A Brief History of Everything (Ken Wilber)
[My three star review Amazon review (February 9, 2013) of a "Brief History of Everything" by Ken Wilber]
Just as the late, brilliant guru Adi Da attempted to "privatize" God-realization ("I am the first, last, and only fully en-lightened 7th stage master"), Ken Wilber, who derives much of his spiritual material from Da, attempts, in his writings, to annex "integral life," declaring in effect that his four-quadrant framework and the various matrices and hierarchical schemas he has identified/concocted, or subscribes to, represent the true vision and maps of "integral life," I would argue to the contrary. In my opinion, they merely, for the most part, represent the subjective vision and maps of his hyperintellectual mind.
In A Brief History of Everything, Wilber uses cosmic and human history to support his integral vision of life, and one should at least applaud his effort, if not his success. A Brief History of Everything is actually my favorite Wilber text and the one I recommend to my students and those new to Wilber. In this book, unlike some of his others, he does not overdo the charts and mapping, and the result is an easy, amenable read. Despite his faults, I consider Wilber worth reading. He is an avant-garde thinker who unearths fertile new ground; however, he doesn't dig very deep into the soil, and in this sense he embodies the very "flatness" he criticizes.
Just as those familiar with modern evolutionary theory have reamed Wilber for his superficiality in that area, being an expert in both mystical and sociopolitical philosophy, I'll take a couple of "brief" potshots, from my fields, at the "Pandit." First, mysticism. It is ridiculous to conflate emptiness with spirit as Wilber does.(The Great Spiritual Traditions don't do it. Point me to a Hindu yoga teaching that does.) Spirit is the dynamic Energy of timeless Awareness. Emptiness is simply the non-presence of objects (or content) within a "container" (or context). Wilber is clueless regarding the Buddhist Trikaya (Triple Body). He says the "Dharmakaya of Spirit gives rise to the Sambhogakaya of mind which gives rise to the Nirmanakaya of body and form and nature." The fact is, the Dharmakaya of timeless Awareness gives rise to the Sambhogakaya of uncreated Spirit (Blissing, or Blessing, Light-energy) which gives rise to the Nirmankaya of created existence. Regarding politics, Wilber is a "Progressive," euphemistic term for a liberal-fascist, a Big Government globalist. His left-wing leanings are made clear in his statement: "Spirit as great Freedom is one thing; spirit actually manifested as political democracies is another." Anybody who has studied Rand or Rothbard knows that "democracy" is a synonym for "mob rule" (unlimited majority control), and should not be conflated with the term "freedom." If you're interested in real freedom, you stomp for a constitutional republic (which guarantees inviolable individual rights), not for a Wilber-type global "integral democracy."
In sum, this book merits a read, but if you're a sharp tool rather than a dull Wilber acolyte, my guess is that you'll realize Ken for what he is--an overrated but interesting philosopher. Three stars for bald ambition and mixed results.
Just as the late, brilliant guru Adi Da attempted to "privatize" God-realization ("I am the first, last, and only fully en-lightened 7th stage master"), Ken Wilber, who derives much of his spiritual material from Da, attempts, in his writings, to annex "integral life," declaring in effect that his four-quadrant framework and the various matrices and hierarchical schemas he has identified/concocted, or subscribes to, represent the true vision and maps of "integral life," I would argue to the contrary. In my opinion, they merely, for the most part, represent the subjective vision and maps of his hyperintellectual mind.
In A Brief History of Everything, Wilber uses cosmic and human history to support his integral vision of life, and one should at least applaud his effort, if not his success. A Brief History of Everything is actually my favorite Wilber text and the one I recommend to my students and those new to Wilber. In this book, unlike some of his others, he does not overdo the charts and mapping, and the result is an easy, amenable read. Despite his faults, I consider Wilber worth reading. He is an avant-garde thinker who unearths fertile new ground; however, he doesn't dig very deep into the soil, and in this sense he embodies the very "flatness" he criticizes.
Just as those familiar with modern evolutionary theory have reamed Wilber for his superficiality in that area, being an expert in both mystical and sociopolitical philosophy, I'll take a couple of "brief" potshots, from my fields, at the "Pandit." First, mysticism. It is ridiculous to conflate emptiness with spirit as Wilber does.(The Great Spiritual Traditions don't do it. Point me to a Hindu yoga teaching that does.) Spirit is the dynamic Energy of timeless Awareness. Emptiness is simply the non-presence of objects (or content) within a "container" (or context). Wilber is clueless regarding the Buddhist Trikaya (Triple Body). He says the "Dharmakaya of Spirit gives rise to the Sambhogakaya of mind which gives rise to the Nirmanakaya of body and form and nature." The fact is, the Dharmakaya of timeless Awareness gives rise to the Sambhogakaya of uncreated Spirit (Blissing, or Blessing, Light-energy) which gives rise to the Nirmankaya of created existence. Regarding politics, Wilber is a "Progressive," euphemistic term for a liberal-fascist, a Big Government globalist. His left-wing leanings are made clear in his statement: "Spirit as great Freedom is one thing; spirit actually manifested as political democracies is another." Anybody who has studied Rand or Rothbard knows that "democracy" is a synonym for "mob rule" (unlimited majority control), and should not be conflated with the term "freedom." If you're interested in real freedom, you stomp for a constitutional republic (which guarantees inviolable individual rights), not for a Wilber-type global "integral democracy."
In sum, this book merits a read, but if you're a sharp tool rather than a dull Wilber acolyte, my guess is that you'll realize Ken for what he is--an overrated but interesting philosopher. Three stars for bald ambition and mixed results.
