This is gonna be a big post.

Although I'm behind the times on this, there has been a lot of uproar over some of the latest statements coming from philosopher Ken Wilber that I think are well worth investigating and I thank my friend Jesse for pointing this out to me. First of all, let me note that I think very highly of Ken Wilber. I believe that his work points emphatically to a new philosophical/methodological direction that, as he would say, transcends and includes the movements that have come before such as modernism and post-modernism. He remains the only active philosopher I can think of who is fearless enough to reimagine what faith and spirituality are without discarding them as only tools or rehashing ancient concepts. I won't go more into his philosophy here, although I do plan to do a very positive post on his upcoming book, "Integral Spirituality," and the recent interviews he gave for What is Enlightenment? magazine.

What is in question is an essay he recently posted on the blog at www.kenwilber.com that acidically attacked what he deemed unfair criticism of his work. In later posts, he wrote the essay was in part a test to see how people would react to his rant. He notes it was in part to see who was at a high enough developmental level to not rush to judgment over swear words and horrific analogies. It was also, Wilber writes, designed to push his critics to embrace Wilber's latest philosophic journeys and leave their older positions behind.

Lines have quickly been drawn. Many Wilber supporters have called the post genius and have praised both the substance of his attacks and the method in which he delivered them. Over at the main site for Wilber criticism, it has been alleged that this is nothing more than Wilber becoming more a cult leader and Integral Philosophy becoming more about agreeing with everything Wilber says and does.

The substance of Wilber's argument, however, is believable, at least to someone like me who has not been following all the minutiae of the Integral movement. The gist of the essay he wrote is simply that he is tired of defending himself against poorly researched essays that seem to be designed to do nothing more than push Wilber down a notch. A negative reaction to the post on the basis of Wilber being caustic is an over-reaction and Wilber may even have a point in that those that get in a fit when someone--especially a "spiritual" someone--gets angry and uses foul language, needs to check in with themselves and see whether or not it is the worldview they have accepted that has stunted them. Furthermore, Wilber may be right that there are only a certain number of people who can remove themselves from their cultural worldview (including those who trash their cultural worldview but do not move beyond it).

Am I arguing that Wilber is wholly correct and not guilty of anything? Naw. I'll get to that. But a troubling quality of modern discourse appears to be the expectation that everyone keep their cool no matter what they are confronted with. It is more professional to remain calm, collected, and studied. Furthermore, the "pluralist" left-wing meme that Wilber characterizes as "Green" tends to be very careful about anger; perhaps because it arose out of the 1960s hippie movement as it did. What this has done is put the ball in the court of those who can either clinically and professionally argue or shout with rage all sorts of nonsense from Iraq is about to launch a nuclear attack on the West to there is nothing wrong with torture etc. etc. Those that want to fight back in the Democratic Party (now uniformly identified with bloggers) are called "reactionaries" "nuts," "wingbats" by many of those in power in the party. No, the best response they say is to calmly and professionally disagree a la John Kerry in his 2004 campaign. The obvious problem with this is that once a disturbing suggestion has been made, even calmly, a "professional" response does not resonate with an audience. The philosophy of "let's look at what they're saying carefully" does not get anything done. There are now two exceptionally conservative supreme court justices on the Supreme Court because Democratic Senators did not want to come across as too partisan (among other reasons) and risk political capital in raising hell with a filibuster. What I am getting at is there is a tendency in the established left and progressive worlds (including spiritual movements) to only accept neutral or positive attitudes about anything controversial. That doesn't mean overreacting is positive. French footballer Zinedine Zidane let his team down in the World Cup final by headbutting the Italian player who insulted him and perhaps his family. The French team lost the game minutes later in a shootout. Nonetheless, a harsh response can be an appropriate responses to criticism, lies, and slander. Otherwise we have little hope of fighting against a radical far-right agenda delivered softly with a smile. Otherwise, we have little hope of convincing people to evolve!


