Wilber Watch

The 'Spirit of Evolution' Reconsidered

2010-08-29T05:06:00.000-07:00

Just to let you guys know I have summarized my concern's about Ken Wilber's view of evolution in a paper which was presented at the 2nd Integral Theory Conference. The paper "The 'Spirit of Evolution' Reconsidered" won an honorary mention in the category Constructive Criticism.
However, the audience of that conference did not seem to know much about the subject of evolution, nor care about knowing more. Currently, integral discourse is very much focused on AQAL theory and it's applications. (Nicely captured by Hugh Martin in his recent Integral World posting "The Tyranny of AQAL").
Still, evolutionary theory forms the interface between integral and science. Is integral willing to "give" this field to science, as Wilber once suggested (tired of all the criticism his opinions on evolution have generated)? Or is there still a case to be made for "spiritual evolution", that does not misinterpret science from the start?

Ken Wilber's Mysterianism

2009-02-10T09:17:00.000-08:00

In a recent members-only video on Integral Life, titled "Can Evolutionary Science Explain Evolution Itself? / The Mystery of Evolution", Ken Wilber reiterates his view on evolution before a group of students. (Though the larger part of the video is about first-person consciousness, and the inability of science to explain it—or does science perhaps just say consciousness is not what we think it is? We will focus here on evolution proper).

In this video, Wilber clarifies his position: science is helpful with phenomena "once they have arisen", but is unable to explain phenomena "when they appear for the first time". For this, something else is needed, Wilber calls it in his writings and talks: Eros, Spirit-in-Action, or let's just call it God. Consequently, such a spiritual view of evolution generates feelings of awe, as testified by one of his students and approved by Wilber.

I consider this view to be the result of lazy thinking and in the end harmful. It does not explain anything. It is anti-science. It makes an easy division in on the on hand reductionistic science, which does its own job of clarifying the details of nature, and on the other hand, evolutionary spirituality, which "explains" evolution and provides an inspiring wordview of growth.

Read more:
http://www.integralworld.net/visser31.html

Integral Politics, Integral Political Party, Integral Political Science

2008-05-28T12:51:00.000-07:00

In this weeks Integral Naked session, Wilber gives away a free video on the Third Way of Integral Politics. Check it out: http://in.integralinstitute.org/live/view_ipolitics.aspx. The tone of voice is much more modest then earlier treatments. Wilber says it's all very complicated and we need decades of discussion. Now we're talking business.

Concerning the upcoming US Presidential elections, he laments the impossibility of getting an integral candidate elected, in a democracy, because there are so few integral people around to vote for them. (But then again, even atheists have zero chance of getting elected for President in the United States!). So the best we can hope for is a US presidential candidate who is "integrally informed". According to Wilber, things are looking good on that front: Bill Clinton has read him, Gore has, Hillary knows about AQAL, Jebb Bush ("the brother that reads") ditto, even Karl Rove has... Mmmm, not so sure where that will bring us...

Wilber also discusses the two-pary system in the US that, according to him, has now served its purpose. He pleads for a reform of the political system. But hey, we over here in Europe know all about this parliamentary democracy or many-party system, where coalitions between parties determine who rules and who's in the opposition.

The problem with any emerging third party in the US is, I think, that it will always weaken the main party which it resembles most. So a left wing third party will weaking the Democrates, so the Republicans will win. A right wing third party will weaken the Republicans, so the Democrats will win. That is really a losing proposition.

Wilber explains that while a traditionalist vote - to avoid using color meme terminology -- would normally be Republican, and a humanistic vote would be Democrat, a rationalist could vote both (rationalist-freethinker vs. capitalist-conservative). What would that pattern look like for an integralists vote? Would these votes always be "strategic" (what's best for the country, given its meme constellation?) or would they have preferences of their own?

However, before we start thinking about integral politics and integral political parties or presidents, it would in my opinion be good to focus first on integral political science. Integral is first and foremost an attempt to understand a particulare field of thought by including as many perspectives as possible. So if Wilber can include in his model both left and right, both indivdualist and collectivist, both traditional, modernist and humanist, then this analysis should be offered to specialists in the field of politicology, to see if it really makes sense.

Then, and only then, should we consider applying it to the real world, but not before. Parties and Presidents are a premature topic.

Evolutionary Science, Fundamentally Confused?

2008-04-25T03:51:00.000-07:00

In the introductory text of a recent Integral Naked audio, a talk between Ken Wilber and Rupert Sheldrake ("Integral Evolutionary Biology"), this astonishing statement can be read:

There is perhaps no field of human inquiry more fundamentally confused than evolutionary science—especially given its monumental task of trying to essentially account for the entire history of the manifest world, from the Big Bang to this present moment in time, along with every mutation, deviation, and transformation in between.

After Wilber has himself given such a thoroughly confused presentation of the status of evolutionary theory (see "The Wilberian Evolution Report"), he still has the guts to present his own theory as a revelation:

It is an extraordinary science that requires an equally extraordinary framework, comprehensive enough to make sense of the entire spectrum of evolutionary emergence—especially as it becomes increasingly necessary to explain things like consciousness, hermeneutics, and spirituality in evolutionary terms.

The talk with Sheldrake, predictably, barely touches on the subject of evolutionary biology, or any of the topics which are debated in this field of science. It is a long monologue of Wilber, endured politely by Sheldrake, trying to convince Sheldrake of his particular take on holons, going back to the old legends of how he discovered his holonic model by comparing all existing evolutionary models.

Talking about confusion. On the vexed question whether natural evolution can produce eyes and wings on its own (i.e. without the assistence of some higher Force, Spirit, Eros, God), Wilber has subsequently stated:

"Absolutely not - absolutely nobody believes this anymore."
"Evolution can't explain shit, deal with it".
"Give me a break on this, I know the subject inside out."
"Well, biologists may still believe it, but I know what they are really thinking."
"Well, eyes and wings are perhaps possible, but the immune system is not".
"Anyways, whatever materialistic biology comes up with, we will include it in our system."
"I never meant that statement about eyes and wings to be taken literally, it was just a metaphor for the complexity of evolution."

