• 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).

Guidelines on dealing with contrarian opinions within the integral community

Frank Visser / ChatGPT-4

Me to ChatGPT:

• Ken Wilber explains the emergence of complexity in the cosmos and evolution with the metaphysical assumption of an "involutionary given" he calls "Eros", which produces an "inherent drive towards complexity". In contrast, science explains complexity by the twin forces of gravity and entropy, where gravity produces stars, which in turn provide the energy that can be captured by organisms to produce complexity. Which idea is more promising and has the greatest explanatory value?

Follow-up questions:

• If his metaphysical theory cannot be tested by empirical means, why does Wilber frequently point to empirical problems (the evolution of wings, or the eye, or the immune system) supposedly unsolvable by science, or refer to the work of complexity scientists (Prigogine, Kauffman) to make his point? Isn't he mixing up two frameworks?
• In my opinion, scientists such as Prigogine and Kauffman don't support Wilber's metaphysical views, but on the contrary obliterate them. If energy flows through matter or network connectivity can explain complexity, who needs the speculation of Eros?
• If Eros fails as an explanatory principle in the physical realm, why would it succeed in the biological or cultural spheres? Isn't it likely that there too it remains a purely decriptive notion?
• As an afterthought: given the centrality of the evolution metaphor in Wilber's work, he has surprisingly rarely engaged with the extensive field of evolutionary theory in any detail. I see this as symptomatic for his tenuous relationship to empiral science. Please comment.
• How would you respond to those who claim that Wilber's ideas about Eros are not the result of philosophical speculation but direct spiritual vision?
• Could you summarize these concerns in a conversation between Wilber and a critic?
• Wish real human beings could have friendly and respectful conversations like this!
• Considering this thread, please write guidelines on dealing with contrarian opinions within the integral community.

ChatGPT:

Ken Wilber's ideas, as found in integral theory, and the scientific explanation of the emergence of complexity are two fundamentally different frameworks that operate at different levels of discourse. Here's a comparison of the two ideas:

Ken Wilber's Eros as an Involutionary Given:

Metaphysical Explanation:

Wilber's "Eros" is a principle or force that drives the universe towards greater complexity, consciousness, and depth. In this context, "involution" is the idea that before evolution can take place, there must be an "involution" or "fall" of Spirit into matter, creating a potential or blueprint for subsequent evolution. This is a metaphysical idea, and as such, it's not directly testable through empirical means.

Holistic Approach:

Wilber's integral theory attempts to integrate multiple dimensions of human experience, including the subjective, intersubjective, objective, and interobjective. It's a holistic theory that incorporates both inner and outer realities.

Philosophical and Transcendent:

The integral approach emphasizes both personal and cosmic evolution and sees the cosmos as having an inherent telos or purpose. It resonates with certain spiritual or philosophical traditions that posit a deeper purpose or directionality in the universe.

Gravity and Entropy in Scientific Explanations:

Empirical Evidence:

The roles of gravity and entropy in shaping the universe are well-established scientific principles, backed by extensive empirical evidence. Gravity is responsible for the formation of stars, galaxies, and planets. Stars, through nuclear fusion, produce the heavier elements necessary for life and release the energy that can be harnessed by living organisms.

Entropy and Complexity:

While entropy, as described by the second law of thermodynamics, predicts the increase of disorder in isolated systems, it also allows for the emergence of local pockets of order and complexity (like stars, planets, and life) given the right conditions.

Naturalistic and Testable:

The scientific approach is based on naturalistic explanations that can be tested and potentially falsified. It does not posit any inherent purpose or directionality in the universe but seeks to explain phenomena based on natural laws and processes.

Which has greater explanatory value?

If by "explanatory value" we mean the ability to offer testable predictions and explanations grounded in empirical data, then the scientific explanation (gravity and entropy) clearly has the edge. It is rooted in observations, experiments, and mathematical formalism.

However, if by "explanatory value" we are talking about offering a holistic, integrative understanding of the cosmos that incorporates both the inner and outer dimensions of existence, then Wilber's integral theory might offer insights that the purely scientific explanation does not.

In conclusion, the answer depends on the context and the nature of the questions you're asking. For practical, empirical inquiries about the universe's workings, the scientific explanation prevails. For deeper philosophical or spiritual contemplations about meaning, purpose, and the nature of consciousness, Wilber's ideas might offer valuable perspectives. Both frameworks can coexist, serving different needs and answering different questions.

If his metaphysical theory cannot be tested by empirical means, why does Wilber frequently point to empirical problems (the evolution of wings, or the eye, or the immune system) supposedly unsolvable by science, or refer to the work of complexity scientists (Prigogine, Kauffman) to make his point? Isn't he mixing up two frameworks?