However, once we have allowed that Wilber has a right to defend himself bluntly and even caustically against criticism that trashes his work, did he cross a line? I have to think so. It's not the "suck my dick" comment or some of the other uses of profanity. To be offended at these words seems a little childish to me. However, when Wilber personally attacks one of his critics for having a manuscript that has not been accepted for publication and attacks the owner of the major Ken Wilber criticism (not always negative) Web site (Integral World), Frank Visser, for being an unpleasant person to be around and for only criticizing Wilber because he feels "left out" is both nasty and assumptive. If you are defending your work, you defend your work as caustically as you like, but personal attacks seem beneath someone like Wilber. Even as a metaphor, "pissing in the eye sockets" of decapitated critics, does not seem a decent response. Furthermore, no apology was coming for those statements. If Wilber is not fudging a bit in saying the whole thing was a planned test, it actually makes it even worse. In this case, Wilber sat around and played with personal attacks and still decided to go ahead with it. You can still make a caustic, emphatic, and even profanity-laced attack without getting personal.

I do not think that Wilber has become a cult leader, and I certainly don't think that he is any less of a important thinker (as "Integral Spirituality" proves), but it is alarming to see Wilber write some of what he did. It is alarming because it seems to indicate that Wilber (as some gurus have done) has allowed any action he makes to be without fault under the defense that he is at such a high level of consciousness that only a few people can truly understand his methods. I've seen this side of Wilber before. His novel "Boomeritis" was SUPPOSED to be a poorly-written book once it got reviewed as such. Often in "One Taste," the year-long journal Wilber published, he seems to feel that anything he does gets a free pass as long as he admits he is doing it. If he name drops, its alright because Wilber will write something like, "Now that I'm being a big time name-dropper let me tell you who else came by to see my this weekend." Or allowing for certain (rather harmless) behavior by saying, "an integral person will do this." OK, but that's not a defense in itself. WHY is it okay for an integral person to do this, considering some people will wonder. Now Wilber writes that most of the criticism against him is being leveled out of resentment. What's his proof for that? Such a statement sounds far more like a man who is convinced of his own superiority.

Perhaps even this essay is falling into a trap though. What matters most is Wilber's ideas. Despite what he might yell at certain people, we are all free to dissect them the way we choose. The only people who might be seriously seriously bothered by this kind of rhetoric are those who are convinced that Wilber must be perfect and this shatters their illusion. Well, as he's always said, he's a pandit not a guru. And while Wilber and his Integral Institute might be becoming more codified and less tolerant of criticism, the ideas are what matter most. What will be too bad, however, is if Wilber continues in this line of thinking for it will set up a wall between
those who accept whatever Wilber says unconditionally and those who do not as those who are developed enough and those who are "not there yet." If Integral Philosophy is to be a true movement and not a new codified religion, criticism--no matter how lame--needs to be better addressed and integrated into the movement. As the Buddha himself once said, and I paraphrase, "Don't just accept what I say is true, investigate it for yourself."

Traveling--I took a little road trip to southern Arizona the other day, through the 114 degree desert. My experience in Tombstone was rather puzzling for me. For here was Tombstone as it looked in the days of Wyatt Earp. You can stroll down the raised wooden sidewalks and past buildings that have only been refurbished since those days of the Wild West. Although there is a more modern part of town where Tombstone residents mostly live, the heart of the town--dirt streets and all--has been preserved.
Yet, I was troubled. For, almost every business in the heart of Tombstone was geared towards tourists. From the trinket shops to the jewelry stores to the many stores that name themselves after the famous O.K. Corral such as "The Jewelry Corral," or "The Gift Corral." Never mind that the gunfight that is recreated everyday at the O.K. Corral did not actually take place in the O.K. Corral. The graveyard where many of the 19th Century dead rest contains some wooden tombstones with modern inscriptions designed to be crazy examples of dry 19th-century wit. Gangs of actors dressed up in 19th-century gear walk the streets in preparation for gathering tourists together for paid gunfights.

In other words, Tombstone survives as a tourist spot. Yeah, the town is the "real thing," but the way it is presented is not so different from Frontierland in Disney Land. I'm also mildly disturbed by the gunfights. In ninety years are we going to be visiting a touristy version of Compton where actors portraying gang bangers shoot each other to the delight of 22nd Century tourists? The fact that people were going around shooting people in duels or in fights is not a great legacy. It's what people want to see but it becomes a spectacle, not a recreation of the dark and chaotic times that produced those duels. People leave smiling, not disturbed or thankful that those days are gone (although one could argue if they really have gone).

