Talk:Ken Wilber/Archive 2

Wilber as "philosopher"

The problem with this article is that it is not a neutral account of Wilber's work (as I said, bluntly, it is hagiographic crap). People unfamiliar with Wilber, trying to find out the basic facts -- that is, the majority of encyclopedia users -- would have no idea after reading this article that Wilber is a total non-entity among professional philosophers and scientists who actually study consciousness or metaphysics. If you want a neutral encyclopedia article, this article must prominently acknowledge this fact.

Calling Wilber a philosopher without a strong statement of his unimportance among professional philosophers is particularly tendentious. You can't be a philosopher just by declaring yourself one, anymore than you can be a doctor or a physicist by calling yourself one. Let me clarify (since this point has already been misunderstood): this does NOT mean that you must have an academic degree to be a philosopher. Obviously, many famous philosophers have had no academic credentials. However, they are considered philosophers because they address philosophical issues AND their work is discussed as such by professional philosophers. So, e.g., Nietzsche had no degree in philosophy, but he is rightly classified as a philosopher since virtually every major philosophy program in the world offers classes in which Nietzsche's ideas are discussed. By contrast, no major philosophy departments study Wilber's ideas. (What do I mean by major? What is recognized by professionals -- look, e.g., at the Leiter reports on philosophy graduate programs.)

The intro of this article, however, by calling Wilber a philosopher without comment, and with its cheerleading comments from (1) an unnamed German journalist who is no expert, and (2) Wilber's (former?) acolyte and biographer Frank Visser, is hugely biased. Novices could read this and think Wilber is a major theorist of consciousness, instead of just another popular New Age wordspinner.

Bottom line: if this article insists on calling Wilber a philosopher in the lead paragraph, the lead paragraph needs to put that claim in context by explaining that Wilber has about as much claim to being a philosopher as L. Ron Hubbard does. Otherwise, it's biased. And in any case, the introduction needs to balance the PR rah-rah with some sober data from reality. 271828182 18:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that you are defining "reality" within some rather subjective limits.

You can't be a philosopher just by declaring yourself one, anymore than you can be a doctor or a physicist by calling yourself one.

A philosopher is someone who discusses philosophical topics. There is no legal or professional licensing procedure or set of regulations as there is with a doctor. Wikipedia calls Ayn Rand a philosopher in the first sentence. Wilber's writings, you will see if you ever care to look at any of them, are more philosophically robust than Rand's. Furthermore, there is such a thing as Eastern philosophy, whose concerns are slightly different than Western philosophy. Wilber's main influences are Hindu and Buddhist teachers like Nagarjuna and Adi Shankara, who are often unfamiliar to Western philosophical students. That does not make them, or their scholars, inherently unphilosophical.

By contrast, no major philosophy departments study Wilber's ideas.

This standard is more useful for historical than for contemporary philosophers.

an unnamed German journalist who is no expert

This is comedy gold. If you don't know who he is, how do you know whether he's an expert? I welcome neutral text that would describe Wilber's position accurately. And I may be too biased to write such text. I urge you to ask the yourself whether you are also. — goethean ॐ 19:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

There are a few problems with this edit. One, the marketing and style of Wilber's books make it clear that he is not writing for professional philosophers or scientists, which makes the statement irrelevant. Two, I have seen introductory textbooks in psychology that mention Wilber in connection with transpersonal psychology. If it is important enough to be in an introductory textbook, then KW is surely not ignored by almost all social scientists. If you were referring to hard science scientists, then it's a pretty pointless statement. — goethean ॐ 20:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Your proposed definition of a philosopher ("A philosopher is someone who discusses philosophical topics.") is too broad to be useful: a pair of homeless crack addicts who argue about whether there is a God between lighting their rocks, become philosophers by your definition.

The Ayn Rand article, since you bring it up, is compelled to defend the designation of Rand as a philosopher with a (somewhat equivocal) citation, and, in the first paragraph, it notes that Rand's views are sharply disparaged. It also notes, later in the article, that philosophers generally ignore Rand's works.

As to eastern philosophy, I nowhere claimed or implied that it is inherently unphilosophical, and of course I know scholars do serious work in that field (I know some of them personally). But Wilber is just as much a non-entity in eastern philosophy circles as he is among professional western philosophers. If you can find articles that seriously discuss Wilber's ideas in professional academic journals such as Philosophy East and West, by all means, mention them. (I just ran Wilber's name through an author and article title index for the last 25 years of PE&W and found zero matches.)