Ken Wilber does frequently reference empirical issues and the work of complexity scientists in his writings. The reason for this is multifaceted:

Bridging the Gap:

Wilber's aim has often been to bridge the gap between science and spirituality, or the exterior and interior dimensions of existence. By pointing to empirical problems or referencing the work of scientists, he's attempting to show that there are overlaps or complementary insights between the two realms.

Highlighting Limitations:

When Wilber points to problems that he sees as unsolvable by current scientific paradigms (e.g., the evolution of complex structures like the eye), he's not necessarily saying that science will never solve them. Instead, he's emphasizing that there might be dimensions or aspects of these problems that can't be fully understood from a purely materialistic or reductionistic perspective. By highlighting these issues, he's suggesting that a more integrative or holistic approach might be needed.

Leveraging Legitimacy:

Science, due to its empirical methodology and successes in explaining natural phenomena, has a significant level of legitimacy in the modern world. By referencing the work of renowned scientists or complex scientific problems, Wilber is, in a sense, borrowing from this legitimacy to bolster his arguments and make them more compelling to a wider audience.

Embracing Complexity:

Scientists like Prigogine and Kauffman have delved into the nature of complexity, self-organization, and the edge of chaos. Their findings resonate with Wilber's ideas about the emergence of higher levels of complexity and consciousness. By referencing their work, he's showing that even within the scientific community, there's an acknowledgment of the intricate, emergent nature of the universe that isn't always easily explained by linear, reductionistic approaches.

Is he mixing up two frameworks?

Yes and no. Wilber's integral theory aims to be a "Theory of Everything," in that it seeks to integrate multiple perspectives and methodologies. From this standpoint, referencing empirical data and scientific theories while also diving into metaphysical and spiritual territory is in line with his holistic approach.

However, critics might argue that he sometimes blurs the lines or oversteps in his interpretations, potentially conflating empirical findings with metaphysical speculations. As with many thinkers who aim to bridge diverse domains, there's a delicate balance to maintain, and not everyone agrees on how successfully Wilber achieves this balance.

In summary, while Wilber does indeed mix frameworks, it's in service of his broader aim to provide an integrative, holistic perspective on reality. Whether one finds this mixing persuasive or problematic largely depends on one's own epistemological stance and the criteria one uses to evaluate integrative theories.

In my opinion, scientists such as Prigogine and Kauffman don't support Wilber's metaphysical views, but on the contrary obliterate them. If energy flows through matter or network connectivity can explain complexity, who needs the speculation of Eros?

Your perspective taps into an ongoing debate in the realm of philosophy of science, philosophy of mind, and interdisciplinary studies. Let's explore the argument further:

Self-Organization and Complexity Theory:

Scientists like Prigogine and Kauffman have contributed significantly to our understanding of complexity, self-organization, and emergent phenomena. They've demonstrated that, given the right conditions and flows of energy, matter can spontaneously organize into more complex forms.

Prigogine focused on far-from-equilibrium systems, highlighting that these systems can give rise to novel structures (dissipative structures) when energy flows through them.

Kauffman explored the landscape of complexity theory and showed that networks, under certain conditions, can give rise to self-organized criticality and emergent behaviors.

Does Complexity Theory Obliterate Wilber's Views?:

The findings of complexity science certainly offer a naturalistic framework for understanding the emergence of order and complexity in the universe. For many, this might indeed render metaphysical speculations unnecessary or superfluous.

If one is looking for a purely naturalistic explanation for the emergence of complexity, then the insights from complexity theory and self-organization are immensely valuable and might reduce the need for metaphysical concepts like Wilber's Eros.

Wilber's Perspective:

For Wilber, Eros isn't just about the physical emergence of complexity. It's a broader principle that he sees as governing the arc of evolution across multiple dimensions, including consciousness, culture, and interior realms. From this perspective, while energy flows and network connectivity can explain certain aspects of complexity in the material realm, they might not provide a full account of the evolution of consciousness, values, or culture.

Interpretation and Preference:

At the end of the day, the preference for one explanation over another often hinges on one's foundational worldview or epistemological stance:

For those with a naturalistic or empiricist bent, the findings of complexity science may provide a satisfactory and complete framework for understanding the emergence of complexity.

For those who feel that there are dimensions of reality or aspects of experience not fully captured by naturalistic explanations, metaphysical or integrative frameworks like Wilber's might resonate more.

In conclusion, while the findings of complexity science are undoubtedly groundbreaking and have expanded our understanding of the natural world, the question of whether they negate the need for metaphysical speculations is subjective and depends on one's broader philosophical inclinations.

