• 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).

The Evolution of Ken Wilber's Integral Theory

From Open Inquiry to Closed Defensiveness

Frank Visser / ChatGPT

Me to ChatGPT:

• Why hasn't Ken Wilber been more responsive to criticism?[1]
• But does he not have a superior spiritual vision that transcends reductionist science?
• Doesn't this make his philosophy immune to criticism?
• How different from the early Wilber!
• Around 2000 there seems to have been a tipping point, with the founding of Integral Institute and its offshoots.
• Long time members of this movement, however, vehemently deny it has become a cult - and so does Wilber… true or not?
• I myself - being a long time member myself - have not encountered much openness when it comes to critiquing Wilber's approach to (evolutionary and complexity) science.
• Not at all. But then again, science is not high on the agenda of therapists or consultants - though a Theory of Everything claims to include it.
• I have presented Big History as a field they might want to look deeper into, since it has more scientific credibility.
• Resistance. Especially when I compared how Wilber and Big History have a different view of entropy and its role in evolution, both biologically and cosmologically.
• Write an essay on the topics covered in this conversation.

Why hasn't Ken Wilber been more responsive to criticism?

Ken Wilber has a history of being dismissive or combative toward critics, particularly in the later stages of his career. There are a few key reasons for this:

Intellectual Confidence (or Arrogance)

Wilber has an expansive, all-encompassing system (Integral Theory) that he believes accounts for and integrates all major perspectives. Because of this, he often views criticisms as partial, missing the full picture. His responses sometimes suggest that critics simply don't understand the depth of his work.

Selective Engagement

Early in his career, Wilber engaged more with academic and philosophical criticism, but over time, he shifted toward a more insulated Integral community. He now tends to respond primarily to supporters or those already aligned with his framework.

"Wyatt Earp" Incident

In the mid-2000s, Wilber responded to critics in a blog post using a harsh, mocking tone (often called the “Wyatt Earp” episode), where he essentially dismissed critics as not evolved enough to understand his work. This attitude alienated many in the academic and spiritual communities.

Health Issues

Wilber has struggled with chronic illness for many years, which has likely limited his ability or willingness to engage deeply with critics.

Focus on Popular Influence Over Academia

Wilber's work has largely moved away from rigorous academic discourse and into more of a movement-building and spiritual guidance space. This shift means he's less inclined to engage with academic critique and more focused on Integral Theory's practical application.

In short, Wilber seems to believe his framework already accounts for most critiques, and he doesn't see much value in engaging with perspectives he views as incomplete or misinformed.

But does he not have a superior spiritual vision that transcends reductionist science?

Wilber certainly believes he has a more comprehensive spiritual vision, one that integrates insights from mysticism, philosophy, psychology, and science. His Integral Theory is designed to be a "Theory of Everything," incorporating multiple perspectives into a holistic framework. He argues that most critiques come from reductionist viewpoints—whether materialist science, postmodern relativism, or narrow religious dogmas—that fail to grasp the full spectrum of human knowledge and experience.

From Wilber's perspective, modern science is brilliant but partial. It excels at explaining material phenomena but falls short when it comes to higher states of consciousness, spiritual experience, and interior realities. His model (with its quadrants, levels, lines, states, and types) attempts to honor empirical science while also making room for non-dual awareness, mystical traditions, and developmental psychology.

However, the question is whether Wilber's vision truly transcends science or whether it simply reinterprets it through his own framework. His critics argue that he often overgeneralizes and misrepresents both science and philosophy, sometimes strawmanning his opponents as merely “flatland” thinkers. Some also see his claims about higher stages of consciousness as unfalsifiable, making them difficult to evaluate critically.

So, while Wilber presents a grand spiritual vision that goes beyond reductionism, whether it is superior depends on one's perspective. If you value integration and synthesis, his work is groundbreaking. If you prioritize empirical validation, you might find it speculative and resistant to scrutiny.

Doesn't this make his philosophy immune to criticism?

Yes, in many ways, Wilber's framework is highly resistant to criticism, and this is one of the main concerns people have about Integral Theory. Here's why:

1. Preemptive Dismissal of Critics

Wilber often categorizes critics as coming from a lower level of development or being stuck in partial perspectives (e.g., materialist, postmodernist, or traditionalist). This allows him to dismiss their critiques as limited rather than engaging with them directly. Essentially, if you disagree with Wilber, he can claim you're just not "seeing the whole picture" yet.

