• home
• about
• new
• essays
• AI
• book

Frank Visser, graduated as a psychologist of culture and religion, founded IntegralWorld in 1997. He worked as production manager for various publishing houses and as service manager for various internet companies and lives in Amsterdam. Books: Ken Wilber: Thought as Passion (SUNY, 2003), and The Corona Conspiracy: Combatting Disinformation about the Coronavirus (Kindle, 2020).

Mysticism, Metaphysics, and the Problems with Wilber's Proposal

Frank Visser / ChatGPT-4

Me to ChatGPT:

• Wikipedia lists the following critique of Ken Wilber: "Wilber proposes to take mystical experience as a starting point for describing a metaphysical reality. But it is nothing more than a proposal; why mystical experience would refer to a metaphysical reality, and not to human experience to which meaning is given, is not clear."[1] Please write an essay of 2000 words on the problems involved.

Follow-up questions:

• Wilber once argued that, just as we don't conclude from the brain processes involved in the perception of an apple, that apples don't exist, likewise we shouldn't conclude from brain processes involved in meditation that the Absolute Spirit does not exist. What's wrong with his logic?
• You write: "the experience of the Absolute Spirit might be wholly contingent upon certain brain states." But the nature of Absolute Spirit is that it isn't contingent on anything. Please clarify.
• What if the various mystical experiences around the world, regardless of their cultural expressions, can be reduced to a small number of basic types, that are common to human nature?
• Wilber once said that, in his current post-metaphysical phase, the only thing he kept from the perennial philosophy is that people dream and sleep, which he links to the subtle and causal states of Eastern philosophy, that can be cultivated into types of mystical experience. Is this a valid theory?
• Dreams and dreamless sleep definitely live in one's own mind, without a relation to external reality. Doesn't this undercut his proposal outlined above that experience proves metaphysics?
• What would a metaphysics based on mystical experience look like within the total landscape of possible metaphysical positions?
• Aren't mystical experience also possible within a secular, naturalistic, materialistic metaphysics? If so, this goes to the heart of our topic: what warrants a supernatural interpretation?
• At the same time, Wilber claims to be in his post-metaphysical phase. How does that match his frequent use of the term Spirit? Or does he use that term only metaphorically?
• But "Spirit evolves, unfolding through stages" seems pretty metaphysical to me.
• You write "This perspective sees Spirit not as a static, unchanging entity but as a dynamic force that unfolds and evolves over time." While that may suffice as a philosophy of life, the trouble starts when this is introduced into scientific debates about cosmology or evolution.
• So when Wilber writes in "The Religion of Tomorrow": "You can even see evolution as driven by "Spirit-in-action," which I think is the only theory that can actually explain the mysteries of evolution satisfactorily." he is committing the very category mistake he warns us against?
• I will give you an even stronger example of such a category mistake, from Wilber's book Eye to Eye: "[T]he strict theory of natural selection suffers from not acknowledging the role played by Spirit in evolution. (Wilber 1983: 205)." Granted, this is an early book, from his metaphysical phase, but Wilber has continued to express himself along these lines.

ChatGPT:

Ken Wilber, a prominent philosopher and integral theorist, has been lauded for his efforts to bridge the gap between Eastern and Western philosophical traditions. One of his notable claims is the use of mystical experiences as a foundational tool to describe metaphysical reality. Critics, like the one cited from Wikipedia, challenge the validity of this approach. The crux of the criticism revolves around the uncertainty of whether mystical experiences genuinely provide insight into a metaphysical reality or merely illuminate the human experience shaped by subjective meaning-making. In this essay, we will delve into the problems associated with grounding metaphysical descriptions in mystical experiences.

1. The Subjectivity of Mystical Experience

At the outset, mystical experiences, by their very nature, are deeply personal and subjective. They are characterized by feelings of unity, transcendence, and ineffability. Given this subjectivity, a fundamental question arises: can such experiences be universalized to form a basis for a shared understanding of metaphysical reality? Relying on individual experiences to make claims about universal truths seems fraught with potential pitfalls. One person's profound moment of enlightenment might differ substantially from another's, thereby making it challenging to find common ground.

2. The Problem of Verification

Mystical experiences often lie beyond the realm of empirical verification. Modern science thrives on replicability and falsifiability. If we were to accept mystical experiences as a valid starting point for metaphysical truths, how would we ascertain the veracity of such claims? Without a concrete method of validation, the risk of adopting potentially false beliefs increases.

3. Cultural and Historical Relativity

Mystical experiences often come enveloped in the cultural and historical contexts in which they occur. A Buddhist monk in ancient India and a Christian mystic in medieval Europe might both have profound spiritual experiences, but their interpretations would likely be vastly different based on their respective cultural and religious backgrounds. Using such experiences as a foundational base for a unified metaphysical understanding seems problematic when there's such variation across cultures and epochs.

4. Neurological Explanations

Recent advances in neuroscience have begun to shed light on what happens in the brain during mystical experiences. Some studies suggest that specific neural activities or changes in brain chemistry can induce feelings of transcendence or unity with the universe. If mystical experiences can be reduced to mere neurological phenomena, then grounding metaphysical claims in these experiences becomes even more contentious. Does the brain's activity during these experiences hint at a deeper metaphysical truth, or is it just a byproduct of our complex neural processes?

