Elliot Benjamin wrote an article in 2005 called “Spirituality and Cults: An Integrally Informed Analysis.” It can be found at www.integralscience.org. He applied some of the methodology included in Spiritual Choices as well as some of Ken’s principles. He analyzed a handful of groups including scientology.
Elliot recently added another chapter on Ken and I-I based on his personal experiences. I’ve enclosed it here. He does NOT find Ken or I-I to be a cult. While he sees some problems he concludes: “But make no mistake about it; for those people concerned in regard to the cult dangers of Ken Wilber and Integral Institute, at this point I do not see anything serious enough to be very alarmed about.”
ON KEN WILBER’S INTEGRAL INSTITUTE: AN EXPERIENTIAL ANALYSIS by Elliot Benjamin, Ph.D 7/6/06
There have been a number of people who have expressed serious concerns and misgivings regarding the cult dangers of philosopher Ken Wilber’s Integral Institute (c.f. [1]). These criticisms have generally focused upon Wilber’s harsh comments regarding scholars who disagree with his philosophical opinions. This has become increasingly more evident with the development of the Integral Institute website and especially Ken Wilber’s private website (c.f. [1], [2]), although there was quite an uproar in academic circles in the aftermath of Wilber’s aggressive and condescending remarks toward his critics in both his 1995 acclaimed book”Sex, Ecology, Spirituality” and his 2003 novel “Boomeritis.” (c.f. [3]). To Wilber’s credit he did engage in highly constructive dialogue early on with his most prominent academic critics, as evidenced in the 1997 book “Ken Wilber In Dialogue” (c.f. [4]). However, it appears that with the launching and development of Integral Institute over the past few years, there is now sufficient reason to examine both the asserted guru characteristics of Ken Wilber as well as cult dangers of Integral Institute. It is with this purpose in mind that I wish to apply the tri-perspective experiential analysis that I have described in my “Modern Religions” book (c.f. [5]) to Ken Wilber’s Integral Institute.
Since my tri-perspective analysis is based primarily upon my own experience, a crucial component for me is my private encounter with Ken Wilber in his Denver apartment in November, 2003. Having read a number of his books and having felt tremendous impact and inspiration from his writings (c.f. [6]), I decided to fly out to Denver to meet personally with Wilber, as my mathematical interests in applying my pure mathematical knowledge to his Integral theory of shifts in levels of consciousness (c.f. [7]) gained me this invitation. I spent 5 or 6 hours with Wilber in his Denver apartment, including 2 hours of private conversation. The openness, friendliness, graciousness, intellectual stimulation, and respect he showed me was totally amazing to me, especially since at that time I had not published any of my writings on spirituality and cults or anything for that matter aside from mathematics or mathematics education. I left my visit with Wilber feeling both privileged and “high,” determined to develop myself as a philosopher in my own right, get my philosophical articles on spirituality and cults published, and to become involved with Integral Institute.
The main purpose of Integral Institute was to engage people in incorporating the “four quadrants” of individual (intrinsic), behavioral (extrinsic), cultural, and social in all academic endeavors: including psychology, sociology, religion, politics, education, medicine, law, philosophy, anthropology, etc. (c.f. [8]). At that time there was also a strong interplay between Integral theory and Spiral Dynamics theory (c.f. [9]) to describe the levels of consciousness of both the individual and society, and an emphasis upon people becoming “second tier” thinkers, which essentially means to be able to take the viewpoints of all different levels of consciousness. Although recently Wilber has become much more detached from Spiral Dynamics as a comprehensive descriptive Integral theory model (c.f. [10], at the time of my meeting Wilber I was aware (deep down) of a kind of Us. vs. Them dichotomy regarding the “highest” levels of consciousness of the truly Integral thinkers. However, I must admit that I was so taken with all the Ken Wilber books I had read and my meeting with Wilber himself, that I did not pay much conscious attention to this preliminary note of personal warning.
Soon after my meeting with Wilber, I visited with one of the higher ups in Integral Institute in New Jersey, and became even more “high,” as this person was extremely complimentary of my ideas and self-published books, and led me to believe that there was a place for me in the upper echelons of Integral Institute. My Group Theory/Consciousness article got accepted for Allan Combs’ Integral Consciousness domain in the Integral Institute website (c.f. [7]) and after a while I worked through the complications and challenges to have my Integral Mathematics article accepted in Integral Institute’s prestigious AQAL (All Quadrants All Levels; the crux of Integral theory) internet journal. This process included a long phone editing conversation with Ken Wilber himself (and his close associates), and Ken even made arrangements to send me his Integral Spirituality manuscript (c.f. [10]) before it was officially published; needless to say I was quite honored.