Yeah, right. And it is precisely this complexity that evolutionary theory tries to unravel, in its own careful way. With metaphors, if necessary, but never with "bad poetry" (see: Richard Dawkins, Unweaving the Rainbow), which only misleads the reader into thinking that science has found no way of explaining the evolution of eyes and wings. Which is patently false.

An "integral evolutionary biology" could mean so much more: a careful positioning of the various authors (Dawkins, Gould, Mayr, Lewontin, Kaufman, even Sheldrake, etc.) within the landscape of biology. But that requires a lot more then saying: evolutionary biology belongs to the Lower-Right quadrant, so we will include it, but without the reductionism. Bla, bla, bla...

One of Wilber's main poins of criticism is that evolutionary biology (and materialistic science in general) excludes, or explains away, interiority. In this audio, Wilber again makes his habitual statement that transcendental reality should no longer be seen as something that is beyond matter, but as "something within" (which is the hallmark of Wilber-5, his current phase of thinking).

Unfortunately, he has never, in his recent online and published writings, fleshed out this statement, though his very post-metaphysical turn depends on it. If metaphysics speaks of transcendental realities, and post-metaphysics (as generally understood) denies them, where exactly does Wilber's integral post-metaphysics stand? It denies them, but not entirely? Not beyond, but within? Isn't that just a semantic manoeuvre?

Again, bad poetry which deludes the reader into thinking that something has been explained.

Some Convenient Truths

2008-03-17T23:45:00.000-07:00

Al Gore's documentary about global warming "An Inconvenient Truth" had a clear message to the world: our continued use of fossil fuels will spell disaster for our immediate future. So we have a responsibility to restrain ourselves, cut back on our systematic waste of energy, and turn the tide if at all possible. Some have pointed to exaggerations or factual errors in Gore's presentation. Wilber has devoted an Integral Naked session with best seller author Michael Crichton (of Jurassic Park) on the topic framing this anti-warming crusade as a green-religious effort, that is supposed to make us feel guilty about how we degrade Mother Earth. Now, isn't this a very convenient truth? So we can go on burning up our resources?

Take the Middle East. The received view is that the Israeli people settled in a land largely empty of inhabitants, upon which they were attacked by all their neighbours, and are justified in claiming more and more fruitful land, for their growing population, to this very day. Backed up by huge financial and military US support. Again, a very convenient truth. Don't mention the fact that in a period of sixty years three million refugees have been put in refugee camps, whose future fate even today is barely a topic of negotiation. And in the meantime, Israel is taking more and more land, keeping Palestinians into some kind of reservation area in Gaza and the West Bank. Where one casualty on the side of Israel justifies killing 150 Palestinians in revenge. And only Libya, of all countries, had the nerve to point this out in a recent Security Council meeting.

Take Iraq, again. Yesterday on Dutch television there was a documentary about how the US has "sold" the Iraq war to the world, and how many (though not as many as they wanted) "bought" it. How Colin Powell, whose credibility was only slightly less then Mother Teresa at that time, had to tell a pack of lies to the UN, even to the point of waving a tube of Antrax before the audience (which contains talk powder). Or a major press conference, in which a Dutch and Danish army officer were standing right behind the US speaker, signalling to the audience the large "coalitionof the willing", while none of these countries were involved in the war efforts at that time. Isn't it ironic that the country which has the largest number of weapons of mass destriuction invades a country which is supposed to have these weapons, which turns out not to be true, but then it invades it anyway, because of connections with Al-Qaeda, which turn out to be non-existent.... Is there any reality check here other then: we have to grab the oil before it's too late? Wilber's take on the Iraq war has more or less been: even if one doesn't agree fully with Bush, it takes a Blue Bush to smash a Red dictator like Saddam in the face. Not to mention other dictators in the word, past or present, who have been left alone or have even been actively supported by the US, when it served their interests.

Or take the vexed topic of Wilber criticism. The received view in the Integral scene is that most critics misrepresent or misunderstand (or both) Wilber, so they can be safely ignored. Or they are "bad critics" because they don't have the right "altitude" to understand his lofty visions. Or,... well you get the picture. Enough to stifle a debate from the start. Another very convenient truth. So let's just promote Wilber's next, next views, and ignore any of his critics. What's their problem? It's echoes the feeling many in the US had after the 9/11 attacks: "why does the world hate us?". Integral Ideology is it's proper name. Criticism is well... inconvenient.

I personally would like to hear more about Integral views on these topics which really take a look at these convenient truths.

Wilber Assessment vs. Advertising

2007-09-19T23:25:00.000-07:00

The Integral Vision, the latest product of the Integral marketing machine, is a rehash of material from Integral Spirituality, most notably its Introduction. It would have been fine to warn readers that they bought nothing new, except a lot of flashy techno-erotic illustrations, and a couple of "1-minute excercises" included in Integral Life Practice. The overall tone is: we are an organization that has truth on its side, has a method that is the most effective, and above all: you can join us. Not a shadow of doubt falls over these pages. Marketing has won over arguments. Advertising has won over assessment.

Very few people seem to be interested in Wilber assessment. Just how strong is the evidence Wilber claims for his theories? "Staggering" as he claims, or debatable, even shaky? How trustworthy is he when he reports about science, be it evolutionary theory, cultural studies or psychology?

Two recent publications on Integral World raise pertinent questions. Jim Chamberlains long awaited analysis of Wilber's statements regarding science, "Whither Ken Wilber", is worthy of close reading. Where does Wilber actually stand in debates about science and religion?

"My interest in getting a clearer sense of Ken Wilber's philosophical stance on certain open questions about the origin and evolution of life, the relationship between psychological events and physical events, and the relation of science and religion was piqued when I began to notice that more than a few Wilberians seemed to use terms such as "flatland materialism," "quadrant absolutism," and "gross reductionism" to characterize and thereby dismiss from serious consideration just about anything they didn't happen to agree with."

Recenty another critical piece has been added: a review of Integral Spirituality by Jaap Schaveling, a Dutch programme manager of the prestigious Nyenrode Business University, who has a deep interest in spirituality and psychotherapy. He writes about Wilber's inadequate referencing of scientific research:

"Occasionally the book refers readers to www.kenwilber.com for additional footnotes, but it is impossible to locate them in the site. An investigative email message to the publisher received no reply. His literature references and research bases contain barely any new material in comparison with his previous books. His references are far too general and a bit too thin on the ground. This makes it very difficult to check whether one of his propositions has indeed been properly supported by good research." One of his conclusions: "AQAL is a Story, No More, No Less. It is a pity that Wilber seems to have lost the ability to keep that perspective himself."