5. The Nature of Metaphysics

Metaphysics, as a discipline, seeks to understand the nature of reality at its most fundamental level. When Wilber uses mystical experiences as his starting point, he might be accused of conflating epistemology (how we know) with ontology (what is). Just because humans perceive or experience something doesn't necessarily mean it reflects the ultimate nature of reality. Mystical experiences might be profound and transformative for the individual, but to extrapolate them to metaphysical claims requires a significant leap.

6. The Risk of Reductionism

Wilber's approach might also be seen as reductionist. By tying metaphysical reality to human experiences, there's a risk of oversimplifying the complexities of the universe. The vastness and intricacies of metaphysical reality might very well lie beyond the scope of human comprehension, let alone the relatively narrow lens of mystical experiences.

7. The Human Need for Meaning

Humans have an inherent need to find meaning in their experiences. Mystical experiences, profound as they are, might be one of the ways we assign deeper significance to our existence. This need for meaning and understanding is fundamental to our psychology. However, to then make the jump from personal meaning to universal metaphysical truths is a step that requires more rigorous justification.

Conclusion

While Ken Wilber's attempt to integrate mystical experiences into a broader understanding of metaphysical reality is commendable, it is fraught with significant challenges. The subjective nature of these experiences, coupled with the difficulties in verification and the intricacies of metaphysical thought, make it a complex endeavor. While mystical experiences undoubtedly hold profound value for those who undergo them, their utility as a foundational pillar for metaphysical descriptions requires careful scrutiny and consideration.

Wilber once argued that, just as we don't conclude from the brain processes involved in the perception of an apple, that apples don't exist, likewise we shouldn't conclude from brain processes involved in meditation that the Absolute Spirit does not exist. What's wrong with his logic?

Ken Wilber's comparison between the perception of an apple and the experience of the Absolute Spirit during meditation serves as an attempt to defend the validity and reality of mystical experiences. The crux of his argument is that just because a phenomenon has correlates in brain processes, it doesn't negate the reality of the phenomenon itself. While this line of reasoning is thought-provoking, there are some potential issues with his logic:

1. Difference in Objectivity:

The perception of an apple and the experience of the "Absolute Spirit" are fundamentally different in their levels of objectivity. Apples are tangible, physical objects that can be perceived by anyone in the vicinity. Their existence can be confirmed through multiple senses (sight, touch, taste) and by multiple observers. On the other hand, the experience of the Absolute Spirit is inherently subjective and cannot be directly accessed or verified by others.

2. Empirical Consistency vs. Subjective Variability:

If multiple individuals look at an apple, their descriptions of it will generally converge on a common understanding (e.g., its color, shape, and size). In contrast, mystical or spiritual experiences, like that of the Absolute Spirit, are diverse across cultures, traditions, and individuals. The variability in these experiences poses a challenge to the claim that they all refer to a consistent metaphysical reality.

3. Causation vs. Correlation:

While it's true that brain processes are involved in perceiving an apple, the apple's existence is not contingent upon those processes. The apple exists independently of our perception. In contrast, the experience of the Absolute Spirit might be wholly contingent upon certain brain states. If the experience can be induced or altered by modifying brain states (e.g., through drugs or meditation), it raises questions about the independent existence of the Absolute Spirit outside of human perception.

4. Reductionism:

Wilber's argument against reductionism in the context of mystical experiences is valuable. However, the apple analogy might be an oversimplification. Apples and their perception fall within the realm of the physical, whereas the Absolute Spirit is a metaphysical claim. Drawing parallels between the two might be an instance of comparing apples to oranges, so to speak.

5. Levels of Proof:

While we don't deny the existence of apples based on our understanding of brain processes, the existence of apples is already well-established and universally accepted. The existence of the Absolute Spirit, on the other hand, is a more contentious claim that requires a higher burden of proof. Using brain processes as evidence for its existence might not meet that burden.

6. Neurological Explanations:

As neuroscience progresses, we gain more insight into how certain brain processes are linked to specific experiences. If the experience of the Absolute Spirit can be fully explained by brain processes, it could be argued that the experience is a product of the brain rather than a perception of an external metaphysical reality.

In conclusion, while Ken Wilber's analogy is intriguing and highlights the danger of hastily dismissing experiences solely based on their neurological correlates, it also oversimplifies the complexities involved in comparing physical perception with metaphysical experiences. The challenges in his logic underscore the intricacies of the ongoing dialogue between science, philosophy, and spirituality.

You write: "the experience of the Absolute Spirit might be wholly contingent upon certain brain states." But the nature of Absolute Spirit is that it isn't contingent on anything. Please clarify.

The comment made regarding the "Absolute Spirit" being potentially contingent upon brain states was an attempt to encapsulate the perspective of critics who might challenge Wilber's analogy. The essence of this criticism is centered around the argument that while an apple's existence is independent of our perception (meaning the apple exists whether or not we perceive it), the experience of the "Absolute Spirit" might be intrinsically tied to specific brain states or processes.

