Ken Wilber (The Matrix Dictionary)
Ken Wilber is the New Age answer to Richard Dawkins. Both are biologists who want to be philosophers instead of the philosophers. Both are in love with Charles Darwin and his theory of evolution. Both want their own discipline to be the answer to all the riddles of the universe; both therefore ends in two versions of reductionism (Social Darwinism). And, both are in that degree marked by not being competent philosophers.
I will begin with an investigation of the nonsense-language of Wilber´s system, and end with a comment on how he is responding to criticism.
Ken Wilber has sought to bring together the world´s far-ranging spiritual teachings, philosophies, and scientific truths into one coherent and all-embracing vision. In the above article I show how Ken Wilber´s integral method belongs to a group of large New Age systems, which have emerged in the wake of Theosophy, and which therefore exposes totalitarian and fascistic tendencies. See my article A critique of Ken Wilber and his Integral Method
Ken Wilber´s philosophy is an example of disguised nonsense, as it exists in cultish surroundings. What I have noticed in certain critics of Wilber, is that they fall into the trap and are accepting using Wilber´s nonsense language, whereby they unintended are sanctioning it. This won´t happen in my critique.
Discovering an Integral Civic Consciousness in a Global Age, is a Free eBook by John Bunzl (download it here). The Ken Wilber website Integrallife.com presents the book with the following words:
In an age of global crisis, why does the idea of global governance remain a such a taboo topic? Here John Bunzl posits a civic line of development, suggesting only those possessing a worldcentric level of civic awareness can fully comprehend global problems and the need for binding global governance.
Ok, not so much nonsense so far. But here is the abstract from the book:
This article asks why, in an age of global crisis, global governance still remains a low priority for the integral community. It posits a civic line of development, suggesting only those possessing a worldcentric level of civic awareness can fully comprehend global problems and the need for binding global governance. I argue that modern (orange altitude), postmodern (green altitude), and even low vision-logic (teal altitude) worldviews still see global problems nationcentrically rather than worldcentrically. I explore this limitation in light of destructive international competition; a key and potentially catastrophic phenomenon that, it is argued, shows why only a worldcentric, late vision-logic (turquoise altitude) civic consciousness can disclose solutions to the global crisis. Ways in which green and teal altitude split off these realities are suggested, providing clues to how turquoise civic consciousness may be accessed and how the integral community may thus play a fuller, more effective role in global transformation.
And here is the beginning to the introduction:
Civics entails the rights and duties of citizenship and the role citizens have in establishing, shaping, and overseeing government at any level (Altinay, 2010). Civics is founded on citizens’ perception that governance is actually necessary; that it is functionally required to solve societal, environmental or economic problems at a particular level, be it local, national, or global. If, for example, a citizen could not perceive national-scale problems, or mistook them as being of a merely local nature, she would see no need for national governance at all. Her civic consciousness would be merely local or ethnocentric. Such a citizen would recognize only their local authority or tribe as functionally required and would likely see any higher levels of government as superfluous, wasteful and suspicious.
Ok, so far so good. But now a little disguised nonsense is slowly introduced:
Those at orange altitude or higher, on the other hand, recognize national government to be required in addition to local governance. Their depth of civic consciousness thus has two levels. Yet, in an age when our problems are increasingly global and threaten our civilized survival, it is notable that very few citizens see any need for a third level, that being global governance. Indeed, for the vast majority of people, including those up to teal altitude, civic consciousness remains, as I will be arguing, at best nationcentric. The emphasis on global civics indicates that global problems must first be perceived as such; a worldcentric perception that indicates that merely technical solutions or national (or local) politics cannot suffice. Instead, a vertical transformation toward a form of binding global governance is necessary.
And now - full speed disguised nonsense:
I distinguish the civic from the political line of development in the Lower-Right (LR) quadrant by noting that civics is fundamentally about the perception, by citizens, of a need for governance. Politics, on the other hand, is what happens after governance (or formal government) has been established. Civics, in that sense, is prior to politics. The Civic Holarchy. Like all lines of development, the proposed civic line tetra-evolves and manifests in all four quadrants. Civic holons are most obvious in the LR quadrant, in what I will be referring to as “the civic holarchy.” This is the holarchy of our institutions of governance that has evolved and bonded together human societies from the earliest hunter-gatherer bands, through to Middle-Age city and small-states, and up to present-day institutions of national and global governance (Wilber, 2000; Wright, 2001).
