In a message dated 7/6/02 10:35:08 PM GMT Daylight Time,
DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org writes:
> Squonk said:
> Are there any in this forum who, like me, see Wilber as a self promoting,
> self serving, self aggrandising charlatan?
> I cannot help but place Wilber and T Lobsang Rampa in the same area?
> Know what i mean?
>
> [David Buchanan]
> No. I honestly don't know what you mean. What prompts you to attack the guy
> personally? And how are his personal flaws relevant to the validity of the
> ideas presented in his books? Have you ever read any of his books? You
> sound like a jilted lover here, not a philosopher.
> I mean, Picasso was a real asshole, but the man could paint. People working
> in these upper realms can't rightly be judged in terms of a popularity
> contest. You know what I mean? The only relevant judgements are about the
> ideas, not the man. I'm surprized you would stoop to this kind of personal
> attack. You're usually so civilized.
>
> Here's a little story.....
> When I was on vacation last month. I met Wilber's former brother-in-law, a
> shaggy lawyer. All it took was the mention of his name. (Somebody asked
> what I was reading.) The former brother-in-law turned red in the face and
> went on a rant that was filled with all kinds of hostility, profanity,
> insults and shouting. I'd never heard such a ferocious stream of insults.
> Then I asked the guy if he'd ever read anything by Ken Wilber. He answered
> "no" and just walked away. Hearing all that nastiness didn't change my
> opinion of KW's books, but it was pretty hard to take the insulter
> seriously. He'd made a fool of himself. I was curious to find out what
> upset the guy so much, but he ranted in such a way that I was too
> frightened. I honestly thought the lawyer might become violent. He doesn't
> like the man who wrote the book that I was reading so much that I was
> afraid. (He was a big guy) But since there is an ocean between us, I feel
> safe enough to ask.... What makes you think Wilber is a charlatan?
>
Hi David,
I have read some Wilber, but there is such allot of it i have not read it all
what with other stuff i should like to get through.
I quite agree that commenting upon ideas one has not taken the time to
assimilate is unacceptable, and your story is one i have experienced myself.
OK.
I feel Wilber's books are exposition.
I have not read, or read commentary material in this forum, that reveals
original thinking on Wilber's part.
I cannot attack ideas that are not there?
And i see no reason to attack Wilber when he expounds upon the ideas of
others; i may as well bypass the monkey and talk to the organ grinder?
I am a great fan of A. H. Maslow's Humanistic third force psychology for
example.
May i offer recent questions posed by DMB as evidence?
He asks why we are not getting excited by core religious concerns - perennial
philosophy?
DMB quotes Wilber asking the same questions pointing out that such concerns
are empirical.
It is staggering that DMB does not immediately see the connection with
Quality AS core religious concern - perennial philosophy.
We know DMB did not immediately see the connection because he had to repeat
his questions a week after they had initially fallen upon deaf ears?
This for me is a prime example of valuing structured static pattern to the
point of simply forgetting about that which creates the patterns in the first
place?
And let's face it, for anyone who is in this position, Wilber will quite
happily sell you half a dozen titles, with more on the way, to satisfy your
need.
In short, Wilber is a charlatan because he panders to his identified audience
and apparently has no sincere aim other than to maintain sales, while
advocating a transpersonal approach to psychology that, one feels, would
reduce the audience for which his books are intended?
T Lobsang Rampa achieved a similar effect by never revealing an implied
disclosure regarding the future development of the Human aura while knocking
out dozens of titles.
Pirsig chose metaphysics as his area of thought because he identified a
source of patterned reality, and metaphysics is precisely the area
traditionally given to such concerns in the West.
Once stated, there was no need to say it again other than to illustrate the
quality of his insight with examples.
Indeed, Lila is a combination of high level exposition of his thought with
ostensible support; he shows how the MOQ works.
This is not enough for many students who need, for reasons we may not wish to
go into hear, for more, and more, and more, never quite getting enough and
never being quite satisfied with the best. For the best in MOQ terms ends a
need for knowledge.
Wishing you quality,
Squonk.
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:25 BST