Another troubling thought came to mind, though, and that is could Tombstone have survived without being essentially a theme park? The answer is probably not. True, they could have tried to make it less tacky--a more upscale gallery town, perhaps--but with outany major industry, government center, or college, it seems like it would be hard to create a healthier community. That would take a lot of effort. Who wants to move to Tombstone to start a business or a family today? We also live in a time where most people in this country travel to see spectacles and relax in a similar cultural environment to home but by the ocean or in the mountains, let's say. Tombstone fits the bill. It's a theme park. Because I feel traveling is about experiencing the cultural life of a different place, exploring an environment, and appreciating the architecture of other times, I can't imagine returning.

It annoys me that there often seems to be a choice made between "preservation" and "theme park making" on the one hand and destruction to make way for modernity on the other. The choice is not helped by this age of the corporate chain. If Tombstone were less "touristy" some of those local trinket shops would be Barnes and Nobles and CVS. So I guess the Tombstone I would like to see--a thriving community built around keeping its historical architecture in tack but also attracting a variety of local stores built for both locals and tourists--may be impossible today. Far less tourists would come to that more laid-back Tombstone than the theme park that exists today. On the other hand, there is Bisbee, Arizona, but I'll save that for my next post.

I'm listening to Ray Manzarek's new album on Napster right now. It's the soundtrack to the film "Love Her Madly." You might know Manzarek's name as he was the keyboardist for the Doors. I wanted to mention the record because it is one of the few albums I've heard by '60s artists that maintains a high level of artistic integrity, staying close to the reasons why the artist was good in the first place while adding modern ideas to their palette. Here, Manzarek creates a dark psychedelic landscape, punctuated by organs and electronic elements that never threaten to over-dominate the music and work atmosphericly as opposed to being there just to "update" the music. Not every track worked for me. But, I was wowed by the compositions--almost all instrumental--and at how potent they are. One of the major problems about rock artists past the age of 40 even is that their music becomes increasingly staid, as if all they can talk about is how serene life is. And I'm glad it is for them. But it doesn't often make for good music. Manzarek's new record packs a wallop of a punch and man if it isn't 5 times as good as Pink Floyd guitarist Dave Gilmour's recent record, "On an Island," which will get far more press attention.

LINKS:

Cool story about a town in Indiana that is aiming for powering itself all on renewable energy. Heartwarming on a day when Tony Blair announces the future of energy in the U.K. is nuclear.

Another good environmental story on religious leaders finally taking some initiative on global warming.

This sums up my opinion on rejections of wind farms precisely. Far from being eye sores, I think wind farms look pretty cool and I'm damn happy seeing them as I know they're helping save us from nasty co2 emissions. So they ruin your view. Tough. All that smog isn't natural either.

Floyd's Syd Barrett passed away today. Here's him with Floyd in 1968 in the promo for "Jugband Blues."

In the excellent collection of early Buddhist Suttas, "The Long Discourses of the Buddha," the Buddha makes some cutting statements in the sutta, "What the Teaching Is Not." As I mentioned in my last post, the Buddha appears adamant that one accept praise and criticism with honesty. All too easily, we gush at praise as it confirms that we are on the right track or we snap at criticism. All this is rather irrelevant though and prevents us from honestly progressing as human beings. It's my opinion that we actually know the truth about ourselves but we are often afraid to really look at it. The Buddha's diamond hard teaching calls us to accept what is true and what is not true and address it. Not that we should beat ourselves up over faults or deny praise, but if we are to see things as they are, we need are awareness to be as crystal as possible.

I still debate about other aspects of the Buddha's teachings. In the very next section of this Sutta the Buddha notes that he has not attention to entertainment of any form, comfort, pleasure, power, romance, and questions of doctrine. In essence, the Buddha calls upon his followers to lead monastic lives, although it should be pointed out that these temptations and desires do not disappear in the monastic life. Many modern American Buddhists have rejected the monastic life as essential for enlightenment and have said that enlightenment can arise in situations where desires are more plentiful. The question is--no matter where one is--to avoid attachment. I do agree. However, if I were to renounce my possessions save all that was necessary and work on my desires, I know I would face a difficult path but one that was focused on achieving a true understanding of life and not one that included upon the attainment and maintenance of things, friends, and experiences. I would want to avoid a somewhat sugar-coating of what the Buddha is actually saying. Nonetheless, has my experiences with friends, loved ones, art, music, literature, poetry, travel helped me to gain a perspective on the world, including a spiritual outlook? Without a doubt, yes. And these experiences and entertainments have led me to a passionate outlook on life. Am I too obsessed with some things, too concerned with "ownership" instead of enjoyment (i.e. buying and not renting/borrowing), too overly concerned with chasing those things that bring me pleasure and not enough time on meditation? Yeah, that too.