As for your claim that contemporary philosophers should not be measured by the standard of whether their ideas are discussed in major philosophy departments -- that's very dubious. When we consider which contemporary philosophers should have Wikipedia entries, we look to professional philosophers to see whose ideas they are discussing. And by that standard, we have no trouble identifying people like Hilary Putnam, Dan Dennett, David Armstrong, Thomas Nagel, Habermas, et al. This standard also works for contemporaries who are technically not, by academic status, professional philosophers, such as Foucault.

And as to the unnamed German reviewer, I don't know who he is, true. But I do know that if he thinks Wilber is the foremost figure in consciousness studies, he's definitely no expert.

Everybody's biased, of course. That's trivially true. But we can all try to be neutral and adhere to Wikipedia standards when writing. I have not, you'll notice, edited the introductory paragraph to read "Ken Wilber is an egotistical American New Age crank who emits enormous gusts of vague hoo-hah for a healthy profit." My proposal for a neutral introduction is the current revision. You will notice I have agreed that the observation of Wilber's unimportance among professionals can be moved to the end (rather than in the first paragraph), so long as Wilber is not uncritically introduced as a philosopher.

Essentially, I am proposing a single, factual criticism for the introduction, and the removal of the initial designation "philosopher". These two minor modifications seem to me a minimal concession to even-handedness, especially considering that the vast bulk of the article, and the vast bulk of its links, continue to be one over-long blowjob for Ken.

Postscript to Goethean's last comment: by "scientists" I mean, well, actual scientists, i.e., people in the natural sciences, not the Geistwissenschaften. The claim is not irrelevant, since the article purports that Wilber is a theorist of consciousness, and there are lots of real scientists who work on consciousness and its evolution, and they would be pretty surprised to hear he's the foremost thinker in the field of the evolution of consciousness. Again, this is an example of how this article reads in a very misleading way for people who aren't familiar with Wilber and wouldn't know to file him in the "Metaphysics" section of the bookstore next to the crystals and pyramids. 271828182 21:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for filling me in on more of your weird assumptions. You think that social scientists are not "real" scientists. You think that Foucault is not a "real" philosopher. Maybe you should try that one out on the Foucault page, which starts out "Michel Foucault was a French philosopher..."

And your reasoning regarding the Die Zeit reviewer is perfectly circular. We shoudn't listen to his opinion on Wilber because he's not an expert...and you know he's not an expert because of his opinion of Wilber. You didn't respond to my point that Wilber is writing for the general public rather than philosophers or scientists, or to my psychology textbook point. I feel that these points invalidate the corresponding text. Essentially, your contention seems to be that a popular philosophical writer is a contradiction in terms -- philosophers are to be judged only by their impact on academia.

a pair of homeless crack addicts who argue about whether there is a God between lighting their rocks, become philosophers by your definition.

Well, philosophy did start with a bunch of homosexuals drawing lines in the sand. One wonders what you would have thought of Socrates. (This amusingly parallels the idea that most contemporary Christians would dislike Jesus.)

At various points in his books, Wilber discusses Heidegger, Foucault, Habermas, William James, Whitehead, Kant, Hegel, Schelling, Plato, Plotinus, Descartes, in addition to Patanjali, Nagarjuna, Adi Shankara, Aurobindo, etc. The subject matter he discusses is philosophical. Your estimation of his work is, I submit, irrelevant. — goethean ॐ 21:45, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, if by "weird assumptions", you mean "facts", you are quite welcome, and I will fill you in on more of them as you like. For example, I nowhere claimed that Foucault is not a "real" philosopher, I merely pointed out -- correctly -- that he was not technically a professional philosopher. His works were all presented as historical treatises, and his chair at the College de France was named -- by his own choosing -- "The History of Systems of Thought". Nonetheless, as I said, it is appropriate to consider him a philosopher (for the purposes of, say, Wikipedia), since Foucault's ideas are widely discussed by professional philosophers, in peer-reviewed journals and books. By contrast, the same is not true of (say) Rand, or Wilber, who are passed over in silence by professional philosophers.

As for social scientists not being real scientists, I don't have the time to demonstrate the systematic and profound differences between the natural sciences and their less-than-scientific counterparts. For simplicity's sake, I merely refer you to what defines any word: usage. If I introduce myself to someone as a "scientist", and only later is it revealed that I am (say) a sociologist, it is quite natural for a competent English speaker to feel misled.

Regarding the Die Zeit reviewer, there is no question-begging: I am giving an independent reason why he is not an expert, namely, the claim he makes is palpably false (or it is some wildly metaphorical, New Age use of the phrase "the evolution of consciousness", in which case in needs clarification).

I didn't respond to your point that Wilber writes for a "general audience" because it's not relevant to whether he is a philosopher or not. A journalist who writes a popular science book aimed at a general audience does not thereby become a physicist. Likewise, I don't see how his ideas being cited in a psychology textbook makes a difference. Jung and Dr. Phil aren't philosophers either.

