INTEGRAL WORLD: EXPLORING THEORIES OF EVERYTHING
An independent forum for a critical discussion of the integral philosophy of Ken Wilber



powered by TinyLetter
Today is:
Publication dates of essays (month/year) can be found under "Essays".

David Christopher LaneDavid Christopher Lane, Ph.D. Professor of Philosophy, Mt. San Antonio College Lecturer in Religious Studies, California State University, Long Beach Author of Exposing Cults: When the Skeptical Mind Confronts the Mystical (New York and London: Garland Publishers, 1994) and The Radhasoami Tradition: A Critical History of Guru Succession (New York and London: Garland Publishers, 1992).

SEE MORE ESSAYS WRITTEN BY DAVID LANE

Wilber on Evolution
Revisited

Response to Tom Floyd

David Lane

TOM FLOYD WRITES: True enough, Wilber is an exaggerator and a misuser of absolutist terms of the highest, perhaps even non-dual, order, but he did forewarn us in BRIEF HISTORY that the style was colloquial rather than rigorous. Still that's no excuse for his exaggerations.

But how firmly established are all of the possible interpretations of the relatively scant physical record across the vast evolutionary time domain? Doesn't the added notion of punctuated equilibria call for additional mechanisms, some Wilber would say are "spiritual" and purposive, operating in tandem with the natural selection process?

DAVID LANE REPLIES: According to Ernest Mayr, Stephen Jay Gould, and Niles Eldredge punctuated equilibria does not at all necessitate anything "spiritual" or "purposive". The idea itself is not even new since indications of it were postulated as far back as 1825. It also dovetails with Darwinian evolution, as Ernst Mayr points out,

"A modest theory of punctuationism is so strongly supported by facts and fits, on the whole, so well into the conceptual framework of Darwinism, that one is rather surprised at the hostility with which it was attacked."

TOM FLOYD WRITES: Even if there were a spiritual component to all this, Wilber has already postulated that it will have scientifically discernible physicalistic correlates and we can at least hold him to that. Rather than tangentiating off into tallying expert opinion or arguing theoretical notions as regards eyes and wings, it might be more constructive to consider what empirical hypotheses would be generated by such a consideration.

DAVID LANE REPLIES: I am all for generating empirical hypotheses but here it seems a tad ingenious, since Darwin himself elaborated on how a partial eye or a partial wing could indeed confer advantage via natural selection without resorting to any new or additional mechanism. As the PBS Evolution website points out:

"Zoologist Dan-Erik Nilsson demonstrates how the complex human eye could have evolved through natural selection acting on small variations. Starting with a simple patch of light sensitive cells, Nilsson's model "evolves" until a clear image is produced. Examples of organisms that still use the intermediary forms of vision are also shown."

The site also includes an illustrative film which underlines how even intermediary stages in the eye's development can confer some advantage. As for the advantages of a partial wing, see the article "Vertebrate Flight".

TOM FLOYD WRITES: But first, let me bring up some of the more basic issues arising from Lane's reaction to Wilber. We have a typical adversarial stance taken up by the two which I guess is the hallmark of Western scholarly dialog. And as in most adversarial discussions, exaggerations occur on both sides, and the mentality of the whole discussion reduces down to about the third grade elementary school level. It's as old as caravan drivers haggling over the price of myrrh with local tradesmen or as recent as the negotiations between the US and the USSR or Israel and the PLO. "You better take that back or I'll beat you up!" Perhaps it is time for humanity to attempt to transcend this form of negotiation just as Jesus supposedly transcended the eye-for-an-eye justice in the Ten Commandments (Yeah right, and give rise to two more millennia of self-righteous supercults!). Let's try for a moment to move up to the next holon of consciousness and look down on the argument at hand. Wilber has absolutized his way off the scale by claiming that ALL modern evolutionary scholars share his views and interpretations of punctuated equilibria of evolution. A plethora of simultaneous mutations are said to occur to get us a wing from a leg, requiring suspension of ordinary natural selection, thereby establishing the grounds for an interpretation that "spirit" is acting on real events. The natural selection process only acts to fine tune, "differentiate and integrate", the wing for use by the various species that use wings. But he loses the point if only ONE evolutionary scholar disagrees, and for this we only need look to Lane himself. So what profiteth a prophet so preposterously to hyperbolate?

