INTEGRAL WORLD MAILING LIST http://www.integralworld.net Newsletter Nr. 622 Amsterdam, August 22th, 2016 A CRITICAL APPRECIATION OF KEN WILBER'S CRITIQUE OF ECO-HOLISM - WHIT HIBBARD Ken Wilber, whom some consider “a worthy successor to Aristotle in terms of the scope of his knowledge and of his categorizing and synthesizing power,”1 is recognized within the transpersonal movement as a leading transpersonal theorist.2 In his comprehensive work, Sex, Ecology, Spirituality: The Spirit of Evolution (SES),3 Wilber seriously addresses the ecological crisis for the first time. In the Introduction to SES, he asks: “Why are we destroying Gaia in the very attempt to improve our own condition?”4 His answer includes a serious critique of eco-holism or radical ecology.5 The purpose of this essay is to assess Wilber's critique of eco-holism. It is concerned more with radical ecology in general, instead of any particular articulation of it, whether deep ecology, ecofeminism, ecopsychology, or others. It will (a) summarize Wilber's integral paradigm, then (b) review the eco-holistic paradigm (as interpreted by Wilber), (c) summarize his critique, (d) review the rebuttal and counter-rebuttal, (e) assess briefly the adequacy of Wilber's critique, (f) review his recommended solution to the ecological crisis, then (g) end with a rejoinder and conclusion. This essay does not review all of Wilber's numerous works, the many criticisms of those works, or all elements of his integral theory; rather, it focuses on those elements most relevant to the topic. The focus of this essay is on the question of the potential validity of Wilber's theoretical model upon which his critique of eco-holism is based. The reason for this focus is that Wilber's specific criticisms of radical ecology are based on his model. In other words, his critique is model-dependent: If Wilber's model can be shown to be implausible or invalid, then his critique of eco-holism is undermined, if not invalidated. On the contrary, if his model is demonstrated to be plausible or potentially valid, his critique must be taken seriously and then evaluated on other grounds, such as its groundedness in the relevant radical ecological literature. Read more: http://www.integralworld.net/hibbard1.html DISMISSAL VS. DEBATE - A REPLY TO KEN WILBER'S AUDIO REBUTTAL - JEFF MEYERHOFF === An audio player featuring Wilber's rant on Meyerhoff has been added to this 2006 essay === Ken Wilber released an audio "conversation" - actually a monologue - with Sean Hargens on his website[1] as a reply to my critique of his work which I entitled "Six Criticisms of Wilber's Integral Theory."[2] His reply has at least two purposes. The ostensive purpose is a rebuttal to my criticisms. The unacknowledged, but main, purpose is to disparage and dismiss my critique so others don't take it seriously. I will respond to what little intellectual rebuttal Wilber offers, but because that part of his monologue is subordinate to its main purpose, I will also describe and analyze how the main purpose is pursued. The cost to the integrity of the intellectual rebuttal by the larger objective of having his audience dismiss my work will be obvious. The most substantive part of his reply goes beyond my critique and answers some criticisms he's received from others regarding his use of evolutionary biology. By closely examining his sources and others, I demonstrate the fundamental problems for his integral theory that a confrontation with Darwin and evolutionary biology presents. Read more: http://www.integralworld.net/meyerhoff6.html