Disingenuous Duplicity..
This isn’t what I had planned to do next. I was going to talk about “safe spaces”, and “the 2% will understand”. But then Ken put out the last of the Wyatt Erpy series, and I was just floored by what he was doing in it. I couldn’t put off writing about it.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Ken’s latest blog entry, the last of the Wyatt Erpy series he tells us, began rather hopefully for me. Mainly because he rather quickly got to the best critique I have seen anywhere on the internet of the original Wyatt Erpy post:
“One person wrote the following on a forum, meant rather negatively, but there are good points in it (as there are in most of the negative criticisms, as opposed to negative projective outbursts, and I take constructive negative criticisms seriously):”
“So yellows need greens. To grow Ken needs everyone he's in relationship with to grow. Cutting off doesn't cut it, and that is the thing---the bad smell I keep getting a whiff of---I think. He may have a plan, a sub-plan, a sub-sub-plan and even a sub-sub-sub-plan in his multilayered communications, but I tend to think: forget all that analysing and triple layering and look at the effect: greens cut off from yellows, ergo greens lose out, ergo yellows lose out, we all lose out. The whole is diminished by dissociation and so are the parts. I thought the whole idea of integral was based on that ageless principle of unity and diversity - too much of one or the other diminishes both.”
“The win-win situation requires integrated diversity, which I suggest means individuals who communicate authentically.”
Yes, this is the strongest argument against the Wyatt post, that it states its goal is to divide the Greens against the Yellows and drive the Greens off. Sort of Sdi in reverse, actually putting barriers on the Spiral to upward movement. And Ken actually quoted this critique, and was apparently going to comment on it. Would he admit his mistake?
In a word, no. What he does here is really quite brilliant. A term I am going to use to describe him throughout this article. First he posts the most damning criticism, and then mischaracterizes it, making it appear he has answered and disproven it, when in fact he has done no such thing.
Ken says:
“In one sense that is absolutely true, and right on the money. The problem is that in practical terms there is simply a limit to how much of this you can do. It’s the same issue I always face with critics: I have gotten hundreds of critical publications, posts, emails, and blogs that want to engage me in a critical dialogue, and they all say the same thing: if you don’t dialogue with me, you are not being integral, OR you are afraid of my devastating critiques (that’s the most common), OR you are arrogant and think you’re better than us all, OR…. “
But that criticism did not pertain to dialoguing with every half rational critic that wishes to challenge him, not at all. The criticism is that he openly said he was out to divide the spiral between First and Second, and get rid of the First in his organization, in order to make it a “sanctuary for Turquoise”, something we will return to later.
He said Green will be offended, but “that 2% will understand”. It had nothing to do with the impossibility of debating everyone in the world who wishes to do so. It had everything to do with his conscious, stated intention to get rid of the “Greens“.
Or, rather those he wants to label as green, the ones who ask too many questions, the ones who are looking for a pandit instead of a first tier guru.
“By far the most controversial aspect of the draft was one sentence, something to do with suck. And at this point, you start to weigh other issues. Are we that uptight? Is Big Mind not big enough for any of this? Does stiffness and lack of humor and choking manners equate with integral anything? And if something as fluffy and goofy as this post (Wyatt Earpy?) is going to ruffle feathers, please let me see those whose feathers are ruffled, because I’m pretty sure I don’t want to work with them.”
Yes, if you are offended by publicly making crude, juvenile sexual taunts, he doesn’t want to work with you. Healthy Blue and offended by the profanity? He doesn’t want to work with you. Healthy Orange, and put off by the fact that he provides no rational response to criticism, only an irrational rant? He doesn’t want to work with you. Healthy Green and offended by the fact that he shows no consideration, no empathy, no compassion for those whose feelings will be hurt? He doesn’t want to work with you.
Healthy Yellow, and involved in bringing Integral and AQAL into the Universities, and NGO’s, and churches, and governments, and the UN. Those of you whose pleas not to publish this and make their efforts more difficult or even impossible were even mentioned by Wilber in his blog,,, and then ignored. He doesn’t want to work with you either, I guess.
Apparently the only ones he “wants to work with” are those who are fine with whatever HE does, because it is HIM. This is what the criticism above implied, dividing the world into the True Believers, and the Non-Believers. And Ken hid that by twisting it into a straw man argument of not having enough time to debate everyone in the world.
A clear case of “you don’t need to think about this criticism yourself, I’ve already done it for you, here’s what to think” and then using sleight of hand to utterly change the meaning of that criticism.
Then came the “unsolicited testimonials”….
Ken,
I just finished reading it here at school, and am now crying at my desk, heart exploded open, I AM-ness fully awake.......
