Talk:Ken Wilber

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.

Biography Portal

This article has been rated as b-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ken Wilber article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (`~~~~`). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

Archives
Talk:Ken Wilber/archive1 Talk:Ken Wilber/archive2 Talk:Ken Wilber/archive3

[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)

[edit] NPOV issue

The recent edit wars have left this article in a very bad state. What should be the main section, on Wilber's ideas, has been shortened considerably, and any "endorsement" given to him, to indicate his standing in his field, has been removed, ostensibly for NPOV. And the result is that one-third of the article is spent on criticism of Wilber's works - and that violates the NPOV policy, I believe. From the Wikipedia NPOV tutorial, in the "Space and balance" section:

Information suppression ... Some examples of how editors may unwittingly or deliberately present a subject in an unfair way: Biased or selective representation of sources, eg: Explaining why evidence supports one view, but omitting such explanation in support of alternative views. ... Not allowing one view to "speak for itself", or refactoring its "world-view" into the words of its detractors.

If Wilber's theories are so bad, that should speak for itself. At the moment, it feels like someone has googled "criticism of Ken Wilber" and put everything that could be found in the article. Is there another writer whose Wikipedia page has one-third spent on attacking his/her ideas? 58.179.6.7 16:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I tend the agree that the criticisms section is too long, but I'm not sure I have the energy to fight that battle right now, personally. However, I don't necessarily agree either that the article is "in a very bad state" or that Wilber's ideas should be the main section of this particular article. Given the extent of Wilber's work, I don't think any more than a very brief overview should be included on this page. Better coverage of his ideas can be found (rightly, I believe) in the articles concerning specific aspects of his work.

That said, if you're willing to get involved in the edit war that will inevitably ensue, feel free to "streamline" the criticisms section as you see fit. --Grey 14:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Ken Wilber has criticized and alienated many, and that is why there is so much criticism. His attempt to create "a theory of everything" by absorbing everyone else in a borg like synthesis inevitably requires his criticism of all those who developed the components of this theory but do not agree with all of what he has done. Because Ken wants so much to be right on everything, yet lacks credentials backing his assertions, while criticizing so many in so many areas, broad criticism is justified. Just because he's incorporated some valid ideas doesn't justify where he has taken them. His anti-scientific views, advocacy of unsavory spiritual figures, personal claims of high spiritual state while making caustic attacks on anyone who doesn't agree with him, etc. all deserve some criticism. Editors have been more than fair to an obvious narcissist in the process of self-destruction. Don't even think of trying to make this article a pro-Wilber propaganda piece. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.117.249.66 (talk • contribs)

I believe in your good will, yet I have to point out that you have to support your criticism with references. Until then it is only your opinion. Anyway, the criticism section must exist, and it must be formulated according to POV rules, however it must include only valid criticism from valid sources and -- yes -- it should also include Wilber's answers to this criticism, if there any. He did incorporate many of the criticisms in his further works, and his theory should be considered as an evolving not static model. I agree with you, the criticism section should be extensive, but perhaps it would be a better idea to create a separate article for criticism, so the article would be reader-friendly. Eli the Barrow-boy 19:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ken Wilber and Deep Ecology

Ken has stated that he was the founder of spiritual ecology at different times, and critiques Deep Ecology views as "flatland". With his ascentionist anthropocentricism, based upon the Great Chain of Being of the neo-Platonists, it would seem that his human centred views miss the real natures of evolution and ecology, as despite his championing of Gaia theory, it seems he doesn't understand the nature of whole or part. John D. Croft 08:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I THINK WE SHOULD WRITE ALSO THAT HE IS A THEORIST, WHICH IS MAINLY WHAT HE STRIVES FOR AND WRITES ABOUT, AND NOT JUST CRITIQUES,ETCCÇ.MORE THAN AND AUTHOR OR THINKER, LESS METHODIC AND SKEPTIC THAN A PHILOSOPHER. WHAT U THINK? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.139.138.234 (talk • contribs)

[edit] Time References In Articles

More recently, Wilber wrote Sex, Ecology, Spirituality (SES), (1995), the massive first volume of a proposed Kosmos Trilogy. A Brief History of Everything (1996) was the non-footnoted, popularized summary of SES in the form of an imagined, extended interview.

