Talk:Ken Wilber

Archives
Talk:Ken Wilber/archive1

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, 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

Andrew Cohen connection

Has anyone checked out wiki page on Cohen of being a cult leader, etc. It seems that Wilber has another case of supporting an unsavory character like Da Free John. Is there anything worth mentioning on the wikipedia page of Wilber??? ForrestLane42 04:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)ForrestLane42

That sounds rather POV to me. Wilber's association with Cohen is clear on this page and anything relevant to Cohen can go on the Cohen page. --Backface 20:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Not when there are allegations of misconduct on Cohen's part. And Wilber is clearly associating with him regardless of it, like Free John. Shows a history of Wilber supporting unsavory characters. ForrestLane42 22:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)ForrestLane42

I fail to see how you are going to say 'unsavory' while keeping in line with WP:POV. Cohen is clearly a loon, but wikipedia has rules about these things.--Backface 00:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Revising Idea section

I think this page needs to be shortly a bit...as Wikipedia says this page has to many buzzwords. I think the Ideas section needs to be trimmed down. First thing that should be done is revamping the section with the Wilber 5 section which seems more linear to his ideas. Sections with Absolute/relative truth section, Wilber-Combs lattice, etc add information that those more interested in studying wilberian thought can go find in a library. Statements like "In a recent (dated 2006) online article/interview on his Shambhala website, "On the Nature of a Post-Metaphysical Spirituality: Response to Habermas and Weis",[11] Wilber speaks of Post-Metaphysical Spirituality. On another page, "Future Excerpts from Kosmic Karma and Creativity to Be Posted",[12] he presents an outline that includes "Excerpt F: Integral Post-Metaphysics", but (as of 28 January 2006) no further material has been posted regarding this." Can be written in a much smaller sentence, like "In a recent (dated 2006) online article/interview on his Shambhala website, Wilber has spoken of a post-metaphysical spirituality and has been in the process of elaborating this thought into his work. In fact I plan to make the switch now. Basically, can we trunicate the words into a more concise page.ForrestLane42 01:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)ForrestLane42

If you want to edit the prose in the article, go right ahead. But stop deleting entire paragraphs. I will continue to revert your deletions. And it's not "Wikipedia" which claims that a section contains buzzwords, it's whatever editor added that tag. — goethean ॐ 18:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Then, goethean, to avoid an edit war, an arbitrator should be called in because from how I see and how I watched how you work on other pages, you seem to edit with little concern for consensus. I will have to revert your reverts, and then after the third time, you revert me, wikipedia should step in. ForrestLane42 19:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)ForrestLane42

Backface, can you please have someone come take this page over since goethean and myself can not resolve our differences. 19:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)ForrestLane42

Hi, friends, ForrestLane42 asked me to look in here and see if I can be of any use mediating. My position is that I respect Wilber but I'm not a believer — I've read one of his (longer) books, and it wasn't my cup of tea, but I was impressed by his writing and scholarship. So maybe I occupy some kind of middle ground. If you both ask, I'll review the argument and let you know what I think, but not necessarily real soon, because I do have a job ... Cheers, Eleuther 21:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok. I look forward to hearing your suggestions. — goethean ॐ 21:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy to help too, although I am not sure that Goethean would necessary want me to as he seems to believe that I am not acting in good faith. --Backface 22:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Backface and Eleuther, I welcome your imput and I do not believe that goethean has acted in good faith, if you read his reverts there are little discussion, just done, no talk, I suggest you look at his talk page and look at his activities, there is a pattern of tyrannical editing. I think when you look at my edits they have been reasonable and sensible. I too am not a believer of Wilber, but I been as objective as I think anyone can as a human. Goethean has reverted in the past three times without real discussion and has not acted in good faith as an editor. If you get a chance look at other pages he has edited, there is a pattern! I welcome some more objectivity... ForrestLane42 23:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)ForrestLane42

Why don't you go to other articles and start deleting entire paragraphs without discussion. See how far you get. — goethean ॐ 15:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

Okay, I think the main parties have now been heard from. If you want me to go ahead with this, we need some ground rules. I'm going to have to do a significant amount of work here, studying not just the article, but also edit histories and external sources, and I don't want to do it if it's not going to do any good. I don't have a personal oar to pull with regards to Wilber, but I do want to help Wikipedia to work right.

So, the rules:

• Our goal is to produce a top-quality Wikipedia article, encyclopedic and appropriately detailed, properly sourced, and free of WP:POV and WP:OR problems. (Note that WP:POV doesn't forbid POV, it only requires it to be properly expressed.)
• We are doing this cooperatively and dispassionately, with no more personal attacks or passion or anger among ourselves, so please, no more good faith or bad faith. We hereby re-boot the old debate from scratch, and leave all that stuff behind. In particular, we are not discussing the propriety of past edits or reversions — we are only discussing the form and language of the future article.
• There's a non-binding presumption, but still a presumption, that when I rule on a disputed issue, you will respect it. (Otherwise, why am I doing this?)