However, while all this excitement and upward mobility and potential for me progressing in Integral Institute was happening, there were some simultaneous contradictory events going on that were starting to trouble me. For one, the costs of Wilber’s seminars that began in 2004 were extremely expensive, even surpassing the costs of the Avatar workshop which I had written about with serious concerns regarding its cultish characteristics (c.f. [5], [11]). I had in fact made the initial agreement to attend this seminar in Colorado but changed my mind after taking stock of my realistic finances and discussing the matter with an old friend who had participated with me in an evening event in New York City to discuss the work of both Ken Wilber and controversial guru Alan Cohen (c.f. [12]). But even more troubling to me, I knew that Wilber had had some kind of disciple relationship with a far more controversial guru who I had no doubt was extremely dangerous to his followers. I am speaking of Adi Da, originally known as Free John amongst other names (c.f. [13], [14]), and I had broached discussing Wilber’s involvement with him in our private meeting. Wilber explained to me that his involvement with Adi Da was minimal, and that he broke away when Adi Da became more bizarre and suspicious (c.f. [14). However, I did not think that Wilber had a real understanding of the cult dangers of certain new age spiritual organizations, especially Scientology, both from my meeting with him as well as from his writings in the book "Spiritual Choices" (c.f. [15]) which he personally recommended that I read, and from his exuberant previous praise of Adi Da (c.f. [13], [14]).
But these were still relatively minor incidents to me, until I attended the 2004 ICSA (International Cultic Studies Association) (c.f. [16]) conference in Edmonton, Canada. At various times during this conference I found myself talking openly about the wonderful spiritual development possible in Integral Institute without any cult dangers, but some of the responses I got from people were less than enthusiastic and were actually rather disconcerting. In addition, as I found myself raving about Ken Wilber to my personal friends and acquaintances, I could see that people were taking me with a grain of salt, looking at me as if I were following a “guru.” I was gradually becoming aware that there were strong viewpoints in both Ken Wilber and Integral Institute that I did not completely agree with, including Wilber’s openness to gurus, appreciation of diverse and contradictory political stances, his condescending attack on the “new age” sensitivity people, rather viscously referred to by Wilber as the “Mean Green Meme” (c.f. [17]), as well as the extremely complicated and abstruse development of his four quadrants into eight “zones,” where each quadrant has an inner and outer “perspective,” as outlined in the Integral Spirituality manuscript that I had been privileged to read (c.f. [10]). Wilber also included more of his Integral Mathematics symbolism in this manuscript (c.f. [10], and although I managed to incorporate enough of this in my Integral Mathematics article to satisfy Wilber and his AQAL editors, I knew that my heart was not really in it, and his new theories seemed too abstract and contorted to me in regard to its potential of being applied effectively in practical situations. But I was not yet ready to get off the Integral bandwagon. Allan Combs, a prominent author on consciousness in his own right (c.f. [18]) and a close colleague of Wilber as well as one of the leaders in Integral Institute, had submitted my article on Art And Mental Disturbances (c.f. [19]) to the Journal of Humanistic Psychology, where it is presently being considered for publication. Although Combs’ Integral Consciousness domain in Integral Institute has not materialized and I was doubting if my Group Theory/Consciousness article was ever going to appear on the Integral Institute website, I considered my positive association with Allan Combs to be an indication that Ken Wilber and Integral Institute was still safe and legitimate for me. However, as my direct contacts with the higher ups at Integral Institute became briefer and less and less frequent, my disillusionment began to increase. Approximately a year ago I was contacted by someone who read my Spirituality & Cults Experiential Analysis article on the Integral Science website (separate from Integral Institute; c.f. [20]), conveying to me the serious concerns many people were having about the guru and cult dangers of Ken Wilber and Integral Institute, and suggesting that I apply my experiential analysis to Integral Institute. I was not ready to do so at the time, but after being contacted by this same person a year later who now is conveying to me how these concerns have become increasingly escalated (c.f. [1]), the timing is right for me, based upon two recent experiences.
After having read Wilber’s Integral Spirituality manuscript, I decided to try to assimilate his current ideas about his eight zones and perspectives into my Spirituality & Cults article in order to progress from the Integral Institute approved designation of being “Integrally Informed” to official acceptance in the AQAL journal, as my Integral Mathematics article had successfully gone this route. I must admit that not the least of my reasons for doing this was the prospect of having another phone conversation with Ken Wilber, as this was the last part of the editing process to have an article accepted in AQAL journal. I knew (deep down) that what I was trying to do was rather staged and artificial for me, as I did not truly believe in or appreciate the usefulness of Wilber’s new ideas that I was trying to incorporate into my article. Sure enough, my article was not received well by the AQAL editor, and I was invited to rework the article for the purpose of making it “Integrally Informed,” as it was explained to me that it was far removed from AQAL journal standards.
Needless to say, I was not enthused at this invitation, and I responded in a rather lukewarm way, leaving it as a vague possibility in the distant future. I also asked when my Integral Mathematics article would be available to the public, and I have not heard back from this editor. This experience did remind me of the dictionary of Integral Institute terms that had been sent to me by the AQAL editor to prepare me for my phone conversation with Wilber to discuss my Integral Mathematics article six months ago. And how when I did talk to Wilber, he was not too happy about my lack of thorough understanding of the distinction between “quadrant” and “quadrivium” (c.f. [10). Yes--I felt somewhat like I was "in school," trying to learn the "right way" and being the apprentice of the great philosopher. In my deepest self I knew that this was no longer right for me; it was not what I meant by the description I gave to my own philosophy of life: Natural Dimension.
