tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13617569.post1157657471078077085..comments2024-03-27T02:13:58.088-07:00Comments on Integral Options Cafe: Ken Wilber on the New Atheistswilliam harrymanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06981478282688361274noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13617569.post-23622326854939003682007-11-22T15:40:00.000-07:002007-11-22T15:40:00.000-07:00Hey Guys,Yes, ~C, I agree that much of the problem...Hey Guys,<BR/><BR/>Yes, ~C, I agree that much of the problem right now is that everyone is talking about the other side, and no one seems to be talking to each other. Even in some of the on-line "debates," each side seemed to be talking at the other rather than having a productive conversation. Because all the heavies in this conversation are first-tier thinkers (Dennett might be an exception), they can only defend their position and see the other side as wrong or misguided. Too bad.<BR/><BR/>Hokai, I agree that for the general public, making the distinction on pre/trans is crucial. Too few people get it. And to present Gebser's stages is also vital, since it is a simpler system than Wilber's and has been around a lot longer.<BR/><BR/>I'd like to see more serious conversations about this stuff. I really don't expect Wilber to get involved, but there are many other intelligent integral theorists who could make the integral case. And there must be some, like Dennett or even Harris, much more than Dawkins or Hitchins, who can dialogue about religion without simply dismissing it as useless.<BR/><BR/>I think Wilber is right that this is an important public conversation -- I just wish it were more of an actual conversation.<BR/><BR/>Peace,<BR/>Billwilliam harrymanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06981478282688361274noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13617569.post-33715239797079396212007-11-22T08:05:00.000-07:002007-11-22T08:05:00.000-07:00Hi, William, you make good points. Yes, there's no...Hi, William, you make good points. Yes, there's nothing essentially new in here, but it's worthwhile restating, since the pre-trans distinction is so easily overlooked, being invisible from the purely rational level of observation, to which most of the readers still rely when taking a step back. And, again, "new atheists" are not really new. They've been around for a hundred years or even more. And Gebser has also been around for some time, and yet the intellectual elite fails to appreciate the importance of structural unfolding for understanding almost everything in the domain of human thought. <BR/><BR/>Godspeed, <BR/><BR/>HokaiHokaihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12250501029542559933noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13617569.post-41668284455196549592007-11-22T07:21:00.000-07:002007-11-22T07:21:00.000-07:00thanks for the heads up. i have more to say about ...thanks for the heads up. i have more to say about this. i just finished reading The God Delusion and i'm in the middle of "Breaking the Spell" by Daniel Dennett.<BR/><BR/>but my opinion is this: if Wilber is correct in his analysis (which i think he is) then the more the need to debate (er, dialogue) with the "new atheists" instead of talking about them, why not talk TO them and get take discussion at a higher level? this will also attract attention to Wilber's "Marriage of Sense and Soul" which is probably gather more dust in local bookstores, that is if they still carry them ;)<BR/><BR/>more on this later.<BR/><BR/>thanks!<BR/><BR/>~C~C4Chaoshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07601612401064354166noreply@blogger.com