If this seems reasonable, please sign on by adding a line of the form "*Agreed (optional comment) (four tildes)" to this block, and when all three of you are there, I'll start my slog through the horrific pile of relevant prose. Cheers! Eleuther 02:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• Agreed, but thinks that past edits should be looked at by merits of worthiness in future edition of page. ForrestLane42 06:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)ForrestLane42
  • Good, I do plan to look over past edits, but only for the quality of the content, not to judge who was right or wrong on any particular day. Eleuther 11:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
• I agree. I also request that ForrestLane42 stop attacking me personally and begin to assume good faith per Wikipedia policy. If he refuses, I will bring the situation to the attention of an administrator. — goethean ॐ 15:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
• Goethean - Perhaps you could extend that courtesy to others too. Your remarks on the Michel Bauwens deletion page did not assume good faith on the part of either myself or ForrestLane42. --Backface 16:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• On that page, I pointed out that your activities under this username consist almost entirely of nominating articles from the integral thought category for deletion. Users who appear suddenly with an intimate understanding of the process and who evince a clear agenda often have their identity and motivations questioned. You fall into that category. Seriously. This was your fifth edit under this username. That's so suspicious, it's funny. — goethean ॐ 17:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• • Very happy to have amused you. However, I can assure you that there is no more to me than meets the eye. I have no connection with ForrestLane42. In fact, I have no concern with Goethean that needs mediation, but would like to be involved in any concerted effort to improve the page. Wikipedia is not very difficult to work your way around - the policies are clear enough for anyone to see. The thing is that I am a keen integralist (pro-Wilber, very vaguely connected to II but no uncritical disciple, for the record.) The state of the integral pages here at the moment is very poor. Some of them terminally so. Fortunately, the wikipedia policies seem to be helpful in putting that right. I appreciate that you like some of the pages, I have nominated or proded and I am sorry if I have offended you.

Anyway, this page is a rather different kettle of fish. I would very much like to discuss it with you, but I need to ask you for at least some initial trust if we are going to get anywhere. If you like I am happy to have an off-line discussion and let you know who I am in real life.

I guess I want to ask you - What is your overall intention on the shape of this article? What are you wanting to convey in terms of biography, theory and criticism and what balance are you wanting to strike between the three? What level of prior familiarity are you expecting of a reader?

Anyway, I agree to Eleuther's approach. I suggest that he can probably read selectively to avoid wasting a lot of his time. Perhaps Goethean can help point out salient areas.

--Backface 02:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

See Eleuther and Backface, how can we mediate with someone even during the mediation process doesn't act in good faith?? The past is the past, backface and I have only looked to edit where there has been POVs,etc. Look to his personal talk page, this is not the first arbitration or mediation page he has been involved, I do not think the same can be said for me or Backface. I have constisently said this page should be protected by wikipedia and be edited by someone who is more objective than u or me. Yes, I have been highly emotional and should know better, but when I see somone trying to dictate a page, its troublesome to me. ForrestLane42 00:23, 16 December 2006 (UTC)ForrestLane42

Backface, how can you say there is no connection between us, I thought we had a somewhat amicable relationship. ForrestLane42 11:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)ForrestLane42

Hey, I'm not saying we were not amicable, merely that we are independent of one another. --Backface 20:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Well I can see this is going to be no fun! I'll get to work and try to post something later today or tomorrow. Cheers, Eleuther 15:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Progress Report

I typed in "new age" and got this, which I think shows that the Wilber article is relatively sane. My idea was to see if it would be realistic to describe Wilber as a new age philosopher and religious leader. It seems I need to change my tack. Cheers, more to come, Eleuther 04:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Wilber specifically objects to being considered 'new age' although he accepts that being placed in the new age / mbs sections of bookshops is the best way to get sales, rather than psychology / philosophy.

Can I suggest that a good approach to sorting this out is to get a good idea of what each of the participants wants the page to look like and what approach they want taken to setting out Wilber's life, work and critics. Goethean has done a considerable amount of work and thinking on this, ForrestLane42 feels unheard and I want to bring some encyclopedeic discipline to the page. The best solution is going to satisfy all three views rather than introduce yet another one which none of us will agree with. I think it would be wise for us all to set out our 'objectives' for the page and then for a discussion to take place as to how these can be acheived. --Backface 12:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

• Hi, Backface, I agree, the last thing I want to do is introduce a fourth viewpoint. I was just browsing around, trying to get my bearings. I'm not planning to suggest new content, only a lot of removal, and principles for the replacement content. I also agree that encyclopedic discipline should be the watchword. Eleuther 14:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

View from the Backface

So to kick off here is mine:

The page needs to read like an encylopaedia entry, as for any other philosopher psychologist, writer, whatever.