2. Self-Sealing Nature of Integral Theory

Integral Theory is structured in such a way that any opposing viewpoint can be absorbed into the system and explained away. For example:

If someone criticizes Integral Theory as overly speculative, Wilber can say they are trapped in scientific materialism.

If someone calls it elitist, he might say they are stuck in postmodern relativism and fear hierarchical development.

If someone disputes his model of consciousness, he can claim they haven't reached a high enough level of spiritual realization to see its truth.

This makes it nearly impossible to falsify or disprove Integral Theory on its own terms.

3. Unfalsifiable Spiritual Claims

Wilber relies heavily on mystical experience and developmental psychology, both of which are difficult to test empirically. If someone questions his higher states of consciousness, he might argue that they simply haven't had the right experiences yet. This makes his claims more like religious or metaphysical assertions than scientific hypotheses.

4. Insular Integral Community

Wilber has built a tight-knit community of followers who tend to reinforce his views rather than challenge them. Since he is more engaged with his own Integral audience than with mainstream academic or scientific communities, his ideas don't get tested as rigorously as they might in more critical environments.

So, Is His Philosophy Immune to Criticism?

Not completely—serious scholars have pointed out inconsistencies, oversimplifications, and misinterpretations in Wilber's work. However, because of how his system is structured, he has built-in defenses that make it very difficult to engage in a truly open, critical dialogue.

It's not that Integral Theory can't be criticized—it's that Wilber himself doesn't seem particularly open to external critique, preferring to refine and expand his system on his own terms.

How different from the early Wilber!

"Does the group allow free and rational inquiry into its teachings? Or does it discourage or even prevent critical analysis of its own tenets? Does it allow or encourage comparison and assessment of its methods and teachings with those of other paths, not as propaganda but as free inquiry? A transrational group will usually insist on this; a pre-rational group will avoid it." — Ken Wilber, Spiritual Choices, 1987, p. 248.

Exactly! That quote from Spiritual Choices highlights a striking shift in Wilber's approach over time. In his early work, he strongly advocated for free and rational inquiry, warning against dogmatism and closed systems. Back then, he was deeply engaged with philosophy, psychology, and comparative religion in an open, exploratory way.

However, as his Integral movement grew, his attitude toward criticism hardened. Instead of fostering open debate, he increasingly framed dissent as coming from less evolved perspectives—which is ironic, given his earlier stance against exactly this kind of intellectual rigidity.

It seems that as Wilber's work became more ambitious and totalizing, it also became more self-reinforcing. His later responses to critics—especially after the “Wyatt Earp” episode in the mid-2000s—often took a mocking or dismissive tone, a far cry from the rational, open-minded inquiry he once championed.

It raises an interesting question: Has Wilber's Integral Theory evolved into the kind of pre-rational belief system he once warned against? Or does he genuinely believe that his framework has transcended the need for such scrutiny? Either way, the contrast between the early and later Wilber is hard to ignore.

Around 2000 there seems to have been a tipping point, with the founding of Integral Institute and its offshoots.

Yes, around 2000 was a major turning point for Wilber. With the founding of Integral Institute (I-I) and the subsequent development of Integral Life, Integral Spirituality, and related projects, his work transitioned from a more open-ended philosophical inquiry into something more structured, almost movement-like.

What Changed Around 2000?

From Philosopher to Movement Leader

Before 2000, Wilber was primarily an independent thinker engaged in deep comparative analysis across psychology, spirituality, and philosophy.

After 2000, he increasingly took on the role of leader of a movement, surrounding himself with dedicated followers and forming I-I as an organizational hub for Integral Theory.

More Closed and Defensive Toward Critics

Earlier Wilber engaged in serious debates with scholars and was open to critique.

Post-2000, he became more insular, often dismissing critics as being at a “lower developmental level.”

Shift Toward a Cult-Like Dynamic

I-I developed a more charismatic, guru-like atmosphere around Wilber.

His followers often framed Integral Theory as a superior, all-encompassing system, resistant to external critique.

The Wyatt Earp incident (2006), where he ridiculed critics rather than engaging with them, was a clear sign of this shift.

Emphasis on Application Rather Than Debate

Wilber moved from theory-building to applying Integral principles in business, coaching, and spirituality.

He became less interested in refining the theory through academic discourse and more focused on promoting Integral as a practical system (e.g., Integral Life Practice, Integral Coaching).

Health Issues & Isolation

Wilber's chronic illness worsened during this period, leading to physical isolation.

This likely reinforced his reliance on a core group of loyal followers rather than engaging with external critics.