I received my dharma name yesterday--Sojin, "total integration", the closest we could come to "Integral" in Japanese.....
I love you..i love you...
blessings.[ ]
Members of the LIC, {remember the email from Helen in a later blog post? Helen is from the LIC} tell me that Sojin is the Dharma name of Lynne Feldman, attorney for II, and Vice Chancellor of IU.
Of course, I’m sure Ken had no idea Lynne had told that to LIC. He didn’t expect anyone outside II to know who this {unnamed} person is….
How disingenuous is this, to ANONYMOUSLY quote your staff attorney in praise of you, as though people every where were just mailing in their praise.
As some are already calling me “cynical”, no doubt asking how many of these other quotes come from II staff members, publishers agents, and perhaps members of II’s PR firm will only increase this criticism. Something Ken tries to portray as:
“a type of cyber sausage-grinder for any type of exuberant expression of any positive emotion--joy, love, happiness, radiance. In its place, no surprise: irony, bitterness, cynicism.”
Notice the straw man being burned here. If you offer any criticism, you must be anti-joy, anti-love, anti-happiness… If you are pro-positive emotions, you MUST support whatever Ken says. Just as earlier, if you didn't find "S-M-D" funny, you must be "anti-humor", and in favor of "choking manners".
Ken is attempting to take away your ability to think for yourself, and impose a set of two, and only two, choices. Do you agree with Ken, or are you anti-joy, anti-love, anti-life? 'None of the above' is NOT a choice Ken wants you to have....
But really, how can one NOT be cynical when Ken stoops to portraying a world wide outpouring of “LOVE” for him by anonymously quoting his own attorney?
I’m sorry, but I totally lost it when Ken next quoted who knows who, portraying him as “Christ the Redeemer”.
“In any case I can only tell you that I now understand the space you are holding. Not any space, but holding the space of the tip of a Kosmic knife being plunged into the unknown, the crystalline blade slicing the fabric you have pierced. The screams are no more than the anguished cries of the blade itself as they strain under the pressure of following you though the cut, the whole being purified as it is baptized in the Kosmic blood being spilled in brilliant sparks of light.”
And continued on:
“Good God Ken, Fucking hold your course. You must for the cut to be clean, for the groove to hold. The choice has been made! Stand as the Vitruvian man, the blazing light of the Kosmos ripping you apart spark for spark as you hold the fucking line!! For it is your will to play this part, and the Kosmos themselves have already reclaimed your heart. When your shining, brilliant diamond tip has done its part you will leave us here without a trace of fear, standing in your place prepared from grace.”
OK, now look away from the computer screen for a few moments. Notice the walls, the ceiling, the floor.
Back out of trance? Good....
Did you notice even the 'Sacred Heart' is there, with Ken 'willingly Sacrificing HIMSELF' for us, saving us by HIS grace? No? Good, because you weren’t meant to notice it consciously…. that's why it is preceded by trance inducing meaningless phrases. What sense can you make of "the space you are holding. Not any space, but holding the space of the tip of a Kosmic knife being plunged into the unknown"?
The space...not any space...but holding the space?. Not merely meaningless, but actually contradictory. The logical mind cannot process this nonsense, which is what is intended. This is a trance induction...
Just as you weren't meant to consciously notice those first three words in the second paragraph:
GOOD GOD KEN.
Is it cynicism to suggest that this may have been written by a former speech writer for Reverend Moon? Probably, but still, think over the implications. If Ken were to say these things about HIMSELF…. but oh no, these are “unsolicited testimonials”…..
Now read it again and listen to the tone, notice the poetic wording, notice the flow of it all. Where have you heard the like of that before? In all of Ken’s writings, of course. Whenever he waxes poetic about the non-dual, the suchness, the radiant void at the heart of creation.
Recognize the “Voice of Wilber” in those paragraphs and you will start to break the trance he is building here….
I nearly threw up….. "GOOD GOD KEN" I saw how he was embedding the programming here, and I nearly threw up !!!
Ken next applies his own ‘test” for cultic behavior to himself, as judged by himself, and finds himself a perfect 8 out of 8, saving us all the trouble of thinking this over for ourselves. Example: “I-I is not charismatic; its teachings are not based on your relation to a person but on your relation to an idea, namely AQAL.”
To say “its teachings are not based on your relation to a person”, just half a dozen paragraphs after quoting “the whole being purified as it is baptized in the Kosmic blood being spilled in brilliant sparks of light….When your shining, brilliant diamond tip has done its part you will leave us here without a trace of fear, standing in your place prepared from grace.” is just mind-boggling.
