• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: Xorkoth | Madness

8 circuit model Leary/Wilson/Wilber

Erm, although I have no idea how this works, let's assume it's true... your attempts to guilt-trip me are definitely cheaper shots.

You are practically calling this thread an "epic fail" because of the choice of authors. Yeah, maybe I am guilt-tripping you, but I am justified to. You came in here insulting our competence without providing anything constructive at all.



How is that a contribution when he's just doing what you and I do in our daily lives on this forum?
How is it not a contribution? He does a damn good job of it. His methods for this sort of analysis are unique contributions in and of themselves. The obvious contribution here, is the analysis of any phenomenon from all three pronouns( 1st, 2nd, 3rd person ). This might seem obvious, but he was the first one to explicitly and systematically do so.


You misunderstand again. By "&Co" I meant the ones mentioned above.
Leary isn't company to Wilber...

You fail to mention Aurobindo, which I incidentally do appreciate, and which is everything that Wilber is, IMO, minus the glamour.
Wilber is in the company of Aurobindo, Aurobindo would have to of known Wilber to be in his company.


I think you assume too much, as you have so casually un-quoted the line following that which clearly shows that this is not true.
No, I responded to the "unquoted" line before hand. But how is this not true? You've already made clear the attributes that rub you the wrong way. He profits from his work, he is an "ego."



Not too much, but then again that's not an issue as you'd expect a verbose ego like wilber to simply repeat himself over and over again in more and more arcane language.
When you're juggling alot of different models you're going to pick up those models vocabulary. I don't think he should dumb down that. If he did, you'd probably be complaining here about how he is a plagiarist.


That said, I read most of No Boundary then tossed it, read less than hald of A Brief History of Everything and tossed it too, and I read The Pocket Ken Wilber and gave it away to a random guy in India because I decided it wasn't worth the weight of carrying it in my backpack.
So you read two bathroom books and an early work from the 80's and you think you know Wilber's work? Try reading his mature work aimed at academia, "Sex, Ecology, Spirituality", then maybe we can have an informed discussion.



Of course I "don't get it". If I were as smart as you were, I'd have agreed with you, wouldn't I?
I don't think I'm smarter then you. I think you're a smart guy and I have alot of respect for you. I think you're being ignorant though.


Your zealotry scares me, although seeing it is Wilber we're talking about I'm not too shocked to see it.
Ok
 
Last edited:
... So, why is Wilber a celebrity, but Manifespo isn't, even though they are both practically doing the same thing using differing vocabularies and arrangements (and frankly, Manifespo's is slightly more interesting)?
Manifespo is taking phonemes and putting them together in ways that are meaningful to him.

Wilber is adopting the terminology of the models he uses, to build more inclusive constructs. He uses logical rigor, and a lot of data.

Yeah, I suppose you could say they are doing similar things in a very broad sense. But you represent a false alternative option. If you and Foucalt are "doing the same thing" does that mean I should be reading you instead? Does that mean your contributions are equal? This is rhetorical like most everything else you said.
 
http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dfqp8wxf_19ff8gw8hg

Can someone post this picture for me? My bluelight skills are rusty.


File
 
you can invent as many pseudo models of whatever as you wish, using incomplete made-up categories and abracadabra vocabulary

Vegan, this shit isn't just made up. It's been strongly empirically affirmed by many independent sources.

Jam, I really don't see anything in this thread that in anyway threatens or undermines the works of Wilber. In fact it doesn't seem that you have any means to criticize his work, so you revert to criticizing his personal success. If anything I detect a hint of jealousy.
 
Yougene: There is so much misunderstanding in your last reply that I will not even bother reply to it line-by-line, although one of your misunderstandings is so gross it just needs to be adressed:

You STILL don't understand what I meant with "& Co.". I was talking about Wilber/Wilson/Leary (w.r.t this thread).

Then I said that (in your misunderstanding), you failed to list Aurobindo in what you thought I meant by Wilber's company. Yes I know he was probably aware of Wilber. I wasn't criticizing

Your other misunderstandings are as inane as this one...

Shakti and Yougene: Listen, you don't need to read every single work by a hack to figure out that he's not worth reading. I treat Wilber the same way I treat Ayn Rand. I have more productive things to do in my life than read the stoned musings of an hypo-maniac (this applies to Leary and Wilson and McKenna too).

I may have not read all his work, but I know more than enough people who did (like you two), who tried to convince me that he's brilliant for hours on end and I listened in earnest, (and therefore the books I listed were tackled at different points over 4 years, the last being just a few months ago, in attempts to change my view). I've been TRYING to understand just WHAT is it that you guys and my friends see in Wilber, but I could not find it.

Now I see this thread, and it attempts to combine Wilber's ideas with the ideas of other people whose ideas I also find pointless. It just doesn't help.

It is SO easy for you guys to dismiss me as "jealous" by using one weak (and misquoted) line from my initial post. This is very convenient, instead of trying to understand where I'm coming from. Can you not accept that there is a large group of people, spiritual as they are, who simply see no merit in Wilber's work, and see his pretentiousness as a bit annoying?

