A Guide to Wilberland: Some Common Misunderstandings of the Critics of Ken Wilber and His Work on Transpersonal Theory Prior to 1995

Abstract

This article substantiates the importance of Ken Wilber and his work on transpersonal theory to the psychology and spirituality of human development over the past 23 years. Wilber and his work, prior to 1995, continue to attract ardent controversy, particularly outside of the field of transpersonal psychology. The focus of this article is directed to the identification of a few common pervasive misunderstandings based on recent critiques from writers in psychology. Although Wilber's critical style is at times unnecessarily arrogant, the evidence indicates that the critics' interpretations are not often substantiated and tend to become explicitly or implicitly polemical. This trend is the opposite effect of Wilber's stated intentions of his unifying spectrum psychology. This article is divided into three parts: First is Wilber's actual intentions; second, his major theses; and third, his critical style, with a number of summary hypotheses provided for further study to explain the conflicts between Wilber and his critics.

Understanding Bohm’s Holoflux: Clearing Up a Conceptual Misunderstanding of the Holographic Paradigm and Clarifying its Signifigance to Transpersonal Studies of Consciousness

“…Considering the amount of time that has passed without further discussion, I would welcome any new reflections on this point from Walsh, Vaughan, Globus, Wilber, or others who have the time and expertise to contribute to clarifying these issues. Robert M. Fisher (1997) published a comprehensive assessment of Wilber's work, and cited Globus (1986), but Wilber and Globus' points of disagreement were not discussed.…”

Wilber's Integral Philosophy: A Summary and Critique

“…Wilber's work is not without flaw, and his work has been the target of harsh critiques (Odjanyk, 1993;Schneider, 2001;Washburn, 1994Washburn, , 1995Washburn, , 2003. 4 Fisher (1997) claims that many of Wilber's critics view his work from an absolute view, ignoring his intention to integrate and complement the works of others. But I argue that, indeed, Wilber does approach others' works from an authoritarian stance, subsuming their works as but a subset of his own.…”