COMMENT OF THE DAY
A comment on my long post on Wilber. So accurate it deserves a wider hearing:Being an old time poster on the original Wilber forum, what strikes me is how the online discussions back then, mirror those taking place now. For those who don’t know, the original forum also served as a place for Adi Da devotees and ex-members to hash and re-hash, back-and-forth, about whether Adi-Da was a divine avatar or simply an abusive psychopath. There was no end to it, and the current devotees defended their god-man through anything and everything, including very real sexual abuse. How, one must wonder, could folks defend such stuff? To understand this, you have to look at the mix of eastern religion and western megalomania that manifested in cultic ways during the seventies. It’s really very simple how these cultic groups defended the indefensible, and this very much holds true the Da-is-divine crowd on the old Wilber forum. They play three very simple cards, which can not, NO MATTER WHAT, be trumped. What’s remarkable is that Wilber and his groupies now play those same exact three cards, which are:
(1) The Higher Level Card (i.e. Sorry, it’s just over your head). Sorry, but you’re just not smart enough to realize I am smarter than you, because you’re on a lower (less divine) level.
(2) The Projection Card (i.e., I know you are, but what am I). By criticizing me, you are really just criticizing yourself, because any problem you see in me is just a projection of a problem in yourself.
(3) The Skillful Means Card (i.e., it’s all your own fault, dickhead). The most potent card of all! It’s not abuse; it’s not pathetic or ridiculous or wrong; it’s a crazy-wise teaching. You know, like Zen stuff. So when I call you a dickhead, it’s not because I’m a dickhead, it’s because you have a dickhead-complex that you need to evolve past, and I’m here to help you see that.
Note that these cards are not designed in any way, shape or form to prompt a discussion or dialogue. What can one possibly say to any of these cards? Nothing…and that is exactly the point. They are designed to end all discussion, and they are used only when folks know the actual substance of their beliefs has run, or is running, dry. Wilber’s latest attack of Visser, and the defense provided by his young (and getting younger by the day) followers, consists nearly in whole of these three cards.
It would be interesting to challenge Wilber and his followers to defend his attack on Visser, but only if they first promise to use none of these 3 cards. Wouldn’t it? Indeed it would, though I'm not optimistic it'll ever happen. Thanks for this comment! I wish I could attribute it. But alas there is something nice about it just standing on its own. The three cards of Wilber apologists. Perfect.
I, too, am a old-time poster on a Wilber forum. I got in after the whole Adi Da thing blew over, though, which was legendary from all accounts. I got in, as it happened, just a Jeff Meyerhoff did. I was "Goose" and he was "Critic" and we had a good brawling time of it.
11:00 AM |
Permanent Link
| Email This!
6 comments
6 Comments:
By Paul S. |
6/12/2006 11:36 AM
4. The "He's Only Human" Card
5. (the one i use) The "At Least It's Fucking Entertaining!" Card
By Anonymous |
6/12/2006 3:23 PM
Wow.
I assume you’ve seen Wilber’s follow up, which is nothing more than a playing of these three cards. He even added in just the proper mix of eastern religion and western psychology. [Yes, Ken, your post is similar to the work of Manjushri Bodhisattva].
Overall, it has to be one of the most pathetic, most illogical, most partial, most disturbing, and least comprehensible blogs ever to be penned and confessed by the cultic state of mind. This is not merely my personal opinion; this is a perfectly obvious fact, available to anyone of intelligence, sensitivity, and integrity. At the very least, it is perfectly obvious that there is now no excuse whatsoever for any intelligent and spiritually-minded person, of whatever persuasion, to be a student of or to work for Ken Wilber. The days of denial are over; this nonsense of neglect cannot continue, with any rational reason. I ask his friends, his students, his readers, even his casual acquaintances, to see and recognize and — above all — confess the cultic idiocy that is Ken Wilber and the II.
By Anonymous |
6/12/2006 3:35 PM
Oh- for Manjurshi Bodhisattva’s sake, ken didn’t pick up on or pass my test at all.
You see, all the critical stuff I’ve written over the years, was only to test Wilber’s shadow consciousness and IAMness, including when I responded in an angry fashion to his recent Blog. Given my Buddha nature, I wanted to see what level he was at, you know, mano-to-mano. I wanted to test how attached he was to his ideas. Like, is he really, really attached, or does he see them like clouds in the sky, like water on a big rock, and other Zen stuff. Plop.
Well, as it turns out, I’m afraid it’s not so good, and Wilber fell right into my trap and exposed himself as a green-clover type with a strong blue-diamond line, and a totally marshmallow center. Too bad, but at least I know now I never have to talk to him again. Loser.
Kick ass, dudes!
By Paul S. |
6/12/2006 5:06 PM
LOL -- marshmallow center!!
personally i think the tier 78 plaid-and-gingham vMeme will have the last say.... although watch that mezzanine B herringbone!
-p
By Anonymous |
6/12/2006 10:48 PM
This was posted elsewhere, I'm simply reposting it here because it goes so well with the '3 cards' post:
I have a few thoughts on Wilber's Part II, which I want to just put out there. First, he's made it clear that his Part I was more of a stunt than a rant, though obviously he is not intending to retract the basic criticisms he leveled, which were real enough. He just made them in a magnified and deliberately provocative fashion...caricaturing himself while criticizing the critics.