"More recently" applies to the previous paragraph, but there is also an implied meaning of "recently." 1995 is not recent especially because the subject has published as recently as the writing of these comments, 2007. I think an encyclopedia article should refrain from being chatty, and strive to be timeless. Therefore I suggest using the word "subsequently" in place of "more recently." AlvinMGO 12:48, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. — goethean ॐ 17:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Academia or not?

OK, it looks like we need to discuss the wording of the beginning of the second sentence in the article -- i.e. "Working outside academia..." or "Working outside mainstream academia...".

The word "mainstream" was first removed on the grounds that something can be out of mainstream and still be academic, which seems like backwards reasoning to me. It actually sounds like justification for keeping the word "mainstream", because Wilber does do "academic" work, but not "mainstream academic" work. See, for example, the accredited Integral coursework and degree programs at John F. Kennedy University and Fielding University, which are being done in partnership with Integral Institute, as well as the AQAL Journal, which covers Integral Thought in a very academic/scholarly manner.

So he does indeed do academic work sensu lato, but perhaps not "mainstream" academic work. On these grounds, I'm putting the original version back (i.e. with "mainstream") until someone can support the position that Wilber works entirely outside all forms of academia. --Grey 19:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, just realized that the original version with the concept of "mainstream" is worded slightly differently from what I've written above -- i.e. "Working outside the academic mainstream...". --Grey 19:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Qualifications / Education

Can anybody write something on the topic of Wilber's academic credentials? (What degrees has he attained, has he received any honours, etc.?) Perhaps he only has a bachelor's degree?

[edit] New Age?

Hadn't we resolved this "New Age" debate many moons ago? (See talk archive 3) Why do we need to deal with it again? I recommend just removing the reference entirely, like we did way back when. --Grey (talk) 09:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

You can take it out of the infobox if you want to make the description of him more acurate. I'm not familiar with him, I just copied some data from the lead paragraph. Hewinsj (talk) 14:57, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Sourced to Washington Post. Fireplace (talk) 15:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

One book reviewer/science writer calling him a "New Age guru" hardly counts as an authoritative source to justify classifying him as New Age in an encyclopedic description of him, particularly not in the very first sentence, as if that's the most important descriptor of him and his work. In fact, Wilber would not use either the term "New Age" or "guru" to describe himself.

Regardless of the cultural baggage of the term "New Age", the fairly objective problem with the term is that it focuses on spirituality, while Wilber's work certainly includes spirituality, but goes far beyond that to include all sorts of other disciplines. Tagging him as New Age right from the first few words of the article about him severely understates (at best) what he's all about. At most, we could say, at some point in the article (i.e. not the first line), something along the lines that his views on spirituality "bear certain similarities to" aspects of the New Age movement. --Grey (talk) 16:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Here are more reliable sources which describe Wilber as New Age:

Wagner, Matthew. "Bayit Hadash leader fired for sexual misconduct", The Jerusalem Post, 2006-05-19.
de Cea, Abraham Velez. "A new direction for comparative studies of Buddhists and Christians:evidence from Nagarjuna and John of the Cross", Buddhist-Christian Studies, 2006-01-01.
Hogan, Ron. "New Age: What the Bleep? Categories conflate, confound, connect", Publishers Weekly, 2005-08-05.
Byrne, Peter. "The Rabbi Who Would Save the World: Michael Lerner has won many followers with his ideas for world peace. But if all he is preaching is the Golden Rule, why is he so controversial?", SF Weekly, 2002-03-20.
Conway, Ronald. "From the swamp to the divine", The Australian, 1996-10-05.
Gold, Philip. "Vaporous politics of meaning", Washington Times, 1996-06-02.

