Tom A. Says: January 28th, 2007 at 2:01 am BTW, I am reading a book by Anthony Storr about cult leaders, called Feet of Clay, from a few years back. Various cult leaders are profiled, and each is unique, but often Storr addresses a personality quirk of a leader and generalizes it as a common thread for those profiled. A chapter re Wilber would fit right in for an updated edition. Edward Berge Says: January 28th, 2007 at 10:34 am Tom, Let’s face it, while I’d agree that Ken, Stuart and I-I are a bit scary in terms of being a cult there is absolutely no comparison with Bush and Cheney. The former are a miniscule cult that have virtually no influence in world affairs. (Or in much of any affairs, for that matter.) The latter have real power and are killing human beings for oil profits. That you can make such a comparison probably has more to do with you than with them. It doesn’t even work as hyperbole, and I tend to hyperbolize a lot. The elephant in this room January 28th, 2007 (posted by Edward Berge) I posted the below in the Lightmind forum but it’s a question I’ve also been asking myself a lot lately. Care to explore our answers? I really enjoy the discussions in here, as there are some bright, educated minds discussing topics of interest to me. The one thing though that nags at me is that it’s focused on responding to Ken Wilber. Many here have proven time and again that Ken is inadequate to handle the philosophical or poliitcal (or any) issues of the day, so why do you focus on responding to him? He really seems to be an insignicant player on the world stage when it comes to these ideas and he’ll likely be a mere footnote in cultish American religions some day, so what motivates everyone here to spend so much time refuting him? Really, I’d like to know. Posted in Uncategorized 2 Comments » show comments »
No comments:
Post a Comment