But the final break for me has occurred this past week as I returned to Denver, not to meet again with Wilber (my request to do so was not taken seriously by the higher ups in the organization), but to lead a panel workshop at the 2006 ICSA conference, entitled "Coming Back To Religion And Spirituality After Spiritual Abuse." I took the leap and finally decided to enter the public arena, promoting my "Modern Religions" book, talking openly about Scientology, and in the same breath I found myself quite naturally talking about my recent involvement with Ken Wilber and Integral Institute. Yes--I was starting to think about the possibility of there being cult dangers in the organization.
And finally this brings me to my tri-perspective experiential analysis of Integral Institute. I won’t go through all three scales that I have used in detail, although the interested reader can find this in my related article and book (c.f. [5]). But to give a brief generic description of the first two scales, my first scale is the Anthony Typology (c.f. [15]), and there are three categories in this scale: multilevel/unilevel, technical/charismatic, and monistic/dualistic. Multilevel refers to authentic spiritual experience whereas unilevel refers to more mundane psychological or material gain. Technical refers to processes or techniques whereas charismatic refers to mystique and charisma of a guru figure. Monistic refers to non-judgmental openness to all people whereas dualistic refers to an Us vs. Them elitist dichotomy. Suffice it to say that although the Anthony Typology has been helpful to me in understanding the cult dangers (or beneficial qualities) of a number of what I have referred to as new age spiritual organizations (c.f. [5]), this is not tremendously helpful to me in evaluating Integral Institute. The reason is that it is difficult to pinpoint exactly what categories in the Anthony Typology in which to place Integral Institute.
Ken Wilber’s writings are enormously complex and brilliant, full of ideas as well as recommended techniques and practices. But there is also the tremendously impactful and forceful presence and mystique of Ken Wilber himself, in his full 6’ 6’’ bald rather intimidating grand stature. Integral Institute is certainly open to all people who are interested, but there is most definitely the “right” way of being fully integral, second tier (or third tier), highest level of consciousness, etc. Perhaps the most I can say with confidence about Integral Institute in the Anthony Typology is that it is in the Multilevel category, in the context of representing an authentic potential of spiritual experience.
In regard to the second scale which I referred to as the Wilber Integral Model (c.f. [5]) I would place Integral Institute in-between the rational and trans-rational continuum, which I have described as a continuum from pre-rational to pseudo-rational to rational to trans-rational, along the lines of Wilber’s previous writings (c.f. [5], [6], [8], [10]). However, one can start to see some alarms as there is little historical continuity with religious traditions, the emphasis being upon a modern assimilation of all spiritual and religious viewpoints. In addition, Integral Institute is most definitely run by Ken Wilber in what I consider to be a benevolent authoritarian manner, somewhat similar to the way in which Neale Donald Walsch runs his Conversations With God organization (c.f. [5], [20]. [21]). I do not see any phasing out of Wilber’s leadership during his lifetime. Thus, the lack of historical continuity and phasing out of leadership are red flags to me for Integral Institute in Ken Wilber’s own Integral model.
But lastly and most critically, the 15 item scale I have used and refer to as the Bonewits Cult Danger Scale (c.f. [5], [20], [22]) is what I generally place the most importance on. The following 15 items are what I utilize, averaging the ratings on a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being the highest rating.