Fireplace (talk) 17:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

~~I recommend that someone add these citations to the article in order to avoid future disputes. — goethean ॐ 17:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)~~

The above list has, of course, been aggressively cherry-picked.

— goethean ॐ 18:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

"Cherry-picked"? I don't see a conflict with any of the links you provided. I'd be fine with something like "Ken Wilber is an American author and has been alternatively described as a "mystical philosopher," "New Age guru," "integral theorist," or "East-meets-West philosopher."" Fireplace (talk) 18:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

If you read the archives of this page, you will see that there was a long debate with a very aggressive Wilber-basher, 271828182 (talk · contribs), who insisted at long length that Wilber should not be called a philosopher in the article.

Because the Library of Congress[1] places Wilber's books in philosophy, psychology, and "Occult Sciences" (New Age) about equally, I think that it would be most accurate to call Wilber an "American author who writes on psychology, philosophy and the New Age." This would conveniently side-step the issue of whether Wilber himself is a philosopher, thus hopefully satisfying the Wilber-bashers, of which there are several who occasion this page. — goethean ॐ 19:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with the way it reads now. I would also be fine with something along the lines of the suggested "has been alternatively described as...". Just as long as the article doesn't say anywhere "Wilber is a New Age [insert word]". --Grey (talk) 10:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Wilber has been quite dismissive of the "New Age movements", eg. in SES, Note 44, he wrote: "The various New Age movements claim to herald such a worldwide consciousness revolution. But ... these movements fail across the board." Therefore it's a travesty to call him a "New Age thinker" in the Infobox. I'm changing it to the more neutral "Integral theorist". Actually the best description would be the obvious and accurate "philosopher", but let's not rekindle that issue. (It's obvious that he's a philosopher because his main subject is philosophy. Skeptics should note that even if Wilber's ideas are totally wrong, that would make him a bad philosopher, but still a philosopher.) Leafhopper (talk) 13:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

This depends on how you define "New Age" - e.g. Wouter Hanegraaff includes Wilber in his review of the New Age. "Philosopher" is also vaguely defined, it may mean anyone who has ideas, or it may refer to being accepted formally by academia. "Integral theorist" is not be the best term for a different reason - Wilber himself coined the phrase "integral theory" (so it's like saying "Buddha was a Buddhist" :-) Anyway I edited the page accordingly M Alan Kazlev (talk) 22:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

It's obvious that he's a philosopher because his main subject is philosophy. Skeptics should note that even if Wilber's ideas are totally wrong, that would make him a bad philosopher, but still a philosopher.

By that standard, L. Ron Hubbard is a psychologist. But it would be ludicrously tendentious for Wikipedia to call Hubbard a psychologist. Therefore, Leafhopper's proposed standard is wrong. And likewise, Wikipedia calling Wilber a philosopher is equally wrong. But really, let's not rekindle that issue. I am content with the current formula ("American author who writes on psychology, philosophy and the New Age.") as the least bad option I've heard. 271828182 (talk) 00:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism Section has gone in the wrong direction again

The criticism section shouldn't be for those within his community of Integral and transpersonal theorists - what about Albert Ellis? It needs to be more generalized, or otherwise I find it to be promoting a POV agenda. just my thoughts, do as ye wish PhiloWisdom (talk) 15:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)PhiloWisdom

[edit] Rarely mentioned in peer-reviewed academic journals?

