The American writer Ken Wilber has become celebrated as an advocate of integral spirituality.  He has also become the focus of a controversy within the ranks of disenchanted admirers and other critics. The varied ingredients of this complex controversy, encompassing metaphysical, philosophical, and psychological matters, are of increasing interest. The article below attempts an overview of the situation, referring to the diverse writings of Wilber and his critics.

Ken  Wilber

CONTENTS   KEY
4.1        Frank  Visser   and   the  AQAL  Schema
4.2        The  Early  Wilber  Creative  Phase
4.3        Up  From  Eden Theory
4.4        The  Perennial  Philosophy   and   Integral  Post-Metaphysics
4.5        Adi  Da  Samraj
4.6        Kosmos,  Ramana  Maharshi,  Plotinus  and  the Gnostics
4.7        Quadrant   Theory,   Andrew   Cohen,  and  Stanislav  Grof
4.8        Claim   to   Nondual   Experience
4.9        The   Beck-Wilber   Alliance
4.10      Boomers,   Green   Meme,   and  Suppression
4.11      Integral   Psychology  at   Issue
4.12      Missing   History   of   the   Great   Chain 
4.13      The  “Everything”  Model  Disputed
4.14      The  Postmodernism  Problem
4.15      Integral Spirituality
4.16      Frank  Visser  in Transition
Annotations

4.1    Frank  Visser  and  the  AQAL  Schema

The  issue  of  Ken  Wilber  philosophy  extends  into  areas  of  metaphysics, evolutionism, and  psychology. Commencing  in  the  late  1970s,  the  output  of  this  American  writer  became  celebrated  in  the “alternative” sector,  and  reached  a  peak  during  the 1990s.  He  gained  a  strong  American  readership, and  also  achieved support  in  Europe.  His  major  commentator  was  Dutch.  Yet  that  same  commentator (Frank Visser) was one of those  admirers  who  subsequently  expressed  criticism  of  Wilber. The critical complement  is  now substantial, and  prompts  due  investigation  as  to  the  reasons  for  this  revaluation. (1)

l to r: Frank  Visser, Ken  Wilber

The  commentarial  book   by  Frank  Visser  was  published  by  an American University  Press  in  2003.  Ken Wilber  had  not  formerly  achieved  such  profile. Visser was described on the cover as “an internet specialist who studied the psychology of religion at the Catholic  University of Nijmegen, The Netherlands.” Wilber  himself described  the  Visser  commentary  as  “an  invaluable  contribution to  the ongoing  integral dialogue.”   (2) That commentary has to date been published in five other languages.

The  word  integral  had  by  then  become  a  primary  cue  in  the  Wilber  lexicon.  Ken Wilber defined this word as meaning “comprehensive, inclusive, nonmarginalizing,  embracing.”  (3)  He  became  celebrated as an integral thinker and psychologist. Yet  one  of  the  emergent  criticisms  has  been  that  Wilber theory claims too much in the way of comprehensiveness, attempting to define “Everything” with premature yardsticks.

In the same foreword (dated  2002)  to the  Visser  commentary, Wilber  affirms  that “the  first  major statement of my own integral view” was  his book entitled Sex, Ecology, Spirituality  (1995). That was by far his longest work, and he defined all his earlier books as  “preliminary  explorations  in  integral studies.” Wilber observes that his version  of  integralism  is  sometimes  called  AQAL,  an  abbreviation  for “all quadrants,  all levels, all lines, all states, all types.” This  type  of  formulation  has  met  with  resistance from sceptics. Wilber integralism  more or less claims all reference points.

Soon after his longest book appeared, Wilber adapted the contents to provide “a popular or more accessible version.” This was published as A Brief History of Everything  (1996), with some additional data.  The title sounded presumptuous to some readers, though Wilber fans were content with the ascription of a very big denominator.

In the 2002 foreword abovecited, Ken Wilber  described how he had not written or published  much for almost  a decade  prior  to  Sex, Ecology, Spirituality.  His  two  main  phases  of author output were 1977-1984 and  l995-2000, though with subsequent  additions  like  his  novel  Boomeritis  (2002). Frank Visser was able to comment on nineteen  Wilber  books, which had been translated into more than twenty languages. This is testimony to the influence exerted  by  the  American  writer.