These sober and sobering assessments of Wilber's latest writings are few and far between. I ended my review of Integral Spirituality a few months ago by expressing the wish "Hopefully other critical assessments of the merits of this book will be written, for it will most likely remain Wilber's take on spirituality for years to come." This invitations still stands!

Integral Politics

2007-06-21T06:00:00.001-07:00

In a recent Integral Naked dialogue, "Escaping Flatland, Part II", Wilber discusses the contours of Integral Politics as he sees it. He gives a good summary of the points he has made in the three chapters published so far of his The Many Faces of Terrorism manuscript. These chapters, unfortunately, lack focus. If this, after all those years, is Wilber's choice of genre for conveying his vision of integral politics, we're really lost.

Wilber's conclusion and implicit advice to presidential candidates of the Democratic Party: if Green attacks Orange, Blue wins. Decrypted into normal political language: if left-wing politicians alienate the rationalist, industrialist, secular sections of society by their anti-America rethoric, they will turn to the Republicans and cause them to win the elections. Or as Wilber says it in his usual caricaturistic way: You can't win the elections by saying "I hate my country, vote for me".

However, with all its claim to universality, it is still very much directed at the context of US politics, which has a two-party system of Liberals/Democrats and Republicans. It's high time to turn to other countries for a wider view. In the Netherlands, for example, the liberals are on the right-hand side of the political spectrum, and usually conservative. On the left-hand side we have, of course, the socialists (and even communists). And in the middle, we have the Christian party. Currently we have a Christian-Left government.

A few years back, we had a "purple" cabinet, which was a joining of both left (red) and right wing (blue) parties (our socialists and conervatives) -- integral politics in action! Its architect was a very small party called Democrats '66, which, led by the charismatic Hans van Mierlo, had starting arguing in favor of such a venture since the sixties). It lasted for 2 terms, until the Dutch population got tired of the rationality of the whole construction (yes, half-truths generate more passion!). When the death of Pim Fortuyn occurred, the Christian party took hold of the vacuum and presided over 4 terms.

So integral political analysis has to move from a US based 2-party to 3-party or multi-party analysis. It also seems to have no realistic idea of Left Wing politics. Does the US really have a Left? The democratic party would still count as conservative over here (and the Republicans as ultra-conservative). And as to the US situation, a bigger problem seems to me that, given the 50/50 nature of the division between Democrats and Republicans, as evidenced by the last election, any third party arriving on the scene wil only weaken the one closest to it, and so give victory to the opposition (e.g. a really Left wing party will weaken the Democrats, by stealing their votes). Same story on the Right wing of the spectrum (who remembers Ross Perot?).

And please, please, please, when can we finally read about these parts of integral theory WITHOUT having to wade through adolescent prose, giggling dialogues, and self-congratulatory praise ("we are decades ahead of everybody")? Can this be fleshed out in a serious way, that attracts the attention of those who really know about politics, both in theory and in practice? Without the AQAL jargon, endlessly discussed, summarized and explained, the color coding terminology, which doesn't make sense to and even offends outsiders, and the inside jokes?

Eros or Oops?

2007-06-05T13:05:00.000-07:00

On the first page of Sex, Ecology, Spirituality (1995) Wilber sets the stage for what is to come by comparing his philosophy to the prevailing scientific outlook.

To Schelling's burning question, "Why is there something rather than nothing?," there have always been two general answers. The first might be called the philosophy of "oops." The universe just occurs, there is nothing behind it, it's all ultimately accidental or random, it just is, it just happens--oops! The philosophy of oops, no matter how sophisticated and adult it may on occasion appear--its modern names and numbers are legion, from positivism, to scientific materialism, to linguistic analysis to historical materialism, from naturalism to empiricism--always comes down to the same basic answer, "Don't ask."

On wonders, isn't the very nature of science to continue to ask and investigate how things have happened and evolved? Wilber continues:

The question itself (Why is anything at all happening? Why am I here?)--the question itself is said to be confused, pathological, nonsensical, or infantile. To stop asking such a silly or confused question is, they all maintain, the mark of maturity, the sign of growing up in this cosmos. I don't think so. I think the "answer" these "modern and mature" disciplines give--namely oops! (and therefore "Don't ask!")--is about as infantile a response as the human condition could possibly offer.

Or, is science just saying that it is fine to ask such questions, but that it is not within the competence of science to answer them? Note the strong emotional tone of Wilber's comparison of the two viewpoints. Meyerhoff's psychological analysis of this key passage is illuminating.
Wilber continues:

The other broad answer that has been tendered is that something else is going on: behind the happenstance drama is a deeper or higher or wider pattern, or order, or intelligence.... Something else is going on, something quite other than oops…. This book is about all of that "something other than oops.

Throughout his subsequent works, Wilber will refer to that mysterious force that turns atoms into molecules, molecules into cells and cells into organism as Eros. For example, in his recent book Integral Spirituality (2006), giving his current take on neo-Darwinian evolution (and Intelligent Design), Wilber writes:

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.

But does Wilber really understand the facts of evolution? First read Lane, "Wilber and the Misunderstanding of Evolution", again Lane,"Wilber on Evolution Revisited", Chamberlain, "Wilber on Evolution" and Falk, "The Age of Wilberius".

Isn't the proposition of a Kosmic force which magically accomplishes everthything that asks for explanation, as much, if not more, a philosophy of Oops? Of not asking and investigating further? I believe the answer to this question determines one's outlook on life.

As Richard Dawkins has reminded his audience on many public occasions when science and religion are compared, and religious objections to the coldness of science were raised, the question to ask is not "Does it appeal to me?" or "Is it comforting?" but "Is it true?"

Integral Design

2007-05-18T00:21:00.000-07:00

In The Oxford Handbook of Science and Religion (Oxford University Press, 2006), edited by Philip Clayton and Zachary Simpson, there's an integral chapter written by Sean Hargens and Ken Wilber, called "Toward a Comprehensive Integration of Science and Religion: A Post-Metaphyhsical Approach". The chapter concludes the methodological Part IV of the book, which contains contributions by Owen Flanagan, David Ray Griffin and others.