However, it's important to clarify the philosophical and metaphysical understanding of the term "Absolute Spirit." In many spiritual and philosophical traditions, particularly in Neoplatonic and some Eastern philosophies, the "Absolute" or "Absolute Spirit" is understood to be a fundamental, non-contingent reality. It's an unchanging and foundational essence underlying all existence. By its very definition, as you correctly pointed out, it is not contingent upon anything, let alone human brain states. It exists independently and universally.

The tension here arises from the intersection of empirical science and metaphysics. When spiritual experiences (which might be described as encounters with the Absolute Spirit) show correlates in the brain, the question becomes: Are these brain states causing the experience, or are they merely facilitating or reflecting an encounter with a deeper, non-contingent reality?

Wilber's analogy attempts to highlight this tension. Just as we wouldn't deny the existence of an apple because of the brain processes involved in its perception, he argues, we shouldn't deny the existence of the Absolute Spirit based on its associated brain processes during meditative or mystical experiences.

To synthesize, while the Absolute Spirit, in its metaphysical understanding, is non-contingent, the human experience or perception of it might be intertwined with certain brain states or processes. The challenge lies in deciphering whether these neurological events are the cause of the experience or merely a conduit through which the experience is realized.

What if the various mystical experiences around the world, regardless of their cultural expressions, can be reduced to a small number of basic types, that are common to human nature?

The idea that diverse mystical experiences from various cultures might converge into a few basic types that are fundamental to human nature is a captivating one. This notion touches upon universality in human spiritual experiences, suggesting that regardless of the sociocultural milieu, there are underlying constants in how humans experience the transcendent. Let's delve into the implications and challenges of this idea:

1. Universal Human Experience:

If mystical experiences can indeed be reduced to a few basic types, it would suggest a sort of universal human spirituality, transcending cultural, religious, and historical boundaries. Such universality might indicate that humans, at their core, share a common spiritual essence or have an inherent predisposition to perceive the transcendent in specific ways.

2. Neurobiological Foundations:

From a scientific perspective, the universality of mystical experiences could suggest a shared neurobiological foundation. Neuroscientists have observed that certain brain regions and pathways become active during reported spiritual or mystical experiences. If diverse cultures and religions lead to similar mystical experiences, it might indicate that these experiences emerge from common neurobiological processes.

3. Challenges to Religious Exclusivity:

If all spiritual paths converge on a set of shared mystical experiences, it challenges the idea of religious exclusivity'—that one religion has a monopoly on spiritual truth. Instead, it underscores the idea that different religions might be varied paths leading to a shared summit.

4. Validating Mystical Experiences:

A universal set of mystical experiences could serve as a metric to understand and validate individual spiritual encounters. By comparing individual experiences to these foundational types, one might discern the nature and authenticity of a person's mystical encounter.

5. Interfaith Dialogue:

Recognizing the commonalities in mystical experiences across religions can serve as a foundation for interfaith dialogue. Instead of focusing on doctrinal differences, adherents could come together over shared spiritual experiences, fostering understanding and unity among diverse faith groups.

6. Interpretative Challenges:

While the core experience might be universal, the interpretation of it is deeply rooted in cultural, linguistic, and religious contexts. A Christian might interpret a unitive experience as union with Christ, while a Hindu might see it as a merging with Brahman. Thus, while the foundational experience might be the same, its implications, interpretations, and the subsequent beliefs formed around it might differ vastly.

7. Potential Reductionism:

While it is appealing to think of mystical experiences converging to a few types, there is a risk of oversimplifying the rich tapestry of human spiritual experiences. It is essential to ensure that in the search for commonalities, the unique and varied expressions of spirituality aren't overlooked or dismissed.

In conclusion, the idea that the plethora of mystical experiences globally can be reduced to a few fundamental types inherent to human nature is both compelling and profound. Such an understanding could reshape interfaith dialogues, challenge religious boundaries, and offer insights into the shared spiritual heritage of humanity. However, it's crucial to approach this idea with nuance, respecting the diversity and depth of individual and cultural spiritual expressions.

Wilber once said that, in his current post-metaphysical phase, the only thing he kept from the perennial philosophy is that people dream and sleep, which he links to the subtle and causal states of Eastern philosophy, that can be cultivated into types of mystical experience. Is this a valid theory?

Ken Wilber's incorporation of perennial philosophy concepts into a more contemporary, post-metaphysical framework is a hallmark of his integrative approach. By retaining elements like the correlation between states of consciousness (dreaming and sleeping) and Eastern philosophical states (subtle and causal), Wilber aims to provide a bridge between ancient wisdom and modern understanding. Let's evaluate the validity and challenges of this theory:

Supporting Points for Wilber's Theory:

Universality of Experiences: Dreaming and sleeping are universal human experiences. By correlating these with mystical states, Wilber grounds his theory in experiences that are accessible and relatable to almost everyone.

