[MD] The Trouble With Wilber

[pholden at davtv.com]

Quoting Krimel <Krimel at Krimel.com>:

> > > [Krimel]
> > > So you would suggest scores on standardized tests as a measure? That 
> > > might be a good start. Are there others measurements? 
> > 
> > [Platt]
> > 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.
> > 
> > [Krimel]
> > All I am asking is: what is it you want to measure and how would you 
> > measure it. 
> 
> And I answered it. 
> 
> 
> > > [Krimel]
> > > 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?
> > 
> > [Platt]
> > 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. :-)
> > 
> > [Krimel]
> > I am hard pressed to know what to make of this. You are saying you
> > personally were unmoved of the 911 victim's cries for help and tearful 
> > last goodbyes.
> 
> Unmoved? What does an emotional response have to be with expanded
> consciousness?
> 
> > Your consciousness was unaffected by the photo of the American
> > flag being raise on Iwo Jima or the statue of Sadam Hussein being toppled 
> > or the Apollo photos of the earth rising over the barren lunar landscape.
> > Television images of the Zapruder footage of the Kennedy assassination or
> > the televised testimony at the Watergate hearings, Clinton's testimony
> > during his impeachment, the Rodney King beating or the Trade Towers,
> > collapsing had no effect on your consciousness?
> 
> All emotional. Has nothing to do with expanded consciousness. Emotions
> are rooted in the biological level, not the intellectual.  
> 
> > Living near a coastal area your awareness is unaffected by television
> > broadcasts of incoming storms pictured through satellite and radar 
> > imaging.You really think paging through a two year old edition of 
> > Britannica can give you information as current and far reaching or as
> > quickly as wiki. 
> 
> Britannica is on the web in case you haven't noticed. Anyway, the 
> availability of current and far reaching information has nothing to do with 
> expanded consciousness, as tests of general knowledge so vividly illustrate.
> 
> > None of this has affected the depth of your understanding and awareness of
> > the world around you?
> 
> Mo. Much of the data (news) is bogus and over-hyped. 
> 
> > I don't really want to think you are lying, disingenuous or simply that
> > dense. But if you say so, I am not surprised that you can neither define
> > "depth" nor suggest a way to assess it. Perhaps you have merely
> > misunderstood the question. Please tell me the later is the case.
> 
> [Platt]
> Typically if I disagree with your particular views you resort to smears,
> both overt and implied. Oh well . . .
> 
> [Krimel] 
> So you are saying you did understand the question? 
> 
> But let's review: depth has nothing to do with emotion. It has nothing to do
> with increased awareness. And it can only be measured by Zogby and Gallup
> polls of general knowledge.

Your review is false. I didn't limit measurement of depth to Zogby and Gallup
polls.  

> But in the study you cited only 50 years had passed and nearly 30% of the 15
> questions had to be thrown out or interpreted in terms of cultural shifts. 
> 
> To all of the causes of increased awareness and depth of consciousness I
> have already had throw out of court, let me add the ability to collect and
> analyze information of this kind.

I thought you were against "causes," relying instead on "probabilities."

> I also notice that in the actual report in the first paragraph is says:
> 
> "Between 1947 and 1995 the number of high school graduates entering college
> (including community college) rose from 2,338,2261 to 14,261, 8002-a rate of
> growth three times faster than that of the population."
> 
> Would you say that is irrelevant to the discussion at hand?

Sure. College enrollments are irrelevant to depth of consciousness. The drop
out rate has probably increased in a similar way.



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