Conference Interaction with Ken Wilber (Oct. '99)

  Conference Interaction with Ken Wilber

(The following discussion took place at a CyberConference held in October 1999, where Ken Wilber dealt with questions and comments at one of the pre-arranged sessions. To put this in context, I had already written two articles earlier (late ’98 and June, ’99) outlining my methodological criticism of Wilber’s overall integral approach which provoked evasive replies on both occasions that did not address the issue.

Shortly before the Conference I was encouraged by Tim Weidman (a regular contributor to Frank Visser’s Forum), to raise it once more with Wilber.

The discussion that followed involves multiple contributions from both the author and Ken
Wilber as well as other interventions from both Tim and James Fadiman.

As this fundamental matter has yet to be properly addressed by the integral community, the discussion at the Conference may be of particular interest). 

Peter (1) to Ken

Hello Ken, 

Lovely to talk to you in cyber person. 

I have long greatly admired and respected the comprehensive nature and sustained high quality of your work. 

I fully accept that it is inspired by an integral vision and that in turn it has inspired many others with something of the same integral vision. And I greatly commend you for this! 

However I do see a fundamental methodological problem with your work as I firmly believe that an intellectual translation based predominantly on vision-logic cannot provide a proper integral interpretation of reality. 

Let me put this briefly in context. 

Vision-logic represents the understanding of the centaur. 

This represents the most advanced of the middle stages of development (before more advanced transpersonal awareness unfolds). 

It is true that in Western Psychology the centaur represents the “highest” stage of personal development (and the integration of the body/mind). 

However this integration has to be seen in the context of a viewpoint which does not recognize the many stages of development beyond the centaur.
When seen in this light the centaur is but a very pale reflection of the integration of the fully developed spiritual personality. 

Indeed in Western Society and increasingly in many other societies, the scientific perspective - with the specialisation of an extremely differentiated form of awareness - characterizes the middle stages. 

The centaur therefore represents but a reduced notion of integration enabling a person to adapt creatively in a society (that is defined largely in terms of differentiated notions of meaning). 

However this should not be confused with true personality integration, which requires the unfolding of the many stages of “higher” development (beyond the centaur).
Quite simply if true integration could be achieved with the centaur, then there would be no need for transpersonal development! 

Likewise vision-logic (based on centaur understanding) as a method of translation, leads to a limited form of integration (where it is unduly identified with multi-differentiation). 

Vision-logic in its cognitive intellectual expression, essentially represents an intuitively based and flexible use of analytic notions of understanding. In its developed form this certainly leads to the comprehensive networking of ideas within a coherent framework. However when closely examined this will inevitably reveal considerable imbalance and inconsistency (from an overall perspective). 

Despite the fact Ken, that you have demonstrated wonderful feats of intelligent comprehension through vision-logic, it is still formally based on merely “linear” analytic notions of understanding, where relationships are unambiguously defined in a sequential asymmetric fashion.
I would strongly maintain that such an approach is properly suited for the differentiation - rather than the integration - of experience. (Asymmetric understanding – by definition - is always polarized and thereby unbalanced from an overall perspective). 

However there is another type of intellectual translation – that is inherently more dynamic – and properly consistent with the true integral interpretation of relationships. This involves a “circular” form of understanding where relationships are inherently understood in a simultaneous bi-directional manner. Though this appreciation is directly based on refined intuitive awareness, indirectly it can be expressed in rational terms, where connections between variables are understood in a strictly relative manner. 

Though such understanding is certainly possible to a degree without refined spiritual awareness, its full appreciation is dependent on the transpersonal stages of development. 

Thus I would maintain that the rational understanding of the middle stages (of which vision-logic is the most advanced expression) are properly suited to analysis and the differentiation of experience. 

However the refined cognitive expressions of the “higher” spiritual stages – based on more subtle bi-directional notions - are properly suited for the intellectual task of dynamic synthesis and the integration of development. 

When an analytic method is used for the purposes of integral translation it inevitably leads to imbalance and inconsistency. From my perspective I could certainly support this contention (e.g. as regards your treatment of the four quadrants). 

I think this is an extremely important point Ken, which has not been properly discussed in relation to your work. My notion of integration would be certainly very different to yours, and - I believe - properly distinguished from analytic notions. 

So my question is this. 

“How would you answer my sincere claim that you are offering a truly superb multi-differential rather than a proper integral translation of development?” 

I appreciate that you have a great number of questions to deal with (and you have been very generous in your manner of answering). However perhaps if there is time this topic could be carried further before the week ends. 

Ken (1) to Peter

hello peter, it's good to hear from you! 

peter collins, for those of you who don't know him, has offered a series of very interesting, intellectually demanding, alternative versions of an integral philosophy. i believe peter's work has much to recommend it, and i think his considerations need to be taken seriously. 

but as much as i have studied peter's work, i find that, in my opinion, he is still working within the centauric range. peter claims that, if done correctly, the truly integrated centaur would not need higher transpersonal stages (or, more accurately, the truly integrated centaur would in fact integrate all the transpersonal stages). 

i do not find any evidence of this transpersonal awareness in peter's work. in fact, his work still strikes me as thoroughly confined to a gross-realm integration, which, no matter how fully complete it is, still totally leaves out subtle realm, causal realm, and nondual realm (or true and complete integration). 

peter, i know that you disagree, and that you find it very irritating when i make that claim, but, you know, what can i say? that's my honest feedback and my honest response to your work. 

i VERY much appreciate your work, but i find you are simply giving a more accurate view of bi-directional, multimodal, integrated vision-logic--and not dealing very well with causal or nondual consciousness. 

but i could certainly be wrong! so please keep trying to straighten me out.... 