DAVID LANE REPLIES: I think the larger issue here (outside of the who wins and loses form of debating such issues on the net) is that Ken Wilber is factually wrong on a very important point. Forget me, Charles Darwin tackled the question of the complexity of the eye and wing in the first edition of On the Origin of Species. This is not a new issue in evolutionary studies and there is wide consensus among evolutionary biologists about the efficacy of natural selection. Indeed, Wilber's claim doesn't contradict just one Darwinian scholar in the field, but the vast majority and that is why Wilber's claim is so egregious.

TOM FLOYD WRITES: Then we have Lane labeling a scholar who has repeatedly espoused his acceptance of evolutionary theory, and of empirical science in general, as "creationist." That's hitting below the holon if you ask me. He comes on guarding his dominion like a good centurion of science with the ultimate academic coup de gras, an F. What are we upper holonions to do with these scrappy gladiators? Let them fight it out, giving a thumbs down when the trident is at the throat of one or the other. Tempting, very tempting. But I think it's time to apply some of the wisdom of Solomon to this problem. We have Wilber, The Exaggerator, who plays both indoors and out, but doesn't know all that much about the out of doors. And we have Lane, The Labeler, who plays outdoors and just can't stomach any of that indoor stuff being left around outside. And he labels anyone who does so a "dumbfomentalist" or such.

DAVID LANE REPLIES: Actually this is pretty funny, but I don't remember calling anyone, least of all Ken Wilber, a "dumfomentalist." Indeed, I even suggested that the reason I was raking Wilber over the coals on this issue wasn't because he couldn't disagree with evolution by natural selection but that he wholly misrepresented the current thought in the field. Wilber's misrepresentation is the problem since it gives a false impression of what evolutionary biologists think.

As for the indoor/outdoor metaphor, I am of the strong opinion that interior states of consciousness should be explored. Indeed, I have been a life-long practitioner of meditation. But having said that I think there is a potential danger in conflating our neurological states of being with ontological states of reality. As one quip goes, "don't confuse neurology with ontology." There is no doubt that we have "inner" experiences, but the question that is key is how we interpret them. That I believe is still up for grabs.

TOM FLOYD WRITES: I say it's time to split the baby. But if we did, which one of these mothers would give up the fight? In this day of gangsta feuds on all levels, I don't think that would even work. So it remains for us high holonics (drop those comments about "high colonics"--we're trying to be post-New Age here!) to come up with our own solution and drop these wads down the . . . er, "integrate and transcend" these fine gentlemen. So here goes.

There a several underlying premises here to consider:

1. Why do we expect any individual to take on the responsibility for stating ultimate truths. Most scientists would never consider even the most carefully performed and highly funded project as definitive on a given question. I never take anyone seriously who makes a final statement that is to be considered fact or truth. My cynicism simply does not accept the perfection of human verbal expression. Words and sentences are such poor representatives of what I see in my consciousness that no amount of them will ever suffice as some sort of final truth, or even a fact for that matter. Describe your hand so that another person can visualize exactly what it looks like and what it can do, write instructions for tying a shoe, define the word "is," write down the difference in the odor of Chanel No.5 vs. CK1, for example . . . we can't even verbalize the sensory basics much less the ultimates! Words are absolutely, er almost absolutely, necessary for humanity as we know it, but they are a work in progress. And we haven't been doing much progress lately. They've been worshipped ("In the beginning was the Word and The Word was God . . . ) and there is every indication that they still are. We have vast armies of individuals in our culture--lawyers, legislators, academics, PR firms--whose jobs are nothing more than to find the "right" words. (By "right" I don't necessarily mean the most truthful, just the most manipulative.) One reason we're sitting at this frustrating plateau of human verbal development is that we have not developed a very good theory of our own consciousness, the very substratum of verbal content. Meanwhile, my temporary solution is to consider every word I encounter, I don't care the source or the number of expert adherents to its veracity, just another opinion about the world around and inside me. That goes for my own words as well--I am at least directly aware of their inadequacies. As a corollary to what I have just said, all words lie to a certain extent--they transfer only a part of the meaning, consciousness, that we are trying to convey--even when we do not intend to lie.

