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

Geoffrey Falk has posted a useful summary of this many points of critique of Ken Wilber's work. He includes several links to both his more specific analysis as well as those of others. I have said before, many times, that I consider Falk to be a performance artist, who artfully mixes analytical rigor with ad hominem. The latter offends or annoys many in the integral community, and stretches the patience of the rest.

I rather take the latter with several grains of humorous salt given the former, which is substantial, measured, and intellectually honest. It may be that I'm relatively alone on this, but that is my perspective. His open secret is that I believe he cares deeply about a truly legitimate integral worldview (whether it is named as such or not), one not easily poked-through by skeptical invesigation of original sources, and one not based upon hyperbole or unearned assertions of truth for the sake of p.r. or legacy-building. For this, Falk ought be applauded for doing the work that few are willing to do. He may error here, there, or even everywhere (I don't believe he does, but it is possible), but his efforts are noble nonetheless, as are Wilber's efforts to foster some kind of planet-centric philosophy anchored in human psychology.

The jury is still out on whether Falk's criticisms function "intrinsically"—that is, to what extent the heart of Wilber's philosophy is injured or punctured. To assess Falk's work in that way requires a certain sobriety, careful consideration, and willingness to suspend disbelief. By that I mean that it requires a confidence that an integral worldview will still stand and live organically, even if Wilber's own particular writings falter, are diminished, or even in certain points, collapse. I sincerely doubt that will happen with 100% of his work; I also sincerely doubt that it won't happen with at least some of it.

As this article in the Telegraph reminds us, Virginia Woolf said that when she wrote her book reviews, she'd read the book twice. The first time she'd surrender to everything the author offered; the second time, she wouldn't give the author a single sentence if it wasn't earned. Some in the integral community have done the first stage and now are in the second in some form or another. I count myself in that group, though I have also pushed further because the world of art/aesthetic philosophy is far broader than Wilber's main focus, which centers on psychology (including mysticism).

In any event, this second stage is far tougher than the first, in two ways. The reader is required, in this case, to go to original sources and consider how Wilber's interpretations/characterizations of Gilligan, Gardner, Loevinger, Piaget, Baldwin, Housen, and others are or are not faithful and accurate. The second reading is also much harder on the author — more critical of Wilber. For by his own account, he has told stories of many thinkers' ideas, and attempted to make a meta-story, based upon the stories as well as his own subjective insights. Thus his meta-story stands or falls in large part on his success in getting the original stories right. If he gets things wrong, we have to assess to what extent his error or errors are "intrinsic" to the heart of his model, as well as "instrinsic" to the intellectual/academic integrity anyone needs to make distinct one's philosophic voice from mere hot air. For if Wilber's is ultimately mere fanciful story, then surely claims that his work is "scholarly" cease to be meaningful. In any event, finding that out will provide solid ground from which to accurately assess the value of Wilber's oeuvre.