4.2   The  Early  Wilber  Creative  Phase

The early books of Ken Wilber  were located within the 1970s American counterculture, which had developed in the late 1960s and since become more diversified. He expressed a commendable resistance  to  drugs, though some  other  features  of  that  era  were  strong influences. The  tendency  to enthuse  about Eastern  religions had  a  Buddhist  slant  in his case, and  more especially in the direction of  Zen  and Vajrayana.  A  Vedantic  term appeared  in his  third  title,  namely  The  Atman  Project  (1980), though  any element  of  Hinduism  was extensively  modified  by  the  “transpersonal”  context  applied  to human development.  The  sub-title of that popular book  was  A  Transpersonal  View  of  Human Development.

Wilber  here  attempted  to chart various stages of  development  between  that  of  a newborn baby and  spiritual  enlightenment  associated  with  Buddhahood.  Eastern mysticism  was  combined  with  more conventional developmental  psychology of the West, including Freudian psychoanalysis, Jungian theory, and  the  exegesis of Piaget.  Yet  Wilber’s  primary  concern  was  transpersonal  stages of  development that are not  contained  in these  Western  theories.  His  reconstructions  have  been  the  subject  of disagreement.

The  basic idea of Wilber was  that  in  adding  the “transpersonal” stages to the  “lower and  middle” stages, he was  arriving  at  a  balanced and comprehensive model  of  what  he  had  already  designated as  the “spectrum of  consciousness.”  Various objections have been lodged  against this confident schema. A number of components   utilised  by  Wilber  have  been  regarded  as  incompatible.

However, he did make a strong distinction between "prepersonal" and transpersonal states of consciousness, maintaining  that  psychological  regressions are frequently confused with mystical achievement. Wilber became noted for his sceptical standpoint  that diverse New Age trends amounted to a "pre/trans" confusion or fallacy, meaning that proclaimed mysticism in those directions was really equivalent to the "prepersonal" infantile stage. Despite his emerging popular niche as a writer, this critical aspect of his output was less welcome in some quarters, and especially in view of his reserve about Carl Gustav Jung.

Yet  Wilber was also keen to criticise the Freudian reduction of mysticism to the prepersonal domain. Such reflections are associated with his Eye to Eye (1983), a collection of essays which were part of the phase he eventually described as "Wilber-3" (a reference to the sequence of stages in his thinking which he charted much later).

The Human  Potential  Movement  had  claimed  many  unsuspecting victims, especially in the  zone dominated by the Esalen  Institute, where Stanislav Grof  gained the titular role of  Scholar-in-Residence from 1973.  Grof’s sense of scholarship  has  come  under  strong  query, being  employed  for  suspect purposes of  promoting his rather unconventional  alternative  therapies,  namely LSD  therapy  and Holotropic  Breathwork  (HB).   (4)  HB was a “workshop” enterprise  selling  for  extortionate  sums  as  a trademark  therapy  of  Grof Transpersonal Training Inc. Grof  also  promoted  the  strongly  allied  theme of transpersonalism, which became identified with a form of psychology  that  is controversial.  Indeed, together  with  the  two  founders of Esalen, Grof established the International Transpersonal  Association. The word transpersonal is inseparably associated with Grof  and his activities.
 
Ken  Wilber  was  heir to  the  Grof  legacy  in  certain  conceptual  respects, adopting the word  transpersonal, though  he  later made a  point  of  stressing  some  differences. Also, and  to  his  credit, Wilber  did  step  away from giving  “workshops” and  lectures  at  an  early  stage  in his career, preferring to concentrate upon writing. (5)  The  new  age  landscape  of  the  1970s  was  littered with  diverse commercial “workshops,” resulting  from the undiscerning enthusiasm for “personal growth.”  The “workshop” scene has continued to cause many confusions  to  this  day.