And you have my "contention" wrong as well: "a popular philosophical writer" is not an oxymoron. Nietzsche, for example, is still relatively popular, and, as I said before, is obviously a philosopher. Socrates, of course, is a philosopher -- professional philosophers write books and articles about him all the time, they teach his ideas in introductory classes practically every day. The same cannot be said for Ken Wilber. And you have offered no reasonable defense of describing Wilber as a philosopher that would not make the word apply to virtually anyone. Why don't you call Wilber a cosmologist, an evolutionary theorist, or a psychologist? Because he has no training in those fields, and very few (if any) professionals in those fields take his ideas seriously. The same applies to philosophy. Wilber can discuss philosophy all he likes, but that doesn't make him a philosopher, any more than a bookstore manager who talks about Heidegger et al. is a philosopher. Or, again, any more than writing a pop physics book in which you mention Feynman, Hawking, et al. makes you a physicist. It's not just my estimation, it's the estimation of anybody who knows a damn about the subject. 271828182 22:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Because he has no training in those fields, and very few (if any) professionals in those fields take his ideas seriously.

That claim is contradicted by my psychology textbook point. Wilber doesn't write on the natural sciences, so it is unsurprising that he isn't cited by natural scientists. However, he does write on psychology, and is taught as such. Your assumption is that the study of consciousness can only be legitmately done by natural scientists -- neuroscience. The article on consciousness, however, contains sections on "philosophical approaches" and "spiritual approaches" (apparently Wikipedia hasn't completely embraced eliminative physicalism...yet).

Wilber can discuss philosophy all he likes, but that doesn't make him a philosopher, any more than a bookstore manager who talks about Heidegger et al. is a philosopher.

Here you are (again) eliding the distinction between a published author and others. Another example: Robert M. Pirsig. The article doesn't say if he has a philosophy degree, presumably not[1]. Yet it calls him a philosopher in the first sentence.

"a popular philosophical writer" is not an oxymoron.

By "popular", I meant a writer on philosophy whose books are aimed at a general, rather than an academic, audience. Your contention appears to be that such an author is not a philosopher. I'm not just arguing about Wilber here. To me, the question is whether there is such a thing as a non-academic philosopher. — goethean ॐ 15:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Again, you are simply misunderstanding me. I do not assume that consciousness is only legitimately studied by neurology, and have not said or implied that. The problem with the article's introduction is that it uncritically portrays Wilber as a leading expert on consciousness. It does not make it clear that his purported expertise would be greeted with (at best) a smile of disbelief by virtually every scientist or philosopher who studies consciousness. It needs to be made clear that his supposed expertise is of a kind that is charitably described as non-scientific or "spiritual". (Or, less charitably, New Age bullcrap.) That this is not clear is a sign of this article's tendentiousness. If you can marshal evidence that his theories are taken seriously by professional psychologists, by all means, call him a psychologist. But, judging from the first item on this talk page, I think that would be just as hard a sell as calling him a "philosopher".

last week i went to some training run by our community mental health team by one of their pyschologists. it touched on transpersonal psychology. i asked about Ken Wilber. the psychologist said he thought he was more of a philosopher as he did not work directly studying people to get his ideas and results but with ideas.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.148.40.144 (talk • contribs)

I have not elided the distinction between a published author and a non-published "philosopher". My point is that your proposed definition of philosopher as someone who discusses philosophical ideas is so broad as to be useless. I have addressed the "published author" point by observing that someone who writes a popular book about physics is not, thereby, a physicist. And, again, you persist in misreading me: I do not contend that an author who aims at a general audience is not a philosopher. Nietzsche did not write for an academic audience; neither did Marx; neither did Camus. All are correctly identified as philosophers. Obviously, there are non-academic philosophers -- as I have already said twice before. The distinction here is that the community of professional philosophers -- that is, the community of experts who devote their lives and professional reputations to considering philosophical ideas, whatever their source -- recognize the merit and philosophical acuity of Nietzsche, Marx, Camus, and others, and do so in peer-reviewed published sources. That they ignore Wilber is a clear, publicly verifiable index of his philosophical unimportance. 271828182 19:25, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

You seem unaware, e, that Wilber has been published multiple times in at least one peer reviewed journal, the Journal of Consciousness Studies, whose conferences are hosted at major universities. Your complaints are without merit. --Blainster 23:38, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

You also seem unaware that the Journal of Consciousness Studies is an lay journal and Wilber has been published in it TWICE (one of those as far as I can tell is a book review). Your summary dismissal of the argument with, "Your complaints are without merit" is without meaning since you haven't actually bothered to address the points raised. While this might work in politics, it's not appropriate here. Try actually rebutting the argument. Furthermore why do you care? Shouldn't Wilber be accurately reflected?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.131.78.241 (talk • contribs)

