Discussion on "Bald Ambition"

 I was able to find no posts discussing Bald Ambition, in which Jeff Meyerhoff critiques the work of Ken Wilber. So I decided to make a post of my own to discuss the book and the reactions people had to it. I’ll preface this discussion by confiding that I’m a busy, 21 year old, second year medical student. So by academic standards, I likely did not give enough time/energy to reading the novel or formulating this response. Nor do I have enough expertise or experience to comment on these matters with much authority. I’ll also note that if a discussion of this topic already exists, then I will delete this post and just take my thoughts to the proper place. Normal.dotm 0 0 1 1288 7346 Kent State University 61 14 9021 12.0 0 false 18 pt 18 pt 0 0 false false false

That being said, I’ll start by saying that this forum is probably going to contain the harshest critics of the book, and that I would probably agree with some of those criticisms. I’ll start with problems I had with the book and list them by chapter. I will again note that I’m only 21 and not even studying these issues in my schooling, so take my musings with a grain of salt :)

HOLONS:

            Here Meyerhoff argued extensively about the definition of a holon and Wilber’s “20 Tenents” concerning holons. He had many specific examples (where Wilber’s definitions didn’t hold up) and sources to strengthen his arguments. I found myself dismissing a lot of these arguments as quibbles and internally applying Wilber’s “It’s a map” argument. If you make the map too specific, you compromise its usefulness. If you try to apply general definitions to specific examples, problems are obviously going to pop up. Meyerhoff did show that Wilber’s “absolute” definitions and tenets did not hold up in all cases. But the core implications and usefulness of the holon concept to Integral Theory was left unscathed. For example, we can still maintain that cells come together to form a higher being in humans. We can then take a leap and suggest the possibility that humans could one day do the same. The methods of this would be debatable, but many believe it is possible by tapping into our shared consciousness, spirit. (the legitimacy of this statement is a WHOLE other debate that at the end of the day relies on your mastery of meditation).

INDIVIDUAL CONSCIOUSNESS:

            The biggest critique here attacked Wilber’s sources. Meyerhoff claimed that Wilber sometimes did not properly represent the people he was quoting and also did not properly represent “orienting generalizations” of the field. He used this to call the developmental scale that Wilber often uses into question (blue—orange—green—teal). He especially calls into doubt the existence of post-conventional thinking (Wilber’s yellow?) by citing experts in the field. In one sense these are legitimate criticisms. There are likely instances where Wilber uses scholars that have other interpretations that he doesn’t mention. There are likely passages Wilber writes that lead the reader to believe that there is more consensus than he lets on. But let’s be real here, that’s going to happen with any book that tries to make a statement. If we are being intellectually honest, it is one of the jobs of the reader to seek out dissenting opinions.

Also, if Wilber’s claims that only 2% of the population being integral are true, then wouldn’t it make sense that the positions Wilber uses might often be the minority? That the majority might doubt the “existence” of a post-conventional stage? And finally, most people do at least agree that human consciousness develops. There was a time in history when the bible was the leading edge of humanity, and most would agree that we’ve developed beyond that stage. Someday in the future we’ll look at the center of gravity today the same way we currently look at the dark ages. It only follows that there is some human development that is beyond the status quo, and that it would probably be a worthwhile pursuit to investigate it.

…..THE REST OF THE BOOK:

            Honestly, the rest of book mostly centered on the debate of pluralism and whether Wilber had properly dealt with it. Meyerhoff continued attacking Wilber’s use of quotes and establishing “orienting generalizations” of different fields. He added claims that Wilber had not properly refuted the arguments of pluralists. Meyerhoff claimed that Wilber’s “self contradiction” attack of pluralists was tired and weak, and that Wilber merely caricatured the pluralist viewpoint to knock down a straw man. I’m certainly entering a long-standing debate here, and totally willing to accept the consequences :). I’m 100% for respecting the integrity of all viewpoints. But I’m also interested in guiding my life in an informed and purposeful fashion, which is hard to do when the definition of a “good life” changes based on where you were born.

 In Meyerhoff’s “A Different Path” chapter he attempts to offer his alternative. He seems merely offer the insight that when we offer reasons for our views, eventually we reach a point where the reason we hold our views is totally arbitrary, and is thus held for psychological (instead of rational) reasons. He also asserts that we should be more concerned with understanding our opponents and our own positions (instead of obtaining absolute truth), and focus more on “leading a good life.” These are both great insights, but I was left feeling greatly short of an alternative to Integral Theory (my biggest problem with the book). His psychological insight is dead on. But when he says, “lead a good life”, he ignores the fact that he’s been spouting pluralism for the last eight chapters. One perspective’s good life is another’s atrocity.

We can’t give up on pursuing an integral perspective that appreciates, but ranks perspectives according to their contribution to humanity’s common goal (highly debatable, but the enlightenment of all sentient beings seems a decent working hypothesis). Yes, at the end of the day we will have to somewhat arbitrarily pick the common goal of humanity in order to integrate all perspectives towards achieving it. But if we don’t decide on some common goal, then (as cliché as it is) we are left in flatland. We are not able to discern the differences between one perspective’s constructed “good life” compared to another’s. I know my analysis is simplistic, but I found that a large portion of Meyerhoff’s criticisms hinged on whether you accepted Wilber’s refutation of pluralism. I took Wilber’s side on this one, because I think pluralism makes it difficult to maintain with any crediblity that you are leading a “good life”. I would like to think that if I was born in another country, that I could potentially reach the same conclusions and guide my life in roughly the same fashion. With pluralism, humanity is fragmented in our apprehension of meaning and purpose in life. With Integral, we can unite our perspectives into some common goal.

CONCLUSION:

Overall, I thought the book did contain useful insights that should be included into Integral Theory. I think its fundamental purpose was to make people aware that Wilber is not the ultimate arbiter of truth. I’m sure there are people out there that just take Wilber’s word as law. He’s so damn articulate and knowledgeable that I often find myself in this trap. The book helps to show that he makes mistakes just like us, he takes liberties he probably shouldn’t sometimes, and he might mislead the reader about the unanimous nature of his claims. Ultimately, the book did not shake my belief in the core tenets of integral theory. And while it did ground me some in my “Wilber is always right” complex, I still greatly respect the man and resonate with much of what he says. Because much of the book’s criticisms hinged on the pluralism/integral debate, I found much of it unconvincing.

A few minor side-notes

1.     I thought it was interesting that Meyerhoff accused Wilber of using the same arguments over and over again. I found myself becoming quite tired of his “Orienting Generalization” and “Psychological foundation of belief” arguments in their respective chapters :)

2.     If you TOTALLY disagree with Ken Wilber based on this book, then do you think that some integral theory should be pursued? Do you disagree with Ken Wilber, or integral theory?

3.     I realize the book is somewhat dated. I’m almost sure that Meyerhoff’s four quadrant critique was addressed by Wilber including zones in his four quadrant model.

4.     I found it strange that Meyerhoff never engaged Wilber in a direct debate. Considering how much time, research, and energy he clearly put in to the novel, it would only make sense to make the time for even a one hour recorded phone conversation. Especially since Wilber claims that many of his critics misrepresent his positions and don’t engage him in direct dialogue.

5.     I realize that this post will lose much of its meaning if you haven’t actually read bald ambition. The link is here. http://integrallife.com/node/add/blog-post

6.     I didn’t like how long the book was. This was probably because I only took 5 or 6 “good” criticisms out of it. So a lot of it I found to be fluff or repetition.