If spirituality requires a Masters degree to understand it’s probably not true. People are complex so ethics, neuroscience and psychology are complex. But spirituality implies universal human accessibility. Buddhism is spiritual. Its basic tenants are accessible to both genius and moron without need for books or scriptures. The complex matrix virtual reality multi-level video game spirituality described in Wilber’s recent book isn’t spirituality, it’s intellectual masturbation. In my opinion. I enjoyed reading it because I enjoy intellectual masturbation. I enjoyed and learned a few things and gave it a few stars in my review. But I certainly did [not] feel more “spiritual” after reading it. Did anybody?
I respond:
It may surprise you to hear this, but I largely agree with what you said, although I do have a different spin on it. And I’m probably one of the persons you may be talking about who’s fascinated by 30-dimensional Rubik’s cubes (but they’re not in the naval, they’re in one of the 729 petals of the Manipura chakra). Maybe there’s even a side of Wilber who would chat for an hour making hundreds of delicate philosophical distinctions and then, during or afterwards, also appreciate the emptiness of all those distinctions and appreciate the simplicity of a child’s smile.
Basically, I think spirituality which is only simple or only complex, to the exclusion of the other, is terrible. It’s a real problem, and probably looking at the world as a whole the bigger problem right now isn’t that people are taking too sophisticated an approach to their spirituality but just the opposite (so simple they’re actually being willfully ignorant, actually dumb-dumbs). A spiritual tradition needs to be able to be teachable to a young child AND have an appeal to the most erudite scholars.
Yes, as you say, Buddhism today can be expressed in a simple form, but there are also much more complex versions of it; without both, the Tradition would be incomplete. Christian doctrine can be expressed in the 920-page Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church or the 180-word pamphlet of a Protestant evangelical street preacher, but you sorta need both to figure out what Christians are trying to pass along.
So I get why reading a complex book of Integral philosophy can be kinda off-putting, but think of it from Wilber’s standpoint (or how I imagine it). He’s one person. He has talents no one else does and knowledge no one else has synthesized. He has a gift to give the world and part of it is being “that guy” who can be the erudite scholar. If we choose to see his work as a touchstone or pillar in a Tradition, then there’s no reason to confuse Wilber’s contribution to that Tradition with the whole of it. If we read Wilber’s 816-page book, The Religion of Tomorrow, we are doing the ‘mind’ part of our Integral Life Practice which feasts on richness and nuance and intellectual agility, not the ‘body’ part that wants nourishment and power or the ‘soul’ part that longs for comfort and homecomings or the ‘spirit’ part that wants to rest in profound simplicity.
One of the main reasons Integral philosophy is so much more difficult to digest than, say, Eckhart Tolle’s The Power of Now, is that Wilber attends to the ‘subtle’ realm and how it expresses itself in concepts and constructs that play out at all lower levels of the holarchy of existence, and less subtle thinkers merely spiritually by-pass all that. Is bypassing a good thing? If 95 out of 100 spiritual teachers and gurus are all bypassing something that’s essential for sustaining life on this world and the well-being of every world, shouldn’t we applaud a thinker for being more comprehensive?
The Integral Tradition ought to be broad enough to include Wilber’s marvelous complexity as well as the moderate complexity of, say, the high-school level world religions course taught at Exeter Academy which includes Integral theory on Self… and simpler expressions still, like the songs and prayers and other educational tools for children described by Joran Oppelt in his book Integral Church.
Has the Integral Tradition done enough to evolve a “second simplicity” or “simplexity” as some call it? Not nearly enough. That’s a huge and vital part of the cutting edge of our work these days, for some of us. And while very, very few of us are in a position to write 20 books of Integral theory like Wilber has, this is a task that everyone is called to participate in. Let’s try to do our best.
or: Are the Flaws in the Integral Worldview Bugs or Features?
Perhaps there’s a simple technological solution that could really improve the testy culture between Ken Wilber and his critics, and between all seekers after truth in the Integral world, if they would only borrow a method from the software development world.
But first, why is this idea important? Read ahead a few paragraphs if you’re already familiar with the situation involving critics in the Integral community. Every philosophy or theological perspective has its critics, some from within a tradition or school of thought and some from without. Integral has attracted many dozens of critics opposed to Integral theory and its aims, most of whom are amateur scholars who coalesce on a site called (a bit ironically, I think) Integral World.
