I plan at least two new albums. On the docket are an EP (A Bird in the World) early in 2006, and a LP (as yet unnamed) probably late in the year. I'll consider it a huge bonus if I'm able to record a third album, this one of children's songs on piano. Don't hold me to that; actually, wait, maybe you should.

I plan to compose a new work for vibraphone and cello, a work of some length, possibly 15 minutes. (w)Dan Allison has agreed to be the vibes performer, and he inspired/cajoled this direction, overall, graciously as ever.

I plan to continue distributing my improvisations and compositions for piano, as experimental as I can make them. This is my portal for the my philosophizing at the edge of my own awareness. Words are younger than tones.

I plan to oversee the print magazine Polysemy -- Artistry Through Perspectives -- For Artists By Artists -- starting with three issues in 2006, with my role as publisher and editor in chief. Stay tuned for more! This is part of a broader effort to continue efforts to build up and support a solid community of dedicated, working integral artists.

I plan to be able to tell everyone when my first book of integral art philosophy, now titled A River Of One's Own, will be published and available. It is in (very) rough manuscript as of now. This of course means I continue my research into the biggies of world philosophy, art/aesthetic-based and otherwise.

I plan to conduct at least one research project in the field of art, where I interview artists and collect and analyze their responses. If it works, this project might be used in any number of interesting and helpful ways.

I plan to have at least one article published in a major arts/culture magazine, possibly as a piece of interpretation of a work of art, done so inclusively and integrally. It might also be commentary on the state of the field of art. This depends upon what the magazine wants.

I plan to continue music study with my teacher, W.A. Mathieu, after a hiatus brought about by the emergence of Twyla in the world. I literally can't wait to start up again, because his perspective on music is so amazing.

I plan to continue to teach Twyla music, have her teach me, counterpoint the low part to hers sung high, and do more D3 trios between Twyla, Hannah, and yours truly. Is music ever more pure than when created on the occasion of a child's developing emotional temperament?

I plan (actually, D3 plans) to move to north Chicagoland, namely Kenosha, Wisc, to our first single-family house, sell our two current houses, and amongst many things, set up our first dedicated creative workspaces (me music, Hannah film, Twyla found objects) -- kind of our Jackson Pollack/Lee Krasner workshed -- theirs was north of New York City, ours north of Chicago.

I plan more fun stuff at The Daily Goose, from Cellph Shots, through experimental stills and experimental motion, as well as more essays, more inter-blog discussion and jousting, more Flash animations (lava lamps, et al). I plan to podcast, which should be a trip unto itself.

...real philosophers [are] those elect of mankind who with deep earnestness seek not their own affairs, but the truth. They must therefore not be confused with those who under this pretext have only their personal advancement in view. [Johann Gottlieb] Fichte is the father of sham philosophy, of the underhand method that by ambiguity in the use of words, incomprehensible talk, and sophisms, tries to deceive, to impress by an air of importance, and thus to befool those eager to learn. After this method had been applied by Schelling, it reached its height, as is well known, in Hegel, with whom it ripened into real charlatanism.

Hi CJ,

I wanted to offer a quick rejoinder to the points you raise about recent posts of mine, which you link to in your post.

I did not, as you cite, distinguish between integral conservatism and neo-conservatism. This is because, as I pointed out in the third and forth paragraphs of my "On Conservatism and Integral" post, I referred to conservatism in its sociological, not political, version. It is centered on the axiom that, in general, people are conservative about what they know best. Talking about politics is going down a separate path than my post did. If my meaning isn't clear on "sociological conservatism" (which I admit I did not parse much before I presented it, allow me to here), I'm talking one's general temperament, approach to new information/stimuli, their decision making process, evolving aesthetic preferences, etc.

All about how one reconciles with society and its attendent forces. I'm talking about one's general, everyday stance to what happens in the exterior world. I'm talking about the portal you call "me", and its general temperament of response to things that happen to you, insights you gain, information you receive, perspectives you consider. It is about being open-minded yet skeptical, I suggest. It is about the manner in which you separate truth from fog in the social realm. This is "the person in society", and thus my usage of the term, "sociological". I'm using everyday language here, not specialist language that would refine "sociology" in more particular ways. You could add the voting booth to this list, which is why I said there of course was overlap between political conservatism and the kind I was describing. But taking that overlap too far would require a different perspective than the one I offered about sociological conservatism. It would require a perspective on "integral politics" and that is not what I attempted to address here and now. Glad that you have taken that on.

