Squonk said:
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.
DMB says:
I deleted most of squonk's reply because I couldn't make any sense of it. I
got the impression that it was vaguely insulting toward me personally, but
presented in a way that was too confusing to warrant a response. But let me
address the actual answer to the question, what makes you think Wilber is a
charlatan?
Panders? I don't think so. In fact there are lots of serious academics are
furious with him because of his criticism. He is critical of some of my
heros. He is himself a serious academic professional who does not even try
to popularize his ideas. Compared to Pirsig, he is esoteric and mysterious.
And the claim that his transpersonal approach would tend to reduce his
audience makes a little bit more sense, but flatly contradicts the pandering
charge. My main objection to your citicism, squonk, is your pretending to
know the man's motives and your pretending to know his level of sincerity.
You simply can't know that. You've ASSIGNED these motives and mental states
to him. That's like throwing a bucket of water on him and then insulted him
for being all wet. This a totally invalid form of criticism. Its fourth rate
at best. I could easily dismiss anything said or written by anyone using
this tactic, including Pirsig. I could respond to all of your posts by
simply claiming that "you're just saying all that because you're crabby and
because you hate your mother." But that would be totally bogus. There is no
way for me to crawl inside your mind and know these things. This method of
attack doesn't even work on our closest friends and family members, much
less people we don't know at all. I'd guess that if Wilber was only
interested in book sales, he's write more accessable books, perhaps a novel
with pimps, celebrities and some sex scenes.
I don't mean to come across as some kind of disciple. Its not that I'm even
interested in protecting Ken Wilber per se. It just that I hear this method
of attack on talk radio every time I listen and its just so childish. Its a
step below attacking the person. It first requires the invention and
application of sinister motives, then the personal attack begins. Whistles
are blowing and there are flags down all over the field, my friend.
In short, you really haven't answered the question. I mean, you have not
given one good reason why anyone should think the guy is a charlatan. All
you've done is guess at his motives, which is irrelevant even if you could
guess correctly. I asked that question out of genuine curiosity and thought
maybe you knew something that I don't. I've met several people who are put
off by the guy and thought maybe there was somthing to it. Its good to be
skeptical and to be ready to change one's mind about things, but I'm not
moved by this kind "inventive" criticism.
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