[MD] The Trouble With Wilber

[pholden at davtv.com]

Quoting Krimel <Krimel at Krimel.com>:

> > [Krimel]
> > How would you measure depth? Most of the scientists, philosophers,
> > theologians who ever lived are working today. There are most doctors,
> > teachers and students. Would you say the shear number of them and their
> > proportions in the population at large are factors? How able the 
> > percentage of people operating at the various levels of Maslow's hierarchy
> 
> > of need? Or the percentage who or literate or the average number of hours 
> > per week available to pursue depth?
> > 
> > Are these just gimmicks? 
> > 
> > Cell phones? Can anyone forget the recorded calls of victims saying their
> > goodbyes from the World Trade Center or those hijacked planes? We and 
> > anyone living henceforth can share identical memories of those voices. 
> > Doesn't something in that count for depth?
> > 
> > Wiki? How many times has Wiki been cited on this forum? Most of us rely on
> > it instantly to provide information about everything from global warming 
> > to the Ramones. Don't you think that your use of it has increased the 
> > depth of your understanding and expanded your consciousness?
> > 
> > Mp3 and video compression allow you listen to or watch everything from the
> > BBC's In Our Time to the programming on Wilber's Integral Naked site. 
> > Surely this is only further evidence that I do not understand the problem 
> > but even if you factor in pay-per-view webcams and off shore virtual 
> > casinos the range of options represented is more than simply horizontal.
> > 
> > There has never been the promise of increased depth either from spiritual
> > practice or academic discipline or shear hedonism. But writing, printing 
> > and now all of these "gimmicks" have made the acquisition of depth easier 
> > and therefore more probable.
> > 
> > But I could be wrong. How would you measure depth; even enough to say it
> > isn't there?
> 
> [Platt]
> Try this:
> 
> "PRINCETON, NJ -- 18 December 2002 -- Contemporary college seniors scored on
> 
> average little or no higher than the high-school graduates of a half-century
> 
> ago on a battery of 15 questions assessing general cultural knowledge. The 
> questions, drawn from a survey originally done by the Gallup Organization in
> 
> 1955, covered literature, music, science, geography, and history. They were 
> asked again of a random sample of American college and university students 
> by Zogby International in April 2002. The Zogby survey was commissioned by 
> the National Association of scholars."
> 
> [Krimel]
> So you would suggest scores on standardized tests as a measure? That might
> be a good start. Are there others measurements? 

I would stick with measures of assessing general knowledge, not standardized
tests which have been dumbed down over the years to accomodate the general
deterioration in public education. The viability of a democracy depends on an
educated citizenry. I fear for the future.

> I am also curious about how you think some the examples above have affected
> you personally. Have they enhanced the depth and breath of your personal
> experience or left them unchanged?

Cell phone - don't own one.

Wiki - more convenient than Encyclopedia Britannica, but no greater depth.

MP3 - don't use. Videos - none enlightening that I can recall. 

But a book like Lila? Now that's a truly deep experience. :-)





-------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/