1. Internal Control: amount of internal political power exercised by leader(s) over members.
2. Wisdom Claimed: by leader(s), amount of infallibility declared about decisions.
3. Wisdom Credited: to leaders by members, amount of trust in the decisions made by leaders(s).
4. Dogma: rigidity of reality concepts taught, of amount of doctrinal inflexibility.
5. Recruiting: emphasis put on attracting new members, amount of proselytizing.
6. Front Groups: number of subsidiary groups using different name from the main group.
7. Wealth: amount of money and/or property desired or obtained, emphasis on members’ donations.
8. Political Power: amount of external political influence desired or obtained.
9. Sexual Manipulation: of members by leaders(s), amount of control over the lives of members.
10. Censorship: amount of control over members’ access to outside opinion on group, its doctrines or leader(s).
11. Dropout Control: intensity of efforts directed at preventing or returning dropouts.
12. Endorsement Of Violence: when used by or for the group or leaders(s).
13. Paranoia: amount of fear concerning real or imagined enemies, perceived power of opponents.
14. Grimness: amount of disapproval concerning jokes about the group, its doctrines or leader(s).
15. Surrender Of Will: emphasis on members not having to be responsible for personal decisions.
For the above items, the number assigned to the item is based primarily upon my own experience with Ken Wilber and Integral Institute over the past two and a half years:
Internal Control: 4
Wisdom Claimed: 9
Wisdom Credited: 6
Dogma: 8
Recruiting: 4
Front Groups: 1
Wealth: 5
Political Power: 5
Sexual Manipulation: 1
Censorship: 5
Dropout Control: 1
Endorsement Of Violence: 1
Paranoia: 5
Grimness: 3
Surrender Of Will: 1
AVERAGE SCORE: 3.94
This average score of 3.94 is comparable to the average scores of the six new age spiritual organizations which I have placed in Neutral territory, in-between Mild Cult Danger and Favorable Spiritual Benefits (c.f. [5]). Specifically these average scores on the Bonewits Cult Danger Scale are:
A Course In Miracles: 3.53
International Cultic Studies Association: 3.53
Conversations With God: 3.73
Self-Realization Fellowship: 3.73
Tikkun (new age primarily Jewish organization) 3.80
Reiki: 4.13
Based upon some of my higher ratings in the Bonewits Cult Danger Scale, my ambiguous ratings in the Anthony Typology, and some of my red flags in the Wilber Integral Model, I would say that there are definitely things to be cautious and observant about in Integral Institute, not the least of which is Ken Wilber’s strong ego and harsh criticisms of many of those who disagree with him. However, in a similar manner to the conclusions I came to regarding both Conversations With God and Reiki (c.f. [5), I will give both Ken Wilber and Integral Institute the benefit of the doubt and place this organization in Neutral territory regarding cult dangers vs. beneficial spiritual characteristics. From my own experience, the new age spiritual organizations that I have described as having Miid cult dangers are est, Eckankar, Gurdjieff, and Twelve Step Support Groups (c.f. [5]. I do feel confident that Ken Wilber and Integral Institute do not belong in this category, and certainly not in the Moderate cult danger classification in which I placed Avatar and Divine Light Mission, or in the High cult danger classification in which I placed Scientology and the Unification Church (c.f. [5]). However, I most definitely do not think that Integral Institute belongs in the Favorable category in which I placed my experience with Neopaganism or the new age spiritual workshops I have done at Omega Retreat Center or Kripalu Yoga Center (c.f. [5]).
Perhaps a significant variable to determine if my Neutral placement of Integral Institute is justified or somewhat naive will be the response (if any) I receive from them based upon the exposure of this article. Given that I have decided to make all my writings on the cult dangers of new age spiritual organizations readily available to the public, I have little qualms about making this article available as well. It will be interesting to see if my Group Theory/Consciousness and Integral Mathematics articles will still appear on the Integral Institute website (assuming my articles would have eventually appeared there ordinarily), as I have certainly made some critical statements about both Ken Wilber and Integral Institute. But make no mistake about it; for those people concerned in regard to the cult dangers of Ken Wilber and Integral Institute, at this point I do not see anything serious enough to be very alarmed about. As far as my present knowledge can determine, if you do not like what you see at Integral Institute then you can disengage without repercussions. Big egos, strong ideas, and harsh criticism of opponents are not the same as cult dangers, and if I ever have anything to add to this appraisal I will not hesitate to do so in the future.
NOTES AND REFERENCES
1) See www.kenwilber.com
2) See www.integralinstitute.org
3) See Ken Wilber’s books “Sex, Ecology, Spirituality” (Boston: Shambhala, 1995) and “Boomeritis” (Boston: Shambhala, 2003).
4) See Donald Rothberg and Sean Kelly (editors), “Ken Wilber In Dialogue” (Wheaton, Illinois: Quest Books, 1998).
5) See Elliot Benjamin, “Modern Religions: An Experiential Analysis And Expose¢” (Swanville, Maine: Natural Dimension Publications, 2005): available by contacting the author at ben496@prexar.com. My tri-perspective analysis is also available as a long article on-line; see Elliot Benjamin, “Spirituality And Cults: An Experiential Analysis” in The Ground Of Faith Journal, 2005 (thegroundoffaith@hug.co.nz).
6) See Elliot Benjamin, “On The Philosophy Of Ken Wilber” in Inner Tapestry Journal, Vol. 4, No. 2, 2005 (www.innertapestry.org).
7) See Elliot Benjamin, “A Mathematical Group Theoretical Model Of Shifts Into Higher Levels Of Consciousness In Ken Wilber’s Integral Theory” in www.integralscience.org, 2004.
See Ken Wilber, “A Theory Of Everything” (Boston: Shambhala, 2001).
9) See Don Beck & Chris Cowan, “Spiral Dynamics: Managing Values, Leadership, And Change” (London: Blackwell, 1996). 10) See Ken Wilber, “Integral Spirituality” (Boston: Shambhala, 2006).11) See Elliot Benjamin, “On Avatar” in ICSA E-Newsletter, 2005 (http://cultinfobooks.com).
12) See Alan Cohen, “Living Enlightenment” (Lenox, MA: Moksha Press, 2002).
13) See Adi Da’s books “The Dawn Horse Testament” (San Rafael, CA: The Dawn Horse Press, 1985) and “Scientific Proof Of The Existence Of God Will Soon Be Announced By The White House!” (Middleton, CA: The Dawn Horse Press, 1980). Note that this last book includes a forward by Ken Wilber.
14) See Geoffrey Falk, “Stripping The Gurus” (www.angelin.com/trek/geoffreyfalk/blog/blog.html, 2005) for a particularly scathing expose¢ on both Adi Da and Ken Wilber, in addition to many other gurus and spiritual leaders.
15) See Dick Anthony, Bruce Ecker, Ken Wilber (editors), “Spiritual Choices” (New York: Paragon House, 1987).
16) Note that ICSA was originally AFF (American Friends & Family), having changed its name to ICSA (International Cultic Studies Association) in March, 2005.
17) See Ken Wilber’s books “Boomeritis” and “A Theory Of Everything” (book information in [3] and [8]).