Peter (2) to Ken

Hello Ken, 

I greatly appreciate your speedy response and with so many questions being asked I did not expect a comprehensive reply. However I cannot help but notice that rather than addressing my question, instead you have posed questions about my own work. 

As they seem to me to reflect a misunderstanding of the essential nature of my approach I feel entitled to come back in and offer clarification. 

“peter collins, for those of you who don't know him, has offered a series of very interesting, intellectually demanding, alternative versions of an integral philosophy. i believe peter's work has much to recommend it, and i think his considerations need to be taken seriously.” 

I of course welcome your praise for my efforts. I too would like to believe that my considerations need to be taken seriously as they relate to the fundamental issue of what constitutes an integral approach. 

As you know I do consider your own work - despite its wonderfully comprehensive nature - suffers from key imbalances and inconsistencies (when considered from a dynamic perspective). Though I have outlined these in considerable detail so far none of my points have been addressed. 

“but as much as i have studied peter's work, i find that, in my opinion, he is still working within the centauric range. peter claims that, if done correctly, the truly integrated centaur would not need higher transpersonal stages (or, more accurately, the truly integrated centaur would in fact integrate all the transpersonal stages).” 

No! Ken. In fact I was claiming exactly the opposite as should be apparent if you reread my contribution. 

I then went on to stress that as the centaur represents a relatively low level of integration, that a translation based on vision-logic likewise represents a relatively low level of intellectual integration. This is why I suggested that the more refined intuitive based translations of the “higher” spiritual levels – which are of a qualitatively different nature to vision-logic – are required for proper integral translation. So in this context I am clearly calling into question your own stated reliance on vision-logic. 

“i do not find any evidence of this transpersonal awareness in peter's work. in fact, his work still strikes me as thoroughly confined to a gross-realm integration, which, no matter how fully complete it is, still totally leaves out subtle realm, causal realm, and nondual realm (or true and complete integration).” 

Quite frankly I find this most unconvincing and I suspect it is simply a smokescreen to avoid dealing with my substantial comments. 

I would say that the chief merit of my approach is that it is truly experiential and thereby – whatever its limitations – fully authentic. Though I obviously respect the more scholarly research based approach to knowledge it cannot substitute for personal experience (especially where the transpersonal is involved). 

Some years ago I wrote an account of my personal spiritual journey called “Transforming Voyage”. 

I strongly believe that there is a great need for detailed contemporary accounts. So I outlined my own – which despite the inevitable limitations and idiosyncrasies of personality - has been unusually varied. 

The book is divided into four headings. Though I am not using the same language - I identify mostly with Christian Mysticism - my four levels of linear, circular, point and radial bear obvious close comparison with your terminology of gross, subtle causal and nondual. 

What is unusual about the book is that the vast majority of the text is given to my descriptions of the transpersonal stages of development. In fact, 15 of the 19 chapters deal with the “higher” levels. 

If you read this account you will see that I am effectively describing the unfolding of the Big Three (spiritual, cognitive and affective) in relation to all these levels. 

Because traditional accounts tend to ignore the refined cognitive and affective elements of these levels I especially concentrated on them in great detail. This is where I believe I have made a truly original contribution. Subsequently they formed the basis for my integral approach to science and especially for a unique qualitative appreciation of Mathematics. 

You mention the causal level. In my account this is termed the point level (which I subtitle the centre of emptiness). If you go through my descriptions of this level, Ken you will find that I in fact identify over sixty stages (from my own experience). 

Again I am well aware of the obvious limitations of my personality. However this is not at all incompatible with transpersonal development. Indeed the strong desire for spiritual integration (where it is lacking) is the chief prerequisite for the spiritual to properly unfold. 

Again I would say that my own account is very unusual in the sense that it gives so much detail regarding various stages (all of which have been experientially validated). Also it is reflecting a contemporary perspective (which I believe is so important). 

Ken in your books you tend to reflect a very Eastern view of spirituality. I appreciate your great knowledge of these traditions (which is obvious on reading your books). However I would see a discontinuity as between your descriptions of transpersonal stages and earlier development. They are over-spiritualized in my opinion (and not sufficiently human and existential). Dare I say it Ken but they smack of a one-quadrant (UL) approach! 

So in an important respect I believe you are indeed laboring under a considerable confusion. The fact that I concentrate on intellectual issues of translation in my criticism of your work does not mean that I lack experience or knowledge of the transpersonal. I know that my intellectual efforts are deeply driven by spiritual desire. That is why I feel so passionate about portraying – what I believe is - the proper nature of an integral translation. 

I certainly would not accuse you of lack of experience of transpersonal awareness (which I would consider most unfair). However I do accuse you of a lack of a precise account of the refined cognitive (and indeed affective) structures that dynamically unfold - in an increasingly transparent manner - with the “higher” levels of spiritual development. 