The question remains though, if the lotus of dharma awareness can be awakened through numerous teachings of experience, meditation, teachings, art, and music one small petal at a time--can one find oneself in a similar place in awareness as had one been furiously only devoted to the path all that time? It probably depends on the person and I don't know the answer. Probably not. However, I do know that life is incredibly rich, and the world of experiences opens doors all the time if one is aware. And the more one is aware the more doors open.

It's July 4th and I'm thinking about America: this huge crazy, sometimes out of control country. As much as I find many things to complain about it from our current administration to a middle-American society that doesn't seem to approach any issue as long as they can guzzle whatever it is they choose. Nonetheless, there are many positive attributes to American society and to our history. Although I am often complaining more than praising today's American politics and society, I don't want to get to the point where that anger or discomfort means we have nothing left to celebrate. Georgia10's post "Freedom" on Daily Kos goes there today. In the article she writes that "Freedom" in America now is "meaningless," nothing more than a catch-phrase used by the radical right to bomb other countries, take our civil liberties away, "muzzling" our press and "bankrupt"ing "our grandchildren."

She notes:

My fellow Americans. They who congregate at parks and houses, who feast today on BBQ ribs and beer. Who love this country and think it's the greatest and it will live forever, but who think nothing of their phones being tapped, or their emails being scanned. Who think nothing of the disturbing similarity between Bush's "signing statements" and royal edicts, who think nothing of a war that wasn't supposed to be a war. Who drink, and eat, and watch the fireworks. They thow back their heads and laugh, celebrating an America that doesn't exist, looking up at fireworks, at the American sky that's bawling.

So sure, celebrate Freedom--she looks so pretty today in red, white, and blue, dolled up for the occasion like a corpse at a wake.

Tomorrow, when the rocket's red glare simmers back down into that seething anger at what our nation has become, when the afterglow fades away and that dark reality sets upon us again, it's back to the status quo. Back to "Freedom," Republican-style.

Happy fucking Fourth of July.

I'm often defensive of Daily Kos against those who call it the radical Left wing of the Democratic Party. I think using swears might not be to everyone's taste, but geez the anger against bloggers for standing up and fighting against the truly horrific actions this administration has done is bizarre. Lying to get us into war with Iraq that has killed tens of thousands, well, the opponents of angry bloggers say, let's write polite disagreements. I also agree with this writer that what is being done in the name of "Freedom" has been appalling. But that does not mean those who celebrate America on July 4th, those who continue to take pride in this country are some sort of naive nitwits who can't see they live in a fascist state. Anger is more than appropriate. But anger shouldn't cloud what is accurate. Despite the heinous misuse of the word "freedom" and despite the evils of this administration, this nation remains one of the most free and prosperous in the world. We need to change course radically and we need to wake people up to the lies and out-of-touch nature of this administration. I think we need to be honest about our history--recent and not-so-recent that is not always pretty. But we do not need to cover everything with dirt and bury our flag in shame. Things have indeed gotten bad but we are not, however, a fascist or right-wing Christian nation. Not yet. Hopefully, never.

I was thinking about this while watching the fireworks because there was a lot of fratties and sorority girls around drunkenly massacring patriotic songs. This type of behavior often passes for patriotism. It made me pretty sick. Those who want to better America are treated as traitors. Those who slavishly praise it, even unintentially mock it through their drunken parties, are the "real Americans." Nonetheless, I don't want to get to the place where that is all I see. Then I become another person who only sees the good or the bad. The Buddha said when someone praises or criticizes the Dhamma and the Sangha do not become elated or angry, think of what they have said, and remark "that is true" for what is true and "that is not true" for what is not true.