18) See Alan Combs, “The Radiance Of Being” (New York: Omega Book, 1995). 19) See Elliot Benjamin, “Art And Mental Disturbances” (available by contacting the author at ben496@prexar.com). A shortened version of this article is “The Artistic Theory Of Psychology” in Inner Tapestry Journal, 2006 (www.innertapestry.org).20) See Elliot Benjamin, “Spirituality And Cults: An Integrally Informed Analysis” (www.integralscience.org, 2005).
21) See Elliot Benjamin, “On Conversations With God” in ICSA E-Newsletter, 2004.
22) Please see the Cult Danger Evaluation Frame rating scale in Isaac Bonewits, “Real Magic” (York Beach, Maine: Samuel Weisner, 1971).
ÂÂ
Excellent post. I linked to this from my blog(s).
Peace,
Bill
You have to wonder what adjustments to the Bonewits scale Benjamin would make after an evaluation of Wilber’s harbouring of Gafni and the Earpy blog posts, and the creation of Zaadz and KW spinoff web projects.
I certainly think that there would have to be significant increases.
Internal Control: Now 4, Increased to 7
Wisdom Claimed: Now 9, Increased to 10
Wisdom Credited: Now 6
Dogma: Now 8, Increased to 9
Recruiting: Now 4, Increased to 7 with Zaadz and Integral Forums
Front Groups: Now 1, Increased to 3 with Zaadz
Wealth: Now 5, Increased to 6 with booty from soaring prices
Political Power: 5, Increased to 7 with Clinton endorsement, tho this will soon disappear as taint of cult becomes more widely known
Sexual Manipulation: 1, Increased to 7
Censorship: 5, Decreased to 4 as Gafni article remain in II library
Dropout Control: Now 1
Endorsement Of Violence: Now 1, Increased to 2 as mob attacks MGMs.
Paranoia: Now 5, Increased to 9
Grimness: Now 3, Increased to 4
Surrender Of Will: Now 1, Increased to 5
AVERAGE SCORE: Now 3.94, Increased to 5.8
I never heard of this Bonewits scale, but it looks like he really covers the spectrum well!
However, two points:
In reply to Tom’s comments re Zaadz, I joined Zaadz some months back (here is my userpage there http://kheper.zaadz.com/ ), and found it is a great place to meet like-minded people. While it is true that many people there do seem to have a positive view of Wilber, that is no different from the New Consciousness / New Paradigm / New Age movement in general. I have certainly not seen any instance of recruiting on Zaadz. This is not to deny that there may be recruiting going on, only taht I haven’t seen any. But I am not involved in the Zaadz community other than the occaisonal blogging and emailing (or recieving emails from) other zaadz members.
Also, how does one determine values on the Bonewits scale? Is there a questionaire that one fills out?
In the second part of my essay to appear on Integral World http://www.integralworld.net/kazlev2.html I argue that Wilber and is followers are indeed (post-Earpy) dispaying cultic behaviour. My own assesment of Wilber and his organisation would probably be midway between Elliot and Tom’s.
guys,
Zaadz is not an I-I side or front project, it was created independently by a group of kids in LA, who approached kw about a partnership or what have you after they’d already launched.
now if you’ll excuse me, i have to get back to working for the cult, my I-I neck collar is jolting me again…
-paul
I knew it! You are just one of the “minions” right Paul?? I heard Wilber had everyone at I-I line up and recite by heart his new color scheme of developmental levels while they have their heads shaved bald…just a rumor
(jk of course)…
hehe…
-shawn
Just to answer a question and clarify how I use what I referred to as the Bonewits Cult Danger Scale in my Sprituality & Cults and Intetgral Institute articles. My approach is what I refer to as an “experiential” one, which means that these ratings are completely based upon my own experience with the groups that I have explored, including Ken and Integral Institute. Thus if I were to receive negative feedback based upon criticisms I have spoken of towards Ken and I-I in my article (I do believe I have stated that there are problems and concerns here) from
I-I and/or find that my article on Integral Mathematics that is supposed to be coming out in AQAL is no longer in the volume, this would certainly raise some of my own designated numbers on the scale. I am not by any means discounting anyone else’s concerns or experience with Ken and I-I; but at this point in time I must be true to what I have experienced, and in comparison to the other groups that I have explored. I do not see this organization as posing the kind of dangers that I would put in the cult classification.
Paul: I note that Mammy never left Tara in the service of Scarlett. Like you, she didn’t have a collar to keep her effectively enslaved. [Later, she did get a bright-red tafata pettycoat, but from what I understand, neither hers nor yours emits a punitive electrical charge to keep her/you in line.]
Alan: Here’s a recruitment post by paid Zaadz agent ~Cminus4Effort. It gives me the willies; it’s like a promotional poster for Invasion of the Body Snatchers.
thanks Tom for spreading the seeds even more! call it recruiting or whatever you like. it’s not different from you recruiting people to agree with your limited beer-goggles. there i said it. ~T (for Trying Hard).
C4: Better my beer-goggles than surgical implantation of rose-colored glasses. I always allow people to disagree with me, C4. You may be trying too hard, laying too much explosive in parliament.
I just read the latest Ken Blog entry. I do wonder if, from the many indicators, there is one more obvious that Ken is not special than his makes-one-vomit pompousness?
Among the meglomaniacal cult leaders, there is often this unbelievable ability for them to think they are the golden center of the universe.
