Ken Wilber: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Michael J. Formica
No edit summary
imported>Michael J. Formica
No edit summary
Line 5: Line 5:
Wilber is not widely recognized by mainstream academia, as he has generally failed to publish in any recognized peer-reviewed journals, expect for two articles that have appeared in the [[Journal of Consciousness Studies]]. <ref>''[http://www.imprint.co.uk/jcs.html Journal of consciouness studies]''</ref>  Defenders of his work suggest that his failure to publish in mainstream journals is a consequence of the meta-disciplinary and meta-theoretical nature of [[Integral Theory]], which the highly specialized orientation of academic journals and the peer review process itself are not structured to support.
Wilber is not widely recognized by mainstream academia, as he has generally failed to publish in any recognized peer-reviewed journals, expect for two articles that have appeared in the [[Journal of Consciousness Studies]]. <ref>''[http://www.imprint.co.uk/jcs.html Journal of consciouness studies]''</ref>  Defenders of his work suggest that his failure to publish in mainstream journals is a consequence of the meta-disciplinary and meta-theoretical nature of [[Integral Theory]], which the highly specialized orientation of academic journals and the peer review process itself are not structured to support.


Critics of his work, on the other hand, seem to agree that, despite Wilber’s efforts to develop an integrated theory, his overall position is has been described as excessively objectifying, masculinist, and denigrating of emotion.  [[William Irwin Thompson]] has suggested that Wilber’s approach suffers from a scheme of compulsive mapping and textbook categorizations.  [[Christian de Quincey]], despite voicing an abiding respect for Wilber and his contributions to transpersonal psychology, evoked an acerbic response from Wilber when he suggested that Wilber’s theories were an intellectual edifice, details of which might fail under close scrutiny. <ref>de Quincey, C. (2000). ''The promise of integralism: A critical appreciation of Ken Wilber's integral psychology.'' [http://www.deepspirit.com/sys-tmpl/thepromiseofintegralism/ Journal of Consciousness Studies,] Vol. 7(11/12)</ref>  Finally, [[Steve McIntosh]] argues that Wilber’s theories are contaminated by his own investment in [[Vedanta]] and [[Buddhism]], wherein he fails to separate those elements from philosophy as an objective area of study.  McIntosh goes on to suggest that Wilber misinterprets [[Howard Gardner|Howard Gardner’s]] work in [[multiple intelligences]], <ref>Gardner, H. (2006). ''Multiple intelligences: New horizons.'' Perseus Books Group: Boston.</ref> while also failing to acknowledge [[Daniel Goleman|Daniel Goleman’s]] differentiation between rational intelligence and [[emotional intelligence]]. <ref>Goleman, D. (1998). ''Emotional intelligence.'' Bantam Books: New York.</ref>
Critics of his work, on the other hand, seem to agree that, despite Wilber’s efforts to develop an integrated theory, his overall position is has been described as excessively objectifying, masculinist, and denigrating of emotion.  [[William Irwin Thompson]] has suggested that Wilber’s approach suffers from a scheme of compulsive mapping and textbook categorizations.  [[Christian de Quincey]], despite voicing an abiding respect for Wilber and his contributions to transpersonal psychology, evoked an acerbic response from Wilber when he suggested that Wilber’s theories were an intellectual edifice, details of which might fail under close scrutiny. <ref>de Quincey, C. (2000). ''The promise of integralism: A critical appreciation of Ken Wilber's integral psychology.'' [http://www.deepspirit.com/sys-tmpl/thepromiseofintegralism Journal of Consciousness Studies,] Vol. 7(11/12)</ref>  Finally, [[Steve McIntosh]] argues that Wilber’s theories are contaminated by his own investment in [[Vedanta]] and [[Buddhism]], wherein he fails to separate those elements from philosophy as an objective area of study.  McIntosh goes on to suggest that Wilber misinterprets [[Howard Gardner|Howard Gardner’s]] work in [[multiple intelligences]], <ref>Gardner, H. (2006). ''Multiple intelligences: New horizons.'' Perseus Books Group: Boston.</ref> while also failing to acknowledge [[Daniel Goleman|Daniel Goleman’s]] differentiation between rational intelligence and [[emotional intelligence]]. <ref>Goleman, D. (1998). ''Emotional intelligence.'' Bantam Books: New York.</ref>


==References==
==References==
<references/>
<references/>

Revision as of 07:00, 19 January 2008

This article is developing and not approved.
Main Article
Discussion
Related Articles  [?]
Bibliography  [?]
External Links  [?]
Citable Version  [?]
 
This editable Main Article is under development and subject to a disclaimer.

Kenneth Earl Wilber, Jr. (b. January 31, 1949) is a contemporary writer and thinker whose primary focus is the development and exposition of an integral theory of consciousness. His first book, The Spectrum of Consciousness, sought to integrate a number of disparate fields, including metaphysics, psychology, spirituality, the natural sciences, the arts and humanities. [1]

Wilber is not widely recognized by mainstream academia, as he has generally failed to publish in any recognized peer-reviewed journals, expect for two articles that have appeared in the Journal of Consciousness Studies. [2] Defenders of his work suggest that his failure to publish in mainstream journals is a consequence of the meta-disciplinary and meta-theoretical nature of Integral Theory, which the highly specialized orientation of academic journals and the peer review process itself are not structured to support.

Critics of his work, on the other hand, seem to agree that, despite Wilber’s efforts to develop an integrated theory, his overall position is has been described as excessively objectifying, masculinist, and denigrating of emotion. William Irwin Thompson has suggested that Wilber’s approach suffers from a scheme of compulsive mapping and textbook categorizations. Christian de Quincey, despite voicing an abiding respect for Wilber and his contributions to transpersonal psychology, evoked an acerbic response from Wilber when he suggested that Wilber’s theories were an intellectual edifice, details of which might fail under close scrutiny. [3] Finally, Steve McIntosh argues that Wilber’s theories are contaminated by his own investment in Vedanta and Buddhism, wherein he fails to separate those elements from philosophy as an objective area of study. McIntosh goes on to suggest that Wilber misinterprets Howard Gardner’s work in multiple intelligences, [4] while also failing to acknowledge Daniel Goleman’s differentiation between rational intelligence and emotional intelligence. [5]

References

  1. Wilber, K. (1973). The spectrum of consciousness. Quest Books: India.
  2. Journal of consciouness studies
  3. de Quincey, C. (2000). The promise of integralism: A critical appreciation of Ken Wilber's integral psychology. Journal of Consciousness Studies, Vol. 7(11/12)
  4. Gardner, H. (2006). Multiple intelligences: New horizons. Perseus Books Group: Boston.
  5. Goleman, D. (1998). Emotional intelligence. Bantam Books: New York.