At first, Ken Wilber (the leading Integral theorist) engaged with the site’s better criticisms, but eventually the tone soured and there was a falling out between him and his organization and Frank Visser, the Editor of Integral World. When Wilber started his own blog at kenwilber.com, there was even a spirited blog rant (part of a series of posts on playing with and healing the shadow) that got under the skin of Frank and other critics so deeply that Frank is still complaining about it more than a decade later.
Wilber hasn’t engaged with critics much since then for a variety of reasons (though he has contributed several new books and engaged in a wide variety of constructive projects), and the critics have proffered the narrative that Wilber refuses to engage them because his system has been destroyed by the devastating nature of their blog commentary.
This feud leaks into all sorts of acrimonious interactions in the Integral scene and I suspect it keeps many people who are interested in learning more about Integral Theory from pursuing their studies further. Because the critics who gather at Integral World believe (truly or falsely) that they are not being heard and their concerns haven’t been addressed in the past and still aren’t being addressed, over time they get louder and meaner and more desperate for recognition.
Back when I used to work at Microsoft, they called their primary tool RAID (get it, like the brand of pesticide?). Everyone enters problems into the database and then they are triaged by program managers and acted upon by the original person who logged it. Duplicate bugs are identified and removed. And ultimately the most serious issues get escalated higher and higher up the food chain. But they are all commented on. They are all given attention. Even the ones that are dismissed are shown the respect of a careful process.
What’s more, not every “Ken Wilber is a selfish asshole” comment is considered a legitimate bug to be tracked. There are standards and protocols for entering bugs into the system. You have to document its reproducibility. You have to show that it has a serious impact on the product’s usability. You even have to rank its priority level. The very process of trying to document a bug for inclusion in the database requires one to engage with the product, its specifications and design intent, and to investigate all related prior bugs to see if a similar one has been entered and determine how it was acted upon.
Sometimes something that looks like a bug from one perspective is really a product feature when more perspectives are taken into consideration. That case of mistaken identity usually gets resolved satisfactorily by the person who enters the bug into the system once they have been educated about why the feature exists in the first place.
Sometimes something that looks like a bug really is a bug, but it can’t be solved without breaking the system, at least not until the system goes through a major new product release. Then it can be entered into a list of potential new features to add when the system is redesigned. Nobody is really happy about this sort of resolution, but at least the issue is being tracked and might get fixed down the road.
Altogether, regardless of what happens with the bug, the very process of entering bugs into the system transforms a disgruntled source of potential mischief and anarchy into a constructive, contributing member of a cohesive team working together on a common purpose. Is there a reason why this coudn’t work that I don’t see? It seems like a perfectly sound idea to me. If this idea gets support, count me in as someone willing to help execute it.
Why Ken Wilber’s Most Ferocious Critic Isn’t Happy
This article was originally posted on December 3, 2014, but not much has changed regarding Frank Visser’s criticisms of Integral philosophy. He’s still disappointed and beating a neo-Darwinist drum.
I read Frank Visser’s “Reaching Out to the World” with appreciation and, at times, exasperation, particularly the conclusion in which he instructs the reader as to the “proper” way of approaching Integral philosophy. Here are my initial reactions, for what they’re worth.Reading Visser’s essay, which he calls a new chapter of his decade-old book Ken Wilber: Thought as Passion, helps me to know Wilber better and see the Integral community and its detractors more clearly. That is a huge gift.
I wish Frank nothing but good tidings for the future of his projects, especially Integral World.For those who don’t know who he is, Visser is an intellectual biographer of Wilber’s who over time became one of his greatest detractors. After all these years, Frank admits that he is “disappointed”, actually a kind of “triple disappointment.”
He regrets (1) that Wilber’s understanding of science was not “that deep”, that (2) Wilber did not respond to online critics who contributed to his website (which was formerly called The World of Ken Wilber, BTW), and that (3) the Integral community didn’t seem to mind.All three of these disappointments color Frank’s new chapter, which is really sort of an old chapter for those of us who have been paying at least a little attention over the past decade. Let’s take a look at each of them.