Blainster, I wasn't talking about Wilber's lack of publications. If you were paying attention, you'd have noticed that my point all along has been that professional philosophers and scientists ignore Wilber's work, thus casting serious doubt on Wilber's alleged status as a foremost authority on consciousness. (But thanks for contributing anyway -- finding out that Wilber only has two publications even in a journal catering to "spiritual" approaches and parapsychology is revealing.) 271828182 15:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

On the back cover of Quantum Questions (1984) it says that KW is 'a distinguished scientist in his own right'. So there! --BvP 07:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I've read the argument taking place here in regard to the philosopherhood of Ken Wilber, and though I think there have definitely been some relevant points made about the lack of objectivity in the article, to dispute the appellation of 'philosopher' seems excessively selective, pedantic, and even a little ridiculous. However, this is easily explainable, as there is an obvious antipathy to this man's philosophy at the root of this. Unfortunately, discourse, and philosophy for that matter, can only be squelched entirely by the kind of pigeonholing implied by words like 'New Age crank,' etc. Besides, if we were to use such pejorative terms I can assure you there are far more deserving candidates out there. In fact, although this particular philosopher has not been greatly received in the academic world and is largely ignored by its institutionally sanctioned constituents, a variety of his ideas and models have been widely acknowledged by a diverse number of intellectuals and thinkers from a variety of fields. I remember he was recently mentioned by Bill Clinton at the World Economic Forum (let me get that quote): "If ordinary people don’t perceive that our grand ideas are working in their lives, then they can’t develop the higher level of consciousness, if I can use a kind of touchy-feely word, that American philosopher Ken Wilber wrote a whole book about, called A Theory of Everything." Are we going to now explain to the ex-President that he has a fallacious vocabulary? I doubt it. We may not agree with Ken Wilber's philosophy, and in fact I myself do not agree with many of his ideas and methods, but the means of addressing that disagreement does not lie in disputing whether or not Ken Wilber is a philosopher or not--he is. Instead, what we PHD-toting academics have to remember is that philosophy has always existed aloof from our institutions and only very recently has grown confused with them. Philosophy, whatever its strain, resides in the realm of Idea and Principle, not in the status of he who is philosophizing. I see two intelligent voices in debate here in this forum, but let's not waste our breath on what to call this man and start debating the philosophy instead. That is what this is all really about.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.98.150.146 (talk • contribs)

i agree. to say "he is a philosopher" or " he isn't a philosopher" is ridiculous. why can't homeless crack addicts be called philosophers when they talk about philosophy? as for nietzche i think most academics would have said the same things about him at the time he ws writing as you are saying about wilber now. one of philosophers major problems is that they don't really have any special claim to talk about the things they do except when they invent an exclusive language to talk about the world. As nietzche said it's like pretending to lose something behind a bush and then thinking you have found something new when you look there. However, perhaps the article should mention something about Wilber's borderline Psychology/conciousness/philosopher status. As to usage if you want to define a term by usage most people would be quite happy to call someone writing about conciousness and engaging with other philosophers ideas a philosopher. it is only those with a vested interest on protecting their own identity as philosophers who might became annoyed. surely philosophy is an activity, not an institution.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.148.40.144 (talk • contribs)

Actually, we wont be debating the philosophy--this is an encyclopedia. The truth is this. If you walk up to any Philosophy Undergrad, Graduate Student, or Professor and say, "Ken Wilbur," most will not have heard of him. At best, you will get a wry smile. In academic circles Wilbur's status is below that of Ayn Rand. Its not that they dislike the man. Wilbur's methods disregard 2000 years of Western Philosophy.Reid 06:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

actually reid, would you mind to correctly spell the subject's name. it's Wilber (not Wilbur). there is more than one reality. and the wilber lemma is there to represent him and his work - respectively. rgds --Grazia11 14:58, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Professional philosopher is someone who earns his living doing something related to philosophy: either writing books or teaching or both. Like shoemaker is someone who makes shoes. It is completely irrelevant whether other shoemakers discuss his shoes or ignore them. If academic philosophers ignore him and they are assumed "good philosophers" (although my experience is that most of them are engaged in intellectual masturbation rather than work that has any value) this makes him "bad philosopher", but that does not disqualify from being a philosopher at all. He writes books analyzing teachings of other philosophers, he quotes them extensively, he argues with them (most of them are dead but hey). Ok, he writes for general public and not for the academia, which probably makes him “general public philosopher” but face it: he IS a philosopher.

