. : MatthewDallman.com : . The Official Site for Matthew Dallman's Music, Art, & Writing

For those inclined to interest in evolutionary biology and the manner in which the shiny one, Ken Wilber, philosophizes about it, take note. The Vomitting Confetti blog, by Tuff Ghost, posts an inquiry into Wilber's apparent mishandling of basic facts of evolutionary theory. Wilber responded, and Geoffrey Falk has a response to that. Read Wilber and Falk's responses here (May 27th entry). All of it is very interesting. Falk sees the same patterns of sloppy scholarship on Wilber's part that he has documented on his blog, as well as the dreadful habit to 'argue from authority', as Wilber often does. VConfetti cannot see why Wilber would be so inconsistent on such as vital and fundamental issue as evolutionary biology. Both make great points.

One thing I predict is that more and more of this sort of expose will continue - where Wilber's often shoddy research and superficial renderings of domains that others devote their lives to researching will come to light, and are rightly criticized. As scholars, our prime directive is to research original sources, and not rest upon a spiritual philosopher's hyperbolic commentary upon them - whose ambitions clearly are simply to encourage people to meditate. So keep the faith, friends! The house that Willber's theories rests upon can be blown over with less wind than one might think. Mind you, I'm not interested in deconstruction for its own sake. Far from it - what I desire is a more humble, reasonable, and responsible integral philosophy than the one offered by Wilber. And deeply, I don't want it to create its own ghetto.

My own experiment right now (since I was so absorbed in Integral Institute work for 16 months as lead art scholar) is to cut Wilber out. As I write and research, I inquire where and when I can reasonably and persuasively ignore Wilber's take on things, sprinkled through his Collected Works. Sometimes I can, sometimes I can't (in good scholarly faith). But it is a question I didn't think to ask until I resigned from I-I. (Yes, I was naive.) Footnote and cite Wilber's work if you must, but through patient research into original sources, tempered by common sense and the ability for people to follow along, I have found that the actual applications of Wilber's theories are rather narrow. So, yes, he can be cut out without harm to integrity. The process of fleshing out his ideas allows the flimsy Wilber(tm) version to be easily discarded, without scholarly violation, since its holes are large enough for, ehem, semis.

You realize he actually hasn't done what you think he ought have. For art, he really hasn't talked much about artistic practice, about artwork creation, about art institutional policy, and even about art interpretation (though this is where he wrote the most). He talks about psychology, psychology, and more psychology, in ways that help one start the process of, in this case, an integral art philosophy, but hardly act as sustained support. For a long time I thought his approach - which outlines and lightly sketches - is a good way to go, because it allows other voices a fair hearing. But I have come to realize that this approach is dangerously close to scholarly co-out, because he is able to claim credit without responsibility, and can easily wiggle out of errors and misrepresentations.

My view is that he really just wants people to take up meditation and a multi-modular practice. Once people do, I believe he would prefer to let consciousness unfold as it does, in the unique manners for each person, and thus his work falls by the wayside - you are living a more integral life. Which means, to take this literally, that once you start meditation and other modules, you can let go of need to read Wilber's confusing superficialities about this, that, or the other thing (developmental values being perhaps the most obnoxiously obstuse). And then, if you are scholarly inclined, you start to research people who take the various domains of human thought, operation, and knowledge much more seriously and soberly than Wilber, apparently, ever could. A map responds to a changing world - not the other way around.

His strategy is to leverage his spiritual intuition born of his years as a meditator and prolific reader of books to create his 'argumentation from authority' - which is another way of saying, 'I've read much more than you, and meditated more than you, so why don't you just trust that I'm being accurate.' This carries him pretty far, and his passionate prose convinces many a lay reader, until some of them actually start to check out how Wilber has interpreted and characterized original sources.

My guess is that professionals in the various fields usually don't have the time or inclination to refute the ideas of a philosopher who only glides over their field, a strategy necessary for his 'theory of everything' map-making, which utilizes watered-down generalizations, only sometimes practical and useful. As Wilber comments upon thinkers and thought past and present, he hits, and he misses. But you'd never know it if you only read Wilber's version of the world's literature traditional and contemporary literature. As evidenced by his scholarlship alone, he has a high estimation of his own argumentative authority.