Krimel asked dmb:
...But are you saying that completely inverting the nature, direction, theoretical approach and philosophy of the man, then claiming him as an ally, is ok with you?

dmb says:
I've already explained why I think that sort of characterization is way over the top. Its not like Wilber titled his book, "Revisioning Piaget". I think he's only adding Piaget's insights to every other major developmental psychologist. And he's adding that to every major religion thinker, tons of philosophers and a whole bunch of other stuff. See, he's not a developmental psychologist per se. His thing is much, much broader than that. And yes, that is definately okay with me. I'm quite fond of that sort of thing, in fact.

Krimel said:
After all you asked about my impressions of Wilber's abuse of the people he cites. Are you saying that what Wilber does with Piaget is not abusive? It's not like he ever acknowledges the differences.

dmb says:
His criticism of almost every Western thinker is that they had only part of the truth. He sees his job as finding those true parts and adding them up. His criticism, his difference, with Piaget is expressed the same way. He thinks Piaget is correct in asserting that cognitive structures are built upon one another, but he goes beyond Piaget in identifying more of them. That's not abuse. That's just addition. I don't have a quote to dish up, but if memory serves he says this explicitly and its not something I deduced myself.

It seems to me that what really bothers you here is that Wilber is using Piaget's work as evidence for something Piaget himself didn't believe. But psychological data are scientific data and that's what Wilber uses, not Piaget's worldview. Even if you made a solid case that Wilber's interpretation of those data were flawed, that would still not constitute "abuse". There is certainly nothing bogus about trying to make that data fit with data from other areas to paint a broader picture, which is what Wilber is doing with Piaget and so many others. I don't see how such a thing could be done without making some mistakes or whatever, but you seem to be suggesting that there is something fundamentally illegitimate about the method he uses, with Piaget really just being one example among dozens.

And if that bothers you, imagine how a fundamentalist would react to Wilber's suggestion that he jettison all his bogus claims about the virgin birth and being raised from the dead. At least you can take some comfort in the fact that he is slightly less upsetting to developmental psychologists.

dmb

_________________________________________________________________
Make every IM count. Download Messenger and join the i’m Initiative now. It’s free. http://im.live.com/messenger/im/home/?source=TAGHM_MAY07

moq_discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/

Reply via email to