Reflections on Ken Wilber's The Religion of Tomorrow (2017)  Parts
I 
II 
III 
IV 
V 
VI 
VII 
PDF
INTEGRAL WORLD: EXPLORING THEORIES OF EVERYTHING
An independent forum for a critical discussion of the integral philosophy of Ken Wilber
Today is:
Publication dates of essays (month/year) can be found under "Essays".
Reply to "Some comments on Ken's message to the readers of critical essays on the "World of Ken Wilber" site" by Mark Edwards. Reply to EdwardsKen Wilber"edwards says that "Consequently, it is not only preferable but requisite that, when I present my ideas on how to improve the Integral model, I also show why these improvements are needed." first, my point is that "THE integral model" does not exist. that's one of the main problems with the approach taken by edwards, visser, etc. but in fact there are dozens of good integral models, not just a monolithic thing called THE INTEGRAL MODEL, as edwards puzzingly puts it. if edwards means "ken wilber's integral model," then edwards must first demonstrate that he understands the ken wilber model in a way that ken wilber agrees is actually ken wilber's model. edwards has not done this. therefore, what edwards is criticizing is some other integral model, but not mine. this is why i do not participate in this site. i do, however, have extensive discussions and criticismsat IU especiallywhere those who know the kw version of an integral model, definitely criticize it freely, extensively, and cogently. (and no, what we posted on Integral Naked was NOT an example of this; we will be posting dozens of hours of critical debate at IU, however.) i wish people could understand what a simple point this is: there are many wonderful integral models, only one of which is the kw version of integral. but if somebody wishes to criticize the kw version specificially, then they must first state it accurately. after they state it accurately, then please, criticize away! tear it apart! but first show that you actually know what the kw model says in its latest version, and then begin your criticism. but this simple requirement has not yet happened to any large extent on this site, which is why, as i said, i do not usually participate in this site, although i wish it well. usually the only way to really understand a theory and criticize it cogently is to do so verbally, in person or by phone, with its originator, and this is how 99% of the criticism that i listen to occurs. doing so by writing alone, as on this site, severely limits the giveandtake, and diminishes the corrections of misunderstandings. of course people can criticize what they imagine is the kw model by merely writingharris does so, edwards does so, smith does so, etc.but it's never very accurate as regards my works because none of us ever discuss this in person or by phone, and thus all the subtle details get missed or misinterpreted or badly distorted. but intense criticism from people who know the kw version of integral is how i have indeed moved from wilber1 to wilber2 to wilber3 to wilber4 to wilber5. do people really think that i made all those major changes by not listening to criticism? ah, gimme a break, folks. do you really think i'm that stupid? and that i really don't want to fix my model? if so, why five different versions of it? on the contrary, i made those major changes by carefully listening to tons of authentic criticism. how else could that happen? Integral University launches in october, with 25 websites all hooked togetherintegral psychology, integral art, integral medicine, integral law, integral politics, etc. if you are interested in the kw version of integral, and how to criticize it, please stop by. very best wishes, ken