DAVID LANE REPLIES: I don't disagree with you about the imprecision of language. But that is even more reason to allow deep critical feedback and for us to engage in rigorous debates when we feel something has been maligned or misquoted or inaccurately described. In other words, your very argument can be flipped around and used to demonstrate WHY it is important not to let thinkers, like Ken Wilber, off easy under the lame excuse that they are speaking in a "colloquial" way. Even you don't agree with your own argument here since you are using words to contravene the words I used to critique Ken Wilber's thoughts on evolution. I applaud your efforts and so, I would imagine, should Ken applaud those who would spend the time to analyze and critique his ideas, even if he doesn't necessarily agree with such criticisms all the time.

TOM FLOYD WRITES: 2. Adversarialism, as we witness every day in Congress, in our legal system, or right here in these debates, to my mind is pitting one lie against another to get at the truth. Look at negative advertising (it works!), look at the OJ trial, look at the flip-floppy public statements in carcinogen research. The real winners in all this are the lawyers, politicians, the media and PR firms. I know, it's the "best system yet devised", right, why tamper with it? Because it's becoming very annoying, that's why. The winning argument is one that supposedly devastates the opponent by providing non sequitur revelations of misstatement or association. The one who can throw out the most convincing negative comment--"he lied about that punctuated equilibrium idea" or "he's one of them creationists" or "that cop is a racist and obviously conned his buddy into strewing OJ's blood all over the crime scenes" or "he's just a flatlander"--is supposed to be the one holding the truth. I thought that I had gotten through to Lane in my earlier discourse regarding Wilber's association with Da Free Whatever. It would be as bad as my saying, "Did you know that Lane is just a dumb surfer dude that practices speaking in tongues when he's not here pretending to be a professor?" It doesn't matter, does it?. My suggestion: offer opinions that can help in understanding of other opinions. Wilber overstates his case with absolutes and exaggerations. Wilber might agree to a restatement by Lane if he removed the absolutes instead of listing them like so many charges in an inquisition. Instead, Lane labels Wilber with the undeserved pejorative "creationist" and would have us totally discount ANY of Wilber's argument as regards evolution. Adversarialism invokes exaggeration on both sides and here we have no exception.

DAVID LANE REPLIES: I have always liked Ken Wilber. I have met him personally on a few occasions back in the 1980s and he was always very friendly and very engaging. He even supported a research journal, Understanding Cults, that Brian Walsh and I published for a short period. He was generous with his time and back then seemed to listen to my criticisms of Da Free John. I have used Ken Wilber's books in many of my classes at the undergraduate and graduate level. I still use his book, The Marriage of Sense and Soul, in my upper division Religion and Science course at California State University, Long Beach. So I completely disagree with you when you claim that I am suggesting that we "totally" discount Wilber as regards evolution, or any subject for that matter. No, I am simply pointing out a fundamental mistake he has made and that it should be corrected. There is no reason to see this as "adversial" just as I shouldn't see your critique of what I have written as "adversial." You have done me a service and I see no reason why Wilber isn't better served by critics pointing out his varying weaknesses.

TOM FLOYD WRITES: Let's see what the score is so far: Wilber doesn't know what all evolutionists believe about punctuated equilibria and Lane isn't justified in lumping Wilber with the creationists.

DAVID LANE REPLIES: Here again we disagree. I don't think it is about taking "score". No, it is merely individuals responding to perceived mistakes and trying to correct them in the future. This is more than just a two-way street. This IS the internet and nobody is exempt from it and nobody should be exempt from it. It is to quote Darwin, "one long argument" and in that argument we should double check each other to see if we are making mistakes along the way.

As for labeling Wilber with creationists, my point was to show how Wilber's objections to natural selection have similarities with creationists. But I do agree with you that my rhetorical analogy shouldn't be taken too literally. I think it is best to let Ken Wilber's own words on the subject speak for themselves. He has clearly written about his doubts about the sufficiency of Darwinian natural selection to explain certain emergent properties.

TOM FLOYD WRITES: Still we have to make something out of this punctuated equilibrium problem that creationists have used to challenge natural selection as the primary factor in species origins. Is Lane's argument that a continuum of forms can exist between a leg and a wing--forms that have to be beneficial enough to warrant natural selection--really tenable? Not only do mutations have to occur in the axial, upper body area, but also in the pelvic area so that upright posture is present. There would have to be a long period of time across which these mutations would be happening and the fossil record should be replete with such intermediate forms, shouldn't it? Well while we are waiting for the paleobiologists to dig all these things up, why not entertain some other theories, and I don't mean creationist theories. Is there a physicalistic theory that correlates with Wilber's spirit of evolution? There's only one good way do handle this and it's going to require a resurrection of an old debunked theory (and a straight jacket for Lane).