It begins good, but just a few lines further it develops into nonsense. You might say that there must have been an explanation of the used terms. No. But then the Wilber devotees must use another language when speaking to outsiders. No. They speak this language to everyone they meet. I talk out of experience here. And if you don´t understand it it´s because you are on a lower level than them. It is as if they are thinking: “Ok, now I will show this philosopher how to think by giving him a full lecture in my Ken Wilber language.” Well, I´m an educated philosopher with competence to evaluate philosophy-students on University level, and if someone came with a paper like this it would have been rejected at once.
The book is nonsense but not patent nonsense, it is disguised nonsense. This is because it sounds incredible clever and logical, and it is possible to learn to speak and understand it. But the characteristic Wilber jargon is nonsense. You really didn´t have to write a book filled with so much disguised nonsense in order to say with a few words: only people with a higher spiritual consciousness can lead globally. The problem is that when you mix all this with the Ken Wilber nonsense system, it becomes an ideology with a goal: The Ken Wilber movement (the Global Integral Life Community) wants world governance, and only Ken Wilber supporters have a consciousness so high developed, that it is them that must be the rulers.
I have insider knowledge of what I without hesitation will call the Ken Wilber Cult. Besides having had many discussions with Wilber devotees, my cousin is a Ken Wilber fan, though with bad experiences from attending insider meetings. He has told me about those. As the American Clinical Psychologist and Cult researcher Margaret Thaler Singer says, then a typical trait of a cult is that the newcomers have to learn a kind of groupthink and a language, a jargon, and that outsiders are lesser beings.
I have never been a member or supporter but, as a paranormal researcher, I have attended meetings. You feel like Alice in Wonderland when she attends The Mad Tea Party. If you are speaking English rather than “expert” jargon, the Wilber supporters respond to you as though you were ignorant or simpleminded. Plain English is, like at The Mad Tea Party, not spoken. As Alice declared: “The Hatter´s remark seemed to have no sort of meaning in it, and yet it was certainly English.” It wasn´t Alice´s fault, and it´s not yours (see my Pop Culture File on Alice in Wonderland). Strategists play what Ludwig Wittgenstein called bewitching language games. The Wilber jargon is not the patent nonsense which Alan Sokal, in his famous Hoax, exposed many postmodernists to be speaking (see my article The Sokal Hoax) – rather it is disguised nonsense. Both the Wingmakers Project and the Human Design System (both, like Ken Wilber, inspired by Theosophy) have in the same way developed their own jargon (see my articles Time Travel and the Fascism of the Wingmakers Project, and A Critique of the Human Design System).
In his article The Rise and Fall of Ken Wilber Mark Manson reports from a Ken Wilber weekend seminar:
Major global and social issues were often only referred to in passing as descriptors for a certain level of consciousness development with the overarching implication being that “they” are not as highly developed as “we” are. We’re “second-tier” thinkers. We’re going to change the world… as soon as we’re done talking about how awesome and “second-tier” we are.
So, what about the great enlightened masters, there must certainly be room for them as the coming world leaders. No. This Wilber himself has demonstrated in his view of “lines of development” in relation to the great enlightened master Ramana Maharshi, whom, in Wilber´s eyes, can´t be considered as an “integral” master, because he was a cripple. Wilber directly says, that they don´t want sages, who are crippled, in his system. His reason is, that a future world teacher – that is: an integral master, a master that fits into Wilber´s system – has developed “both the gross body, the subtle body, and the causal body.” Pure fascism from a man who on pictures doesn´t hesitate to promote himself shirt less, so we can see his weight-trained torso.
In the same way as the Wingmakers Project and the Human Design System, the most disturbing in the Ken Wilber Movement, is the use of meditation as propaganda tool. When you use meditative exercises in combination with the introduction of an ideology the exercises will work as a kind of hypnosis where the ideology is implanted into the meditator, whose critical faculties now are shut down. Note that it doesn´t matter if they call the meditations they use for Buddhist meditation, Christian, Jewish, or any other cultural meditation tradition. When it is combined with an introduction to a certain ideology, in this case Ken Wilber´s system, it will function as hypnosis. I have explained such ideological persuasion techniques in my articles Hypnosis, hypnotherapy and the Art of Self-deception, and especially in The Devastating New Age Turn within Psychotherapy.
