Wilber’s writings are far more humble and skeptical

joe perez Says: March 1st, 2007 at 10:49 pm Personally, I find Wilber’s writings far more humble and skeptical than Edward’s comments precisely because Wilber is willing to put more of himself out on a limb, willing to risk being wrong, willing to venture forth opinions that his academic colleagues and friends would hush hush, tut tut. Edward strikes this reader as far too sure of himself and his need for No TOE.

I have read and re-read Edward on the “theory of anything” and I can’t make much sense of it. Must be me. To create a theory of anything, indeed to create a theory of any kind, requires a worldspace which may be more or less adequate to the task of theory-making. Is Edward saying that it’s best to allow one’s worldspace to remain implicit, not to make its boundaries explicit so far as one is able? I would think a theory of anything presupposes a sort of implicit theory of everything, and really the issue at hand is how to best reveal that implicit theory.

Anyways, I do like what Edward has to say about focusing on events, not comparing brussel sprouts and soap. I fail to see how it’s any different from what Wilber is doing, particularly in Integral Spirituality, in which his focus is entirely on hori-zones of arising. I bet there are few words used more frequently in IS than “occasion”. Everything’s an occasion to Wilber. It would help if Edward would actually cite the sources of all those authors of TOEs who he disagrees with and actually presents their case in their own words before huffing and puffing about it. Open Integral