In itself, this is a milestone. At least the integral view is on record in some of the major handbooks. But note, this handbook is part of the series Oxford Handbooks in Religion and Theology. In Part V of the tome, the major theoretical debates are listed, among others the controversy over Intelligent Design.

As to the chapter on the integral approach, one should further keep in mind that an integration of religion and science is not the same as an integration of the various scientific approaches of religion, let alone the mere classification of these approaches into 4, 8 or more categories. The chapter relies heavily on the eight primordial perspectives spelled out in Wilber's latest work. It would have been interesting to have Wilber contribute to the science and religion debate itself. After all, he authored a separate volume on precisely this topic: The Marriage of Sense and Soul: The Integration of Science and Religion (1998), which doesn't seem to have stirred a theological debate.

Intelligent Design, which seems to point to an overlap between the two fields, is a case in point. Are biological organisms too complex to have been evolved by natural selection, as Wilber and ID authors suggest? Yes or no? Unfortunately, Wilber has devoted very few comments to this topics, and then only in angry blog postings directed at his critics or hasty footnotes in a book. Someone of his stature should take the time to clarify his position on this hotly debated issue.

A further complication would be that Wilber has compromised himself by grossly misrepresenting the status of evolutionary biology, in his infamous statements about eyes and wings in A Brief History of Everything, when in the very same year that book came out Richard Dawkins spelled out the mechanisms by which eyes and wings could have evolved (in his Climbing Mount Improbable - both books were published in 1996).

That reiterates the point brought up by Geoffrey Falk several times in his critical contributions: what's the point of a supposed integration of religion and science if science is misrepresented in the process? Doesn't Wilber violate his own principles of Integral Methodological Pluralism, if the field in question, i.e. evolutionary biology, isn't done justice, but is crammed into a pre-conceived system of "integration"? Even the Intelligent Design folks are caricatured by him as Jehova believers, where leading ID authors have much more sophistication.

But still, it would be interesting to read about what "Integral Design" would look like.

Integral Idols

2007-04-17T04:12:00.000-07:00

On Ken Wilber's blog I found the following "call for papers", titled: You're Going to Be a Star: Post Your AQAL Essays on This Site. It starts:

"I have some really good news and a little bit of bad news. The really good news is that you might become famous, right here. If you've got any truly Integrally (i.e.,"AQAL-ly") informed article, essay, review of any sort, or any other communication that is truly AQAL-energized, I will post it on this website where thousands and thousands of people will see it. [What is AQAL? See "IOS Basic and the AQAL Map."] "

Sounds like the Integral Institute is now getting down to the level of American Idol (as the famous dutch TV program Idols is called in the US). You too can become famous! If you can't sing, doesn't matter. Here's a link where you can learn how to sing!

"It can be an essay on any topic, from psychology to economics to art to religion. It can be the review of a current (or past) movie, whether it's attempting to be integral or not; or of a CD, in terms of the actual lyrics or the states that are evoked. It can be a defense of my work, where somebody has criticized my work without fully understanding it, or where their view understood it well enough but can be easily responded to and outcontextualized by a truly AQAL response. It can be a critical essay on a past theorist or writer, showing how they can be AQALly transcended and included. And so forth."

No mention here of possible valid critiques of the AQAL model, it is just a one-way street here. We have the Truth on our side, critics are always wrong, they can and should be exposed. What about Derrida? Evolutionary theory? The states of consciousness debate?

"If you have a website, we will link to that and give it significantly increased traffic, and where, on your site, you might wish to engage in online responses and discussions of your piece, whether friendly or more like blog wars."

In the past decade, Wilber has never taken the trouble to link to Integral World, where over 200 hundred essays on integral matters have been written and the authors have engaged in sustained and well referenced debates. That's basically not Wilber's interest. He is just interested in promoting his ideas. We can leave that to Wilber - validating his ideas is an entirely different matter. That requires a critical distance, lacking in the integral scene.

The bad news mentioned by Wilber, by the way, is that, due to shortage of resources at Integral Institute, you shouldn't expect any feedback on your submissions, and just have to wait and see if it gets posted. But IF it gets posted, that's your road to immediate fame.

This really can only be done in America. Over in Europe, that cultural component is found to be tasteless.

Fame! - I'm gonna live forever!

AQAL Journal

2007-03-14T00:46:00.000-07:00

I was notified of the fact that AQAL Journal, the long awaited "academic" publication on matters integral, has finally been released. At this moment, the available issues (all from 2006, nrs. 1-4), are available only to subscribers (nrs. 1-2) and members (nrs. 3-4) of the Integral Institute.

Volumes 1 and 2 have over 400 pages, volumes 3 and 4 are about half their size, and the expected size of future volumes is expected to be around 100-200 pages. It will be a quarterly, online publication. Apparently, the plan to come up with a, much more expensive, print version of the journal, to be distribued to libraries, has been abandoned. Curiously, the copyright date is set to 2005.

The first two volumes contain presentation papers of the various departments of Integral University, covering ecology, criminology, therapy, finance, business, faith, health, politics, science, feminism and community development. The subject matters of the other 2 volumes is more varied. Some of the authors (Wilpert, Koller, Benjamin) have appeared on Integral World.

There's an interesting note on "Critical presentations", right at the start of the publication on the page stating the aims and scope of the Journal. It concludes:

"The journal sees the process of hypothetical and critical engagement as essential to the health and success of Integral Theory."

However, we all know by now that the topic of criticism regarding integral matters has been rather, ehm... explosive, of late. Debate has raged primarily, not about the the value of integral philosophy in itself, but on who is qualified to criticize and who isn't. Killing debate from the start. Not to mention the hallowed tradition of ignoring whatever is published on Integral World, the premier site for independent and critical reflection on integral matters.

Considering the long time it took this publication to come into existence, we are glad to see it distributed now, even if only to "members". We'll have to see if this publication will really open itself up to critical voices from inside or outside the integral field.

2006 - What A Year!