And what is this “Philosophy East and West” thing? How is it relevant? What is this, a major philosophical journal? It does not even have a Wikipedia article! Can anybody independently confirm that it is known to... anyone? Published by the University of Hawai'i Press. God. --Thecroaker 08:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Since philosophy does not make tangible products, the analogy with cobbling is a poor one. A much closer analogy, as I have pointed out several times before, is with another field of study, such as physics or mathematics. And someone who earns his or her living writing books about physics or mathematics is not thereby a physicist or a mathematician. Wilber discusses, quotes, and argues about psychology at least as extensively as he does philosophy: but he is not thereby a psychologist.

Further, the importance of an academic journal is poorly measured by its presence on Wikipedia, considering that the majority of philosophical journals do not have articles. That Thecroaker does not recognize PE&W as a major journal in the subfield of Asian philosophy reflects more on Thecroaker than the journal.

As for the unsigned comment above that "a variety of [Wilber's] ideas and models have been widely acknowledged by a diverse number of intellectuals and thinkers from a variety of fields": that isn't very plausible. This article has done its best to scour the web and German newsprint for Wilber-praise, and has turned up very little beyond the usual suspects of UFOlogists, cult leaders, and other assorted New Age hangers-on. And while Bill Clinton may rival Da Free John in his prowess at getting women half his age to drop trou, it's a stretch to refer to him as an intellectual or thinker, or as an authority on the scope of the term "philosopher". If you want expert opinion on who is a philosopher and who isn't, we should turn to professional philosophers and their professional publications. And when we look at philosophers' professional journals, we find no mention whatsoever of Ken Wilber or his ideas. 271828182 18:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Someone who earns his living writing books on mathematics is not a mathematician? Who else could write books on mathematics? Give me just one example I can't seem to get your point. The only possibility I can think of is that he is a mathematics historian provided that he does not offer any math ideas of his own. Wilber does indeed write about psychology, however psychology this is not his main focus. Moreover, psychology is way too closely related to philosophy, it is hard to find a philosopher who stays solely inside the philosophy field.

Your opinion on this journal is well-known, I was asking for someone else's. Nothing so far. Interesting. By the way, this journal is not listed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_philosophy_journals. May be you should add it ;)

If you want to define who is "a philosopher" my guess is that you should start an article called "Philosopher" (or make a section in "Philosophy") and discuss it there. But in any case you should not ask people inside the discussed field about any particular subjects. THEY ARE NOT QUALIFIED TO JUDGE (you might want to read an article on Pseudophilosophy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudophilosophy) Lots and lots of times people with original ideas were disregarded by the scientific mainstream (although I am not necessarily saying that this is the case here). Give a definition of "philosopher" and THEN see if any particular person fits or not. Try writing a Wikipedia article with definitions like "philosopher is someone recognised by other philosophers" or "mathematician is someone recognised by other mathematicians" and just see what happens. --Thecroaker 09:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thecroaker (talk • contribs) 09:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC).

A non-mathematician who writes books on mathematics: Paul Hoffman. A non-physicist who writes books on physics: James Gleick. Such authors often get classed as 'science journalists'.

Your comment that "psychology is way too closely related to philosophy, it is hard to find a philosopher who stays solely inside the philosophy field" shows, again, that you know so little about philosophy that no one should take your comments seriously. And that no one has chimed in here about Philosophy East and West is only "interesting" insofar as it shows that people who actually know something about Eastern philosophy don't bother to read Wikipedia talk pages about Ken Wilber.

Lastly, your comment that "But in any case you should not ask people inside the discussed field about any particular subjects. THEY ARE NOT QUALIFIED TO JUDGE" is, well, pretty funny. So physicists are not qualified to judge who is and isn't a physicist? If not the experts in a field, then who? Those who don't know anything about it?

In any event, Thecroaker initiated this sub-discussion by offering his own definition of philosopher. I showed this definition is a bad one. Nothing in his most recent post gainsays that. 271828182 18:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Does Paul Hoffman offer any math theories of his own? As I mentioned, this is a critical distinction.

Since you don't bother to reply to the arguments maybe it's you who should not be taken seriously. Can you explain why your most famous journal was not listed as a major philosophy publication by the other Wikipedians?

No they are not. Again, read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudophilosophy article. Defining science is meta-science, it's one logical level up. Mainstream could be mad at renegades, but considerate (and NPOV) people we should be above their quarrels. So far you are demonstrating a complete inability to do so.

Frankly, you did not show anything, you tend to skip most of my points and jump to premature summaries. --Thecroaker 12:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Thecroaker started this discussion with the following comment: "Professional philosopher is someone who earns his living doing something related to philosophy: either writing books or teaching or both." He then proceeded to claim that, from this definition, Wilber should be considered a philosopher. (No mention was made of "theories of his own" in Thecroaker's original post.)