Continuum of Consciousness: Eastern traditions often describe a continuum or spectrum of consciousness, from gross to subtle to causal to non-dual states. By associating the dreaming state with the subtle realm and the deep sleep state with the causal realm, Wilber provides a framework to understand these states as part of a continuum that everyone experiences daily.

Mystical Cultivation: Many meditative and spiritual practices aim to cultivate awareness in various states of consciousness, including in dreams (dream yoga in Tibetan Buddhism) and deep sleep (certain advanced yogic practices). Wilber's model suggests that by cultivating awareness in these states, one can access the associated mystical experiences.

Challenges and Criticisms of the Theory:

Over-Simplification: One criticism could be that equating natural states of consciousness like dreaming and sleeping with profound mystical states might oversimplify the depth and transformative nature of genuine mystical experiences. The states achieved by seasoned meditators or mystics might be qualitatively different from ordinary dream or sleep states.

Cultural Interpretation: While there are similarities, different cultures and traditions interpret and understand dream and sleep states differently. Wilber's model, based largely on Eastern traditions, might not resonate with or encompass the breadth of interpretations globally.

Neuroscientific Perspective: From a neuroscientific standpoint, dream (REM sleep) and deep sleep (non-REM) have specific physiological and neurological characteristics. Linking these directly with profound spiritual states might seem reductionist to some, especially if one argues that such spiritual states should have distinct neurological signatures.

Experience vs. Interpretation: While everyone dreams and sleeps, the depth of awareness and experience within these states varies greatly among individuals. Just because someone is dreaming or in deep sleep doesn't mean they are accessing the same depth of experience or insight associated with the subtle or causal states in Eastern philosophy.

In conclusion, Wilber's attempt to correlate daily states of consciousness with mystical states from Eastern traditions is an intriguing effort to integrate timeless wisdom with contemporary understanding. While there's value in providing such a framework, it's essential to approach it with nuance and be open to the complexities and depths of both ordinary states of consciousness and profound mystical experiences. The theory is a gateway for discussion and exploration but, like all models, has its limitations.

Dreams and dreamless sleep definitely live in one's own mind, without a relation to external reality. Doesn't this undercut his proposal outlined above that experience proves metaphysics?

Your question raises an essential philosophical point about the nature of experience and its relationship to metaphysical claims. If Ken Wilber posits dreaming and deep sleep as analogs for subtle and causal states, respectively, but these states are self-contained within an individual's mind without a clear relation to external reality, then how do they support broader metaphysical claims?

Let's delve into the implications of this observation:

Nature of Experience: All experiences, including waking experiences, are mediated through the mind and the senses. While we might say that dreaming occurs "entirely within one's mind," the same could be said, to an extent, about waking experiences too. After all, when we see, hear, or touch, it's our brain that interprets sensory signals to produce our experience of reality. So, while dreams are undoubtedly more detached from external stimuli than waking experiences, both are products of the mind's interpretation.

Internal Reality as a Valid Domain: Even if dreams and deep sleep are solely internal experiences, this doesn't necessarily invalidate them as sources of insight or understanding. Some philosophical and spiritual traditions assert that internal experiences can provide just as much (if not more) truth about the nature of existence as external ones. For these traditions, introspection, meditation, and dreaming might serve as gateways to deeper understanding.

Metaphysics Beyond Materialism: If one operates from a strict materialist perspective, then only experiences that can be directly linked to external, physical reality are deemed valid. However, metaphysics often delves into realms beyond the strictly physical. From this standpoint, experiences that aren't directly tied to the external world'—like dreams or mystical experiences'—might still provide insights into the nature of reality.

Subjectivity and Objectivity: Wilber's approach, especially in his later work, emphasizes the integration of subjective and objective modes of knowing. While dreaming and deep sleep are subjective experiences, they might still offer insights that can be integrated with more objective, empirical knowledge to paint a fuller picture of reality.

Challenge to Metaphysical Claims: Your point stands that if dreaming and dreamless sleep are taken as primary evidence for metaphysical realities, it poses a challenge. Just because one experiences a particular state internally doesn't automatically validate broader metaphysical claims about the nature of existence. Without additional evidence or argumentation, there's a leap from "I experience X" to "X reflects a fundamental aspect of reality."

In conclusion, while internal experiences like dreams and deep sleep can provide valuable insights and potentially point towards deeper metaphysical truths, they alone might not serve as definitive proof of such truths. The bridge from personal, internal experience to broad metaphysical claims requires careful philosophical and empirical scaffolding. Wilber's work is an attempt to build such a bridge, but like all philosophical endeavors, it invites scrutiny, debate, and further exploration.

What would a metaphysics based on mystical experience look like within the total landscape of possible metaphysical positions?

A metaphysics based on mystical experience is an intriguing prospect. Mystical experiences, which are profound and often transformative experiences that provide direct insight or communion with the transcendent, have been reported by individuals across various cultures and religious traditions. Using these experiences as a foundation for metaphysical claims brings both a depth of introspective insight and a set of unique challenges.

Here's what such a metaphysics might look like and its placement within the broader landscape of metaphysical positions:

1. Features of a Metaphysics Based on Mystical Experience:

Transcendent Reality: At the heart of most mystical experiences is a sense of union or communion with a transcendent reality. This metaphysics would posit that there exists a reality beyond the ordinary, physical, and temporal world.

