I really enjoyed your latest Wilber post [ed—"Let's Set The Record Straight"]. Again you have been able to point to several of the concerns that I've felt myself and others that I couldn't quite put my finger on but now see much more clearly. I'm glad that you have the courage, experience and knowledge of Wilber and his work that is necessary to provide the kind of analysis of the www (wonderful world of wilber) that others exploring that world need to be aware of. I feel your take is balanced, critical and more mature than most if not all out there now - a take which I am striving for more and more each day. Thanks for offering it up.

The thing I'm beginning to slowly and maybe painfully realize is that so many into Wilber just take his model as is, then go about trying to explain, comment or create arguments based on Wilber's words alone. I've done it all too often without stopping to think for myself on an issue, do some research and see what's going on. The point is that we need to be challenged, and I'm sure if I were challenged in the past I wouldn't know what to argue with besides falling back on Wilber's opus. We need to think for ourselves and begin to break down Wilber's arguments - start there and not from the basis of the AQAL model as a given. I think it can be great as a 'cover all the bases' gig - especially IMP and including the many specialty methologies out there- but at some point someone has to know or learn that specialty or collablorate with someone who does else we all become amateur 'insert specialty field here'.

So it seems people learn his model, go around applying it to things they read about but when challenged have nothing to rely on, to back up and argue besides Wilber's very generalized 'orienting' model. His work covers so much and summarizes in a way that people just swallow it down (download IOS ring a bell?) and instant analysis not using the general lens or IMP of AQAL but using Ken word for word or pretty damn close to it often. Thanks again and there is definitely something to be learned here.

I feel obliged to share something with you that has been concerning me for some time now. At first I thought it was no business of mine to comment upon, and therefore bit my tongue. I was not aware of the full context that surrounded your exit from I-I and I felt that you should be given a good length of rope in that regard to speak about your experience in that institution, both good and bad. I have heard from more than one person about kw's sharp tongue and unpredictable temper, and figured that you took a stinky bit of it in the face for some reason. But, it's been a while now, and your attitude towards kw and the rest of the community surrounding his work only seems to be spiraling downward - or perhaps getting more and more openly jaded and needlessly antagonistic.

I have to say that I am disappointed with the derogatory manner in which you continue to refer to ken in your writings. And please do not interpret this as some kind of a defense for kw for I do not feel the need to "protect" him or to be out there in cyber-space writing apologies for him everywhere. Rather, this is about protecting the integrity of your own work - why would you choose to jeopardize your efforts by lowering yourself to name-calling and vocal bullying? And let's be honest, you are clearly openly attacking people here, and not their ideas.

So then, what business is it of mine to comment upon this now? Because I care - I care about you and the work that you're doing. I want to encourage you to maintain a professional posture in your writings, whether they be blog entries or full-on essay engagements, so that your audience takes you seriously as an academic and not perceive you as just some angry guy who got slighted and has resorted to personal attack to get his point across. At best you sound clever, at worst, petty and lame. Continuing to speak in such a manner will only serve to discredit the strong work that you are producing and the service that you are performing for the larger community. I say, honour your own efforts by maintaining a sense of dignity about your ideas. In the end, this will come across as a certain subtle confidence which can only serve to aid in the delivery of your ideas and provide a kind of buttress for your emerging philosophy as well as a bolster for your own academic integrity.