2007-01-01T12:43:00.000-08:00

In 2006, Integral World broke all visitors records, with close to 200.000 visitors, and 600.000 page views. It even topped the record year of 2003. One year ago, I was wondering if the time for Integral World, as a public space for debate about matters integral, was over. Not so.

I started blogging. I started running Google ads. I started writing essays to stress the need for validating Wilber's ideas (over merely promoting them), such as "A Spectrum of Critics", "My Take on Wilber-5", "Talking Back to Wilber". About 130 new postings were added to the Reading Room, including essays by Smith, Harris, Edwards, Benedikter, Galli, Benjamin, Falk and Chamberlain.

I published Jeff Meyerhoff's "Bald Ambition" and Alan Kazlev's "Integral Esotericism" (in progress) in separate chapters, thereby closing in on Integralism from different angles. I started republishing my old book "Seven Spheres", and reissued David Lane's criticism of Wilber's treatment of evolution, to which Lane added some new writing. As Wilber once published a "case study" to show that critics (e.g. De Quincey) misrepresent him, we can now build a case study to show how Wilber has misrepresented the status of evolutionary biology. Perhaps we will. Given the attention Dawkins' book "The God Delusion" has received (now #3 on Amazon!), this subject will stay on our agenda for a while.

But the greatest event of the year, of course, was Wilber's demonstration, in the Wyatt Earp Episode, that he was unable and/or unwilling to take criticism, or even feedback, and chose to ridicule and insult his critics. Thereby harming his reputation more then anything any critic has ever written. And showing his true colors.

For 2007, I plan to publish essays that touch on topics that have captured the interest of many: Iraq, the Middle-East, Atheism, Evolution, Reductionism, Intelligent Design, etc. as seen from an integral perspective, but with full acknowledgement of non-integral voices. The aim on Integral World is not to promote, but to validate, debate and discuss things integral. Not to explain but to explore.

David Lane Returns

2006-12-24T08:00:00.000-08:00

David Lane, a sociology professor and former-Wilber-fan-turned-critic around 1996, was one of the first strong critics of Wilber's treatment of biology and other fields of science. From that original series of essays:

"What makes Wilber's remarks on evolution so egregious is not that he is more or less a closet creationist with Buddhist leanings, but that he so maligns and misrepresents the current state of evolutionary biology, suggesting that he is somehow on top of what is currently going on in the field. And Wilber does it by exaggeration, by false statements, and by rhetoric license."

As is well known, Wilber often complains about being misrepresented by his critics. The opposite question therefore becomes relevant: to what extent does Wilber misrepresent the positions he has criticized himself? Evolutionary biology is a case in point.

I have republished Lane's 1996 essay on Integral World, together with a response from Tom Floyd, and David Lane decided to write a fresh response to Floyd, which has been posted as well now. From this response:

"So I completely disagree with you when you claim that I am suggesting that we "totally" discount Wilber as regards evolution, or any subject for that matter. No, I am simply pointing out a fundamental mistake he has made and that it should be corrected. There is no reason to see this as "adversial" just as I shouldn't see your critique of what I have written as "adversial." You have done me a service and I see no reason why Wilber isn't better served by critics pointing out his varying weaknesses. "

Let the debate continue...

Integral Inflation

2006-12-06T02:15:00.000-08:00

The signs are not good.

First we had this posting on the kenwilber.com blog asking for a CEO, where everything seemed to be historical. The Institute. The fact that it got a CEO. A turquoise one at that. We know about "historical firsts" by now. II was one, IU was another. Every organisation needs a decent CEO, for sure, but why hype the whole thing?

Then there was this announcement that the long awaited book The Many Faces on Terrorism would be published as a trilogy, in Boomeritis format. If there ever was a slight chance that the professional world of foreign affairs would lend an ear to integral political ideas, that chance is now gone, since the ideas will be buried in endless in-crowd conversations between juvenile people who agree so much with one another that it is almost painful. This time, the tone of the writing is full of world saving fantasies. And inflated self-images. "Integral people are 10 times more effective!"

Well, not when it comes to running their own organisations. Now we have rumours of many staff people leaving the Integral Institute, or being sacked, including its CEO. ("Not only did the CEO resign, the COO was fired, the Marketing Director, Art Director, Customer Service Manager, ILP Kit Product Manager and Media Manager walked out with more considering it", as one blogger has it.) It's no easy task to lead an organisation this diverse, sketchy, promising and over-confident. The routinisation, even commercialising of charisma seems well under way. And perhaps writers should only write -- and listen to their opponents, invite a serious debate, offer their ideas to the forum of the world.

So instead of having real influence, let's just imagine we have real influence, in an imaginary Integral Center, fictionalised in a novel, we enjoy reading ourselves. Instead of being taken seriously by universities, let's create our own Integral University. Instead of taking an honest look at what science teaches about evolution, lets promote our own idea of evolution, and make fun of scientists. Call them "reductionists". Or "preachers". Dismiss. Let's pretend we know better what they think then they do themselves.

What the world needs are detailed, informed, grounded blueprints which can be picked up by policy makers. Or opinion leaders in the field of journalism. What it does not need is world saving campaigns from institutes that lack an accurate self-image. After all these years, I am still awaiting a solid analysis of "Iraq" from an integral political point of view, AQAL, SD or otherwise, that can be applied to the real world. Or even if only to understand what has gone wrong.

And as to science, I am currently reading Richard Dawkins' Climbing Mount Improbable, where he gives an absorbing account of the many (40!) ways the eye or the wing have evolved, so different from the "Spirit of Evolution" poetry that pervades Wilber's work. Demonstrating that confidently suggesting that "with a half-wing your are dinner" (as Wilber did in A Brief History of Everyting) is so much off the wall, that any hope to be taken seriously by science is idle. Just ask the pinguins...

Simply Too Much...

2006-10-16T23:10:00.000-07:00

While preparing a review of Integral Spirituality I was -- again -- struck by the many times Wilber uses the word "simply". In my opinion, this is a rethorical device that has run out of hand. For those who did not follow the Wyatt Earp saga, the first time I mentioned this phenomenon in my blog posting Boldness Revisited, it earned me the following, historical and revealing comment from Wilber: "... simply suck my dick." However, when you look at it more closely, it's really weird.