The First Disappointment
I guess Visser’s critique of Wilber’s take on neo-Darwinism is almost supposed to be self-evidently true, a knock down by a giant of a 98-pound weakling in a grotesquely mismatched prize fight. But it doesn’t really convince. These two paragraphs are the crux of Visser’s argument, beginning with a Wilber quote:
In Integral Spirituality (2006) he [Ken Wilber] states:
That drive—Eros by any other name—seems a perfectly realistic conclusion, given the facts of evolution as we understand them. Let’s just say there is plenty of room for a Kosmos of Eros.[33]
This can be considered the core of Wilber’s philosophy—more central than holons, heaps, or artifacts; quadrants, levels, lines, states and all that jazz—not only the process of biological evolution, but the cosmos as a whole, is governed by a mysterious spiritual Force. Apparently, for Wilber, there is no other way to explain nature’s complexities. He is inspired in this respect by A.N. Whitehead’s process philosophy, which postulates an immanent divine force in evolution.[34]
While I have defended similar notions in the past, and have even criticized Wilber for misrepresenting the esoteric view of evolution[35] which postulates a divine upward drive towards complexity, after years of studying the field of biological evolution I would no longer hold that view. On the contrary, I discovered that science has offered many plausible explanations for the existence of cosmological and biological complexity. This makes the postulation of a spiritual Eros in the Kosmos rather premature. So instead of challenging Wilber from the perennialist position, which I did in my earlier writings, over the years I have challenged him on Integral World from the naturalistic position of science.[36] Let’s really get post-metaphysical. Let’s get physical![37] Though Wilber may be strong in the fields of mind and culture, his coverage of the domains of life and matter leaves much to be desired. This casts grave doubts on Wilber’s claim for a Theory of Everything.
How about that! If you hadn’t been paying attention, when Wilber opposed metaphysics Visser was for it, but later apparently Ken sort of came around and acknowledged that his work had one metaphysical premise, and just then Visser coincidentally turns around and becomes anti-metaphysical. Well, okay, fine. They’re both permitted to evolve, aren’t they?
I would ask you to notice two things about the Wilber quote chosen by Visser. First, that Wilber describes Eros as a “perfectly realistic conclusion”. Second, Wilber says that “there is plenty of room” for Eros in his philosophy. Wilber nowhere invokes Spirit as an “explanation” for the universe.
Visser, to counter Wilber’s posture, is driven to the extreme position of saying that he wants to get rid of Eros entirely — any notion of an evolutionary end-point however dimly perceived and understood, any notion of creative intelligence anywhere, perhaps even a divine spark of some kind — because it is no longer needed after one has fully absorbed the fact that “science has offered many plausible explanations”.
It’s not difficult to see the flaw in Visser’s hand and Wilber’s trump card. Basically he neglects the way that the particular constraints given to scientific research — e.g., its insistence that only that which is perceivable by the senses or their extension by instruments is real — mean that science doesn’t really attempt to address metaphysical or spiritual truths at all. Wilber is not denying science its particular perspective on reality, only complementing it with methodologies of interiority which have within themselves the potential, it is claimed, to reveal Spirit.
Wilber does not begin his inquiry by “postulating Spirit”, he concludes his inquiry with an acknowledgement of a door for Spirit. Spirit is invoked as a realization, not an explanation. Ken makes room for both spirit and science. Visser, the former perennialist, meanwhile takes a position that seems indistinguishable from scientism (“Let’s get physical!”). One of these two philosophers allows science and spirit to co-exist and mutually inform one another through divergent methodologies and the other thinker insists only on room for one and defiantly jumps on the other’s back. Is it any wonder that some of us out here in the gallery see only one “Integralist” in the room?
The Second Disappointment
Frank Visser’s second great disappointment is Ken Wilber’s supposed failure to address his online critics. Firstly, it might help Frank’s case a bit if he were to acknowledge his self-interest in the topic. What, is Wilber’s limited engagement with his website — the largest collection of critical articles on him — hurtful and bad for business? I think a basic fact-finding on the matter would reveal that Wilber has written many hundreds of footnotes and other writings responding to critics, and adjusted his thought in five major iterations based largely on his attempts to honor and transcend legitimate criticisms.
It’s hard for me to think of another major public intellectual who has been more willing to change. Ken’s just sorta, well, picky about who he engages with. You can imagine why if you’ve read some of the attacks on Integral World (unfortunately not atypical is Joe Corbett’s diatribe calling Ken Wilber a “big selfish asshole”). When it comes to policing incivility in public discourse around Integral philosophy, I suspect that Visser doesn’t have the moral high ground he thinks he has.