LINKS:

Now that I've criticized a writer at Daily Kos. How about I praise one? Kos had this so-sad-its-funny post about Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK)--who is a leader in the debate about keeping the internet open or not. Keep in mind he is Chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, which amongst other things, helps pass legislation regulating or deregulating the Internet. Therefore, its rather shocking that everything he writes about the Internet is not onlywrong but in outer space. I will give him this, though, the Internet is truly "not a truck."

I'm glad that apparently some U.S. generals are balking at a plan to attack Iran. I've not so glad the plan is apparently on the table. Really good interview with journalist Seymour Hersh.

Well, enough politics: Here's Donovan lip-sinking to his "Hurdy Gurdy Man" in 1968.

What the Bleep Do We Know--Down the Rabbit Hole

As my friend Michael put it this is less a sequel or a director's cut, as it is advertised, and more a remix of the original film that I rather disliked (see earlier post). For this new version the directors seemed to be receptive to the criticism leveled at their original film; that the facts presented were unproven or had major caveats to them and that many of the ideas seemed muddled. Their decision to cut many of the rather boring and often cheesy plot sequences in favor of new and archival interview sequences was a good one. The ideas presented on quantum physics are now more clear and discussed in greater depth. Furthermore, some of the more dubious facts were removed or clarified, putting them in a more proper context.

So far so good. After sitting through half the film I still felt some of the "facts" needed still better clarification but I was generally interested and felt I was learning something about a particular view of quantum physics. However, the second half continued to be dominated by Ramtha, the guru of the filmmakers, which gave me even greater pause than the first time around. If the filmmakers were sensitive about the criticisms of the film the first time out and worked to change them, they remained steadfast in keeping Ramtha in. This, of course, means they either felt that despite criticisms of her major role as a commentator in the film she belonged as an important part of the film or felt hand tied by the fact that she is their guru to remove her.

With a better first half, the second half of the film--which deals in the possibilities of self-actualization tangentially related to the possibilities of quantum physics--seems even worse and more out of place than the first version of the film. It seems more a deceptive advertisement for Ramtha brand therapy especially when one considers the possible experts that could be on the screen in her place. The ideas explored seem rather odd too. One reading would be that all negativity is something we need to be freed from so that we can become simple sprite-like beings as portrayed in the narrative. That doesn't seem like true conquering of negativity nor does it place value on what the negativity may be pointing out in perhaps unhealthy ways but that are nonetheless important.

Links:
*I'm going to cut back on the number of links per entry as I realized that, now back at home for a bit, I was neglecting my blog partly because I didn't want to spend the 30-45 minutes collecting and writing about the links I found. I'll still collect just as many links but I'll be spreading them out more. As I don't think any one (all three of you) reading this blog is doing so for "news of the day" we all should still sleep well at night.

David Sirota weighs in on the fantastic victory John Tester received tonight for the Democratic Party nomination for Senator of Montana and how it may affect the kind of successful Democratic politicians of the future. (via Daily Kos)

Keith Olberman on Bill O'Reilly's offensive retelling of history in which the victims of a 1944 massacre in World War II were not the Americans--as is what happened--but were Germans at the hands of the Americans. O'Reilly does this in order to paint the recent crimes in Iraq at the hands of U.S. Marines as not all that important in the broader context. I've never seen Olberman so upset.

Nancy Giles on the recent bizarre decision to cut homeland security funding in New York and Washington D.C. by massive amounts.

The Byrds play "Mr. Tambourine Man" on television (on one of those wacky barren late '50s-early '60s sets with random images: here, giant birdhouses). They look far more raw than they would later playing the same song--dubbed--on the Ed Sullivan Show.

(NOTE: I'm hitting the road on and off for the next three weeks so this may be last entry for some time. Nonetheless, I may find time to get out a post or two, probably without any links)

I watched "What the Bleep Do We Know?" the other night. So much to say about that movie and the informative Wikipedia link above is a really good even-handed, in my opinion, summary of the film and its claims.

In a nutshell, the documentary film establishes itself as a look inside the daring world of quantum physics, then applies that to biology, psychology, and spirituality. Interviews with "leaders" in these fields are intercut with the story of a woman, riddled with anxiety, who eventually learns to be in harmony with herself.