But as I pointed out (and as I pointed out before to Goethean), merely discussing philosophy in print does not ipso facto make one a philosopher. Science journalists write about science regularly without thereby becoming scientists. David Edmonds and John Eidinow have written bestselling books about famous philosophers and their philosophical views; but it would be wrong to call Edmonds and Eidinow philosophers.

Now, it appears that Thecroaker means to alter his proposed definition to exclude counter-examples such as science historians or journalists. I guess he means something like: "A professional philosopher is someone who earns his living doing something related to philosophy: either writing books with theories of his own or teaching or both." But this definition will not do either, since it makes access to a publisher and a buying audience the defining criteria of philosophy. By analogy then, Wilheim Reich would be a physicist, and Immanuel Velikovsky would be an astronomer.

And, as for Philosophy East & West not being listed -- Wikipedia's coverage of philosophy is mixed at best (it is often quite bad). Your underlying assumption that "if it isn't in Wikipedia, it's not important" is just false. In any case, I chose PE&W because it is a major journal devoted to eastern philosophy, where you might expect Wilber's ideas to show up, and its article titles are verifiable by anyone online. But you can choose whatever philosophy journal you like; you will look long and hard before you find any articles discussing Wilber's ideas. Try the Journal of Philosophy, the Monist, Inquiry, Mind, the Philosophical Review, Analysis, the Review of Metaphysics. Good luck finding any articles on Wilber in any of those professional journals. The Journal of Consciousness Studies or similar occasional outreach to new age ideas will be the only stuff you will turn up. If Ken is a bold renegade whose ideas will eventually overthrow the mainstream, by all means, let's see the evidence of the coming storm. But if there's no evidence of professional philosophers taking him seriously or indeed even bothering with him at all, then why think he's anything more than a New Age wordspinner with a good publicity machine? If his ideas are so great, wouldn't professional philosophers take notice? The response that almost all academic philosophers are intellectual masturbators ignoring the Great Ken is a lot less likely than the probability that Wilber is the wanker, and the experts are right to ignore him. 271828182 22:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

I removed the third paragraph in the introduction (the citation of the Die Welt reviewer and the subsequent criticism and the criticism of the criticism) entirely. It reads more like a point counterpoint than an unbiased article. Equal parts pov for and against don't equal npov. Focomoso 19:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

The Die Welt text is cited, verifiable and notable and should be replaced. — goethean ॐ 19:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm fine with the removal. The criticisms were only needed due to the text lauding Wilber's significance in the study of consciousness. 271828182 04:52, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

As I said above, the Die Welt text is cited, verifiable and notable and should be replaced. — goethean ॐ 19:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Goethean, because something is cited and verifiable does not mean it is npov. From wikipedia:neutral_point_of_view: npov is "neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject." The paragraph in question is both sympathetic and in opposition and as such is better left out. Notable, maybe, but I don't think it's notable enough for the introduction. The article is stronger without it. In fact, the quote, even without the criticisms, read to me like a somewhat random justification of Wilber's notoriety, weakening his case. Focomoso 21:17, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Focomoso, continues to have a point the reviewer's comment should not be in the page, the whole entry is suspect.

Philosophy East and West

This is interesting:

However, almost all professional philosophers ignore Wilber's work: for example, his name goes entirely unmentioned in the titles of twenty-five years' worth of peer-reviewed articles and reviews in the academic journal Philosophy East and West (a philosophical journal specializing in Asian philosophy).

(Emphasis mine) Can you do a full-text search? Or should we assume that his name was mentioned in article bodies but not in the article titles? — goethean ॐ 19:53, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

It would be dubious to assume that Wilber is discussed in the articles themselves, but I don't know. If I have the time I'll check. In any case, the issue is whether professional philosophers give noticeable attention to Wilber's work. If that were the case, he should attract at least an article or two devoted to him, especially in one of the leading professional journals devoted to Asian philosophy. (Even a fringe thinker such as Aurobindo has three title hits.) 271828182 16:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Wilber is an academic

He has studied biophysics. heard him say so on one of the audios offered on integral.naked.org rgds ---Grazia11 14:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

So anyone who studies an academic subject is thereby an academic? Dick Cheney, e.g.? 271828182 16:25, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

27... Being from germany i am used to our definition of academic: a person who has graduated from university. the en:wp def. of an academic is: An academic is a person who works as a researcher (and usually teacher) at a university or similar institution in post-secondary (or tertiary) education. He or she is nearly always an advanced degree holder who does peer-reviewed research. In the United States, the term academic is approximately synonymous with that of the job title professor

So, Wilber is not a professor in mainstream acadamia. still he is an academic - acc. to european standards. rgds --Grazia11 17:28, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I have changed the article text in accordance with Grazia11's claim. — goethean ॐ 18:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. The Visser quote is in English, not German. That Visser is capable of understanding the English usage is clear from the page where the quote is taken: "He went back to Nebraska to study biochemistry, but after a few years dropped out of the academic world". The quote is publicity BS that blatantly disregards the clear meaning of the word "academic" (as explained in the definition above). 271828182 02:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Sweet Buddha!!! Now we are going to divide our understanding by English usage versus European usage. It should stricken out totally. Just an another example of elitist, high sounding words to prove how great Wilber is. I am going to edit myself. Goethean aint the master editor for wikipedia.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.184.91.126 (talk • contribs)

Biography needs heavy revising....

