Help
Sign In
colmar3000
March 2008 
Is Wyatt Earpy a First-Tier Uber-Guru?
Posted on Jun 26th, 2006
by 
WH
WH
Just when I thought the whole Wilber thing had died down and things were getting back to normal, Mathew Dallman posts a link to a blogger who shreds the last Wyatt Earp post so thoroughly as to make me rethink my "forgive and move on" approach.
The main conclusion this blogger draws is that KW has revisioned himself as a god-like figure, but that he uses his brilliance to create plausible deniability throughout his posts by quoting others making those claims. He doesn't just state these observations of Wilber, however, he breaks down KW's last post in detail to support his position.
I'm curious to hear what others think of this post. Please go have a read and come back to let me know how you feel about it. Does he have a point? Has Wilber's ego become so inflated that his shadow is seeping out all over the place, or is this a carefully crafted message meant to create converts and loyalty among his followers? Is this what a god-complex looks like at second tier, or is Wilber displaying first tier memes writ large?
This post is the most serious critique I have seen so far in the Earp fiasco, and I look forward to seeing what the rest of you think.
The main conclusion this blogger draws is that KW has revisioned himself as a god-like figure, but that he uses his brilliance to create plausible deniability throughout his posts by quoting others making those claims. He doesn't just state these observations of Wilber, however, he breaks down KW's last post in detail to support his position.
I'm curious to hear what others think of this post. Please go have a read and come back to let me know how you feel about it. Does he have a point? Has Wilber's ego become so inflated that his shadow is seeping out all over the place, or is this a carefully crafted message meant to create converts and loyalty among his followers? Is this what a god-complex looks like at second tier, or is Wilber displaying first tier memes writ large?
This post is the most serious critique I have seen so far in the Earp fiasco, and I look forward to seeing what the rest of you think.
Access: PublicTagged with: Ken Wilber, Shadow, Wyatt Earp, The Rant, God complex, Colmar3000, Disingenious Duplicity
Mornin'!
I'll go take a look. Thanks for the heads up.
I know Matthew Dallman, aka GOOSE, from wayback in 2001-2, when we were all on shambhala's KW forum. We talked and communed about all kinds of stuff extensively.
This was BEFORE goose went to work with Integral Institute.
I guess, to read matthew's blog, which I did last week…
his goose got cooked.
honestly I heard nothing of this “integral” stuff until I joined zaadz … I knew the unity of all beings - how everything is One… how all is interconnected and all is necessary…
but, honestly, I was not drawn to it after entering zaadz and hearing talk of it - but, on that basest of levels I have watched this Wyatt Earp stuff much as one can't help but look at an accident as one passes it in traffic or as one flipping tv channels can't help but pause on Jerry Springer because you are astounded that there are people who actually act like that - and that people watch it enough to keep it on the air (perhaps they are folks like me whose fingers freeze on Jerry Springer at the insanity of it all)…
I have studied some of what people would call enlightened beings (not all of them of course) - and this is the first time I have seen a teacher fight his critics or criticize his critics. It is usually the followers who want to stand up and fight for their teacher because they are afraid of what the critics might do for the teachers “image” - and the teacher who says, “no” because he does not need defending - it is the students who fear the words that are said will bring the teacher off of his pedestal and they want to defend this happening… I don't think it is only for the teacher, but in defense of themselves and what they believe - and they don't want to look a fool for believing, perhaps, in a teacher who could be brought down by critics (but what kind of faith is that?). But those beings that I have studied have said, “no” and they did not fight but continued their work with no thought to those who spoke against them.
And, yet, if a being is enlightened, they may act in a way completely adverse to the expectations of the world… and perhaps this is what Ken Wilber has done?
I can't venture to guess either way… I just know I have no link to him as a teacher, and will not be following his teachings.
(and that was a good link)
I have to admit it gave me pause for concern. Why is there such passionate belief that what Ken is doing is creating a cult, or trying to declare himself some kind of God man?
Is it really all just various people’s shadows?
But… there’s just a little too much conspiracy in the post. Which is easier to believe, that Ken posts an email by someone he knows and that that person, like many of us do, used religious imagery and a particular style. Or that Ken wrote something intended to put us in a trance, so that we would learn to start treating him as a Christ figure, then attributed it to someone else. And all in service to getting people to worship him while creating plausible deniability that he was doing any such thing?
I don’t know. The second option doesn’t sound like a God complex it sounds like a plot. But what would be the purpose of such a plot?
You read the posts. Were you in a trance? Did that language seem odd and confusing to you? Did you not understand that the bit about, “center of the greatest… something or other” was him quoting/baiting critics? Did you, after reading them, want to worship Wilber or build a shrine to him?
And the God thing…well… part of the point of this is if we buy what Wilber and other folks say, then we are all vessels of Spirit trying to push the cutting edge of Spirit in the world. Right? We are all God. Do we completely buy that? Do we believe that that is what we are doing by meditating and getting integrally informed? I’ve got doubts. But I assume that’s more about me.
Well, that’s where I am now. But I'd love to dig into it further.
Good questions, Umguy. I have a hard time with the conspiracy angle. But I do think there is more than a little shadow stuff seeping out in KW's posts. I have to admit that I didn't see some of the stuff the blogger revealed in KW's post, and I'm a pretty careful reader.
Someone responded to this post over at IOC and left links to various places that talk about using language to induce trance. I haven't had a chance to look at them, but I do know that trance stuff is part of the NLP thing, as well as another group that I can't recall.
I wasn't confused by the Wilber “center of the greatest yadda yadda yadda,” but lots of other people were – so is that their shadow stuff or did Wilber construct the sentence to make it confusing?
The whole post was well-argued and made me stop and think, but I tend to avoid conspiracy theories as simple shadow stuff. So who the hell knows?
One more thing, though: I'm tired of people defending Wilber by asking if integral theory is useful or if it works (this happened a lot in the last few weeks). Yes, it works, and Wilber has been somewhat questionable in his posts during this period. The things are not related.
Peace,
Bill
I don't feel like I've fallen into a trance.
But then again, maybe I HAVE, and the trance prevents me from noticing it! :-o
That would be my question of Colmar: Do you believe all people who disagree with your analysis are under a “trance”? How much room does your own analysis allow for dissent?
At first blush, Colmar's arguments come off with as little room for disagreement as he claims that Wilber's post does.
“This post is the most serious critique I have seen so far in the Earp fiasco,”
Really, William?!
I read Colmar's post.
It read like a weak David Icke essay to me.
“Why is there such passionate belief that what Ken is doing is creating a cult, or trying to declare himself some kind of God man?”
'Passionate belief'?… Hmmm. Like, Thought as Passion? Interesting.
Projection as Passion?
I guess we gotta keep throwing rocks at the guy though. That's how we treat all of our icons eventually.
If I was a boy I'd pee all over him if he tried to contextualize my pet theory, (or tried to move stuff around on my desk, I hate that.)
Too bad he wasn't a girl so we could tell him he looks fat!
Really, though.
All theses pseudo-intellectual blogathons… (I can practically smell the poly/cotton pit stains from here.)
Certainly none of us thinks that we define Ken or integral anything through this ongoing deconstruction of Wyatt Earpy.
We only define our severely polarized separate selves projecting a big 'ol jones for an Absolute hug onto some skinny little white guy from Nebraska.
sigh…
I need a slurpee.
Hi Cree,
Have we met somewhere and I just can't remember? You seem to know me well, right down to the “poly/cotton pit stains.” Sorry, I just don't remember meeting you.
But welcome to Zaadz!
Peace,
Bill