Wilber’s  second  book  gives  clear  indication  of  “workshop”  associations.  Entitled  No Boundary (1979), this popular paperback advocated a  fusion of  “Eastern and Western  approaches  to  personal  growth,” to quote the sub-title.  Included  were  many suggestions  about  the use of Eastern meditative  practises and Western psychotherapies. This  avowedly “hands on” approach did  not  always  benefit the subscribers to such adventures  as  Gestalt  therapy and  Chogyam Trungpa  “crazy wisdom.”  Complete abstinence  is often necessary  before  ascertaining  what  or who  is  usefully  applicable,  if  at  all.

The Esalen and related  milieux  featured a  large  number of professed spiritual teachers, esoteric adepts, and meditation masters, together with  a multitude of diverse therapists. As the years passed, these  ranks were frequently  observed  to make mistakes, sometimes  fatal.  The  supposedly  egoless teachers  and “masters” could  transpire  to  be  disastrous  testimonies  to  self-presumption  and  other forms  of inflation.

A  few  years  later,  Wilber  was  expressing  the  leitmotif of  a “transcendental sociology,” a  phrase  which appeared  in  the  sub-title  of  A  Sociable  God  (1983). That  contentious  phrase  related  to  the  sociology of  religion.  The  book  was  a compact  work  which Frank  Visser  describes  as  a  monograph.  Another analyst wrote that  “the  general  style  of  the  book  is  more  analytical  than  Wilber’s  earlier works, and primarily relates to  the  theme of  the  new  religious  movements  in America  which  have  become debated amongst  official sociologists.”  (6) 

The  subject  known as  “perennial philosophy” had become  strongly  associated  with Ken Wilber's version of contemporary transpersonalism. The impression conveyed by supporters was that Wilber understood all aspects of this rather complex subject.  Yet major contractions  are  said  to  have occurred  in  Wilber books with regard  to  the  perennial. On the credit side, an unusual  feature of the transpersonalist  appetite in A Sociable God was that  Wilber  discussed  the  work  of  Jurgen  Habermas, the German  sociologist  whom  the  same  writer described in  another  book  as “the  greatest  living philosopher.” Yet  ironically,  Wilber  was  in  obvious  regret that  the output of  Habermas  lacked  a spiritual  dimension, which  the  former  attempted  to add as a complement.  (7)  

Very  disconcerting  in this  respect  is  that  the  Wilber  monograph  expressed  lavish  praise of  Da  Free  John, alias Adi Da Samraj, the antinomian American guru who was soon afterwards revealed in his true  colours as an abuser  of  devotees.

“Two years after A  Sociable  God  was  published, Californian  newspapers  gave  due coverage  to  the five million  dollar  lawsuit  brought against  the  Bubba  [Da  Free John]  by a female devotee who  alleged serious abuse arising  from the sensual strategies of  ‘the master’ Da.”  (8)  

Supporting  testimonies were also  in evidence. The  reckless  nature of  transpersonal  enthusiasm  was  noted by careful observers.

4.3    Up  From  Eden  Theory

Perhaps the  most  distinctive  early  work of  Ken  Wilber  was  Up  From  Eden (1981). This bears the sub-title of A Transpersonal View of Human Evolution. The evolutionism  expressed  here  has  been regarded as idiosyncratic. However, Ken Wilber  was  a  better  writer  than  most  of  the  other alternativists, and perhaps the major  interest  to  a  philosopher  is  the  evident  sense  of  affinity  with Hegel. Wilber has also extensively employed the word Spirit, which is one of the translations for Geist, the allusive German term favoured by Hegel.

l to r: Georg  W. F.  Hegel, Ken  Wilber

One may  ponder  upon  the  scenario  of  Ken  Wilber  as  the transpersonal successor to  Hegel. Wilber’s version of evolution is actually rather different in context to that of Georg W. F. Hegel (1770-1831), whose academic audience in  Germany  nearly two centuries before differed  markedly  from 1980s American transpersonalism.   There are, however,  certain  resemblances in the  theory of a cultural evolution.  This was a  theory  appealing to the German Enlightenment, though  the concept of cultural evolution is more problematic for the American sector.