Your treatment of cognitive development seems to me to basically stop with vision-logic. Because I carry the treatment of cognitive development into the “higher” stages perhaps you wrongly see this as reductionist. However I am simply trying to portray as accurately as possible the truly dynamic nature of this very refined and intuitively based understanding. 

I emphatically say that “higher” refined structures (that operate in a qualitatively different manner) unfold at each of the “higher” levels. Their cognitive expressions are the proper basis for an integral translation of reality and I use them for that purpose. 

Ken , you do very much in my opinion confuse integration with multi-differentiation. This is obvious for example in “The Marriage of Sense and Soul” where your prescription for integrating “The Big Three” is to leave them more or less as they are. To leave them “more or less as they are” is clearly to leave them in a differentiated – rather than an integrated state. Also you view of a “higher” level science – as represented in that book – relates to the application of “lower” analytic methods to interpret the empirical data of the “higher” levels. You have not in fact offered any genuine notion of a “higher” level science. 

“peter, i know that you disagree, and that you find it very irritating when i make that claim, but, you know, what can i say? that's my honest feedback and my honest response to your work.” 

Yes I do very much disagree and consider it very much a misapprehension on your part (for the reasons I have stated). 

I cannot help but notice that you have not backed up your assertions with any argument. So for that added reason I do find your comments unconvincing. 

Also Ken the fact you so obviously misinterpreted my intentions with your earlier remark makes me wonder how seriously you have studied my material. 

“i VERY much appreciate your work, but i find you are simply giving a more accurate view of bi-directional, multimodal, integrated vision-logic--and not dealing very well with causal or nondual consciousness.
but i could certainly be wrong! so please keep trying to straighten me out.” 

I too genuinely appreciate these supportive remarks. However the fact that I am concentrating on intellectual arguments (though of a subtle nature) certainly does not entail lack of awareness of the transpersonal. I am simply concentrating on dimensions of transpersonal experience, (which I believe have been greatly neglected). To describe spiritual experience in a traditional manner I would find very easy. I am not interested in that task and am concentrating on related areas that I see as uncharted territory (which is much more demanding). 

So I remind you again Ken that I am raising very important issues in relation to your work that I believe you should address. 

Ken (2) to Peter

hi peter, 

i certainly stand corrected on several points! it sounds like you have indeed covered subtle, causal, and nondual. it's hard to concentrate on your various writings--they are scattered all over the place! so perhaps when your book is published, i could sit down and give it the concentration that it deserves. 

up to this point i have not responded at length to your points because i do not find them convincing, nor compelling enough to engage in the enormous amount of work it would take to respond to all of them. you are free to call that a smoke screen. i call it the truth, at least as i see it. 

but, as i said, perhaps when you have published your work and there is a major statement all in one place, i could go through it more carefully and see if i was mistaken. after all, i have already misinterpreted your response, so i am very likely mistaken again! and i will always do what i can to support your work getting published.... 

in the meantime, very best wishes, ken 

Tim (1) to Ken

hi ken, 

..."but, as i said, perhaps when you have published your work and there is a major statement all in one place, i could go 

through it more carefully and see if i was mistaken. after all, i have already misinterpreted your response, so i am very likely mistaken again! and i will always do what i can to support your work getting published...." 

okay, i am confused. the above response to peter, that feels like a blow-off, 'come back to me when you are published' coupled with ruth's message leaves me wondering what the parameters for this particular format are. are we only allowed to ask questions without any clarification of our positions, kind of like ask the teacher? is a mutual exploration out of the question? 

Ken (3) to Tim

hi tim, 

i appreciate your concerns, but i do believe it is very unfair of you to assume that the only reason i am not responding at length to peter is that we are trying to oppress mutual exploration. it just ain't so. 

peter's work is elaborate, sophisticated, and very complex. to even begin to answer it would take a very long essay. (in fact, peter's own work, in numerous files that he has sent me, runs to hundreds of pages.) this forum is simply not set up to accomodate that. or, rather, if i did so, i would not have any time left to dialogue with any of the other participants at this conference. 

as for waiting for peter's work to get published, all i meant by that is this: his various critiques of my work are scattered all over the place--in essays, files, on numerous websites. i do not have the time to track all that down, so i am waiting for him to assemble a single, major statement, and i will be glad to give that the careful attention that it deserves. i will also do what i can to help get it published. 

in the meantime, there are literally hundreds of critiques of my work published monthly, and there is simply no way i can respond to all of them. each time i refuse to answer a critique, its author usually claims that i am avoiding harsh truths and damaging criticism, i'm afraid of confronting the truth, etc. etc. but the simple fact is, i just don't have the time, sorry to say.... 

in the past, i have gone out of my way to help get deserving criticisms of my work published, and i will continue to do so in the future, and that certainly includes the good work of mr. peter collins. 

Peter (3) to Ken

Ken, 

I would like again to briefly respond to your last reply (in conjunction with your reply to Tim). 

I am greatly surprised by one of your remarks. 

"so i am waiting for him to assemble a single, major statement, and i will be glad to give that the careful attention that it deserves." 

I have already done this Ken on two occasions (without satisfactory response). 

On the first, you may remember at the invitation of Frank Visser I submitted a short critique for a new book on your work to be published - I believe - sometime next year. Your brief response on that occasion (rejecting it) clearly indicated to me that you had misread the piece (rather like my initial question at the Conference!) 

