WIlber vs Almaas

Hello, has anyone thought or heard or felt or seen anything about the "dialog" between Ken Wilber and Hameed? I mean, there seem to be some writings about each other in their own books. I wish they could have a meeting, that would be something to listen to.

I consider these two the most insteresting people of our time and I really wonder what the so called critique from Wilber is all about. I have got hold of the books where they talk about each other and will see if I can make anything out of it.

So far, I really value both opinions. Well, yes, one is more a of a practice and the other more of a theory (in very general terms) but at the same time they are talking about the same thing in my mind.

Wilber really appreciates the diamond work but seem to criticise the "romantic" tendecies. Wilber does not agree that infants have essential experiences, maintaining that the infant exists purely in the physical, material world -
"instinctual, vital, impulsive, narcissistic, egocentric; living for food, its God is all mouth".

Almaas's view is:
Wilber's critique demonstrates a misinterpretation based on Wilber's own linear, 4-stage categorization of spiritual development. Almaas' perspective is that infants experience a type of true nature/Spirit, but one that is very distinct from, and less integrated than, the experiences of essentially realized adults.

I still really value Wilber's opinion and think there is much more to this and I feel that these two men are sort of missing each other's points.

I feel there is a tendency to call upon the infant's "pure state" to get a point across about being true. I find that this is somewhat misguiding when the work we do is about becoming an adult, especially from Wilber's point of view. I also very much understand the point of this beingness in a child in another perspective and here I am with Almaas.
I guess the ego wants a clear cut answer. So I will go deeper into this and see what I can find.

Anyone any thoughts?

Sam