What do you think of Ken Wilber?

I have my own opinions about Ken Wilber which I'll share, but first I'd like to hear what you all think about him and his worldviews... If you have any opinion at all.

I don't know who he is.

Aaron wrote:

I have my own opinions about Ken Wilber which I'll share, but first I'd like to hear what you all think about him and his worldviews... If you have any opinion at all.

I read a couple of Wilbur's books several years ago. I found him to have an encyclopedic knowledge of the world, and a unique understanding of where we stand as an evolving, self-aware species. Based on my superficial familiarity, I would label him a philosophical genius.

I agree with his emphasis on meditation as a good way to "know thyself". But it's not my style, so I tend to focus on the more external, objective aspects of his worldview.

I like Wilbur, but he makes too many graphs.

I obviously like Wilber but I'm not completely sold on some of the trans-personal aspects of his model.

Also, I view him more as a popularizer of the social sciences rather than an original thinker. This chart is his greatest contribution to the field IMO.



I regularly have to refer back to it when I find myself becoming too "monological" in my thought process.

The concept of "altitude" is also very important IMO and I think Wilber correctly diagnoses the problem of "flatland" syndrome among many philosophers and other thinkers.

Quote :

Also, I view him more as a popularizer of the social sciences rather than an original thinker. This chart is his greatest contribution to the field IMO.

I agree that his sociological concepts and charts are probably a synthesis of others' original contributions. But I see Wilbur more as a philosopher, who synthesizes a broad range of scientific, religious, and philosophical concepts into a holistic worldview appropriate for our times.

However, I'm not familiar enough with his complete oeuvre to have an opinion on his most important contribution. As I get time, I'll have to dig deeper into his work. Has he ever labeled himself a Deist?

Gnomon wrote:

Has he ever labeled himself a Deist?

No but I think that's because he hasn't run into modern Deism. I've heard him describe (and sort of brush off) Deism as a belief that was popular during the age of enlightenment in a god that created the universe and then abandon it. I very much disagree with that definition.

BTW, I would recommend 'Introducing Ken Wilber: Concepts for an Evolving World' by Lew Howard as an excellent introduction to Ken Wilber's Integralist model.