum physics and use it willy-nilly to prove the existence of spirit, or whatever else they use it for, as an example of how New Age uses (and indeed "misuses") science to support its claims. But researchers using scientific method to demonstrate the benefits of meditation is not New Age in my book. Maybe I have an overly biased view of New Age, but the fact is that a LOT of New Age does fit this cliché and gives the entire movement a bad name, so I believe that most academics (or other "mainstreamers") use the term in this negative sense, as well. In any event, it's a term that needs to be used with extreme caution and not just tacked on to anyone working outside of the mainstream.

And I realize New Age is no longer a part of the intro, but I continue to talk about this because this same sort of problem arises in virtually all of our recent debates. We need to be very careful that we truly understand the words we use and their impact as they are used in the article before we use them. In the same way, we should take a good hard look at the assumptions we make about Wilber, even if they don't appear explicitly in the article, before we make contributions to the text. Are they only based on what we've heard critics say about Wilber, or have we taken a close look at Wilber's work ourselves in order to form our own opinions? For example, if you understand Wilber's work, then you also understand why he often finds it to be pointless to confront many of his critics directly, and indeed why he largely works outside of mainstream academia for that matter.

Before you understand these sorts of things, you're ("you" in the general sense, not specific finger pointing) really in no place to take a neutral stand on Wilber in order to write a neutral Wikipedia entry. --Grey 00:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

If you are saying I can't be possibly be NPOV, then neither are you, grey. If you are saying he ignores academia, it is because he does not want to rebut his critics because . Trust me, I haven't read all of his books, but I've read a few and I know a lot of what Wilber and his work are about. Meditation using again as my example was introduced first within the "new age" community or at least had its strongest defenders I believe. But thats besides the point, you are right that New Age is not a word to be tacked on lightly. But do I think Wilber's work have some New Age tendencies, yes thats in the final analysis my POV. I have never denied that I don't care for Wilber and his work but I can tell you have your own POV bias as well. Yet I respect many things of Wilber as well. So should that exclude you from editing? My god, everyone has a POV bias and somewhere in the middle it becomes NPOV by consensus. Wikipedia should be just about facts, but as Colbert says its not wikipedia but wikireality. Who controls wikireality, neither of us.. I just find it funny that this page seemed to be coming to consensus and then an edit war has ensued in a matter of hours. Does no one see that as interesting?..ForrestLane42 00:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)ForrestLane42

Again you miss my point entirely. I didn't say that someone with a bias can't be neutral. I'm saying that if you have a bias AND you don't understand what it is you're writing about, then it's unlikely you can write from a NPOV. And I'm sorry, but clearly you don't understand what you're writing about. Meditation is most definitely NOT a New Age phenomenon introduced by New Agers. It's been around pretty much as long as man has been self-aware. And you can't even really say that it's strongest defenders are New Agers because there really shouldn't even be anything to "defend" in the first place. Regardless, there are millions and millions of Buddhists, Hindus and other religious and spiritual practitioners (that are not necessarily New Age) who meditate and would "defend" meditation if such an act were necessary.
So until you truly understand what spiritual practice and mysticism are and can, using this understanding, step outside of it to take a fairly neutral point of view, I don't see how you can be in a position to participate effectively in achieving a wikireality consensus on Wilber and his work. Remember, it takes at least two to start an edit war, so maybe you should do a bit more self-reflection (and study) before you accuse anyone else of being unbiased. --Grey 09:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Clearly grey, if I don't have a NPOV, neither do you by your statement above, stating meditation has been around since man has been self-aware, is your POV, not a fact. Meditation in this country did not become popular overnight, but was first came through new age writings - from wikipedia's new age page: The contemporary usage of the term New Age was popularized by the American mass media during the late 1980s, to describe the alternative spiritual subculture interested in such things as meditation, channelling, reincarnation, crystals, psychic experience, holistic health, environmentalism, other fields associated with pseudoscience and anomalous phenomena, and various “unsolved mysteries” such as UFOs, Earth mysteries and Crop circles." It does take two to tangle but who came on the scene so suddenly to disturb the relative peace of this page? Hmm. ForrestLane42 13:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)ForrestLane42

"This country"??? Since when was Wikipedia an encyclopedia on American culture alone? What difference does it make when it became popular in the U.S.? People have been meditating for thousands of years. And that's fact, not POV! And get over the fact that I'm here now and just deal with it! Start by taking a deep breath as our appointed moderator has suggested. --Grey 13:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


You're cute, grey, do not twist what i was saying - so I take it to say that you lived in 5,000 years ago in say Egypt and saw this happen? Let's remember you had started this by saying that meditation is not New Age, and I contended that in this country it became popular thru New Age writings as I have noted. ForrestLane42 23:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)ForrestLane42

Uh, thanks for this summary of events, but I still fail to see your point. Again, what does its popularity in "this country" (by which I assume you mean the U.S.) have to do with whether or not it's "New Age"? And why would I have had to be around 5000 years ago to know that meditation has been a part of religious/spiritual practice for much, much longer than there has been a New Age movement in the U.S.? But anyway, I've had enough of this debate. It's gotten way off topic and has no more place on this discussion page. --Grey 09:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Um, yeah, sounds good to me that you can let go of the issue. ForrestLane42 13:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)ForrestLane42

Whatever dude. --Grey 14:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deep breath

Time for a deep breath. The purpose of the article is not to dispute Wilber's philosophy, only to describe it. The purpose of the talk page is not to dispute Wilber's philosophy, only to discuss how the article should read. Eleuther 10:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

True enough, but how are we supposed to discuss how the article should read when certain editors don't even understand what it is they're writing about? (That's a real question, not a rhetorical one.) --Grey 11:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Good point. Non-understanding (and other pointless) content, I hope, should eventually be edited out by well-meaning editors like yourself. I don't claim to understand the nuances of Wilberianism (i.e. which blogs are evil), and I haven't tried to edit the ideas area yet myself. The wiki-theory is that contentious and clueless editors will eventually be marginalized — though it may not happen as soon as one wants. Eleuther 14:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Eleuther, I think most editors here including myself are well-meaning, except for one or two. :)ForrestLane42 16:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)ForrestLane42

[edit] Founder of "Integral Thought"?

OK, here we need to be careful about the distinction between "founder" and "proponent". As well as of the definition of the "Integral Thought movement", I suppose. Aurobindo did most of his work before Wilber was even born (having died in 1950 when Wilber was born in 1949), and first coined the term "Integral Yoga" in 1914. Does Aurobindo's "Integral Yoga" equate with the beginning of the "Integral Thought movement"? I suppose it very well might, especially if the related Wikipedia entry is to be believed (which I guess we should assume it can be), and given the fact that Wilber was very much influenced by Aurobindo. In which case, M Alan Kazlev was perfectly right to eliminate the sentence.

At the risk of starting another edit war (this time a "civil war"?), I think I'll revert back to M Alan Kazlev's version. --Grey 13:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Civilly, O colorless friend, I think the paragraph should stand, and the fact that the term integral was used previously belongs in a history section, not the intro, so I'm reverting you at least once. The paragraph also provides a context for the crabbing among Wilber and his co-integralists, so even if you can't endure "a" founder, I wish you could find a way to let the rest of it stand. Cheers, Eleuther 14:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, how about "leading proponent" in place of "founder"? That doesn't count as a revert, does it? (P.S. "Colorless friend"... nice one! ;-) --Grey 14:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Cool, nice phrasing, wish I'd thought of it. Eleuther 15:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Eleuther, why has integral philosopher returned to this page? It is clearly not the right phrase for him. 278something, sorry I dont recall his digits, constantly has pointed out that that philosopher doesn't cut it for Wilber. Its a poor choice of words. ForrestLane42 16:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)ForrestLane42

To be honest, I don't quite get why Eleuther insists on prolonging the debate over "philosopher" either. I don't personally object to the term "integral philosopher", but I think "theorist" or "thinker" are fine, too, and don't quite understand the objections to those terms either. I mean, he does "theorize" and "think", so where could the possible objection be to either term?
Actually, Wilber's Shambhala home page seems to prefer "thinker" or even "philosophical thinker", so why don't we use one of those? The latter might be a nice compromise since it doesn't state that he's a "philosopher" per se, just a thinker about philosophical topics. --Grey 17:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
It should be 'integral theorist', just because 'thinker' sounds dumb. — goethean ॐ 17:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it sounds dumb, but I'm fine with "theorist", too. I just get the feeling someone else will have complaints about it and I was hoping we could put the issue to rest, at least for a while. --Grey 17:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Loser

