Talk:Ken Wilber/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Medi(t)ation needed?

This article doesn't correspond with the standards of quality for Wikipedia. For instance, when speaking of Ken Wilber's Wyatt Earpy posts, there was no full explaination of this situation. I have added the reference to shadow work post, which completely explains the official point of view of Ken Wilber. The fact that this wasn't done before leads me to think that Wikipedia is taken as a ground for promoting several websites, links to which were abusingly put into the body of the article. (For instance, the reference # 34 (see http://www.kenwilber.com/blog/show/46 and a number of successive blog posts. For a summary with links to the whole controversy, see Frank Visser "The Wild West Report") violates POV, since it implicitly suggests Frank Visser's summary is a neutral summary of the event, however the conflict of interests is obvious, for Visser is the guy who was criticized ("attacked") by Ken Wilber. That is why I added the reference to KW's explaination for readers to compare.) If there would be no progress, I would suggest mediation for this article, since even a person who is not familiar with KW's works will be able to arbiter and successfully bring the article to higher standards.

The criticism section might be improved, since, for example, I doubt that Arvan Harvat's criticism (who's that anyway?) should really be put into the article, since it incorrectly represents Ken Wilber's position. I don't think this criticist even understands what nondual teachings are (it is not obvious from the paragraph included into the article). The quotation by Meyerhoff is biased and unsupported, it is just a state of his opinion without arguments, and again it may violate POV. Was it his book that was not accepted by many publishers anyway--or it was another author? So, the criticism should be chosen more carefully, especially this is the case with online references. It is true that any person who is not too competent can publish his opinion on everything online but it is not the case for Wikipedia that this opinion can be included. In overall, I think the article can be improved without a lot of effort from editors. Eli the Barrow-boy 00:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV issue

The recent edit wars have left this article in a very bad state. What should be the main section, on Wilber's ideas, has been shortened considerably, and any "endorsement" given to him, to indicate his standing in his field, has been removed, ostensibly for NPOV. And the result is that one-third of the article is spent on criticism of Wilber's works - and that violates the NPOV policy, I believe. From the Wikipedia NPOV tutorial, in the "Space and balance" section:

Information suppression ... Some examples of how editors may unwittingly or deliberately present a subject in an unfair way:
Biased or selective representation of sources, eg: Explaining why evidence supports one view, but omitting such explanation in support of alternative views. ... Not allowing one view to "speak for itself", or refactoring its "world-view" into the words of its detractors.

If Wilber's theories are so bad, that should speak for itself. At the moment, it feels like someone has googled "criticism of Ken Wilber" and put everything that could be found in the article. Is there another writer whose Wikipedia page has one-third spent on attacking his/her ideas? 58.179.6.7 16:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tend the agree that the criticisms section is too long, but I'm not sure I have the energy to fight that battle right now, personally. However, I don't necessarily agree either that the article is "in a very bad state" or that Wilber's ideas should be the main section of this particular article. Given the extent of Wilber's work, I don't think any more than a very brief overview should be included on this page. Better coverage of his ideas can be found (rightly, I believe) in the articles concerning specific aspects of his work.

That said, if you're willing to get involved in the edit war that will inevitably ensue, feel free to "streamline" the criticisms section as you see fit. --Grey 14:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Wilber has criticized and alienated many, and that is why there is so much criticism. His attempt to create "a theory of everything" by absorbing everyone else in a borg like synthesis inevitably requires his criticism of all those who developed the components of this theory but do not agree with all of what he has done. Because Ken wants so much to be right on everything, yet lacks credentials backing his assertions, while criticizing so many in so many areas, broad criticism is justified. Just because he's incorporated some valid ideas doesn't justify where he has taken them. His anti-scientific views, advocacy of unsavory spiritual figures, personal claims of high spiritual state while making caustic attacks on anyone who doesn't agree with him, etc. all deserve some criticism. Editors have been more than fair to an obvious narcissist in the process of self-destruction. Don't even think of trying to make this article a pro-Wilber propaganda piece. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.117.249.66 (talk • contribs)

I believe in your good will, yet I have to point out that you have to support your criticism with references. Until then it is only your opinion. Anyway, the criticism section must exist, and it must be formulated according to POV rules, however it must include only valid criticism from valid sources and -- yes -- it should also include Wilber's answers to this criticism, if there any. He did incorporate many of the criticisms in his further works, and his theory should be considered as an evolving not static model. I agree with you, the criticism section should be extensive, but perhaps it would be a better idea to create a separate article for criticism, so the article would be reader-friendly. Eli the Barrow-boy 19:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Wilber and Deep Ecology

Ken has stated that he was the founder of spiritual ecology at different times, and critiques Deep Ecology views as "flatland". With his ascentionist anthropocentricism, based upon the Great Chain of Being of the neo-Platonists, it would seem that his human centred views miss the real natures of evolution and ecology, as despite his championing of Gaia theory, it seems he doesn't understand the nature of whole or part. John D. Croft 08:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I THINK WE SHOULD WRITE ALSO THAT HE IS A THEORIST, WHICH IS MAINLY WHAT HE STRIVES FOR AND WRITES ABOUT, AND NOT JUST CRITIQUES,ETCCÇ.MORE THAN AND AUTHOR OR THINKER, LESS METHODIC AND SKEPTIC THAN A PHILOSOPHER. WHAT U THINK? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.139.138.234 (talk • contribs)

Time References In Articles

More recently, Wilber wrote Sex, Ecology, Spirituality (SES), (1995), the massive first volume of a proposed Kosmos Trilogy. A Brief History of Everything (1996) was the non-footnoted, popularized summary of SES in the form of an imagined, extended interview.

"More recently" applies to the previous paragraph, but there is also an implied meaning of "recently." 1995 is not recent especially because the subject has published as recently as the writing of these comments, 2007. I think an encyclopedia article should refrain from being chatty, and strive to be timeless. Therefore I suggest using the word "subsequently" in place of "more recently." AlvinMGO 12:48, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. — goethean ॐ 17:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Academia or not?