The worst place on Integrallife.com is where Ken Wilber himself is presenting a meditation technique called Having no Head: a Pointing-Out-Exercise. The pointing-out instruction (which Wilber´s exercise is plagiating) is coming from the highest meditation practice in Tibetan Buddhism called Dzogchen. Only a fully enlightened master can do this. The website say:
“Keep an open mind,” we like to say, “but not so open your brain slides out.” But what happens when you open your mind so fully that you end up temporarily misplacing your entire head? Well that’s enlightenment, baby! [wauw, they know what they are talking about, right] In this short 8-minute pointing-out meditation, Ken [Wilber] offers a brief but profound taste of your already-enlightened nature, revealing an ever-present consciousness that has been with you since the beginning of time.
A proof that Ken Wilber is a fake. Keep a long distance from it! You are not presenting a pointing-out exercise in this careless way to anybody (and it is actually making me a bit angry). It´s as simple as that. Dzogchen can only be practiced by students who are very close to enlightenment already, and a Dzogchen master is able to say whether you are ready or not with one look. They simply don´t teach this to anyone. They do it theoretically, yes, but not in practice. A Pointing-Out instruction in practice (a look, a word, a touch on the shoulder or on the head) to someone unprepared could end in psychosis.
The way meditation is used in a true spiritual practice can be shown in a very simple quote by the Buddhist philosopher Nagarjuna:
I have no view of my own. My critical arguments are simply reduction to absurdity of the views ignorance has created.
In the following I have copied and pasted an introduction to a video by Ken Wilber about how to start your integral life. Click here. The main mistake, besides all the other mistakes I have mentioned in my article, is very shortly said that he instructs us in What we shall think in accordance with Wilber´s system, and not how we can think for ourselves.
The introduction sounds:
We’ve heard a lot from Ken over the years about the Integral model (quadrants, levels, lines, states, and types). And we’ve all likely experienced for ourselves the enormous clarity [sic] and understanding integral thought can bring to our lives, our inner-worlds, and the many nested realities we find ourselves in. But this video isn’t just about the edifice of “integral thought”. It’s also about the kind of thinking that can produce something like the Integral model in the first place.
Watch as Ken offers an in-depth summary of the three integrative principles, nonexclusion, enfoldment, and enactment, which he uncovered while putting together his Integral Methodological Pluralism framework — a robust meta-paradigmatic scaffolding that seeks to honor, include, and integrate multiple paradigms and methodologies and practices across all domains of human knowing.
Although these three principles are intended to help thought leaders [sic] make their particular fields of knowledge more expansive, comprehensive, and complete, they can also be taken more generally by the rest of us as three essential qualities of the integral mind, and can be used as an ongoing micro-practice to help us see more fully, communicate more skillfully, and discover the best and most effective solutions to whatever problems we happen to be facing.
These three regulative principles—nonexclusion, enfoldment, enactment—are principles that were reverse engineered, if you will, from the fact that numerous different and seemingly “conflicting” paradigms are already being competently practiced all over the world; and thus the question is not, and never has been, which is right and which is wrong, but how can all of them already be arising in a Kosmos?
These three principles are some of the items that need to be already operating in the universe in order for so many paradigms to already be arising, and the only really interesting question is how can all of those extraordinary practices already be arising in any universe? -Ken Wilber, The Many Ways We Touch
[Wilber has in this way introduced, not only a totalitarian ideology in normal sense, but an ideology which supposedly also should be able cover the whole of the Universe, and other universes, if such exists, which they apparently do according to Wilber (the theory of the multiverse). Wilber does the usual trick of introducing relativism in the same way as totalitarian systems always has done: it relativizes all views within the system, except the system itself. Note that Wilber apparently is against relativism and reductionism, without realizing his own hypocrisy and gaslightning. Here we can talk about megalomania which wants something (see my article The Difference Between Philosophical Edication and Ideological Education]
What are the three principles of integral thinking then?
The video starts:
Principle 1: Nonexclusion — “Everyone is right” [also the critiques of Wilber´s system? The Wilber devotees I have spoken to have patronizing said yes. Also the critiques are included in his system]
Nonexclusion means that we can accept the valid truth claims (i.e., the truth claims that pass the validity tests for their own paradigms in their own fields, whether in hermeneutics, spirituality, science, etc.) insofar as they make statements about the existence of their own enacted and disclosed phenomena, but not when they make statements about the existence of phenomena enacted by other paradigms. That is, one paradigm can competently pass judgments within its own worldspace, but not on those spaces enacted (and only seen) by other paradigms. -KW
[note how the system already now has attained the role as a fatherly authority and superior judge on all the kinds of truths which anyone might claim. It is really like a father talking to his children. All these truths are now functioning as marionettes in Wilber´s hands].