Hi, you're all right, I should give it up. It has nothing to do with Wilber specifically, I just don't like the idea that philosophy should be a pissy little narrow-minded term. It should be a generous and open-hearted term. Yogi Berra's a baseball philosopher, Mark Twain's a Mississippi River philosopher, Hugh Hefner's a sex philosopher, and Josef Stalin's a, well, Stalinist philosopher (and you can bet he was published in plenty of journals). So what's the problem with the word with respect to Wilber? Answer: no problem except spite. That's the last I'll say on the subject, and probably the last you'll hear from me at all. I'm not used to Buddhists, the hatred level here is too intense for me. Eleuther 17:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I have been in lengthy debates on the subject at List of major philosophers (now deleted), and I agree with you --- it's stupid. But Wikipedia is all about compromising with idiots those that disagree with you. — goethean ॐ 17:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I have repeatedly explained what the problem is with calling Wilber a philosopher (without serious qualifiers): if you call Wilber a philosopher, then you invite all sorts of parallel misnomers, such as Reich the physicist, Hubbard the psychologist, etc., etc. We've been through this so many times that I am baffled that anyone continues to claim that I am somehow arguing this point out of some imaginary spite or turf-guarding. I'm not the one who started peppering this discussion with snide, condescending remarks about "jaw dropping", or "how humorless you people are", or how "prejudiced" my "rantings" are. Despite numerous opportunities, you haven't done anything to show how my "rantings" are wrong. Instead you merely debased an initially civil disagreement into cheap taunting. And yet I am the "pissy" and "narrow-minded" one? What chutzpah! 271828182 23:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Please wipe the foam from your mouth. Reich, as a physicist, was a fraud, or perhaps was mentally ill. Hubbard, as a psychologist, was a fraud. Your obsession with these two indicates you think Wilber is likewise a fraud. Which is cool, you can think that, but you shouldn't expect to impose such a POV on the whole article. Create a section called Analogies to Dianetics and foam away. Or, if you want to be serious, stop hammering on Reich and Hubbard (and Velikovsky) and phrase your objections in terms of more legitimate people like Koestler and Penrose and Hawking and Gould and (I'm not joking) Yogi Berra, etc.
I qualified philosopher (seriously, even deprecatingly, in response to your objections) as integral philosopher and stipulated outside the academic mainstream in the second sentence — why isn't that enough? Why, I mean, except for spite? As for your repeated explanations — well, that's the problem isn't it? I've asked for sources, other than your repetitively repeated repetitions, and there aren't any. I've given James as a generous source, and can give others, along with as many dictionaries as you like to the effect that:
  • Philosophy (e.g. from the American Heritage Dictionary) is 1. a. love and pursuit of wisdom by intellectual means and moral self-discipline. b. the investigation of causes and laws underlying reality (and so forth; none the definitions, all the way down to 12, makes any mention of publication in particular journals).
  • A philosopher is one who carries out such inquiries.
Best wishes, Eleuther 14:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC).
PS. If you look back you will see that I didn't use the terms "pissy" or "narrow-minded" to describe you or any other person. I used them to describe a view of the word philosophy. Please don't take personal offense, except perhaps to the extent that you identify yourself personally with that view. Eleuther 16:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Will you stop with the insults ("foaming") already? I'll refrain if you can control yourself. (And it's a small comfort that you were only calling my ideas "pissy and narrow-minded", not me. Thanks a bunch, how polite you were being!)
Anyway, Hubbard and Reich are limit cases, but they logically follow from your suggested usage. You and I may agree that they are frauds, but their acolytes would doubtless disagree and tell us not to "impose such a POV on the whole article". Fortunately, the Scientologists have not attempted to adorn Hubbard's Wiki article with the title "psychologist". And if you want to focus instead on mild cases such as Gould, Koestler, etc. — well, I don't see what difference that makes. I've discussed them already, and you found that somehow "jaw-dropping". But it'd be just as much of a reductio of your position for Wikipedia to describe Yogi Berra as a "coach, manager, and philosopher".
And, again (ignoring my arguments and calling them "repetitively repeated repetitions" doesn't make them mere assertions or refute my reasoning), citing sources is of little help with such a deeply POV topic as defining philosophy (see the Philosophy page and its talk page for a sample). Dictionary definitions are too broad to be of much use—your AHD definition (b.) would classify physicists as philosophers, and definition (a.) would classify almost anyone as a philosopher. A Scientologist could cheerfully cite the equally broad dictionary definition of psychology (Merriam-Webster: "the science of mind and behavior") to "prove" that Old Brother Hubbard really was a psychologist. 271828182 22:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Eleuther, I am surprised, I look to you to be the mediator. You mentioned it should be "a generous and open-hearted term" which seems to imply an expansive, open ended view of what it means to be a philosopher. You used the dictionary definitions, which are adequate enough, but then you have to look at reality. A philosopher can be anyone if they have a view on something, but what makes a philosopher recognized as such is that he is recognized by his colleagues as such. ForrestLane42 17:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)ForrestLane42

If Eleuther, has abandoned responsibles for mediation, then we need a new mediator or else all is lost.ForrestLane42 17:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)ForrestLane42

[edit] ActiveDiscuss tag

Since I get the feeling we may be approaching some sort of consensus on the Wilber entry (at least no less than any other page subject to "discussion"), I was wondering when we might be able to remove the ActiveDiscuss warning from the page. I wasn't around when it was added (and I'm still something of a newbie to Wikipedia editing), so I don't think it's my place to decide when it can be removed. Thoughts? (not on my "place", but on the tag itself... ;-) --Grey 14:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

The tag should be removed. — goethean ॐ 15:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I thought consensus is bad word Grey, the tag should stay obviously it is not coming to a conclusion. You even have seen it with Ada additions, how can this page becoming more fact and less opinion? More and more the two of you seem to be in league with each other. ForrestLane42 23:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)ForrestLane42

I'm just saying that it's being discussed now no more than many other articles that don't display the ActiveDiscuss template. And please get over the fact that you now have to debate against more than just goethean and deal with it, rather than lamenting. It's getting old. --Grey 09:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I really don't see why the ActiveDiscuss tag has to be on this page. Can you, ForrestLane42, point to which "statements may be disputed, incorrect, biased or otherwise objectionable"? I really don't think this page is any more under dispute than many other pages like it that don't bear this warning. Until you can justify your position, I'm taking the tag off again. --Grey 18:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

You want statements, grey, look at as per Holotrope statements as per Dseer statements as per my statements, we all have different ideas on what should be here - thus the word disputed, incorrect, biased, etc would seem previous evident? I already know the answer, no. ForrestLane42 20:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)ForrestLane42
Statements in the article, not on the discussion page. --Grey 21:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree the tag should be removed, as the article has settled down and I see no major disagreement about article scope or POV. Sure, there are still lots of edits (and even more talk!), but any statement that is in serious dispute was removed long ago. Pro crast in a tor 00:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I understand your sentiments Pro crast, but there has been major disagreements IMO - the word "sometimes-controversial", etc, etc etc. ForrestLane42 00:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)ForrestLane42
Whether there "has (sic) been major disagreements" is entirely irrelevant. I don't see any current "major" disagreements, especially since the Adi Da influence passage was reworked. --Grey 08:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adi Da additions

I don't know who 63.152.8.250 is, but I've removed all of their additions on Adi Da to the "influences" section both in the interests of article length and because the existing sentence on Adi Da is enough of a summary of the situation in my opinion. Adding any more on the topic is clearly an attempt to discredit Wilber and his work by overemphasizing a connection with a questionable figure when such a connection -- with the figure himself -- no longer exists. --Grey 17:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

On a sidenote, obviously a connection exists when Wilber says he endorses Adi Da, Da Free John, etc's writings???ForrestLane42 23:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)ForrestLane42

A person can be a total loon in their behavior and still have perfectly sound theories and ideas. I clearly stated that Wilber has dissociated himself with Adi Da, the man with all his faults, and not necessarily with the truths underlying his work. So I don't see why Adi Da deserves any more space on the Wilber page than any of the others who have influenced him, except to briefly note this dissociation with such a controversial figure. --Grey 09:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

But first off, he has not totally disassociated with Adi Da, I think your POV is shining through clearly. But I digress, yes I agree a person can be a criminal and have brilliant insights and theories, yet he is still a criminal, or in Adi Da a cult leader, not just a controversial figure. Then don't forget that there is Andrew Cohen, who seems to be running the same path as Adi Da. Regardless, Holotrope's logic below is highly convincing. Wilber still is associated with Adi Da if only by endorsing his beliefs. ForrestLane42 06:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)ForrestLane42