Wilber  elaborates  a  theme of  humanity  coming  up  from  Eden, rather  than  falling from Eden. The associations are  rather  theological  in the  Judaeo-Christian sense.  Yet  the  full implications of this theory would mean, e.g., that the American psychedelic  “Me” decade  (the 1960s)  culturally supplanted the civilisations  of  both  Islam  and  Buddhism.  Wilber  markedly favours Buddhism  in his version of perennial philosophy, which he describes as the Great Chain of Being.   The  perennial  theme of Wilber is pronouncedly abbreviated, resting upon generalisations  awarding priority  to  the  “nondualist” interpretation  associated  with the American  neo-advaita of Adi Da rather than Shankara.

The  present writer has contested the neo-Hegelian dimensions of Wilber evolutionism  in  Up  From  Eden. To quote  some  extracts:

“Wilber  managed  to  elevate  his two major  contemplative  interests  (Vajrayana  and  Zen)  to  a  unique evolutionary  status.  American  Buddhism  thus gained transpersonal  qualifications  which  tended to glorify the roles  of  Chogyam Trungpa  and  Alan  Watts....One  of  Ken Wilber’s  leading  supporters...deems Wilber to have integrated the evolutionary theories of Teilhard de Chardin, Jean  Gebser, and Shri Aurobindo in his thesis  that  an altogether  new category of spiritual consciousness  emerged amongst humanity from about the sixth century A.D. onwards. This new category of  consciousness is associated with the Zen founder Bodhidharma and the Indian Vajrayanist   Padmasambhava, who figures strongly in one Tibetan tradition of Vajrayana (or Tantric) Buddhism.

 "All former mystical or religious traditions (not to mention philosophical ones) are here construed to  have been inferior levels of evolution, including Indian sages like Gautama Buddha.... The  anthropographic view  may  be expressed  in  terms of  the hope  that  Gautama  Buddha was more  enlightened  than Western  Bubbas  like  Da Free John, who is celebrated  in Up From Eden on  equal  par with  Ramana Maharshi,  one  of  the  more compelling  Hindu  sages  of  the  twentieth  century.”  (9)

The  radical  diagnosis  expressed  by  Wilber’s  evolutionism  has  met  with scepticism outside fan ranks. The legendary dimensions of Bodhidharma and Padmasambhava  are  extensive,  and  historians  of these subjects have contributed   far  more  sober  views  about  the  obscure  nature of  events.

The  evolutionist  theory of  Wilber  has  been  considered  to  have  strong  affinity  with  that  of  Jean Gebser (1905-1973). “In Gebser’s (and Wilber’s) opinion four simple words – archaic, magical, mythical, and mental – enable us to describe the whole  of  the  complex  history of  the  consciousness of humankind.” (10) This rather insidious  form  of  reductionism  may be strongly contested.  Certainly, the terminology devised by  Wilber  was accompanied  by  the  Gebserian  format.  Wilber coined  such  exotic phrases as magical-typhonic, and also relegated both the archaic  and  mythical  strata  in  his  preferred sequence.

In  Up  From  Eden, Wilber  attempts  to  chart  the  history  of  humankind, though from an ideocentric standpoint involving  contemporary  transpersonalism  rather than  archaeology. He is preoccupied with concepts  of  a spiritual  development, and in a context which spells: “in the future we will experience collectively what in the past was only  experienced  by  a  select  few.” (11) 

Collective transformation is a new age theme, though the Wilber version does not totally converge with theories conceived  and promoted by  the holistic movement. Frank Visser concludes that:

“if we fail to place sufficient emphasis upon the value of  rational thought, Wilber warns that  we may  be  in  for  a Dark  Age, in which  archaic regression, magical thinking, and mythical  religion are  mistaken  for mystical spirituality.”  (12)

Rational thought will  eschew  transpersonal jargon and ideation, which  has strongly  contributed to  the current Dark  Age  of alternative  thought  so  evident  at venues like Esalen and  the Findhorn Foundation. The commercial  workshop  game  is  a  distraction, whatever the  alluring “transpersonal” or “holistic” phraseology employed  to  describe that activity.  In maintaining the  underlying  validity  of therapy, Wilber has provided  fuel  for the  Dark  Age.

4.4    The  Perennial  Philosophy  and Integral  Post-Metaphysics

A  salient  ingredient of  Ken  Wilber’s worldview has been the “perennial philosophy.” Diversely presented by various exponents, this subject  requires to be more flexible than is too often  the case. That is because the study materials involved are extensive, and because the complexities and ambiguities are far greater than is commonly  believed.  What   generally  occurs  is  a  very  simplistic form  of  commentary.

