stripping the gurus - Brahma Kumaris Info

NORMAN EINSTEIN 231
dently on undergraduate—nay, high school—level ideas, even in
such areas where he has received formal training and testing, and
done postgraduate work, it is not likely that his equal screw-ups in
myriad other “erroneous zones” can be blamed simply on him “trying
to know too much.”
And that penchant for confident bumbling, demonstrated
equally in guru-related, life-mangling contexts as in relatively
ivory-towered ones, is of course the real difficulty with “the
Strange Case of Ken Wilber.”
The Cohen-defending Don Beck (2005) charitably finds an “absence
of cynicism” in Wilber. What he is really seeing there however,
I think, is an utter lack of discrimination and an astonishing
inattention to detail on kw’s part. Also, a dangerous immaturity
when it comes to guru-related matters. Plus, the documented willingness
of Wilber to close his eyes to reality, and conversely “make
things up out of thin air” to suit his preferred theses. (Cf. his misrepresentations
of basic evolution, of Bohm’s work, and probably of
Aurobindo’s ideas as well. Further, while those glaring issues may
be “peripheral” to the core of Wilber’s integral work, the same absolutely
cannot be said for his misrepresentations of Jung or of
Spiral Dynamics. Likewise, the failure of subtle energies and bodies
to show themselves in properly conducted tests leaves one with
very little to be confident about in the transpersonal levels of Wilber’s
objective and interobjective quadrants. That is so, even in the
unlikely event that he has accurately represented others’ research,
there.)
That foolish combination easily accommodates Wilber’s wish
to include (and be loved by) everyone—except level-headed skeptics,
of which there are precisely none among his founding members.
It is true that Dossey, Schwartz and Sheldrake are all advisors/associates
of the Skeptical Investigations group—www.skepti
calinvestigations.org. So too is Brian Josephson (see Randi [2003d],
[2003f]). And that organization does ostensibly aim to “promote
genuine skepticism.” It does not, however, in my opinion, succeed.
Not even close. Rather, the consistently weak caliber of argument
there is exactly as one would expect from such a team of thinkers.
Correspondingly, Wilber’s integral theories have him willingly
“finding room” for nearly every half-baked, inadequately tested,
unsubstantiated claim made by his “finest scholars.” (Cf. afterlife
experiments, subtle energies, chakras, morphogenic fields, alternative
medicine, etc.)