What does anybody think of the latest from Ken Wilber? In case anybody on this list is strictly political and doesn't know about Wilber, Roger Walsh, another leader of thought, whom I respect, says this about him: “Ken Wilber is one of the greatest philosophers of this century and arguably the greatest theoretical psychologist of all time.” And Ken Wilber’s site, that we are talking about in this post, Integral Naked, says this: “Integral Naked is a series of largely unedited, uncensored, live, and taped-live conversations between the most influential, provocative, and important thinkers and leaders in today's world. Many of these are moderated by Ken Wilber, considered the most influential integral thinker in the world today, and his colleagues at Integral Institute.” I am reeling from recent emails to Ken Wilber's list, wondering if the body snatchers got our hero. Say it isn't so, Ken — tell us that these things were sent without your knowledge. So, here goes to recount to you what has happened. First, listmembers got this letter. (Listmembers can't post to the list — someone from the Ken Wilber end decides what is sent.) It leveled a criticism, in a very respectful tone, at something I agree is shocking that Wilber has done: From: kenwilber-bounces@tulku.mandala-designs.com on Behalf Of David MacClelland Dear Ken: I have many of your books, which I read with interest to appreciate how another person attempts to put into words the comprehensions resulting from peak spiritual experiences and deep meditation. It is comforting, and humbling, to recognize the subjects of your interpretive concepts that seem so much more encompassing and well stated than my own “amateur” attempts at trying to describe this new-found knowledge and oneness, this enlightenment. In contrast with your books, I was disappointed with your new “Integral Naked” web site, which itself is an admirable concept were it not for the overbearing sexual innuendo theme. I may have missed something, but I cannot imagine what motives appeared to justify undermining the dignity of the subject matter, and the speakers, in such a crass manner. Perhaps the intent was to appeal to the immature, testosterone-driven adolescents and age-denying middle-aged males among us. It is true, in the shallow thinking, egocentric, mass market world, that sex sells, but can you not see how immature, divisive, discriminating and exclusionary this theme is for those of deeper thoughts and consciousness, of both genders? Isn't it possible that many contributors, perhaps potentially valuable, might turn away because of this theme? Isn't that ironic for a site that purports to be a global base for the encouragement of integral, inclusive thinking and the support for the development of yellow (and up) meme leaders for the betterment of all? I wish you well with the Integral Institute and the new Multiplex learning concept. Now, if you could just fix that Integral Naked site theme! Regards, David MacClelland I was appalled to see the response, from another listmember, that was sent out to the list: From: kenwilber-bounces@tulku.mandala-designs.com on Behalf Of Mark Edwards Dear Ken Wilber list, An open response to David MacClelland’s concern with “Naked”-ness Dear David You are way, way off the mark with your perception that the “Integral Naked” web site has an “overbearing sexual innuendo theme”. You should really get out more often and read some of the Bible while you’re there – The Song of Wisdom might be a good place to start or maybe even Ramana Maharshi's “The Marital Garland of Letters”, or perhaps Jan van Ruysbroec's “The Kingdom of Lovers”, (dare I mention the “Rubaiyat” of Omar Khayyam). Does it “undermine the dignity” of the naked human body to place it within the context of human spiritual development? Is it “crass” to speak of the nakedness of our, all too human, endeavours to know the Good, the True and the Beautiful? The Kosmic drive of Eros includes not only the naked physical body but all the bodies that we (and all beings) are and have as we travel the Long Way. If it was good enough for Leonardo, it’s good enough for me. What, don't tell me! Could it be that all this talk of the naked body, the naked spirit, the naked self, the naked beauty of being human might actually appeal to “immature, testosterone-driven adolescents and age-denying middle-aged males”. How dreadful!! You think it ironic David that nakedness is a theme for a site that wishes to “encourage integral and inclusive thinking” . There’s no irony there that I can see. What my simple Aussie mind does see as ironic however, is