As an experience I found the interviews fascinating and the story of the woman less so as she interacts with very one-dimensional people in her wanderings around Portland. The worst parts of the film are the horribly annoying "cell people," animations of cells that are constantly wacky and, for me, undermine the seriousness of the movie's claims.

But the movie undermines itself in other ways. It presents several "facts" that just are not true or are unproven, presents the findings of respected quantum physicists next to more fringe characters as if they all agree on the same things and further more integrates all of this with interviews with scary guru Ramtha, the 35,000 year old warrior who is channeled through the body of a middle-aged woman. She is also the guru of the films' makers. None of these experts is named until the end of the film, making it seem that Ramtha has as much of a right to be there as these physicists.
What should be a fascinating film about consciousness and quantum physics ends up feeling like a recruitment video for a certain kind of therapy.

It's not that I don't appreciate the film's final message, that we are more in control of our "universe" than we think due to neurology, quantum understandings, and biology. Through meditation and changing perceptions, we really do change more than we think we can. I agree. I also understand the need to present this information in a way that is accessible to the average movie goer. However, it comes off as a bit superficial. All these amazing developments in these fields, and the film sums it up by saying, "don't worry be happy." Hey good advice, but there are far more radical ideas at work here, ideas that really challenge us to build deeper and more meaningful lives for ourselves and our world than just ridding ourselves of our addictions to feelings. At the beginning of the film we are introduced to amazing discoveries in physics but the conclusion seems to say, this means we can all reset oursevles on tranquil mode. I felt I was watching two different movies.

I also don't like being duped into thinking I'm getting these amazing insights--all these experts agree on these phenomena--when some of them are false, one bizarre guru is treated as an "expert," and no challenges are made to any of it. It comes across as a documentary when what it is is a promotional film. That's not to dismiss some of the amazing ideas discussed in it, I still learned a great deal, but I suffered through a lot of chicanery to get to it.

LINKS:
(This oughta hold you for a while...)

The NSA has been secretly gathering data on "tens of millions of Americans."(via McJoan at Daily Kos) As McJoan says, obviously us liberals just continue to be paranoid...but of course nothing unconstitutional could be going on, which is why the NSA refuses to give Justice Department lawyers clearance to investigate the matter.

Constitutional Law scholar Jonathan Turley discusses just how unconstitutional all this is and how bizarre the nomination of the domestic spying tzar Gen. Hayden as head of the CIA is. A Must see interview with Olberman. "I've never seen a president so uncomfortable in his constitutional skin."

Also neo Marxist at Kos posted this interesting article on the possibility of the U.S. beginning to drill in Florida coastal waters despite a ban on off-shore drilling in order to combat Cuba, China, and India drilling in the area.

Excellent Jon Stewart report not only on the former CIA man who questioned Rumsfeld after a speech but on the awful media coverage that followed.

Another Stewart winner. You gotta wait till the end for the clincher.

Al Gore to narrate a documentary on climate change, "Deadwood."

I liked this smattering of wisdom on zen and the game of Go."

I'm glad to read the Pteranadons of Texas are still hot news to some. (via The Anomalist)

Via Cynical-C, this is way bizarre.

Ladies and Gentleman, the Circular Kitchen Doesn't this remind you of a space-age design from a 1950s catalogue? (via Cynical-C) Hmmm...well maybe it will catch on like that "microwave oven" and that "television set."

Bizarre battle over whether Stephen Merritt (of Magnetic Fields) is a racist. My biggest shock, there's actually a three-way debate about Stephen Merritt going on? (via Advanced Theory)

Beatles: "Nowhere Man" Live in Japan (1966)

Just some links today, I don't feel like writing.

LINKS:

Ken Wilber's revamped personal website is looking pretty groovy. For all us Wilber fans out there, yeah, it still has the massive ego photo section but at least this time the Wilber photos aren't flying at us through space.

This hack of Google Maps that shows what will be underwater if/when the seas rise due to global warming can be frustrating to use but its disturbingly fascinating. (via Boing Boing)

The Guardian is reporting on this idea as if its new, but I could have sworn I've heard this universe is far older than the Big Bang before. Like one trillion years older. Nonetheless, it's a pretty mind-numbing theory. (via The Anomalist)

Great live video of the Beach Boys in the UK in 1964 including one of my Beach Boy favorites, "When I Grow Up to Be a Man."