Becsuse there is so much heat around Wilber in his attempt to increase awareness of his ideas, there is a lot of inward-looking and irrelevant waffle from people with various levels of ego investment in the community around his work. All these people seem to believe that they have a need to have their particular view expressed on the page, whereas in fact this is not necessary and not encyclopaedic. Because of the enthusiasm for the debate, the page has been hacked so many times that it is about 3 times as long as it should be. We do not need to offer a narration of a private blog flame war.

I would like to see the page give a clear overview of Wilbers life, his work (writing and II), the basics of his ideas (WP is not a philosophy text book and there is too much about this at the moment), an overview of the cogent criticism.

Criticism is the worst part of the page at the moment. There is far to much nonsense around this stuff from people hanging their cranky ideas onto Wilber's work. There is precious little notable criticism of Wilber, most of it is just people mouthing off on their blogs or web sites and seriously mixing up personal problems with Wilber. (Sorry, somebody expressing how they met Wilber once and he wasn't a very emotional guy is not notable even if he is a big name in Transpersonal Psych.) The notable criticism that exists, notably in the book "Ken Wilber in Dialogue" is very, very useful and this should be emphasised. Some of it is pretty devastating. I suggest that anything that is not published in a book is removed. This is in line with Wikipedia policy.

The problem here is that Wilber has been largely ignored by the academic community rather than criticised and therefore embraced by it. This is his own fault largely. However, the page can just note this rather than replace the missing cogent criticism with self-published drivel from self-declared esotericists.

An overview that stated that there is a growing integral community relating to his and others' work with various factions who disagree with one another would be enough, without listing and quoting every individual who has blogged some ad hominem attack. Only put them here if they are notable -ie have published material that is referenced outside the integral community (i.e. not dallman, bauwens, falk, WIE, zaadsters, IN, integralworld, integral review, integral leadership review, all the various blogs we people write etc. etc. etc.)

The starting point should in my view be to attempt to produce the right page for an encyclopaedia, not to produce the page the one particular aspect of the integral community or another would want to see, nor to try to create a consensus of the various parts of the integral community. Perhaps think about what would be important to people reading the page in 10 years time.

Where is there a really good article about a philosopher / pyschologist writer that we can use as a template?

End lecture here. Over to you Goethean, ForrestLane42, anyone else who is listening. --Backface 12:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Backface, I agree this page has always need to read more like an encylopedic page than what is there already. His biography is an example of trying to boost Wilber up - i.e. Taylor quotation, the page is way too long. His ideas section has become overblown and best left for those interested in Wilber to read on their own.

The criticism section is the hardest part, there is so much disdain for Wilber some for good reason, others for not so good reason. The present section misses the essence on why people dont agree with Wilber. I think you can say that Wilber has been attacked for reasons such as not answering the criticism given, his personality, etc. I am sure if you look to Hegel or Kant, they might mentioned the negative parts of their personality. All has to be brief and not to the point of exhaustion. I think his ideas should be done around his prposed five phases of work. I would also like to see at the final revision of this page, some sort of protection template given, so that no one can try to revert it back to its pre-historic days. ForrestLane42 18:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC)ForrestLane42

ForrestLane42, please try not to place your comments in the middle of another editor's comments. — goethean ॐ 18:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that readers of Backface's comments should consider his contributions to Wikipedia when evaluating them. His nominations for deletion were assisted by a deeply entrenched bias against transpersonal and integral theory on Wikipedia and rampant deletionism. Others of his nominations, like Michel Bauwens, were rejected by people who actually knew about the subject, but could been deleted had those people not shown up. This comment by Backface, in which he appaers to argue that an article should be deleted because it is not in the Encyclopedia Britannica, betrays an apalling ignorance of Wikipedia's mission, goals, and policies. Please see his other comments at that policy talk page before evaluating his comments here.

I disagree with Backface that Wilber's ideas should be de-emphasized. I also disagree with the idea that material cited to books should take precedence over material cited from published articles. Much of the rest of Backface's comments are rhetorical in nature and lack meaning. Of course we should emphasize encyclopedic material — who could disagree with that? The more difficult question is: what qualifies as encyclopedic?

Apart from the biography section (which was written by User:Blainster) and the criticism section (by User:M Alan Kazlev), I have almost singlehandedly written this article. I have also spent considerable amounts of time defending it from vandals, reductionists, and others. When I first began editing the article, it looked like this. I also wrote the articles on AQAL, SES, and others. So we are discussing my work here. I welcome constructive criticism, but I have not as yet seen evidence for it. — goethean ॐ 19:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Whoooaa. hold your horses!!

I am very sorry that Goethean has chosen to take this approach, which does not seem tremendously constructive and is certainly far from assuming good faith. He does not appear to show himself in a very good light. I don't quite know what I have done to annoy him so much and I guess I have to answer his points one-by-one, but it seems rather tiresome to do so when I would much rather talk about the page. Anyway, here goes.