What about Google Scholar? There are several hundred citations. So "rarely mentioned" doesn't represent the facts, does it? --BernhardMeyer (talk) 19:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Many of the Google Scholar hits are for different "K Wilber"s, and most of the other hits are just matches of his book titles, not peer-reviewed journal articles. 271828182 (talk) 02:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. It is not relevant whether or not he has been published in peer reviewed journals. Further, that is obvious WP:OR, and if it is to be included, it must have a source which actually says that. I will also remove it from the criticism section, as it has no source. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 07:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed it IS relevant whether his work has stood the test of peer review: This, for better or worse, is how academic work is judged, and ideas that aim to be taken seriously among experts must pass this "litmus test". Anyone can publish any rubbish he or she wishes in a non-refereed book, but the peer-review process aims to weed out incorrect work and work based on usnound methods, lending an increased credibility to articles so published. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.223.202.213 (talk) 10:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wilber's holism

"...although you are made of parts (your nervous system, your skeletal system, etc.), you are also a part of your society" is a point of confusion. Wilber (Integral Spirituality, chapter 7, A Miracle Called "We") says that an individual holon cannot be a part of a social holon. Therefore I replaced the relation person/society by the relation cell/organism and put a footnote. --BernhardMeyer (talk) 10:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Changes in the Introduction

"Wilber's work ... criticized as denigrating emotion": In Grace and Grit, One Taste and Integral Psychology he is not at all denigrating emotion. In any case, this is WP:OR. - "...and for allegedly failing to distinguish philosophy from Vedantic and Buddhist religion": This should be moved to the criticism section. --BernhardMeyer (talk) 19:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Translation?

I just came across this guy a few minutes ago via a youtube video of one of his "lectures". Anyway, thought I would pop over here to see what WIKI said before checking him out correctly. Now, I have to say, I have read the disclaimer on this article, but never-the-less can anyone please translate this article into recognizable English so I can work out exactly what the hell his theories are? Perhaps this is his fault, during the video he kept expressing the importance of "I amness" what ever the hell that might mean. However, I always thought it was a general encyclopedias function to explain sometime complex subjects to the uninformed reader? Anyone help with this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.2.169.209 (talk) 02:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I amness is a sense of one's own inner being or livingness. Thanks, SqueakBox 02:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I have the impression that the article is less informative than it could be because it has a history of editors trying to make Wilber appear more influential and grander than he really is. The result is a weasly article that is difficult to assess. I know nothing about Wilber other than what I see on this page, and I certainly have nothing against him, but, New Age or not, it appears to be clear that he is a "New Agey" type of thinker who hails from the Aurobindo corner. This is stuff that was very much en vogue in the 1980s, and I imagine he made some good money back then, but from a distance, it all seems a little bit stale and uninteresting now. But then that's as subjective as the attempt to tout him as a great thinker, of course. dab (𒁳) 17:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Request for additional biographical information

I note that the third paragraph of the biography section mentions that Wilber was married "for a second time" in 1983 to the woman named therein. To whom was he married before then, if this assertion is correct? (Came here from a mention on the Wikipedia page for the musician Stuart Davis that Davis was married to Wilber's ex-wife, named there as "Marcia." All I can find elsewhere is that Marcia Walters was Wilber's girlfriend in 1998, as per the Utne Reader. If this request is irrelevant, please delete it and accept my apologies. Thanks!) 128.135.181.186 (talk) 19:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

He was married a second time to Terry, as stated in Grace and grit. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] See also

Lovemonkey, please explain what these links have to do with Ken Wilber. — goethean ॐ 15:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you seeking that I source them? Due to your hostile past interactions with me, why should I believe you will accept any qualifications? Due to our past interactions why should I even believe this is nothing but you posturing in order to engage in more edit warring?

LoveMonkey (talk) 17:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Due to our past interactions why should I even believe this is nothing but you posturing in order to engage in more edit warring?