that you can find the word “naked” confronting and off-putting when all the while you are actually completely naked under your clothes all the time, even now, even as you composed your little message. Now that is ironic. Are you a Christian David? Do the Christian mystics speak to you al all? Perhaps Jan van Ruysbroec, Heinrich Seuse, Jacob Boehme might stimulate your “deeper thoughts”. You must know that the spirit, according to its essence, receives the coming of Christ in the Nakedness of its nature, without means and without interruption. … And this why the spirit in essence possess God in the Nakedness of His nature. Come now, open the eyes of thy mind, and gaze if thou canst, on Being in its naked and simple purity. Disciple: O where is this naked Ground of the Soul void of all Self, and how shall I comprehend it? To bring our nakedness before the mystery and to truly see the bare truth and beauty that resides there – what better theme, what more appropriate image, what more apt language could there be for a site that attempts to help us lift the veil from our poor tired eyes. Open up your mind and your heart David and enter unclothed into the simple naked world of poetic imagination – our greatest dreams lie there. All the best to you Mark Edwards Sooooo, I wrote to the list manager. It has been 4 days now, and I've heard nothing from the Wilber world or from the writer of the first letter, who no doubt hasn't seen my email. From: Suzanne Taylor [mailto:suzanne@mightycompanions.org] Although my two cents on the issue at hand, of whether the site is tasteless, is more resonant with MacClelland than with Edwards, that's secondary to dealing with the nature of the communication from Mark Edwards. David MacClelland's respectful cry of alarm could have been fodder for some thoughtful exchanges, but this antagonistic and arrogant response from Mark Edwards only can engender a dualistic combat zone. Hopefully it wasn't sent out by Ken Wilber as a sanctioned response to MacClelland. Woe is us if that is true. If you don't send this email to the list, please pass it on to David MacClelland. I thought what he wrote had merit, and I appreciated the gentle tone of his communication. Also, my hope would be that enough people would write thoughtful protests for Ken Wilber to consider changing the Integral Naked site, which I think could marginalize his body of work. Sex carries too much baggage, I believe, in the collective psyche, to have something intended to be transformational to the species to be appreciated when cloaked in a clever lasciviousness. Suzanne Taylor This whole thing is upsetting to me. Bad enough that we are in the political mess we are in, but when what purports to elevate us in fact diminishes us, what then? My two cents is that attention needs to be paid. What do you all think?
Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2003 5:16 PM
To: KenWilber@tulku.mandala-designs.com
Subject: [Kenwilber] Integral Naked Web Site
Sent: Saturday, June 28, 2003 3:39 AM
To: kenwilber@tulku.mandala-designs.com
Subject: [Kenwilber] response to David MacClelland
Master: If you go about to comprehend it, then it will fly away from you; but if you surrender yourself wholly up to it, then it will abide with you, and become the Life of your Life, and be natural to you.
Sent: Saturday, June 28, 2003 11:05 AM
To: kenwilber-bounces@tulku.mandala-designs.com
Cc: Mark Edwards
Subject: RE: [Kenwilber] response to David MacClelland
suzanne@mightycompanions.org
http://TheConversation.org
From my friend Janet, who wants to be anonymous:
I read your email on the Ken Wilbur site and then went to take a look at the Integral Institute site. What I found most interesting was the lack of “integration” – if you look at the “people” list it does not appear there are any women on the board, advisor role, etc (two names could be). If you look on the integral naked site there is only one women participant. I didn't join so got no further than the lists and info pages. Plus I agreed with your letter, the tone of the response was totally unjustified. What a loss of integrity for an “integral” site.
Suzanne to Janet:
You and I are on the same beam. It is so nice. Thanks for spotting those things about women. Perhaps a whole new picture is emerging — maybe the idol needs to wise up some more, although I haven't heard stories, like you would hear about Werner Erhard having shortcomings. But what is the matter with Wilber? It's not good for any of us. He's got such a cache of respectability that this stuff should be noted so that we can keep seeing straight.