Gothean, the biography especially education needs revamping, look to Charles Taylor or Richard Rorty's wiki pages, they are not extensive as u have made Wilber, one can only imagine for the sake of showing sympathy and/or to explain why Wilber is what he is. Taylor's page doesn't say if he moved around a lot, or was valedictorian, good in atheletics, and several times elected as student body, or class president. Wow he was a valedictorian, that must mean he is super-smart, that must mean he knows what he is talking about.As to the early career, that too needs some editing, such as to his marriages, why write amicable divorce, just because Wilber says it so. Has anyone asked his ex-wife? As well as his second wife. REVAMP it Goethean, act like your objective. (and no, im not objective, neither are you, we are subjective beings)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.184.91.126 (talk • contribs)

Your comments would be more effective if they were more civil. I didn't write the biography; User:Blainster did. As far as I know, biographies havent been written about Rorty or Taylor, so their biographical information is not verifiable. The biographical information in this article is based on the book by Frank Visser. — goethean ॐ 14:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, they would be, yet I wonder if you expect the same out of Wilber himself? Look to their profiles on Wikipedia, they serve as a better model of what should be in a page and using Visser as the soure is like quoting Laura Bush regarding George Bush. I mean the info that I spoke earlier is not needed or warranted on an encyclopedia. Besides, you haven't answered the criticism at hand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.184.91.126 (talk • contribs)

I take that you agree goethean regarding above response.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.184.91.126 (talk • contribs)

References Are Not In Compliance With Wikipedia Policies

Almost all of the references used in this article are not in compliance with WP:RL and WP:BLP. References to the non-reputable sites of critics are not acceptable. The obvious spamming of Alan Kazlev's site needs to be corrected. Kazlev's critiques have not been published by reliable secondary sources or by reputable media. Therefore, they need to be removed. SSS108 ^talk-email 18:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Removed tons of original research, blogs, multiple links to one site, critical POV and references not in compliance with WP:BLP, WP:RS, WP:NOR. In particular, WP:NOR (no original research). SSS108 ^talk-email 19:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, the external links section is too big. I suggest 5 primary sites from Wilber, 5 pro sites and 5 anti sites. See What Wikipedia Is Not. For those who want to know why the blog links were mostly removed, see Wikipedia Is Not A Publisher Of Original Thought & the entire section on Using Online And Self-Published Sources: SSS108 ^talk-email 20:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Making Edits Without A Dictator

Gothean, please stop reversing my edits. They are valid edits, there is too much redundant, useless information on this page. Do we need to know that the great Wilber, had a father in the military? Does that better inform us about Wilber? No. That he moved around a lot as a kid, wow, interesting but not something worthy of being mentioned. Goethean, this is a page based on facts not your wikireality. The paragraph about his "post-metaphysics" not needed redundant, mentioning two books that haven't even come out yet. Let those interested find it on the given webpages, too many buzzwords, not enough conciseness. Goethean, stop trying to edit the history. Stop editing legitimate questions asked on the talk page!!!! My goodness! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.183.184.114 (talk • contribs)

I have removed comments from the talk page that violated WP:BLP. Established users can examine the history of this page and judge my actions for themselves. I also reverted edits which deleted substantial portions of the article without discussion. This is quite normal. — goethean ॐ 19:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Not everything needs to be discussed about everything on this page, you just can not relinquish control.Nothing about the comments were violating BLP, asking a question about his health, when it stated some vague sentence about a chronic illness leaves room to speculate. The portions corrected were redundant, unnecesary, clogging the page with nonsense, who lists two books that haven't even been published!!- unless its self-promotion and I am pretty sure WIKI does not allow self-promotion! You are just being a bully and can't stand anyone correcting nonsense.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.183.184.114 (talk • contribs)

Removed last sentence from AQAL: the integral model of the Kosmos - redundent, expressing a viewpoint which is obviously - 'it is one suggested map of the 'cosmos' Not needed.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.183.184.114 (talk • contribs)

Goethean you violated the first rule of editing - see Avoidance - do not revert changes without first discussing it.' You clearly violated this rule with changes- and have used the history page for trash talk instead of here. The edits were valid, again another example of using dictorial control over this page.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.183.184.114 (talk • contribs)