• Goethean believes that I have a deeply entrenched bias against transpersonal and integral theory. This is far from the case. I have written elsewhere positively on integral theory and I am a keen integralist. I have other credentials in this area which I decline to state in order to protect my privacy. As I have stated before, my sole aim here is to improve the quality of the coverage of integral topics in Wikipedia. Goethean makes his accusations based on assumptions that are incorrect and are easily put right but I do not understand the extreme anger with which he seems to put them.

• I stated clearly that my objection to the Bauwens page is that it has no reliable sources and that I would withdraw my objections to it if some were made known. Goethean could easily have done so if he had any. Nobody did. This is not an anti-integral stance but one that is pro-Wikipedia. Trust me; I do know what I am talking about. There is an awful lot of self-publicity in this arena and a small amount of tremendously valuable work such as Wilber's. Wikipedia's policy, if followed closesly, will ensure that coverage emphasises the good and minimises the dross. I do not see this as 'rampant deletionism' but as a correction of a tendency of the integral community to spread its internal debates outward. By all means check the history of my changes, all of which are consistent with improving the quality of coverage of integral matters, even if that involved proposing the deletion of things Goethean happens to like when they breach WP policy. Perhaps this is the source of the rancour which seems to be causing him to lose his balance.

• Goethean has deliberatly missed my point about Britannica in order to paint me in a poor light here. (I am sorry to suspend assumption of good faith but I am defending myself from a personal attack here.) Please read the page as Goethean suggests that you do, you will see that I am responding to a particular statement by Kazlev. Kazlev states his disappointment that Wikipedia is not competing with Britannica which he blames on events such as the deletion of a particular article. I pointed out that Britannica does not cover that suject either in order to question Kazlev's pessimism. I certainly do not believe that Britannica's lack of coverage of the subject is a reason to keep it out of Wikipedia. Sheeeesh! The reason to keep it out of Wikipedia is that it is not notable and has no RS as I stated on the afd page and in the debate to which Goethean refers. That, as I was observing, is what keeps it out of Britanica also. He states that I show an "apalling [sic] ignorance of Wikipedia's mission, goals, and policies". This remark is wrong but it is also way over the line. Goethean, try to keep a lid on it, my friend.

• This is not the first time I have had to defend myself personally from his ad hominem attacks. I have made no similar attacks on him. I appreciate that I have proposed the deletion of articles that he liked. These were handled by the proper process and the relevant policies and I have no objection where decisions of the community have not gone my way. I have offered to speak off-line to Goethean and verify my real-world identity to begin to build some trust and this offer has not been taken up. Many of the things I mention here, I have already written in such responses before. I ask, once again, Goethean, that you cease this line of attack and begin to address the work in hand rather than me personally. I trust that I will not have to repeat these comments again.

As I stated before, I acknowledge that he has thought long and deeply about this subject and congratulate him for the work he has done. I would like to again extend my invitation to him to set out his vision for the page. I can appreciate that a reconsideration of the page such as the exercise we are now attempting may not be easy for him since he has contributed considerably towards the current version. So have many others. I appreciate the work that he and others have put into it and hope that, in this exercise, we can use this work as a firm basis on which to build to create an article worthy of featured status. I certainly do not want to throw away baby with bathwater. --Backface 22:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Goethean believes that I have a deeply entrenched bias against transpersonal and integral theory.

I should have been more clear. I meant that your nominating articles for deletion was assisted by an entrenched bias against integral thought among Wikipedians. I was talking about a bias against integral thought on Wikipedia, not your personal bias. The "rampant deletionism" phrase also referred to a trend on Wikipedia in general. — goethean ॐ 22:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I have made no similar attacks on him.

If my contributions to Wikipedia consisted of removing content and attempting to have articles deleted, I might expect some resistance. — goethean ॐ 22:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I have offered to speak off-line to Goethean and verify my real-world identity to begin to build some trust and this offer has not been taken up.

See your talk page. — goethean ॐ 22:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I have no intention of "setting out my goals" for the article here on the talk page. Apart from the haggling that I had to do with dismissive, skeptical editors, the article is my vision. (Except for that "Wilber's five stages" section. Who put that ugly thing in?) — goethean ॐ 23:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

"the article is my vision"

This quote must be highlighted for it is evident that goethean does not plan to work in good faith and feels entitled to run this page to his whims. Sorry that is not how wikipedia works. Eleuther, goethean has attacked backface unprovoked, he says this article is his vision, how can there be mediation with such a tyrant? Eleuther, if you know how to contact Wikipedia to get involved, it would be appreciated.

as for a bias against integralism, that is bogus and a false front to protect your own agenda. There is no bias, if there is rampant deletionism on integral pages, it is because most of them have no substance,not noteworthy, and end up being a waste of space. Take the Matthew Dallman page for example. Wikipedia is not a place for advertisement of integralism. I fully endorse Backface's statement:"I do not see this as 'rampant deletionism' but as a correction of a tendency of the integral community to spread its internal debates outward."