If any virtue is associated with an integral worldview, it is "restraint". When you reconcile perspectives, absorb learning from any source, and have a wealth of data about the human condition, as we do today, then the exercise of restraint, of judiciousness, of scruples, becomes more important than ever. This, too, is part of what I mean by "conservatism", again, as distinct from political conservatism which is a long story unto itself.

I'll have to check out those critiques of Kaplan by Bennett. I'm not versed in them.

I think I first came upon Kaplan through a recommendation that Don Beck had written somewhere (perhaps on an older version of Beck's website). And for what it is worth, the best part of the Spiral Dynamics book, at least for me, is the poetical descriptions of the "turquoise" level. That is where the notion that the integral worldview operates as "steward" (a conservative 'person in society' stance as I see it) probably originated. I believe it more than ever, partly I'm sure because I'm a new father and immediately see the need for a conservative, scrupulous temperament when you have a precious child to take care of, and protect. Same goes for the world and everything in it, by (I admit) an enormous extension.

It comes down to this: when you are charged with taking care of the house (or the planet, or a child, etc), you act differently. Even if you want to bring about large scale improvements to it, you still act with caution, with measured strokes, so that the frame doesn't come down and leave you in the cold. That position of "deep responsibility", translated and extended onto the worldstage with a planet-centric moral imperative, is part of what I mean by conservatism here -- I'm describing the basic nature of interface of person and society. Obviously I suggest that such an interface be inclusive of multiple perspectives, the depth and span of those perspectives, and so I'm describing an "integral interface" of person in society, doing everyday things, learning everyday knowledge, as well as plunging into the depths of experience as each person sees fit, and as situations require. I'm calling it conservative because the sheer act of weighing data, insights, and perspectives to the degree that our age (being flooded with all of those) allows, means we make informed distinctions, and means our shit-detector is quite high, as it should be when our frames of perception are as wide and as deep as they are now.

To whatever extent a person seeks to change the world (and, yes, plenty in the world stands quite a bit of change; I've particularly highlighted my complaints with the child-birthing institutions, and how I believe that midwifery (or nurse-midwifery) is far more sympathetic with an integral worldview than anyone, it seems, cares to allow), that person must first ensure that the range of human experience is likewise protected. To preserve, by definition, is a conservative stance, in terms of the interface of person in society. And it is one I fully support and will continue to advocate.

...[T]he "content" of any medium is always another medium. The content of writing is speech, just as the written word is the content of print, and print is the content of the telegraph. If it is asked, "What is the content of speech?" it is necessary to say, "It is an actual process of thought, which in itself is nonverbal." An abstract painting represents direct manifestation of creative thought processes as they might appear in computer designs. What we are considering here, however, are the psychic and social consequences of the designs or patterns as they amplify or accelerate existing processes. For the "message" of any medium or technology is the change of scale or pace or pattern that it introduces into human affairs.

I've long held that the integral worldview is far more conservative and based in healthy skepticism than has been advertised. Why?

I hold integral to be a new form of conservatism because I think careful comparision shows significant overlap, especially when conservatism is taken through the "negate and preserve" mill that keeps the baby, tosses the bathwater. The integral worldview respects the need for traditions, institutions, a variety of belief systems, the necessity of "useful dogma" for the purposes of development and social stability, and that, for the practical purposes of child-rearing, human nature has no history (we all start at square one). It is also open-minded, but seeks evidence and solid thinking-through of positions. It can spot sophistry and specious rhetoric through careful examination (and sometimes, from a mile away).

To see this as inherently conservative requires us to see past (in the case of Americans) association of conservative with Republicans, and liberal with Democrats. It is not about that at all. The failure to distinguish between sociological conservatism and political conservatism (and in fact, reduce not just sociology, but everything to politics is a massive misconception of the Left).

As I said above [ed.—in the original comment], we are in the sociology realm now, not in the political realm. Sociologically, everyone is conservative about what they know best. Taken logically, that means you can think of "conservative" as a personality type; and types, according to Wilber (which I agree with) apply no matter the level of worldview.

