In the course of researching the next section I wanted to write, one book came up a few times, mostly because he was citing the same authors I have been somewhat randomly stumbling on myself. Wilber writes off Meyerhoff has sloppy criticism or some such nonsense (see the Wyatt Earp link below). I have been reading many of these authors and it's very often clear that Wilber either did not read them or chose to ignore them when they did not conform to his model. Which is to be expected - all theorists are interested in what supports their theory and shy away from that which might refute it.
So, if you are interested in a thorough critique of Wilber's Integral Theory (which Wilber has already rejected in his "Wyatt Earp" tantrum, 2006), check out the book below, published whole online at Integral World (2005). Somehow I never read this when it was first posted (but then I was looking more toward Buddhism by that point, so integral theory was fading in my interests).
This is a great foundation for a post-Wilberian integral model - and also be sure to look at the sources cited, many of whom are major names in their fields.
[Note of clarity - I disagree in some areas, but more often not - I am coming my criticisms of Wilber from a different perspective, so Meyerhoff and I are bound to have different opinions.]
Bald Ambition
A Critique of Ken Wilber's
Theory of Everything
Jeff Meyerhoff
Table of Contents (each chapter can be linked to and read individually)A Note from the Publisher
Introduction
7. Poststructuralism and Postmodernism
10. Psychological Analysis of Wilber's Beliefs
11. ConclusionTags:
5 comments:
Integralworld.net seems to be dead?
the link works for me, so I'm not sure why it seems dead for you?
I'm in New Zealand - wondering if they restrict outside USA?
Visser is in Northern Europe some place, so I doubt it is restricted in New Zealand
thanks for putting this info up, i get a sense of dread whenever i am around many of the integral folks, i do love kens overall work, he has introduced me to so many new theorists, and all, however much of his stuff is obviously tenuous, i find integral institutes staff largely scary embodying what seems to be a hugely uncritical, deferential, standard approach to kens work, how can this be i think to myself? oh well...
Post a Comment