He is switching back and forth, denying he is doing what he just did a few paragraphs before.
And after a short break from the praise, he “quotes” another anonymous person, this time from “Spain”. You see the acclaim is WORLDWIDE, “It is not only Ken’s work that has been so important for me, but his being, his love, his humour, his kindness and his brilliance.” But remember “its teachings are not based on your relation to a person”.
Of course not…..
This is the definition I gave the other day between a First Tier “Guru” and a true Guru. The former seeks disciples, the latter only wants to bring others to non-dual realization. And I said, if the Guru believes this stuff, it’s Cult-city. And yet this is what Ken is telling us by printing these quotes. He is giving us an example of how to respond to him. ‘Be like this‘….
Then Ken again descends into the perjoritive characterization of his critics as not merely emotionally disturbed, not merely angry at rejection by II for not being AQAL enough, but, yes, the N word. NO, not that N word. The N word that virtually everyone in the blogosphere knows CAN NOT be mentioned without bringing all rational discussion to a halt: “Nazi”. Yes, this anonymous critic, according to an equally anonymous psychoanlyser, is a anti-wilber “Nazi“, and so by implication are all of Wibers’s critics.
This is what happens when one of the brightest intellects, and a highly experienced and accomplished professional writer goes off kilter. He is far too skilled to portray HIMSELF as the ‘Christ, preparing our place in heaven by HIS grace’. No, he has someone else say it about him. He is far too knowledgeable to say “all my critics are nazis”, he has another anonymous person say that about another anonymous person, and let the implication sink in, without ever actually saying it straight out. It’s called “plausible deniability.” I didn’t say that, one of my supporters did….
Incredibly, after all of the lavish praise he has just quoted people saying about him, he then asserts that II is actively working to prevent people from projecting their own positive qualities on him. But to portray the world as worshipping HIM, and then merely say “don’t do it” is quite disingenuous. Anyone who has read the beginning of his post KNOWS how to be recognized and rewarded by Ken. Proclaim your love and admiration for him to “the heavens”, shall we say?
Not to mention entering the “sanctuary for Turquoise” that HE is preparing for us. When Ken calls II a “sanctuary for Turquoise” what is he really saying? Well, the “Turquoise” is clear enough, that refers to anyone who follows him uncritically. Turquoise now means disciple…
And sanctuary?
“Noun: 1a. A sacred place, such as a church, temple, or mosque. b. The holiest part of a sacred place, as the part of a Christian church around the altar.
ETYMOLOGY: Middle English, from Old French sainctuarie, from Late Latin sncturium, from Latin snctus, sacred. See sanctify.”
The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Yet there are many ways of saying the same thing without implying II is a church:
“SYNONYMS: shelter, cover, retreat, refuge, asylum, sanctuary These nouns refer to places affording protection, as from danger, or to the state of being protected. Retreat applies chiefly to a secluded place to which one retires for meditation, peace, or privacy. Refuge suggests a place of escape from pursuit or from difficulties that beset one. Asylum adds to refuge the idea of legal protection or of immunity from arrest. Sanctuary denotes a sacred or inviolable place of refuge."
Needless to say, Ken chose the religious one, sanctuary, the one which in fact suggests a “church”. And this religious terminology just keeps coming.
“The work you guys are doing on IU and the multiplex is so, so important. I feel blessed to have discovered it”.
Yes, those of us in II are “blessed”, living in our “sanctuary”, our place of “grace”, prepared for us by the KEN, “purified” by being “baptized in the Kosmic blood".
Getting the point yet? But, hey, I’ve tested myself, using the test I developed myself, and I found I AM not running a Cult. And if you think I am, there's something wrong with you:
“I see the postmodern constrictions in groups such as the LondonIS to an increasing degree. It makes me sad that such wonderful, insightful people are still held back by ideological agendas. It’s a generation thing I guess… or partly anyway.”
Those who love, and even worship, Ken are the good, the true, the beautiful. The critics?
“The problem for these critics is that they can’t win here; the large number of people who know Ken well uniformly disagree that he is like that; this leaves the critics with nothing but their shadows driving their perceptions…”.
Yes, everyone who knows Ken “UNIFORMLY disagrees with his critics“. Sorry, but just a moments thought will make it obvious that this cannot be true. Ken HIMSELF has castigated a number of critics who do “know him well”. Anyone ever heard of Visser? How about Beck?
We are being told what to think, we are being told just to accept that anyone who criticizes Ken doesn’t know him, is acting out their shadow, their anger at being rejected by II for their personality deficits, and is probably a Nazi, so why even listen to them. Ken has already checked out their criticisms and found them groundless, so we needn’t bother doing so ourselves….