Principle 2: Enfoldment — “Some are more right than others” [could that maybe also be the critiques of Wilber´s system? Again the answer is a patronizing yes as long as they remember that they only are first tier thinkers, while Wilber devotees are second tier thinkers].
Everybody can be right because some views are more right than others. None are wrong [relativism in a nutshell, though not in the version of being equally true (this is why Wilber obvious thinks that he isn´t a relativist). But there are different versions of relativism, for example in the version that no views are wrong, but some views are more “interesting/fascinating/aesthetical” than others]; some are simply more inclusive, more encompassing, more holistic, more integrative, more depthed, more transcending-and-including—endlessly. But the fact that molecules are more inclusive than atoms does not mean that we can get rid of atoms, or that atoms can be jettisoned, or that atoms have no real truths to offer just as they are. To be a partial truth is still to be a truth. -KW [at truth within Wilber´s integral totalitarian truth. Disguised self-contradictory nonsense. It continues below]
The nonexclusion principle goes a long way in helping us to integrate a plurality or multiplicity of paradigms (and thus develop a metatheory that is true to the phenomena enacted by the social practices of an integral methodological pluralism). But even within nonexclusion, numerous conflicts arise, and how to integrate those becomes a pressing issue. This is where the second integrative principle, that of unfoldment, can be of help. -KW
Principle 3: Enactment — “If you want to know this, do that”
Most “paradigm clashes” are usually deemed “incommensurable”—meaning there is no way for the two paradigms to fit together—but this is so only because people focus on the phenomena, not the practices. But if we realize that phenomena are enacted, brought forth, and disclosed by practices, then we realize that what appeared to be “conflicting phenomena” or experiences are simply different (and fully compatible) experiences brought forth by different practices. Adopt the different practices, and you will see the same phenomena that the adherents of the supposedly “incommensurable” paradigm are seeing. Hence, the “incommensurability” is not insurmountable, or even a significant barrier, to any sort of integral embrace. -KW
All quotes by Ken Wilber: The Many Ways We Touch: Three Principles Helpful for Any Integrative Approach
Wilber´s response to criticism
Ken Wilber has tried to make an evolutionary theory of everything. But any theory of everything implicates the so-called nondual bias. Nondual bias arises when you describe something as nondual, while forgetting that you can´t describe anything without implying the negation of it.
Ken Wilber calls his theory integral, claiming that criticism already is included in it, and just makes it stronger.
But Wilber is also known to get almost childishly angry over critique. So, in his view there are apparently honest criticism and dishonest criticism. Honest criticism is the form of criticism which makes his system stronger. I just wonder what that kind of critique is? A Wilber-sanctioned form of critique?
In his article What We Are, That We See. Part I: Response to Some Recent Criticism in a Wild West Fashion, he is getting really angry over critique, and is imaging himself as Wyatt Earp constantly facing challengers. It seems like he is identifying his nonsense-intellectual system with the nondual truth itself. He does not seem to realize that a system can´t be nondual, since it always will be facing the negation of it. So, if someone dares to criticize it, it is as if he believes that the critic had criticized this nondual truth itself.
Wilber seems to require that if critics should be taken seriously, they must accept his system in advance, and thereby accept their roles as first-tier thinkers (on a lower mental state than Wilber is). According to Wilber you can have discussions about elements within his system, which thereby contribute to the growth of his system, but the system itself is unquestionable true. In fact, Wilber can only take a critic seriously if he somehow is a supporter of his system, or said in another way: the unknown truth a critic might come up with, can only be accepted as truths if they are fitting into Wilber´s idiosyncratic beliefs. Somewhere in the article, which is lesser filled (though not completely as you will see) with emotional attacks on critics and exaggerated thoughts about his own intellectual brilliance, he writes:
Any honest criticism that I find I take seriously, at least long enough to see if there are any important truths that I might be missing. There is an old saying, “You do not understand your opponent’s ideas until you can argue them better than he can”—and I take that seriously. Some critics are fantastic in the number of new truths you can learn from them; and some critics are just worthless—I mean Meyerhoff is adolescent postmodernism 101 with an attitude; I’ve already gone over his ideas 10 times more acutely than he has, and I did so years ago. This is why such critics keep saying things like, “Well, um, gosh, I guess Wilber in his latest writings has started to move in the direction I recommend, but, um, I’m gonna attack his old ideas that he held a decade ago cuz I really want to get noticed. If I take down Wyatt Earp, I’ll make a name for myself overnight.” But please notice that the reason that “my recent writings” (although the ones you critics are referring to have actually been out there now for over FIVE and sometimes TEN fucking years, you morons)—but the reason they have “moved in this direction” is that a decade ago I began reading the people that these critics just discovered, I fully got what they were saying (I can explain them a hell of a lot better than the critics’ loopy writings have), and I immediately INCORPORATED their important perspectives and truths into my work, which was one of the reasons for moving from wilber-4 to wilber-5.