The  perennial  theme  was an  ingredient  of  Wilber’s first book  entitled The Spectrum of Consciousness (1977), composed in 1973  when  the  author  was  only twenty-four years old.  The debut book introduced the “spectrum model,” associated with the Great Chain of  Being,  a  phrase  favoured  by  Wilber  in relation to the  perennial philosophy.  The  new  model was  encumbered  by  the  belief  that  Eastern spirituality and Western psychotherapy  could  be  fused  to  advantage. This  belief  had  some  affinities with Esalen, and the spectrum model was  to  become  another  prop for  the  commercial  workshop industry, despite Wilber’s subsequent  avoidance  of   the  predatory  circuit.

Ironically, the  manuscript  was  rejected  by  about  thirty  publishers. Some  critics have  implied  this fact as proof that  the  book  was  hopeless. The  argument  is  not  adequate, in view of  the  known commercial priorities of American  publishers  and  the  shoddy  presentations   which  they   were  inflicting upon  the reading  public during  the 1970s and after. (The  American  market  also  had  a  bad  effect upon  British standards  of publishing.)  

When the Ken Wilber debut  volume  did  finally  achieve  publication, the  contents were welcomed rapturously by the transpersonalists. The author  quickly became famous, gaining effusive reviewers.  Indeed, Wilber became celebrated by his admirers as the “Einstein of consciousness research.” (13)  More recently, that encomium has received  disapproving  treatment by one  of  the more committed opponents.  (14)  For my own  part, I attempted to give the early works of Wilber a fair but critical assessment, not  undermining the basic premises of  a  perennialism, though  strongly resisting  the very recent doctrines of transpersonalism.  (15)

The current position of Ken Wilber is that of a "post-metaphysical" exegesis, one purportedly superseding the "perennial philosophy," which he identifies with traditional channels of religion. See 4.15 below. There are different methods of assessing the history of religion and defining what is "perennial" as distinct from fossilised tradition.

Wilber formerly described himself  as  a  neo-perennialist, an  identity setting  him apart  from  the exegesis associated  with  Coomaraswamy,  Schuon, and others.  His  worldview  notably  assimilated  the terminology of Mahayana Buddhism, though he has  disowned  a  doctrinaire  Buddhist  position.  Instead, he  prefers classification  as  an  integralist.

The over-inclusive nature of the content has been considered a major drawback to integral formulations. For instance, Ken Wilber's partiality for teachings of the late Da Free John, alias Adi Da Samraj, posed acute moral problems for his neo-perennialist theory. This is because of the strong antinomian reputation adhering to the American "crazy wisdom" advocate.

4.5   Adi  Da  Samraj

Ken  Wilber’s  rather insidious promotion  of  Adi  Da (Samraj)  was  one  of  the factors causing former admirers to query his  line  of  reasoning.  Frank  Visser  writes that “Wilber sees  Sri Aurobindo, Hegel, Adi Da, Schelling, Teilhard de Chardin, and Radhakrishnan as all belonging to this neo-perennial school.”  (16) The other entities mentioned  here   might  well  have  felt morally  outraged at  being considered  on  a  par to  the  American hedonist.

Adi  Da  Samraj

Adi  Da (1939-2008),  born  Franklin Jones  in  New  York,  was  a  bizarre character who made a  habit of sexual advances to his female devotees, to the extent of inviting a strong lawsuit  and  creating  a faction of  dissident ex-devotees. Other serious  drawbacks  are  also on record.  Adi  Da  became notorious  in California during the 1980s, and retreated to his island sanctuary at Fiji. A Californian lawyer is reported to have handled three  private settlements (involving payments and confidentiality agreements) relating to the lawsuits and threatened suits  of  that  period.