The notorious Wyatt Earp affair in 2006 didn’t win over Frank or other critics who pleaded to Ken for a response, any response, despite the fact that it was indeed a response. It just wasn’t the reply Frank or other critics wanted to hear. In an over-the-top missive in the classic genre of “blog rant”, Ken made some really powerful, stinging points that needed to be said. They were the teal/turquoise elephants in the room.
And then Ken decided the most skillful reply was to take a breather and let his students get their hands dirty if they chose to do so while he focused on building the Integral enterprise. Arguably, it was his best option. That’s what I thought at the time. It did have a dynamic way of getting some of the Integral community’s shadows out of the closet for sure, Ken’s included. The whole affair helped open my eyes to the real world challenges of embodying the Integral worldview in one’s being.
The Third Disappointment
Visser’s third disappointment is with the Integral community itself because they “ignore” the “intellectual problems” that he finds so troublesome and, well, disappointing. Apparently he wishes everyone would study neo-Darwinism like he has, because if only they would, they would see that Wilber’s isn’t a Theory of Everything at all. Personally I always thought there was a good chunk of well-intended humor in the title of Wilber’s book A Theory of Everything, but I digress.
Of course, I have no problem with folks who are interested in academic debates to read some good biology books and form opinions about what they read. If they’ve genuinely got an Integral consciousness they will be a little more fluent in the Upper Right quadrant, and if they don’t got it, they will no doubt absolutize the Upper Right quadrant and find some better use of their time than chasing Integral rainbows (I mean, interiors).
For Visser there is nothing “historical” or “groundbreaking” in the Integral project, and anyone with notions to the contrary is suffering from delusions which are no doubt manifesting with the shadow of “inflation”. He concludes:
The proper approach to Wilber’s integral philosophy is therefore differential: some parts of it are strong, some are weak and some are just plain wrong. Above all, let’s de-glamorize, de-hype, de-mystify, de-idealize the integral project.[54] Only in such a climate can we sort out what’s valuable and what isn’t. The current strongly commercialized and even evangelical (“spread the message to as many people as possible!”) integral culture makes this sober reflection virtually impossible and even suspect.[55]
And here is where I most strongly disagree with him, even if (yikes!) it would at first glance put me on the ghastly side of glamor, hype, mystification, and idealization of the lower-case integral project. It’s true that I have seen some of that inflation of ego and purpose, and idealization, in myself and others. And I think it’s fine to point it out when it can be harmful to our work. Certainly it isn’t necessary to remind the world that Integral is going to save the world because that might just make the world want to NOT be saved out of spite. Frank is doing a service here, to an extent, and so are all the folks who would join with him in this critique. To an extent.
But it’s also sort of like pushing a baby to the ground when she is just learning to walk. It’s stupid and mean. Those of us riding the second-tier or integral or evolutionary wave, we are like babies. We are the future. And we are trying to walk for Pete’s sake.
We Wilberians (if I must use the term) see Ken Wilber as perhaps the most important thinker who sees what is all around us and is helping to move us forward. Integralists of all affinities, Wilberian or otherwise (a nod to Don Beck and Spiral Dynamics), are all pushing the envelope forward. This is difficult work, and we get very little support from traditionalists, modernists, and postmodernists. On some days it feels like they’re pushing us down every chance they get. We have a long ways to go before we can rest, and we need to believe in ourselves and our fellows.
“Properly Integral”
We need wise, humble critics, not aversion to criticism. But just as importantly, we need to inhabit the Integral worldspace and turn our criticism outside ourselves to the world beyond. A proper sense of our role in history is in order, for a due sense of great responsibility along with humility, so we don’t under-tote the goods we have to sell. And make no mistake, ideas need to be communicated and promoted and the best ideas don’t always win. One looks about at the paucity of Integral ideas in the intellectual marketplace and really has to be incredulous at the notion that Integral has been over-marketed!
Integral ideas need a healthy ecosystem in which they can flourish and impact the broader culture. That’s where the Integral movement comes in, the healthy development of which ought to be a goal of every integralist, not the brunt of condescending attacks on egoic “inflation”. Like poets, we are underappreciated visionaries.
