[btw, wordpress seems to think this answer is "a bit too short". i think it is succinct.]

The problem of the ‘lower’ criticizing the ‘higher.’ This strikes me as an ironic criticism because Mr. Wilber has usually not responded to the merits of his critic’s arguments. Nowadays he doesn’t respond publicly to criticism at all, as far as I can tell. It seems the principle, that worthwhile criticism is best sourced at the same, or higher level, from whence its subject come from, is a position severed from any coherent and integral view about the systematic relations found in rich dialogical discussion. In noting this I do appreciate the novel idea that the superiority of ‘same-or-higher’ argument is found, as you assert, in simple behavioral economics, in supposing that the most efficient use of time in responding to criticism is, most wisely a matter of choosing to engage only critics at the same or higher level.

throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I did not offer a judgment about either the validity or efficacy of Wilberian spiritual technology. But, since you brought it up, I could go into it. I’m not going to, except to note a thoughtful feeling of mine with respect to where Wilber concisely sketches out his perspective; (in Appendix II, Integral Post-metaphysics of Integral Spirituality.) If I understand this treatment correctly, Wilber has discovered the final and ultimate objective of self-realization. Every person along their individual path to this goal may stop or hang up at specific stages, and inasmuch as this seeker develops to become more integral in their awareness, such way stations along the way are salutary. They are so by definition–as given in Wilber’s developmental system.

Interestingly to me at least, the ultimate prospect circles, or cycles, back to the Wilberian so-called post-metaphysical insight, that links up One Taste with Wilber’s ‘naturalistic’ conception of a rock-bottom and also pervasive and absolutely fundamental Eros. Say what you will about the benefits the development of awareness within the integral system promote, Wilber’s insight about the ‘integrally’ ultimate awareness of nature’s ultimate reality is either objectively true, or, it is not. It seems very strange to be a proponent of a version of Eros-animated intelligent design, and, at the same time, also a proponent of one’s final insight being objectively true.

To me this is a case of rejecting the best in favor of sustaining a largely circular and superficial dependency on Eros, “the primal force of the All;” (my terms.)

Finally, as for my, as you put it, embarrassing myself, I transcribe the very end of Wilber’s Appendix II.

Everywhere the bright promise of spiritual intelligence is crippled, cropped, and crucified, run into blind alleys of horrifying neglect, mugged in rational parking lots, suffocated with clouds of materialism, regressed to new age infantilism, housed in mythic and metaphysical nonsense, this bright promise of my own ultimate concern.

When will it stop? When will your own deepest tomorrow begin?

It’s a new time, it’s a new day, it’s a new dawn, it’s a new man, it’s a new woman. If you want to stand at the leading edge, identified with Eros itself, and push into new territories of your own own deepest and highest possibilities, changing the world as you do, please join us at http://www.integralinstitute.com.

It occurs to me that Wilber cannot step outside himself enough to perceive the heavy spiritual materialism his hopes, and entrepreneurial ambitions, are infected by. Found somewhat beyond mythic spirituality are the developmental spiritual systems which firmly stand against any consciousness-raising goal being finally worthwhile if it has anything to do with mere identification with anything, even with no-thing. Although I can chalk up Wilber using identification in this exhortation to imprecision, I’d rather highlight its use by supposing it to be right in the center of the target, where it marks the apex of his inflation.

(The self-indulgence displayed on my blog often possesses an element of embarrassment. If I’m not at least a tiny bit ashamed, I might not publish a post. Just sayin’.)

it is david lane, not lee ;-).

thanks for blogging about the frisky dirt essay on Integral World. More postings to follow.

I confess to the overreach in the terms you allude to. However, I did plug in the video to reinforce my point. Although, I suppose I was reinforcing a straw man too. Caveat emptor.

Noting this, there remains a bunch of problems, (and consider the ‘meta’ implicit in this,) with the prescriptive, be it speculative and underdeveloped, or, sometime in the future, drawn from the canon or some other authoritative source.

To put this bluntly: until the presumptive benefits of a Centauric socio-political prescription are actually rooted to a fleshed out, self-critical theory about second tier or “higher cognitive order” prescribing ‘stances’ (or persons,) it will remain impossible for me to discount my other sensings.

One of those sensings is that Wilber himself is moved to offer–in the video–a rather superficial, and old fashioned, view of the so-called mob, and the implicit problem of the tyranny of the majority. But, to even offer as much is suggestive of not wishing to couch these problems in fine intelligible terms.

To me, on offer here, by Wilber, is a kind of folk political philosophy. Where, what would fit the bill better is a cogent analytical integral theorizing about the various dimensions of local politics. And, in this, the psycho-sociological dimension could speak of the status of voter consciousness, and voter false-consciousness, as but one dimension among robust integral descriptions of (at least) the operational dimensions of actual politics, and, for that matter, of meta-politics.

Alas, I will predict with some confidence that we will see delivered soon enough a prescription not anchored to any multi-dimensional integral analysis at all.

Point me in the direction that proves me wrong and too cynical about this prospect.

My own, alas somewhat facile, short cut is to view the different aspirational practices aimed to provide union as constituting the esoteric yogas found ‘on’ the spoke of the mystical praxis, experience-in-application particular to a religion, or, syncretic spiritual community.

Whereas conflicts between religions, judging from the millennia devoted to violent conflict between emperors and Kings and princes and Popes and reformers seem altogether to be worldly, political, “material,” affairs. Also, looking back, one can wonder about the psychological dispositions in play, say during the 16th century.

Psychology pressures the concept of a normative mysticism–albeit it is several perspectives. Alternately, there could be varieties of historicist lens; for which questions of local, private, public, and situated vocabularies come into differential play. Here, both pragmatics and deconstruction also come to the fore.

Ritual and Symbols. The inner meanings of the scriptures, the spiritual teachings of the prophets and those personal searchings which can lead to divine union were often given lesser importance than outward rituals, symbolism and ceremony in many institutional religions. Observances, reading scriptures, prescribed acts, and following orthodox beliefs cannot replace your personal dedication, contemplation, activities, and direct experience. Preaching is too seldom teaching. For true mystics, every day is a holy day. Divine revelation is here and now, not limited to their sacred scriptures.

Conflicts in Conventional Religion. “What’s in a Word?” outlined some primary differences between religions and within each faith. The many divisions in large religions disagreed, sometimes bitterly. The succession of authority, interpretations of scriptures, doctrines, organization, terminology, and other disputes have often caused resentment. The customs, worship, practices, and behavior within the mainstream of religions frequently conflicted. Many leaders of any religion had only united when confronted by someone outside their faith, or by agnostics or atheists. Few mystics have believed divine oneness is exclusive to their religion or is restricted to any people.

Note: This is just a consensus to indicate some differences between the approaches of mystics and that of their institutional religion. These statements do not represent all schools of mysticism or every division of faith. Whether mystical experiences vary in their cultural context, or are similar for all true mystics, is less important than that they transform each one’s sense of being to a transpersonal outlook on all life.