Wikipedia policy demands assuming good faith, civility, and discussing controversial edits on the talk page. If you refuse to do so, I will revert your edits. — goethean ॐ 19:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Civility, controversial edits? Again who is this we? What is controversial about the contributions? Have you not read the Integral movement article? Which is an umbrella to this article. Since when has edit warring been an act of civility Goethan? Since you caused a huge edit war to deny what A. H. Armstrong had stated in his translation of Plotinus, let alone what Plotinus stated. If I remember correctly you called Armstrong's comments as well as Plotinus'- trash. Again are you wanting my edits here sourced? Please state what it is that you want. Since I do not see where See Also links are to be sourced, if they are, can you direct me to an article where you did that so I can have an example to follow? So I can give you what it is that you are requesting. Please, pretty please with Cherries on top tell what it is you are requiring, since it appears that you are asking me to explain myself, which makes absolutely no sense. Since you have no business doing so. LoveMonkey (talk) 12:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] See Also Links under question

American Academy of Asian Studies also called CIIS is an organization much like Ken's and if Goethean had read the American Academy of Asian Studies article he would see Ken mentioned in the article, but who needs details to get in the way (Since both Ken Wilber and CIIS are in the intro to the Integral movement article and why hasn't Goethan addressed this) of harrassing people and edit warring :>)
Vladimir Solovyov taught the slavophil principle of sobornost as to mean to reconcile differing idealogies. Suprise if Goethean had read the sobornost article he would have noticed that the word sobornost translates into English as integrality. PLEASE I DID NOT WRITE THAT PART OF THE SOBORNOST ARTICLE User:Ghirlandajo did.
sobornost see above.
syncretism- Please just read the article for syncretism. Since it is stated in the letter that Alan Combs wrote Ken Wilber as "Syncretism (the idea that all great religions and philosophies are the same at core) was popular in the late days of antiquity, and is again popular today." [2].

Again the links policies is to link simular and or related articles for further reading. Not antagonise people to the point of harrassment and frustration because they don't like you to contributing to an article, uh hum Goethan.
Now please clarify why the articles link are controversial? Since they are not in Ken's article body and either mention him directly but are related terms common to him. LoveMonkey (talk) 12:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I removed 2 links as we have no sources they should be int he see also section. Please provide these sources before re-adding. Thanks, SqueakBox 02:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Alright I am confused. By the way nice to make your aquantences Mr SqueakBox. Could you show me how I should source links properly in the article. Here is a source for both links Marina Kostalevsky, Dostoevsky and Soloviev: The Art of Integral Vision. Thanks and again nice to meet you. LoveMonkey (talk) 15:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Holoarchy

Why does holoarchy redirect here? The word should be mentioned in the article. ··gracefool ☺ 04:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I fixed it so that it redirects to Holarchy. — goethean ॐ 14:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

	This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Buddhism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Buddhism. Please participate by editing the article Ken Wilber, or visit the project page for more details on the projects. Guidelines: Chinese Manual of Style - Naming conventions Indic Manual of Style - Naming conventions Japanese Manual of Style Korean Manual of Style - Naming conventions Tibetan Proposed naming conventions
B	This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Article Grading: The following comments were left by the quality and importance raters: (edit · refresh) I didn't rate this article, but since this is the second time in the last month or so that I've noticed someone alluding to the fact (or directly stating) that the Wilber article is not up to "encyclopedic standards", I would like to see some discussion as to what exactly is wrong with it. I'm not saying the article is perfect, and I'm not somehow taking offense to such an assessment. I really would like to hear from "experts" what specifically is wrong with the article from an encyclopedic standpoint. I realize that in the not-so-distant past the article was subject to a fair amount of edit warring, but it seems to have been stable for a while now, so perhaps it's time to work on getting it up to GA-class (or better), if it isn't there already. I've looked at the GA-class criteria, and apart from past edit wars I'm personally not able to point to any specific reasons that the article shouldn't qualify for a GA-class rating. Since I admit that I'm not an expert on "encyclopedic quality", I really would like to hear some expert opinions since the person who rated this article hasn't bothered to provide any explanation. --Grey 16:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC) the article could use a personal infobox, more pictures, and an expanded intro. other than that i agree that the article is GA/A quality. --Sapphic 18:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC) OK, cool. That's something concrete to work on then. Thanks! --Grey 15:34, 17 March 2007 (UTC)