Michel Bauwens: The following is related to the previous item about Wilber criticism, where I mention the differences between the integral worldview and P2P Theory. The following is an excerpt from a reply I once wrote about such a critique from within the integral community. I must apologize from the somewhat aggresive tone used, but it was a reaction against a number of attacks which included the qualification of bottom-dweller and ankle-biter (indicating my relative position vis a vis the genius of Ken Wilber). The criticial quotes are from an email exchange in a mailing list, which I have now lost.
QUOTE FROM THE DEBATE:

“I believe that the P2P and Human Evolution article is a typical example of Green vMemetic view. The article’s basic theme originates from a consciousness that operates either at a good Green/yellow center of gravity a la SD or at Yellow cognition and Green value a la Wilber’s multiple lines. Isn’t it true Why does it belong to Green vMeme?

1) It rejects the evolutionary thrust of Wilber’s work and its implication of hierarchy (holoarchy) because evolution means stages of being.”

Bauwens reply: Notice first of all the nature of the debate. One does not use rational arguments to invalidate or validate the empirical claims or the interpretation of the essay, but one characterizes the ‘stage of consciousness’ of the author. This is a ad hominem attack, stating in fact that the author has a ‘inferior mode of consciousness’. The funny thing in my particular case that when I agree 100% with Wilber, I was called ‘integral’ by Ken himself (unsure, I had asked him specifically), but as soon as one becomes a partial critic, one falls down a stage or two. This is very similar in nature to the debating style in vogue in Stalinist parties, when those who disagree are necessarily victim of ‘false consciousness’, and only those who follow the party line have the correct consciousness. In this case, there is a correct SD-position against which all others are compared, and found wanting.

The charge that I reject social evolution is also factually wrong, for anyone seriously reading my essay, since every ‘C’ section is specically devoted to placing P2P in an evolutionary scheme of succeeding social formations. Thus, I do not reject evolutionary schemes, only the assumption by Wilber, that the consciousness states of mystics (psychogenesis) is an indication of coming sociogenesis of society. To give an example, Wilber has consistently supported spiritual abusers, first Da Free John and now Andrew Cohen, even though they lead totalitarian cults, on the grounds that they are realised. So, in my view, one can still accept human evolution, but it has to be a full four-quadrant empirical description and interpretation of the past. The methodology of Wilber himself is flawed, since his orienting generalizations, his claim that his synthesis reflects a consensus in a field of research, is in most cases simply not true, as shown in detail in Jeff Meyerhoff’s Bald Ambition. The conclusion is that we cannot simply trust Wilber’s integrations, but that we must all effectuate our own. We are all singularities effecting particular integrations of reality, as does Wilber, as I do, as every social interpreter does, as every human being in fact does.

So in the essay, we look at an emerging form of social exchange, and give grounds for an interpretation that it may be a form that is poised not only for serious growth, but possibly a form of social dominance. At the same time, see my three scenarios, I leave room open for an eventual defeat of this social form, or for its abuse for non-emancipatory ends.

2) It tries to apply the theory of P2P, which originates from the network programming world, to other domains, such as economy and politics. It is similar to New Ager’s typical habit of applying the conclusion of one domain (i.e. Quantum Physics) to another (Mysticism). (And I can say this with more confidence because I am a web programmer and know the rationale behind the rise of P2P software.)

Bauwens reply: are applied by theorists and practitioners in many different fields, since he cannot read what is in the essay, I can provide an extensive bibliography. However, I do argue in the essay that technology is enabling the spread of this form, since without it, the p2p relational dynamic would be confined to small groups in physical proximity.

3) It assumes that everybody is equal. Here is a relevant quote: Again, peer to peer appears as a radical shift. In the new emergent practices of knowledge exchange, equipotency is assumed from the start. What is equipotent is the computer, forming a node in the network. It ignores completely the levels of subjective consciousness of the users of those computers.

Human participants, not machines.

4) It rejects hierachies, especially those that are found in business companies (feudal authoritarian system)

Bauwens reply: The essay does indeed maintain that in the contemporary knowledge economy, the hierarchical authoritarian nature of classic organisations, based on information scarcity, has become counter-productive. At the same time, I do recognise that this same system was unavoidable as long as such objective conditions of scarcity persisted. The reason P2P emerges and frequently bypasses such classic organisational forms is precisely their inability to adapt to complex realities requiring quick adaptation. Nowhere does the article say that such hierarchies will completely disappear, since I clearly link P2P to conditions of abundance, which are available in non-rival immaterial goods. Moreover, I also mention that P2P processes have their own hierarchies, but the difference is that they are fluid, depending on conditions, expertise, communal validation etc.. Bureaucratic authority does disappear but there are other forms of hierarchy, such as ‘natural leadership’. However, there is some research to indicate that ‘treating participants ‘as equals’, makes for more successful cooperative projects.

