I've finished a really mellow, spacious day at work, and somehow found myself reading criticisms of Wilber--oh, I know, I wanted to see if I could find any detailed analysis of Wilber's take on Hegel. Our friend Emily, up for the weekend, via London, is partnered with a Hegel scholar who said that Wilber is not right in his reading of Hegel, and this was a reason the Emily was reacting to a set of his CDs I'd given her years ago.So. I found myself dipping into the blogosphere's Wilber critiques, and again found myself with this sad sinking feeling. I haven't got the primary-text background to make sense of some of the technical claims, but that wasn't what I was reacting to. I've seen critiques of Wilber's model and his personhood that feels much different than these comments--ironic, because what I see in these critics are essentially emotionally based complaints, not real critique. A lot of what I read was about an incident a couple years ago where Wilber supposedly blew up at his critics--the so-called "Wyatt Erpy" incident--telling them among other things to suck his dick. This "explosion" came after having his blog post reviewed by several hundred people, which seems pretty deliberate.
Anyway, he offended a lot of people, broke rules of "nice" discourse apparently. Frank Visser, a key critic and collector of critics (at integralworld.net), writes a response that's full of a kind of sniffy offense, and like his site in general, there's this sense of simmering, vibrating discontent.
Which brings me to my title. In these writings, though there may be valid critical points, there's this overall emotional quality of, well, pissiness, but like most activist groups I've encountered. "Something's wrong here, and we need to right it. And when we right it, then we'll have the world we deserve." A displacement of loving. My reading is, like these activist groups, people will get the loving they deserve when they follow the rules: be nice, be kind, be non-hierarchical, be non-offensive, be sensitive. If not, you don't get our love, acceptance, or appreciation.
It's oppressive to read, and as oppressive as I've found in these activist groups.
I just read the other day a letter from the previous CEO of Integral Institute (Wilber's organization), which though critical of Wilber's managerial style, was also loving and grateful for what he was doing right. But more so, there wasn't a magnanimity which I've seen in others associated with Wilber or with Integral, a commitment to loving that exists totally aside from what's being loved.
I remember Goenkaji saying one time that he gets lots of letters from all over, from people with different concerns or wanting advice. But he said that some came through with such negativity, which was noticeable from the outset, and with those he mostly just sent the writer metta (loving kindness). That feels the same with these folks.