The following is not KEN describing himself, oh no, he is merely quoting Rumi to make a point about projections, surely not to subtly call HIMSELF “God”, of course not.
“There is no way, at this time to make God known except by denying the not-God. [make the truth known by denying the false projections.]
Ken has truly produced an incredible piece of skillfully crafted propaganda. Not only are most of the points Ken wants to make either carefully selected from anonymous fans {I can’t say “put into the mouths of supposed anonymous fans, that would be cynical, wouldn’t it?}, including II’s attorney. Not only is it filled with lavish worshipful “praising the Ken“, again not in his words, but “theirs“. But he now springs a trap carefully set in the original blog.
When I first read "I am at the center of the vanguard of the greatest social transformation in the history of humankind" I immediately had two observations. One, that while this was put into the mouth of a “critic”, and Ken should have been immune from any criticism for it, most people would not read it that carefully. Thus it becomes a “subconscious suggestion”. A phrase designed to implant it’s message, but in a way that entails “plausible deniability”.
Second, the very confusing nature of the sentence constrution that contained that statement was in fact a trance induction.
Finally I knew Ken was setting a trap, so that when some one called him on it, he could say, look how “moronic” my detractors are, they blame me for things my critics have said about themselves. A true “three for one” propaganda tour de force. A brilliant writer, indeed....
“Other criticisms misread what was written. The phrase "I am at the center of the vanguard of the greatest social transformation in the history of humankind" – that phrase is not from me but from a critic! Go back and look at it; it is clearly within the quotation marks of the critic speaking—that is what this particular critic thinks of himself (boomeritis anybody?). But I was then lambasted for something that wasn’t even mine. I can’t tell you how often this happens. Sheeeeeesh.”
And the trap door, so carefully set, snaps shut….
So yes, it is a test, and so far an awful lot of people are failing. One who isn’t is Mathew Dallman. He’s filing for divorce……
"Here is a declaration. I hereby call for an intellectual divorce. There is "Wilberian theory", which belongs to him. And there is "the integral tradition", which belongs to no one in particular, and the two are distinct. Wilber no longer forwards "integral" anything. He simply forwards "Wilber theory", and it is referred to as such. "Integral", furthermore, is no longer confine to the realm of "theory", which is something of the laboratory, to be "tested" but inevitably replaced by some other "theory". Theories such as Wilber's theory and many others come and go, but the prime imperative towards fullness (the beating heart of integral across the ages) remains no matter what.
http://www.matthewdallman.com/2006/06/ken-wilber.html
So what do we have with Wilber, then? We have someone making the case for being a Guru. We have someone showing people the language to use, the way to think about him, the way to relate to him. As I said, if people feel reverence for a Guru, like I do for Ramana Maharshi, no problem. In fact that can be quite wonderful.
But if the Guru thinks HE is special, that HE is Divine in a way others are not, and seeks to be treated that way, watch out. No one will come out unscathed.
Now we can see what Ken is up to. First he puts out an obnoxious blog that even 30% of his self selected group asked him not to use. That runs off nearly everyone who won’t “simply” accept Ken’s world view as their own. Then he begins to train those who remain in how to worship HIM.
I’ve been saying that everything Ken says is totally correct, even brilliant. Not the Wyatt Erpy "humor", or the attacks on critics. But the theory he uses to explain it all. That’s still true. For the words he admits to having said himself.
But with today, Ken begins to introduce a new element. He begins to introduce things that are exactly opposed to what he is verbally saying, and putting it in the words of anonymous “others”.
Proclaiming his Guru-hood would be so much cleaner than this. That we could accept or reject. But putting it in the words of others, while denying it himself?
We can’t “blame” him? He didn’t say it? Yes we can blame him, because whoever said it, Ken is the editor, and he selects and shapes that message by the quotes he uses. And then uses the confusion created by the conflict between what he says, and what the quotes say, to essentially create a hypnotic trance. And slipped into that trance are “simple” little messages like:" I am at the center of the vanguard of the greatest social transformation in the history of humankind". Ken didn’t say that? Of course he did, and he was careful to “say” it in a moment of confusion when it’s effect would be strongest. That’s why many people didn’t even notice that he had put it in the “quotes” of his critic.
If we didn’t trust Ken to give us transmission, how much less should we trust him to put us in trance? A friend of mine told me a month ago to “shield myself” when listening to Wilber. I thought she was being somewhat paranoid. Now I understand what she meant. She was right. She was right…..
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
If you were linked directly to this individual post, and you haven't already read it, my recent post "Nothing New About Yellow"... is the underlying perspective to all of my other posts.