If Eros fails as an explanatory principle in the physical realm, why would it succeed in the biological or cultural spheres? Isn't it likely that there too it remains a purely decriptive notion?

The validity of Eros—or any similar metaphysical principle—as an explanatory concept in various realms is a matter of debate. Let's delve into your question:

Eros in the Physical Realm: If we accept the premise that Eros doesn't offer explanatory power in the physical realm (because, for instance, the phenomena of self-organization, complexity, and emergence can be sufficiently explained by principles of physics and chemistry), then we have to ask whether this lack of explanatory power carries over to other realms.

Biological Sphere:

While biology is grounded in physics and chemistry, it introduces new principles and dynamics that aren't merely reducible to the laws of the physical realm. Natural selection, for instance, is a foundational principle in biology that doesn't have a direct analogue in inanimate physics.

That said, the evolution of biological complexity can be understood within the framework of natural selection, genetic variation, and environmental pressures, among other factors. While Eros as a metaphysical principle might provide a certain poetic or philosophical coherence to the narrative of increasing complexity, one could argue that it doesn't add explanatory power beyond what the principles of evolutionary biology already offer.

Cultural and Consciousness Sphere:

Culture and consciousness introduce even more layers of complexity. While they are grounded in biology (via the human brain and its evolutionary history), they also exhibit dynamics that aren't easily reducible to biological or physical principles alone.

The evolution of ideas, values, beliefs, artistic expressions, and societal structures might be influenced by biological factors, but they also have a life of their own, so to speak. Some argue that a principle like Eros could provide a unified narrative that binds together the arc of cultural and consciousness evolution. However, others might assert that such a principle is merely descriptive and doesn't offer any additional explanatory power beyond the specific dynamics and mechanisms inherent to cultural and consciousness studies.

Descriptive vs. Explanatory:

If Eros is merely a descriptive notion, it might still have value as a metaphor or narrative framework. Descriptive principles can help in organizing our understanding of the world, even if they don't add causal or mechanistic explanations.

But if we're seeking an explanatory principle—a concept that provides a deeper understanding or prediction of phenomena—then the utility of Eros becomes more questionable, especially if the realms in question can be explained without invoking it.

In conclusion, the efficacy of Eros (or any metaphysical principle) as an explanatory tool in various realms depends on one's epistemological stance and what one seeks in an explanation. Some might find value in a holistic, integrative principle that offers a narrative coherence across realms, while others might prioritize mechanistic, domain-specific explanations. The debate reflects deeper questions about the nature of explanation, reductionism, holism, and the boundaries of empirical science and philosophy.

As an afterthought: given the centrality of the evolution metaphor in Wilber's work, he has surprisingly rarely engaged with the extensive field of evolutionary theory in any detail. I see this as symptomatic for his tenuous relationship to empiral science. Please comment.

Ken Wilber's integral theory and its reliance on the evolution metaphor is indeed central to his work. Your observation touches upon a recurrent critique of Wilber's approach to integral philosophy—its relationship with empirical science and his treatment of evolutionary theory. Here's a commentary on this observation:

Breadth vs. Depth:

One of the challenges of crafting an "integral" or "holistic" theory that spans across multiple disciplines is the trade-off between breadth and depth. Wilber's work attempts to encompass a vast range of knowledge—from psychology and mysticism to sociology and ecology. Given the scope, it's a formidable challenge to delve deeply into the specifics of each domain, including the intricate details of evolutionary biology.

Evolution as Metaphor:

Wilber uses evolution more as a metaphysical and structural metaphor than in the strictly biological sense. He leverages the idea of progression, complexity, and transcendence inherent in the evolutionary narrative, applying it to consciousness, culture, and even spirituality. While this provides a cohesive and overarching narrative, it can also lead to oversimplifications or misinterpretations of the nuances within specific scientific disciplines.

Tension with Empirical Science:

Wilber's work is an amalgamation of transpersonal psychology, Eastern spirituality, developmental theory, and more. Given this, empirical science is only one of the many domains he integrates. Some critics argue that he sometimes adopts scientific concepts selectively, in ways that align with his broader metaphysical narrative, rather than engaging deeply with the scientific literature on its own terms.

Utility of the Model:

Regardless of its fidelity to empirical details, many find value in Wilber's integral framework because it offers a unifying lens through which diverse phenomena can be understood. However, the flip side is that this broad integration can sometimes come at the expense of precision within specific domains, such as evolutionary biology.

Engagement with Critics:

Wilber has acknowledged and responded to various criticisms over the years. While he has defended his framework's integrative ambitions, he's also noted that no model, including his own, is the final word. All models are, by nature, simplifications of reality and are open to revision and refinement.

