stripping the gurus - Brahma Kumaris Info

NORMAN EINSTEIN 179
(1982), off-base but relatively well-tempered critique, nothing more
provocative.
What are the odds, then, that Wilber’s polemics in other contexts
can be excused as being altogether noble attempts to “spiritually
awaken” others? Or as having arisen only from others having
“started” the mud-slinging? A betting man would not, one supposes,
wager in favor of that.
Conversely, what are the far better odds that he is simply not
being psychologically honest with himself as to the basis of his anger,
cloaking it instead in a veneer of high ideals?
In further defending his behavior toward others, Wilber (1999)
has written:
Even in my most polemical statements, they are always balanced,
if you look at all of my writing, by an appreciation of
the positive contributions of those I criticize.
Sadly, that claim, too, is untrue. For, in no way did Wilber provide
any such balance himself in his own (1998 and 2003) attempted
demolitions of Bohm, or anywhere else throughout his
life’s work. It is difficult, after all, to “appreciate” what you have
not understood—as Wilber proves in his original (1982) critique.
That is so, particularly if the potential validity of the competing
ideas seems to threaten your own high place in the world. (Wilber
may have feebly tried to “appreciate” Bohm’s work there, but he
certainly did not succeed, instead at best misrepresenting and
damning it with very faint praise relative to its Nobel caliber. If
kw’s misunderstandings and misrepresentations of Bohm’s work
there and elsewhere, as documented in the Appendix to this book,
were actually valid, Bohm’s ideas would indeed threaten his own.
Properly understood, however, they do not.)
Wilber (2001) then poses the rhetorical question as to his own
motivations for lashing out at others:
Did they do anything to possibly bring it on themselves, or
was this just a unilateral case of me being rotten to the core?
In the case of his dissing of Bohm, however, it absolutely was
demonstrably a “unilateral case” of Wilber “being rotten to the
core.” For, Bohm never provoked Wilber in any way, except by being
right (and silent, even while alive; and moreso since then)