Evolution according to Ken?

As the saying goes, "There are no whole truths: all truths are half-truths. It is trying to treat them as whole truths that plays the devil" (Whitehead). Or, according to another one, "The truth will set you free. But first, it will piss you off" (Gloria Steinem). I tend to opt for William James', "The greatest enemy of any one of our truths may be the rest of our truths."

Ken Wilber has been criticized on various grounds. Most persistently and obstinately by those who refuse to read his work. Some critics, though, have found their platform in "disclosing" and "exposing" Wilber's arguments so as to bring into question the entire edifice of his thought and, quite often, even his integrity. The main gaffe, repeated ever so frequently, was/is to take an illustrative remark and then subject it to a detailed rebuttal by proving its "untruth". Then, of course, concluding the remark is wrong, we can all happily ignore the referent, namely the principle in question to which the illustrative remark was used to refer to. That is, I believe, the hidden - well, not very hidden - agenda behind criticizing Wilber's understanding of the non-bird developing wings which make it a bird, an innocent illustration used to refer to Eros and its role in Evolution.

Here's a comment from Ken Wilber in reply to remarks on "randomness" by Alexander Astin. It's a short piece, but sufficient to make the point. LINK