OK, it looks like we need to discuss the wording of the beginning of the second sentence in the article -- i.e. "Working outside academia..." or "Working outside mainstream academia...".

The word "mainstream" was first removed on the grounds that something can be out of mainstream and still be academic, which seems like backwards reasoning to me. It actually sounds like justification for keeping the word "mainstream", because Wilber does do "academic" work, but not "mainstream academic" work. See, for example, the accredited Integral coursework and degree programs at John F. Kennedy University and Fielding University, which are being done in partnership with Integral Institute, as well as the AQAL Journal, which covers Integral Thought in a very academic/scholarly manner.

So he does indeed do academic work sensu lato, but perhaps not "mainstream" academic work. On these grounds, I'm putting the original version back (i.e. with "mainstream") until someone can support the position that Wilber works entirely outside all forms of academia. --Grey 19:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, just realized that the original version with the concept of "mainstream" is worded slightly differently from what I've written above -- i.e. "Working outside the academic mainstream...". --Grey 19:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Qualifications / Education

Can anybody write something on the topic of Wilber's academic credentials? (What degrees has he attained, has he received any honours, etc.?) Perhaps he only has a bachelor's degree?

New Age?

Hadn't we resolved this "New Age" debate many moons ago? (See talk archive 3) Why do we need to deal with it again? I recommend just removing the reference entirely, like we did way back when. --Grey (talk) 09:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can take it out of the infobox if you want to make the description of him more acurate. I'm not familiar with him, I just copied some data from the lead paragraph. Hewinsj (talk) 14:57, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sourced to Washington Post. Fireplace (talk) 15:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One book reviewer/science writer calling him a "New Age guru" hardly counts as an authoritative source to justify classifying him as New Age in an encyclopedic description of him, particularly not in the very first sentence, as if that's the most important descriptor of him and his work. In fact, Wilber would not use either the term "New Age" or "guru" to describe himself.

Regardless of the cultural baggage of the term "New Age", the fairly objective problem with the term is that it focuses on spirituality, while Wilber's work certainly includes spirituality, but goes far beyond that to include all sorts of other disciplines. Tagging him as New Age right from the first few words of the article about him severely understates (at best) what he's all about. At most, we could say, at some point in the article (i.e. not the first line), something along the lines that his views on spirituality "bear certain similarities to" aspects of the New Age movement. --Grey (talk) 16:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here are more reliable sources which describe Wilber as New Age:

Wagner, Matthew (2006-05-19). "Bayit Hadash leader fired for sexual misconduct". The Jerusalem Post. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
de Cea, Abraham Velez (2006-01-01). "A new direction for comparative studies of Buddhists and Christians:evidence from Nagarjuna and John of the Cross". Buddhist-Christian Studies. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
Hogan, Ron (2005-08-05). "New Age: What the Bleep? Categories conflate, confound, connect". Publishers Weekly. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
Byrne, Peter (2002-03-20). "The Rabbi Who Would Save the World: Michael Lerner has won many followers with his ideas for world peace. But if all he is preaching is the Golden Rule, why is he so controversial?". SF Weekly. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
Conway, Ronald (1996-10-05). "From the swamp to the divine". The Australian. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
Gold, Philip (1996-06-02). "Vaporous politics of meaning". Washington Times. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Fireplace (talk) 17:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~I recommend that someone add these citations to the article in order to avoid future disputes. — goethean ॐ 17:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]

The above list has, of course, been aggressively cherry-picked.

— goethean ॐ 18:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Cherry-picked"? I don't see a conflict with any of the links you provided. I'd be fine with something like "Ken Wilber is an American author and has been alternatively described as a "mystical philosopher," "New Age guru," "integral theorist," or "East-meets-West philosopher."" Fireplace (talk) 18:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the archives of this page, you will see that there was a long debate with a very aggressive Wilber-basher, 271828182 (talk · contribs), who insisted at long length that Wilber should not be called a philosopher in the article.

Because the Library of Congress[1] places Wilber's books in philosophy, psychology, and "Occult Sciences" (New Age) about equally, I think that it would be most accurate to call Wilber an "American author who writes on psychology, philosophy and the New Age." This would conveniently side-step the issue of whether Wilber himself is a philosopher, thus hopefully satisfying the Wilber-bashers, of which there are several who occasion this page. — goethean ॐ 19:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with the way it reads now. I would also be fine with something along the lines of the suggested "has been alternatively described as...". Just as long as the article doesn't say anywhere "Wilber is a New Age [insert word]". --Grey (talk) 10:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wilber has been quite dismissive of the "New Age movements", eg. in SES, Note 44, he wrote: "The various New Age movements claim to herald such a worldwide consciousness revolution. But ... these movements fail across the board." Therefore it's a travesty to call him a "New Age thinker" in the Infobox. I'm changing it to the more neutral "Integral theorist". Actually the best description would be the obvious and accurate "philosopher", but let's not rekindle that issue. (It's obvious that he's a philosopher because his main subject is philosophy. Skeptics should note that even if Wilber's ideas are totally wrong, that would make him a bad philosopher, but still a philosopher.) Leafhopper (talk) 13:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This depends on how you define "New Age" - e.g. Wouter Hanegraaff includes Wilber in his review of the New Age. "Philosopher" is also vaguely defined, it may mean anyone who has ideas, or it may refer to being accepted formally by academia. "Integral theorist" is not be the best term for a different reason - Wilber himself coined the phrase "integral theory" (so it's like saying "Buddha was a Buddhist" :-) Anyway I edited the page accordingly M Alan Kazlev (talk) 22:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's obvious that he's a philosopher because his main subject is philosophy. Skeptics should note that even if Wilber's ideas are totally wrong, that would make him a bad philosopher, but still a philosopher.