Some time later Frank published a much longer version of the same criticism on his "The World of Ken Wilber" website. 

Including footnotes the article was 20,000 words long. That should certainly have been sufficient to have met your stated requirements! 

You gave an extremely brief - and somewhat dismissive - reply. It was so non-specific Ken (not addressing a single point made) that to be honest I wondered if you had actually read the article. 

Indeed my sense of intellectual justice was offended by your attitude. I believe that most knowledgeable people would readily admit that it was a substantial piece of work (requiring better than this perfunctory treatment). 

I am a fair minded person. I fully appreciate that you are extremely busy with incredible demands on your time. (Despite our vigorous exchanges I do greatly appreciate your generous contribution to this Conference). In fact, I find it quite remarkable that you have so much energy and patience to deal with all the questions posed! 

Of course I would not expect you to try and answer every point of my criticism in detail. Also I would fully respect that you might like to take time to become better attuned to what is a different perspective. However it should be possible to actually acknowledge its fundamental nature and at least address it - initially - in a general manner. Indeed this process could be very helpful in removing basic misconceptions as to its nature (which I believe are strongly influencing your present attitude). 

You may disagree Ken, but I do certainly feel that the question of how to intellectually translate the dynamics of development is of fundamental importance. It definitely needs to be discussed (whether in the context of my criticism of your work or otherwise). 

Best wishes for the rest of this session and for your work in future

Tim (2) to Ken

thanks for the clarification ken. i have benefitted greatly from both of you so i would have loved to experience a dynamic interchange. maybe one day... 

something that always puzzled me. in ses, particular the chapter on plotinus you outline a wonderful nondual system with two arcs, the ascending one, the reaching for wisdom, and the descending one, the embrace of compassion. you farther state that these movements occur in every moment. i fully resonate with this description in the book. however, i find that i have difficulty with the terminology ‘transcend and include’. 

i always get the initial hit that you are referring to the ascending arc of eros. then i have to remind myself that the ‘include’ signifies the descending embrace of agape. however, this signifier also leaves me with a twist in my stomach as it feels that the descending embrace is like an afterthought and secondary. 

indeed, in many of my dialogues with others about your work i find that many get on the bandwagon of transcending and give short shrift to compassion and embracing the world. i am not sure what terminology would work better. it seems like transcend signifies the ascending arc well. it seems like embrace signifies the descending arc well. maybe transcend and embrace. so nested within transcend and embrace is “transcend and include” and “embrace and differentiate.” 

i am harping on this point because i feel that the core of your approach is The Great Circle and it is vital for people to grok this Circle as always already everywhere and everywhen. it is important that we realize that we are not just arcing up the ladder as separate selves, we are also arcing down as waves of spirit of soul. 

in dialogue, 

tim 

Ken (4) to Tim

<<thanks for the clarification ken. i [tim] have benefitted greatly from both of you and peter collins, so i would have loved to experience a dynamic interchange. maybe one day... >> 

yes, hopefully so! let me briefly clarify one thing. when i said peter's work wasn't compelling enough for me to answer it right now, i didn't mean his work itself, which is impressive. i meant that, peter and i have so much in common that, RELATIVELY speaking, i am not immediately compelled to address it. as i said, there are over a hundred critiques of my work posted monthly, and i can only address a very small percentage of them, alas. despite our important differences, i view peter as much more of a comrade than an "enemy," if you see what i mean. but i hope at some point to able to address his important ideas. 

<<something that always puzzled me. in ses, particular the chapter on plotinus you outline a wonderful nondual system with two arcs, the ascending one, the reaching for wisdom, and the descending one, the embrace of compassion. you farther state that these movements occur in every moment. i fully resonate with this description in the book. however, i find that i have difficulty with the terminology ‘transcend and include’. 

i always get the initial hit that you are referring to the ascending arc of eros. then i have to remind myself that the ‘include’ signifies the descending embrace of agape. however, this signifier also leaves me with a twist in my stomach as it feels that the descending embrace is like an afterthought and secondary. 

indeed, in many of my dialogues with others about your work i find that many get on the bandwagon of transcending and give short shrift to compassion and embracing the world. >> 

yes, this is a HUGE problem and you have put your finger right on the difficulty. terminology is such a deal! 

but yes, eros and agape--transcend and embrace, by whatever names--are both absolutely and equally crucial. as you know, eros without agape is phobos and repression; and agape without eros is thanatos and regression. every single stage or wave of consciousness evolution must both go beyond (eros) and fully embrace (agape) it predecessors, or you have only pathology of one sort or another. 

part of the problem, as you say, is terminology ("transcendence" is awkward, just like "transpersonal"--does that mean no personal at all? etc.). and part of the problem is that i really need to constantly emphasize this point. it is so important.... 

<<i am not sure what terminology would work better. it seems like transcend signifies the ascending arc well. it seems like embrace signifies the descending arc well. maybe transcend and embrace.>> 

yes, that's pretty good. i have myself been using "embrace" a lot. technically, "transcend" means only the ascending arc (eros), as you say; and thus "embrace" would mean just the descending arc (agape). and then development would be transcend and embrace, eros and agape. 