As for goethean's statement "I welcome constructive criticism, but I have not as yet seen evidence for it." He has never set a standard of good faith in this area, he reverts without explaining them, without having a democratic discussion on the deletion, it is his view of constructive criticism - if I didn't know better goethean is Wilber himself. Seems to define the game and wants you to play by his rules.

Lastly, goethean I do not understand how I put my comments in the middle of anyone's statements. Sorry if I did, but please a minor mistake. goethean, wikipedia is not a place for the war in the integral world, how bout you start a clone of wikipedia for all things integral. Infact isn't there such a thing called Integral Wiki?????

backface, sorry that you had to face such remarks from goethean. ForrestLane42 00:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)ForrestLane42

Whoever wants to can look at the article history and see that other editors have edited the article successfully. But when someone vandalizes the article, I undo their changes. When you deleted entire paragraphs, I undid your changes. This is reasonable. As I suggested earlier, why don't you try deleting paragraphs from other artifles and see what happens? See also Wikipedia is not a democracy. — goethean ॐ 01:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

You mention wikipedia is not a democracy but look at the fine print - "Its primary method of determining consensus is discussion" - this seems like a democracy, if it walks, quaks, and sounds like a duck, its a duck... primarily the emphasis is on discussion, which looking at your style of editing has been clearly lacking. As to the charge of deleting entire paragraphs - this is not vandalism, this is called editing, when one finds paragraphs that make no sense, talks with a high brow - meaning someone who knows integral knowledge inside and out, this page is a primer, not a textbook for integralism, IMO. There has been paragraphs that either are there for self-advertisement, non-sensical,etc. Why dont' you post those paragraphs for Eleuther to look at - to see if they warrant inclusion or can at least be retooled. Sorry Eleuther, its hard to back off when you have one partner who has made it clear that this is his page. let me know if i signed right, Eleuther. 04:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)ForrestLane42

If the paragraphs that don't make any sense are from Wilber, then rather than deleting them, introductory material needs to be introduced that will guide the reader into the quotation. Eleuther is fully capable of reading the article for himself. — goethean ॐ 04:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Reboot!

Hi, crew, sorry to have been missing in action, my network router was down for awhile. I see you have managed to stay busy.

• Backface, I liked most of what you said in View from the Backface. I would happily turn this whole mediation job over to you, if only you could moderate your language and swallow your pride a bit.
• ForrestLane42, when you add a comment, it's best to do it after the signature line of the previous talker, and maybe to indent it to make it clear who is responding to whom. This is a minor formatting error, not a major sin.
• Goethean, it's improper in the current context (where we're all trying to cooperate) to attack ForrestLane42 over a minor formatting error, and to go on to attack Backface over his past contibutions. Past conflicts are not relevant to the current discussion.
• Goethean, you go on to say that you have singlehandedly written most of the article. Thanks for your work, but Wikipedia articles are not owned by single editors, and it's clear the article can't stand in its current form. Backface has invited interested parties to describe what they want the article to look like. Please contribute to this – give us a paragraph or two about what you think the content should be. I'm waiting for this before I give my opinion, since you seem to be the main skeptic.

Over all, all of you, stop it! No more personalities, no more history, no more breast-beating. Only polite discussion of the content of the article. Cheers, Eleuther 03:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Eleuther, I apologize, but I have sincere doubts that goethean will ever reach consensus with mediation. ForrestLane42 04:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)ForrestLane42

Hi, ForrestLane42, I said stop it — forget it, let it be.

-Ouch. -ForrestLane42

Eleuther, I didn't attack Forrestlane, I made a polite request of him. I also didn't mean to imply that I owned the article; but merely that there is no need for me to give a vision for the article when I have already made that vision into reality. But since Backface has successfully framed the debate in this way, I suppose that I should say something so that I do not appear obstructionist. The article should consist of two major sectons: biography and ideas. The biography should highlight when he released which books and should describe his five phases. The ideas section should be organized the way it is now -- into subsections on his major ideas, plus a section on major criticism. Much of the recent criticism has taken place online, and the criticism section should note that. — goethean ॐ 04:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Eleuther, goethean's comment "I also didn't mean to imply that I owned the article; but merely that there is no need for me to give a vision for the article when I have already made that vision into reality." It seems to be a contradiction in terms...if he does not own this article, which is a truth statement, how can it be "no need for me to give a vision" when "I have already made that vision into reality, come on, are we that obtuse?? —ForrestLane42

Wilber as Philosopher (revisited)

(The following comments arrived in the middle of some conflicting edits in the previous section (Reboot!) — I've moved them to a new section because it seemed to make more sense, please revert or comment if you disagree. Eleuther 05:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC))

Excuse me if I am trespassing on this dispute, but while Eleuther is considering, I'll throw in a cent or two. My main concerns about this article are at the top of the page, in the "Wilber as philosopher" discussion. The article has been modified (mostly for the better) since then, but some of what I said there is still worth mentioning. In particular, this article's principal failure as an encyclopedia article is that it does not present a realistic view of Wilber's unimportance among everyone outside the Integralist community. Someone coming to Wikipedia with little knowledge of (say) philosophy, psychology, or the study of consciousness, might read this article and, from its lengthy and mostly uncritical presentation of his ideas, draw the conclusion that Wilber is a major figure in contemporary philosophy or psychology, when in fact virtually no experts in these fields bother to even notice his work. Unless this article prominently notes this, it is biased by default. 271828182 04:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I, for one concur with 271828182 above statement. He or she has put things into a nutshell. —ForrestLane42 05:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)ForrestLane42

271828182, I read your editing to the introduction - Heidegger, a very controversial philopher - very well-balanced and continue to welcome your thoughts on this page 'wilber as philosopher revisited'.