By that standard, L. Ron Hubbard is a psychologist. But it would be ludicrously tendentious for Wikipedia to call Hubbard a psychologist. Therefore, Leafhopper's proposed standard is wrong. And likewise, Wikipedia calling Wilber a philosopher is equally wrong. But really, let's not rekindle that issue. I am content with the current formula ("American author who writes on psychology, philosophy and the New Age.") as the least bad option I've heard. 271828182 (talk) 00:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism Section has gone in the wrong direction again

The criticism section shouldn't be for those within his community of Integral and transpersonal theorists - what about Albert Ellis? It needs to be more generalized, or otherwise I find it to be promoting a POV agenda. just my thoughts, do as ye wish PhiloWisdom (talk) 15:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)PhiloWisdom[reply]

Rarely mentioned in peer-reviewed academic journals?

What about Google Scholar? There are several hundred citations. So "rarely mentioned" doesn't represent the facts, does it? --Pevos (talk) 19:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the Google Scholar hits are for different "K Wilber"s, and most of the other hits are just matches of his book titles, not peer-reviewed journal articles. 271828182 (talk) 02:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't matter. It is not relevant whether or not he has been published in peer reviewed journals. Further, that is obvious WP:OR, and if it is to be included, it must have a source which actually says that. I will also remove it from the criticism section, as it has no source. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 07:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it IS relevant whether his work has stood the test of peer review: This, for better or worse, is how academic work is judged, and ideas that aim to be taken seriously among experts must pass this "litmus test". Anyone can publish any rubbish he or she wishes in a non-refereed book, but the peer-review process aims to weed out incorrect work and work based on usnound methods, lending an increased credibility to articles so published. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.223.202.213 (talk) 10:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wilber's holism

"...although you are made of parts (your nervous system, your skeletal system, etc.), you are also a part of your society" is a point of confusion. Wilber (Integral Spirituality, chapter 7, A Miracle Called "We") says that an individual holon cannot be a part of a social holon. Therefore I replaced the relation person/society by the relation cell/organism and put a footnote. --Pevos (talk) 10:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changes in the Introduction

"Wilber's work ... criticized as denigrating emotion": In Grace and Grit, One Taste and Integral Psychology he is not at all denigrating emotion. In any case, this is WP:OR. - "...and for allegedly failing to distinguish philosophy from Vedantic and Buddhist religion": This should be moved to the criticism section. --Pevos (talk) 19:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Translation?

I just came across this guy a few minutes ago via a youtube video of one of his "lectures". Anyway, thought I would pop over here to see what WIKI said before checking him out correctly. Now, I have to say, I have read the disclaimer on this article, but never-the-less can anyone please translate this article into recognizable English so I can work out exactly what the hell his theories are? Perhaps this is his fault, during the video he kept expressing the importance of "I amness" what ever the hell that might mean. However, I always thought it was a general encyclopedias function to explain sometime complex subjects to the uninformed reader? Anyone help with this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.2.169.209 (talk) 02:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I amness is a sense of one's own inner being or livingness. Thanks, SqueakBox 02:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have the impression that the article is less informative than it could be because it has a history of editors trying to make Wilber appear more influential and grander than he really is. The result is a weasly article that is difficult to assess. I know nothing about Wilber other than what I see on this page, and I certainly have nothing against him, but, New Age or not, it appears to be clear that he is a "New Agey" type of thinker who hails from the Aurobindo corner. This is stuff that was very much en vogue in the 1980s, and I imagine he made some good money back then, but from a distance, it all seems a little bit stale and uninteresting now. But then that's as subjective as the attempt to tout him as a great thinker, of course. dab (𒁳) 17:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for additional biographical information

I note that the third paragraph of the biography section mentions that Wilber was married "for a second time" in 1983 to the woman named therein. To whom was he married before then, if this assertion is correct? (Came here from a mention on the Wikipedia page for the musician Stuart Davis that Davis was married to Wilber's ex-wife, named there as "Marcia." All I can find elsewhere is that Marcia Walters was Wilber's girlfriend in 1998, as per the Utne Reader. If this request is irrelevant, please delete it and accept my apologies. Thanks!) 128.135.181.186 (talk) 19:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He was married a second time to Terry, as stated in Grace and grit. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Holoarchy

Why does holoarchy redirect here? The word should be mentioned in the article. ··gracefool ☺ 04:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed it so that it redirects to Holarchy. — goethean ॐ 14:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources

Quote from Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Reliable_sources: "Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, and blogs as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article" Pevos (talk) 10:07, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"rude boys" quotation

The quotation that I removed can be added back in. I just didn't think that it was appropriate in that location in the article. — goethean ॐ 00:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism section

It's odd, and not in line with Wikipedia policy, to have commentary on a figure only from one side (negative critique). See the following quote from WP:Criticism: hgilbert (talk) 13:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Criticism: criticism is most commonly taken to mean negative evaluation, but actually includes positive and negative evaluation. Despite this, it is recommended that in article headings one uses the title "Reception" to indicate criticism sections."

I agree with Hgilbert; the heading should be changed to "Reception", especially since Wilber is also an author. All is One (talk) 14:37, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder why all the "critics" (should I say "receivers"?) mentioned are all so mixed. There are many much more vociferous and even thoughtful, PUBLISHED critics out there, and many more extreme devotees/book endorsers. Shouldn't they have some say, instead of just four people who have mixed feelings?Tao2911 (talk) 19:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and make changes to the section. — goethean ॐ 21:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I made a couple. I think they help. Happy to hear what other people think.Tao2911 (talk) 22:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Claim that Wilber does not consider himself Buddhist

According to Ken Wilber, One Taste (1998, Shambhala), p. 351., he says “I am a longtime practicing Buddhist, and many of the key ideas in my approach are Buddhist or Buddhist inspired. First and foremost, Nagarjuna and Madhyamika; pure Emptiness and primordial Purity is the ‘central philosophy’ of my approach as well. Also Yogachara, Hua Yen, a great deal of Dzogchen and Mahamudra, and yes, the fundamentals of Abhidharma…. Again, I’m trying to take the best from each of these traditions and bring them together in what I hope is a fruitful fashion."

