• 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).

Rethinking the Nature of Nature

From Physicalism to Meta-Naturalism to Integralism

Frank Visser / ChatGPT

For centuries, naturalism has served as the guiding philosophy of science. It affirms that everything in the universe arises from natural causes, governed by discoverable laws, and that supernatural explanations—be they divine interventions or disembodied spirits—are neither necessary nor intellectually satisfying. But as the frontiers of science extend into consciousness, emergent complexity, and the intelligibility of the cosmos, a deeper question resurfaces: Does naturalism necessarily imply materialism?

While historically linked, naturalism and materialism are not identical. A widening circle of thinkers rejects materialism's reduction of reality to matter and mechanism, while retaining a commitment to the natural—a realm of intelligible, lawful, non-supernatural processes. Some, like Thomas Nagel and David Chalmers, advocate for non-materialist naturalism. Others, like Bobby Azarian, introduce meta-naturalism, blending science with a directional, emergent view of evolution. Still others—Ken Wilber chief among them—propose Integralism, a spiritually charged vision in which consciousness precedes matter.

This essay explores the full spectrum: from materialist naturalism through non-materialist and meta-naturalist frameworks, up to Wilber's spiritually infused cosmology. It also introduces a crucial linguistic shift: replacing the problematic term "supernatural" with "superphysical"—a term that may better capture realities that exceed physical explanation while remaining within a broader natural order.

I. Naturalism and Its Classical Partner: Materialism

Naturalism, in its most general form, is the view that reality consists of what exists and operates within nature. It typically takes two forms:

• Methodological Naturalism: Used in science; it limits inquiry to natural causes without metaphysical claims.
• Metaphysical Naturalism: Asserts that nothing exists beyond nature; reality is exhausted by space, time, matter, and energy.

This second form has traditionally aligned with materialism (or physicalism), which holds that everything is fundamentally composed of physical stuff, described by physics. Under this view:

• Mind is reducible to brain activity.
• Values are evolutionary byproducts.
• Teleology (purposive direction) is excluded.

Materialist naturalism has been spectacularly successful in the sciences. But it faces persistent challenges when confronted with phenomena like consciousness, subjectivity, free will, and mathematics—realms that resist reduction to mechanism.

II. Breaking the Mold: Non-Materialist Naturalisms

A new generation of thinkers embraces naturalism without materialism, seeking to expand science's conceptual base.

1. Thomas Nagel – Mind and Cosmos

Nagel contends that consciousness, reason, and value cannot be explained by materialist evolution. He proposes a teleological naturalism, where mind is intrinsic to the unfolding of the universe.

2. David Chalmers – Panpsychism and the Hard Problem

Chalmers posits that consciousness is a fundamental feature of nature, not emergent. He suggests panpsychism: all matter may have a mental aspect. His view is non-theistic yet non-reductive.

3. Galen Strawson – Real Physicalism

Strawson redefines "physical" to include consciousness, arguing that our concept of matter is incomplete. Conscious experience, for him, just is the intrinsic nature of physical stuff.

4. Whitehead's Process Philosophy

Whitehead replaces particles with “actual occasions”, events that possess both physical and mental poles. For him, the universe is alive with experience at every level.

These thinkers are not supernaturalists—but neither are they reductive materialists. They represent a third way, seeking to naturalize the mind without eliminating it.

III. Bobby Azarian's Meta-Naturalism: A Living Universe

Bobby Azarian, neuroscientist and science writer, proposes meta-naturalism—a framework that maintains a naturalistic base while embracing directionality, complexity, and meaning.

Core Ideas:

• Emergence: Consciousness is not reducible, but arises naturally from increasing complexity.
• Directionality: Evolution exhibits a progressive structure—not random, but oriented toward integration and awareness.
• Mathematics: The deep structure of reality is intelligible, possibly reflecting a Platonic realm of form.

Meta-naturalism avoids both supernaturalism and mechanistic nihilism. It does not posit a God, but it allows for a cosmos that "wants to know itself"—an emergent self-awareness of nature.

IV. Ken Wilber's Integralism: Nature Infused with Spirit

Where Azarian stops at complexity, Ken Wilber leaps to Spirit. In his Integral Theory, evolution is not just directional—it is teleological in the highest sense. Spirit is not just a metaphor—it is the driving force behind evolution.

Core Tenets:

• Four Quadrants: Reality has interior and exterior, individual and collective dimensions.
• Stages of Development: Evolution unfolds through levels—matter → life → mind → soul → Spirit.
• Eros: A spiritual impulse animates the cosmos, pushing it toward increasing complexity and consciousness.

Wilber's system is spiritually robust, but also metaphysically loaded. He often blurs epistemic boundaries: treating mystical insight as equivalent to scientific knowledge, and Spirit as a causal agent within empirical nature.

This invites a fundamental critique: Is Wilber's Integral Theory a form of naturalism—or a spiritual metaphysics wrapped in developmental jargon?

V. Supernatural or Superphysical?

The term "supernatural" is often a non-starter in scientific and philosophical discourse—it evokes magic, miracles, and myth. But the reality of consciousness, the emergence of life, and the mathematical intelligibility of the cosmos seem to point to realities beyond the purely physical. So what should we call them?

Enter: Superphysical

“Superphysical” may be a more precise and less loaded term than “supernatural.” It suggests phenomena that:

• Are not reducible to physical mechanisms,
• But still obey lawful regularities,
• And can be investigated empirically or philosophically.

Examples include:

• Consciousness (irreducible first-person experience),
• Mathematics (non-empirical yet indispensable),
• Values and intentionality.

The superphysical is not outside nature—it is beyond current physicalist models, calling for an expanded ontology. This term allows us to distinguish legitimate philosophical questions from magical thinking, and to frame a naturalism that reaches beyond matter without collapsing into mysticism.

VI. Comparative Framework

VII. Conclusion: A New Vocabulary for a New Cosmos

So—does naturalism imply materialism? No. That assumption is philosophically outdated. A new naturalism is emerging—empirical, open-ended, and non-reductionist.

• Materialism served science well—but it cannot explain consciousness or meaning.
• Non-materialist naturalisms challenge reductionism from within science.
• Meta-naturalism introduces directionality and complexity without mysticism.
• Integralism adds spiritual teleology—but risks metaphysical overreach.

And superphysicality gives us a language to explore what exceeds the physical without violating nature's integrity.

The future of philosophy lies not in returning to supernatural myths, nor in clinging to a deflationary materialism, but in crafting a naturalism wide enough to include the fullness of reality—mind, meaning, mystery, and matter.