His organisation became known as Adidam. The informative ex-devotee website Adi Da Archives reports that Adi Da:

"claimed to be the First, Last, and Only perfectly enlightened Spiritual Adept that had ever appeared on Earth or will ever appear in the future. He said that his own spiritual stature was superior to that of Jesus, Buddha, or any of the great spiritual figures from human history.... Adi Da's ability to present traditional Eastern spiritual teachings in a way that made them seem likely they were the product of his own spiritual realisation, rather than mere beliefs he held, was what initially attracted many of those who became his devotees....

"Adi Da was considered a controversial figure due to persistent accusations that he was having sex with large numbers of devotees, drinking obsessively, abusing drugs, engaging in incidents of violence against women, and financially exploiting his followers. He rationalised all of this as his way of teaching people, claiming his behaviour was selfless service.... The inner circle was perhaps the most critical piece of infrastructure Adi Da developed to enable his decades-long pursuit of every kind of fulfilment for himself at the expense of others....

"In 1985, tensions in Adi Da's life escalated when a number of ex-devotees requested an audience with Adi Da to air grievances, and he refused to communicate with them. As a result, various lawsuits were filed by and against Adi Da, his organisation, and former members. A great deal of international media attention followed. As a by-product of the media attention, many aspects of Adi Da's life that had previously been hidden from devotees who were not inner circle members, and were unknown to the general public, became exposed. In a practice that continues to this day, Adidam [his organisation] attempted to deny allegations about Adi Da by ex-members....

"As the years passed, Adi Da's inflated opinion of himself evolved into a form of delusional self-worship that reeked of outright madness.... His progressive absorption into delusions of grandeur was facilitated by a cultic group of sycophants who reinforced all of his illusions." (Extracts from the Obituary and Insider commentary.)

Though  Ken  Wilber  did  acknowledge  some  of  the  defects  in  the  capricious  Adi Da, he  nevertheless retained  an  evident  admiration  for  the  supposed  spiritual  state of that guru, and  also the  teachings of the  latter. See"Ken Wilber and Adi Da Samraj" in my web article Investigating Perennial Philosophy (2008).

Adi  Da  Samraj  was  a  follower of  Swami   Muktananda (1908-1982), the controversial  Tantric  guru  who gained a repute  for  sexual  license  and  financial  manipulations.  The  American  yogi  liked  wild  parties and (excessive) alcohol, and  was  very partial  to  coarse  language.  His  published  teachings  were deceptive, not  generally  conveying  any  idea  of  his  personal  habits. He liked to assume numerous exotic names, and declared himself to have achieved the highest spiritual prerogative (that of an avatar or divine incarnation).  His full self-proclaimed title was  Ruchira  Avatar Adi  Da  Samraj.  He  is depicted  by  admirers as  an unsurpassed  Yogi  and  unique spiritual  authority.  Critics  refer  to  him  as  a neo-advaita casualty  and  a contemporary  American  Tantric  of  licentious  tendencies.

Devotees  learned  the  hard  way  about  Tantric “crazy  wisdom,” which could  mean appropriating another man’s wife.  Yet integralist  Ken Wilber tended to elevate  the presumed spiritual attainment  of Adi Da as an  evolutionary goal.  Journalist John Horgan relates of his interview with the integralist  that “although he now sees Da  Free John as a deeply flawed individual, Wilber  still  thinks  the  guru  is  a brilliant  mystical philosopher.”  (17)

At a slightly earlier date, Wilber had composed two well known statements about Adi Da. In a web item of 1996 he sounded a note of caution in relation to the hideout in Fiji, acknowledging this as an extremist position, though he again expressed praise for the books of that very disconcerting entity. In 1998 Wilber strongly confirmed his rather confusing assessment of Adi Da, in terms of being "one of the greatest spiritual Realisers of all time," though conceding that aspects of personality lagged far behind. See 14.5 at kevinrdshepherd.net. Click here.

The  books  of  Adi  Da elevate his eccentric form of “non-dualism,” which is presented as being  greatly superior to  more  conventional religious approaches and also  forms of  mysticism  which  the  author feared  as  sober rivals.   Wilber was one of those who fell hook, line and sinker for this deceptive approach, which has similarities to the “crazy wisdom” of  Chogyam  Trungpa  (d.1987), another favourite in the Wilber canon  of  reckless  integralism.  The  drawbacks  demonstrated  by Trungpa  included alcoholism  and resort  to  drugs.  See  2.5  on  this  website.