But in general, good criticism shows me new areas that I can include. I FUCKING LIVE FOR GREAT CRITICISM, IT MEANS MORE TRUTH FOR A MORE INTEGRAL MODEL.
In short, it’s just ridiculous to say that I try to hide from this criticism, I live on it! Every new truth I find, I rejoice. That’s why it went from wilber-1 all the way to wilber-5. This is what second tier does automatically anyway, it takes new truths wherever it finds them and weaves them into larger tapestries. It can’t help doing so! If I find one, I am ecstatic! So mark this well: Only a first-tier mentality would even think that one would run away from good criticism. But then these folks…. Okay, I won’t even take a shot at that one, too easy.
This is also the surrealistic kind of discussion you are getting involved in if you talk with Wilber´s disciples. That he in this article writes so childish (the above quote is light in comparison with the rest of the article), and hereafter not is deleting it as a moment of lost control, is apparently because that this writing style also is something he can find justification of in his system (if he should decide to delete it I have saved it in the Internet Archive - click here). The article is a part of his “Wyatt Earp series”, and written in a “Wild West fashion”. So, if critics, like me, might think that Wilber in this article is going too far into a use of emotional language (unacceptable in philosophy), then this is because they don´t understand that this is an integral part of his system as well. Wilber is sometimes talking about shadow projections, but such are also being justified as elements in his system. So, just like Hegel, Wilber´s historicist evolutionary theory of everything can be used to justify just about anything as steps upwards on the evolutionary ladder, which in itself can´t be questioned. It has developed into a totalitarian ideology. An ideology is characterized by that it doesn´t accept critique (see my article The Difference between Philosophical Education and Ideological Education).
I guess it is the thought about that also criticism (and also all thoughts which anyone in the future will come up with) already is a part of Wilber´s system, that make his followers believe it is so brilliant. Wilber has already philosophized everything, not only in this Universe, but also in all other Universes, the Multiverse as he calls it. But in reality it is just a ultra-light version of Hegelian dialectics, which is the philosophy behind both Communism and Nazism. It is Orwellian doublethink.
Fundamental speech is an act of creating. And unspeaking is uncreating. If we turn to Tolkien´s philosophy, you can say that the two sides of the One Ring are ideology and will to power. Gandalf will not utter the words on the Ring in the Black Speech of Mordor in the Shire, but only at the Council of Elrond in Rivendell, and even in that safe and holy place the words summon something of the presence of their Hellish source: “Ash nazg durbatuluk, ash nazg gimbatul, ash nazg thrakatuluk agh burzun-ishi krimpatul.” (One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them, One ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them).
So the power of deception, which is over others´ minds (symbolized by the invisibility given by the Ring), is an essential complement to the power over others´ bodies and lives and actions, which is also given by the Ring. Wilber´s Ring-system is the wish for total power over all. You don´t learn how to think for yourself in Wilber´s Ring-system, as you do in philosophy, you learn how to speak Wilber´s nonsense-language, and to repeat his ideas, like the Sophists taught. And people can only be accepted if they fit into the preconceived dogmas of the system. Wilber´s disciples can´t deny that this is precisely what they do and what they are taught. We have seen it a lot of times before. Machiavelli and Hitler both understood that principle. But we haven´t seen it in the disguise of New Age spirituality.
The Ring cuts us off from community, and contact. We are alone with the Eye. There is no room for two I´s. there is no We in the I, no room for an Other in the One Ring. In the false nonduality of the Ring-system, there is no room for the negation. It is not a means to any further end. It is Nietzsche´s “will to power” as itself the end. Machiavelli taught that the end justified the means; Nietzsche taught that the means (power) justified the end.
Evolutionary models like Wilber´s are comparatively easy to invent. Large New Age systems such as The WingMakers Project and The Human Design System, have made their own evolutionary models. Even the American futurist and transhumanist Ray Kurzweil has his own “6 Epochs of Technological Evolution”, where he believes (and actually desires) that the 6 epoch is when humans are melting together with machines and are migrating out into space.