The latest blog entry over at kw.com, posted by Colin, is this cloying, sickening, oily, servile, dispeptic email worshipful of The Ken from this stupid woman who even goes so far as to mentally damage her child by naming him after Wilber.
One could only hope that the woman is Iago — someone who is awake enough to have some insight into the disgustingness and vanity-enabling quality of feeding this truckload of sugar to a Self-inflated diabetic like Wilber.
But no. It looks like the woman who is pictured, painfully spreading a plastic smile across her face, means all the high-fructose corn syrup that she is pouring.
I guess in the minds of the very very very lost Wilberites this is something nice, like Barney the Dinosaur and Hello Kitty and other toys for four year olds. But Ken Wilber is an adult who appears to need this phony-baloney mock-love stuff in order to delude himself through life.
Look: Wilber is a celebrity. Like any celebrity he is going to get knocked around by the public; it is a mostly healthy response from the world to those who loom large. The Wilberites are enabling Das Leader to inflate himself like a Macy’s parade balloon. They are pouring vodka down the throat of a sick drunk.
The Cult of Personality that is getting increasing worse in Wilberville arises from many factor that work in conjunction. It is like a hurricane developing in the Carribean, getting more and more powerful and destructive.
Will somebody, please, go to Wilber and tell him that he has to face the fact that he is an ass?
[...] Prompted by Jay Allen’s interesting exercise in arguing (against his own inclinations) that Ken Wilber is a cult leader, I just finished reading Elliott Benjamin’s scholarly essay ssessing the presence or absence of cultish features in Ken Wilber’s Integral Institute. [...]
Out of curiosity I checked out that blog link. I read Connie’s email and agree it is typical of the sycophantic cultic attitude one finds in any organisation of this sort based around devotion to a charismatic teacher. You find it among Adi Da devotees too; identical.
I noticed that Frank Visser’s name came up in her post; all i can deduce from this is that a lot of these I-I people seem to be incredibly threatened by Frank! Which really shows how insecure they must be, if a guy who runs a site dedicated to honest peer review of Wilber’s work can get them so worked up. But again this is not unusual; I have observed the same sort of behaviour in other cultic movements with which I am familiar. They all tend to favour mockery and ad hominem attack against anyone who would dare criticise their beloved guru.
The interesting thing about cultic behaviour is that it is so uniform. No matter what sort of cult, and what its teachings are, the pattern of dysfunctional behaviour of the leader and devotees always seems to be the same. The only variable is how extreme the behaviour of either/both devotees and leader is (I guess this is indicated by the Bonewits scale).
I’m going to speculate at some of the motivation behind Elliot’s article, as that has something to do with his conclusions. I was the one that contacted him last year and again recently to ask that he apply his methodology to Ken and I-I. Last year he said he had considered it but he was in the process of talking with Ken and submitting some work to I-I. I got the impression that he didn’t want to jeopardize his chances of being part of I-I by writing something possibly critical.
By his own account after contacts with Ken and I-I he was frustrated that his work was apparently not being published. He also felt that due to his not towing the line he was being treated with less distinction and some distance was being created. This is part motivated him to write his article now. He includes a caveat (threat?) that if his work doesn’t appear in I-I publications after this article he mightl change his tune. He still hopes his work will appear so perhaps to some degree he’s toned down his rhetoric. That his work appearing is now tied into his conclusions should indicate at least partial evidence for my thesis.
Motivation is such a key to why we do the things we do or don’t do. And it is a complex thing that informs our personal perspectives. It is much more complex than just impersonal pronouns posing as “perspectives.” It’s the “personal” that makes all the difference in perspective(s). But that’s a blog entry for another day.
Just a few more comments on Zaadz.
I have to admit I was feeling just a tad anxious after reading Tom’s 9th July post. Along the lines of what’s going on here? But this morning while crusing the blogosphere I stumbled across this post by Tom
Is Zaadz a Den of Rattlesnakes!? http://zenunbound.com/2006/05/is-zaadz-den-of-rattlesnakes.html I also found this reply by C4Chaos http://coolmel.typepad.com/iblog/2006/05/re_is_zaadz_a_d.html All of which gave me a better idea of the background of such assertions, and the antagonistic nature of the exchange between Tom and C4 (i am pretty new to the world of blogging, that is why it took me so long to get onto this; also i have lots of other things to do apart from reading blogs)
For what it is worth (and I can only speak from my own experience), I have only had positive experiences at Zaadz, and as i said i find it a really great networking forum.
Tom’s assertion (in his Blogmandu post linked above) of Zaadz “(giving) every indication of being autocratic and intolerant to any who don’t fit in with its ideas of forthright behavior and being always positive and upbeat” does not fit my experience. One of my blog posts there was quite pessimistic in tone, but no-one censored me or told me to get into line.
Re the graphic that Tom took offence to, i think it’s quite neat really. Call me new agey if you must….
Regarding what Paul has said about Zaadz approaching KW for partnership or whatever, imho in the unlikely event that if Wilber does get involved on any level beyond the most superficial, he will be in for a disappointment, because my impression (at least so far!) is that the people at zaadz are a lot more diverse and varied in their opinions and inspiration than KW’s own cultic devotees.