From: Joyce Kovelman [ASOUL1@aol.com]
Well said by both David and Suzanne. The response to gentle objections were not really treated with respect. Sex is part of nature, as well as human nature, and is not in itself the issue. The issue to me, is the patronizing, condescending response Mark made to David, as a grown-up would speak to a little boy. That was off-putting to me. A dialogue awaits, if done with respect and integrity, and I would love to see it begin. At the same time, I respect Mark's views and on one level he is correct. However, the issue is dignity and respect, as well as a web site best suited to those who visit and wish to dialogue and evolve.
Suzanne to Joyce:
Couldn't have said it better. Very curious that this comes out of Wilber's camp, isn't it! I wonder if we'll hear any more about this. What is there to say if this by and large is OK with people? It leaves a bad taste.
From: Nori J. Muster [njm@steamboats.com] Author of Betrayal of the Spirit: My Life Behind the Headlines of the Hare Krishna Movement
The Integrals are bickering like a bunch of Hare Krishnas…
From: Rosalind Robinson [twosherpas@yahoo.com]
Well frankly it doesn't offend me. I just find it off the mark. It's strange positioning (sorry, I'm in marketing…) for a site which is about integration, to use sex as its structural context. Then again, the site does seem to be dominated by men, with its “we're just good ol boys chewin' the fat and slingin' back the whiskies” tone. The whole thing sounds like a bunch of poseurs at an intellectual masturbation party. Way too much yang, with very little yin in sight–tantric imagery notwithstanding. So much for balanced integration.
From Richard, another writer on matters of consciousness who wants to be anonymous:
I have never been able to understand the fuss about Ken Wilber. It seems to me inflated mind games without much root in living experience. It is all cold, self-aggrandizing, and self-referential.
Suzanne to Richard:
Even if Wilber has limitations, how could he endorse that letter? Could he be so out to lunch?
I presume you've seen some of the ecstatic writing he's done. That's what I like of his. This is the conclusion of “Sex, Ecology, Spirituality”:
Let the world be quiet. Let the heavens and the earth and the seas be still. Let the world be waiting. Let the self-contraction relax into the empty ground of its own awareness, and let it there quietly die. See how Spirit pours through each and every opening in the turmoil, and bestows new splendor on the setting Sun and its glorious Earth and all its radiant inhabitants. See the Kosmos dance in Emptiness; see the play of light in all creatures great and small; see finite worlds sing and rejoice in the play of the very Divine, floating on a Glory that renders each transparent, flooded by a Joy that refuses time or terror, that undoes the madness of the loveless self and buries it in splendor.
Indeed, indeed: Let the self-contraction relax into the empty ground of its own awareness, and let it there quietly die. See the Kosmos arise in its place, dancing madly and divine, self-luminous and self-liberating, intoxicated by a Light that never dawns nor ceases. See the worlds arise and fall, never caught in time or turmoil, transparent images shimmering in the radiant Abyss. Watch the mountain walk on water, drink the Pacific in a single gulp, blink and a billion universes rise and fall, breathe out and create a Kosmos, breathe in and watch it dissolve.
Let the ecstasy overflow and outshine the loveless self, driven mad with the torments of its self-embracing ways, hugging mightily samsara's spokes of endless agony, and sing instead triumphantly with St. Catherine, “My being is God, not by simple participation, but by a true transformation of my Being. My me is God!” And let the joy sing with Dame Julian, “See! I am God! See! I am in all things! See! I do all things!” And let the joy shout with Hakuin, “This very body is the Body of Buddha! and this very land the Pure Land!”
And this Earth becomes a blessed being, and every I becomes a God, and every We becomes God's sincerest worship, and every It becomes God's most gracious temple.
And comes to rest that Godless search, tormented and tormenting. The knot in the Heart of the Kosmos relaxes to allow its only God, and overflows the Spirit ravished and enraptured by the lost and found Beloved. And gone the Godless destiny of death and desperation, and gone the madness of a life committed to uncare, and gone the tears and terror of the brutal days and endless nights where time alone would rule.