For the fun of it, I did a word count of "simply" in the manuscript of Integral Spirituality. What do you think? It doesn't occur 20 times, 50 times, 100 times. It occurs 268 times. Simply too much...

The tendency to simplify things in this book is stretched to the limits. It's as if Wilber is making a desparate attempt to explain Foucault or De Saussure or Nagarjuna to the hip hop generation, but is constantly afraid of losing their attention. (We are assured ad nauseam: "Don't worry if these terms are unfamiliar, we will cover that important topic later." "Don't worry, we will summarize this later." "Don't worry, it is much simpler then it sounds!").

The book -- the cover of which wouldn't look bad on a Wicca manual, by the way, with it's moody colors and sharp forms -- has a lot of integral, but little spirituality in it. And the connection between the two is almost absent. We read about 8 types of methodology. But never does it get applied to religion or spirituality, except for the first two or three, and even then. We get presented with the Wilber-Combs Lattice -- the theoretical center piece of the book -- but never does this get fleshed out with empirical findings, or even striking examples. Nor are possible objections to this model raised -- quite a normal procedure in scientific literature.

What is more, it takes Wilber 178 pages to get to the topic of religion proper (in a book the main text of which is little over 200 pages). By then, the reader has had to endure shameless self-promotion ("If you like this, join Integral Institute!", "integral is the best, the most comprehenseive, the most effective, the most..."), many, many claims and even more statements (that get repeated over and over again -- "As we have seen..." where it should read "As you have seen me state..."), but very few good and solid arguments, or even detailed, real life examples.

And when, at rare occasions, research does get mentioned (but not quoted, not referenced), it is the same old research (the boomers' protest against Vietnam, meditation speeds up development, etc.) that has been mentioned in Wilber's previous books, the use of which has been critically evaluated by many (Harris, Falk, Evans). All that has by now become part of integral mythology, I am afraid.

But stay tuned! Coming up, after the break! Keep visiting this blog, and Integral World, where hundreds of the world's best Wilber critics have gathered for a historical meeting... Ooops, sorry.

Depth and Complexity

2006-08-25T07:47:00.000-07:00

I was listening to Steve Paulson's interview with Wilber (featured on Integral Naked as "To the Best of Our Knowledge", part 2), where Wilber explains that complexity and consciousness seem to co-arise.

However, he then compares the perennial view with current, integral insight. In the perennial view, he says, mind, soul and spirit are seen as "higher" then the body. The feelings of a dog, for example, are seen as "higher" then the complex, human brain. This view he calles "totally screwed up". In earlier writings, he called this perennial view "goofy", and used the example of the feelings of a worm -- but you get the idea.

As is well known by now, in the integral view mind, soul and spirit are not seen as meta-physical, but intra-physical, as Wilber tirelessly repeats in his recent writings. Looks all very modern and up to date -- until you think it through. Looks to me Wilber is comparing conscious apples and complex pears.

First, the human brain is more complex then the brain of a dog. And the feelings of a human being is deeper, more conscious, then the feelings of a dog. Comparing the feelings of a dog to the complex human brain is comparing apples and pears.

But even then, the feelings of a dog, or a worm for that matter, are infinitely more mysterious then the most complex physical mechanism, human or artificial -- because there's an awareness involved no physical mechanism has ever displayed. So there seems to be depth involved.

Calling this intra-physical instead of meta-physical, doesn't explain anything. It's a clever change of metaphor for something we don't really understand. "Intra-physical" is not a concept science can handle, it is deeply metaphysical.

True, modernity knows more on the role the brain processes involved in consciousness then premoderns did. But modernity is clueless as to the essential nature of interiority (beyond mere descriptions). So why set up perennialism and modernity against each other?

Wilber Parody

2006-08-25T03:50:00.000-07:00

A few days ago I linked to one of Geoffrey Falk's blog postings, which was about a supposed transcript of a recent talk by Wilber to his II students. It turned out to be fake. Someone had parodied Wilber, so skillfully that, though I had some reservations, I had the feeling it was still something Wilber could have said, given his recent Wyatt Earp rants.

See Integral Tuna Casserole, and Integral Tuna, part II.

Some readers have taken offense of my linking to Falk, who is considered to be an enemy of integral, "though he may have his facts right". As readers of Integral World know, I host a whole Spectrum of Critics on that website. Falk is admittedly a "strong negative" critic in that list, but then, he is also one of the most active.

Having recently published a 196 page ebook "Norman Einstein" on the flaws and fallacies he found in Wilber's work, meticulously documented, often to source material that is available online, this is not something we can easily dismiss. Not to mention that it contains a long essay on Wilber's misrepresentation of David Bohm.

Quoting Wilber's confident closing comments of his analysis of Bohm's position: "Until this critique is even vaguely answered, I believe we must consider Bohm’s theory to be refuted [softened to "suspect" in later editions]", Falk retorts: "By parity of argument, then, until Wilber has even vaguely answered this critique...."

To be sure, Falk is not addressing Wilber's core psychological and spiritual theories, but concentrates on Wilber's statements regarding science, the paranormal, biology (and cults), and his mode of discourse when it comes to criticism.

Yesterday, the anonymous author of the spurious Wilber transcript, striked again. He has written a hilarious parody on Wilber being invited to a high school setting, where he tries to impress the students with his knowledge of evolutionary biology.

Seems like an new genre is born: Wilber parody. Good. Let's laugh a bit. Even if the issue itself -- how does integral theory fit into current scientific paradigms -- is dead serious.

Integral Without Hype

2006-07-22T13:09:00.000-07:00

For a month I took a break from blogging, but will now resume this activity again.

In the past weeks, a lot of networking has occurred between people who have completely had it with the current hype around integral. And one might say: the hysteria. Hype when it comes to recent integral publications and events; hysteria when it comes to criticism, even in the form of mild feedback.

Add to this the glamour of a personality cult around Wilber, not to mention his increasing infatuation with Hollywood celebrities (see this kw blog posting about his visit to the "V for Vendetta" premiere in New York, and this comment: "V is for Vanity") and those who prefer reason above the culture of fame and popularity will want to look elsewhere for sane discussions about the pros and cons of integral philosophy.

One such initiative has been http://www.openintegral.net/, where many of those who have contributed one way or the other to Integral World have found a meeting ground.

The Narcissism of "Mr. Know-All"

2006-06-21T08:47:00.000-07:00

Geoffrey Falk, a "strong negative" Wilber critic, who has turned Wilber-bashing into an art, but who is never short on facts, reflects further on Wilber's recent rants:

"From the Wikipedia entry for Narcissism:

"While in regression, the person displays childish, immature behaviors. He feels that he is omnipotent, and misjudges his power and that of his opposition. He underestimates challenges facing him and pretends to be "Mr. Know-All." His sensitivity to the needs and emotions of others and his ability to empathize with them deteriorate sharply. He becomes intolerably haughty and arrogant, with sadistic and paranoid tendencies. Above all, he then seeks unconditional admiration, even when others with more objective views perceive that he does not deserve it. He is preoccupied with fantastic, magical thinking and daydreams. In this mode he tends to exploit others, to envy them, and to be explosive.

"Egad, it matches Wilber point-by-point! From his recent childish blogging, to his misjudging of his cogent critics as "morons" compared to his own "brilliance," to his know-it-all nature, to his insensitive "forgiving" of others (and simultaneous failure to ask for forgiveness himself) when he's clearly the one in the wrong, to his haughtiness and arrogance, to his paranoid (i.e., disproportionate to reality) feelings of being loathed and condemned, to his obvious need for undeserved unconditional admiration ..., and through to his manipulation and exploitation of others to ensure his own "greatness."

Truly a sad, sad state of affairs.

Read more on Falk's blog (June 20 entry)

Integral Ideology

2006-06-21T06:25:00.000-07:00

When psychoanalysis was criticized, critics were labelled "sexually repressed".

When Marxism was criticized, people were told they had the wrong "class consciousness".

When Integralism is criticized, we are diagnosed as being infected with the "Mean Green Meme".

Can't anyone see the circularity in these closed, ideological systems?

Isn't this type of thinking incredibly... boring?

Criticism: Shadow or Challenge?

2006-06-18T11:55:00.000-07:00

Wilber and me have a conflict, that's for sure. But what's the best strategy for conflict resolution? Wilber's suggestion to dig into one's own shadow might lead to the suggestion, that criticism is empty, and therefore needs a psychological explanation. This often becomes an introverted excercise, full of guilt feelings. He even talks about "forgiving his critics"!

In Holland a succesful conflict resolution strategy (pioneered by Daniel Ofman) works with the concept of "core-qualities", which are represented by a quadrant (nothing to do with Wilber's 4 quadrants though). The idea is that each mental quality has an extreme version (it's "pitfall"), but also its opposite quality (or "challenge"), which in turn has its extreme version (or "allergy").

For example: The quality of eloquence has the pitfall of being talkative, the challenge of knowing when to be quiet, and the allergy of never speaking up. Now an eloquent person will typically have an allergy for people who never speak up -- and a quiet person hates those who are talkative. When allergies escalate, a conflict is born. The trick of conflict resolution is to acknowledge and affirm both qualities in each other, while avoiding their pitfalls, c.q. allergies.

Is criticism heavily affected by shadow elements, as Wilber suggests? Perhaps, but the same goes for the glowing endorsements he received from his close followers. It is more constructive to apply the core quality model to this situation, I believe.

Wilber's great quality is to give wide generalizations, inspired visions, broad sketches of a theory. This has a pitfall: empty slogans, airy abstractions, and a tendency to repeat arguments. It's challenge would be: detailed criticism, specialized studies, gathering informed opinions. In turn, this has an extreme as well: nitpicking, endless processing, never ending debates. And that, obviously, is Wilber's allergy.

Personally I am more at home in the area of detailed studies, and have therefore always been impressed by the opposite quality which Wilber embodied for me: grand vistas of interdisciplinary studies. So, I might very well represent his shadow! and vice versa. Allergies fly high when Wilber sees all criticism as nitpicking, and I perceive all of Wilber's recent statements as ungrounded, especially when burdened by jargon, or slang, for that matter. The trick, again, is to affirm both the value of generalizations AND of detailed studies that may or may not, validate the integral model. The art is to avoid pitfalls in both areas.

Shadow theory often states that we hate in others what we hate in ourselves. Core quality theory says the opposite: we hate in others (the extreme version of) what we lack in ourselves.

Materialistic Spirituality

2006-06-06T03:34:00.000-07:00

We al know what "spiritual materialism" means: using spirituality for selfish means. But there is such as thing as "materialistic spirituality" as well:

"One of the best secrets of life [is]: let your self go. If you can approach the world's complexities, both its glories and its horrors, with an attitude of humble curiosity, acknowledging that however deeply you have seen, you have only just scratched the surface, you will find worlds within worlds, beauties you could not heretofore imagine, and your own mundane preoccupations will shrink to proper size, not all that important in the greater scheme of things. Keeping that awestruck vision of the world ready to hand while dealing with the demands of daily living is no easy exercise, but it is definitely worth the effort, for if you can stay centered, and engaged, you will find the hard choices easier, the right words will come to you when you need them, and you will indeed be a better person. That, I propose, is the secret to spirituality, and it has nothing at all to do with believing in an immortal soul, or in anything supernatural." (Daniel Dennett, Breaking the Spell, 2006, p. 303).

Dennett, the arch-materialist in the current philosophy of mind, is eloquently criticizing the easy equation of spirituality with morality, and materialism with selfishness: "The misalignment of goodness with the denial of scientific materialism has a long history, but it is a misalignment. There is no reason at all why a disbelief in the immateriality or immortality of the soul should make a person less caring, less moral, less committed to the well-being of everybody on Earth than somebody who believes in 'the spirit'" (Ibid., p. 305).

Boldness Revisited

2006-06-02T03:29:00.000-07:00

What I liked about Wilber is his boldness; what I currently dislike about Wilber is his boldness. Let me explain.

When I first encountered Wilber's writings in the early eighties, I immensely liked the way he took up one discipline per book (developmental psychology, anthropology, therapy, physics), gave both an overview of the field and added some new insights. All in a fluently written writing style, that was at the same time personal and abstract. (At the same time I started my university studies in the psychology of religion -- Wilber was my private teacher).

Over the years I have grown wary of this very approach. Especially phrases like "everyone from A to B to C believes this" (fill in your favorite authority) or "Absolutely nobody believes this anymore" (e.g. in evolutionary biology) have made me suspicious. The many times Wilber uses the word "simply" have made me pause ("For the wisdom traditions, a [subtle] “body” simply means a mode of experience"-- simply? Or simplistically?).

The standard reply to criticism from specialists has been that no specialist likes to be "framed" in a larger theory. True, but the opposite is also true: generalists can overlook details, can be biased in their views (something they typically can't detect themselves) or can end up with abstractions far removed from every day political or scientific reality.

Instead, we have more generalization and more popularization. In the latest manuscript of Integral Spirituality, it looks as if the audience is supposed to consist of grad students (the book is full of annoying remarks such as "If this sounds too complex, wait, I will explain it later on"). Of course, this audience will not be able to judge or refute it's content. Incidentally, it is also full of agressive metaphors (modernity "killed" premodernity, postmodernity "trashed" modernity), which seem wholly misplaced. When you start paying attention to it, it makes you wonder what bloody war is going on.

And instead of a public and academic Wilber debate, we have, we are told, a "private" Wilber debate, within the walls of the Integral Institute, and only with invited celebrities. And a huge promotional machine, spreading the Wilber meme to as many (young) people as possible.

By now, the time has come for the Generalissimo of all generalists to meet and talk to the specialists, in all the fields he has entered. To name a few: Daniel Dennett, who just published Breaking the Spell, a book on evolution and religion (presenting sources and recent studies never mentioned in integral circlies), Peter Berger (who maintains modernization doesn't need to lead to secularization, especially in the US, given it's high percentage of believers).

I am waiting for that day.

Speaking Out with Passion

2006-05-24T07:16:00.000-07:00

Wilber once wrote:

"Speak out with compassion, or speak out with angry wisdom, or speak out with skillful means, but speak out you must.... This is truly a terrible burden, a horrible burden, because in any case there is no room for timidity. The fact that you might be wrong is simply no excuse: you might be right in your communication, and you might be wrong, but that doesn't matter. What does matter, as Kierkegaard so rudely reminded us, is that only by investing and speaking your vision with passion, can the truth, one way or another, finally penetrate the reluctance of the world. If you are right, or if you are wrong, it is only your passion that will force either to be discovered. It is your duty to promote that discovery—either way—and therefore it is your duty to speak your truth with whatever passion and courage you can find in your heart. You must shout, in whatever way you can." (A Spirituality that Transforms, What is Enlightenment, issue 12)

Indeed, and in my opinion this applies equally to Wilber's critics -- in fact, even more so. For a system that is bent on promoting and even marketing it's own products and seminars, will have difficulty listening to critics, simply because it will hurt business. I have heard a lot of talking lately about who is qualified to criticize Wilber and who isn't, who understands his system and who doesn't -- the net result is that the integral ranks are closed to outside criticsm.

It is precisely those who disagree that can point out inconsistencies, come up with counter examples, see potential biases, check Wilber's statements against his own sources and those of others, etcetera. I have received many positive responses to my Talking back to Wilber. For these people the message was completely obvious and a matter of common sense. The integral debate should be a public affair, open to criticsm from whatever corner, or it will become an ideology.

Mystics agree, scholars disagree?

2006-04-28T08:00:00.000-07:00

Read this in John Horgan's informative and entertaining "Rational Mysticism":

"This upsurge in scientific and scholarly interest has not brought about consensus on mystical matters. Quite the contrary. Scholars disagree about the causes of mystical experiences, the best means of inducing them, their relation to mental illness and morality, and their metaphysical significance. Some experts maintain that psychology and even physics must be completely revamped to account for mysticism's supernatural implications. Others believe that mainstream, materialistic science is quite adequate to explain mystical phenomena. Similarly, scholars disagree about whether mystical visions affirm or undermine conventional religious faith."

Let this sink in: "not brought consensus on mystical matters. Quite the contrary."

What would the integral response be to this situation. Everyone is (partially) right?

On the one hand we have this inconclusive state of affairs in scholarship. On the other hand we have the integral view of four basic stages of mystical development c.q. states of consciousness, which basically hasn't changed over the past quarter of a century.

How and where do these views connect? Has the integral view become a religious faith in its own right now, which has to be defended and promoted, even marketed?

Or is it a view which potentially could stir up the field of mystical scholarship? But then, it has to open itself to the opinions of other scholars, even as to its own validity.

Defending Critics

2006-04-19T09:01:00.000-07:00

In the past I vigorously defending Ken against his critics; in the last few years I seem to be defending his critics against Ken - by posting their essays in the Reading Room of Integral World.

What has happened? Have I changed? Has Ken changed? Probably both.

In fact, there never has been a general climate in which a Wilber debate can flourish. But recently the cultic overtones have become stronger and stronger.

It is still very much a one-man-show, in this community of the like-minded. Sometimes, it feels like a celebrity show.

More and more, celebrating one's own integral ideas in a safe environment has become the general practice in the integral scene.

Having phone calls on integral theory within the Integral Institute is not my idea of an interesting discussion.

Inviting specialists, critics and even sceptics to the table would be a good start.

An Integral University which will teach integral concepts to students will turn it into a religious school only, not a true university - which is fine, there are many of these religious institutions.

But integral philosophy has a greater potential than that.

Wilber Watcher

2006-04-13T06:16:00.000-07:00

I've been a Wilber Watcher since about 1982, when I stumbled on "No Boundary" in a bookshop in Amsterdam, on the day there was a huge demonstration against nuclear weapons being stationed in the Netherlands.

About high time I started my own blog - never been an early adopter, that is.

Back in the nineties I remember the Internet on the horizon, attracting all the wrong sorts of people, me being in the book industry.

then, around 1997, I started to get interested, started the worldofkenwilber.com website, and was caught.

A few years later, I found a job in that field, and have worked for Intel and Nokia before settling on being the webmaster of Peugeot.nl.

The Wilber website has since then been renamed as IntegralWorld.net, and carries a huge Reading Room full of essays, mostly critical, related to the writings of Ken Wilber.

so, that's about it, for a starter...