Has anybody verified the 2003 source given in the article where he purportedly does not call himself a Buddhist?

With two conflicting sources, it might be better to remove that sentence. However, you could also argue that the more recent citation is valid since he is a dynamic and changing individual.

Timothykinney 04:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"His writings are critical of the New Age Movement."

The supplied references, consisting of a single sentence from Wilber and a dead link to a personal website, are insufficient sources for this very broad claim about Wilber's writings, even in its now-weakened form. Accordingly, I am adding a citation needed template. A broad claim like this should be referenced to a secondary source. I doubt that there is a secondary source which makes this counter-intuitive claim about Wilber. — goethean ॐ 15:05, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have added other references. Though, this has not much space in his writings. In various books of him you can find just half a sentence critical of New Age, and that's it. It doesn't deserve to be mentioned in the article and sureley not in the lead. --Pevos (talk) 09:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see why "New Age" is considered counter-intuitive. The language of integral a la WIlber and his modifications to Spiral Dynamics all have the character of new age thinking. Given that Wilber feels that he has created a theory of everything it is no great surprise that he denies that he can be categorised. Cowan and others have criticised him for this. --Snowded ^TALK 11:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was saying that the source cited was insufficient for the counter-intuitive claim that Wilber's works are critical of the new age.[3] — goethean ॐ 14:47, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks for the clarification that makes more sense. --Snowded ^TALK 17:50, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wilber's works are critical of the New Age. Just make a search with Google Books. You will find various short but unequivocally critical statements about New Age. --Pevos (talk) 18:26, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To be precise he sees it as the part of the sixth stage, that he thinks he has transcended. I think that the issue here is that WIlber thinks his theory will encompass all other theories so will reject any categorisation. Related to the recent edits, I am not sure of the authority for the use of "Philosopher". A directory of spirtitual thinking in education is not as convincing as an directory of Philosophy or similar. He is not in Oxford for example. Mind you if Ayn Rand can be called a philosopher any one can. --Snowded ^TALK 18:33, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then remove both, philosopher and New Age.--Pevos (talk) 18:43, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why? New Age is pretty clear and given the lax way in which philosopher is used in Wikipedia its OK. --Snowded ^TALK 18:58, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But move it to the Reception section. Agree? --Pevos (talk) 20:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not opposed to it being in the reception section as I don't think it really belongs in the lede. however it would be useful to hear Goethean's argument here, rather than in brief summaries in direct edits to the article. (Just a question by the way, is there a reason you don't follow wikipedia conventions on successive indentation of comments?)--Snowded ^TALK 21:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not too committed to having the new age language in the intro. I would caution editors to look at past talk page conversations on the subject. Highly critical, skeptical, dismissive editors have inveighed about the article in the past and have insisted on placing the new age phrase is where it is now.

If I remember correctly, Wilber's comments on the new age label is that the new age section of the bookstore sells more books. I believe that that comment is from the CD interview "Speaking of Everything" — goethean ॐ 23:09, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"E.com: (...) However, the reality is that if you go into Barnes & Noble, you find your work in the New Age section, and that must be really galling. KW: It would be, except the New Age section gets eighty percent more traffic than any other section. E.com: There you go. KW: [Laughter.]" from [4] --Pevos (talk) 07:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier in the same transcript, Wilber indicated that he does not consider his teachings new age. That can be added to the article.

KW: No, what’s happening right now is that one of the main things we wanted to do with the original one hundred million dollars was to get it to as many people as possible doing work in this field, the general field of integral studies and integral endeavors. That’s one of the reasons that I started Integral Institute, to act as a funding source for people doing this kind of work because the marketplace doesn’t reward truly integral studies as all. It rewards New Age approaches to it, it rewards the experiential workshop approach, as it were, it rewards the green meme and the purple meme and everything in between, but it does not reward truly integral studies.

Wilber thinks he has transcended New Age thinking, its part of his ideology. Barnes and Noble sound like they have it right however. --Snowded ^TALK 16:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Everything is part of an ideology. Some realize it and others don't. — goethean ॐ 16:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well not everything, I think we can avoid post modernism etc. However in this context you are correct. Other than wanting to state the obvious was there any purpose behind that comment? --Snowded ^TALK 17:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hanegraaff

I deleted the reference to Hanegraaff because in his book "New Age religion and Western culture" he refers to Ken Wilber as proponent of transpersonal psychology which is not up to date. See THE DEMISE OF TRANSPERSONAL PSYCHOLOGY. --Pevos (talk) 23:12, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or better: I suggest to move the sentence to the Reception section and formulate it like this: Due to his early romantic phase (see pre/trans-fallacy), Wilber in the past was classified as New Age (ref Hanegraaff). --Pevos (talk) 09:30, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Writing that Wilber is New Age could harm his reputation (@Goethean, I guess you think it couldn't; @Snowded, I think you would agree it could). Therefore I want it in the Reception section, if at all. See WP:BLP. --Pevos (talk) 18:32, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP is not a license to do whatever you want with the article. You can't just say that anything that you want to remove from the article will harm Wilber's reputation. Well...you can say it, but don't expect anyone to take you seriously. — goethean ॐ 18:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see, I've posted it on WP:BLP/N -- Pevos (talk) 19:03, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reception/Grof