But when so much of what I perceive as the integral worldview has to do with stewardship, respect for the institutions that foster development (including religious institutions and religious practice), the necessity of clear thinking and reasoned debate, and a rebirth of interest in history through a planet-centric moral lens, this all has the sounds of conservatism, to me. And it importantly suggests that "integral conservatism" isn't quite right (as in, "integral conservatism" and "integral liberalism", two sides of the integral coin). Rather, I see conservatism as the overall ethos of integral, within which there are preferences, dispositions, and types of variation. Integral, as I now see it, offers new kind of conservatism, one that is planet-centric, concerned for the health and development of all peoples, and is able to diagnose and see through the wads of false reasoning presented falsely in the name of "post conventional".

That this also means that the typical present-day liberal/Left habit of calling out underlying intent of whomever they critique (all in all, the "psychographical" angle, though some insist upon "exposing hypocrisy") is significantly reduced (not eliminated) should be obvious. That is a very partial way of conducting oneself within interactions with others, as well as more than a little patronizing. Psychology, too, is quite distinct from sociology, as well as being a particularly specialized field that requires training before wild assertions and judgments are laid upon others' psyche as so much as hot air or steam. Christopher Lasch exposed the "therapy culture" of liberal narcissism, and, per usual, he was spot on. Thus we transcend such things.

Twyla. stop. Classic thumb sucking position. stop. With right hand. First time, tonight. stop. Perfect execution, even the Russian and French judges were impressed. stop. A perfect 10. She wins the gold. stop. Love's body. stop.

"Afghanistan gets its first parliament in decades"

Afghanistan today inaugurated its first democratically-elected parliament in decades, in an emotional ceremony that reduced Hamid Karzai, the nation’s president, to tears.

Dick Cheney, the US Vice President, and his wife, Lynne, were among the guests as the assembly opened amid tight security. He said it was "a privilege to be present" for the historic event.

Concern remains however whether the legislature, where regional warlords sit alongside Westernised former refugees, women and ethnic minorities, can be a constructive political force.

The assembly opened after a reading from the Quran, the national anthem and a folksong by schoolgirls dressed in brightly colored robes. President Karzai, while acknowledging the country’s problems with poverty, corruption and terrorism, hailed the parliament as a symbol of unity.

"This is an important step toward democracy," he said, closing his speech by tearfully declaring that Afghanistan was "again standing on its feet, after decades of war and occupation".

When I speak about what a composer does, I mean what I do as a composer, of course, but also what I can infer by observing other composers and studying their music.

There are as many ways to compose as there are composers. A mother calming her child with a pleasing new song is an certainly a composer as was Gustav Mahler, who may have used reams of paper and an entire orchestra to commensurate effect. Polkas, rumbas, ragas, and rap are all composed to various degrees in their various ways. Groups of musicians, especially jazz and rock musicians, compose collectively and refine their work through performance. The ceremonial music of the Balinese gamelan seems to be composed by almost the entire village—dozens or hundreds of players over many generations have their say in shaping a given piece. The strange process of a lone individual single-handedly composing and notating a piece of music, thus freezing its form for others to reproduce later, is an act of Western hubris that causes some folks from other cultures to scratch their heads, shrug their shoulders, and—well—grin.

But in our culture, the write-it-down composer has been cast as a hero, often a tragic hero, misunderstood, disdained in his time, and poor as a church mouse. This characterization is due largely to the commercial romanticism of a century ago, yet the popular image of the unhealthy, curmudgeonly, debt-ridden, garret-dwelling bachelor does persist. What a composer actually does in terms of craft seems to most people an especially inaccessible subject, an unattainable understanding. So we have projected onto the composer a quirky antisocial persona that ripens, like cheese, into lionization after he is dead. An author's craft is just as difficult to master, and just as specialized; but everyone in the world has a spoken language, so the craft of a truly fine author, though it develops just as rarely in the population as the craft of a truly fine composer, is not perceived as alien. What a composer does for a living is thought of as an exclusive, perhaps threatening magic.

I can see why. What strange mind would think to organize the sounds of wind and water, birdsong and human cries, to collect and shape and systematically quantize them? Yet such a mind is not strange. Indeed, part of the wisdom lost to our civilization is that the systems involved in music making are not separate from ourselves—they are reflections of the way we are designed to hear. As a people, we don't know that. We think composition requires special capabilities and initiations. We think it is for a chosen few. It isn't. It is for all people who want to develop their sensitivity to sound. Just as an author's craft develops through sensitivity to language and meaning and a painter's through sensitivity to light and color and line, so, as one becomes more aware of mere sound, the secrets of musical composition open like petals. So first and foremost, a composer trains to listen.