Are we all "jealous" of Wilber?

And for the note, you make the same mistake again, yougene. Don't compare Foucault to me. I am not comparing anyone to myself, as I have not the authority to do that.

----

Now, I am going to thoroughly read this thread, and I will give a critique (as fairly as I can) of what is written here in the morning, to appease those who found my initial post offencive.
 
Jamshyd, I've gathered all of the relevant criticisms of Wilber that I've noticed you've written.

What has Wilber & Co. brought to us that has not been out there already? The fact that they gained riches and fame out of it makes it even less interesting.

Well, I'm not going to deal with anyone other than Wilber here, but what he has done is create a broad orientation of perspective, a map of collective human understanding. It's not full because he's obviously just one man, but it is a backbone upon which knowledge/perspective/understanding can be organized as a singular whole. Others have done similar things, but his is unique for we're in a unique place in human history.

I don’t think Wilber is exactly rich if you compare him to popular authors. And fame? Sure, many people who know of him love him, but such a small portion of people have even heard of him.

When I read Wilber, I feel that what he's saying is not worth my time or money because I have already seen it all in texts that surpass him by thousands of years, restated in a neo-arcane tongue.

This is because he is in many ways over-viewing other people's work. Not because he's isn't generating new thought and new perspective but because the perspective he's elucidating is an attempt at including and understanding all perspectives not as disconnected parts but as elements of one whole. So if you're gonna fit a puzzle together you got to examine the parts and the parts are largely the work of others. In a lot of ways you could say that what he is doing is simply honoring the shoulders upon which he stands.

Not too much, but then again that's not an issue as you'd expect a verbose ego like wilber to simply repeat himself over and over again in more and more arcane language.

I will admit he can be quite repetitive and his work has a particular vocabulary, but this is because he is thorough and he’s writing in an emerging field, so vocabulary is going to be generated.

Note that I am not judging wilber against myself, I am judging him against other writings, most of which are, interestingly enough, anonymously written.

Oh my god, Wilber isn’t a completely selfless saint, oh no… He would dare put his name on his books. Selfish prick.

... So, why is Wilber a celebrity, but Manifespo isn't, even though they are both practically doing the same thing using differing vocabularies and arrangements (and frankly, Manifespo's is slightly more interesting)?

No offence to Manifespo, but I doubt he is nearly as studious or as rigorous as Wilber. Nor has he (to my knowledge) written so many books or pushed the realm of knowledge while still incorporating and honoring a cornucopia of diverse truths as Wilber has.

It is SO easy for you guys to dismiss me as "jealous" by using one weak (and misquoted) line from my initial post. This is very convenient, instead of trying to understand where I'm coming from.

Quite frankly you haven't said "where you're coming from." All I’ve gathered of it is that you think it’s shit and you just want us to accept that, while reserving your right to call it shit. The bulk of your critique are of Wilber's character and not his work, and frankly all you're critiques have shown is that, no he's not perfect and is in some part in it for himself. Pretty high standard don't you think? Can you do better?

If you don’t want us to dismiss you, you should actually critique the subject we’re discussing. Saying ‘it’s not worth the paper it’s written on’ is pretty weak.

I am not comparing anyone to myself, as I have not the authority to do that.

Sorry for the digression but who needs permission to do that? Or better question, who has the authority to grant you that permission? I really doubt that you don't compare yourself to anyone.

Now, I am going to thoroughly read this thread, and I will give a critique (as fairly as I can) of what is written here in the morning, to appease those who found my initial post offencive.

I'd much rather hear you try and critique Wilber. Since he's so clearly worthless, you should be quite able to tear him down, no? But go ahead, try and pick us apart. I'll enjoy it, I hope you do too.
 
^ You know, I was just about to actually respect this thread and Wilber for a moment and write a proper critique, but after seeing replies like yours and yougene's , filled with ad homs and assumptions, I honestly give up.

Clearly, Wilber does a good job teaching his zealots how to be pretentious snobs.

EDIT: Actually, come to think of it, I think one of the main reasons why I have no interest in Wilber is due to his fans' attitudes. They remind me of Tool fans 8).

I'm out.
 
Forgive me, but where are my ad homs and assumptions? I'm pretty sure I haven't attacked you in anyway, but I don't doubt I've made unconscious assumptions. If you could point them out I'll certainly consider them.
 
Yougene: There is so much misunderstanding in your last reply that I will not even bother reply to it line-by-line, although one of your misunderstandings is so gross it just needs to be adressed:

You STILL don't understand what I meant with "& Co.". I was talking about Wilber/Wilson/Leary (w.r.t this thread).

I understand who you were referring to. My point was Leary and Wilber don't have any relation to each other.


Then I said that (in your misunderstanding), you failed to list Aurobindo in what you thought I meant by Wilber's company. Yes I know he was probably aware of Wilber. I wasn't criticizing
I understood, I wasn't criticizing either.