I recommend you read it next....
http://colmar3000.blogspot.com/2006/07/nothing-new-about-yellow.html
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Ken’s latest blog entry, the last of the Wyatt Erpy series he tells us, began rather hopefully for me. Mainly because he rather quickly got to the best critique I have seen anywhere on the internet of the original Wyatt Erpy post:
“One person wrote the following on a forum, meant rather negatively, but there are good points in it (as there are in most of the negative criticisms, as opposed to negative projective outbursts, and I take constructive negative criticisms seriously):”
“So yellows need greens. To grow Ken needs everyone he's in relationship with to grow. Cutting off doesn't cut it, and that is the thing---the bad smell I keep getting a whiff of---I think. He may have a plan, a sub-plan, a sub-sub-plan and even a sub-sub-sub-plan in his multilayered communications, but I tend to think: forget all that analysing and triple layering and look at the effect: greens cut off from yellows, ergo greens lose out, ergo yellows lose out, we all lose out. The whole is diminished by dissociation and so are the parts. I thought the whole idea of integral was based on that ageless principle of unity and diversity - too much of one or the other diminishes both.”
“The win-win situation requires integrated diversity, which I suggest means individuals who communicate authentically.”
Yes, this is the strongest argument against the Wyatt post, that it states its goal is to divide the Greens against the Yellows and drive the Greens off. Sort of Sdi in reverse, actually putting barriers on the Spiral to upward movement. And Ken actually quoted this critique, and was apparently going to comment on it. Would he admit his mistake?
In a word, no. What he does here is really quite brilliant. A term I am going to use to describe him throughout this article. First he posts the most damning criticism, and then mischaracterizes it, making it appear he has answered and disproven it, when in fact he has done no such thing.
Ken says:
“In one sense that is absolutely true, and right on the money. The problem is that in practical terms there is simply a limit to how much of this you can do. It’s the same issue I always face with critics: I have gotten hundreds of critical publications, posts, emails, and blogs that want to engage me in a critical dialogue, and they all say the same thing: if you don’t dialogue with me, you are not being integral, OR you are afraid of my devastating critiques (that’s the most common), OR you are arrogant and think you’re better than us all, OR…. “
But that criticism did not pertain to dialoguing with every half rational critic that wishes to challenge him, not at all. The criticism is that he openly said he was out to divide the spiral between First and Second, and get rid of the First in his organization, in order to make it a “sanctuary for Turquoise”, something we will return to later.
He said Green will be offended, but “that 2% will understand”. It had nothing to do with the impossibility of debating everyone in the world who wishes to do so. It had everything to do with his conscious, stated intention to get rid of the “Greens“.
Or, rather those he wants to label as green, the ones who ask too many questions, the ones who are looking for a pandit instead of a first tier guru.
“By far the most controversial aspect of the draft was one sentence, something to do with suck. And at this point, you start to weigh other issues. Are we that uptight? Is Big Mind not big enough for any of this? Does stiffness and lack of humor and choking manners equate with integral anything? And if something as fluffy and goofy as this post (Wyatt Earpy?) is going to ruffle feathers, please let me see those whose feathers are ruffled, because I’m pretty sure I don’t want to work with them.”
Yes, if you are offended by publicly making crude, juvenile sexual taunts, he doesn’t want to work with you. Healthy Blue and offended by the profanity? He doesn’t want to work with you. Healthy Orange, and put off by the fact that he provides no rational response to criticism, only an irrational rant? He doesn’t want to work with you. Healthy Green and offended by the fact that he shows no consideration, no empathy, no compassion for those whose feelings will be hurt? He doesn’t want to work with you.
Healthy Yellow, and involved in bringing Integral and AQAL into the Universities, and NGO’s, and churches, and governments, and the UN. Those of you whose pleas not to publish this and make their efforts more difficult or even impossible were even mentioned by Wilber in his blog,,, and then ignored. He doesn’t want to work with you either, I guess.
Apparently the only ones he “wants to work with” are those who are fine with whatever HE does, because it is HIM. This is what the criticism above implied, dividing the world into the True Believers, and the Non-Believers. And Ken hid that by twisting it into a straw man argument of not having enough time to debate everyone in the world.
A clear case of “you don’t need to think about this criticism yourself, I’ve already done it for you, here’s what to think” and then using sleight of hand to utterly change the meaning of that criticism.
Then came the “unsolicited testimonials”….
Ken,
I just finished reading it here at school, and am now crying at my desk, heart exploded open, I AM-ness fully awake.......
I received my dharma name yesterday--Sojin, "total integration", the closest we could come to "Integral" in Japanese.....