And I-I rise to taste the dawn, and find that love alone will shine today. And the Shining says: To love it all, and love it madly, and always endlessly, and ever fiercely, to love without choice and thus enter the All, to love it mindlessly and thus be the All, embracing the only and radiant Divine: now as Emptiness, now as Form, together and forever, the Godless search undone, and love alone will shine today.
Richard to Suzanne:
I enjoyed the ecstatic range of the Wilber selection, but I also hear his braggadocio in it, something that never happens with Rumi, the Dalai Lama, or even Teilhard or C. S. Lewis. Somewhere in Lewis's novel, Perelendra, is a description of the great dance that I would take any day over Wilber's — because you can feel the generosity in the heart of the writer as well as the message. With Wilber I always feel his presence in the words, so they are a little tainted. Even Job has a sense of the great cosmic whirlpool that has an unassailable dignity.
Suzanne to Richard:
After all his heady stuff, it's been reassuring to me that Wilber has an ecstatic side — I get impatient with all those Quadrant distinctions, but at least can relate to the great master through the passionate writing. Now I'm wondering if he's less great than he's presumed to be. Those emails got me wondering if he's in the vein of so many great ones with Achilles heels of some significance.
From a Ken Wilber forum, “The World of Ken Wilber,” posted by somone named Jim:
Mark Edwards, who has some excellent critiques of Ken's work in the Reading Room that I would love to hear your comments on sometime, says of Mr. McClelland's letter:
“What, don't tell me! Could it be that all this talk of the naked body, the naked spirit, the naked self, the naked beauty of being human might actually appeal to “immature, testosterone-driven adolescents and age-denying middle-aged males”. How dreadful!!”
I thought it possible that Mr. McClelland is coming from prudishness, but I also considered that his complaint was not about the “sexual innuendo theme” because he objects to such themes, but because he felt that there was something about the theme of the Integral Naked site that made him feel that it seemed designed to appeal to immature males.
Mr. Edwards says, “You are way, way off the mark with your perception that the 'Integral Naked' web site has an 'overbearing sexual innuendo theme'.” Mr. McClelland is clearly referring to material on the site like these forum descriptions: “Hot and Bothered,” “Applied Vibrations,” “Serious Kinky,” and “Sweet Nothings.” These sound like sexual innuendoes to me.
Referring to this as part of an “overbearing sexual innuendo theme” is hardly the same thing as saying, “I'm a prude who is turned off by The Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam, etc.”
The Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam and The Kingdom of Lovers on the one hand and “Serious Kinky” and “Hot and Bothered” on the other are not quite on the same level any more than Playboy and Big Butt Biker Babes magazine are on the same level. You will not find articles by Alan Watts or interviews with Martin Scorcese in Big Butt Biker Babes. And I would guess that you will not see too much participation at Integral Naked by scholars, academics, many spiritual teachers, and others of a serious bent, not because the theme is one of sexual innuendo, but because it's closer to the movie “Booty Call” than it is to The Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam, The Kingdom of Lovers, and The Marital Garland of Letters.
In fact, here's a simpler way to say this, maybe: Christina Aguilera recently tried to change her image from a 'good girl' image to a 'bad' sexy, “Dirrty” girl image. Many critics who are far from being prudes have laughed at her efforts, not because they object to open displays of a sexual nature, but because her efforts make her seem awkward and immature. Her confidence in her sexuality and sensuality doesn't even come close to Madonna's as seen in videos like “Open Your Heart” and “Justify My Love.” Both are posing, but Aguilera's posing appears contrived and self-conscious rather than self-aware and confident.
If it was the webmaster of Integral Naked's goal to create a site that evokes nakedness in the senses in which Mr. Edward's discusses nakedness in his letter, I would have to give the webmaster low marks on the same basis that I would give Aguilera low marks: too contrived, too self-conscious, and yes, immature.
Follow