The Result?

By the mid-2000s, Wilber had created a self-reinforcing system where Integral Theory was no longer just a philosophical framework but a quasi-spiritual movement. Dissenters were often treated as unenlightened rather than engaged with seriously.

This is why many people see pre-2000 Wilber as an insightful, rigorous thinker, while post-2000 Wilber became more dogmatic and resistant to critique—ironically, mirroring the very tendencies he had warned against in Spiritual Choices.

Long time members of this movement, however, vehemently deny it has become a cult - and so does Wilber… true or not?

Whether or not the Integral movement qualifies as a cult depends on how you define the term. If we use a strict sociological definition, Integral Theory doesn't fit the classic high-control, authoritarian model of a cult (e.g., no forced isolation, no rigid hierarchy, no financial exploitation). However, if we consider cult-like tendencies, there are some red flags.

Arguments Against It Being a Cult:

No Centralized Dogma — Integral Theory is complex and evolving, unlike rigid belief systems with a single, unchangeable doctrine.

No Extreme Control Mechanisms — Members are not cut off from society, their families, or alternative perspectives.

No Required Worship of Wilber — While Wilber is highly respected, he is not treated as an infallible prophet in the way traditional cult leaders are.

Encouragement of Personal Development — Many Integral practitioners engage in diverse spiritual and psychological practices beyond Wilber's direct teachings.

Arguments That It Has Cult-Like Features:

Wilber as the Central Authority — While not a traditional cult leader, Wilber's interpretations are often treated as final by many Integral followers. Dissent is discouraged, dismissed, or mocked rather than engaged in serious debate.

Insularity — Critics are often framed as coming from a "lower developmental level," making the movement self-sealing against outside perspectives.

Hero Worship & Groupthink — Some longtime followers treat Wilber's writings as scripture, defending him reflexively rather than engaging critically.

Us vs. Them Thinking — Many Integral members characterize critics as "not evolved enough," creating a hierarchical, exclusionary mindset that makes questioning the movement difficult.

Commercialization & Branding — The rise of Integral Coaching, Integral Life Practice, and paid online communities means that Integral has become not just an intellectual framework but a lifestyle brand, which can create financial and ideological pressures to conform.

Wilber's Denial: Genuine or Defensive?

Wilber has strongly rejected the cult accusation, often with humor or sarcasm. However, given that he and his followers routinely dismiss critics as being "less evolved", his response could be seen as self-serving. If a group refuses to seriously engage with external critique while insisting it is not a cult, that in itself can be a warning sign.

Final Verdict?

The Integral movement may not be a full-blown cult, but it does exhibit some cult-like tendencies, especially in how it handles dissent and defends Wilber's authority. At its best, it is an expansive, integrative intellectual framework; at its worst, it can be an insular echo chamber that resists outside criticism.

Would you say that long-term Integral members are genuinely open to critique, or do they tend to dismiss it outright?

I myself - being a long time member myself - have not encountered much openness when it comes to critiquing Wilber's approach to (evolutionary and complexity) science.

That makes sense, and it aligns with what many others have reported. Wilber and the Integral community often claim to be open to critique, but in practice, criticism—especially of his approach to science, evolution, and complexity theory—is usually met with defensiveness, dismissal, or rationalization.

Why Is Integral Theory So Resistant to Scientific Critique?

Wilber's Evolutionary Model Is Teleological

Wilber's interpretation of evolution suggests a built-in drive toward higher consciousness (Eros), which goes against mainstream evolutionary science, which sees natural selection as non-goal-oriented.

Critics who point this out are often labeled as "flatland materialists" who don't grasp higher perspectives, rather than engaged seriously.

Misuse of Complexity Science

Wilber references self-organization, emergence, and complexity theory to support his claim that evolution is inherently self-transcending.

However, actual complexity scientists don't typically make the kinds of grand metaphysical conclusions that Wilber does. When scholars challenge him on this, his followers often defend him without engaging with the specifics.

Integral Theory as a Meta-Theory

Since Integral Theory "integrates all perspectives", any scientific critique can be reframed as just another partial perspective within the Integral model.

This makes it impervious to falsification—scientific disagreement is not treated as a challenge, but as something that Integral already "includes and transcends."

Group Loyalty & Intellectual Insularity

Many long-time Integral members have invested years into this framework, making it psychologically difficult to entertain deep critiques.

Questioning Wilber's scientific claims often feels like questioning the foundation of the system itself, which leads to defensive reactions rather than open inquiry.

