You asked where I saw Wilber abusing his sources. I answered regarding the particular example with which I am most familiar. I would add that as a result of this I seriously do not trust his assessment of any of the people he cites. You don't like my answers. I find your responses lame. You can't believe I am serious... Ok, I declare this particular horse dead.
Flatland is more interesting and more to the point. At least I think so. Krimel -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of david buchanan Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2007 6:46 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [MD] The Trouble With Wilber 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 im Initiative now. Its 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/