<<i am harping on this point because i feel that the core of your approach is The Great Circle and it is vital for people to grok this Circle as always already everywhere and everywhen. it is important that we realize that we are not just arcing up the ladder as separate selves, we are also arcing down as waves of spirit of soul. >> 

absolutely right. thank you for your clarity and care on this issue. 

James Fadiman (1)

peter, 

it must be very discouraging to put forth so much effort, so much energy, so much intellect only to notice that you seem to be answered by Ken- never to your satisfaction - and ignored by the on-going flow of the discussion. If this were a business or organizational setting, I'd think you'd be looking at what is it in the way you are going about it that isn't working. You have fire, excitement, determination, knowledge. All givens. 

I've no answers, but did want to acknowledge that you're trying to give us all something beneficial and it doesn't seem to be working yet. But we have a few more weeks together so that all may change. 

Peter (4) to Jim

Hello Jim, 

Thank you for your concern though I am in no way as discouraged as you seem to imagine. (I never expected to be involved in the flow of the conversation and it was not in fact a prime consideration). 

Perhaps it may help to put my approach with respect to this particular Q and A Session in context. 

I share many of the same interest areas of Ken and for many years have been working on an alternative integral approach. 

In recent years it has taken a more scientific aspect based on a new dynamic interpretation of mathematical symbols (which I call Holistic Mathematics). 

Though I am personally fully convinced of the value of this new approach, because of its unique perspective, initially, it can be difficult to communicate its value to others. 

So I have been looking around for ways of indirectly introducing it through applications (which may be more readily accessible). One surprising application has been as a different context with which to evaluate Ken's work. 

I do see a very fundamental problem with Ken's methodology which affects every important concept he uses. Basically it relates to the manner in which he attempts to intellectually translate the dynamics of development. 

Ken's use of vision-logic essentially represents a more refined version of the analytic method of translation (where relationships are defined in sequential asymmetric terms). 

Let me give you a simple example. If I set out on a journey - according to this logic - I will keep heading sequentially in time in one direction. So if I am heading East, then by definition I am not heading West. (In other words interpretation is asymmetric). 

Not my point is that this (linear) logic essentially is the means by which we are enabled to differentiate experience. 

However there is another - more subtle - circular logic which is equally important. 

To illustrate this, imagine going on a journey right around the World (so that the journey is indeed circular). 

Now as I move away from from my starting point, I am also - by definition - moving back towards my starting point. So if the journey is say 20,000 miles when I am 1,000 miles away from the start, I am 19,000 miles from the finish (which is the starting point). When I journey further away from the start (say 2,000 miles), I am now also closer to the finish (18,000 miles). 

So here movement takes place in two directions simultaneously. And when we define a direction, it has a purely relative meaning. So if we are moving forward from one perspective, we are thereby moving backwards from the equally valid opposite perspective. 

Now this is extremely relevant to development. Experience always involves the interaction of opposite poles (e.g. exterior and interior) which have a purely relative meaning through interaction. 

Integration (as opposed to differentiation) in experience is based on the simultaneous identity of both poles. 

So the basic point is that integration is directly based on the use of circular rather than linear logic. 

Now Ken in effect does not use circular logic in translating development. Therefore in effect he (misleadingly) identifies integration with multi-differentiation of experience. 

Now I could go through all Ken's major concepts e.g. holarchical development, pre/trans fallacy, four quadrants and point out precisely the problems that his approach leads to (and suggest appropriate remedies). 

For the past three years I have been engaged on his Forum (recently Forums) and I would imagine at this stage have offered a more detailed set of criticism than anyone else around. I have also produced various summaries of this criticism. Naturally I would like to dialogue with Ken (preferably in a non-confrontational manner). He has indeed been kind enough to read many of my pieces (though without opening up any dialogue). 

It was a respected colleague from the Forum that alerted me to this Conference suggesting that it represented a real opportunity to get into dialogue with Ken. 

As you can see I attempted to do this in posing my initial question, zoning in on the key point. I think I had a right to expect that this question would be properly addressed and answered in a manner that befitted the session (and I would have been happy with this). However it was dealt with very evasively which prompted me to follow up. 

It is not easy risking confrontation in a warm social atmosphere. However to have done otherwise than I did would have represented a chickening out of a responsibility to press Ken on an issue that I consider extremely important. 

Perceptions can however differ. I am sure that some will find our exchanges in their own way very interesting and overall for me the experience has been very helpful. 

I notice Jim that you pose your remarks in such a way as to suggest that I am doing something wrong. Would you suggest that perhaps part of the responsibility - if indeed anything is wrong - falls on Ken? I actually think that both of us enjoy the vigorous exchanges. 

Also I have been engaged elsewhere in a non-confrontational manner with the Charles Tate Session (though due to work commitments) not as much as I like. 

I do indeed hope to contribute more over the next two weeks (as time permits) and possibly open up an informal Holistic Mathematics workshop (where I can perhaps convey some insight into my approach). 

Thank you again Jim for your interest. 