DAVID LANE REPLIES: Well, we should be a bit more accurate here. It is not my argument about the tenableness of a continuum of forms that can exist between a leg and wing and an eye or whatever physical feature we are discussing. It is Charles Darwin's argument as first laid out in On the Origin of Species. It is also the key argument of varying evolutionists ranging from Mayr to Dawkins to Gould to Wilson to Carroll, etc. Many evolutionists have already addressed this issue much better than I can ever tackle it. I suggest a close reading of Sean Carroll's newest book, The Making of the Fittest, which describes the DNA fossil record and how scientists today are better understanding how slight incremental changes can indeed confer advantages in temporal geometric spaces. And on the web you may want to see the National Geographic article, "From Fins to Wings"

TOM FLOYD WRITES: Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Jean Baptiste Pierre Antoine de Monet, Chevalier de Lamarck.

He is le chevalier noir, the dark knight, of evolutionary science, and although praised by none other than Charles Darwin himself, he was summarily drummed out of the annals of respectable science by virtue of a series of experiments done early in this century to test his theory of inheritance of acquired characteristics. One experimenter chopped the tails off of several generations of laboratory mice to see whether offspring would begin to grow without tails. Other "scientists" ground up rabbit corneas, exchanged guinea pig ovaries, painted salamanders, and mercilessly shocked desperately swimming rats in their attempts to cause transmission of a trait to succeeding generations grown in the laboratory. Experiments that at first appeared to support lamarckism did not hold up when replications were attempted by other researchers. The case of the painted salamanders resulted in discovery of the fraud and disgrace for the perpetrator, Paul Kammerer. But I ask you. How can we really simulate evolutionarily significant environmental pressures in such experiments or any laboratory experiment for that matter. In an attempt to shortcut the thousands or millions of years required in the wild for effects to be produced, extreme, unnaturalistic, even preposterous stimuli have to be introduced. The real environmental pressure in these studies is the experimenter himself and the only adequate response for these poor creatures would be to get the hell out of the lab! Perhaps they did--in spirit. Lamarck's inheritance of acquired characteristics was accepted by Darwin in "The Origin of Species" as an integral part of his original theory of evolution. In "The Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication", he presented his provisional hypothesis called pangenesis in which every part of the body held small particles called 'gemmules' (as waves, we can call them 'spirit') which would travel to the germ cells and modify the next generation according to the acquired traits of the parent generation. Are we to accept a person like Darwin that proposes such cockeyed hypotheses as one of the founders of modern biology? I'll bet Lane wouldn't have.

DAVID LANE REPLIES: It is well known that Charles Darwin's sixth edition of Origin of Species (sidenote: the "On" which appeared in his first edition had been dropped by this time) contains "non-selective forces" outside of natural selection. Many evolutionists regard these later editions as containing more mistakes versus less, primarily because Darwin was unaware of the work of Gregor Mendel who would have provided him with a clear theory of inheritance. Lamarck's inheritance of acquired characteristics, of course, has long been rejected by genetics. But your last two sentences here highlight once again a major misunderstanding of what I was driving at in my critique of Ken Wilber. All authorities, of whatever stripe, are potentially wrong so it is silly to invoke Darwin as a supreme authority as if he couldn't be mistaken. Darwin was mistaken on many points. But to his credit he was quite willing to admit those when confronted with sufficient evidence. Indeed, he might be surprised to see how much has been added to his theory of evolution. I think an extended quote from the TalkOrigins Archive will be helpful here to unpack some confused notions about the current state of evolutionary thinking:

"The modern theory of the mechanism of evolution differs from Darwinism in three important respects:

[1] It recognizes several mechanisms of evolution in addition to natural selection. One of these, random genetic drift, may be as important as natural selection.

[2] It recognizes that characteristics are inherited as discrete entities called genes. Variation within a population is due to the presence of multiple alleles of a gene.

[3] It postulates that speciation is (usually) due to the gradual accumulation of small genetic changes. This is equivalent to saying that macroevolution is simply a lot of microevolution.

