Marty vs. Ken Wilbur

So Marty recommends reading Ken Wilbur's "a brief history of everything" a couple weeks ago - and I wonder, now that I am half way through the book - How did Marty miss Ken's viewpoint? Ken launches into the different stages of development from an infant to an adult. Well, I am not using "adult" correctly according to his scheme of things, since he is really referring to the changes in awareness one progresses through from the narcissistic view point of the baby to wider and wider world views.

It seems to me, Hubbard was stuck into the narcissistic level of child developement at the lower levels of Ken's observed progression scale (below) The us or them mentality, is actually a low level of development, and interestingly it is a big part of cult think. Though Ken is not directly discussing Scientology, what he is saying is pretty damning of cults in general (and Scientology in particular) and fundamentalist religions, for their lack of world view.

Levels or stages

The concept of levels follows closely on the concept of lines of development. The more highly developed you are in a particular line, the higher level you are at in that line. Wilber's conception of the level is clearly based on several theories of developmental psychology, including: Piaget's theory of cognitive development,[16] Kohlberg's stages of moral development, Maslow's hierarchy of needs, Erikson's stages of psychosocial development, and Jane Loevinger's stages of ego development.

One such scheme describes the ethical developmental line, for example:
Egocentric (similar to Carol Gilligan's 'Selfish' stage) This is where Hubbard seems to be stuck developmentally- everything has to do with his ego and the ego fulfillment touted by his tech
Ethnocentric or Sociocentric (Gilligan's 'Care' stage)This seems to correlate with the cult mentality - our group is the only group - which defines Scientology
Worldcentric (Gilligan's 'Universal Care' stage)
Being-centric (Gilligan's 'Integrated' stage)

From Wiki. My comments in red. So, how did Marty miss that? Marty says that Wilburs book validates Scientology, but the whole concept of the super ego OT has nothing whatsoever with Ken's higher states of ascension. In fact, he (Marty) is so enamored with Hubbard he says this:
The indirect validations of Scientology in his chapters dealing with spiritual and philosophical evolution are remarkable, particularly when one sees there are no mentions of the subject, and no indication the author has any familiarity with Scientology.
Am I to believe there was no valid spiritual research in the known world beyond Scientology? Thus, I guess that statement pegs Marty at the Egocentric level of a newborn child, only caring of it's own self.


Mimsey
 
I can understand why Marty would like Ken Wilbur and would use him to validate Hubbard
Wilbur writes voluminous mind numbing bullshit, just like Hubbard

Less is more.....
 

Teanntás

Silver Meritorious Patron
So Marty recommends reading Ken Wilbur's "a brief history of everything" a couple weeks ago - and I wonder, now that I am half way through the book - How did Marty miss Ken's viewpoint? Ken launches into the different stages of development from an infant to an adult. Well, I am not using "adult" correctly according to his scheme of things, since he is really referring to the changes in awareness one progresses through from the narcissistic view point of the baby to wider and wider world views.

It seems to me, Hubbard was stuck into the narcissistic level of child developement at the lower levels of Ken's observed progression scale (below) The us or them mentality, is actually a low level of development, and interestingly it is a big part of cult think. Though Ken is not directly discussing Scientology, what he is saying is pretty damning of cults in general (and Scientology in particular) and fundamentalist religions, for their lack of world view...."

I began to feel uneasy about Wilber when I found that he was countenancing someone like Andrew Cohen after I had read a good deal of his works and saw that they could have value in developing a philosophy and a praxis for life

http://www.integralworld.net/lane9.html

Then I got other points of view on Wilber such as this

The cult of Ken Wilber
by
Michel Bauwens
What has gone wrong with Ken Wilber?
I used to be a great fan of Ken Wilber and his Integral Theory. As I was searching for a more integrated and inclusive understanding of personal and world processes in my twenties, and confused by all the different competing theories and techniques, the first book I read by Ken, Spectrum of Consciousness, was truly illuminating to me. What if all these western psychologists, with their various theories on the ego and how to care for it, where in fact complementary to each other? And in addition, what if the eastern theorists of paths beyond the ego, where themselves complementary to each other and to the Western points of view? What was needed was to find to right context in which to recognize the relative truth of each perspective, and to pursue truth as a combination of such partial perspectives. Thus, I've found Wilber's developmental structuralism to be very convincing, and not only that, emancipatory, since it not only offered a path for personal development, but based on his hypothesis that psychogeny equals sociogeny (the development of individuals is reflected in the development of society and vice-versa), it held out great hope for future developments. As a consequence, I read pretty much all he published over the years, at least 90% if not 100% of the thousands of pages that comprise his eight volumes of Collected Works......................................

http://www.kheper.net/topics/Wilber/Cult_of_Ken_Wilber.html
 
Top