From: Integral World [newsletter@integralworld.net] Sent: vrijdag 18 juli 2008 14:02 To: f.visser3@chello.nl Subject: [personal] Wilber and Bohm INTEGRAL WORLD MAILING LIST =========================== http://www.integralworld.net Newsletter Nr. 248 Amsterdam, July 20th, 2008 WILBER WATCH BLOG: "Integral Politics, Integral Political Party, Integral Political Science" http://wilberwatch.blogspot.com/ WILBER AND BOHM - Geoffrey Falk IN KEN WILBER'S THE EYE OF SPIRIT (1998), prefacing his criticism of Jenny Wade's (1996) appropriation of physicist David Bohm's "implicate order"-related ideas for her "holonomic" theory of consciousness, we find the following assertion: Bohm himself tended to realize the indefensible nature of his position, and for a while he went through an awkward period of adding implicate levels. There was the implicate level, then the super-implicate level, then at one point, a super-super-implicate level. And all of this, of course, was claiming to be based on empirical findings in physics! I published [1982] a strong criticism of Bohm's position, which has never been answered by him or any of [his] followers.... Until this critique is even vaguely answered, I believe we must consider Bohm's theory to be refuted. And, anyway, over the last decade and a half it has generally fallen into widespread disrepute (and it has no support whatsoever from recent physics). In reprint (e.g., third) editions, "indefensible nature" has become "inadequate nature"; "is even vaguely answered" has become "is answered"; "theory to be refuted" has become "theory to be suspect"; and "no support whatsoever from recent physics" has become "little support from most physicists." So presumably, in the interim, someone did give a "vague answer" to Wilber's critique, pointing out to him that Bohm's ideas were not quite as "indefensible" as kw would have imagined them to be. Also, that his objections to that reformulation of quantum theory, based in its apparent failure to accommodate mysticism's hypothetical Great Chain of Being—i.e., the purported hierarchy of causal, astral, and physical realities and states of consciousness—did not entirely "refute" it. And, that his characterization of its ostensible lack of support from real physics and physicists, too, was overblown. I will be addressing Wilber's original critique, rather than his subsequently toned-down version of the same, in what follows. For, I do not believe that any of us should be required to purchase or slough through every new edition of each of kw's repetitive books, just to see how he has tried to soften his previous bold misrepresentations of other people's ideas. The conclusions here will stand firm, regardless. Plus, as we shall see, Wilber's own attitude toward Bohm's work, and corresponding attempts to easily dismiss it, have not improved at all in his other writings since then. Read more: http://www.integralworld.net/falk6.html If you know other people interested in this Integral World Newsletter, please forward this mail to them. Thanks. To SUBSCRIBE to this Integral World Newsletter or change your email address, click here: http://www.integralworld.net/pommo/user/subscribe.php To UPDATE your email address or UNSUBSCRIBE, click here: http://www.integralworld.net/pommo/user/login.php