[MD] The Trouble With Wilber
david buchanan
dmbuchanan at hotmail.com
Wed Jun 13 15:10:03 PDT 2007
Krimel said to dmb:
...Wilber's concept of flatland is nothing more than new age gibberish. I
have pointed out that nothing in science suggests the need or desire to
reduce anything in the way Wilber claims. Biology does not try to explain
itself in terms of quarks and leptons anymore that history and psychology
seek explanations from genetics.
dmb says:
Of course biologists don't reduce things to quarks and nobody said they did.
We're talking about flatland, not tiny town. Think of Pirsig's discussions
about objectivity in anthropology or the way behaviorism is considered
scientific while psychoanalysis is merely an art. That is flatland
reductionism. I've never heard of anybody wanting to break biology down into
quarks or anything like that. I really can't imagine where you got this
impression.
Krimel:
I have pointed out many times that Wilber's talk of expanded consciousness
is nothing more than pandering to empty headed rich new agers.
dmb says:
You've dished up a lot of empty insults like this one. You say he panders to
empty headed new agers but his work is fairly well established in the
academic world. I'm not denying that there might be an empty headed new ager
who read and enjoyed one of his books, but the idea that his ideas have no
credibility among serioius people is factually incorrect. Its just plain
wrong. By the way, I have no money.
Krimel said:
All this while virtually ignoring the emergence of real expanded awareness
and consciousness that is booming around us in the form of cell phones,
instant messaging, e-mail, Google Earth, GPS, webcams, Alternative
Intelligences, the expansion of identical shared memory in the form of film
and voice recording and the sum total of human knowledge instantly available
at the touch of a button. All of this higher level consciousness emerges
specifically from the direction of rational thinking suggested by Piaget
whom Wilber butchers while you applaud.
dmb says:
These forms of technology reflect a higher form of consciousness and their
use might very well lead to even higher forms in turn, but technology itself
is not conscious. At least, not cell phones. Not yet. You're not really
saying anything that hair-brained. The post-Piagetian structures added by
Wilber are also based on "the emergence of real expanded awareness and
consciousness" too, but its not the sort that is "booming all around us" for
the simple reason that it is not that common. Unlike the early stages, which
are more or less universal, these higher structures are not something you
can find in just anybody but they can be detected in the same way. Like I
said, I don't think this is butchery. Its only addition and in the world of
idea is it perfectly normal practice. In fact, I think your objections to
this are quite meaningless.
Krimel said:
And then there is William James. I have shown on each and every occasion
that you have dropped his name, specifically why you haven't a clue what he
is talking about. I have presented quote after quote from young James, old
James, Billy the Kid James disputing your shallow reading. At one point you
had young and old James arguing with himself in the same paragraph.
dmb says:
If memory serves, here you are refering to the James quote used by
Hoftstadter to open the final chapter of his book on Social Darwinism. It
was your claim that James was not talking about darwinism in that quote. The
quote all by itself is enought to contradict the claim. Considering the
context, your claim was not even plausible. It would have to mean that
Hofstadter, his thesis advisor and his publisher were all a bunch of idiots.
So you'll forgive me if I don't take you seriously on this point either.
_________________________________________________________________
Need a break? Find your escape route with Live Search Maps.
http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?ss=Restaurants~Hotels~Amusement%20Park&cp=33.832922~-117.915659&style=r&lvl=13&tilt=-90&dir=0&alt=-1000&scene=1118863&encType=1&FORM=MGAC01
More information about the Moq_Discuss
mailing list