But in reading the second blog, following its twists and turns, its condemnations and invitations, I was reminded of some of the classic apologetic methods of numerous religious groups and cults. When preachers and evangelists of religious or social movements issue messages with the intent to get you to join, they do a number of things: they provoke you into seeing yourself as ill or incomplete or sinful, in the terms unique to that tradition; they introduce dichotomous language, clearly separating those who are "in" and saved from those who are "out" and losers; they shame you or make you feel guilty for being associated with the losers, to whatever degree; they offer a way out, through membership with an elite, exclusive, or otherwise "rare" community which offers the only or the best hope for humankind (the way is narrow; many are called but few are chosen); and they evoke images and experiences of an exalted state of being, joy, freedom, and so on, through poetry or powerful rhetoric designed to give you a "taste" of the promise of that group's offerings.
Arguably, Wilber's Part II contains all of these elements, and maybe more (I haven't taken the time to articulate all of them). I am not saying this is necessarily a bad thing, but I think it is important to note their presence, since we are talking about shadows. On the one hand, such techniques can be viewed just as good "selling" techniques, skillful means for attracting individuals to a program which really will test and challenge them, and therefore is not initially attractive to the ego, but which will ultimately provide them with the means to grow beyond their present conditions. I believe churches can and have attracted people for many years with these techniques, and often towards good or admirable ends. But on the other hand...well, I don't think I really need to spell out the other hand. It's clear enough that these techniques have also been used for growth-thwarting and less-than-admirable aims.
I do not doubt the intentions of the majority of those involved with Integral, obviously including Ken Wilber. In fact, I think I-I is a wonderful and promising organization and I'm happy to be involved with it, at least in this tangential way. But a lot is happening with this group, and there is a lot of frothy confusion. Not only is the Integral movement drawing a lot of fire from many sides (from friends and enemies who may both be dealing with their own shadow issues, myself included), it is also moving rapidly into territory where many communal and organizational shadows loom. So I think it is good for us, as a community, to be cognizant of these things (LL/LR) as we also wrestle with our own shadow issues (UL).
There is nothing inherently wrong with pointing out illness or stuckness in people, if it is there. There is nothing inherently wrong with using dichotomous language, if it is done skillfully and not too concretely or manipulatively. There is nothing inherently wrong with capitalizing on people's emotions to catalyze change, though it's notoriously difficult, slippery, and potentially treacherous work. There is nothing wrong with appealing to the desire to belong or to be part of a privileged, elite movement, if that movement is truly what it claims, though again this territory is shadowy and strewn with the broken bodies of all manner of true believers (and the outsiders they decided they needed to destroy). In fact, I would say all of these things can be used powerfully to effect good. But history shows us how closely the shadow trails spiritual organizations and the elaborate tools of human shepherding they employ.
So I thought I would just put this out here, and see what you think. Various shadow elements have been lurking around the edges of I-I (as they would around any organization, I am certain). I am thinking here of Adi Da, Cohen, Gafni, perhaps other areas as well. This is very charged territory, and I think it is the sacred charge of members of any such organization to be as transparent about these things as is feasible. In some ways, KW has been playing with fire -- a potentially powerful but also very risky element. On the old forum, I expressed concern about the impact of some of his sexually explicit humor -- requesting blowjobs from members of his audience at the meet-up at his house -- because of the scandals that have marred so many recent spiritual communities, and which we now see just hit close to home through Marc Gafni. And it is questionable how wise Wilber's recent provocative blogs will turn out to be. They have the potential to unearth shadow for productive processing, but we'll have to see how well that is realized ... on all sides.
I'd be interested in your thoughts....
Best wishes,
Balder
By Anonymous |
6/15/2006 6:22 PM
The Three Cards of a Game Enthusiast
It is easy for people to see the things that they want to see. It is easy for people to support the ideas that they hold. It is easy for people to cast others in the same metaphors that they see themselves. Here are the three cards that will be played by those of us who are game enthusaists. It is important however that in order for these cards to be effective we have to adopt the idea that a game is being played. The underlying message of these cards is simple. If you have a problem with someone, pretend your playing a game, and make up cards that they play. This devalues every perspective brought to the table but yours which will be quite clear that a game is being played and by making up names for cards you can win.
Here are the the three cards required to play this game effectively.
1) THE MAKE UP CARDS CARD. This is the card where somebody has a conflict with somebodies else actions. To support their conflict they make up cards. Something like the Ultimate Guru Trump Card, or The Hook Then Heal Card, or the Make Up Cards Card. It offers no real support for the argument but rather casts the entire phenomon as a metaphor for a game. A game in which the person who is having a conflict with the person who seems to be making significant progress is playing tricks.
2)THE FLACCID SUPPORTS FOR MADE UP CARDS CARD. This is where people are set in a certain perspective and are desperately trying to hold on and defend that perspective. Of course, there is value in the MAKE UP CARDS approach which I think is worthy of integration. However, in this approach we can simply find somewhere something that seems to point towards our opinion. As Tony Robbins (a good friend of Ken Wilber's ;) says "You can find references for anything you want to believe" (Paraphrased) If you think people are all basically bad, there are references for that. So to play this card we must search for something that supports the title of our card. This should be easy, it doesn't really have to hold up. It just has to convey the essence of the title of the card.
3) THE GAME OVER, I WON CARD. This is the card where you suggest that somebody else played a card that disempowers everybody. Thus, you prove that the card actually has no power, and thereby yourself disempowering the person who you say played the cards. With this card all you have to do is say that the person who played this card is essentially saying nothing more than that they won. That is to play this card in the first place you first have to adopt the metaphor that a game is being played and somebody has to win and somebody has to lose. All you really have to do is go into lengthy descriptions of how there is actually no value in anything offered by somebody that you would have to consider yourself "playing a game against" even despite the idea that they may not hold the same metaphor. It might also be possible that they may not even be trying to win but rather reach a resolution. With this card however you get to abandon any sort of resolution, avoid seeing value in opposing perspectives, and prop your ego up as the winner of a battle with who you most likely percieve in the first place as a titan.
Post a Comment
|