Of course, I may be wrong, and I may yet be disillusioned about Zaadz. A lot will depend on how things turn out, and if Wilber and I-I do indeed try to determine policy there. If they ever do, I’m out of there, believe me! (and will owe Tom an apology…)
Well, I do want to set the record straight regarding the motivations that led to my article and critique of Ken and I-I, as Edward’s thoughts have some partial truths and some major misconceptions. It is true that when Edward first contacted me a year ago I was not ready to write my article, as I was still in the midst of my hoping to be significantly involved in I-I, having my mathematics and spirituality articles accepted in AQAL journal, and not wanting to allow myself to say and write or get in touch with what I truly did think about it all. But I also knew that the timing would eventually be right for me to write and think openly, and it was–when Edward contacted me a second time recently. As far as I have been told by the AQAL editor in February, the AQAL journal including my Integral Mathematics article should be coming out to the public this summer. But of-course these kind of timing predictions are often highly innaccurate, and I do not know why the Integral Consciousness domain has not yet come out, where my mathematics/conscousness article was accepted by Allan Combs over a year ago. But once I decided to write my current article, there were no considerations whatsoeve inhibiting me from saying what I have experienced and think. And I would like to correct Edward’s speculations about this. I fully realized that the critical things I did say about Ken would probably end any association I had been hoping for with him and I-I, and I made my decision based upon what I believe about the freedom to think and write openly, which is the same way in which I have written all my essays about cults. The fact is that at this point in time, based upon my own experieences with Ken and I-I, I have not experienced the kind of cultish behaviors that others have. This does not mean they are not there; it simply means that I have not experienced them in this way. And I still do have the utmost respect and appreciation for virtually all of Ken’s books. To me he truly is a great philosopher. This is what I think. Yes–I also have stated that I think he has a profound ego, and to me he has come across in a benevolent authoritarian way. I would like to conclude with one last brief illustration of why I am not willing to be as critical of Ken’s guru tendencies as some others are. For any of you that have checked out Ken’s writings on integral mathematics, you may particularly appreciate how it was quite the challenge for me to have an extensive phone conversation with him, going through my Integral Mathematics article which was focused upon my own versions of what integral mathematics is, which were completely different from his own. We had quite the stimulating discussion about all this, and in the end he actually accepted my ideas and my article pretty much intact, except for the integral terminology changes he wanted, which was nothing more than a minor irritation to me. So, you see, from my own experience I just have not found Ken or I-I to be significantly cultish. Perhaps this will change–perhaps it will not. But please realize that I am being completely forthright about my conclusions–there is nothing holding me back other than what I think from my own experience.
alan: The problem isn’t just the extremity of syco-infancy, it is that it is sought, encouraged, praised and held up to others as Turquoise behavior. Any objectivity with respect to the 2nd Tier is sacrificed for the unity of the cult. The most important things seem to quickly be discard to solidify a set, stable culture.
As for C4 and me, there isn’t any antagonism. It’s all nose twisting, and perhaps a little Three Stooges eye gouging and maybe a few instances of bomb drops. But I do think that C4’s paid role is to herd sheep and rope any dumb woolly animals he can that come close to the compound wall. C4 doesn’t really know this yet, because — surprize! surprize! — Zaadz won’t be meeting its revenue expectations so one day soon C4 will get a list of quotas he’ll be expected to meet.
As for your negative blog post, I would wager that it either wasn’t all that negative or didn’t suggest the beginnings of a pattern of behavior or you are now too knitted into the community for them to want to be rid of you, or to easily be able to make you “Disappeared.” Also these things may only happen in cataclysmic purges. The Big February purge resulted in ousting 1500 out of a 2500 membership. Yowza! Why, that’s Soviet style!
Elliot: I don’t know what assessment you can make from whether your paper is accepted or not. After all, you are immodestly servile [with it being non-significant whether you mean it or not]: “To me he truly is a great philosopher.” On the other hand, they might see an implied threat that you will upgrade the I-I Bonewits score if your integral-mathematics paper is rejected. And they might either not like being threatened, or the threat might work. Or, you might just be seen as an enemy that is worth trying to influence, so Wilber will accept your paper. Or, Wilber could accept your paper, invite you to his loft to celebrate and lace your glass of Charles Taylor Cabernet with strychnine. Or, your paper could be rejected simply because it was finally decided that your vision does not adequately comport with Ken’s, or because Ken doesn’t like your abs or the shape of your head. Or, Ken could reject your paper, invite you to the loft to commiserate and then beat the crap out of you. There is just no knowing.
Tom, I agree there is no knowing, but for different reasons. Yes–I truly do think that Ken is a great philosopher, in spite of his personal faults; and I am basing my estimation completely upon his books and my personal meeting with him when i say this. In regard to my Integral Mathematics article, the reason I think this is a reasonable way I have for measuring possible cultish/guru qualities in Ken and I-I is because my article has already been officially accepted by Ken and I-I for publication. I have a contract which I signed which states their intention of publishing my article in AQAL journal. So a breach of this contract I believe I could fairly assume would be because an affront was somehow taken from my article.
Eliot, I hear you. But what is cultic about reacting to feeling you’ve been insulted? — particularly in light of all the evidence you have already from the Earpy thing where Ken goes ballistic about all he had endured from Integral World and the mean green meme?