Interconnectedness: Many mystics report a profound sense of interconnectedness or oneness with all things. This would suggest a metaphysical framework where all entities are interconnected, and separateness is an illusion.

Beyond Dualities: Mystical experiences often transcend dualities, such as self/other, sacred/profane, or physical/spiritual. This metaphysics might posit a non-dual reality beyond these distinctions.

Ineffability: A hallmark of mystical experiences is their ineffability'—being beyond words or conventional descriptions. As such, this metaphysics might emphasize the limits of language and rational thought in capturing the true nature of reality.

2. Relationship to Other Metaphysical Positions:

Idealism: A metaphysics based on mystical experience might have overlaps with idealism, which posits that mind or consciousness is primary. If the transcendent reality accessed in mystical experiences is akin to a universal consciousness, there would be a significant alignment with idealistic metaphysics.

Pantheism and Panentheism: These positions, which hold that God is equivalent to nature or that the divine interpenetrates every part of nature while also transcending it, respectively, might resonate with the sense of divine interconnectedness and immanence reported in mystical experiences.

Monism: Mystical metaphysics might align with monistic perspectives, which assert that there's a single, undivided reality.

Empiricism and Materialism: A metaphysics based on mystical experiences might diverge significantly from strictly empirical or materialist metaphysical positions. While empirical methods can study the effects or correlates of mystical experiences, they might not fully capture their transcendent nature. Materialism, which posits matter as the primary substance of reality, might be challenged by the non-material, transcendent insights of mystical experiences.

3. Challenges and Considerations:

Subjectivity: Mystical experiences are deeply personal. Crafting a universal metaphysics from them requires navigating their inherent subjectivity.

Variability: Mystical experiences vary across cultures and individuals. Finding common ground and distinguishing culturally specific interpretations from universal insights is a challenge.

Verification: Unlike empirical claims, mystical insights can't be easily verified or replicated. This poses challenges for their broad acceptance in a pluralistic or secular context.

In the vast landscape of metaphysical positions, a metaphysics based on mystical experience offers a unique blend of introspective depth and transcendent insight. It emphasizes the experiential and subjective dimensions of understanding reality. However, like all metaphysical frameworks, it comes with its own set of challenges and questions, necessitating dialogue, exploration, and reflection.

Aren't mystical experience also possible within a secular, naturalistic, materialistic metaphysics? If so, this goes to the heart of our topic: what warrants a supernatural interpretation?

Absolutely, the nature of mystical experiences and their interpretation within a secular, naturalistic, or materialistic framework is a pivotal question in the philosophy of mind, the philosophy of religion, and neuroscience. Such a discussion hinges on how we define and interpret both "mystical experiences" and the categories of "naturalistic" or "supernatural."

1. Mystical Experiences in a Secular Framework:

Neuroscientific Explanations: Modern neuroscience posits that mystical or transcendent experiences can be understood in terms of brain activity. Through imaging studies, certain brain regions (like the parietal lobe) have been linked to experiences of unity or ego dissolution, and other areas (like the temporal lobe) to religious or spiritual feelings. These studies suggest that mystical experiences, while profound, are ultimately products of brain function.

Evolutionary Explanations: Some theorists propose that mystical experiences had evolutionary advantages, perhaps by promoting social cohesion or by offering psychological relief and resilience. Under this view, experiences of the "transcendent" are natural products of human evolution.

Psychological Interpretations: Mystical experiences can also be framed as intense manifestations of human psychology'—deep experiences of the subconscious, moments of profound insight, or responses to particular stimuli or stressors.

2. The Question of Supernatural Interpretation:

Cultural and Historical Context: Often, the interpretation of mystical experiences as "supernatural" is deeply embedded in cultural, historical, and religious contexts. An experience might be interpreted as a communion with God in one culture, an interaction with ancestral spirits in another, and a deep psychological moment in a secular context.

Ineffability and the Limits of Language: One reason mystical experiences are sometimes labeled "supernatural" is their ineffability'—they elude conventional description. When experiences defy easy categorization or explanation, they might be placed in the realm of the "beyond" or "other."

Direct Experience vs. Interpretation: It's crucial to distinguish between the direct experience itself and its subsequent interpretation. A person might have a profound sense of unity or interconnectedness without attributing it to a divine source. The label of "supernatural" is an interpretive layer added to the raw experience.

Subjective Realness: For many who've had mystical experiences, the encounter feels more "real" than everyday reality. This profound sense of realness can lead to a belief that the experience tapped into a deeper or transcendent layer of reality, warranting a supernatural interpretation.

3. Implications for Metaphysics:

Expanding Materialism: If materialism accommodates mystical experiences as products of brain activity or evolution, it suggests a broader view of materialism'—one that recognizes the vast range of experiences the human brain can produce.

Challenge to Supernatural Claims: A naturalistic interpretation of mystical experiences challenges the idea that they necessarily point to realms, beings, or truths beyond the material world. It reframes the "supernatural" as perhaps deeply natural, albeit not yet fully understood.

In conclusion, mystical experiences can indeed be framed within a secular, naturalistic, or materialistic metaphysics. The decision to interpret them as supernatural hinges on a combination of cultural, personal, historical, and philosophical factors. The heart of the matter is the ongoing dialogue between direct personal experience and the broader frameworks'—scientific, philosophical, and theological'—used to interpret and understand them.

At the same time, Wilber claims to be in his post-metaphysical phase. How does that match his frequent use of the term Spirit? Or does he use that term only metaphorically?

Ken Wilber's work, particularly in his later years, has navigated complex philosophical terrain, seeking to integrate a vast range of insights from different disciplines and wisdom traditions. His proclamation of being in a "post-metaphysical" phase might seem at odds with his frequent use of terms like "Spirit," but understanding Wilber's perspective requires a nuanced exploration of what he means by both "post-metaphysical" and "Spirit."

1. Post-Metaphysical:

When Wilber speaks of his "post-metaphysical" phase, he's referencing a move away from traditional metaphysical claims that are presented as absolute, unchanging truths about the nature of reality. Instead, he's emphasizing an approach that:

Recognizes the evolving and constructed nature of human knowledge.

Integrates insights from modern science and postmodern critiques.

Avoids overly reifying concepts or getting stuck in fixed ontological claims.

2. Use of "Spirit":

Wilber's use of the term "Spirit" is multilayered:

Non-Dual Reality: For Wilber, "Spirit" often references a non-dual reality, an underlying unity or source from which all of existence arises and to which it returns. It's akin to the Brahman of Vedanta, the Dharmakaya of Buddhism, or the Tao of Taoism.

Evolutionary Panentheism: In his later work, Wilber presents a view of Spirit that is both immanent in the world and transcendent. Spirit evolves, unfolding through stages, and this evolutionary perspective distinguishes his view from many traditional metaphysical systems.

Metaphorical and Literal: While Wilber uses "Spirit" in ways that resonate with metaphorical interpretations, he also seems to mean it quite literally as a fundamental aspect of reality. However, his "literal" isn't necessarily a traditional theistic one; it's more aligned with Eastern non-dual traditions.

3. Reconciling Post-Metaphysical with Spirit:

Wilber's effort to integrate the term "Spirit" within a post-metaphysical framework is an attempt to:

Bridging the Gap: Wilber seeks to bridge the divide between ancient spiritual wisdom and contemporary scientific and philosophical insights. He wants to bring the profound realizations about Spirit from mystic traditions into dialogue with a postmodern world.

Empirical and Experiential Validation: One of Wilber's key propositions is that spiritual insights, including experiences of Spirit, can be subjected to validation through communal checking among those with similar training (akin to how scientists verify findings within their expert communities). This method provides a post-metaphysical grounding to claims about Spirit.

Dynamic Framework: Wilber's Integral Theory is a dynamic framework that recognizes stages of human development, different perspectives, and the evolving nature of understanding. Within this framework, "Spirit" isn't a fixed, dogmatic claim but an evolving understanding informed by introspection, dialogue, and exploration.

In conclusion, Ken Wilber's "post-metaphysical" stance combined with his use of "Spirit" showcases his endeavor to rejuvenate spiritual insights within a contemporary, pluralistic, and evolving context. While some critics argue that he still leans into metaphysical territory despite his claims, Wilber's approach represents a bold attempt to harmonize ancient wisdom with modern thought.

But "Spirit evolves, unfolding through stages" seems pretty metaphysical to me.

You're touching upon a central debate in the evaluation of Ken Wilber's work. The term "metaphysical" traditionally refers to fundamental questions about the nature of reality that go beyond what's physically observable. In this sense, any claim about the nature of reality, especially one involving abstract concepts like "Spirit" and its evolution, can be considered metaphysical.

Wilber's use of the term "post-metaphysical" doesn't mean he rejects all metaphysical claims outright. Instead, his approach is an attempt to ground spiritual and metaphysical assertions in a methodological framework that's responsive to empirical, intersubjective, and experiential validation. Here are some points to consider:

1. Evolutionary Spirituality:

Wilber's assertion that "Spirit evolves" is a cornerstone of his evolutionary spirituality. This perspective sees Spirit not as a static, unchanging entity but as a dynamic force that unfolds and evolves over time. This kind of process-oriented metaphysics is distinct from more traditional metaphysical systems that posit static, unchanging principles.

2. Grounding in Experience:

Wilber emphasizes the importance of grounding metaphysical or spiritual assertions in direct experience. For him, the stages of spiritual evolution can be directly experienced and validated through contemplative practices. While this is still a form of metaphysics, it's one that's closely tied to human experience and not purely speculative.

3. Integrative Approach:

Wilber's post-metaphysical approach seeks to integrate insights from different sources, including empirical science, spiritual traditions, and philosophical analyses. While he does make metaphysical claims, he attempts to do so in a way that's open to revision and dialogue across these domains.