So what should it be?

So what is the proper term, then? If I had to pick a single word for what Wilber does, I personally would pick philosophy — but I also acknowledge that he's not a university professor, and there seems to be a presumption that only university professors can do that thing. So what's the right word, eh? Eleuther 06:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

No, Eleauther, he can at best - at best be considered a pseudo-philosopher IMO. IMO, what Wilber does, is he picks and chooses ideas from different thoughts and attempts to synthesize them into what he calls integral. He is not accepted by academia because he is not a philosopher. He remains in the religious realm. He might be a New Age author, IMO. His books would I presume be found in that section in Borders. The person above who started wilber revisited, is right, if someone less knowledgeable on Wilber, sees this page, they would think that he was actually "the Einstein of consciousness" clearly he is not. He is too his fans no doubt, but to academia, to the world outside of integralism, he is a New Age author. But by what standard do u think he is a philosopher? In the past, someone tried to say he was a psychologist, which is not! To be a psychologist, one has to be accredited as such. One who happens to be well-versed in psychology or philosophy does not mean they owe the title of psychologist or philosopher, and to give them that title would make the word rather naive. -ForrestLane42 06:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)ForrestLane42

ForrestLane42, you are correct, IMO. He's basically a new age author and thinker who attempts to weave various ideas (often derivative) into an integral pattern, which has resulting in a following; has endorsed highly flawed gurus (Adi Da, former followers of Da like Deida, Saniel Bonder etc, and Andrew Cohen); and more recently, has taken on the role of a spiritual transmitter in his own right. He can be soundly criticized for everything from his new age psuedo-scientific views to his new age belief in an evolutionary enlightenment. He may be influential in new age circles but he's hardly the influence his followers would like to have one believe. --Dseer 07:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I think "writer" is a reasonably NPOV way to describe Wilber, despite its vagueness. I'm not saying that only university professors can be called philosophers, by the way (see the discussion above). 271828182 07:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, "writer" is a weasel-word. Sure, he writes well, but that's not the point. The important thing about him is his ideas, not his wordage. If you can't stomach philosopher, call him a religious thinker, or whatever. Eleuther 08:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with Eleuther. Writer is not a weasal word. Wilber writes on many subjects: psychology, sociology, philosophy, science, new age, religion, spirituality...he is a general non-fiction writer. (And he wrote a novel.) — goethean ॐ 16:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

A weasel word, as I understand it, is a qualifier that implies something dubious: e.g., "Leaves glasses virtually spotless", or "Wilber may be the greatest thinker of the 21st century". Describing Wilber as a writer, then, is not to weasel. It is vague, as I said, but the problem is that Wilber's own work is exceedingly vague. "New Age writer" or "New Age theorist" are both agreeable to me -- more specific than "writer" but basically neutral. (I don't think calling him a New Age writer would be much of an insult to a supporter, since someone sympathetic to Wilber will tend to think that New Age ideas are on the right track.) 271828182 05:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Calling him a religious thinker would fall into what Dseer is saying which would legitimize his works as something mainstream which clearly it is not. I openly wonder, can he not be seened and called a cult leader?? -ForrestLane42 11:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)ForrestLane42

I now tend to describe Wilber as a New Age writer. Wilber fans will reject this as an insult, as Wilber considers himself a philosopher/psychologist. "Cult leader" is clearly POV and original research, as I don't think that he's ever been called that in print. In difficult situations like this, Wikipedia should describe the controversy rather than taking a side (pro- or con-). I recommend that Wikipedia say that Wilber's admirers see him as a contermporary philosopher or psychological theorist and that his detractors see him as a new age writer. There was a long conversation about this up towards the top of the page. — goethean ॐ 16:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi all, quite a lively discussion you have going here. I just finished "A Theory of Everything", as well as the Wikipedia article and the talk page (when combined, about the same length as the book!) and some critical pages, and perhaps I can add another voice to help with finding a consensus.