In other words, the Modern Synthesis is a theory about how evolution works at the level of genes, phenotypes, and populations whereas Darwinism was concerned mainly with organisms, speciation and individuals. This is a major paradigm shift and those who fail to appreciate it find themselves out of step with the thinking of evolutionary biologists. Many instances of such confusion can be seen here in the newsgroups, in the popular press, and in the writings of anti-evolutionists.

The major controversy among evolutionists today concerns the validity of point #3 (above). The are many who believe that the fossil record at any one site does not show gradual change but instead long periods of stasis followed by rapid speciation. This model is referred to as Punctuated Equilibrium and it is widely accepted as true, at least in some cases. The debate is over the relative contributions of gradual versus punctuated change, the average size of the punctuations, and the mechanism. To a large extent the debate is over the use of terms and definitions, not over fundamentals. No new mechanisms of evolution are needed to explain the model.

Some scientists continue to refer to modern thought in evolution as Neo-Darwinian. In some cases these scientists do not understand that the field has changed but in other cases they are referring to what I have called the Modern Synthesis, only they have retained the old name."

TOM FLOYD WRITES: Evolution science, like astronomy, is an observational science, not an experimental one.

DAVID LANE REPLIES: This may have been true years ago, but not anymore. Indeed, there are a number of ways to option how evolution occurred in the past ranging from genetic sequencing to fossilized DNA to the study of bacterial resistance, etc. In a recent paper for Science (Vol. 312. no. 5770, pp. 111 - 114), Daniel M. Weinreich et al., demonstrated how evolution is open to both observational and experimetal science:

"Five point mutations in a particular -lactamase allele jointly increase bacterial resistance to a clinically important antibiotic by a factor of ~100,000. In principle, evolution to this high-resistance -lactamase might follow any of the 120 mutational trajectories linking these alleles. However, we demonstrate that 102 trajectories are inaccessible to Darwinian selection and that many of the remaining trajectories have negligible probabilities of realization, because four of these five mutations fail to increase drug resistance in some combinations. Pervasive biophysical pleiotropy within the -lactamase seems to be responsible, and because such pleiotropy appears to be a general property of missense mutations, we conclude that much protein evolution will be similarly constrained. This implies that the protein tape of life may be largely reproducible and even predictable."

TOM FLOYD WRITES: Theory is generated in the mind of the scientist (how, the true scientist is not even allowed to consider) after painstaking observations and classifications of the objects discovered.

DAVID LANE REPLIES: Whoever said that a scientist is "not even allowed to consider" how theories are generated in his/her mind? This claim by you is not only unsupported but is literally untrue, given that a number of neurologists are trying to understand how indeed the brain generates models and hypotheses. Gerald Edelman, among others, has tried to tackle this very issue in his latest book, Second Nature.

TOM FLOYD WRITES: Hypotheses tested are usually existential rather than experimental. You look for missing links, right? Time has come to revisit Lamarck with plenty of new knowledge and insights. Wilber notwithstanding, I can't see how evolution could have missed out on such an effective shortcut to natural selection as permitting consciousness to help direct its course.

DAVID LANE REPLIES: Permitting consciousness to help direct its course? I am not quite sure what you mean by this because obviously viruses and bacteria don't need "awareness" to mutate and spread. Nor does hydrocholoric acid or pepsin need "to be conscious" in order to secrete in your stomach after munching down on a tasty cheeseburger. Now if you are talking about how consciousness influences cultural evolution we might agree. But the key point here is to understand that consciousness itself could arise by natural selection (something that even the co-founder of evolution by natural selection resisted, namely Alfred Russel Wallace). Today there are a number of pioneering studies suggesting how consciousness could have arisen as a "virtual simulator" and how any sophisticated genetic strand of DNA that could "simulate" its environment and provide varying strategies (versus merely one) would be of a unique advantage over a strand that was could not. I even made a fairly short movie on this idea this past month entitled "Brain Burn".

TOM FLOYD WRITES: Why have this wasteful epiphenomenon if you're not going to put it to good use? No one would look for Darwin's somatic gemmules or try to establish Lamarck's principle of use-it-or-lose-it, but there may very well be gemmules of a sort found among the communicator proteins produced in the brain. It might not be a bad idea for someone to thoroughly classify any and all brain chemicals that traverse to the germ cells. (Sorry, rabbit, these tricks will kill your kids!) Or how about through the placenta! Yes, now we may have found a sound evolutionary reason for higher species to bathe their offspring in an amniotic bath instead of dumping them out covered by a shell. There may be late breaking developments coming down the pipe. These effects may be very subtle and not show up in just a few generations. And of course, these gemmules, or "telegens" as I would term them, would always result from behavioral responses by the organism under environmental pressure to modify responses and the somatic instruments used in those responses. The proto-giraffe could get his neck elongated, the proto-bird could, with enough striving, produce the telegens necessary for his flight much more readily than with a continuum of stumbling, flightless wonders the current evolutionary defenders have so much faith in, but have found scant evidence of.