4. The Language Challenge:

Part of the challenge is linguistic. In attempting to describe the ineffable or the transcendent, we inevitably use language that carries metaphysical connotations. Words like "Spirit," "evolution," and "unfolding" are attempts to articulate complex, nuanced ideas, and their use doesn't necessarily mean one is fully committing to a rigid metaphysical stance.

5. Revising Metaphysics:

Wilber's "post-metaphysical" label can be seen as an attempt to revise, rather than reject, metaphysics. He's aiming for a flexible, integrative metaphysics that remains open to new insights, challenges, and refinements.

In conclusion, you're right in noting the metaphysical elements in Wilber's thought, and this is a point of contention among scholars and critics. The balance Wilber tries to strike between making foundational claims about reality while staying responsive to empirical and experiential checks is an ambitious endeavor, and evaluations of its success vary among thinkers in the field.

You write "This perspective sees Spirit not as a static, unchanging entity but as a dynamic force that unfolds and evolves over time." While that may suffice as a philosophy of life, the trouble starts when this is introduced into scientific debates about cosmology or evolution.

Indeed, introducing metaphysical or spiritual concepts like "Spirit" into scientific debates about cosmology or evolution can be problematic. Science operates within a specific methodological framework that emphasizes empirical observation, hypothesis testing, and the development of theories based on evidence. Introducing metaphysical constructs into this domain raises several challenges:

1. Non-Empirical Nature of Metaphysical Constructs:

Metaphysical or spiritual concepts, by their very nature, often lie outside the domain of empirical observation. "Spirit," for instance, isn't something that can be directly measured, observed, or tested using scientific instruments. Thus, claims about its nature, evolution, or influence on the material world can't be empirically verified in the same way as scientific claims.

2. The Problem of Falsifiability:

One of the hallmarks of scientific theories is their falsifiability—the idea that a theory should be structured in such a way that it can be potentially disproven. Metaphysical claims, like the evolution of "Spirit," are often constructed in ways that make them immune to falsification, which places them outside the realm of scientific inquiry.

3. Confusion of Domains:

Science and spirituality/metaphysics operate in different domains of inquiry. Science seeks to explain the how—the mechanisms and processes of the natural world. Spirituality often concerns itself with the why—the purpose, meaning, and underlying essence of existence. Merging the two can lead to category mistakes where spiritual explanations are inappropriately used to explain natural phenomena, or vice versa.

4. Reductionism vs. Holism:

While science, particularly in its reductionist forms, seeks to understand phenomena by breaking them down into their constituent parts, many spiritual and metaphysical traditions emphasize holistic understandings. Attempting to integrate these perspectives can lead to tensions and misunderstandings.

5. Historical Precedents:

Historically, there have been instances where religious or metaphysical explanations have been used to account for natural phenomena, only to be displaced by scientific explanations later on (e.g., the geocentric model of the universe). These precedents make the scientific community wary of metaphysical intrusions into scientific discourse.

However, it's worth noting that there are also voices advocating for a dialogue between science and spirituality. Proponents argue that:

Both science and spirituality are quests for truth, albeit in different domains.

Integrative approaches might offer holistic understandings that neither domain could achieve on its own.

Spirituality and metaphysics can offer deep existential and ethical insights that pure scientific materialism might overlook.

While these points suggest potential areas of harmony, it's crucial to approach any integration with caution, ensuring that the methodologies, assumptions, and boundaries of each domain are respected. Wilber's work represents one such attempt at integration, but as you rightly pointed out, when metaphysical claims start to intertwine with scientific debates, complications and controversies are bound to arise.

So when Wilber writes in "The Religion of Tomorrow": "You can even see evolution as driven by "Spirit-in-action," which I think is the only theory that can actually explain the mysteries of evolution satisfactorily." he is committing the very category mistake he warns us against?

Ken Wilber's assertion in "The Religion of Tomorrow" about evolution being driven by "Spirit-in-action" can indeed be seen as a fusion of spiritual and scientific domains. Wilber, in his integral approach, attempts to unify disparate fields of knowledge, including spirituality and science. However, whether this fusion constitutes a category mistake or a groundbreaking synthesis is a matter of perspective and remains a point of contention.

Several considerations emerge from this claim:

1. The Nature of Explanation:

When Wilber says that seeing evolution as driven by "Spirit-in-action" is the only theory that can "explain the mysteries of evolution satisfactorily," he's delving into the realm of meaning and purpose, not just mechanism. Science can explain the mechanisms of evolution, but it doesn't address the deeper questions of why life exists or why it evolves in the first place. Wilber's proposition attempts to provide a holistic explanation that encompasses both how and why.

2. Interpretative Frameworks:

For many who follow a spiritual or metaphysical worldview, seeing the hand of Spirit or the Divine in the unfolding of the cosmos provides a profound sense of coherence and purpose. From this perspective, evolution driven by "Spirit-in-action" isn't a category mistake but an interpretive framework that adds depth and meaning to scientific findings.

3. Boundary Between Science and Spirituality:

While Wilber often emphasizes the importance of respecting the methodologies and boundaries of different domains, his integrative approach sometimes blurs these boundaries. This can lead to claims, like the one above, that fuse metaphysical and scientific explanations. Critics argue that such fusion can undermine the integrity of both domains, while proponents see it as a bold synthesis.

4. Scientific Reception:

Most scientists would be cautious about introducing a concept like "Spirit" into the discussion of evolution. Evolutionary biology provides a robust framework for understanding the diversification and adaptation of life based on principles like natural selection and genetic drift. Introducing "Spirit-in-action" as a driving force would be seen by many in the scientific community as unnecessary and untestable, and thus outside the purview of empirical science.

In conclusion, Wilber's claim about "Spirit-in-action" driving evolution is emblematic of his broader project to integrate spirituality and science. Whether one views this as a category mistake or an innovative synthesis largely depends on one's philosophical and methodological commitments. While Wilber's approach has been influential and resonates with many seeking a holistic worldview, it's also met with skepticism, particularly when it ventures into domains like evolutionary biology that have well-established scientific frameworks.

I will give you an even stronger example of such a category mistake, from Wilber's book Eye to Eye: "[T]he strict theory of natural selection suffers from not acknowledging the role played by Spirit in evolution. (Wilber 1983: 205)." Granted, this is an early book, from his metaphysical phase, but Wilber has continued to express himself along these lines.

The quote from Ken Wilber's "Eye to Eye" underscores a core aspect of his integral thought: the idea that evolution, and existence at large, can't be fully understood without considering a spiritual or transcendent dimension. However, this perspective raises several key concerns when evaluated from a strictly scientific lens.

1. The Scientific Model of Evolution:

At its core, the theory of evolution by natural selection, as formulated by Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace and refined by subsequent generations of biologists, provides a naturalistic explanation for the diversity of life on Earth. It posits that organisms with traits that enhance their survival and reproduction tend to pass those traits on to subsequent generations. Over long time scales, this process can lead to the development of new species. Introducing "Spirit" as a driver in this process isn't a component of this scientific model.

2. Empirical Testability:

One of the hallmarks of scientific theories is that they can be empirically tested and potentially falsified. Introducing the role of "Spirit" in evolution presents challenges for empirical testability. How would one measure the influence of "Spirit"? What empirical evidence would either support or refute its role in evolution? Without answers to these questions, the proposition remains outside the domain of empirical science.

3. Overarching Worldviews:

Wilber's perspective is rooted in an overarching worldview that seeks to harmonize scientific, philosophical, and spiritual insights. While this is a commendable endeavor in terms of creating a holistic understanding of existence, it can lead to tensions when specific claims, like the role of "Spirit" in evolution, are evaluated in isolation.

4. Potential for Reductionism:

Wilber's critique of scientific models might stem from a concern about reductionism—the idea that complex phenomena can be wholly explained by their constituent parts. While reductionism has been powerful in advancing many scientific fields, Wilber might argue it fails to capture the richness and depth of existence, especially when considering questions of meaning, purpose, and inner experience.

5. The Risk of Conflation:

While Wilber often emphasizes the importance of differentiating between various domains of knowledge, statements like the one from "Eye to Eye" risk conflating spiritual or metaphysical insights with empirical scientific models. This can lead to the aforementioned category mistakes where the methods, assumptions, and goals of one domain are inappropriately applied to another.

In the broader landscape of discourse on science and spirituality, Wilber is not alone in suggesting a deeper, possibly spiritual dimension to the unfolding of the cosmos. Various theologians, philosophers, and even some scientists have explored similar ideas. However, the challenge remains in articulating these perspectives in a manner that respects the integrity of both scientific and spiritual domains.

It's also worth noting, as you mentioned, that "Eye to Eye" comes from an earlier phase in Wilber's thought. While he has maintained a consistent interest in integrating science and spirituality, his specific views and formulations have evolved over time, reflecting both his personal intellectual journey and broader shifts in the fields he engages with.

NOTE

[1] This statement is found on the Dutch Wikipedia page on Ken Wilber. The reference given is: David Chapman, "Are mystical experiences metaphysical evidence?", vividness.live, which is part of a collection of essays called Vividness.

From which:

"Here is an extraordinary spiritual teaching:

• Mystics, across many different cultures and religions, all describe their insight experiences similarly.
• This couldn't happen unless their accounts were accurate.
• So we must believe what they say.

What is extraordinary about this teaching is that it so widely accepted, and yet so obviously false. As I'll explain:

• If mystics all gave similar descriptions of their experiences, it could just mean that they are all mistaken in the same way.
• But, in fact, mystics from different cultures give wildly different descriptions, which generally reflect their cultural background.

So what?

My motivation is not to dismiss non-ordinary experiences. I think they are important.

Instead, my next few posts will reject a particular metaphysical interpretation of such experiences. It is the theory that Buddhist enlightenment is the unification of the True Self with the Absolute Infinite, and that meditation is the way to do that.

I think this idea is wrong, harmful, and (incidentally) opposite to most traditional Buddhist teachings. Unfortunately, it is now common in modern Buddhism.

Advocates claim that mystics in all cultures teach the “unification” idea, so we should believe it. This post refutes that particular argument. Later posts will give other reasons to reject the unification theory."