...and his [Wilber's] excessively absolutistic statements.[36][37] Grof has also noted Wilber's "often aggressive polemical style that includes strongly worded ad personam attacks and is not condusive to personal dialogue." - I think this violates WP:BLP and should be removed. --Pevos (talk) 09:34, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are some interesting statements from Cowan in respect of his inability to counter opposition that might substitute --Snowded ^TALK 09:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is well sourced and the text correctly attributes the statement to the author. Therefore it does not violate BLP. — goethean ॐ 14:40, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I refer to Biographies_of_living_persons#Criticism_and_praise --Pevos (talk) 15:33, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Grof's statement seems to be okay by those guidelines. — goethean ॐ 16:13, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More precisely, I mean in could be WP:LIBEL. --Pevos (talk) 17:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You will have to make a case for the absurd idea that accurately quoting Grof will somehow make Wikipedia in danger of being sued for libel. — goethean ॐ 17:37, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Libel is not necessarily about accurateley quoting and I am not speaking about a danger of Wikipedia being sued but about harming the reputation of a person. --Pevos (talk) 17:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LIBEL is about preventing Wikipedia from being sued for libel. — goethean ॐ 18:37, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to separate discussion of Integral Theory from Ken Wilber biographical information

As some of you may know, there is currently discussion going on and work proceeding on a major renovation of the "Integral movement" page on Wikipedia. As part of that process, I have come to the conclusion that the time has come to separate "Wilberian theory" (a.k.a. "Integral Theory") from the biographical information on Wilber himself.

Specifically, I propose that (a) a new page be created entitled "Integral Theory", which will be a subpage of the "Integral movement" page or integral studies portal of whatever eventual title it has (and accordingly the current re-direct from "Integral Theory" to "Integral movement" be discontinued), (b) the entire section under "Wilber's holism" (i.e., all the information specifically about Integral Theory) be moved to the "Integral Theory", and a brief introduction added so that the article doesn't start abruptly at a discussion of holons, and (c) the article's discussion of critical reception be divided into two parts, criticism specific to Wilber as a theorist -- e.g., the charge that he personally engages in ad hominem (which could remain with this article), and any criticism of the theory itself -- which surprisingly in this article is very slight -- which would be moved to the new "Integral Theory" article.

Why? Simply, the field has evolved since the article was first drafted. Integral Theory is no longer exclusively identified with Wilber, and competing theoretical models and alternative methodologies are part of the dialogue in the emerging integral studies field. Note that I'm not proposing expanding the article at this time, however I forsee that it may be expanded in the future, and continuing to add information about "Wilberian theory" exclusively at the site that is about one theorist alone is logically incongruent. Joeperez69 (talk) 05:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC) Joe Perez[reply]

It makes some sense, though people like Jürgen Habermas, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel or Hans Küng don't have their biographical informations separated from their theories. --Pevos (talk) 14:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The content on Wilber's philosophy should be located at Wilber's article. That is standard practice at Wikipedia. If the section on Wilber's philosophy gets too long, it can be moved to Philosophy of Ken Wilber, just like Philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche. That other figures have engaged with Wilber's philosophy in dialogue has no bearing on the matter. There are plenty of other theorists in the same position and we don't move the content on their teachings somewhere else. — goethean ॐ 14:34, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The issue relates surely to the question of whether or not integral theory originates in Wilber, or if he is one amongst many. Yes his philosophy remains on his page, but it is a different take if he is the originator, or just a recent variation of a longer tradition. Goethean appears to argue above that Wilber=Integral and that others have subsequently engaged with the approach. If I am wrong on that G say so, but its how your intervention above reads. There could be an argument for a disambiguation page which covers the issue and then links to other articles such as Integral (movement), Integral Theory, Ken WIlber etc. --Snowded ^TALK 14:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Integral does not merely refer to Wilber. The term integral is associated as much with Aurobindo and his followers like Haridas Chaudhuri (and to a lesser extent CIIS and Gebser) as it is with Wilber, so an article on Integral (whatever) can't simply concentrate on Wilber alone.

Grof, Ferrer, and Hanegraaff have all referred to Wilber's theory as a type of transpersonal theory, and that is how I see it. Since Aurobindo, Chaudhuri, Gebser, and the other 'integral' theorists are also transpersonal theorists or theorists who believe in transpersonal stages or states, I see little difference between the terms transpersonal and integral. However, Wilber distinguishes sharply between transpersonal psychology (whose demise he has repeatedly announced), and "integral theory", which he seems to identify solely with the his views and the views of those influenced by him. I note that the views of our contributor Joeperez69 appear identical to the views of Wilber on this matter. — goethean ॐ 16:19, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That would point to a summary article (possibly a stub) on Integral theory more or less saying in an expanded way what you had said above with links to other pages. That might include Integral (movement) which I think is in popular understanding linked to Wilber. I am assuming that Joeperez69 is Joe Perez in which case his work is linked to Wilber who has endorsed his books. From what I have seen I favour the position that Integral does not just refer to Wilber, thanks for clarifying your position. --Snowded ^TALK 17:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Snowded: that's me, Joe Perez. Lots of people have endorsed my book. :) BTW, I have no formal affiliation with Wilber's think tank except as a rank and file member (i.e., subscriber to its publications) as are thousands of others, and promise to take pains to adhere to Wiki's neutral POV requirements.

