Michael Schwartz started a FB IPS thread calling for civilized academic debate on Ken Wilber. After several other posts I said this:
And
there is a time to drop the pretense of civilized debate and just fight
against what is wrong. Sometimes the former is a way to capitulate to
the hegemonic power structure, to succumb to its premises while politely
disagreeing. Which in effect doesn't change that structure one iota.
I'm
thinking here specifically of the ITC debate on capitalism, which I'd
like to hear more of. But Stein's opening statement makes clear we
should not accept capitalism's own terms, for to do so, no matter how
'integrally' dressed, really changes nothing. It's a fight that requires
strong language, and yes, even polemic, that motivates us to personal
and collective action in order to change a defunct and destructive
system.
Capitulating
to conscious capitalism, as some integralists do, requires more than
polite and respectful disagreement. We can then politely watch climate
change destroy our lives and planet from an ivory tower burning to the
ground. If we don't fight now we all die, and that's not a metaphor or
hyperbole. This is not an 'academic' debate befitting of its rules of
engagement.
I
also respectfully appreciate Wilber's excellent chapter on polemic in
The Essential Ken Wilber (Shambhala, 1998) starting on p. 153.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.