��� Michael Britt writes: >Someone asked me what I thought about Ken Wilber and Integral >Theory. I have to admit that I've never heard of it. After a quick check >online my first impression is that his ideas are either "new agey" or > just more philosophical than psychological. I've never seen him >mentioned in any psych texts. Anyone familiar with his ideas?
I hope the following helps! From: "On the Nature of a Post-Metaphysical Spirituality" Ken Wilber Since I have offered an "integral theory" that I *claim* honors more types of truths than the alternatives, then I must offer a series of justifications for this claim, and that is what my books attempt to do. Since I believe that in many cases I can justify my claims to be more integral than the alternatives, I have often criticized the alternative views as being partial and "less integral" or "less comprehensive" (and therefore presumably "less true"). So yes, I have offered a "critical integral theory." (See Jack Crittenden's Foreword to The Eye of Spirit , where he summarizes my critical theory.) But I should say that I hold this integral critical theory very lightly. Part of the difficulty is that, at this early stage, all of our attempts at a more integral theory are very preliminary and sketchy. It will take decades of work among hundreds of scholars to truly flesh out an integral theory with any sort of compelling veracity. Until that time, what I try to offer are suggestions for making our existing theories and practices just a little more integral than they are now.. http://wilber.shambhala.com/html/misc/habermas/index.cfm/xid,1898203/yid,32644213 Richard Todd Carroll examines some of Wilber's notions: If you do not believe in the existence of spirit, either personal spirits or one Big Spirit driving the universe, then Wilber's insights are unlikely to resonate with you. Wilber's Note to the Reader isn't too bad, however. It is clearly written and sets out his plan to "deal with" everything from the "material cosmos and the emergence of life" to "the Divine Domain." He lets us know early on that he considers the present state of the Kosmos to be dreadful. He calls it "flatland" and "one-dimensional." (He tells us on p. 19 that he prefers Kosmos to cosmos because that's the term the Pythagoreans used and they meant "the patterned nature or process of all domains of existence, from matter to mind to God, and not merely the physical universe...." Fair play to him.) Wilber does not like this postmodern world but it does provide him with a living as one who can discover "the radiant Spirit at work, even in our own apparently God-forsaken times." "The standard, glib, neo-Darwinian explanation of natural selection--absolutely nobody believes this anymore. Evolution clearly operates in part by Darwinian natural selection, but this process simply selects those transformations that have already occurred by mechanisms that absolutely nobody understands"… Wilber doesn't put forth these false claims about evolution in order to promote creationism or intelligent design, however. He puts them forth to support his simplistic teleological vitalism, which he grandly calls the drive to self-transcendence of the Kosmos. http://www.skepdic.com/news/newsletter38.html A more detailed response on Wilber's claims about neo-Darwinism is here: http://www.kheper.net/topics/Wilber/Wilber_on_biological_evolution.html To which criticism Wilber has replied: The material of mine that is being quoted is extremely popularized and simplified material for a lay audience. Publicly, virtually all scientists subscribe to neo-Darwinian theory. Privately, real scientists -- that is, those of us with graduate degrees in science who have professionally practiced it -- don't believe hardly any of its crucial tenets. Instead of a religious preacher like Dawkins, start with something like Michael Behe’s Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. And then guess what? Neo-Darwinian theory can’t explain shit. Deal with it… The problem is that creation scientists -- who are almost entirely Christians -- after having convincingly demonstrated that neo-Darwinian theory has loopholes large enough to drive several Hummers through -- then try to prove that Jehovah is in one of the Hummers. But, of course, the fact that neo-Darwinian theory cannot explain the central aspects of evolution, does not mean that a specific type of God can. But they never would make the kind of headway they have unless neo-Darwinian theory is the piece of Swiss cheese that it is. But all that this really proves, in my opinion, is that there is an Eros to the Kosmos, an Eros that scientific evolutionary theory as it is simply cannot explain. http://vomitingconfetti.blogspot.com/2005/05/awaken-white-morpheus.html Allen Esterson Former lecturer, Science Department Southwark College, London http://www.esterson.org --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([email protected])