Though they share with many liberals a critical interest in aesthetics and the environment, a key difference between crunchy cons and the Left is the emphasis placed on these issues. Leftists tend to absolutize their tastes and convictions, look upon people who don't share them as morally deficient, and seek to impose them on an unwilling community. Crunchy cons, on the other hand, are more inclined to think simply that they've found a neat way to live, and want only to propose it to others.

Judy Warner, a rural Marylander who works in conservative fundraising, nicely captures the distinction in talking about the organic-farming, home-canning, composting, dulcimer-playing lifestyle she shares with her ex-Marine husband. "I'm a red-diaper baby and the conservative black sheep in my unreformed family. Here's the difference between my siblings and me: I do this as part of my life, a part I think is important and pleasurable, but not the most important. For them, it is the meaning of their life. It is their religion."

While crunchy cons would stop well short of imputing moral inferiority to those who don't share their own tastes in architecture, trees, or foodstuff, they would also say that it's a serious mistake to think of these issues as mere matters of taste. A child who grows up in a neighborhood built for human beings, not cars, may think of man's relation to his world differently from one raised amid the throwaway utilitarianism of strip-mall architecture. One's sensitivity to and desire for beauty, and its edifying qualities of order, harmony, "sweetness and light," has consequences for the character of individuals and ultimately for civilization. It's perilous to forget that.

Glad to see a real discussion here.

I’ll take the arguments thusfar presented in order from least persuasive to most persuasive.

WWolf, your argument here is glib, specious, and your main point irrelevant. Wikipedia, Brittanica, Nature, the New York Times, Der Spiegel, whatever — there could be 400 errors per article and none of that has a bearing on this topic, here and now. We are talking about the 21 things cited in Andrews’ piece, not what is presented in other places. Furthermore, I strongly disagree Andrews’ piece is an attack (unless our definitions differ); it is a critique, and one that cares about its subject at that. But the bottom line is that isn't relevant either. I’d rather see an argument on substance from you, than an argument on author psychography. Even if Andrews is "self-important" (an assessment I do not share, at all), that has no bearing on the validity of the criticisms he forwards.

Moving on, I agree with both Tim(w/c) and Ghost, by the way, about Falk. I’m happy to see nuanced, as opposed to lunk-headed, appraisals of his Wilber criticism. He does work very hard, and he presents much of good, ole substance. His Wilber/Bohm analysis is particularly insightful. I have critiqued his insults previously (such as those towards DASHH) and I don’t think that most of his insults are necessary in any way. They add needless fog. I generally attempt to see right through them (”total, fucking, bald, integral idiot” becomes “Wilber is misguided here” in my head and processing) but I firmly agree that doing so can get laborious. I have often concieved of his online presence as a kind of performance art that simultracks ad hominem with academic rigor, but even I have started to think that my appraisal is stretching things a bit too far. I just hope he maintains the levels substance in his Wilber critiquing that I originally found so compelling. I do admire his courage in addressing Wilber's work head-on.

It is interesting that both you cats (T(w/c) and TG) haven’t actually read Boomeritis. I don’t recommend that you do. There is nothing in it of note that isn’t in TOE, IPsy, MoSaS, SES, and EOS. Which is precisely why even though Boomeritis is a novel, you can criticize its main claims and points. As Tim says, it is “theory disguised as fiction” — or as I said, the same theoretical framework that undergirds Wilber’s fiction undergirds his nonfictition. And Ghost “predetermined conclusions” is spot on.

All of this gets to something I raised in my first comment — the metrics for assessment of Wilber’s work. What are metrics we can agree on?

Tim mentioned raising the bar, Ghost suggested that orientating generalizations as important points of critical focus. Many people on INaked reduce criticism to “nitpicking” where others find merit and insight. And even here in Andrews’ piece, where Tim found 4 main points of criticism, I found at least 12, and so there is confusion. The validity of criticism will always of its subjective side, where we like a critical article or essay "just cuz". Its tone or style meets our preferences, and things like that.

But on the objective side, what are our metrics, our standards, for assessing criticism of Wilber’s work? Determining this is another way to ensure that this “second stage” of Wilber sticks.