Grey, you say, "I don't see why Adi Da deserves any more space on the Wilber page than any of the others who have influenced him, except to briefly note this dissociation with such a controversial figure." I will try to explain why I think Adi Da deserves more space in the "influences" section of the Wilber page than any of Wilber's other influences. The article is not about who Ken Wilber is today or about Wilber's "phase V." The article is about Ken Wilber overall, from 1949 to the present, and the "influences" section is about all of Wilber's important influences. In his own words, Adi Da was not merely a strong influence on his work during a period of time that stretches into all three of Wilber's first three phases, but was "the single strongest influence" on his work. Either one must believe that Wilber is a chronic bullshitter or an opportunistic liar when he makes such statements, or one must take such statements at face value. I take them at face value. Thus, Adi Da is a more significant influence on Ken Wilber's work overall (not just on Wilber in the present or "Wilber V") than any of the other individuals mentioned in the "influences" section. In addition, in 1998 Wilber asserted that Adi Da was the "greatest living Realizer" and the "living Sat Guru," and he has never publicly retracted these statements. The fact that he's dissociated himself from Adi Da must be considered in light of the fact that he's never retracted these statements. His dissociating himself from Adi Da appears to be strategic, as when polticians attempt to distance themselves from a colleague who did something (or was caught doing something) that leads them to no longer want their name associated with his. To the best of my knowledge, Wilber has never said that anyone other than Adi Da has been the single strongest influence on his work and he has never said that anyone other than Adi Da is the "greatest living Realizer" or the "living Sat Guru." (He has said that Ramana Maharshi is "arguably the greatest sage who ever lived," in One Taste.) The relevance here is not to the present or to Wilber V, it's to influences on Wilber's work overall, since he began to write. And come to think of it, I think the "influences" section should also include a reference to Alan Watts, for Wilber has said that he taught himself to write by literally hand-copying every single one of Watts' books (Wilber said this when he participated in a discussion at the Shambhala Ken Wilber Forum in 2001. Here's the quote: I believe I know Alan Watts’s life and work as well as anybody. I read absolutely everything he wrote (and others wrote about him). Did you know that I taught myself how to write by copying all of Watts's books? That is, I took all of his major books--at that time, around a dozen of them--and I copied them (literally every sentence)--I wrote his books out in large notebooks. I still have them downstairs. Doing so was basically how I got my "PhD" in this field. He was absolutely brilliant! He was also such a clear, clean writer. My own capacity to write fairly clear prose I learned almost entirely from Alan Watts--from copying his entire writings sentence by sentence! - Ken Wilber, Shambhala Wilber Forum, 2001). Holotrope 03:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't have any problem with reworking the influences section, and it might be the right place to briefly discuss his five phases (since they don't seem to appear anywhere else anymore) in order to put his influences in context, but I would be very careful about any attempts to discredit Wilber through the influences section by implying that he's a cult leader or actively endorses cult leaders, unless it can actually be supported with hard facts and reliable references, not supposition or the leaps in logic ForrestLane42 is prone to.
And just the fact that he changes his mind about how exactly he endorses a person is, in my mind, irrelevant because anyone is free to change their mind, especially about an "individual". If he often flip-flopped on a person's ideas, that's one thing, but changing your opinion about a person is only human and says nothing more about Wilber than about anyone else.
The same goes for any implication that Cohen is a cult leader or any other bias against Wilber's position on "nasty boy" gurus. It's obviously easy for a less-than-enlightened guru to be abusive under the guise of crazy wisdom, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the occasional punch in the arm (or whatever) under an enlightened guru can't be considered a form of crazy wisdom if it helps the odd student to wake up spiritually. At least in my opinion, and I think the Wilber article should remain neutral on the validity or otherwise of crazy wisdom in general. --Grey 09:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Grey, with all due respect because you seem motivated to protect the messenger for the sake of the message you value, you are avoiding NPOV by skirting around the issue. It is your opinion that the message is one thing, the messenger another, and that protecting the message is more important than looking at the messenger. I suggest that both a flawed. I suggest there is no obligation to protect Ken Wilber from the himself and what most consider his mistakes because you value his writings and think it might lessen his credibility. Nor, for example, I suggest was there an obligation of integrity for Ken Wilber to wait from 1985 (when the many allegations against Adi Da surfaced and a signficant number left that group) until 1996 to even begin to caveat his endorsements of Adi Da as the greatest Realizer ever, an endorsement still being used by Adidam, and that only because of intense pressure which threatened his reputation as well. That any writer with Ken's limitations would think they were so spiritually advanced as to even be in a position to make such an effusive pubic judgement about another's enlightenment is in itself indicative of the problem. Thus, the infamous "Wyatt Earp" tantrum episode of 2006 does not rise out of thin air or a bad day, it is simply a consequence of Ken acting out his long standing belief in the superiority of being a "rude boy", and his claims that: "Every deeply enlightened teacher I have known has been a Rude Boy or Nasty Girl", and his own and close followers belief that he too is a quasi-guru and "transmission" vehicle, something actually in the advertisements for his public sessions modelled after darshans in early 2006. [6].
Ken Wilber did state at the time he saw Adi Da as the most influential source for his early works and basic ideas (something those of us who've extensively studied Da can see) and had no issues with endorsing Adi Da because of his belief that the most enlightened were "rude boys and girls". Thus his endorsements of Cohen, the former 'Daists' Deida and Bonder, among other gurus, and his support of another former 'Daist' Georg Fuerstein's claim that "crazy wisdom" is highly effective, another case of someone protecting their ego rather than admitting what most would see as a mistake. One of the key influences from Adi Da was that modern enlightenment was at a higher stage, greater/more complete than traditional enlightenment, and that crazy wisdom gurus were more effective than traditional ones like Ramana Maharshi (amusing since Ramana actually had enlightened followers and none of Wilber's modern favorites are even widely accepted as enlightened). Of course, Ken's modern favorites whose claims of enlightenment were also rejected by their teachers found common cause with Adi Da and Ken Wilber's assertions that this was because enlightenment was evolutionary, for obvious reasons.
As the 'Daists' correctly point out, Ken wanted to have it both ways, telling Daists that the public wasn't ready for Adi Da, but that he still saw Adi Da as his guru, and he got outed for his hypocrisy. Ken has always told the general public he is a long time Buddhist to avoid having to deal with these issues.
Fellow integralists do think he deserves credit for popularizing integralist concepts, but a significant number do not consider him the great originator he and some have come to think he is, and have identified serious flaws in his thinking, a critical one being his personal ignorance regarding enlightenment and the spiritual levels he claims to understand and his inflated opinion of his own spiritual state.
I don't think most critics are saying that spiritual teachers never upset those who come to him. What Wilber has done is advocated and adopted Adi Da's position on so-called crazy wisdom, a much more extreme position criticized by the bulk of the traditions, which rationalizes behavior that time has shown does not produce the promised results. For example, the commonly cited example of the ordeal of Milarepa which his teacher said was necessary because he had killed many through sorcery, lasted about 4-5 years, did not go beyond his endurance, and then Milarepa was sent off to meditate and became enlightened, all within a ten year span. The traditions produce examples of results within a short period of time, the modern gurus Ken has endorsed have not. But, for all of Ken's intellectually rationalized assertions about the superiority of this approach, the results do not support his speculations. That should not be swept under the rug.
What those of us more familiar with some of these gurus and teachers see is a need for them to trivailize enlightenment and translate their own internal conflicts into a need for spiritual practice to be extremely confrontational and narcissistic whether in the role of student or teacher. And while Wilber postulates the idea of what is essentially a spiritual autistic savant to justify his claims of enlightenment, the traditional explanation and numerous examples from the past is more like that of the Icarus myth than the Narcissus myth Wilber accepted, that they let their egos take control once powers of influence arose and lost their way without reaching the goal, rather than reaching the goal with obvious deficiencies.
In short, Wilber's ideas on what enlightenment is and how it is demonstrated, and his views on crazy wisdom, are speculative and not maintream; his influences in those ideas are not mainstream; and the fact that Ken Wilber advocates his ideas both directly and indirectly, and that his major influences like Adi Da and his own actions reflect on the validity of those claims, needs to be addressed here bcause it is significant. Concisely, yes, without smearing, yes, but not swept under the rug, because Ken and his influences like Adi Da have put his ideas into practice and the results of the experiments do not support the claims. --Dseer 23:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


Grey, before you make such statements minimizing the influence of Adi Da on Ken Wilber, I suggest you explain the material compiled here: [7]. Wilber's first written endorsement of Adi Da goes back to 1979, and as pointed out, he has yet to publically renounce his last statement as recently of August of 1998, which still says that he considers Adi Da "one of the greatest Spiritual Realizers of all time", and that "who feel a strong pull toward complete and total surrender of their lives to a spiritual Master, I can certainly recommend Adi Da — with all the caveats of which I have written".[8]. It is worthwhile noting the broader importance of that influence and relationship on the evolution of Wilber's writings. And that that influence can be found in Wilber's advocacy of the superiority of "the outlaws, the living terrors, the Rude Boys and Nasty Girls of God realization" if you want enlightenment. As for Adi Da's truth's, Kens seems to have missed the scope of Adi Da's derivative use of concepts which the guru then claims as his own. As I said above, the signficance of Adid Da's influence needs appropriate mention. --Dseer 08:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Grey, before you make such statements minimizing the influence of Adi Da on Ken Wilber, I suggest you explain the material compiled here: [9]. Wilber's first written endorsement of Adi Da goes back to 1979, and as pointed out, he has yet to publically renounce his last statement as recently of August of 1998, which still says that he considers Adi Da "one of the greatest Spiritual Realizers of all time", and that "who feel a strong pull toward complete and total surrender of their lives to a spiritual Master, I can certainly recommend Adi Da — with all the caveats of which I have written".[10]. It is worthwhile noting the broader importance of that influence and relationship on the evolution of Wilber's writings. And that that influence can be found in Wilber's advocacy of the superiority of "the outlaws, the living terrors, the Rude Boys and Nasty Girls of God realization" if you want enlightenment. As for Adi Da's truth's, Kens seems to have missed the scope of Adi Da's derivative use of concepts which the guru then claims as his own. As I said above, the signficance of Adid Da's influence needs appropriate mention. --Dseer 08:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


Grey, its a tired charge you use that you want to keep Wilber's article neutral. I dont think anyone is trying to make it POV. By the way, goethean is very quiet, I guest this should mean you are his meatpuppet? Does no one think there is a connection going on? ForrestLane42 18:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)ForrestLane42


Grey, how can you want Wilber's article to be neutral, when ALL your editing revolves around integralism - 95% of your edits are on Wilber or his talk page, and every other edit is on Clare Graves, Adi Da. But no, your interests remains bias free. ForrestLane42 20:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)ForrestLane42

(Personal attack removed)Shouldn't the article lie in the middle? I have been watching all this whole discussion and can't help to think that everyone is talking past each others and no real dialogue is occurring. I think there should be a vote of no confidence in many of the editors here with few exceptions. It is obvious that once parties seem to simmer down, some Wilberian will come along and revert all edits. I think it is a good idea to keep a tag like current one or the one offered above or one that protects the page from anonymous editing at the very least.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.183.132.110 (talk • contribs).