Goethean, it seems you are in a bit of editing war with anonymous unsigned. Sounds like you both have equally valid points, thought I think the anonymous person has been a little tackless, but he or she sounds like they have history with you on this page as I read archives. It does seem like you have sole control over editing, goethean, and the unsigned person had some very reasonable edits,even if they failed to detail each edit. I think you needed to have Wikipedia take over editing this page, however wikipedia does it, its time for cooler heads to prevail. I mean I would like to make revisions, but I see that they just would end up being reversed if they didn't satisfy you, cooler heads must prevail in order to have some semblence of objectivity. just my two cents. Am I wrong? What does everyone else think? I think it lies in the middle but im a moderate in natureForrestLane42 22:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC) ForestLane42

Welcome to Wikipedia, User:ForrestLane42. — goethean ॐ 22:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

It sounds like goethean is in another fight, why is goethean always in a fight with someone? 24.184.91.126 23:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)Dasein512

Goethean, thank you, but are planning to address what I wrote? ForrestLane42 15:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)ForestLane42

Goethean, I went through some of the unsigned edits and some of them I see are more than reasonable IMO. i.e Richard Dawkins, bio, etc. ForrestLane42 19:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)ForrestLane42

By accident I was trying to put the footnote at the end of the sentence and somehow managed to make the rest of the text smaller, can someone fix this? thanks sorry for that mistake.

Unencyclopedic tag

I'm going to remove this tag unilaterally, for two reasons:

• First, like him or not, Ken Wilber has been a major personality in the alternate/new age religion scene (or whatever you want to call it) for several decades. He has a large following and has influenced many other people, and has also been a significant publisher of Buddhist texts in English. In other words, there is no question about whether the article should exist, only about the form it should take.
• Second, I think the anonymous New Jersey editor who inserted the tag was acting in a bout of rage, that got him banned a few edits later, and which he probably now regrets, after having a chance to cool off. I hope he will re-enter the discussion in a milder frame of mind.

If anyone disagrees with this, please restore the tag and discuss your reasons here. Thanks, Eleuther 11:38, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, I think that the tag was put in because not the fact that Wilber is encloypedic-worthy, but there are several un-encloypedic elements in it. Reading more like a propaganda piece than about factual entry about wilber with no bias. I would like the tag to return Eleuther until it becomes more factual, and less about pro-Wilber propandanga. ForrestLane42 15:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC)ForrestLane42

Thanks, ForrestLane42, it seems we agree on the basic issue, i.e. that the article as a whole should exist. The tag implies that the article is unworthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia, and therefore should not exist. I'm only removing the tag, I'm not saying anything, one way or the other, about the content of the article. Please edit the article as you see fit. Eleuther 17:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

---

Removed Rollo May reference. So what he considered May a friend? Does this add to our knowledge of Wilber's work? No, seems more like a need to tie him to famous people, to up his credit as a "philosopher," to boost his credibility.

Criticism Section

The criticiques section sounds more like a critique on technical points rather than a critique of his philosophy. Something about it doesn't sound all-encompassing of people's arguments against Wilber's philosophy. If someone can find more traditional critiques, and also it falls to put in critiques against the personhood of Wilber. Wilber is known to have criticism, for not listening to his criticism, talking above his critics or not even answering the question. Someone should fill in that gaps. ForrestLane42 19:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)ForrestLane42

ForrestLane -

Unfortunately, there is not much in the way of reliable sources relating to all-encompassing critiques. There is plenty of gossip, blog-waffle and the like and a couple of self-published works of bile, but nothing solid.

Critiques of Wilber as a man are even more difficult to include, given the nature of wikipedia and the gossip around on this subject.

I suggest that two things are emphasised. The list of critiques on Integral World and the book Ken Wilber in Dialogue, and that all the blog cruft is removed. I am going to remove your banner since there is nothing in the article which in not factual. --Backface 11:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Backface and everyone else, I still feel that his critiques section needs a revamping. I know that Wilber has many critics which have been personal and he has been known to attack his critics viciously at times. I think there is NPOV way of saying this. The present critique makes no sense unless u have an advanced understanding of integralism. The revamping can include how Wilber is received by his critics as either as a sexist, has been accused of not answering critiques or avoiding/sidestepping the critique, ad homimam attacks, straw-man attacks, etc. I think that most of his criticism received comes from how Wilber operates to constructive critism 18:39, 26 December 2006 (UTC)ForrestLane42

backface, but the critique section reads too technical, someone with a expert understanding might be able to surmise what is said. Can someone make it more user-friendly? ForrestLane42 03:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)ForrestLane42