In paragraphs 7 and 8 of my first comment, I suggested that Andrews’ criticisms do address important aspects of Wilber’s overall model. To get more people to meditate is one of his stated aims, and to address issues of human development (itp, mid-life flat-lining) is just as crucial to his advocacy. And obviously, Wilber placed “second tier” in a special place in his overall theory. Each of these three topics are addressed in Andrews’ piece. And if Wilber is wrong with the facts about these three, then it in fact implicates the validity of his larger model in no small way, because he ties these in various ways to his AQAL pillars.

I propose one metric for assessment is how intrinsic the points of criticism are. I have shown that in Andrews’ piece, his points about meditation, itp, human development would, in fact, be rightly considered intrinsic. If Wilber got the facts about these wrong, then a domino effect could ensue that might undermine some degree of authenticity of his model’s advocacy.

I should point out that the Andrews’ critique of Wilber’s writing style (redundacy, etc) is not meet the intrinsic test, but rather is extrinsic. That doesn’t mean it has any less validity (after all, we three kings seem to agree that Wilber repeats himself far too often; a good writer, generally, does not rely on endless repeating). But it does mean that Wilber's redundancy doesn’t implicate his theory in any substantial way. Let’s be clear about this distinction.

And Wilber-heads will know that Wilber proposes a third metric (that of “ground value”) but that isn’t particularly relevant here, because it suggests a “radical equality” that is an important point in its own, rather abstract context (the entire kosmos), but is irrelevant assessing anything in the intellectual/philosophical realm. It is a version of “it’s all good” and that attitude can easily be an obstacle in the way of clarity in an integral worldview, because in fact it makes no distinctions at all, about anything.

So the first metric of assessment is an essay's potential intrinsic ramification. A house can still stand on liquid moors. Intrinsic critique exposes what will collapse eventually, if they already haven't. This doesn't mean the house will fall into the sea, necessarily, but it will help us build better houses in the future, and remind us not to worship a house that can be blown over by the wind. Particularly, Andrews asserts, amongst other thigns, that meditation's impact, the physical value of itp, and the nature of development through the years of adult maturity have been misrepresented by Wilber. These are intrinsic critiques, because the relevance of Wilber's larger model/constructs are tied to these claims. Because he examines these issues, Andrews' piece ought be taken seriously, and his conclusions further examined as necessary in order to verify its validity.

harmonic expanse,
md

TAE: Most European democracies have completely lost their fighting spirit, and are thus left with unimpressive military forces. Why is the U.S. a comparative exception today among modern Western nations in the survival of a righteous martial spirit among its population?

Kaplan: I think Australia still has it, and Japan is regaining it. People are a little uncomfortable with that, given Japan’s military history, but their reconstituted spirit is understandable given their terrific fear of a reunited greater Korea. And even Singapore has a very feisty, strong military. So we’re not the only ones.

But in all these cases, I think it’s because there is a sense of specific nationhood, anchored to a specific geography, which gives it a moral accountability. Once you’re de-linked from geography and you only think in terms of universal values, you’re no longer motivated. That’s why Europe has a specific problem. The old nation exists less and less in Europe.

1. We are conservatives who stand outside the conservative mainstream; therefore, we can see things that matter more clearly.

2. Modern conservatism has become too focused on money, power, and the accumulation of stuff, and insufficiently concerned with the content of our individual and social character.

3. Big business deserves as much skepticism as big government.

4. Culture is more important than politics and economics.

5. A conservatism that does not practice restraint, humility, and good stewardship—especially of the natural world—is not fundamentally conservative.

6. Small, Local, Old, and Particular are almost always better than Big, Global, New, and Abstract.

7. Beauty is more important than efficiency.

8. The relentlessness of media-driven pop culture deadens our senses to authentic truth, beauty, and wisdom.

9. We share Russell Kirk’s conviction that “the institution most essential to conserve is the family.”

Morgan Freeman says it's "ridiculous" that a single month is dedicated to black history. ''You're going to relegate my history to a month?'' the 68-year-old actor says in an interview on CBS' ''60 Minutes'' this Sunday. ''I don't want a black history month. Black history is American history.'' The Oscar winner notes there is no ''white history month,'' and says the only way to get rid of racism is to ''stop talking about it.'' The actor says he believes the labels ''black'' and ''white'' are an obstacle to beating racism. ''I am going to stop calling you a white man, and I'm going to ask you to stop calling me a black man,'' Freeman says.