Spiritual thinkers and some philosophers wrote for decades before Wilber on similar themes, and a few even used the word "intgeral". Wilber defined a new variation with his books in Wilber IV in the mid-1990s that he called Integral Theory with capital letters, and he calls his theory Integral with a capital I. In the past 14 years, there have been many developments. The one that I am most concerned with is the emergence in 2008 -- 13 years after Wilber started promoting Integral Theory -- of an scholarly field of study mature enough to host its first academic conference on the methodology called Integral Studies which includes Integral Theory as one of its methodologies. Integral Theory itself is now no longer associated strictly with Wilber himself, but is an evolving discipline with many contributors. CIIS is probably the best known of these programs that contribute to Integral Studies, and it preceded Wilber and has faculty known for not being particularly friendly to AQAL, his methodology, yet who contribute to the Integral Studies field. (The field, BTW, is certainly scholarly, and it includes a roster of dozens of academics engaged in interdisciplinary (they call it "trans-disciplinary") research, however it is not widespread (which is NOT to say that it is "unaccepted" only that it is not *practiced* and largely ignored by academia, a different situation altogether from the most common definition of "fringe" which would be a movement like Creationism), a fact that needs to be noted prominently. Note that the keynote address at next year's Integral Theory conference is by Robert Kegan, the tenured and highly esteemed developmental psychologist at Harvard School of Education. Integral Theory, I think we all agree, is NOT all of the movement or phenomena going by the name of integral, which includes strands such as the Aurobindian that preceded Wilber by decades and have continued to evolve separately in dialogue with his contributions. Not all of those integral movement factions, however, are part of the Integral Studies programs in universities, and the latter is my focus. To illustrate the point another way: the last book published by Integral Books (on "Integral Life Practice") featured Ken as one of four co-authors, and it includes refinements by quite a number of theorists (some of whom have been published in various peer-reviewed scholarly journals) and overall the book can hardly be described as simply "Wilber's book". By what principle are the other authors of the book (Terry Patten, Adam Leonard, and Marco Morelli) who have contributed to a methodology called ILP denied an examination of their work except under Wilber's article? I'm happy to provide references for any claim I've made in this paragraph to those with less familiarity with this specialty, as I think it's a factual account. Is any of it disputed?

Given this, it seems that Goethean is primarily concerned with treating Wilber parallel to philosophers such as Neitzsche. But I would argue that Nietzsche doesn't have a body of living, breathing academics and scholars publishing amendments, revisions, and developments in his philosophy and calling it Nietzschean Theory or what have you. (Actually, arguably this is the case, given the influence of postmodernism in academia, but let's leave that tangent aside.) So in order to include the material about the Integral Theory body of work at the outskirts of academia, it is important that it be treated separately from Wilber. That doesn't mean that it couldn't ALSO be examined at the Ken Wilber article, so long as the Wilber article only discussed HIS particular ideas and not any future developments in Integral Theory apart from his contributions.

Goethean, your example of Hans Kung is close to our current situation, though not exact. Kung is a Christian theologian and contributed to a definite pre-existing body of knowledge which continues, and his followers are not called Kungians but simply Catholic theologians in sympathy with his methodology and work. Wilber, however, is basically the founder of a field of scholarly inquiry that built on predecessors whose work has not been nearly as influential on the scholarly side of things. So it makes sense for Kung's theology to be treated at his page, and for it to be linked to the entire world of Catholic theologians; what I am proposing is something like a Catholic theology page for the Integral Theory field. Would it alleviate your concerns, Goethan, if the basic material remained at the Ken Wilber article but it was largely duplicated in a separate Integral Theory article that also included non-Wilber developments? I would have proposed that idea myself, except for my concern with redundancy. Also, I know from the Integral movement talk page that at least a few years ago some editors expressed concern that the information about this range of topics was already disproportionately large. (BTW, I don't agree with that. As I see it, the problem isn't that the field is treated with too much detail, but that the content is inaccurate, confusing, poorly cited, and redundant on the aspects of integral that it does cover.) Given the concerns about article length, I don't see much of a need to expand on what is already contained on Wikipedia on Wilber's theory itself. However, I am open to duplicating a discussion of the same themes at an Integral Theory article, if a consensus of editors supports such duplication.

Snowded, while I agree with your points, I'm not sure that I understand your rationale completely, and don't know what your conclusion is (if you have one at this time). It's absolutely true that Integral doesn't refer just to Wilber, but there is a define body of work called Integral Theory which is both (a) a development of his work and those of others in his think tank, and includes contributions both critical and appreciative, by many others outside of his think tank, and (b) separate from the integral spiritual/"philosophical" movement at large, if there is such a thing as Alan Kazlev has rightly questioned, because there are folks calling themselves "integral" including adherents such as the Aurobindians who still call themselves integral based on a usage of the term that far precedes Wilber, and others influenced more by Gebser or Claire Graves or other strands that have little to do with Wilber. So to be clear, my proposal is to create a new page for Integral Theory (with the capitalization just like that, as is done in the field), apart from an integral portal page of whatever name of some kind to be determined. At this time, I am leaning towards renaming the "Integral movement" page "Integral Studies", focusing its entire content strictly on the academic field, and then including links to various other usages of "integral" such as Aurobindian and Paul Ray's use of the term in "Cultural Creatives" in the disambiguation page for "integral". That's not yet a formal proposal though, as the "Integral Studies" page itself must largely still be drafted and it must pass muster.

Finally, let me say that I am friendly to the idea of creating other pages for the integral field of study as well, simply because the entire field of integral studies (distinct from the nebulous "integral" usage) is treated by Wikipedia at this time in a very confusing and inaccurate fashion. I am currently working on a specific proposal and hope to have something developed to the point of an actual proposal within a week or two. This discussion at "Ken Wilber" I started specifically because I do not want to unnecessarily duplicate Wikipedia's discussion of Integral Theory if it can be avoided. I know this is a lot to read. Thanks to everyone for following along & contributing. 75.151.102.50 (talk) 19:58, 10 January 2010 (UTC) Joe Perez[reply]

Hi all. As Goethean rightly points out, use of the word Integral is certainly not limited to Wilber. As Joe notes and I agree, Wilber's Integral Theory has recently become an academic discipline or body of knowledge not limited to Wilber or the Integral Institute, but obviously sympathetic to his writings and strongly based on them. I suppose a good analogy would be Freud and Psychoanalysis (although Integral Theory is still far less intellectually diverse than Psychoanaylsis). So I support two pages here. Some of the material on the current Integral movement page can be copied over to Integral theory.