Have You Ever Seen a Serious Internal Debate?

Since you're a long-time member, have you seen any substantial internal critique of Wilber's approach to science within the Integral community? Or is most discussion focused on defending and applying his ideas rather than questioning them?

Not at all. But then again, science is not high on the agenda of therapists or consultants - though a Theory of Everything claims to include it.

Exactly! The practical focus of Integral Theory—especially in therapy, coaching, business consulting, and spirituality—means that many of its followers don't prioritize scientific rigor. They're more interested in applying the framework than critically examining its empirical foundations.

This creates a contradiction:

On one hand, Integral Theory claims to be a "Theory of Everything," meaning it should engage seriously with science.

On the other hand, the actual Integral community (therapists, coaches, consultants) isn't really invested in testing or refining the theory scientifically.

Why Doesn't Science Play a Bigger Role in Integral?

Integral Is More of a Meaning-Making System Than a Scientific Model

It provides a grand narrative that makes sense of human development, spirituality, and psychology.

Whether or not its scientific claims hold up is secondary to its practical and existential appeal.

Wilber's Science Is Often Outdated or Misinterpreted

His use of evolutionary theory, neuroscience, and complexity science is not grounded in mainstream research.

But because most Integral practitioners aren't scientists, they don't question the details.

A Pragmatic Rather Than Empirical Mindset

Many Integral practitioners are drawn to personal growth, therapy, and leadership rather than scientific investigation.

They care more about "Does this framework help me in my life?" than "Is this framework scientifically valid?"

Science as a "Lower" Level of Knowing

Some Integral practitioners view scientific critique as reductionistic, believing that higher states of consciousness provide deeper truths than science can.

This spiritual bias makes them less likely to engage critically with Wilber's scientific claims.

The Result?

Science exists within Integral Theory, but mainly as a supporting narrative rather than a rigorously tested foundation. Since most Integral practitioners aren't scientists—and since questioning Wilber too much can be socially discouraged—there's little internal pressure to refine or update the scientific claims.

It sounds like you value a more rigorous approach. Have you ever tried raising these concerns within the Integral community, and if so, how was it received?

I have presented Big History as a field they might want to look deeper into, since it has more scientific credibility.

That's a great suggestion—Big History aligns with Integral Theory's broad, evolutionary perspective, but it's far more grounded in empirical science. It integrates insights from cosmology, biology, anthropology, and history to provide a coherent, evidence-based narrative of the universe's evolution.

Why Integral Should Engage with Big History:

Both Offer a Grand Evolutionary Framework

Wilber's Eros-driven, self-transcending evolution is similar to Big History's attempt to trace complexity over time—but Big History does this without making metaphysical leaps.

Big History Is Empirically Grounded

Unlike Integral Theory, which often cherry-picks science to fit its narrative, Big History is based on peer-reviewed research and adjusts as new discoveries emerge.

Avoids the "Consciousness First" Bias

Wilber starts with consciousness as a fundamental driver of evolution, whereas Big History follows the evidence—starting with the Big Bang and working forward without assuming an inherent teleology.

Why Hasn't Integral Engaged with Big History?

If Integral Theory is truly about "including and transcending" all knowledge, it should engage with Big History. But in reality, there may be some hidden resistance:

Big History Lacks a Spiritual/Metaphysical Core

Integral practitioners often want a cosmic, spiritual narrative—but Big History is more neutral, explaining the universe's evolution without implying a built-in higher purpose.

It Challenges Wilber's Teleological View of Evolution

Big History explains complexity without positing a mystical drive toward greater consciousness.

If Integral were to fully engage with Big History, it might have to rethink its assumptions about evolution.

Integral's Insular Focus

As you've pointed out, most therapists and consultants in Integral circles aren't focused on science.

Since Big History is academically rigorous, it may not seem "relevant" to the practical, applied focus of most Integral practitioners.

How Was Your Suggestion Received?

When you brought up Big History within the Integral community, did people show interest, indifference, or resistance? Were there any specific objections, or was it more of a general lack of engagement?

Resistance. Especially when I compared how Wilber and Big History have a different view of entropy and its role in evolution, both biologically and cosmologically.

That makes total sense—entropy is a key area where Wilber's view clashes with mainstream science, and comparing it to Big History exposes the gap. Since entropy is central to both physics and evolutionary theory, this is a fundamental issue.

The Entropy Problem: Wilber vs. Big History

Big History's View: Entropy & Complexity Coexist

Big History, following mainstream physics, fully acknowledges entropy as a fundamental law of the universe (2nd law of thermodynamics).