DAVID LANE REPLIES: Again, I am not sure what you mean by "this wasteful epiphenomenon" since natural selection and sexual selection and genetic drift can more easily explain why evolution is blind and not at all conscious or directed by "consciousness." It appears that you want to invoke some kind of intelligent designer to explain what can already be explained more simply by natural selection, etc. But this doesn't preclude, of course, the fact that consciousness once formed couldn't in itself alter or change what used to be left to random variations. Indeed, we are already "consciously" directing how we produce genetically modified grains. James Watson's text DNA is a nice primer on this subject.

As for the scant evidence issue you raise I think you might have it in reverse. There are an abundance of refereed journal articles published on the divergent lines of evidence supporting natural selection and next to none on intelligent design which are published in reputable scientific journals.

TOM FLOYD WRITES: And it is real faith, too. Look at the quotes by Dawkins and Berra as quoted by Lane. It is too bad that academic science has so vehemently defended a theory as if it were a proven fact. It is taught as if it were fact, it is presented to the lay public in documentary after documentary as if it were fact, you get an F if you don't regurgitate it back in class as fact. It's the same for Big Bang cosmogenesis, but isn't this really just another form, however time consuming and elaborate, of creationism? We are still left with nothing all of a sudden becoming something--a something that just happens to be so lucky that it becomes us and company. Wilber is just trying to get us to study the pizza maker as well as the pizza. I think the zeitgeist demands it, and I'd much rather have such an inquisition, or inquiry, done by those who accept science as part of the overall picture.

DAVID LANE REPLIES: While we can certainly debate on how life arose billions of years ago, the subject we were discussing wasn't on the ultimate origins of the universe, but the mechanism which explains how evolution occurs at the genetic and species level. For example, we can discuss how waves are formed in the ocean without having to resort to the ultimate question of how hydrogen and oxygen came together to form H20. So, in this light, nobody is critiquing Ken Wilber because he wants to talk about the origins of the universe. No, he is being critiqued because he inaccurately described the current state of evolutionary theory. They are distinct issues here and conflating the two only leads to more confusion.

TOM FLOYD WRITES: And sorry, Dave, about the Lamarck stuff--remember it's just another opinion. But it's the only way I could see to give evolution the spirit that Wilber needs, the eye of evolution that cannot possibly arise with just a natural selection model. The eye of evolution is the same eye used to make pizza--every pizza maker knows.

DAVID LANE REPLIES: Watch the terms you use and this may indeed be the sticking point, "the eye of evolution that cannot possibly arise with just a natural selection model." Of course, nobody is saying "just" here, given what we know about the modern synthesis in biological evolutionary thinking. However, the gut of Lamarck's notion of acquired inheritance has proven to be wrong in light of what we now know about genetics.

This also raises an important issue that seems to be implied in your critique of evolution. Can physical processes give rise to the current complexity we see? For most scientists the answer is yes and they have given us wonderful results from just such an affirmation. If you really think another mechanism is necessary I encourage you to proffer your best evidence and get it published. But as the late Carl Sagan once cautioned "extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof."

Or, as we teach in our Critical Thinking classes, "The burden of proof is on the one who makes the claim." If consciousness is a necessary feature to the evolution of simple proteins I would love to see your convincing data.

TOM FLOYD WRITES: Relax and concentrate on your breathing . . . slowly in . . . now slowly out . . . slowly in . . . slowly out . . . visualize those air molecules bouncing and rolling, bouncing and rolling up and down the nasal passages . . .

DAVID LANE REPLIES: Dear Tom, it has been a long time coming, but I appreciate the time and energy you spent in replying to my critique of Ken Wilber. Keep up the sharp edge and feel most free to rip, shred, and lacerate anything I write.

Source: http://elearn.mtsac.edu/dlane/kenwilberonevolution.htm



Comment Form is loading comments...