This raises a question about the constant celebration of Wilber as “The Smartest Man on Earth,” “The Brilliant scientist,” “The Einstein of Consciousness,” “The Greatest Philosopher in History.”, etc., etc., etc. Even his critics often refer to him as a “giant” or “fallen giant” as for example Mark Manson (read his account). This shows a peculiarity within New Age, where a myth can live outside the real world, as for example quantum mysticism. Let me emphasize: Ken Wilber is not a giant, not before or after his “fall”. If he was, why is it he isn´t mentioned with a word on philosophical institutions around the world? (forget conspiracy theories as explanation). Well, maybe because he isn´t the great philosopher he constantly is being claimed to be. The same integrated knowledge of different fields can be found in almost any introduction to philosophy, but insiders (without philosophical education) will believe that this is Wilber´s own insight. In fact, it is a question whether his model at all can be labeled as philosophy, and not some kind of historical or sociological model; or maybe most accurate: a psychological model. There is no trace of philosophical argumentation in his work. It is all explanations. And his reaction to the critique which arised when his work began to get awareness outside the closed New Age circle, exposes a complete lack of ability for philosophical argumentation. It is also a question whether Hegel´s and Marx´s work can be categorized as philosophy, and not a historical model (Hegel) or economical model (Marx). Wilber is just re-inventing old trends in historicism, nothing more. The same is seen in other large New Age systems. The account of Wilber as a giant comes from insiders, or former insiders. Outsiders have a complete other perception of Wilber, especially people who are educated within the fields Wilber is claimed to be the greatest expert in ever.
What I especially would like to hear more of, is philosophers´ opinions of Wilber´s work. This would be interesting, since Wilber is characterized as a philosopher. The critique mostly comes from different branches of science, whether it is the natural or human sciences. Such critique contains the explanatory style of the single branches, but lacks philosophical argumentation.
Evolutionism (historicism) is a newer, strictly European, ideology, beginning with the scientific revolution (note that evolutionism hasn´t anything to do with evolutionary biology). It is a linear view of life (vertical or horizontal), which is in opposition to all earlier views of life, which are cyclic. It focuses on the up-cycles and denies, or are explaining away, the down-cycles.
Where Kurzweil is talking about the “evolution of technology”, Wilber is talking about “the evolution of consciousness”. But the concept of “the evolution of consciousness” is wrong, when you look at the original wisdom traditions. Here, consciousness doesn´t evolve, it wakes up. And that´s purely an individual thing. Consciousness doesn´t evolve from something, or towards something. It is. The traditional view is, that consciousness is transcendent in relation to all laws, whether physical laws or historical laws, or any other law. It is a negation. If consciousness should evolve, you would need to reduce it to physical or historical laws. In both cases you end in reductionisms such a physicalism or historicism. Wilber ends in the same kind of historicism as Hegel, Marx, Oswald Spengler and Auguste Comte (in my online book Philosophical Counseling with Tolkien, I have suggested a double-aspect theory of consciousness based on the original wisdom traditions – see the chapter on Metaphysics, Ontology, part 1: The Problem of Mind).
Evolutionism is rooted in the Western mind in a degree that it is almost impossible for us to see life in any other way than as line towards constant progress. But the Indian culture, for example, has, with its Yuga teachings, another view. Let me finish with a quote from the mythologist Joseph Campbell, who in his book Myths of Light, has described the Yuga ages. He writes of the present Yuga, the Kali Yuga, which interestingly enough also is called the Age of the One:
Finally, of course, there comes the Age of the One, when the cow is on only a single leg. This is our unfortunate time, the age of the mixture of castes, when nobody knows his own true nature. And the worst of it is that people won´t read the scriptures, and when they do they don´t understand them. This is the age of deterioration. And if – from the traditional perspective – you want to have any proof of the deterioration, just look at everything that we call progress: it is an exteriorization of life; the machines are taking over. And everything that we in the West consider to be evidence of progress, is, in terms of this ancient tradition, evidence of decline. So the world is getting worse (page 58).
Evolutionism – The Red Thread in The Matrix Conspiracy
A Critique of Ken Wilber and his Integral Method
In my Ebook The Tragic New Age Confusion of Eastern Enlightenment and Western Idealism, I mention Wilber in relation with the Neo-Advaita movement, and how he is a part of the tragic confusion.
Related Ebook: Evolutionism - The Red Thread in The Matrix Conspiracy