To get right to it, I'd also opt for "author" or "writer" over philosopher, though I think "author" is better as he does author books, not just write articles/essays/etc. Given the long list of books that he's published, I think calling him primarily an author or writer is most accurate, and not disparaging in any way. If he gets most of his income from the sales of books (which seems likely, from the number of books written), calling him an author sounds most accurate and appropriate to me.Pro crast in a tor 16:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I say keep it as author not philosopher or psychologist because he is not accredited nor recognized by academia and to be recognized as a philosopher it will take 100 plus years. Cult leader might be POV but then again look at Adi Da or Andrew Cohen people whom he associates with are all seen to be accused of being a cult leader. BTW cult leader does not neccessarily mean evil, for Jesus Christ or Paul were once cult leaders! -ForrestLane42 16:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)ForrestLane42

My vote is to call him a writer (pretty much undeniable since he has published books) and explain that he draws upon the philosphical etc. traditions but from outside the mainstream of academia. This can all be done with a very small change and may just about satisfy us all. Let's see what you all think. --Backface 19:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Backface, I am not sure of your justification for traditions instead of interpretations....I would like interpretation to stay or be incorprated to the present translation because it encompasses the fact that he has knowledge in each of these subjects and has taken his knowledge and intrepreted it into his own "integral thought" - being that this is a subjective endeavor. -ForrestLane42 21:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)ForrestLane42

Shortening the article

I submit that I believe this article is too long for an encyclopedia. The article on Gandhi is only a little longer than this article currently is! I've removed the "stages of development" stub section, reference to it, the "evolution of his work" section (all author's work evolves: this is not notable), collapsed a quote down, and a few other minor things. These seemed simple and not too contentious, and I will defend these cuts. To cut further, I recommend the following for removal, but would like to discuss it here first:

• current work - Let's wait for his new ideas to be published, see if they are notable, then add them to his profile if they are. At the very least, the quote should be removed: it's too much detail without any possible references since the book is not out yet.
• the forum post quote under "Wilber on Darwinism" - again, too much detail, esp. as it is contradicted in the next sentence (!). We should be summarizing, not quoting.
• the biography should be shortened to about half the current length, which I think can be done with judicious editing and without affecting the quality of the article. I don't have time right now, but perhaps I'll take a stab at it later, if there are others in agreement that it is too long. Pro crast in a tor 16:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that the evolution of his work should be incorporated into the biography. It is a self-description and can be presented as such. I tried to get all of the nuances into Wilber's stance on Darwinism; hence the quotation. I would prefer for some of the material to be split out using summary style rather than deleted altogether. "Current work" is now a bit of a misnomer now that Integral Spirituality has been released. Ideally, someone would update the section with a description of that material. — goethean ॐ 16:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Pro crast in a tor, especially on the Wilber on Darwinism, you have supported what I have been saying for weeks on that section. Wilber is certainly no Gandhi! -16:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)ForrestLane42

Goethean, I believe that you're working against your interest in Mr. Wilber by trying to include too much information about Mr. Wilber's life and thinking. By being too long and too detailed, the result is that fewer people will read the full article, and his thinking will have less of an impact on society. The first time I came across this article, I only read the first two screens of it, which didn't even get me to the "ideas" section, before giving up on the article (and then returning to it later to help with the editing of it). An encyclopedia article should summarize and try to distill the key points, not detail the entire life journey. The reason for this is not that Mr. Wilber is not notable, rather, it gets in the way of seeing the notable ideas he's had. A detailed biography should be linked to in the references section, if one exists.

Put another way, you've got three, maybe four screens to get your reader: make them count, don't try to include everything. And this is why I think the article needs to be shortened, and maintain that the above recommendations are a good start towards getting to an article that people will read. Pro crast in a tor 17:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't oppose shortening the biography. — goethean ॐ 17:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Great! Re-reading your early comment, "Capturing nuances" is most certainly not a feature of an encyclopedia: generally, you or I average folks might have our entire lives brutally condensed down to one sentence with name, year of birth & death, and a reference to our 15 minutes of fame (if that). I'm making an edit that isn't nearly so brutal, but I think will capture salient info. Pro crast in a tor 17:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, let me rephrase it. I tried to present Wilber's stance on Darwinism accurately. If you can do that with fewer words, go for it. — goethean ॐ 17:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, cut made. It seems clearer to me now: no comment, takeback of comment, and description of tetra-evolution (which, though it uses the term "evolution", does not appear to refer to darwinian evolution. Pro crast in a tor 17:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I also edited his "current work" section to be a bit briefer.