Shakti and Yougene: Listen, you don't need to read every single work by a hack to figure out that he's not worth reading. I treat Wilber the same way I treat Ayn Rand. I have more productive things to do in my life than read the stoned musings of an hypo-maniac (this applies to Leary and Wilson and McKenna too).
I understand he's not your cup of tea.

My point was your criticisms don't show any actual knowledge of his work. You claim his work doesn't offer anything novel, yet the only real work of his you read is No Boundary. Essentially a SURVEY of eastern and western practices. Most everything else you have said has consisted of vague personal attacks and name-calling.




Now I see this thread, and it attempts to combine Wilber's ideas with the ideas of other people whose ideas I also find pointless. It just doesn't help.
Leary's 8 circuit model borrows the idea of developmental stages from those that came before him. So does Wilber, which is why it was interesting to compare and contrast the two. Their differences in thought process come to light.


It is SO easy for you guys to dismiss me as "jealous" by using one weak (and misquoted) line from my initial post. This is very convenient, instead of trying to understand where I'm coming from. Can you not accept that there is a large group of people, spiritual as they are, who simply see no merit in Wilber's work, and see his pretentiousness as a bit annoying?
I never said you were jealous. I accept that you and others don't like Ken Wilber's work, and I have no interest in changing your mind.


And for the note, you make the same mistake again, yougene. Don't compare Foucault to me. I am not comparing anyone to myself, as I have not the authority to do that.
Wha? You were comparing Manifespo to Wilber. It was a loaded question and I was debunking it by example, I thought it was pretty clear.
 
Ok.

First of all, allow me to apologize if I have said anything offencive about any posters here or the authors in question. That was not totally my intention (although I DID start off with a joke of that nature).

Second, it seems someone here is acting out of line. Seeing that two (three maybe) people have opposed me, that must mean that the disoriented one is myself. Shakti and Yougene are posters that I generally have a lot of respect for, and so this petty quarrelsomeness is not right.

I think I'll leave this for now, and perhaps return later in a better state of mind. And you know what? Maybe I'll actually scour the used bookstores for a substantial Wilber book in the evening :).
 
Jammy, I don't take an personal offense to anything you've written. I hope I haven't offended you either.

If your going to read some more Wilber, read Sex Ecology Spiritually. I'm sure it will cover several topics you've read about before, and perhaps much less eloquently, but that book will give you the core of Wilber's framework. If you still have questions or criticisms at that point, I'd be happy to discuss them with you.
 
Shakti or Yougene do you guys know where to find any thorough critiques of Wilber? I have read a lot of writings from Wilber and I want to get the other side before I continue.
 
Honestly, I haven't found a thorough critique of Wilber. I have found several that will nit pick on the potential implications of some of his statements and then try to throw the baby out with the bath water. I don't think there is fully an "other side." There certainly people who reject his writing for this reason or that, but I haven't seen a cohesive argument against the totality of it.

There are points in which I too have disagreed with individual statements of his, but that doesn't mean I then get up on my high horse and condemn the whole because of a little part.

Also, I must say, his critique of some of the PoMo writers that have tried to destroy him has been devastating.

So if you do find some thoughtful criticism, I'd be down to read it.
 

Shakti and Yougene are posters that I generally have a lot of respect for, and so this petty quarrelsomeness is not right.

Likewise, my friend.


Maybe I'll actually scour the used bookstores for a substantial Wilber book in the evening :).
I have SES as an ebook, if you do go looking.
 
Do you know if it is at all available as an audiobook? That would make things much easier to be honest :).

If not, are there any audiobooks by him you recommend? I found The Kosmic Consciousness in that format...
 
Shakti or Yougene do you guys know where to find any thorough critiques of Wilber? I have read a lot of writings from Wilber and I want to get the other side before I continue.

I think the guys over at the Integral forums do a good job of critiquing his work. I hear Steve McCintosh does a good job in his book but I haven't read it.


Do you know if it is at all available as an audiobook? That would make things much easier to be honest .

If not, are there any audiobooks by him you recommend? I found The Kosmic Consciousness in that format...
Kosmic Consciousness is good.

The dialogues on IntegralNaked are superb as well. I recommend the dialogues with Serj Tankian, and Larry Wachowski in the Previews box.
 
Last edited:
I just listened to the dialogues between Kenwilber and Serj Tankian, and Larry Wachowski I thought they were awesome, just really awesome creative eloquent cutting edge conversations. I really like Serj Tankian, Larry Wachowski and Ken Wilber so I guess i'm biased :D the matrix was one of my favorite trilogies to have ever come out, I saw System of A Down Live in columbus and I cant ever forget that it was mindblowing.
 
What's Up Vegan? ManifesPo here!
hello :)

^
^
that was my contribution to the thread. cool, no? :)

honestly, i'm too dampened by my first impression to spend time trying to figure out if anything makes sense in their model
 
Top