And, anyway, most people would react negatively to finding out that someone with whom they are doing business has written a public assessment of the degree to which they are a cult leader. People are fickle that way.
Besides, in the business world of our day, a breach of contract is just another ho-hum penalty on the decision matrix. It’s not like he will have taken off his white glove and chivalrously slapped you with it. It can be that the price of breaching the contract is just something he is willing to pay.
Those are good points–Tom. But if the breach of contract for my article were to happen (which I agree is quite likely) then it would give me cause to re-evaluate my own Bonewits cult danger ratings and increase my numbers based upon my own experience in the categories of Internal Control, Censorship, and Paranoia. For as you well know, most people on this site who have seen my article think that I am being too easy on Ken and I-I in terms of cult dangers, as although I have stated concerns and things I do not appreciate, I have concluded that there are not significant cult dangers in I-I. So removing my article and breaking the contract would certainly put some additional red flags in my own concerns, as my philosophy is one in which the acquistition of knowledge is primarily related to one’s own experience.
Perhaps if you want to continue our dialogue it would make sense to exchange e-mails privately, as probably other people are not interested in reading this any further. My home e-mail address is ben496@prexar.com
all the best,
Elliot
I am an outsider to much of this debate. I am only a layman. I have “simply” consumed Wilber’s work for many years. I am grateful for the sense of the non-dual I have occasional glimpsed through his works. I think this “taste” of the non-dual is what draws people to Wilber’s works and to Wilber himself. In that sense alone Wilber and his works are valuable. I have little authority to critque his works for their logic or accuracy, but I know this is a reasonable and necessary task .
What I can say is this: anyone capable of writing an attack such as Wilber’s is seriously disturbed. Anyone who senses their authority to act in this manner is someone undeserving of authoriy. Anyone who makes excuses for it is in a psychological prison from which they should flee as soon as possible. Normal people involved in normal debate do not act this way. Maybe only a person on the outside can see this clearly.
Ken Wilber has not cornered the market on the non-dual. There is a difference between the non-duality he exudes and represents and the thought systems he creates.
this is in reponse to Tom’s feeble and “goofy” analysis and misunderstanding of Zaadz. note that he has yet to present a valid and convincing critique of Zaadz is. it’s his prerogative of course. but for the record i just want to say the following:
– Zaadz is not I-I or Ken’s biatch.
– my understanding and experience of social networks technology, blogging, and “Web 2.0″ is more vast than you Tom. (prove me wrong Tom, prove me wrong). here’s a couple of links for you.
me using other social networks, before and during Zaadz.
here’s another one.
i choose to work for Zaadz because it’s the ONLY social network that fits my current ethics and values. it’s my right livelihood at the moment.
Tom, what technology out there fits your values? what work would you rather be doing that fits your values?
for the record, i don’t “herd” people. i set example as compassionate as i can. one of my reponsibilities which i’ve chosen for myself is to increase TARGETED SERENDIPITY. that’s a blogging term Tom, and as a blogger you should understand the meaning of it. i, or Zaadz, am not in the business of “herding” people to JOIN. i only want people here who are interested and inspired enough to join. people here are free to come in and go out as they freely choose. Zaadz is not a “cult” it’s a social networking platform with meaning and purpose.
lastly, your criticism of Zaadz is so partial at best and laughable at best. why? because you don’t have a first-hand experience of Zaadz to prove your assertions. you continue to stay of out the “illussory”boundaries and walls then throw rocks from afar. and to my knowledge, i don’t think you have a good grasp or Social Networking technology and Web 2.0 in general. again, prove me wrong here Tom, prove me wrong.
btw, one more thing: how come you deleted my comment on your blog post? i only rebutted your criticisms point by point. what happened to the “openness” of the blogosphere?
if you’ve got what it takes, then let’s debate about Social Networking, Web 2.0 and not just your triskaidekaphobia and quesy feeling about Ken and Integral Insititute. frankly, those things bore me to death. otherwise, i will ignore your criticisms and this will be my last time of
oh one last thing, this is a cool blog post Elliot, i bookmarked it.
~C (for “Criticize by creating”)
Thanks for the post Elliot and these remarks are for……well….. whoever needs & can hear them.
Ken Wilber is a human being and as such is just as infallable as any of the rest of us, enlightened or not. However, the guy has done his homework (not just intellectual btw). Ken is surrounded by some of the (in my opinion) deepest human beings I have ever met. (I have met quite a few of the THOUSANDS that Ken considers friends and teachers). Ken does listen to and loves to learn from those that are lighting up higher, deeper, & wider capacities. I can appreciate feelings of despair, inadequacy, rejection, & lonliness & know that it hurts to be rebuked and told “you need to grow up.” But, sometimes we do, for the sake of us all. If we have the courage to face our pain & relax our need to be right (have a floor to stand on, as scarry as that may be), relax & forget what we know, then we may begin to awaken to a sparkling Mystery that shatters all conception & nails us here to this beautiful tantric cross of existance. I know Ken does this because I know that Ken listens & learns from his peers & teachers. It’s not KEN’s I-I. It’s ours. And we all are invited to the table. But, if your going to sit with the grownups, then well…. I won’t say it…… but hey, I have a lot of growing up to do as well, as do we all, including Ken.
peas,
V;)