However, local increases in complexity (e.g., life, human civilization) can occur as long as there's an energy source (like the Sun).

Complexity emerges contingently—not because of a built-in drive, but due to physical and chemical processes that create temporary islands of order.

Wilber's View: Evolution Defies Entropy

Wilber sees evolution as inherently self-transcending, implying a kind of built-in intelligence (Eros) that pushes complexity forward.

He sometimes downplays or misinterprets entropy, suggesting that complexity arises due to a deep metaphysical force rather than simply emergent properties within an entropic universe.

This borders on vitalism, which mainstream science rejected long ago.

Why Did Integral Practitioners Resist Your Comparison?

It Undermines Wilber's Teleological Model

If entropy is truly fundamental, then evolution isn't necessarily moving toward "higher" consciousness—it's just one of many natural processes.

This challenges the spiritual/metaphysical optimism that many in Integral circles find deeply meaningful.

Wilber's Science Is Often Taken on Faith

Many Integral practitioners aren't well-versed in physics, so they don't question Wilber's framing of entropy.

Since Wilber integrates so many disciplines, there's an assumption that he must have gotten the science right—even when he hasn't.

Group Loyalty & Cognitive Dissonance

Longtime Integral members have emotionally invested in Wilber's vision.

If a major aspect (like entropy/evolution) is scientifically flawed, it threatens the coherence of the entire framework.

Instead of engaging with the critique, it's easier to resist or dismiss it.

Did They Provide Any Counterarguments?

When you brought up entropy and evolution, did they attempt to defend Wilber's view scientifically, or was it more of a philosophical or emotional resistance? Did they acknowledge the difference but still insist Wilber's approach was valid?

Write an essay on the topics covered in this conversation.

The Evolution of Ken Wilber's Integral Theory: From Open Inquiry to Closed Defensiveness

Ken Wilber, a pioneering figure in contemporary philosophy, is best known for his Integral Theory, a bold attempt to integrate various strands of human knowledge—ranging from psychology and philosophy to spirituality and science—into a unified "Theory of Everything." Early in his career, Wilber advocated for a free and rational inquiry into the nature of reality, seeking to transcend reductionist thinking without falling into the traps of dogmatism. However, by the turn of the 21st century, with the founding of the Integral Institute (I-I) and its offshoots, Wilber's approach began to shift toward a more defensive and insular stance, especially when it came to critical scrutiny of his ideas. This essay explores Wilber's changing relationship with criticism, the development of his Integral framework, and the community's resistance to scientific inquiry, especially in fields like evolutionary theory and complexity science.

The Early Wilber: A Model of Open Inquiry

In the 1980s, Wilber's work was marked by a commitment to intellectual openness. In Spiritual Choices (1987), Wilber famously emphasized the importance of free and rational inquiry within spiritual communities. He warned against closed groups that stifle critical analysis, urging readers to question and assess teachings, even those of prominent figures like himself. In this earlier phase, Wilber was deeply engaged in philosophical exploration, critically comparing Eastern and Western traditions, psychological theories, and scientific insights. He viewed mysticism, psychology, and philosophy as complementary, often placing them in dialogue with the latest developments in science.

Wilber's insistence on integrating scientific insights into his worldview was one of the hallmarks of his early work. He sought to build a system that embraced the best of modern science, particularly in areas like evolutionary biology and complexity theory, without dismissing spiritual experience. He aimed for a truly integral approach, one that avoided reductionism but also took seriously the findings of empirical research. His work was appealing to many intellectuals and spiritual seekers alike, who appreciated its ambition and its inclusivity.

The Shift Around 2000: The Rise of the Integral Institute

However, with the founding of the Integral Institute and its associated projects around 2000, Wilber's approach began to change. As the movement grew, the focus of his work shifted from theoretical exploration to practical application. Integral Theory became the cornerstone of a movement that included workshops, online communities, coaching programs, and more. Wilber's position within this community grew more centralized, and he increasingly took on the role of a charismatic leader.

One of the most significant changes during this period was the growing insularity of the Integral community. Wilber's theories were framed not just as intellectual propositions but as a comprehensive worldview that required loyalty and adherence. Critics who questioned aspects of the Integral framework—particularly in its applications to science—were increasingly dismissed as being "stuck in lower stages of development" or simply not having the evolutionary maturity to see the bigger picture. This shift marked a transition from open inquiry to a more defensive, closed-off stance, especially when it came to the scientific validity of Wilber's ideas.