On the flip side, one addition to the article that I'd like to see is a four quadrant graph: I think this would go a long way towards describing what he's getting at. If someone were so inclined, they could get permission from him to reproduce the graph on this page. Comments? Pro crast in a tor 17:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

That is at AQAL, which used to be part of this article. — goethean ॐ 17:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I, for one, applaud Pro crast in a tor's edit. It retains the sense and makes the article readable. --Backface 19:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

While I applaud Pro crast in a tor's editing, it is not like the same editing had not occurred before when I did and I got lambbassed by goethean as saying its not readable, I did the same exact things in the wilber/darwin section. How can it be that goethean seems to work in "good faith" with pro crast in a tor, but can not show the same respect to my edits?? I have always tried to be reasonable with goethean, but how can you be reasonable with someone who has reacted with venom towards me in the past. I guess we are all on the green meme and not the second tier! lol... I feel goethean owes me that respect in that the edits pro crast has made are nearly identical but has not shown for the time-being the same courtesy. Pro crast in a tor, I applaud your edits and am not meaning to drag you into the previous edit war with goethean. goethean, I have made more than reasonable edits and you stubborned would not acknowledge their correction or you would automatically revert 3x..... -ForrestLane42 21:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)ForrestLane42

I'm assuming good faith on goethean's part, and when it was a 1-1 deadlock, it's a toss up. Now we have Backface, yourself, myself, and goethean, and a 3-1 decision (as is the case for my most recent edits) makes it clear what a majority thinks is best for the article. Pro crast in a tor 08:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not clear on what you mean Pro crast in a tor, but I also think that a few days does not give clear consensus on these matters IMO. -ForrestLane42 23:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)ForrestLane42

I think the paragraph on Wilber-Combs lattice should either be taken out or reframe, it sounds too technical, something that an intermediate or advanced student of Wilber would only know or left for the interested reader to find out more. It does seem to add to the content of the section.. -ForrestLane42 21:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)ForrestLane42

I'm ambivalent on this point. Normally I wouldn't say anything, but with as much contention as there is around here, thought I'd put it out there. Pro crast in a tor 08:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to see the whole section rationalised to be less intricately technical, rahter than point at specific paragraphs to be deleted. Some of the more detailed technical stuff could be moved to AQAL. I'll have a go at it later today. --Backface 14:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Clinton quotation

I recommend that the Bill Clinton quotation be restored that Forrestlane42 deleted with the following edit summary: deleted clinton comment, only placed in for self-promotion for wilber. First of all, that edit summary does not assume good faith. Second of all, it is not your typical new age writer that can boast a quotation from a US president. I submit that the quotation is highly notable, was not placed for promotional purposes, and should be restored. — goethean ॐ 21:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

By your own words, it shows bias, it shows how it is put in there to advance Wilber's cause, it should be DELETED again you fail to show good faith with me. I gave a perfectly valid explanation for the deletion. Having someone like Clinton advertise for Wilber, is clearly used to boose one's image of Wilber. Does no one not see that is clearly self-promotional purposes and not meant to educate those who do not know Wilber?? REVERT to my deletion, please Eleauther... -ForrestLane42 21:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)ForrestLane42

Seconded, the Clinton quote seems like name-dropping to me, and does not add enough value to the article to justify the length. Pro crast in a tor 08:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with leaving the quote there. It is verifiable, relevant, in-line with npov and nothing to do with self-promotion. Apart from anything else it is quite interesting--Backface 14:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC).

It seems premature to make this decision now, because of the implications of using that quote in that context, until the article is fleshed out more. Why? Look at the quote itself. "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. He said, you know, the problem is the world needs to be more integrated but it requires a consciousness that’s way up here, and an ability to see beyond the differences among us". Right away, you have a popular ex-President defining Ken Wilber as a philosopher, and that has an impact on the writer and/or philosopher discussion. In reality, all Clinton is really doing is saying is he agrees on a macro scale with an idea he read in Ken Wilber's book, and it is that Clinton liked the idea and used it that makes in noteworthy. I think at this stage it makes more sense as a reference or possibly a wikiquote than in the body of the text, because it is noteworthy that he was referenced by Clinton, so I would not delete all information regarding the quote, but I'm not convinced yet based on where the article seems to be headed it belongs in the text of the article where it could give it more weight than deserved. --Dseer 17:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

It is name-dropping clear and simple. The fact that Clinton said doesn't mean much presidents can be wrong in their information, plus the strong likihood exists that it was not from Clinton, but from his speech writers who wrote the quote. -ForrestLane42 22:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)ForrestLane42

Youtube videos

There seems to be a dispute over whether to include Youtube links to videos. The first question should be: "are the videos copyrighted?" If they are, and if they have not been released under a free license, then WP:EL#Restrictions on linking indicates that we should not link to them. The guideline is that we should avoid linking to copyright violations. Are there other issues as well? -Will Beback · † · 22:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Will Beback, I can not verify if they copyrighted, I would assume so. Besides the point, the point is that the videos have nothing whatsoever to do with Wilber or his ideas, do you care how second-tier people have sex? Do u think you would see this in any other encyclopedia? No these are just there to sex up Wilber's page. And if no one can verify it, goethean, then STRONG DELETE -ForrestLane42 00:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)ForrestLane42

The sex video has been deleted. I recommend keeping the other video: it was uploaded by "Integral Naked" and is listed as the director, so I'm assuming that it was released by them for viewing online. It was interesting to me to see him talk "in the flesh", and think it is worth a one-line link near the end of the article. Pro crast in a tor 08:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

So where are we at after all of this?

Time for a mediation summary, eleuther, before we descend into chaos... --Backface 14:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)