I love you..i love you...
blessings.[ ]
Members of the LIC, {remember the email from Helen in a later blog post? Helen is from the LIC} tell me that Sojin is the Dharma name of Lynne Feldman, attorney for II, and Vice Chancellor of IU.
Of course, I’m sure Ken had no idea Lynne had told that to LIC. He didn’t expect anyone outside II to know who this {unnamed} person is….
How disingenuous is this, to ANONYMOUSLY quote your staff attorney in praise of you, as though people every where were just mailing in their praise.
As some are already calling me “cynical”, no doubt asking how many of these other quotes come from II staff members, publishers agents, and perhaps members of II’s PR firm will only increase this criticism. Something Ken tries to portray as:
“a type of cyber sausage-grinder for any type of exuberant expression of any positive emotion--joy, love, happiness, radiance. In its place, no surprise: irony, bitterness, cynicism.”
Notice the straw man being burned here. If you offer any criticism, you must be anti-joy, anti-love, anti-happiness… If you are pro-positive emotions, you MUST support whatever Ken says. Just as earlier, if you didn't find "S-M-D" funny, you must be "anti-humor", and in favor of "choking manners".
Ken is attempting to take away your ability to think for yourself, and impose a set of two, and only two, choices. Do you agree with Ken, or are you anti-joy, anti-love, anti-life? 'None of the above' is NOT a choice Ken wants you to have....
But really, how can one NOT be cynical when Ken stoops to portraying a world wide outpouring of “LOVE” for him by anonymously quoting his own attorney?
I’m sorry, but I totally lost it when Ken next quoted who knows who, portraying him as “Christ the Redeemer”.
“In any case I can only tell you that I now understand the space you are holding. Not any space, but holding the space of the tip of a Kosmic knife being plunged into the unknown, the crystalline blade slicing the fabric you have pierced. The screams are no more than the anguished cries of the blade itself as they strain under the pressure of following you though the cut, the whole being purified as it is baptized in the Kosmic blood being spilled in brilliant sparks of light.”
And continued on:
“Good God Ken, Fucking hold your course. You must for the cut to be clean, for the groove to hold. The choice has been made! Stand as the Vitruvian man, the blazing light of the Kosmos ripping you apart spark for spark as you hold the fucking line!! For it is your will to play this part, and the Kosmos themselves have already reclaimed your heart. When your shining, brilliant diamond tip has done its part you will leave us here without a trace of fear, standing in your place prepared from grace.”
OK, now look away from the computer screen for a few moments. Notice the walls, the ceiling, the floor.
Back out of trance? Good....
Did you notice even the 'Sacred Heart' is there, with Ken 'willingly Sacrificing HIMSELF' for us, saving us by HIS grace? No? Good, because you weren’t meant to notice it consciously…. that's why it is preceded by trance inducing meaningless phrases. What sense can you make of "the space you are holding. Not any space, but holding the space of the tip of a Kosmic knife being plunged into the unknown"?
The space...not any space...but holding the space?. Not merely meaningless, but actually contradictory. The logical mind cannot process this nonsense, which is what is intended. This is a trance induction...
Just as you weren't meant to consciously notice those first three words in the second paragraph:
GOOD GOD KEN.
Is it cynicism to suggest that this may have been written by a former speech writer for Reverend Moon? Probably, but still, think over the implications. If Ken were to say these things about HIMSELF…. but oh no, these are “unsolicited testimonials”…..
Now read it again and listen to the tone, notice the poetic wording, notice the flow of it all. Where have you heard the like of that before? In all of Ken’s writings, of course. Whenever he waxes poetic about the non-dual, the suchness, the radiant void at the heart of creation.
Recognize the “Voice of Wilber” in those paragraphs and you will start to break the trance he is building here….
I nearly threw up….. "GOOD GOD KEN" I saw how he was embedding the programming here, and I nearly threw up !!!
Ken next applies his own ‘test” for cultic behavior to himself, as judged by himself, and finds himself a perfect 8 out of 8, saving us all the trouble of thinking this over for ourselves. Example: “I-I is not charismatic; its teachings are not based on your relation to a person but on your relation to an idea, namely AQAL.”
To say “its teachings are not based on your relation to a person”, just half a dozen paragraphs after quoting “the whole being purified as it is baptized in the Kosmic blood being spilled in brilliant sparks of light….When your shining, brilliant diamond tip has done its part you will leave us here without a trace of fear, standing in your place prepared from grace.” is just mind-boggling.
He is switching back and forth, denying he is doing what he just did a few paragraphs before.