I do not favor excluding Wilberians, but rather addressing their bias and misinformation to maintain NPOV. Ken Wilber has a huge ego along with a gift for writing, and crafts his verbal smokescreen well. You can't blame everyone for not seeing through it, because it can be hard to see how derivative Ken really is unless you look at the sources, just as it is hard for many, including Ken himself, to see how derivative Adi Da was. It can be hard to see that Ken wants to go one step further than Alan Watts, and has for a long time really been associating with suspect gurus and their ideas to incorporate the model and lay the foundation for acceptance of his own preferred legacy as being a "spiritual" pundit and teacher in his own right, although more and more long time supporters are finally seeing it, particularly after the Wyatt Earp fiasco. --Dseer 23:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Wyatt Earpy "fiasco"? Whatever. I don't know enough about Adi Da yet to confidently debate that specific issue any further for the moment, but I do very much question your assumptions that the "traditions" are somehow intrinsically superior and beyond question and that the mainstream is where we are to find all truths. You also appear to refute the entire concept of evolutionary spirituality, which explains why you are so strongly anti-Wilber et al.
However, I also realize now that Wikipedia is a work for the mainstream, so I suppose I should let the mainstream do whatever they want to the Wilber article. So go for it, dudes! Have fun! --Grey 09:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Grey, who are the 'mainstream dudes' here? Dseer? Me? Your approach to discussion here violates this "talk page guideline": "Assume good faith and treat the other person in the discussion as a fellow editor, who is a thinking, feeling person, trying to contribute positively to Wikipedia, just like you - unless, of course, you have objective proof to the contrary, which can be validated by a third party. Someone's disagreeing with you is no such proof!" You don't know me, I doubt you know Dseer or anyone else here with whom you may have editorial differences, and your comment about letting "the mainstream do whatever they want to the Wilber article" is inappropriate and presumptuous. Holotrope 13:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

For that matter, DSeer also violated Wikipedia guidelines when he characterized Gadrane's views as "bias and misinformation". I didn't take offense to DSeer's comment because I'm not a Wilberian. — goethean ॐ 15:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Gothean, et al, let me make clear I was not referring to Grey/Gadrane! I was only responding to a comment that Wilberians in general should be restricted from editing this article by saying that instead bias and misinformation from Wilberians should simply be addressed. I other words, I was asking for continued dialogue, not censorship and not driving somebody away. I have no reason to doubt that Grey is not familiar with the relationship between Da and Wilber. The only request I made of Grey was to keep an open mind and not just believe everything coming from the Wilber organization, I do think there is sufficient evidence to show that that organization has not been that forthcomingon the subject of Wilber's views on Da, etc. --Dseer 01:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


Now do you see goethean/grey? This page is far from being NPOV, the ACTIVE DISCUSS TAG SHOULD GO BACK UP. Dseer I would say you to agree to this?? How can you disagree grey/goethean, its blatant! So as Dseer says there should be continual dialogue not presumptous contempt for other editors disagree with you, got that goethena/grey? As for goethean to accuse Dseer of anything negative that is uncalled for; look to your own talk page, goethean, you have many people who would say that your style of editing is underhanded and contemptous i.e. Zen, political bias,etc ForrestLane42 03:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)ForrestLane42

As for grey, gadrane, what ever name you go by these days -- Wikipedia is a work in progress for knowledge, not misinformation, not bias...facts are not mainstream or nonmainstream, they just are. There can be a perception of what the "facts" are -i.e. POV, but facts are objective points of reference. You and your "friend" keep misconstruing what I mean by the use of the word "consensus" . Consensus means "Agreement in the judgment or opinion reached by a group as a whole" - now you have what 5 or 6 editors here and maybe hundred others who are lurking here, who edit this entry, thus it is implicit I am saying - do we have agreement that this is a fact and verifiable, and NPOV ForrestLane42 03:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)ForrestLane42

I should just ignore you, ForrestLane42, but I guess it's stronger than me.
Now do you see goethean/grey? ... As for grey, gadrane, what ever name you go by these days
Would you PLEASE give it a rest!! For the last #@$&% time, I'm a real person with my own ideas and not a "meatpuppet" of goethean!!
And just because an article is still open to discussion and development does not mean that it contains POV and is "objectionable". It is most certainly not "blatant", as you call it. If you think an important fact is missing, just add it, but keep in mind that you can create bias by overemphasizing only the "facts" (which are not nearly as "objective" as you claim, but that's another issue) that you want to see.
And in the case of Adi Da, given how he is seen by most people, we need to be careful not to make Wilber guilty purely by association. My feeling is that, by emphasizing merely the link between Adi Da and Wilber without going into a certain amount of detail on why Wilber was so strongly influenced him, we will lead most readers to conclude that Wilber must be a sort of aspiring cult leader himself (not that I'm convinced Adi Da should be placed in the same category as the Jim Joneses of the world), which is bias and POV. I also don't think that this article is the place to go into such details. This is why I favor a concise summary of the current situation concerning Adi Da, not because I'm trying to hide the facts. I simply don't see how else we can do the issue justice (neutrally speaking) while still keeping the article fairly concise and not going off on a tangent. But if anyone has suggestions, feel free to give it a try in the article and we'll see. --Grey 13:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
(Personal attack removed) By avoiding Adi Da and his influence on the fledging Wilber, then you ignore the facts of his past. but we aren't accusing him of guilt, just his shady relations. See this statement of yours "And just because an article is still open to discussion and development does not mean that it contains POV and is "objectionable". It is most certainly not "blatant", as you call it-" is your unwillingness to entertain my views, thus it is your subjective POV. So as you said its stronger than me, maybe you should meditate on it for a while, (Personal attack removed) - I think I have backed down on some of your edits, why can't you afford me that respect as well? ForrestLane42 16:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)ForrestLane42
I have removed the personal attacks from your comments. Please discuss the article rather than editors. — goethean ॐ 16:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

removed or hiding your guilt? There's a difference, if you want what you requested above, then stop the personal attacks against me. thank you. ForrestLane42 20:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)ForrestLane42

I think I have backed down on some of your edits, why can't you afford me that respect as well?
You really don't want me to answer that question... but the fact is you haven't provided any convincing reasoning to support your positions. Coming to agreement on an issue isn't a matter of "backing down"; it's a matter of discussing the issue, presenting reasoned arguments from both sides, and having an open mind in order to find a solution that both sides can accept (which I have had no problem doing with other edits by other editors). And if you want respect, accusing me of being goethean's lackey (or goethean in disguise), which you have done ever since I got here, is definitely not the way to get it. --Grey 17:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Stop taking my words for being so literal, grey. And you still have never answered what I asked - your apparent bias for Wilber,your disrespect for anything other than your friend goethean. Even after someone told you that I had some points, it didn't matter you are determined to have it as your vision, like goethean's vision - who claims not to be a Wilberian, but I think he says he is the originator of making this article. Day one you came here with an agenda. I am so sick of the blatant disrespect to all the editors. I so much want to give up editing this article, but then you win because it seems like u looking for sole control of the article, we have driven Eleauther the mediator of this article, so okay Grey and goethean have fun, reverse all the hardwork. I give up.....I give up. You win, go buy yourself a cigar for you and goethean. Doesn't matter in the end because Wilber will always remain a fringe movement. ForrestLane42 20:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)ForrestLane42

Grey, Let me first put here what I earlier posted to your talk page:
Regarding your comments, Grey, it is understandable that you wouldn't know much about the influence of Adi Da on KW, because KW emphasizes that he is a long time Buddhist to avoid the issue and you would have to wade through earlier "Daist" writings to see it. In 1979, Adi Da was criticizing scientific materialism, teaching that he was the first enlightened being in the west and that he was trying to establish a "western way" that integrated the best of east and west, was integrating Advaita and Buddhism, was criticizing cultism and the persecution of spiritual heros, claimed his behaviors were explained by crazy wisdom, and advocated a new stage of enlightenment he had attained. So KW actively endorsed Adi Da and his ideas as the greatest ever--most observers who know about Adi Da see "The Atman Project" (Buddhists which he claims to be don't advocate an Atman concept) as simply reworked "Daism", and the "Daists" rightly see KW as using Adi Da as a font of ideas which he reworked and popularized. "Daists" still use his endorsements, while criticizing his caveated recommendation of Adi Da, today...
...So try and keep an open mind, instead of just thinking critics don't understand him, and explore all the background on this issue, not just the material the KW organization cranks out and how they interpret the traditions. KW is human, his ego is big, his endorsements are speculative, and his reaction to critics is human rather than objective. Why do you think more and more long time admirers are turning away and citing cultic thinking around him? None of this means I do not think KWs ideas should be accurately reported simply because he isn't mainstream. --Dseer 20:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gadrane".
Now, regarding your comments above, Grey, why use Jim Jones as the standard for a cult leader, when Jim Jones is an extreme case. Mass suicides are not needed to qualify for being an authoritarian cult leader. There is a wide range from relatively benign cults to highly destructive ones. The point is that Ken Wilber was deeply attracted to and influenced by Adi Da for a large period of time, and the "why" is likely based on the reasons I indicated above, that Ken read Adi Da's claims of being the first Western Realizer and the fulfillment of all spiritual traditions east and west, and seeming vast knowledge of everything, as Da being an Integral and heroic figure, rather than the grand narcissism of making everything relate to himself that most observers see. This was not some passing endorsement, it was a claim that Adi Da was the greatest Realizer ever, his teaching the most profound ever, not fully retracted publically even to this day, and Adi Da's influence can still be seen in Wilber's works, in his views about gurus, his view of the goal of spiritual practice, and use of certain terminologies. That is not guilt by association, it is true. One's heroes do say something about one's beliefs. It can and should be said concisely. --Dseer 08:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Because when the average person hears the word "cult", they generally think of the worst cases like Jim Jones, or at the very least assume that "cult" refers to something inherently "bad" to a lesser or greater extent. And in the case of Adi Da, he has largely been judged based on the fact that his teachings apparently involve sex, alcohol and at at least a certain amount of drugs (and the usual claims of "undue influence" and that sort of thing, which are highly subjective). I don't know enough about Adi Da to say whether he uses these activities in a truly "spiritual" manner or not, but I have an open enough mind to allow for the possibility that he does. (I do suspect he at least suffers from delusions of grandeur to some extent, but there, too, I don't really know enough about him to say for sure.)
Point being maybe he should be seen in the same category as the "bad" cults and maybe he shouldn't, but by focusing solely on the connection between Adi Da and Wilber without going into more detail than perhaps is appropriate for this article in order to explain how Wilber has been influenced by Adi Da, most people will likely apply their prejudice against Adi Da (and all "cults") to Wilber, as well, which I don't think is supported by the facts -- including your claim that "more and more long time admirers" are accusing Wilber of "cultic thinking" or the fact that fans in the Integral Institute online forums may be saying things that would indicate they might be inclined to join some sort of Wilberian "cult" (if such a thing existed).
Which, as I've said before, is why I think we need to be careful about how much we say about this connection. Considering that Adi Da alone already accounts for about a third of the Influences section and that the quote about The Dawn Horse Testament is quite a decisive claim, I think we've already said enough about the importance of his influence, but if you have a suggestion for concisely reworking it, you're obviously free to propose it. --Grey 11:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
As I pointed out earlier, the mention of Adi Da is in the wrong place at the end of the section, since Adi Da isn't an influence just on Wilber's ideas on evolution. This happened during the trimming down of lengthy references to Adi Da previously in a separate paragraph.
I do understand what you are trying to say, the point is to be concise and proportionate among influences. I have proposed something like this:
Wilber's conception of the perennial philosophy has been primarily influenced by Madhyamika Buddhism, particularly as articulated in the philosophy of Nagarjuna.[8] Wilber has been a dedicated practitioner of Buddhist meditation since his college years, and has studied under some widely recognized Buddhists, such as Dainin Katagiri, Maezumi Roshi, Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche, Kalu Rinpoche, Penor Rinpoche and Chagdud Tulku Rinpoche. The nondual mysticism of Advaita Vedanta, Tibetan Buddhism, Zen Buddhism, Plotinus, Ramana Maharshi, and Andrew Cohen, along with the teaching and works of Adi Da, which Wilber has on several occasions singled out for the highest praise while expressing reservations about his behavior, are also strong influences. These influences have led Wilber to assert that those desiring enlightenment should seek out "the outlaws, the living terrors, the Rude Boys and Nasty Girls of God realization" and that: "Every deeply enlightened teacher I have known has been a Rude Boy or Nasty Girl". [11]
Wilber's conception of evolution or psychological development draws on Adi Da, Aurobindo, Andrew Cohen, Jean Gebser, the great chain of being, German idealism, Erich Jantsch, Jean Piaget, Abraham Maslow, Erik Erikson, Lawrence Kohlberg, Howard Gardner, Clare W. Graves, Robert Kegan and Spiral Dynamics.
What is do not agree with is the idea that we not address Wilber's associations with Adi Da, Andrew Cohen, which is based on his stated personal beliefs about what a deeply enlightened teacher is, a rude boy or nasty girl. The above simply points out that Adi Da has been a significant influence, among others. --Dseer 03:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
I have no problem with reworking the influences section like this. Make sure you don't lose the important references, though. And I might make one or two minor stylistic changes, but I'll wait to see the text as it appears in the article to suggest those. --Grey 07:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Have you ever heard of Jesus of Nazareth? He was a cult leader, all religions begins as cults, then sects,etc This is just the historical evolution of religions. Now I am not saying Adi Da is a religion, they claim to be but it takes a long time for a cult to become a bono fide religion. So cults are not either all bad or all good. A cult is a neutral word, yes in people minds they think of them negatively but most people are not educated to begin with. ForrestLane42 22:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)ForrestLane42