Peter 

Ken (5) to Peter

Peter Collins: 

<<Some time later Frank published a much longer version of the same criticism on his "The World of Ken Wilber" website. Including footnotes the article was 20,000 words long. That should certainly have been sufficient to have met your stated requirements!>> 

no peter, it did not. let me repeat: when you PUBLISH your work, and not simply POST something, i will consider whether it is worth responding to in print. 

i have never, and i will never (at least for the foreseeable future) respond to criticism that is merely posted on the net. why? because there is no quality control, no peer review, no editorial process whatsoever. once i get involved with responding to merely posted material, it is absolutely endless. 

if somebody publishes a critique of my work, and i respond to that, then on two occasions i have continued that discussion on the net (john heron, allan combs). but i have never responded to merely posted material--and i simply cannot. 

<<Indeed my sense of intellectual justice was offended by your attitude. I believe that most knowledgeable people would readily admit that my criticism was a substantial piece of work (requiring better than this perfunctory treatment).>> 

sorry you are offended. as for most knowledgeable people, frankly, three scholar friends of mine (e.g., don beck) read your posted material and were not impressed. i think part of the problem is what i was saying: you need to really assemble everything you are trying to say--probably in one large book, a small part of which includes a criticism of my work--and then everybody can really focus and concentrate on what you are trying to say. 

is this unfair--not responding to merely posted material? perhaps. but we each have to do what we have to do to manage our time and manage our responses to the world. if material is published, it means that it has had to meet certain minimum requirements for quality, editorial competence, and modest peer review. that is a screening process that i simply must rely on at this point. 

so i repeat, when you publish your work, please send it to me; and if i can help in any way to get your material published, please let me know. you have my email address.... 

Peter (5) to Ken

Hello Ken, 

Thank you for the significant clarification of your position. However, if it is indeed the fact that you will not respond to criticism unless published in book form, one wonders why you did not make this point much earlier in the discussion. 

In any case it does not seem to me to be quite consistent with your recent behavior in relation to posted criticism. 

“if somebody publishes a critique of my work, and i respond to that, then on two occasions i have continued that discussion on the net (john heron, allan combs). but i have never responded to merely posted material--and i simply cannot.” 

This is not quite so! The essay of John Heron “A Way out for Wilberians” which you recently responded to at considerable length, was posted by him on the Net – not published - in 1977. 

The irony is that Heron himself expressed considerable annoyance that you choose to respond to this “obscure” essay rather than his later more refined published position. He suggested himself that its very polemical nature perhaps made it an easy target for a response. 

Also in the same brief response to my own piece you reviewed two essays by Gerry Goddard and in which you said. 

“I hope at some point to be able to respond to his second piece, correcting the misrepresentations and giving my own alternative to his concerns.” 

So there seems to be conflict here with your stated position. 

“as for most knowledgeable people, frankly, three scholar friends of mine (e.g., don beck) read your posted material and were not impressed.” 

There is no evidence offered for this sweeping comment! Neither Don Beck nor the two other unnamed scholars have ever communicated with me in any shape or form. So I give no credence to their remarks. However if they wish to contact me I will gladly deal with their concerns. 

“if material is published, it means that it has had to meet certain minimum requirements for quality, editorial competence, and modest peer review. that is a screening process that i simply must rely on at this point.” 

I certainly understand the importance of assuring proper quality control. However this process can only work well when a consensus can be established as to what constitutes quality in the first place. This may indeed be possible in relation to specialized branches of the “hard” sciences.

However it is much less applicable to genuine integral notions which depend on subtle levels of spiritual awareness for their proper comprehension. 

It is only too likely that negative reaction in many cases may reflect simply a failure to resonate with the unique quality of what is on offer. This is especially likely to be the case where a truly original work is involved. By definition no existing context can be adequate and it can only be properly appreciated by attempting to view from the perspective of its creator. What is required here is a capacity of true discernment that can recognize real potential. Without such discernment any screening process will be very faulty in properly recognizing merit. The process that you recommend is too hierarchical based on the supposition of a recognized “scholar” peer group that can adequately assess (and thereby control) new work. 

This is certainly true where marginal contributions on established paradigms are involved. However when one contends that the existing paradigm itself is faulty in key respects the process of “scholar” peer group assessment is likely to be flawed. Initial acceptance in this case is likely to emerge from outside the “peer” group (as has happened in my own case). 

I try to act in a manner consistent with my convictions. Though I greatly wish to freely share my ideas I have not sought to be published. As Holistic Mathematics is my own creation, it makes little sense to seek an assessment from others (who by definition will be far less acquainted with its rationale). 

The need for an appropriate resonance with my approach is vital. Otherwise assessment will be based on substantial misunderstanding of what I am attempting. . 

However if invited to submit work for publication I would gladly consider (and did so on a previous occasion). Getting published should not represent a one-way process where writers look to be published. Publishers and editors should also be on the look-out for writers who can make a significant contribution. I do believe that I can indeed make a truly significant contribution to the advancement of knowledge and am content to wait till someone shows sufficient faith to see likewise. 

In conclusion, I want to express my appreciation for the obvious commitment you have given to this Session in dealing with so many questions and hope that you have continued success with your own demanding work in the future. 