And after a short break from the praise, he “quotes” another anonymous person, this time from “Spain”. You see the acclaim is WORLDWIDE, “It is not only Ken’s work that has been so important for me, but his being, his love, his humour, his kindness and his brilliance.” But remember “its teachings are not based on your relation to a person”.
Of course not…..
This is the definition I gave the other day between a First Tier “Guru” and a true Guru. The former seeks disciples, the latter only wants to bring others to non-dual realization. And I said, if the Guru believes this stuff, it’s Cult-city. And yet this is what Ken is telling us by printing these quotes. He is giving us an example of how to respond to him. ‘Be like this‘….
Then Ken again descends into the perjoritive characterization of his critics as not merely emotionally disturbed, not merely angry at rejection by II for not being AQAL enough, but, yes, the N word. NO, not that N word. The N word that virtually everyone in the blogosphere knows CAN NOT be mentioned without bringing all rational discussion to a halt: “Nazi”. Yes, this anonymous critic, according to an equally anonymous psychoanlyser, is a anti-wilber “Nazi“, and so by implication are all of Wibers’s critics.
This is what happens when one of the brightest intellects, and a highly experienced and accomplished professional writer goes off kilter. He is far too skilled to portray HIMSELF as the ‘Christ, preparing our place in heaven by HIS grace’. No, he has someone else say it about him. He is far too knowledgeable to say “all my critics are nazis”, he has another anonymous person say that about another anonymous person, and let the implication sink in, without ever actually saying it straight out. It’s called “plausible deniability.” I didn’t say that, one of my supporters did….
Incredibly, after all of the lavish praise he has just quoted people saying about him, he then asserts that II is actively working to prevent people from projecting their own positive qualities on him. But to portray the world as worshipping HIM, and then merely say “don’t do it” is quite disingenuous. Anyone who has read the beginning of his post KNOWS how to be recognized and rewarded by Ken. Proclaim your love and admiration for him to “the heavens”, shall we say?
Not to mention entering the “sanctuary for Turquoise” that HE is preparing for us. When Ken calls II a “sanctuary for Turquoise” what is he really saying? Well, the “Turquoise” is clear enough, that refers to anyone who follows him uncritically. Turquoise now means disciple…
And sanctuary?
“Noun: 1a. A sacred place, such as a church, temple, or mosque. b. The holiest part of a sacred place, as the part of a Christian church around the altar.
ETYMOLOGY: Middle English, from Old French sainctuarie, from Late Latin sncturium, from Latin snctus, sacred. See sanctify.”
The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Yet there are many ways of saying the same thing without implying II is a church:
“SYNONYMS: shelter, cover, retreat, refuge, asylum, sanctuary These nouns refer to places affording protection, as from danger, or to the state of being protected. Retreat applies chiefly to a secluded place to which one retires for meditation, peace, or privacy. Refuge suggests a place of escape from pursuit or from difficulties that beset one. Asylum adds to refuge the idea of legal protection or of immunity from arrest. Sanctuary denotes a sacred or inviolable place of refuge."
Needless to say, Ken chose the religious one, sanctuary, the one which in fact suggests a “church”. And this religious terminology just keeps coming.
“The work you guys are doing on IU and the multiplex is so, so important. I feel blessed to have discovered it”.
Yes, those of us in II are “blessed”, living in our “sanctuary”, our place of “grace”, prepared for us by the KEN, “purified” by being “baptized in the Kosmic blood".
Getting the point yet? But, hey, I’ve tested myself, using the test I developed myself, and I found I AM not running a Cult. And if you think I am, there's something wrong with you:
“I see the postmodern constrictions in groups such as the LondonIS to an increasing degree. It makes me sad that such wonderful, insightful people are still held back by ideological agendas. It’s a generation thing I guess… or partly anyway.”
Those who love, and even worship, Ken are the good, the true, the beautiful. The critics?
“The problem for these critics is that they can’t win here; the large number of people who know Ken well uniformly disagree that he is like that; this leaves the critics with nothing but their shadows driving their perceptions…”.
Yes, everyone who knows Ken “UNIFORMLY disagrees with his critics“. Sorry, but just a moments thought will make it obvious that this cannot be true. Ken HIMSELF has castigated a number of critics who do “know him well”. Anyone ever heard of Visser? How about Beck?
We are being told what to think, we are being told just to accept that anyone who criticizes Ken doesn’t know him, is acting out their shadow, their anger at being rejected by II for their personality deficits, and is probably a Nazi, so why even listen to them. Ken has already checked out their criticisms and found them groundless, so we needn’t bother doing so ourselves….
The following is not KEN describing himself, oh no, he is merely quoting Rumi to make a point about projections, surely not to subtly call HIMSELF “God”, of course not.