Again you fail to use proper indenting, and again you miss my point completely. There's absolutely no need to argue about good or bad cults because I've already said that cults are not necessarily bad. And whether or not "most people are not educated to begin with" is entirely irrelevant. Whether educated or not, most people (including me) instinctively think first of the "bad" cults when they hear the word before their brain kicks in to tell them that not all cults are bad. Hence the need to be careful about how exactly we describe the connections between Wilber and any (alleged or "actual") "cult" leaders. Connection without the proper context will tend to promote bias. --Grey 07:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Continuing after interruption

Sorry, I didn't realize that "mainstream" was an insult. My reasoning still stands though, because being a work of "consensus", Wikipedia is necessarily a work of the mainstream, and I'm personally tired of arguing with people who are convinced that academia, tradition, and current consensus are the definitions of "fact". Maybe you're right and I'm wrong, and that's fine, but I'm done debating and being attacked for my ideas. That's all I'm saying, and if that's inappropriate, then that's even more reason for me to bow out of the debate. --Grey 18:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why you say that you didn't realize that "mainstream" was an insult, because I didn't say or imply that I thought it was an insult, and I don't think it's an insult. I asked who you think the mainstream dudes are here so I could better understand your reasoning. Based on your response, I gather that you believe there are "mainstream" editors here who are "are convinced that academia, tradition, and current consensus are the definitions of 'fact'" versus non-mainstream editors, like yourself, who are are not convinced that academia, tradition, and current consensus are the definitions of "fact." I'm at a loss to see your point. It's either a fact that Ken Wilber was born in 1949 or it's not a fact. This has nothing to do with whether one sees things in "mainstream" or non-mainstream terms as you use the word "mainstream" here. It's either a fact or it isn't a fact that Ken Wilber said in 1984 that Da was the "single strongest influence" on his work. Again, this isn't a "mainstream" versus non-mainstream issue. As for whether a quote of Wilber saying that should be included in the "influences" section, that's not an issue of fact, it's an editorial issue, and it's not the case that only "mainstream" people (who are "convinced that academia," etc.) think that quote should be included. Holotrope 20:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

If I could respond to that, I think it's not a matter of fact versus fiction, but that the particular selection of facts that each of us prefers reflects our POV. Holotrope, you prefer a selection of facts that emphsizes the influence or Adi Da on Wilber. People who are more sympathetic to Wilber see those facts as less relevant details and see the emphasis on those facts as motivated by a desire to paint KW in a darker (or different) light. — goethean ॐ 20:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Goethean, I don't think and did not suggest that it's a matter of fact versus "fiction." I said that it's either a fact or it isn't that Wilber said in 1984 that Da was the "single strongest influence" on his work. It is a fact, and that's not what's at issue. The issue is as I put it and as you put it, which has to do with which facts should be selected for inclusion in the entry, in this case in the "influences" section. An accurate Wikipedia entry on Thomas Jefferson will (and does) include references to the Sally Hemings controversy. The Wikipedia entry for Bill Clinton includes a long section on "controversies," including a direct link to accusations of rape made by Juanita Broaddrick. This has to do with accuracy, not whether or not one is more or less sympathetic toward Jefferson or Clinton. Just so, I maintain that an accurate Wikipedia entry on Ken Wilber would include references to Da's influences on the early Wilber as well as to the "Adi Da controversy." There is a link to a site that explores that controversy from a Daist point of view, and personally I think that link is sufficient to cover that aspect of Wilber's relationship with Da, but I think the "influences" section would be more complete and accurate if it included a specific reference to the fact that in 1984 Ken Wilber stated in black and white that Da was the "single strongest influence" on his work at that time and had been for several years prior to that. I see the issue of motivations that you raise to be irrelevant to this discussion. Sure, someone might be "motivated by a desire to paint KW in a darker...light," and someone else might be motivated by a desire to paint KW in a whitewashed light, but so what? The only relevant question here is what the "influences" section of the entry for Ken Wilber should say about Da's influence on his work during early phases of his work. Da's influence on the early Wilber is quite evident to those familiar with Da's and Wilber's work. Wilber's notion of the "Atman project," aspects of his early formulations of a stage model, his ideas about "Rude Boys" (a euphemism for teachers who make what Wilber considers skillful use of "crazy wise" teaching methods), his use of terms like "the self-contraction," "always already," and "yogis, saints, and sages," and more can all be traced to his being influenced early on by Da. Several ranking members of II are former Daists. David Deida was involved with Da's group at one point. Saniel Bonder was a Da devotee for 18 years. Terry Patten was also a long term devotee, and at least one other high ranking II member was also a Daist. Wilber's ideas about what in One Taste and elsewhere he calls the "Guru principle" are clearly influenced by Da. In 1984 (in the same issue of Laughing Man magazine I've quoted from), Wilber says that Da is "the Divine Person as World Event" and "the Primal Adept." In 1998 he says that Da is "the living Sat Guru" and the "greatest living Realizer." Based on what I've seen here I have no expectation that an accurate and neutral Wikipedia entry for Ken Wilber is possible, at least not at this time. The situation is too polarized. Holotrope 22:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

i have to agree - a college friend turned me on to wilber, and i remain a great fan of some of his work - giving us his exemplar of how different fields may complement each other for a whole view of the world, including his advocacy of the necessity of the subjective and intersubjective lifeworlds, for instance. but i think that, among other things, the war metaphor can easily go to one's head (e.g., we've seen samurai and cowboy varieties here); wilber is awful sharp, and it's easier to give oneself the benefit of the doubt than another, even when you're not the smartest kid in the classroom. and yeah, i know that sounds "green" as all get-out, but there it is. - Metanoid 02:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Justify My Position?!