Best wishes, 

Peter 

Ken (6) to Peter

Peter Collins: <<Thank you for the significant clarification of your position. But it does not seem to me to be quite consistent with your recent behavior in relation to posted criticism.
You say, "if somebody publishes a critique of my work, and i respond to that, then on two occasions i have continued that discussion on the net (john heron, allan combs). but i have never responded to merely posted material--and i simply cannot."
This is not quite so! The essay of John Heron "A Way out for Wilberians" which you recently responded to at considerable length, was posted by him on the Net--not published--in 1997.>> 

correct, and i did not respond to it! when he began publishing material--and only AFTER he had published material, as i clearly stated--then i chose to respond to that piece and a few of his other published and posted comments. the reason i chose that piece is that it was so irresponsible, he needed to be held accountable for it. but i would never had responded to it--and never did respond to it--until he went into print with similar criticisms. 

<<Also in the same brief response to my own piece you reviewed two essays by Gerry Goddard and in which you said, "I hope at some point to be able to respond to his second piece, correcting the misrepresentations and giving my own alternative to his concerns." So there seems to be conflict here with your stated position.>> 

none at all. gerry is PUBLISHING that piece, and i will then consider responding to it. so far, as for posted material only, i have responded to none of it (in depth). i wish it could be otherwise, but there it is. 

<<You say, "as for most knowledgeable people, frankly, three scholar friends of mine (e.g., don beck) read your posted material and were not impressed." There is no evidence offered for this sweeping comment! Neither Don Beck nor the two other unnamed scholars have ever communicated with me in any shape or form. So I give no credence to their remarks.>> 

that's fine. you had simply made statements that knowledgeable people agreed with your critiques, and i pointed out that there are other opinions in the air. 

in all of this, peter, you rarely seem to consider one possibility: you and your opinions might simply be wrong. you seem to assume that your stance is correct, and everybody else is avoiding coming to terms with your truth. i think there are other options here, my friend. 

but you give endless explanations of why publishing sucks, because it's established hierarchy, and there is no room for wildly original contributions like yours. ah, gimme a break, peter. all sorts of wildly original material can be published. my own first book managed to get published--after 36 publishers turned it down! of course it's difficult, but that means: get started. you say publishers should come to you: well, good luck, old sport. 

as for your "circular" logic of integration, i am very sympathetic to the notion. but it's hardly as threatening to people as you assume, peter. it's an interesting idea, period. get it published, get it in circulation, let hundreds of critics crawl all over it (including me)--remain open to the option that you MIGHT be wrong (and stop implying that everybody who doesn't recognize your worth is deluded)--and we will see what you have contributed. i suspect it will be a WONDERFUL contribution, and i repeat, i'll do what i can to get help get it published. in the meantime, very best wishes. 

(peter said in one of his responses that he enjoyed sharp verbal sparring with me, and that if we met in person he believed that we would enjoy each other: i agree completely. hope to see you soon peter.) 

Peter (6) to Ken

Hello Ken, 

Once again I wish to express my appreciation for what must have been an arduously demanding week in both assimilating and answering so many varied questions. 

I am glad that you have taken our exchanges in such good spirit and hope that you will not see this as an attempt to land a few more blows after the bell has sounded. (Otherwise Ruth Cox will come in to pull us apart!)

 

However I do want to come back to a few of your last comments to me as they do raise important issues especially regarding what publishing truly means in this rapidly changing world. 

I accept your clarifications regarding your responses to Heron and Goddard (which I partially anticipated). 

However it seems to me that the logic of your own argument would suggest that you should have responded to his published book (rather than the article). It is clear that Heron did not intend this article for publication (and was subsequently somewhat embarrassed that it had gained such wide currency). 

You said that the reason you did in fact answer the article (rather than the book) was that it was irresponsible and that he needed to be held accountable. This is an implicit acknowledgement that the (unpublished) article was having more influence than the (published) book. 

This raises a couple of serious issues. Firstly the logic of your position would be that you would not respond to any unpublished article no matter how reprehensible or damaging to your reputation. 

Is this really advisable or even tenable? 

Secondly, it raises the very important issue of what publishing really means in this electronic age. 

The very word “publish” means to make known (to the public). Before the rise of modern media this meant that one had to get printed in book form before wider dissemination could take place.
However with the introduction of the World Wide Web this has been changing very rapidly. 

Anyone can now publish. All you have to do is set up your own site (which has remarkably few restrictions) and you are in business with (potentially) a massive international audience. 

This struck me forcibly after setting up my home page. The first response was from Hong Kong, the second from Australia and the third from South Africa. 

With the growth of the Internet and the steady improvement of the facilities that it offers, it seems pretty likely that within a short time publishing on the Internet will prove more important than in book form. 

This is already happening to an extent. That very article by John Heron is a good example. I was well aware of its existence, as were so many others. With no effort at promotion it was exercising considerable influence and had acquired something of a cult status. This I am sure would not have occurred if it had been confined to one of the journals.

 
So I would see the sharp distinction between printed and (merely) electronic publication as being somewhat artificial, especially when “unofficial” material - published electronically - can exercise more influence than the printed variety. 

Now I recognize your desire to ensure quality control by exercising proper standards. However the official “market “ (of sanctioned printed material) faces increasing competition from “unofficial” electronic material (that is much more accessible). The quality of course varies greatly. However if this “unofficial” market becomes the main source of new material (which increasingly it will) it seems to me that one cannot ignore its existence. The task then is to discern what is of value (and leave the rest). Otherwise one runs the danger of missing out on significant new developments. 