CNSNews.com - Statistics released by the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals suggest that fewer than half of the victims of Hurricane Katrina were black, and that whites died at the highest rate of all races in New Orleans.

Liberals in the aftermath of the storm were quick to allege that the Bush administration delayed its response to the catastrophe because most of the victims were black.

Damu Smith, founder of the National Black Environmental Justice Network, in September said that the federal government "ignored us, they forgot about us ... because we look like we look."

Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan in October said that the Federal Emergency Management Agency wasn't fit to help the storm's victims because "there are not enough blacks high up in FEMA" and added that, "certainly the Red Cross is the same."

Rapper Kanye West used his time on NBC's telethon for the hurricane victims to charge that, "George Bush doesn't care about black people."

But the state's demographic information suggests that whites in New Orleans died at a higher rate than minorities. According to the 2000 census, whites make up 28 percent of the city's population, but the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals indicates that whites constitute 36.6 percent of the storm's fatalities in the city.

Hi Tim,

I came upon your site via clicking through Technorati. Looks good, glad that your voice is out there/here. Will continue to check out your site as things go forward.

Anyway, I come in peace and want to stand up a bit for Andrews' piece, which I do think is funny and intellectually rigorous, as I said initially, and highlights several points that generally conclude that the intellectual integrity of Wilber (as a scholar/researcher/etc) ought be questioned. I don't think it is any kind of ultimate take-down of Wilber's theory, but for its limited context and aims, I consider it one of the better pieces of critique out there. He makes distinctions between minor, moderate, and major blunders, which further contextualizes his investigations and conclusions. He makes jokes (i.e., blunder #0, and others), doesn't take things too seriously (but, also, does). He ends with reasonable suggestions to the person interested in Wilber and integral theory in general (suggestions that show he is in fact very interested in integral theory, though not perhaps Wilber's integral). And he provides endnotes for all his research. Honestly, I don't see how this piece ought not be taken seriously, and the points addressed at face value. And I definitely don't see where your implied suggestion at the end of your commentary is going, though it doesn't sound anywhere particularly pleasant. :)

Now is a good time to start to consider what "reasonable metrics" are for the assessment of critiques of Wilber's work. It is long-accepted folklore that it is difficult to critique his theories. Difficult, for several reasons. One is the breadth of the topics covered; another is the amount of books written, with points buried in footnotes or in a couple sentences in a book that attempts to set right something discussed in another. But the main reason, I think, is that philosophy, at least traditionally, dances between science and speculation; the former is critique-able, and the latter generally not (but rather "dismissed" or "rejected" to use famously humorous terms of philosophers). Attempts to show how a philosopher went awry (such as in Schopenhauer's critique of Kant) take quite a bit of time and effort, yet have interest only to a small slice of people, because it is so technical; that is, unless you mix in provocative assertions with reason in ways that appeal to the lay reader's everyday, and normal, interest in controversy for the sake of controversy. It is a difficult mix to negotiate in the position of the critic of a philosopher. Which is a general comment, and just something I wanted to point out.

To start, I don't agree with how you have boiled his criticisms down. Andrews' own "boiling" into three categories seems more accurate to the content of his claims. First of all, to criticize Wilber's writing is fair game. I'd say it is the first thing to criticize, of anything. People criticize, say, a composer such as Philip Glass for being redudant and possibly deficient of interesting ideas, and so it is a criticism of craft, which is sometimes a technical sort of criticism, but no less valid or important. Limited appeal doesn't mean limited validity. Wilber, overall, is at times a very good writer, but this book is not an example of that. His own habit of repetition is taken to extremes in the book.

One can write via "circular" or "concentric" styles of writing (Marshall McLuhan is an example of this) but there is a point of diminishing returns and I think Wilber pushes it in Boomeritis as well as his nonfiction work (in that he constantly rehashes the skeleton of his theory). This very well may be a largely subjective preference. But when topics are repeated to the extent that Andrews documents, even in a novel, even in a "postmodern" novel, even in a "postmodern novel that attempts to be bad", even in a "postmodern novel that attempts to be bad and self-aware of itself" then it becomes game, rightly, for criticism. Whether it is good criticism or bad criticism, it gets to whether Wilber is as good a writer as the hype about him indicates. How we write is indicative of how we think, as we all know. In this case, there is the temptation to conclude that Wilber was thinking superficially when he wrote this novel, which I don't think is a useful position to take in today's age, if true.