There’s room in Integral circles for people who agree with Frank and want the discussion of Integral to be robust in academic domains. But Integral is more than the philosophy of science or interdisciplinary meta-theory. And I hope to God the critics of “inflation” don’t succeed in discouraging Integral’s uptake in the culture by means of attacks on “commercialization” and “evangelization”. (Speaking of commercialization, it’s ironic to note that it’s Visser’s website that has Google ads peddling $299 SEO Services and Amazon affiliate links giving him a dime off the sale of every one of Ken Wilber’s book sold there, whereas Integral Life at least seems to market only its own products.)
If Integral ideas spread, as I hope they do, it will because many of us ignore Frank’s recommendation of the “proper approach to Wilber’s philosophy” and instead allow ourselves to be remade more wise, more whole, more fully human … and share our beautiful Self/selves abundantly with the rest of the world for the sake of love, with the goal of truth. Visser’s disappointments are sad for him, yes, but they don’t have to be our own.
In a small way, I hope to promote a healthy Integral ecosystem in the blogosphere through my blogging. My intention is to add a mostly outward-facing beacon into the territory of spiritual and philosophical and cultural commentary weblogs.
How is an integrally intelligent being supposed to interact with lower spectrum cultures without becoming persecuted, and yet still communicating integral knowledge?
My response:
I like what’s already been said, especially Layman’s comment and Tom’s response which read: “We need to better articulate what it means to drop into their world view to fully convey understanding and to provide affirmation before we can expect them to be open to the possibilities. Often this takes a great deal of patience and timing.”
Firstly, let’s skip over the intellectual hornet’s nest that is roused by the phrase “lower spectrum cultures”. Another time.
I would add to Layman’s and Tom’s response that we need to embrace a methodological pluralism regarding even “integral” communication styles. Partly, I suspect, this is about differences between orangish-teal, greenish-teal, turquoise, and indigo integralists, etc., taking on different orientations. And of course it’s also about personality types, personal quirks, shadow issues, and so on.
For some of us, we will seek to model through example our inclusiveness and ability to think with nuance and balance and act with integrity, all the while refraining from explicitly discussing the “operating system” working in the background that helps to facilitate our way of communicating.
Others will take an approach with greater visibility and willingness to present the Integral worldview to a world, whether it’s ready for it or not, trusting that Spirit will sort it all out. They are the writers penning memoirs and novels and poetry and philosophy and other books for a public audience. They are the artists making integral art and music. They are the business people running Integral businesses and political activists running Integrally-informed think tanks. They are everyone who is willing to work a label of “integralist” or “evolutionary” or “metamodernist”, ever so lightly or boldly as befits their taste and sensibility.
Sometimes these approaches are at odds with each other, and not necessarily any “more integral” or “less integral” as a result.
I think the day is coming where “integral knowledge” will be embedded in works of art and literature and in public figures or organizations so prominent and influential that it’s going to change the game. Then we won’t get the blank stares anymore. But we’ll have a whole other set of challenges.
Personally I’ve worn a number of different communication hats at different points, and I can confidently suggest that it’s worth experimenting to find an approach that works for you. And don’t forget to listen and learn from every other person regardless of their station of life — they often have much to teach us as well.
I’ll close by quoting someone who’s said something similar as part of an elaborate theory of Integral Communication that’s worth taking a look at. T. Collins Logan wrote:
In a more general sense, integral communication celebrates the diversity of existence at the same time. It excites and absorbs the profound creative force of every heart, mind, body, soul, spirit, will and community. It invokes a neutral field of exchange where all concepts, emotions and experiences are relevant, but where no single meme or worldview dominates. This requires that we suspend our judgments and beliefs in the moment of listening; that we allow each contribution to exist by itself, without being prejudiced by its source, the language used, or even the perceived intent behind the language. To maintain a truly neutral disposition in our communication allows us to both receive and transmit on many frequencies at once. As a result, to communicate integrally is to accept, love and celebrate what is – in all its complexity, diversity and apparent contradiction – so that what could be is a natural synthesis of the greatest potential in all of us.
Although Logan’s definition won’t work for every Integralist at every station — there’s the rub with methodological pluralism — it’s a great start. The truth is, everyone deserves to be listened to fully and completely by someone, but not necessarily by us, in every context (not all perspectives are equal, and our time and attention are precious). Communication is just one aspect of our relationships and missions in life, and we have to weigh the opportunity costs of being a good communicator with being good at many other things.