“that's fine. you had simply made statements that knowledgeable people agreed with your critiques, and i pointed out that there are other opinions in the air.
in all of this, peter, you rarely seem to consider one possibility: you and your opinions might simply be wrong. you seem to assume that your stance is correct, and everybody else is avoiding coming to terms with your truth. i think there are other options here, my friend.” 

What has greatly impressed me is how a number of people who were acknowledged “fans” of your own work have accepted the validity of my general critique. They displayed the capacity to both understand what I was about and to appreciate its implications for your own position. 

The weakness of your stance Ken in this discussion stems directly from the fact that you reserve the right to criticize without being willing to discuss my approach (which is both inconsistent and unfair). 

You see, if you say that there are other opinions in the air, unless you are willing to discuss what they are and how they relate to what I am doing they should be disregarded. So again you want it both ways! 

Certainly I have confidence in the value of my position (as I am sure you have in yours). So I see no need to make apologies on that score. The fact is that I am very open in my approach. 

I put myself up in a position on your Forums where I am continually shot at and in no way seek to avoid the implications. 

The very strength of my position is that I have always welcomed criticism (dealing with it assiduously) and unlike you Ken without setting preconditions. 

I live by the philosophy of being privately my own strongest critic. It is this willingness to continually test my ideas that gives me confidence when discussing them in public. 

Of course there are other options - which is very desirable - and I would never claim otherwise. However I am offering a particular option which I believe can offer a uniquely distinctive perspective on many key issues (and am therefore entitled to promote its worth). 

And yes! I have often experienced very strong (unconscious) resistance to what I am doing. A lot of criticism has been very uninformed and dismissive. So quite rightly, I do not accept this and try to counteract with patient reasoned explanations of my actual position. 

“but you give endless explanations of why publishing sucks, because it's established hierarchy, and there is no room for wildly original contributions like yours. ah, gimme a break, peter. all sorts of wildly original material can be published. my own first book managed to get published--after 36 publishers turned it down! of course it's difficult, but that means: get started. you say publishers should come to you: well, good luck, old sport” 

This is somewhat over the top. In a way you make my point for me with your own experience.
You wrote “The Spectrum of Consciousness” which was clearly a highly impressive book and yet had to wait till the 37th publisher before being successful in getting into print. Why, I ask myself, were they all so blind as to its obvious merits? 

And this was despite the fact that you had a very respected mentor in the field working strongly on your behalf. (I suspect though that the full story is more complicated!) 

However the big difference today Ken is the rise of the Internet which hopefully can short-circuit that process. If you were attempting to publish “Spectrum” now it would be much easier to build up an initial “unofficial” reputation that would ease the process. 

I stressed that without sufficient resonance in one’s approach, assessment is likely to be flawed.
Your own experience seems to confirm this. You were fortunate – though you undoubtedly deserved – to have a mentor who had strong confidence in what you were doing (thus enabling eventual publication). 

“as for your "circular" logic of integration, i am very sympathetic to the notion. but it's hardly as threatening to people as you assume, peter. it's an interesting idea, period.” 

When put it in context it promises to be much more than an interesting idea. As differentiation and integration are necessarily involved in the development process at every stage, then we need both linear and circular logic at each stage to properly translate development (with a unique configuration applying in each case). Therefore any attempt to translate though just one logical system will be very inadequate and deeply flawed.
So the proper recognition of both logical systems would fundamentally change the way in which development is translated. 

Indeed there is an even more important implication here i.e. of the existence of a holistic binary system - based on the logics of form and emptiness (1 and 0) that can (potentially) encode all transformation processes. Thus we really have two digital binary systems one for encoding information and the other for encoding transformation processes. 

“(peter said in one of his responses that he enjoyed sharp verbal sparring with me, and that if we met in person he believed that we would enjoy each other: i agree completely. hope to see you soon peter.) “ 

I am very happy to end on this note, Ken and hope that if and when we meet we have a great big laugh. 

Thank you again for your time that you have given so generously to all participants in this very interesting Q and A session. 

Very best wishes, 

Peter 

Ken (7) to everyone

hello everybody! 

sorry i have not been able to continue with the discussion. it was so much fun getting to know you all, even if only briefly and in cyberspace! i had hoped to be able to at least jump in a little on subsequent presentations and discussions, but alas, that does not seem very likely. 

in glancing through the recent responses, however, there are a few factual errors that i need to respond to very briefly. 

first, to peter collins (and to tim): it is not peter's negative criticism that is the problem, but the amount of time that it would take me to responsibly answer peter's criticisms. 

first, i would have to read EVERYTHING peter has written and posted, in order to understand his system as fully as i could. this would take hours, indeed days or weeks or months. during the week of my presentation and discussion, i spent about six hours each day on line, doing my best to answer everybody's questions, as well as asking plenty of questions myself. but in order to answer peter's extensive points, i would have to have spent all of that time on peter alone, which strikes me as unfair. 

but spending less time with peter's work won't do. in the past, whenever i have disagreed with peter or criticized his points, he has simply said that i don't understand his work. thus, it is not a matter of simply being willing to engage peter in this forum: it would completely dominate the discussion. this is clearly inappropriate. and any even simple response to peter's criticisms might likely be met with charges that i don't understand it, i'm not being fair, i can't handle difficult criticism, and so on.... 

so, peter my old chum, let us simply look forward to having a beer some time and seeing where that gets us. you bring the pizza!