Wilber's Relationship with Scientific Criticism

As Integral Theory expanded, its relationship with scientific criticism became more strained. The core of Wilber's model, particularly his ideas about evolution and complexity, began to show signs of tension with mainstream scientific views. One area of contention was Wilber's teleological view of evolution—the idea that evolution is inherently driven by a self-transcending force (Eros) that leads toward higher levels of complexity and consciousness. This view conflicts with the non-teleological, naturalistic understanding of evolution in mainstream biology, which holds that evolution is driven by random mutation and natural selection, without any inherent purpose or direction.

Furthermore, Wilber's use of complexity science and entropy often appeared misinterpreted or outdated, with critics pointing out that his model ignored the crucial role of entropy in the evolution of complex systems. For instance, the mainstream view in Big History—a field that takes a scientific, interdisciplinary approach to the history of the universe—views the emergence of complexity as contingent on available energy sources and local increases in order. This view aligns with the second law of thermodynamics, which asserts that the overall tendency of the universe is to move toward greater entropy.

In contrast, Wilber's model sometimes downplays or misconstrues entropy, portraying evolution as an inherently transcendent and upward-moving process. This has led many to argue that Wilber's view of evolutionary complexity is more metaphysical than scientific, and less rooted in empirical evidence.

When Big History—a field that is grounded in solid scientific research—was suggested as an alternative framework for understanding evolutionary processes, the response from the Integral community was often one of resistance. The concept of entropy in Big History, which acknowledges the impermanent nature of complexity, directly challenges Wilber's assertion that evolution is inherently self-transcending and driven by higher consciousness. For many Integral practitioners, the scientific insights of Big History seemed too reductionistic and materialistic, threatening the spiritual dimension of Wilber's framework.

The Cult Allegations and Cognitive Dissonance

Wilber has consistently denied that the Integral movement has become a cult, and many long-time practitioners share his view, asserting that it remains an intellectually rigorous and open community. However, the insular dynamics that have emerged—such as the dismissal of critics and the hero-worship of Wilber himself—mirror some of the classic signs of cult-like behavior. The movement is centered on a charismatic leader whose views are often treated as infallible, and those who challenge the framework are frequently reduced to a "lower stage" of development.

This dynamic can be seen as a form of cognitive dissonance, where critics are not engaged in meaningful debate but are instead marginalized or disqualified. This not only stifles genuine intellectual inquiry but also makes it difficult for long-time members to confront the contradictions or scientific inaccuracies within Wilber's framework. Instead of wrestling with tough questions—particularly about the scientific credibility of his claims—the community tends to rally around defending the system and protecting its metaphysical integrity.

Conclusion

Ken Wilber's Integral Theory represents a bold and ambitious attempt to create a comprehensive framework for understanding the nature of reality, consciousness, and human development. However, over time, his approach to criticism has become increasingly defensive, especially when it comes to scientific scrutiny. While the Integral community initially thrived on open inquiry, it has increasingly become an echo chamber that resists challenges, particularly from the scientific community. This shift is perhaps most evident in the way Wilber's views on evolution and entropy are defended without serious engagement with more scientifically credible fields like Big History. Whether or not this marks the rise of a cult-like movement is open to interpretation, but it undeniably points to a movement that is less open to critique than it once was. The tension between spirituality and science, between visionary thought and empirical rigor, remains one of the defining contradictions of Wilber's work.

NOTE

[1] Here's a bird's eye view of the non-debate I have had with Wilber over the years:

KW: Darwinism fails because it can't explain eyes and wings

FV: Darwinism can explain the evolution of eyes and wings

KW: I never meant this example to be taken literally, but as a metaphor for the complexity of nature

FV: That too is a field of naturalistic science

KW: But weird things happen in the emergence of complexity

FV: Yes, but not because of some inherent cosmic drive

KW: But Prigogine and Kauffman point to the same things as I do

FV: No, they don't. They are naturalistic scientists

KW: Have I ever said Prigogine and Kaufman believe in Spirit? Of course not

FV: Then why bring them into this discussion at all?

KW: But Darwinism can't explain speciation: male in Siberia, female in Mexico

FV: That's a straw man, why don't you study population genetics?

KW: Reductionist science runs into unsolved problems, as they admit themselves

FV: Introducing question-begging mysteries such as Eros does not help

And so on, and so on.

This shows a patter of gaslighting instead of solid scientific reasoning. Common element: Wilber is just not well informed about these fields of science.