Goethean's observation that Wilber is referred to by Grof, Ferrer, etc under the rubric of transpersonal theory should certainly be acknowledged and cited with appropriate references on the relevant pages. That Wilber himself rejects that interpretation would also be mentioned and cited. Ditto classification of Wilber as New Age or New Paradigm (actually there should be a wikipedia page for New Paradigm as it is an oft-used term, even if intellectually imprecise) and his rejection of the label (all these terms are pretty amorphous anyway)

If Integral Studies can be shown to be notable in itself then the term can be used, but so far it seems to me to have the same ambiguous and meaningless definition as Integral movement or Integral philosophy; e.g. Integral studies as used by the CIIS is very different to Integral Studies as defined by Sean Esbjörn-Hargens. Perhaps Integral Studies can be another disambiguation page, pending a more precise and established definition.

Integral in the sense of unspecified reference to Aurobindo, Sorokin, Gebser, Wilber, Laszlo etc can perhaps best become a disambiguation page, and the current Integral movement page would redirect there. Alternatively Joe Perez suggests (and I previously did) redirecting Integral movement to Integral Theory. A third option, if we do decide to have a page called Integral studies, would have it redirected there. M Alan Kazlev (talk) 22:12, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems sensible to have an article on integral theory (by the way, Vladimir Solovyov wrote a book titled the The Philosophical Principles of Integral Knowledge in the 1870s, with significant overlap!) as well as' a significant section on Ken Wilber's philosophy in this article. There can be cross-references, etc. Both are important, both are significant - as Kierkegaard and existentialism are independent yet interrelated themes. hgilbert (talk) 22:54, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that a sort of consensus is emerging. Or is it too early to hope? There appears to be agreement on the following:

The "Ken Wilber" article should have a section on integral theory as it does now, with information specifically about *his* contributions to that body of knowledge. Since there's already this sort of information, I think it would just need to be updated once the broader integral issues are ironed out. I initially hoped to avoid duplication, but I see the point that others have made that some duplication is warranted. I think the distinction should be that the Integral Studies/Integral Theory article would focus on the broad field of scholarly research known as Integral Theory (Wilberian, with many contributors), whereas the Ken Wilber article would focus exclusively on his own contributions.
The current "Integral movement" page is probably unsupported, and could be replaced by additions to the "integral" disambiguation page that would redirect traffic to (a) Integral Studies/Integral Theory, (b) Integral Yoga as used in Aurobindo's school of thought, (c) the "cultural creatives" article on Paul Ray, to capture that sense of the term, and (d) any other vague uses of the term "integral" that are notable enough to appear in Wikipedia but are not covered by any of the above. I don't have anything in mind for (d), but it's possible that there might be something.
A new page on Integral Theory/Integral Studies is warranted, which will be focused on the scholarly area of inquiry and emerging academic field that is called "Integral Studies".

Note that exactly how the Integral Theory/Integral Studies pages are structured is open, and I for one want to wait until I further develop the material for this in order to have a concrete proposal to offer.24.35.116.92 (talk) 23:37, 10 January 2010 (UTC) Joe Perez[reply]

My understanding is that Integral Theory and Integral Studies are distinct. Integral Theory I would identify as being based on AQAL and methological pluralism, Integral Studies is much broader M Alan Kazlev (talk) 03:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alan wrote: "Integral studies as used by the CIIS is very different to Integral Studies as defined by Sean Esbjörn-Hargens. Perhaps Integral Studies can be another disambiguation page, pending a more precise and established definition." I did a quick cross-check at the Integral Theory Conference web site and noticed that CIIS associates were in attendance in 2008, invited to 2010, and at least one faculty member (Sean Kelly) presented at the ITC. Could you elaborate on your point? Are you saying that CIIS as a whole represents a distinct school of thought? Any independent sources? I'm dubious, but if you're correct, then naturally when a second Wikipedia article was warranted for the competing CIIS methodology then the disambiguation could be handled at that time, no? Joeperez69 (talk) 03:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC) Joe Perez[reply]

My impression is that for the CIIS "Integral Studies" - as part of the title (California Institute of Integral Studies) would include the entire syllabus (why else call it the California Institute of...). This definition goes back to Chaudhuri. Esbjorn-Hargens, while certainly sympathetic to and receptive to alternative definitions, focuses instead of the AQAL/Integral Theory approach. That's what I mean about them being different. I'm not implying one is better or worse. And you are right, it may require simply a disambiguation page, emphasising the two different definitions. Of course this is only my own heresay understanding, so if you can provide authoritative references to the contrary I will acknowledge that and change my view on the matter. I don't think that attendance or presentation at a conference alone is notable enough, although certainly it can be combined with more authoritative references M Alan Kazlev (talk) 03:47, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So would you be adverse to naming the Wilberian integral page "Integral Studies", noting that entry on the disambiguation page, and then allowing that other programs called, say, "Integral Studies (CIIS)" or what have you could be added later if warranted? I ask because I am leaning towards the proposal to name the article "Integral Studies", as this is now the term used by the proponents themselves, who regard Integral Theory as a sub-set of "Integral Studies", as well as a smattering of independent sources that I am researching. "Integral Theory" could be a subset of the "Integral Studies" article or a sub-page, depending on the amount of material that needed to be handled and the total length of the article(s). Joeperez69 (talk) 04:59, 11 January 2010 (UTC) Joe Perez[reply]