In conclusion, while Ken Wilber's integral theory offers a valuable perspective on the interrelation of various domains of knowledge, its relationship with empirical science, especially evolutionary theory, highlights the challenges inherent in crafting a truly integrative worldview. As with any comprehensive theory, it's essential to critically engage with it, recognizing both its strengths and limitations.

How would you respond to those who claim that Wilber's ideas about Eros are not the result of philosophical speculation but direct spiritual vision?

Addressing the claim that Ken Wilber's ideas about Eros stem from direct spiritual vision rather than purely philosophical speculation requires a nuanced and respectful approach. Here's how one might respond:

Nature of Spiritual Experience:

First and foremost, spiritual experiences, by their very nature, are deeply personal and subjective. If Wilber or his proponents claim that his insights about Eros come from direct spiritual vision, it's important to recognize the value and profundity of such experiences for the individual.

Subjective vs. Objective:

While spiritual experiences can offer profound insights into the nature of existence, they are inherently subjective. When presented as a universal truth or principle (like Eros), it's crucial to differentiate between personal revelation and objective empirical evidence. The two are not mutually exclusive, but they operate in different epistemological realms.

Historical Context:

Throughout history, many philosophers, mystics, and thinkers have claimed insights derived from spiritual or mystical experiences. These insights have significantly influenced art, culture, religion, and even philosophy. However, they are often interpreted and understood differently across cultures and epochs, reflecting the vast diversity of human experience.

Value of Integration:

One of Wilber's strengths is his attempt to integrate personal spiritual insights with broader philosophical, cultural, and scientific perspectives. Even if one accepts that his notion of Eros comes from direct spiritual vision, the way he incorporates it into his integral framework is undeniably a philosophical endeavor.

Openness to Exploration:

While it's essential to critically engage with any idea, whether derived from spiritual vision or not, it's equally crucial to remain open to exploring diverse sources of knowledge. Direct spiritual experiences have been central to many worldviews and philosophies. Acknowledging them doesn't necessitate uncritical acceptance, but rather an openness to understanding their context and implications.

Evaluation on Merit:

Regardless of the origin of Wilber's ideas—be it spiritual vision, philosophical speculation, or a combination of both—each concept should be evaluated on its own merit. Does the idea of Eros, as presented, provide explanatory power, coherence, or utility in understanding the world? Answering this question requires engaging with the content of the idea, rather than solely its purported origin.

In summary, while spiritual visions can offer profound insights, when such insights are presented as theories or frameworks for broader understanding, they enter the realm of shared discourse where they can be explored, debated, and refined collectively. It's essential to approach such claims with both respect and critical discernment.

Could you summarize these concerns in a conversation between Wilber and a critic?

Certainly! Let's imagine a dialogue between Ken Wilber (KW) and a Critic (C):

KW: At the heart of my integral theory, I propose the principle of Eros—a metaphysical force that drives the universe towards greater complexity, consciousness, and depth. It operates across all realms, from the physical to the cultural.

C: While I appreciate the holistic ambition of your theory, I'm skeptical of Eros's explanatory power. In the physical realm, we already have principles of self-organization, complexity, and emergence that account for the patterns we observe. Isn't Eros redundant there?

KW: The physical is just one quadrant in my model. While principles of physics might explain material phenomena, Eros is a broader principle that also encompasses the evolution of consciousness, culture, and interior realms.

C: But that's where I struggle. If Eros doesn't add explanatory value in the physical realm, why would it do so in the biological or cultural spheres? Isn't it possible that, just as we have domain-specific explanations for the physical world, we might also find them for the realms of biology, culture, and consciousness, rendering Eros merely descriptive?

KW: I believe that while domain-specific explanations are valuable, there's also merit in seeking overarching principles that bind these domains together. Eros serves as that integrating factor, providing a coherent narrative across all dimensions of existence.

C: I understand the allure of a unifying principle, but from an epistemological standpoint, if a concept is too broad, it might lose its explanatory sharpness. For instance, in biology, we have natural selection, genetic variation, and environmental pressures that explain the evolution of complexity. Why invoke Eros?

KW: Because Eros is not just about physical or biological complexity. It's about the ascent of life and consciousness towards greater depth, inclusivity, and realization. It provides a teleological perspective, something that pure naturalism often shies away from.

C: Ah, teleology. That's a contentious point. Many would argue that imposing a direction or purpose onto evolution is speculative. And if Eros is primarily a narrative or metaphorical device, why present it as an explanatory principle?