This page is nowhere near to done case in point Adi Da! That simple fact alone says that this page is far from NPOV consensus. If everyone disagrees, then the tag above should be placed on this page, HOW bout the person who removed it justify their position, gadrane or goethean? If one was going to remove the tag, then it should be discussed in the talk page FIRST, but they did not. So I am going to revert, please bring it here, before you revert without discussion! ForrestLane42 19:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)ForrestLane42

Since goethean/gadrane think they can ignore simple rules of engagement, I ask everyone to see why should this "inaccurate log" be undone? Has this page come to NPOV, no it has not you have the case of Adi Da additions, the case for adding "sometimes" controversial when all indications are that you can't be "sometimes" controversial, in fact I would say it could be said seen by some as controversial which is clearly NPOV! - Does anyone not see that goethean/gadrane clearly have disregard for all the editors on this page? I guess this page should just be left to the Pro-Wilberians, even after they have their IntegralWiki which ooozes POV on their pages especially their page on Ken Wilber. ForrestLane42 20:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)ForrestLane42

I'm not going to glorify most of your comments here by offering a response to them, but I would like to point out that I did start a discussion before removing the tag, and no one provided any reasonable arguments to justify keeping it. Nor have they yet. Just because a page is being developed doesn't mean that it is "disputed, incorrect, biased or otherwise objectionable". If you think something is missing, then add it and we'll see if it flies, but I don't think you can say that the information that's there now is "objectionable". Even the Adi Da references that may be "missing" are nothing so important as to warrant the ActiveDiscuss tag, in my opinion. In any event, the burden of proof should be on those who support the tag, not on those who think it's unnecessary. You can point to the objectionable passages, whereas I cannot point to the unobjectionable ones to support my case. "Innocent until proven guilty" after all. --Grey 10:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

No, you still haven't made your case, Grey. Looking back you only have goethean's support, that is far from having the consensus of the editors support. Besides, goethean and you are in lock step with each other, I haven't seen a bone of contention between the two of you? Hmm...wonder why? So no, it does fall on my side entirely, it never does, this is not a court, this is editing,so the analogy does not work here. When you say "we'll see if it flies" who are you saying you? you and goethean?

As for your comment - "reasonable arguments to justify keeping it" sounds like goethean's style of elitism. I did make a very reasonable argument - the fact that you miss because u must not want to see it is that there has been little reason to suppose that everyone agrees with the final product, for example again we talked about meditation - we spent at least 10 KB on discussing it, on the SINGLE word "controversial" we spend a day or two on that, we only have had your argument for not keeping. Rather than say hey lets take a vote or lets see what everyone thinks, you took it upon yourself to revert the edit and then reverse it again and again, maybe even violating the 3-RR rule at least in the spirit you have. Is this now the article of "your vision"? All you have done what you and goethean do, is talk past the editors.ForrestLane42 15:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)ForrestLane42

[edit] Wilber's work unverifiable?

How can you say that you do not have a vendetta against me when you revert my edit with a nasty, inappropriate retort and then look at your mistake and revert my edit - you not only mis-read the edit, you had a kneejerk reaction because you are pushing your POV onto this page! For once, act in good faith with me. Just another example of kneejerk editing... Not holding my breath for good faith to finally be initiated....ForrestLane42 20:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)ForrestLane42

Setting aside the question of whether your comments here are appropriate (just let it go already!) -- and I'd like to just clarify that I agree goethean probably had something of a kneejerk reaction -- I'm not so sure that your edit is an accurate statement the way it's worded now. And this for at least two reasons:
  • Is all of Wilber's work unverifiable by traditional scientific method (as your wording would imply)?
  • How exactly are we to define "scientific method" for these purposes? For example, it could be argued that Wilber is using "traditional scientific method" to develop his "integral mathematics" (which could then be used to verify some of his work) -- not that integral mathematics itself is "traditional", just the methods used to develop it.
I'm not necessarily attempting to refute the entire underlying concept you're trying to express, but I'm concerned that it should probably be worded differently in order to more accurately present the facts. Also, and perhaps most importantly:
  • Can you support this claim with references? Otherwise, it might be considered original research. In other words, how do you know his work can't be verified by traditional scientific methods?
This last point is particularly important because what you're essentially saying is that academians are ignoring Wilber's work because they feel his work cannot be verified and so there's no point in trying, but unless you can cite sources to support this, we can't really make any claims as to what academians are thinking or why they're ignoring Wilber's work. --Grey 09:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Gadrane give it a rest, this statement is far from removed from the facts - dont let your POV shined through. And by the way, since when does goethean need you to stick up for him? No I am not giving anything a rest, when you and others run this page with an iron fist, but thats besides the point. Besides even your comrade, goethean has not disapproved yet of the wording..

I'll look at all of your comments one by one..

  • Is all of Wilber's work unverifiable by traditional scientific method (as your wording would imply)?

We have discussed this issue ad nausem it is tied into the fact that his work is nearly ignored by academy and the scientific community. Do you see any scientist testing his theories, don't excuse the fact that Wilber does not respond to his critics directly and refuses a debate at every point unless you concede his basic tenets. Go ask some professors around the country, have you heard of Wilber? If so, what do you think? If you were to take a glimpse at universities the facts would be simply - his work is not on any syllabus, his work is left to those who are seeking answers outside of science, just because he employs science to "prove" his theory, does not make his "theories" anymore scientific. Have you seen utube, he has a video of himself with some miniEKG machine and he shows his amazing ability to make it turn to zero or a single line, can we take this as a scientific experiment hardly...a scientific experment has to be repeatable, by not just Wilber but others, do we know that the machine was not tinkered with, is Wilber looking for a personal agenda to be verified by the success of keeping it at zero? A traditional scientist would look to these kinds of questions be answered and open to scrutiny of critics, Wilber does not do this. Its kind like, those who think we didn't walk on the moon, its in the eye of the believer or disbeliever for that matter to decide if it was scientific, observable fact that the man walked on the moon.


  • How exactly are we to define "scientific method" for these purposes? For example, it could be argued that Wilber is using "traditional scientific method" to develop his "integral mathematics" (which could then be used to verify some of his work) -- not that integral mathematics itself is "traditional", just the methods used to develop it.

I can't comment on integral mathematics because I don't know enough about it. Scientific method is according to Wikipedia as " Scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena and acquiring new knowledge, as well as for correcting and integrating previous knowledge. It is based on gathering observable, empirical, measurable evidence, subject to the principles of reasoning." Taking from that "observable, empirical and measurable evidence, subject to the priniciples of reasoning" . For instance, can his AQAL model be observed? Can we measure how someone achieves nondual consciousness? Can it be measured by outside observers? Is his work mean empirical standards?

Also don't forget that any scientific experiment has to go through a peer-reviewed committee by fellow scientists, has Wilber's work been looked at through peer-review process, to my knowledge, NO. Has his work be replicated by other scientists - since he is barely mentioned in peer-reviewed journal - the answer is NO. Any theory starts out as a hypothesis, a hunch, all Wilber has is in the end is hypotheses.


  • Can you support this claim with references? Otherwise, it might be considered original research. In other words, how do you know his work can't be verified by traditional scientific methods?

Can you support your claim with references? As far as I understand original research is taknig something off a website? I could be wrong. How do YOU know that his work CAN be verified by traditional scientific method? If you are asking me who do I know - I am making inferences right now from the fact that there is no peer-review journal or university that is experimenting with Wilber's work - then all you leave me to is to expect you to prove your view that his work can be verified all I got is a hunch or a hypothesis that your goal is POV-related and kneejerk reaction to someone who disagrees with you as well as a hunch that you think the same of me. :)


This last point is particularly important because what you're essentially saying is that academians are ignoring Wilber's work because they feel his work cannot be verified and so there's no point in trying, but unless you can cite sources to support this, we can't really make any claims as to what academians are thinking or why they're ignoring Wilber's work.

I am inferring the fact that universities/academians will only spend time and research money on experiments that will lead to either some support of some professor's/student's theory and/or meets the criteria of the scientific method. As for your comment "and so there's no point in trying. This is your personal inference. Your comment can be better translated into there is no point in trying because we can't get the research money to try, and if you could it would be through private means, and by private means the scientific method process is subject to scrutiny and will be ignored because the moneylender is pushing their own agenda.

I do not see the statement to reflect a POV, but the fact that we have already stated his work is nearly ignored by academians, this underpins this fact and then you have negative press mentioned in passing in the reception section, but have a paragraph saying how many people are embracing Wilber. And lastly, have you noticed that every single time I make an edit, you seemingly have a problem with it? Do you reserve your scrutiny for other editors, such as Dseer, goethean, etc? It can't be just the fact that you think I'm pushing POV, because its obvious you are pushing your POV as well, so why single me out in bad faith? ForrestLane42 16:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)ForrestLane42

I am making inferences right now from the fact that there is no peer-review journal or university that is experimenting with Wilber's work
and also:
I am inferring the fact that universities/academians will only spend time and research money on experiments that will lead to either some support of some professor's/student's theory and/or meets the criteria of the scientific method.
Thank you for making my point for me. You cannot make a claim based solely on your inferences as to why academia has ignored Wilber. The fact that his is (largely) ignored can be supported and so is already in the article, but your reason for this lack of attention is pure hearsay unless you can support it with reliable sources. I have no burden to disprove your claim; it is up to you to support it, which you haven't. As such, I will be removing it shortly unless you can provide a more compelling argument. --Grey 20:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Gadrane, let everyone talk on this issue BEFORE YOU get to decide anything. You have the burden to prove your claim. I have supported it but you fail to listen to my counterpoints, because you are pushing your PRO-WILBERIAN agenda. Your statement - "The fact that his is (largely) ignored can be supported and so is already in the article, but your reason for this lack of attention is pure hearsay unless you can support it with reliable sources. " contradicts itself. The fact is that is a reasonable inference that since his work is not published widely and discussed in universities kind of saying that his work isn't seen as verifiable or worthy of trying to be verifiable because it lacks any of the aforementioned merits of the scientific method that is ignored thoroughly through Wilber's work. You are pushing only your agenda and do not seek to have an honest debate about anything related to Wilber. Have fun with ruining everyone's work on here. In the end Wilber's page is an example of wikireality, good thing in realit wilber is not but a religious hack. It is pathetic that a minority here is trying to make Wilber come out selling of all roses. ForrestLane42 21:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)ForrestLane42

You need to stop making personal attacks. — goethean ॐ 23:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Would love to have civility, but you and gadrane have never been respectful to me in the first place ForrestLane42 00:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)ForrestLane42

It does not follow that since Mr. Wilber is not referred to in peer reviewed journals, that this says anything about scientific verifiability. Many subjects have a hard time with verifiability, like how to do a double-blind test with acupuncture (can't acupuncture someone without them knowing it, so standard double-blind testing can't work), and even hard sciences like string theory and parts of particle physics are currently untestable, yet these topics generate thousands of peer-reviewed articles. Verifiability has little relation to noteworthiness. Also, the possible reasons for _not_ writing about Ken Wilber is limitless, and any generalization is bound to be incorrect. Pro crast in a tor 00:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Can you cite the reasons for why Wilber is not written about or studied? ForrestLane42 00:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)ForrestLane42
No, and hence I (and no one else) make no claims on this topic. All we can say is the fact that there is little writing about him in academic journals: anything written about why he isn't written about, is pure speculation. As Gadrane points out above, anyone that adds a reason has the burden of proof. Since I don't believe there is any way to establish a reason, the fact needs to stand alone, without explanation, and let the reader draw from it what they will. Pro crast in a tor 03:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Precisely. I couldn't agree more with all that you've added here. --Grey 08:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Here is a website as a source that Wilber and the scientific method don't match, http://www.kheper.net/topics/Wilber/Wilbers_method-critique.html, but it doesn't matter since you will dismiss it as being biased, etc, etc. So what's the point of giving your sources when you will cherrypick which sources are hannitized to your liking.Then look at Ken Wilber's own words that logical positivism, which underpins scientific method to a major extent - go to his website, where he writes a long, abusive and dismissive response to Albert Ellis, who is respected by far in psychological circles. But his response, is typical of Wilber's rant, illogical way of dealing with his critics. In the end, this page of Ken Wilber is of the Wilberians, by Wilberians, and for the Wilberians. No one can change that. ForrestLane42 18:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)ForrestLane42

Here's what I think is the relevant section from your source: "No Method of Verification or Falsification For all the persuasiveness of Wilber's three-fold method, there is one thing missing. There is no possibility of verification or Popperian falsification, such as one finds in Scientific Method. For example, a single child with a genuine mystical experience would be sufficient to demolish Wilber's Pre-Trans theory. Incidentally, both Adidam and Mirra describe such experiences in their own childhood. " This is just a statement of fact, and there's no support in here for the idea that the reason he's not found in academic journals is for this reason. Or is there another sentence that's more appropriate I missed? Pro crast in a tor 09:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Not to mention the fact that much of this can be refuted simply by pointing out that Wilber's "Pre-Trans theory" (as M Alan Kazlev calls it here) allows for higher states, but distinguishes these from higher stages, so Adi Da or Joe Blow can experience mystical states as children, but this does not mean that that child has achieved a higher stage of spiritual development.
In any event, and more importantly, the whole article is merely one person's critique of Wilber's work, and the author himself admits at the beginning of the article that there may be holes in his understanding of Wilber. All due respect to Alan (with whom I've had a fair amount of stimulating discussion off-WP), but it is essentially just his opinion and, therefore, not a reliable source to support ForrestLane42's claim even if there is a more specific statement somewhere in the article. --Grey 11:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
AS expected if I brought any sources, there would not be acceptance because you will do exactly what you did say its biased, its unbalanced, etc. So what sources would you except? Surely, Wilber if he were to say it, but who else? If Einstein came back from the grave, said Wilber's work is unscientific, would you except it as a source? I think it more than objectively seen that Wilber's work is outside the bounds of what's seen as science today. Maybe a hundred years from now, Wilber's work will be as mainstream, taught in universities,etc who knows, but for now the scientific paradigm doesnt value Wilber at this moment. 204.183.184.114 15:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)ForrestLane42
None of which has anything to do with your claim that he is ignored by academia because his work is unverifiable. His work may be largely ignored by academia, and let's say purely for the sake of argument that it's unverifiable, but you still need to support the connection between the two. Psi is largely ignored by academia, and many people might claim (out of ignorance or bias) that it's unverifiable, but the reasons psi is largely ignored by academia have nothing at all to do with its verifiability. (And is the colon key on your keyboard broken or something?) --Grey 18:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't start a personal attack, grey to begin with your last cute statement, I wont speak on PSI because I know little or nothing about it. I know you say its my burden, but if since you seem to disagree, can you explain to use how Wilber's theories are verifiable, rather than setting me up as a straw man, explain why his work is ignored by academia, explain how Wilber's theories can be translated to a scientific experiment to prove or replicate his findings? How about explaining how his theory achieves parisomy, a central tenet of any theory that is taught as science today. But I dont think anyone will, because its a theory that is non-parisomy. Wilber uses Freud a lot at least in his earlier works, do you see Freud's work being considered scientific by today's measure? Regardless, as much as you say I can't "make" a claim to his theory being "unverifiable" the same goes for grey, in that he can't "make" a claim that Wilber is verifiable. So in the end, its a leap of faith to believe or not to believe in Wilber and his theories. This has been a fun adventure in how dialogue never gets achieved, how I-Thou is destroyed from the very beginning... 204.183.184.114 18:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)ForrestLane42

Attack? I was merely using humor to point out your constant failure to follow simple discussion protocol. But whatever.
And do you even understand Occam's razor (which is what I assume you mean by "parisomy (sic)")? Just because a theory is complex doesn't mean that it's more complicated than is necessary to best explain the phenomenon in question. Given what Wilber's work is exploring, I don't see how anyone can say for certain that it's either unverifiable or overly complicated. Do you know of other work in the same field that is more verifiable than Wilber's or better complies with the principle of Occam's razor? If so, I really do want to know about it because you'd really have something there. (I know some take the position that Spirit is best explained from a purely intuitive point of view, and so is basically an unexplainable personal experience and reality, but in my view that's taking Occam's razor to an unreasonable extreme and has little or nothing to do with scientific inquiry anyway.)
Regardless, the point remains that none of this has anything to do with your original claim that Wilber is ignored by academia "due to" the fact that his work is unverifiable. --Grey 19:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

AS you said whatever!....in reference to Parsimony (not parisomy, oh by the way i'm just using humor) you have not answered the question --which i will source wikipedia defintion of it as "In science, parsimony is preference for the least complex explanation for an observation. This is generally regarded as good when judging hypotheses." You can not say that Wilber there is simple in anyway, shape or form - you have AQAL, lines, waves, streams, holons,pre-trans fallacy, two truths doctrine, etc, etc all bubbling in his cauldron. Go on with your straw man attacks...do I know a better theory than Wilber---can't say because I aint practicing the religion of Wilberism, in the end Wilber's work lies outside the means of science and is all about Spirit as you so call it. By the way, as predict you didn't give any proof that his work is verifiable in the tradition of the scientific method. This isn't a court of law, thus burden of proof doesn't lie solely with me. I want to know whats your proof that it's scientific and verifable? Can you give any? By your expected response of its my responsibility to show the proof, by the way I attempted too but my sources don't trump your desire to defend Wilber from his critics. In the end, the sentence could have been saved or fine tune but since you seem to own the page, it wont happen. By the way, would you allow any edit I did to stay, say even correcting a misspelling, I bet not.ForrestLane42 00:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)ForrestLane42

ForrestLane42, I think you're rambling, and much of what you question has already been addressed above in response to your earlier comments. Please try to keep on the topic of the Wilber article, and specific text for addition or deletion to the article. I also think you're getting a bit riled up, as no one here will ever revert a spelling mistake that you correct in the article, and to accuse others of bad faith is just silly. The problems that multiple people have had with some (not all) of your edits is the content, not that you made them. Pro crast in a tor 01:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Procrastinator, no what I question has not been addressed but thrown back to the questioner...multiple people have had trouble with my content because there are multiple pro-wilber biases here. Procrastinator, wait til someone who is not involved in the wilberian community makes an edit and then you will see that an agenda is involved in this page. Regardless,grey can't prove that Wilber's work is scientific verifiable, so he leaves it to me being the one who has to "prove" my claims. And then when I try to, grey will say it doesn't count, is biased, etc. all he has done is tried to setup a straw man in me. ForrestLane42 02:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)ForrestLane42

Again, if you want to add text to the article, the burden of proof lies with you. Yes, most sources are not reliable per WP:RS, and even if your statement is true but contentious, it may not be possible to find a reliable source to quote, and it must be left unsaid. No one said writing an encyclopedia is easy. Pro crast in a tor 02:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Procrast, I appreciate your contention, and agree the burden is on me and that it would be hard to find a direct quote to source not to say that I am grasping at a truth/claim that grey doesn't want to hear. But I still think that if grey is challenging my claim, then he has to back it up with sources that wilber is verifiable,etc. But thank you for engaging in a dialogue, which is rare on this page and am guilty of not faciltating with those I disagree, but I respect you that goes a long way ForrestLane42 03:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)ForrestLane42