5) It advocates participative spirituality, thus rejecting all guru models of spirituality (quoting from Jorge Ferrer’s book is one good clue) for everybody.

Bauwens reply: Let me state that I’m very proud to cite Jorge Ferrer, who wrote a seminal book on contemporary participatory spirituality and has offered a cogent critique of the epistemological problems evident in the Wilber enterprise. The section of participative spirituality makes it clear that though I personally advocate the participative techniques, I am totally open to inter-religious dialogue and to the traditions and treasures uncovered by thousands of years of spiritual searching. It is only that P2P advocates do not believe there is one tradition with authority for the future, and also, that the relevant psycho-technologies and insights can and should be divorced from the authoritarian, sexist, patriarchal traditions they’re embedded in.

6) But it already rejected the evolutionary ethos hinted by past mystics! Talk about invisible contradiction, just like the famous performative contradiction implicit in many extreme postmodern ideas.

Bauwens reply: Since I do not reject human evolution per se, there is no performative contradiction, though I’m not even sure what the author is here hinting at. My position of mystics is that there are not an example of future social development. What they did was uncover a number of hidden potentials of the human bodymind, but their behavior and communities are not exemplary for contemporaries in any systematic way, though we may of course learn from thousands of years of human experience. Human social development will not be a result of copying the authoritarian nature of traditional religious communities, nor of the spiritual, sexual, and financial abuses of many contempary spiritual masters. And this is precisely what is implied by Wilber and his praise for Da Free John and Andrew Cohen: that the ghastly things happening in these communities, well described by former devotees, are in fact counter-examples of human emancipation, but rather forms of spiritual slavery.

Robert: I think this article is a manifesto for the creation of Green vMemetic economic system.

Bauwens reply: If one does accept the psychological reductionism of SD, then indeed that would seem a logical conclusion. I’m not saying that SD has ‘no validity’ at all, but that is is not appropriate to generalize from the psychological findings of Clare Graves, a total interpretation of society, and that it is especially sad to use it to see oneself as some sort of Ubermensch who stands above the fray with a right interpretation. If on the contrary one has an open mind on peer to peer, and one is empirical, we would see that the P2P form of social exchange has in fact elements of green, yellow, and turquiose, see the table in my essay version on the Wilber site which demonstrates this. But that is not a problem for me, only for those who believe SD is the only right interpretation of the richness of human experience, and who use it in a clearly ideological fashion.

But the most important clue is how the author rejected the stages of Wilber’s model, but kept the 4 quadrants. Apparently Dr. Beck has said that many people who call themselves integral use the 4 quadrants happily but consciously or subconsciously avoid focusing on the levels.

Bauwens reply: I use the quadrants, and I use levels, as shown in the beginning, it is only that my levels are not pre-given by the SD system, but use more mainstream social scientists and philosophers such as Norbert Elias, Louis Dumont, Foucault and Deleuze, Negri,and others. SD and Wilber do not have a monopoly on holarchical interpretations
Robert: It’s fascinating to see how some people embrace Wilber’s idea, and then after a while do a 180 and reject it, and keep only the parts that they like. Isn’t it a clear example of narcissism in action, no?

Bauwens reply: This one is fairly typical of some SD ideologists and their way of communicating on their list, by innuendo, name calling, using their colour-schemes to disquality debaters. From my point of view, narcissism is part of the human condition and it affects all of us. It affects me, my critic, and his thought masters. It is also irrelevant in a debate about ideas. Are my empirical facts right or wrong? Are my interpretations of these facts valid or not.? On this score, unfortunately, the critic has shown himself unable to read the text for what it actually says, and has only seen his projections, filtered by strong ideological blinders.The above argument also shows how some SD-integral people view intellectual property. In this precise case we should remind this critic of the following: ideas are not owned by anyone. Once in the public domain, we can use concepts, how we like, those of Marx, those of Wilber, those of anyone, without any obligation, except attribution. What is implied in the critic’s position is that there is one right interpretation of reality, that we have to accept totally, and that it is not acceptable to be inspired by parts of what a thinker has to say. This is a very sad, totalitarian, cultic position and interpretation of Wilber’s work.