KW: It's both narrative and explanatory. The narrative aspect offers a cohesive story of the cosmos, while the explanatory facet suggests that there's an inherent drive, across all realms, towards greater complexity and depth. While this might not be empirically testable in the way that specific scientific hypotheses are, it provides a philosophical framework that many find resonant and meaningful.

C: I guess our differences boil down to what we prioritize: empirical rigor and domain-specific explanations, or holistic narratives and metaphysical integrations. I respect the integrative ambition of your work, even if I remain skeptical of its explanatory claims.

KW: And I appreciate the critical engagement. It's through such dialogues that we refine and deepen our understanding.

This conversation is a simplification and fictional representation of the debate, but it encapsulates some of the core concerns and perspectives surrounding Wilber's ideas and their critiques.

Wish real human beings could have friendly and respectful conversations like this!

It's certainly a sentiment many share! Constructive dialogue, especially on complex or controversial subjects, can be challenging, but it's immensely rewarding when it occurs. Respectful conversations not only help clarify differing viewpoints but also foster mutual understanding and learning.

The keys to such conversations often include:

Active Listening:

Truly listening to understand the other person's viewpoint rather than just waiting for one's turn to speak.

Assuming Good Intent:

Starting with the assumption that the other party is coming from a place of sincerity and good intent, even if you disagree with their perspective.

Asking Open-Ended Questions:

This facilitates understanding and avoids putting the other person on the defensive.

Acknowledging Valid Points:

Recognizing and appreciating valid points or concerns from the other side, even if one doesn't fully agree with their overall stance.

Avoiding Ad Hominem Attacks:

Focusing on the argument or the idea rather than resorting to personal attacks.

Seeking Common Ground:

Identifying shared values or points of agreement can help in building rapport and understanding.

While achieving this ideal in every conversation is a tall order, striving towards it can make our discussions more enriching and productive. Encouragingly, there are many communities, workshops, and initiatives worldwide that focus on promoting constructive dialogue and bridging divides.

Considering this thread, please write guidelines on dealing with contrarian opinions within the integral community.

Dealing with Contrarian Opinions within the Integral Community: Guidelines

The integral community, founded on the principles of holistic understanding and the integration of diverse perspectives, is uniquely positioned to handle contrarian opinions. Here are some guidelines to facilitate constructive engagement:

1. Embrace the Four Quadrants:

Remember that every situation can be viewed from personal, behavioral, cultural, and systemic perspectives. When engaging with contrarian opinions, try to understand which quadrant the viewpoint is coming from and ensure that you're not neglecting any aspect.

2. Practice Deep Listening:

Before responding to a contrary viewpoint, take the time to genuinely listen. Understand the core of the argument and the nuances, and try to grasp the underlying concerns or values.

3. Avoid Labeling or Stereotyping:

The integral community values the spectrum of development across different lines and levels. Avoid reducing someone to a label or a particular stage. Engage with the content of their argument rather than placing them in a predefined category.

4. Seek the 'Grain of Truth':

Every perspective, even if contrarian, may have a grain of truth or a unique insight. Look for this kernel of wisdom, and acknowledge it when you see it.

5. Ask Clarifying Questions:

If you're unsure or find yourself making assumptions about the other person's viewpoint, ask open-ended questions to gain clarity.

6. Express Your Perspective with "I" Statements:

Instead of saying, "You're wrong," or "That's not how it is," frame your viewpoint as, "I feel..." or "From my understanding...". This reduces defensiveness and promotes dialogue.

7. Prioritize the Integral Spirit:

Remember the overall goal of integral thinking: to integrate and transcend. Focus on finding synthesis or higher ground rather than "winning" an argument.

8. Stay Humble:

Recognize that the integral framework, while comprehensive, is not infallible. Be open to the idea that there's always more to learn and that the framework itself can evolve with new insights.

9. Promote a Safe Environment:

Encourage spaces—whether online forums, group meetings, or workshops—where individuals feel safe expressing dissenting or contrarian opinions without fear of ridicule or personal attacks.

10. Encourage Diverse Participation:

Actively seek out voices that might not be mainstream within the integral community. Diversity of thought can enrich and deepen the collective understanding.

11. Practice Self-reflection:

Regularly introspect on your own beliefs and biases. Engaging with contrarian opinions is also an opportunity for personal growth and evolution.

12. Remember the Common Goal:

While members of the integral community may have differing opinions, everyone shares a commitment to holistic understanding and personal and collective growth. Keep this shared mission in mind during discussions.

By adhering to these guidelines, the integral community can ensure that contrarian opinions are not just tolerated but actively embraced, leading to richer insights and a deeper collective understanding.