Next, fact checking is no small matter, either. In the publishing field, fact checkers or "quality control (QC)" is a job unto itself. An important job, because good QC separats hack from professionalism. Getting basic things wrong has been the subject of criticism towards Wilber for a long time, and recently with G. Falk and now with Andrews. When you get basic things wrong, it calls into question (depending on the extent of violations of documentable fact) all other situations where fact/research/statistics/etc. come into play, and the integrity with which these are reported or described. We usually give writers, generally, the benefit of the doubt, and a long rope, which means we trust them when they quote statistics, facts, or someone else's words/conclusions. We trust that they got it right and faithful to the source. Wilber doesn't deserve a pass on the basic stuff of scholarship, and neither does anyone else.

Without evidence for claims about meditation, the actual effect of "itp", the efficiency of the so-called "second tier", the nature of consciousness at it develops, the nature of development in mid-life, where does that leave the claims he routinely makes on them? Where does that leave (to take each of these in sequence) the practical (as opposed to speculative) impetus for his theory, a large part of which is in fact geared towards advocating the practice of meditation as part of an integral practice, to stabilize a new level of consciousness (an "integral consciousness", from his writings), that develops according to research he cites, especially as an aid to one's mid-life, where he asserts that development slows down?

Well, if Wilber is wrong about these, it certainly wouldn't help out his theory out in any way. Andrews' critiques don't necessarily call "AQAL", as a model into question (though maybe the authenticity of the reason for its advocacy), but it does call important topics into question. I mean, if Wilber was wrong on these issues (100% wrong, hypothetically), then, for example, the heavy emphasis in his work on the transformation nature of meditation seems very misplaced. The heavy emphasis on what I playfully refer to as the "messiah" of the second tier is entirely an unearned assertion. And if "itp" doesn't offer the effects as advertised, it calls into question why Wilber's system is in any way an improvement on the already existing schools of "whole experience" found, in a small example, in the Jesuit tradition. You could take all this waaaaay too far, and call into question the need for Wilber's work, overall, but of course Andrews' essay doesn't support taking it that far, and I'm not doing so here. But it does support this conclusion, which has implications that reach beyond this book, and thus about Wilber's oeuvre in general:

Question Wilber's conclusions and assumptions at every turn.

Which of course is what good, scholarly critique is supposed to do, so there is nothing particularly new about that. But it is relatively new to people who get into Wilber's work from a New Age background, or from a non-scholarly background. This is no special capacity -- that of being skeptical -- and it is within everyone who reads Wilber's books. I'd just like to see more of it. I know some people want Wilber to lead a revolution of sorts in the world, but it won't happen in any kind of sustainable way unless what he espouses holds up to examination and skepticism. I firmly believe that integral, as a worldview, is here to stay. I don't, however, believe the same about all of Wilber's work, and especially the real validity of Boomeritis, the novel. Truthfully, I think it is trash (though not an easy thing to create, on the authorship side, I admit).

I think we are entering the phase with Wilber's integral where more and more people have fulfilled Virginia Woolf's first step of literary critique -- where one surrenders to the writer completely -- and thus are entering her second (and final) step of literary critique -- where we don't let the writer get away with anything. In other words, nothing is earned, no benefit of the doubt is given. It is not personal; it is towards the goal of distinguishing, as best we can, flower from weed, wheat from chaff, baby from bathwater. It may sometimes sound personal, but generally it is not, though we do have a responsibility to be dignified in the debate whenever possible. It is not about people.

If my feeling is in any way true, this is a healthy development in the integral community, one that bodes well for the actual sustainability of an "integral worldview"; though, in truth, that worldview, if it is anything real, is by nature already in the world, and far beyond the control of a single philosopher, whether his/her work is entirely true or entirely false. Thus critique in this way hopes to solidify, at least, the cognitive/logical aspect of this worldview, so that, in practice, the way we think, write, and even talk isn't burdened by unnecessary contradictions. Or in other words, we critique integral theory so that, in part, we support the reality that "thinking integral with clarity" is something all can share, if they at least try to.

Harmonic bows,
md