I don't think you can expect people to research/work to support statements they don't agree with, or think are un-supportable. Personally, I think the fact that he's rarely cited stands alone pretty well, so there's no need to provide the reader with context, and it's not an issue I'm interested in spending time on. Pro crast in a tor 03:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
I still think that if grey is challenging my claim, then he has to back it up with sources that wilber is verifiable
I certainly do not have to back up my "claim" with sources, because my only claim here (as it relates to my removal of your edit) has been that you can't support your claim with sources. If you can find a source that does back it up, then I'll retract my objection.
As to whether Wilber's work is verifiable, which part of Wilber's work exactly are you claiming is unverifiable? Because given what his work encompasses, that's a pretty broad claim to make. Are you saying all of his work is unverifiable? Then all I would need to do is find one aspect of his work that is verifiable to disprove your claim (which I'm sure I could do if I were so inclined).
But for the umpteenth time, your original claim (and article edit) was not so much that his work is unverifiable, but that academia is largely ignoring him because it is unverifiable. So even if we were to somehow support the latter (secondary) claim (or simply assume it's true for the sake of argument), you would still have to demonstrate that this is why he is ignored by most of the academic world. But you continue to ignore this point, so who's having trouble dialogging? --Grey 09:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
I guess its you is having the trouble dialogging....So if you think you can prove it, prove it, otherwise you are blowing smoke as you claim I am. And there is nothing to ignore, because you ignore the fact that any source I use to back up, you will refute because it doesnt fit your vision. By the way did you read Wilber's retort to Ellis? I find it compelling in of itself for several reasons. And how bout reading Matthew Dallman's critique pretty damning.. By the way, I don't even think you responsed directly to my original counterpoints to the questions you posed, so who has the trouble dialoging? But anyway I wouldn't want to ruin your vision of Wilber and his wiki page tata 16:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC)ForrestLane42
I didn't respond to each of your counterpoints because I didn't feel they were particularly relevant to the problem at hand to be honest. The first two points from my original comments on your edit were directed primarily at clarifying your claim, not at refuting it entirely. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt that some of his work may be unverifiable and trying to explain that at least some of it may be verifiable using "scientific method", and this in an attempt to rework the edit, not delete it. However, I have also stated from the beginning that the more important issue is whether you can support that academia is ignoring him because of this alleged unverifiability, but you continue to ignore this point or, indeed, provide any real support for any of your claims.
I also don't know what your references to Wilber's response to Ellis (I assume you mean his Let's Nuke the Transpersonalists essay) or to Dallman's essay (and I assume you mean his Hopelessly New Age, Hopeless for the Humanities) have to do with this. I haven't read all of Dallman's essay (although I will), but it doesn't appear to be related to this case at all.
And lastly, you've said "goodbye", "tata", good riddance, etc. quite enough. So either actually leave or stop threatening to as if you expect someone to apologize or try to convince you to stay. It's getting old, as is this discussion. --Grey 20:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, you witty humor, fascinates me so! I offered those essays to "enlighten" you in general, the Ellis article in particular seems to show how Wilber views more traditional science, but I know you wont see that. As to not showing real proof, I gave some examples, but you did your right-wing hack job and dismissed them. Wilber would have to say the exact statements word for word for you to ever be satified with my claims. Why don't you tickle yourself and actually refute my claim with your proof? But for the last time, its on me, how can I do it with you as the freaking subjective judge! just my humor! The reason why you didn't tackle my original response counterpoints to YOUR questions shows and proves to me that you really don't want to get into the real issue but just coast through the issue without discussing the issue. A typical response from Ken Wilber to his critics..ForrestLane42 23:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)ForrestLane42

Whatever helps you sleep at night, dude. I'm done debating with you. It's pointless. --Grey 23:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
It's pointless, only because it would end in another stalemate because as much as "i can't "prove" it, neither can you prove he is a scientist. To begin with there was no debate, because you don't initiate debates, nor start with the common rules of debate in the first place, enjoy your unawaken state.ForrestLane42 18:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)ForrestLane42
Oh, I see. And insulting people is one of the "common rules of debate"? Was it Ralph Waldo Emerson who said, "What we are, that we see"? It's sad, really, that a character like you is able to hang out around here and ruin the experience for everyone else. Please just do as you've promised and leave (which is the very last thing I'm going to say to you). --Grey 18:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Echo! Echo! Its sad that you failed to engage in an attempt to make this page workable, but you had your agenda from day one. No I will leave when I choose. I aint trying to ruin anyone's experience, sorry you feel that, but you ruined my experience a long, long time ago. I came with here in a honest attempt to try to help edit, but people like you make it impossible. It is interesting that you have picked up where goethean left off. But hey, what can ya say. at least I tried to explain my edits rather than edit without any serious debate, by the way you came in this page was in mediation, but you broke that apart. I don't care if everyone hates me here. I have yet to find few exceptions to nasty editors from nasty enlightenones here, so blah, blah.. ForrestLane42 21:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)ForrestLane42

[edit] See also section

I am wondering what is the point in having them in that section, why not eliminate the section and have them placed under a subtitle of that little integral template, seems to me more concise and understandable. See also section should then be gone or left to other things like the form of Buddhism that Wilber ascribes to. ForrestLane42 17:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)ForrestLane42

Because the template appears on several article, adding the links to the template is a different topic then whether they should be on this article. Generally, links should appear under "see also" because they are relevant but have not been mentioned in the text of the article yet. The two current 'see also' links fall into this category and are relevant to the article. — goethean ॐ 18:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh okay, makes sense now. Thank you for the clarification. ForrestLane42 19:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)ForrestLane42

[edit] Straw poll: Should Wilber be described as a philosopher?

Eleuther and 271828182 (do you mind if I call you e?) have been the primary parties involved in the discussion of the philosopher question for some time, and based on this conversation (above), what are the opinions of the people here? Please put your name under yes or no, and (optionally) a short reason why. Note I've rephrased the question to "should he be described as a philosopher?", as that's the salient issue for WP. This leaves unresolved and unremarked about whether he is or is not a philosopher, which I think may reduce the contention here.

This is in anticipation of moving this talk page into the archives, something I'd like to do in the next week or so, and wanting to see where we stand prior to moving into the archives, where few will read the discussion. Pro crast in a tor

The entire talk page needn't and shouldn't be archived. Only the conversations that have not been used recently need to be archived. — goethean ॐ 02:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, I didn't mean to say the whole page, just the older stuff (like the philosopher debate). Pro crast in a tor 02:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


Yes, he should be described as a philosopher

Yes. Wilber's work largely focuses on the relationship betwen science, religion, and other fields like psychology. In Western culture, this type of meta-theory has always been labelled 'philosophy'. Wilber also discuses metaphyics and meta-ethics extensively, also traditionally the perview of philosophy. — goethean ॐ 16:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

No, he should not be described as a philosopher

No - I think "author" or "writer" is a better one-word description for him, and we should avoid the issue of whether the philosopher label applies to him or not. Pro crast in a tor 01:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

i'm personally hesitant to cast a vote, as i haven't been very vocal here, especially lately. but for whatever it's worth, i also vote "No," and for largely the same reasons as Pro. - Metanoid (talk, email) 02:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

No, mostly as per Pro's reasoning...who is the originator of this straw poll? But I like to know, why are we all the way back to this question? ForrestLane42 02:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)ForrestLane42

No - agree with Pro reasoning as well. --Dseer 03:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

No (no surprise from me). I've beaten this one to death above, but to summarize: instead of trying to wade into a contentious issue, Wikipedia should reflect the NPOV fact that the overwhelming consensus of experts in philosophy almost totally ignore Wilber's work. If Wikipedia calls Wilber a philosopher in the face of this fact, then it invites parallel POV descriptions (such as "Richard Dawkins, philosopher" or "L. Ron Hubbard, psychologist"). 271828182 05:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

No, but... I have nothing particularly against Wilber being called a philosopher, but I agree that it's not a particularly accurate description of him or his work. Most of his work is about finding ways to integrate the work of "real" philosophers (whatever that means), not specifically about philosophizing in any original way. In other words, I'd call his work a body of theories (a "map") more than a "philosophy". --Grey 09:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

See what I find troublesome about the idea or the word "integral" is that its implying that Wilber is taking every single theory and somehow synthesizing it into one grand meta-theory. His work seems to ignore to most western religions, I have yet to hear anything about integral Judaism,Islam, Christianity. So his work seemingly then is sweeping generalizations from the work of "real" philosophers, theologians, psychologists. So I find it hard to say its map or body of theories (even though he has used the word map - his map leaves many cities and towns along the way in his work). The fact that when I first read Wilber was the fact that he was trying to synthesize other theories that attracted me to his work, but the more I read the less was I am to see that he really was being "integral". 204.183.184.114 16:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)ForrestLane42

It doesn't help much to ask a question with an undefined term, and taking an opinion poll doesn't do much to forge a consensus. In this instance an agreeable definition of "philosopher" is what is needed. Then the answer to the question becomes objectively determinate. Wilber certainly meets the Random House dictionary definition—"One who offers views or theories on profound questions in ethics, metaphysics, logic, and other related fields." If you have an alternative definition, it should be attributed according to WP policy. --Blainster 05:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Medi(t)ation needed?

This article doesn't correspond with the standards of quality for Wikipedia. For instance, when speaking of Ken Wilber's Wyatt Earpy posts, there was no full explaination of this situation. I have added the reference to shadow work post, which completely explains the official point of view of Ken Wilber. The fact that this wasn't done before leads me to think that Wikipedia is taken as a ground for promoting several websites, links to which were abusingly put into the body of the article. (For instance, the reference # 34 (see http://www.kenwilber.com/blog/show/46 and a number of successive blog posts. For a summary with links to the whole controversy, see Frank Visser "The Wild West Report") violates POV, since it implicitly suggests Frank Visser's summary is a neutral summary of the event, however the conflict of interests is obvious, for Visser is the guy who was criticized ("attacked") by Ken Wilber. That is why I added the reference to KW's explaination for readers to compare.) If there would be no progress, I would suggest mediation for this article, since even a person who is not familiar with KW's works will be able to arbiter and successfully bring the article to higher standards.

The criticism section might be improved, since, for example, I doubt that Arvan Harvat's criticism (who's that anyway?) should really be put into the article, since it incorrectly represents Ken Wilber's position. I don't think this criticist even understands what nondual teachings are (it is not obvious from the paragraph included into the article). The quotation by Meyerhoff is biased and unsupported, it is just a state of his opinion without arguments, and again it may violate POV. Was it his book that was not accepted by many publishers anyway--or it was another author? So, the criticism should be chosen more carefully, especially this is the case with online references. It is true that any person who is not too competent can publish his opinion on everything online but it is not the case for Wikipedia that this opinion can be included. In overall, I think the article can be improved without a lot of effort from editors. Eli the Barrow-boy 00:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../k/e/n/Talk%7EKen_Wilber_2bf7.html"