“There is no way, at this time to make God known except by denying the not-God. [make the truth known by denying the false projections.]
Ken has truly produced an incredible piece of skillfully crafted propaganda. Not only are most of the points Ken wants to make either carefully selected from anonymous fans {I can’t say “put into the mouths of supposed anonymous fans, that would be cynical, wouldn’t it?}, including II’s attorney. Not only is it filled with lavish worshipful “praising the Ken“, again not in his words, but “theirs“. But he now springs a trap carefully set in the original blog.
When I first read "I am at the center of the vanguard of the greatest social transformation in the history of humankind" I immediately had two observations. One, that while this was put into the mouth of a “critic”, and Ken should have been immune from any criticism for it, most people would not read it that carefully. Thus it becomes a “subconscious suggestion”. A phrase designed to implant it’s message, but in a way that entails “plausible deniability”.
Second, the very confusing nature of the sentence constrution that contained that statement was in fact a trance induction.
Finally I knew Ken was setting a trap, so that when some one called him on it, he could say, look how “moronic” my detractors are, they blame me for things my critics have said about themselves. A true “three for one” propaganda tour de force. A brilliant writer, indeed....
“Other criticisms misread what was written. The phrase "I am at the center of the vanguard of the greatest social transformation in the history of humankind" – that phrase is not from me but from a critic! Go back and look at it; it is clearly within the quotation marks of the critic speaking—that is what this particular critic thinks of himself (boomeritis anybody?). But I was then lambasted for something that wasn’t even mine. I can’t tell you how often this happens. Sheeeeeesh.”
And the trap door, so carefully set, snaps shut….
So yes, it is a test, and so far an awful lot of people are failing. One who isn’t is Mathew Dallman. He’s filing for divorce……
"Here is a declaration. I hereby call for an intellectual divorce. There is "Wilberian theory", which belongs to him. And there is "the integral tradition", which belongs to no one in particular, and the two are distinct. Wilber no longer forwards "integral" anything. He simply forwards "Wilber theory", and it is referred to as such. "Integral", furthermore, is no longer confine to the realm of "theory", which is something of the laboratory, to be "tested" but inevitably replaced by some other "theory". Theories such as Wilber's theory and many others come and go, but the prime imperative towards fullness (the beating heart of integral across the ages) remains no matter what.
http://www.matthewdallman.com/2006/06/ken-wilber.html
So what do we have with Wilber, then? We have someone making the case for being a Guru. We have someone showing people the language to use, the way to think about him, the way to relate to him. As I said, if people feel reverence for a Guru, like I do for Ramana Maharshi, no problem. In fact that can be quite wonderful.
But if the Guru thinks HE is special, that HE is Divine in a way others are not, and seeks to be treated that way, watch out. No one will come out unscathed.
Now we can see what Ken is up to. First he puts out an obnoxious blog that even 30% of his self selected group asked him not to use. That runs off nearly everyone who won’t “simply” accept Ken’s world view as their own. Then he begins to train those who remain in how to worship HIM.
I’ve been saying that everything Ken says is totally correct, even brilliant. Not the Wyatt Erpy "humor", or the attacks on critics. But the theory he uses to explain it all. That’s still true. For the words he admits to having said himself.
But with today, Ken begins to introduce a new element. He begins to introduce things that are exactly opposed to what he is verbally saying, and putting it in the words of anonymous “others”.
Proclaiming his Guru-hood would be so much cleaner than this. That we could accept or reject. But putting it in the words of others, while denying it himself?
We can’t “blame” him? He didn’t say it? Yes we can blame him, because whoever said it, Ken is the editor, and he selects and shapes that message by the quotes he uses. And then uses the confusion created by the conflict between what he says, and what the quotes say, to essentially create a hypnotic trance. And slipped into that trance are “simple” little messages like:" I am at the center of the vanguard of the greatest social transformation in the history of humankind". Ken didn’t say that? Of course he did, and he was careful to “say” it in a moment of confusion when it’s effect would be strongest. That’s why many people didn’t even notice that he had put it in the “quotes” of his critic.
If we didn’t trust Ken to give us transmission, how much less should we trust him to put us in trance? A friend of mine told me a month ago to “shield myself” when listening to Wilber. I thought she was being somewhat paranoid. Now I understand what she meant. She was right. She was right…..
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
If you were linked directly to this individual post, and you haven't already read it, my recent post "Nothing New About Yellow"... is the underlying perspective to all of my other posts.
I recommend you read it next....
http://colmar3000.blogspot.com/2006/07/nothing-new-about-yellow.html
posted by Colmar at 5:57 PM
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home