Joe, I'm not comfortable with using Integral Studies solely in a Wilber/AQAL/Integral theory context. e.g. here's an Aurobindonian application of the term. I also looked for 3rd party references on Google web, book, and scholar search, but couldn't find any (admittedly i only gave a preliminary search). Wilber uses the term, sure, but taht means it can be included under his page. For it to deserve a seperate page others would have to use it in different contexts. Unlike Integral Theory, atm I don't think Integral Studies aka AQAL/Wilber/whatever is well enough established. At the same time I sympathise with your desire not to limit Integral Studies to Integral Theory, although i am not sure how you or others who use both these terms distinguish the two. Could you point me to some references which cite Integral Studies in the way you are using the word? Thanks! M Alan Kazlev (talk) 06:28, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also saw that Aurobindo site while doing research today, and predicted your objections. I am basing the article entitled "Integral Studies" as the term is used in the AQAL Journal, Integral Review, and Integral Leadership Review, the three major peer-reviewed academic journals that I know of. When the draft is ready, I'll post it for other editors' feedback. As I find other sources, I will be adding them as well. I would suggest that disambiguation is the solution once again to your concern that the two fields with identical names could be confused. Would you be comfortable with "Integral Studies" for the Wilberian article, and something like "International Centre for Integral Studies" or "Integral Studies (Aurobindo)" for any future article that might be warranted for the latter? The two are really very distinct, with "Integral Studies" in the broad Wilberian sense being an emerging field in academic discourse and the latter not being a phenomenon in US academia. I think we agree that these need to be kept separate, and both deserve any warranted article in the wiki, so I hope the name of the article itself isn't too much of a sticking point, since it's quite common in the wiki world for topics with the same name. Joeperez69 (talk) 09:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC) Joe Perez[reply]

As far as I can see so far the debate here (and its lengthy) is between people who are a part of the Integral Movement, and leaders in some cases. Now there is nothing wrong in this per se, but it would be nice to have some independent material. Are there any studies, not from within the Inegral (whatever) that provide a reliable source to summarise the origins of the concept and its current state? --Snowded ^TALK 09:49, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wouter Hanegraaff is independent, and he doesn't refer to 'integral' at all in Wilber's sense. (integral wilber+integral) He uses 'transpersonal'. (wilber+transpersonal)

Snowded, there are already some independent sources in the wiki articles online and on the user page that I'm in the process of developing (that you have previously seen) & more on the way. Bear in mind also that when scholars (as opposed to popular writers or magazine editors) write about integral, they usually publish their thoughts in one of the integral journals or the Integral World site because that's where the action is, and this is not a sign per se that they are somehow "in the tank" for integral. It's pretty well known that Al Gore and Bill Clinton have both been influenced by Ken Wilber, and Clinton just brought up Wilber in the big Foreign Policy interview last month on the philosophical influences of his worldview. But they're not exactly academics, are they? :-)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.35.116.92 (talk) 16:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC) Joeperez69 (talk) 16:44, 11 January 2010 (UTC) Joe Perez[reply]

Snowded, re: "the debate here (and its lengthy) is between people who are a part of the Integral Movement, and leaders in some cases". I am a published author with an interest in integral theory and one of thousands of general members of I-I, Wilber's think tank (which basically means I get access to their web site's video content and can post on the discussion forum). Alan Kazlev is noted on Frank Visser's as web site a "Weak Negative" critic of Wilber's. I don't know who the rest are, but I'm sure everyone here including you are awesome people. :) If you feel it's relevant, be sure to let us know any biases or affiliations you may have as well. Joeperez69 (talk) 16:53, 11 January 2010 (UTC) Joe Perez[reply]

My identity is fully transparent joeperez, you can gain access to my articles and read my blog. I appreciate a similar openness on your part. However I do think we need some material from outside of the Integral Community if this is to be properly grounded.--Snowded ^TALK 18:57, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree. I just hope that when we've tracked down the sources that nobody will say "Sure, Professor X may be the Chair of Developmental Studies at Harvard University's School of Education, but he sits on the board of Integral Instiute or was published in an integral studies journal, so he's one of the 'Integral Community' and his opinion doesn't count." Still doing research... Joeperez69 (talk) 19:36, 11 January 2010 (UTC) Joe Perez[reply]

"Integral theory" vs. "integral studies"

Titling the new article seems to have raised a separate question; I'm not quite sure why. Wilber and related writers consistently use the term "integral theory"; there is a Biannual Integral Theory Conference, Wilber's book is titled this way, articles such as this and this use this terminology. Clearly this should be the name of an article on this work. To use integral studies would both substitute a quite unusual terminology for the normal usage, and run the danger of considerable confusion due to other usages of this term.

There is, however, a reasonable case made above for having an article on "Integral Studies" programs in universities, which would be quite another kettle of fish.

BTW: I have no affiliations with Wilber/Integral at all!hgilbert (talk) 17:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hgilbert, actually both terms are used in the academic journal literature, and those sources clearly indicate that "Integral Theory" is a subset (along with other integral methodologies and "Integral Practice" of "Integral Studies"). Since we're talking about a general article that would be the main page, logically the most general title is ideal. That said, you're not the only one to find the use of the term potentially confusing, so I'm not sure if I'll propose it or not in the final version of my proposal. I'm still reviewing the secondary literature, and identifying the terms most widely in use for the academic side of things. 24.35.116.92 (talk) 19:23, 11 January 2010 (UTC) Joe Perez[reply]

Just a quick note to say that developing my proposal for changes to the Ken Wilber and Integral movement articles isn't going to happen overnight. Since I'm a new editor at the wiki, I want to take the time to read up on the nuances of editing Wikipedia articles and review cases of editing controversies and arbitration decisions in philosophical/spiritual movements and such before proceeding. I will have some noncontroversial fixes to one or both of these articles in the near term, but the major work that I see needing to be done will take quite a bit longer. In the meantime, I would be curious to hear any other editors' opinions about using the two articles on Rudolf Steiner and Anthroposophy as a model for how the articles on Ken Wilber and Integral Theory could be divided. Also, look at the template (with "Part of a series on Anthroposopy") as a model of how the entire group of articles related to integral could be presented. I find these two articles (to which Hgilbert contributed, BTW) very well written and cited and would be pleased if at the end of my contribution to this cluster of articles on integral in the next few months the end result were something like these articles. For links, see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolf_Steiner

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthroposophy