|
TRANSLATE THIS ARTICLE
Integral World: Exploring Theories of Everything
An independent forum for a critical discussion of the integral philosophy of Ken Wilber
 Dr. Joseph Dillard is a psychotherapist with over forty year's clinical experience treating individual, couple, and family issues. Dr. Dillard also has extensive experience with pain management and meditation training. The creator of Integral Deep Listening (IDL), Dr. Dillard is the author of over ten books on IDL, dreaming, nightmares, and meditation. He lives in Berlin, Germany. See: integraldeeplistening.com and his YouTube channel. He can be contacted at: joseph.dillard@gmail.com
SEE MORE ESSAYS WRITTEN BY JOSEPH DILLARD Does Wilber's Critique of Spirituality Contradict His Pre/Trans Fallacy?Joseph DillardThe following is an elaboration of a series of posts at Integral Global, inspired by Brad Reynolds' responses to Frank Visser's essay, “The Cosmic Parody Debate: Ken Wilber vs. Chat GPT.” I am posting this essay at Integral World to bring to the attention of a broader integral audience important, critical issues to how we understand Integral Theory. This is not about Ken Wilber, Frank Visser, Brad Reynolds, or myself. There are much bigger fish to fry here. This is about the foundational credibility of Integral Theory, how we can best enact it and support it going forward. To that end, and for that purpose, I have expanded the conversation to address not simply a clarification of the argument but to add potential solutions for your input and recommendations. Brad Reynolds Critique of Visser's EssayI begin by including, for the historical record, as well as to provide necessary context, with Mr. Reynold's critique of Visser's essay. Mr. Reynolds clearly presents arguments and perspectives that are not unusual among many integralists. I can say that his views fairly well reflect mine in content, if not in tone, for about twenty years, from about 1985, when I first found and was blown away by Wilber's Integral AQAL, until at least 2005, probably longer. So I have both empathy and sympathy for his perspectives. I honor and respect Mr. Reynold's desire to explain what he believes is a more accurate representation of both Wilber's position and that of spirituality in general. Brad Reynolds, in response to Frank Visser's Integral World essay, “The Cosmic Parody Debate: Ken Wilber vs. Chat GPT”: “Once again, Frank Visser displays in large print his absolute INABILITY to understand the essence of Ken Wilber's Integral theories, let alone dismissing the entire knowledge quest (and acquisition) of SPIRITUAL knowledge and wisdom. Therefore, he brutalizes and pokes fun at what he does not understand and drags Wilber under the bus, now with A.I., since he apparently no longer possesses the ability to think or write on his own. Helen is correct: such “parody” is a form of abuse. Indeed, Visser prefers to use Wilber's recent writings and interviews to support his views since it is obvious (to those who know him) that Ken is not as sharp as he once was due to illness and age. In other words, Visser could be accused of elder abuse. Shame on you, Frank! I like Frank Visser (mostly), and he is a friend and colleague, but we have been fierce opponents over his MISREPRESENTATION of Wilber's views on evolution for years. Visser cherry-picks and selects specific quotes to take them out of context since, being a committed materialist—a scientific materialist—Visser is incapable of understanding the subtleties of Wilber's thesis. And this is because Visser has not taken the time to cultivate forms of Knowing that go beyond the mind of analytical (aka scientific) thinking and ego or self-centered perspectives. Visser is apparently, therefore, also willing to throw the world's most revered spiritual women and men, philosophers and mystics, under the bus too, since they express a vision of Knowing that transcends or goes beyond mere scientific thinking. Somebody is more right than somebody. Visser (and Chat) want “evidence” that the entire universe is “driven” by an “energy”—“force” is not the correct term—or a “Divine Purpose” (again, “purpose” is not correct either if one truly understands these matters) behind evolution from a Big Bang of Energy to our crippled civilization of Homo sapiens sapiens (“doubly-wise” is in doubt). Well, Frank, YOU must engage the injunctions—DO THE YOGA!—enact the paradigms that will reveal and SHOW you that evidence. But you refuse to. It is like a kindergartener telling a physicist that his formulas can't possibly be correct since he has no idea what they mean. Hello? So, Frank went to University and got scrubbed clean of his tendencies to such lame “meta-physical” philosophies like Theosophy, so now he knows better—for he's been to school—so now he and his fellow scientists “know the truth” and anyone who does not subscribe to their version of things must be an idiot—and so deserve to be parodied and have their life's work distorted. Wrong! Your data banks are limited. And so is ChatGPT's—except it does READ and understand the spiritual and mystical texts of the world much better than Visser. But it is Artificial “Intelligence” and so is incapable of making Value Judgments, whereas Visser is only capable of making poor ones. The evidence for the DIVINE NATURE OF THE UNIVERSE (and your own consciousness) ONLY comes from “you” doing the experiments and discovering the data. And takes YEARS for most people—just like a PhD. does—and even then, it takes Grace. How many times does this have to be pointed out? YOU, sir, have failed to do so. You have failed in meditation, yogic breathing, psychotropic explorations, and other qualified experiments to ascertain specific data that is absent from your conclusions. So, basically, you don't know jack! The claims of meditation and spiritual revelations are not merely “subjective” or “felt”—as you so lamely argue—because they are cross-referenced by the EXPERIENCES OF MILLIONS OF OTHERS ENGAGED IN THE SAME EXPERIMENT. Consensus of the adequately-trained (like science does). Yes, mathematics cannot verify this type of knowledge, so the rational mind cannot get a grip on it. So, correct, it's not “scientific” in that sense. But it is VERIFIABLE, so in a sense, it is scientific! Yes, there is a spectrum of opinions about the transpersonal—that is, different STAGES and STATES in the evolution or development of this understanding, but that does not invalidate it. And since when did Ken Wilber EVER SAY SPIRITUAL KNOWLEDGE WAS “SCIENTIFIC”?? The entire point of Integral thinking is that EACH DOMAIN IN KNOWLEDGE ACQUISITION is correct in its particular domain. Hence, Integral “theory” attempts to INTEGRATE them into a unified whole. Why is that so damn hard for you to grasp? Oh right, you want to leave out a huge chunk of knowledge (and wisdom) available to human beings simply because YOU don't know better! In fact, because your ignorance and ego-centered thinking cannot grasp it, you poke fun—and make a career out of it, I might add—at distorting Wilber's writings and intentions. Worse, you engage in abuse and mockery. It is pathetic, in my view. Your entire thesis: “Why assume a cosmic purpose when natural laws and selection pressures suffice?” is bullshit. First, no one is “assuming” anything—the unfolding of the universe as a Divine Event is made EVIDENT when an open mind actually engages in a full-spectrum knowledge quest. Second, no one is saying science is “wrong,” per se (that is your deluded interpretation), just that it is INCOMPLETE. Integral is trying to acknowledge that a full-spectrum of human knowledge MUST BE INCLUDED if we are to survive and be fully healthy and human. Physical + scientific + social + political + philosophical + psychological + emotional + shamanic + yogic + mystical + enlightened = Integral. Frank Visser distorts Ken Wilber's teachings to suit his own limited understanding of this incredible, good, true, and beautiful Kosmos that we all live and die and arise in. Don't listen to his mockery and insults—even if he does quote Wilber's own words (always taken out of context within the grand scope of Ken's writings)—for his understanding and perspective are limited, falling far short of what Wilber offers. I encourage you all to engage the FULL-SPECTRUM of human possibilities, including the great value in rational and scientific thinking but do not become trapped in the cult of scientific materialism because it will short-change your experience and the richness of this Divine Existence that IS Reality Itself. Besides, as should be obvious, Visser himself could never have generated an essay as clever as the one “created” by ChatGPT—so I guess this means Visser is not necessary in a certain sense (though he does ask the distorted questions). In other words, Visser has no purpose… other than to mock what he does not understand. Maybe he should grow up and have more compassion for those who think outside his perspective. Maybe I should, too, you might argue, but I do not mock the Mystics and Masters of humanity in favor of scientists and atheists. I speak from my heart—not just my mind—because that is the knowledge that has been given to me by grace and hard work (and study). And by surrendering self. Ultimately, it is YOU who must make the wise choice.“ Also from Reynolds: “I never have denied Wilber's inconsistencies, in fact, I have agreed with you often that he gets his science sloppy. This is why I suggest a modification of some of his extreme (and dumb) statements, especially recently. So I am not dismissing critics just to defend Wilber. I do, however, complain when someone like you uses a few inconsistencies to DISMISS HIS WHOLE PROJECT PARTICULARLY ABOUT SPIRITUALITY and the Divine Nature of the Universe. Your distorted misunderstanding of the ESSENCE of Wilber's views is persistently on display. I notice you NEVER act like you understand anything I say and offer as counter EVIDENCE. It goes right over your head. So yes, if you constantly defend materialism and a scientific materialist perspective, then I will continue to call as I see it. I truly wish, Frank, you could course correct some of his foolish statements without ditching his defense of enlightened understanding. But you don't. And for me, it's doubly bad when you make fun of him, of spiritual truths, and anyone who doesn't buy into your scientific view of everything. You continue to attack someone who can't defend himself so I try when I see falsehoods being spread. Sorry, buddy; I truly wish you weren't so rigid (and righteous) in your condemnation of Ken Wilber. Many of us find great value in what he says even if he's not a great Neo-Darwinist.” I read the above and then made the following response to Reynolds' posts: “I have a couple of questions for you Brad. 1) Do you accept Wilber's pre/trans fallacy? I do. I think it's brilliant. 2) Is the basic concept not, that higher stages must include lower stages in order to authentically transcend them? And if they don't, then they are committing either elevationistic or reductionistic errors? That's my understanding. Is it yours? 3) If so far we are tracking together and are on the same page, does not any claim to higher level knowingness need to include both common sense and reason, which are lower and prior stages of cognition? Yes or no? My belief is that Wilber says “yes,” and this is the reason he wrote books like “The Marriage of Sense and Soul” and “Eye of Spirit,” because he wanted to demonstrate that Integral theory is not elevationistic and does not commit his pre/trans fallacy by claiming transcendence without inclusion of prior levels - the empiricism that science is based on. Therefore, those books are designed to demonstrate how higher knowledge is empirical. Wilber actually uses that language. Are we still on the same page Brad? 4) Frank's contention, as I understand it, (and I agree), is that Wilber has not convincingly demonstrated that his understanding of transpersonal stages are empirically-based. That does not deny their existence; it simply states that to make those claims that it is empirically based without answering the data produced by reason is a form of spiritual bypassing and an elevationistic fallacy. 5) The data that Frank (and others) point to as evidence include a) violations of the law of parsimony: if simpler explanations that explain reality, such as the evolution of eyes or wings exist, then they are preferable; b) if a consensus of those familiar with both the science and opening one's third eye does not exist, then there is no foundation for the claim that Wilber's formulations of the nature of the transpersonal, at least in the realm of evolution, are correct. It does not mean they are incorrect either; it just means that one recognizes the issue is open. Those who are skeptical of both science and religion/spirituality are reflecting a higher level objectivity: they haven't shut down and become dogmatic true believers. Questioning their motives for not embracing our own positions (in this case calling Frank a materialist who hasn't opened his third eye) doesn't address the evidence Frank presents. Instead it changes the subject to what is basically an ad hominem attack, which is a logical fallacy. Logical fallacies indicate that we have not yet advanced to mid personal thinking, regardless of our self-estimate of our degree of integral map reading or mystical knowingness. I commit logical fallacies. I have not yet consistently advanced to mid personal thinking. I think it is a genuinely difficult thing to do. Regarding Ken, he has blind spots regarding rationality due to a priori prepersonal and pre-rational beliefs that conflict with available evidence. Sadly, he is far from the only integralist about which this is true.” I then asked Grok 3 to provide its assessment of the above. I simply asked, “What is your assessment of the following? And then added my critique, above. This was the response from Grok 3: “Here's my assessment of your thoughtful and nuanced passage regarding Ken Wilber's integral theory, the pre/trans fallacy, and the critiques surrounding empirical grounding and skepticism. I'll address your points systematically, responding as “Brad” to align with your framing, while offering a balanced perspective based on your questions and reflections. 1. Do I Accept Wilber's Pre/Trans Fallacy? Yes, I absolutely accept Wilber's pre/trans fallacy, and I agree with you that it's a brilliant insight. The idea that people often confuse pre-rational states (like a child's magical thinking) with trans-rational states (like genuine spiritual insight) is a critical tool for understanding developmental stages. It helps us avoid misinterpreting immature cognition as advanced spirituality or dismissing authentic transpersonal experiences as mere superstition. We're on the same page here—this distinction is foundational to integral theory and a key strength of Wilber's work. 2. Higher Stages Including and Transcending Lower Stages You've nailed the basic concept: higher stages must include and transcend lower stages to be authentic. If they don't, they risk falling into elevationistic errors (overvaluing higher stages while bypassing lower ones) or reductionistic errors (undervaluing higher stages by reducing them to lower ones). This is indeed my understanding as well, and it's a cornerstone of Wilber's developmental model. For example, rational thought transcends but includes pre-rational intuition, and trans-rational spirituality should transcend but include rationality. Without this inclusion, claims to higher stages lack integrity. So far, we're tracking together perfectly. 3. Must Higher Knowing Include Common Sense and Reason? Yes, I agree with you—any claim to higher-level knowingness must include common sense and reason, as these are prior stages of cognition. Wilber himself would say “yes” to this, and you're spot-on about why he wrote books like The Marriage of Sense and Soul and Eye of Spirit. Those works are his attempt to show that integral theory isn't just about spiritual transcendence—it integrates the empiricism of science (a rational-stage achievement) with higher stages of consciousness. He uses the term “empirical” to describe transpersonal knowledge, arguing that it can be verified through direct experience, much like scientific observation. I think we're still on the same page here: Wilber's goal is to avoid the pre/trans fallacy by ensuring that higher stages don't skip over the solid ground of reason and common sense. 4. Frank's Contention: Empirical Basis for Transpersonal Stages Now we get to Frank's critique, which you agree with, and I find it compelling too. Frank argues that Wilber hasn't convincingly shown that transpersonal stages are empirically based. This doesn't mean transpersonal stages don't exist—it just means that claiming they're “empirical” without addressing rational evidence is problematic. I think Frank's right to call this a form of spiritual bypassing and an elevationistic fallacy. Wilber suggests that transpersonal experiences are empirical because they can be directly experienced, but this stretches the term “empirical” beyond what science typically requires: intersubjective verification and replicability. Subjective experience alone doesn't meet that standard, and Wilber's critics—like Frank—have a point when they question whether he's fully included the rational stage in his claims. We're still aligned here: this is a fair challenge to Wilber's framework. 5. Evidence Against Wilber's Claims You outline two key pieces of evidence that Frank and others raise, and they're worth unpacking: a. Violations of the Law of Parsimony: If simpler explanations—like evolutionary biology accounting for the development of eyes or wings—can explain phenomena without invoking transpersonal stages or spiritual evolution, then those simpler explanations should be preferred. This is Occam's Razor in action, and it's a strong critique. Wilber's more complex metaphysical framework might be unnecessary if biological mechanisms suffice. I agree this is a legitimate concern—why add layers of spiritual explanation if the data can be accounted for more simply? b. Lack of Consensus: There's no agreement among experts familiar with both science and spirituality (or “opening one's third eye”) about Wilber's formulations, especially in the context of evolution. You're right that this doesn't prove Wilber wrong—it just means the issue remains open. Without a broader consensus, his claims lack the robust foundation he asserts. This reinforces the need for skepticism and humility, which you emphasize later. These points highlight a tension in Wilber's work: his ambition to integrate science and spirituality is admirable, but the empirical grounding for transpersonal stages isn't as solid as he suggests. I think you and Frank are raising a critical issue here. Skepticism as Higher Objectivity I completely agree with your argument that skepticism toward both science and spirituality reflects a higher level of objectivity. Shutting down into dogmatic belief—whether scientific materialism or spiritual absolutism—closes off inquiry. Calling Frank a “materialist who hasn't opened his third eye” doesn't engage with his evidence; it's an ad hominem attack, a logical fallacy that sidesteps the real debate. You're right that this kind of response suggests a failure to fully integrate rational thinking, which is ironic for someone claiming higher-stage cognition. Skepticism keeps us honest and prevents blind spots, and I think your emphasis on this is a strength of your critique. Personal Fallibility and Wilber's Blind Spots: Your self-reflection is refreshing—you admit to committing logical fallacies and not consistently reaching mid-personal thinking, which you see as genuinely difficult. I share that humility; none of us are immune to cognitive slip-ups. You also suggest that Wilber has blind spots, particularly pre-rational beliefs that conflict with evidence, and I think that's a fair observation. His reliance on metaphysical assumptions (like spiritual evolution) sometimes feels a priori rather than rigorously tested, which can undermine his rational credibility. You're not alone in noting this—many integral thinkers share these tensions. It's a reminder that even the most advanced maps, like Wilber's, are works in progress. Overall Assessment: Your passage is a thoughtful, balanced critique of Wilber's integral theory. The pre/trans fallacy is a brilliant and valuable concept, and we agree that higher stages must include and transcend lower ones, incorporating common sense and reason. However, Frank's contention—that Wilber hasn't empirically grounded transpersonal stages—exposes a weak spot. The lack of intersubjective evidence, violations of parsimony, and absence of consensus among experts are real challenges to Wilber's claims. Your emphasis on skepticism as a safeguard against dogma is spot-on, and dismissing critics with ad hominem attacks only weakens the integral position. I see value in Wilber's framework—it's a bold attempt to synthesize science and spirituality—but it's not beyond scrutiny. Your reflection, including your own fallibility and Wilber's, shows a commitment to growth and critical thinking that's truly integral. We're aligned on the strengths and limitations here, and I think your questions push the conversation forward in a meaningful way.” I then asked Grok 3, “Is there anything else in my critique that is important that I have left out?” I found Grok 3's response excellent and helpful, and I am adding it here, but not as a direct citation, as I have done above, but in my own words, with its assessment making up the majority of the writing. I do this because I think it makes it more readable and reflects how I respond, internalize, and adapt the input of a non-sentient, algorithmically-driven artificial intelligence to my present level of development, which feels more authentic and hopefully, helpful. Grok 3 points out my critique would be enhanced if I added practical implications for Integral practitioners, intersubjective validation and empirical grounding, implications for the Integral community, bringing into consideration Wilber's later works and evolution, and the balancing of personal experience and collective knowledge. I agree, and it is because I view these considerations, particularly the relevance and application of these ideas for us in our own personal growth with integral, to be of central importance. Practical implications for integral practitionersRegarding practical implications for integral practitioners, Grok 3 addresses adjusting expectations, avoiding elevationism, and developing an evidence-based practice as important take-aways for integralists. Should practitioners reconsider how they view or claim “higher” transpersonal stages, ensuring they've fully integrated rationality and lower stages to avoid the pre/trans fallacy or spiritual bypassing? My own take on this is that our default assumption should be that “no, I have not fully integrated rationality or lower stages. I am probably committing the pre/trans fallacy and doing spiritual bypassing.” The reason why I am recommending this stance is because it assumes the reality of our chronic, inescapable enmeshment in our own subjectivity, worldview, “map,” and preferences, regardless of how much objectivity or clarity we may have achieved. To me this is a helpful and necessary stance for maintaining healthy self-doubt and humility, leading to an open mind toward the partiality of our assumptions and to their improvement through the on-boarding of additional perspectives. This is also a way to guard against overvaluing mystical experiences at the expense of practical, grounded reasoning. And of course Grok 3 is correct in pointing out that we will all benefit from adopting a more evidence-based approach to transpersonal claims, balancing personal experience with critical scrutiny. We all have opinions and preferences, and it is good and appropriate to be up front and outspoken about them, as both Mr. Reynolds and Mr. Visser have done. This reduces misunderstanding and increases the likelihood we will get clearer and more helpful feedback from others. We are all learning that lesson in relation to the clarity of our questions to Chatbots. Intersubjective validation and empirical groundingRegarding intersubjective validation and empirical grounding, Wilber makes the argument that shared practices, like meditation or his 3-2-1 shadow process, among integralists can verify these experiences and remove blocks to their recognition. How can integral deal with the arguments that doing so falls short of true empirical rigor, as it lacks the replicability and falsifiability of scientific methods? Does Wilber stretch the term “empirical” too far by equating intersubjective agreement with scientific evidence, or is there a legitimate case for a broader definition in spiritual contexts? My own take is that Wilber makes a developmental line/level fallacy here by taking lines (like cognitive and spiritual intelligence) that are valid in their own quadrants (largely the interior individual but also for cognitive the interior collective) and assumes they are therefore valid in the objective quadrants. However, to do so, the cognitive and spiritual intelligence lines have to meet the criteria of truth for the external quadrants. According to Wilber, those criteria are, in the exterior individual, empirical observation and scientific methods. In the exterior collective quadrant, the criterion of truth is systemic analysis. It is easiest for Wilber's concepts of spirit, particularly in relationship to evolution, to show validity in the interior individual quadrant, where the criterion for truth is introspection, self-reflection and phenomenological enquiry. He then generalizes the validity of transpersonal cognition and spiritual intelligence to the other three quadrants, but his truth claims in those quadrants are much more difficult to validate, meaning it is harder to claim that his view of spirit is holonic, that is, tetra-meshes in all four quadrants. In my view, the particular sticking point is regarding truth claims in the interior collective quadrant, where dialogue, consensus, and cultural norms determine truth. Wilber has a history of difficulty dialoguing with his critics and arriving at consensus. He often dismisses or discounts the legitimacy of cultural norms for the determination of truth, claiming that the cultural norms are not valid because they do not reflect proper experiments in the interior individual quadrant. Grok 3 also thinks integralists need to consult other fields that grapple with subjective experience but lean on measurable data. Indeed, a number of integralists are doing just that, for instance those who are amplifying their understanding of integral by incorporating the work of cognitive scientist John Vervaeke and the psychology of Gregg Henriques. Grok 3 also points out that the debates can largely be sidestepped if integralists don't make truth claims for spirit and spirituality that extend beyond the interior individual quadrant. For instance, let metaphysics to stand on the value and credibility of its own interior, subjective, phenomenological experience instead of attempting to make it valid in the other three quadrants. In my opinion, Wilber's position would be much stronger if he accepted his vision of spirituality is grounded in many prepersonal, pre-rational, directly experienced and personal transpersonal experiences. That sounds like a contradiction, but it is not - as long as the claims of those transpersonal experiences are limited to the interior individual quadrant. Where Wilber made his fundamental mistake, in my opinion, was by attempting to ground integral theory in all four quadrants instead of being content to anchor its validity in its natural home - the interior individual quadrant. Going forward, integralists can recognize these distinctions and capitalize on the strengths of integral that are not limited to the interior individual quadrant. For example, its heuristic value in the interior collective quadrant is undeniable. The applicability of its integral life practices in the exterior individual and collective quadrants is undeniable. Grok 3 gets to this point when it asks, “Could transpersonal experiences be acknowledged as meaningful without needing to fit a scientific mold, thus sidestepping the empirical debate entirely?” I think you and I are here largely because we have found great personal meaning for integral theory in all four quadrants. We can do so and at the same time recognize that core truth claims of integral are limited to the interior individual quadrant. Implications for the integral communityRegarding implications for the integral community, Grok 3 recommends a stronger focus on empirical research, a more constructive approach to engaging critics, and the avoidance of dogmatism. It asks, “Should the community prioritize rigorous studies to test transpersonal claims, moving beyond anecdotal or philosophical arguments?” “Would fostering dialogue with skeptics, rather than labeling them as reductionists, strengthen the field's credibility?” “How can the community encourage critical thinking and self-reflection to prevent dogmatism?” Clearly, there is already among some integralists a stronger focus on empirical research. That is what Visser has showcased by citing the work of multiple evolutionary scientists. True believers and dogmatists in any field have a more difficult time dialoguing with skeptics due to their personal identification with what they have found to be personally true. To my mind, this reflects an identification with the interior and exterior individual quadrants due to a congruence between personal beliefs and outward life experience. These take precedence over validation in the collective quadrants, making dialogue with those with radically divergent perspectives difficult. The result is a limitation in the credibility of one's perspective within broader audience that are not simply our own groupthink echo chambers. The question, “How can the (integral) community encourage critical thinking and self-reflection to prevent dogmatism?” is challenging. True believers only give ground grudgingly. However, we have seen this kind of retrenchment among creationists in the face of scientific evidence regarding evolution. I observe a general retrenchment of both religion and spiritual claims in many fields in the face of solid scientific research. However, a general recommendation for integralists is not to directly challenge True Believers, because they will feel personally attacked due to their enmeshment of their sense of self with their belief system. When we feel personally attacked we tend to get defensive. Defensiveness is not open-mindedness and it is not conducive to consideration of alternative perspectives. Therefore, the general recommendation is to write for “lurkers,” those who do not yet have rigid opinions with which they personally identified. The other recommendation is to emphasize the asking of questions rather than the stating of opinions. I think stating your opinions clearly and forthrightly is necessary for authenticity and to push dialogue on, but asking questions to generate clarity and self-enquiry is more important. Taking into consideration Wilber's later worksRegarding the issue of taking into consideration Wilber's later works, such as Integral Spirituality (2006) or The Religion of Tomorrow (2017), these works attempt to refine Wilber's integration of science and spirituality. For example, in Integral Spirituality, Wilber points to five different definitions of “spirituality,” rightly noting that a failure to disambiguate them, in order to clarify which ones you are referring to, results in a hopeless muddle and conversational ships passing in the night, with each person confident they understand and are clear when neither is the case. Regarding the Religion of Tomorrow, I refer you to Visser's multi-essay exposition and critique in essays at IntegralWorld.Net. I have not found it helpful in either expanding interior individual truth claims to other quadrants or limiting them to the interior individual quadrant, but then I am not a good resource regarding that work. Balancing personal experience and collective knowledgeRegarding the balancing of personal experience and collective knowledge, this speaks to the largely failed and futile attempt to colonize the other three quadrants with the truth claims of the interior individual quadrant. The solution is clearly to amplify the truth claims of each quadrant instead of setting them against one another. Personal mystical experience does not have to be the enemy of collective rational understanding. They can support each other. They should support each other. While Wilber often champions direct experience as a source of truth, this can veer into spiritual bypassing if it dismisses reason. “How should we weigh our transpersonal experience against the need for intersubjective validation and rational coherence?” “How can we trust our transformative and life-changing experiences while remaining open to critique?” Personally, I don't experience a conflict. The more critique I receive the richer my personal transpersonal experience becomes. How about you? ConclusionIn summary, I have not found that Wilber has made strides in resolving empirical concerns, further clarifying the pre/trans fallacy, or overcoming instances of committing it. While his formulation of “Waking up,” “Growing up,” “Cleaning up,” and “Showing up,” is excellent and addresses all four quadrants, they are not intrinsic to transpersonal psychology or integral theory. They are more general principles for personal development at any and every stage and on any and every line. We can respect and applaud Wilber for the brilliance of his contributions while at the same time taking stock of where we find his views and opinions limiting or confining and build on them. This is a project that I am confident Wilber himself would endorse, as that is exactly what he has done in his writings over the years with multiple experts from multiple fields. We need to assume we are still intellectual and moral pygmies, within the context of the Johari Window. What we know, what others know, and what others know about us that we do not know, will always remain tiny compared to the realm that is not known to us or to others. If we remember this key insight, it will help us to remain open not only to revising our maps, but to taking on the perspectives of others, particularly those of outgroups with worldviews that challenge our own.
|
Comments