The  confusions  about  the  subject  of  spiritual  achievements  are  so  deep-rooted in various countries that it is now an almost  hopeless task to administer due education. For instance, the so-called “enlightenment” of late 1960s America facilitated the commercial labyrinth of presumptive organisations, gurumania, therapy cults, and “workshop”  extravaganzas  which  have  seduced much  affluent  attention. So-called spiritual teachings are too often  like dime  novels; they are  fluently composed  to attract superficial  attention.  Viable philosophy is something completely different, but  that  is  not  yet  commonly understood.

Early influences on Ken Wilber are known to have included  Zen, Gestalt therapy, Transcendental Meditation (TM), and  Vedanta.  (18)   The  second  subject  mentioned is rather discrepant to the others, and caused endless confusions in American neo-hippy society, gaining dubious permutations such as Neo-Reichian Gestalt, which acquired  a  hedonistic  repute. Wilber later turned to Vajrayana  Buddhism instead of TM, though his elevation of Chogyam Trungpa  has evoked similar criticisms  to  those applying  in  his  regard  for  Adi Da.  (19)

4. 6    Kosmos, Ramana  Maharshi, Plotinus  and  the  Gnostics

The  longest  book  of  Ken Wilber was advertised as  the  first  volume  in  the  Kosmos trilogy.  The word Kosmos was  intended  to  depict  the  traditional  understanding of the universe, which Wilber claimed to adapt for a new paradigm.  The  Kosmos  volume  was  entitled Sex, Ecology,  Spirituality (known as SES), and  was published in 1995.  This book commenced the "Wilber-4" phase of the author's intellectual development as specified by him. SES  basically  pursued  the  neo-Da   version  of “nondualist”  spiritual evolution, though other themes were also in evidence.

Ramana  Maharshi

The  Hindu  sage  Ramana  Maharshi  (1879-1950)  was  elevated  as  a  spiritual  ideal over and above  two well known Christian entities (Teresa of Avila and Meister Eckhart).  Maharshi  is  one  of  the  more impressive  Hindu gurus  of  recent  times, an austere and rather taciturn figure who  exposited  vichara, namely a method of self-inquiry  closely  related to  Advaita  Vedanta.  However,  there  is  no  purist Advaita (non-dualism) in  the exposition of  Wilber; instead,  there  is  a  glaring  anomaly  with  regard to the rather strident  dismissal  of  ascetic “repression” occurring in the same book.  The  ascetic  celibate Ramana Maharshi  was  discrepantly favoured  by  Adi  Da, and  had  become  the symbol of  a  nondualism that was misunderstood  in  America  by  opportunism  and  transpersonalism.  Neo-advaita  is  not   the same as  the putative  original.

In addition to  the  Advaita   problem  and  the  customary  Mahayanist  references, the Kosmos volume attempted to  integrate  Plato  and  Plotinus  in  terms  of  a  “this-worldliness” that  is  clearly  intended  to support  the nondualism  thesis. Wilber  relied  heavily upon  the  outdated version  of  Dean  Inge  for  his portrayal of Plotinus, who is here  presented  as  being  well in advance of  the “Ascender” Gnostics, a category furthermore depreciated  as  ascetic  extremists.   Plotinus  is extolled by Wilber, though the disagreement is not with that factor.

The  extending lore of  ascenders versus  descenders  is  rather emphatically  profiled in a meta-history which has aroused scepticism. This is applied to Western history, though Plotinus is linked up to favoured neo-Da themes which encompass Eastern mysticism. There are strong disadvantages  in  this exegesis   when  the  antique texts are  closely  analysed.   For instance, Gnosticism was a  rather  more variegated  phenomenon than contemporary American  Kosmos theory has recognised.

The  outset  of  Wilber’s  second  creative  phase  was  attended by significant frictions.   Sex,  Ecology, Spirituality  contained  polemical passages and notes  which offended  some of  his  readers.  Ken Wilber now tended to be strongly critical of rivals, and  not  merely  the  “flatland” of  orthodox science. However, critical annotations are not  a crime. Wilber  subsequently  defended  himself on this  point, and made some valid comments to the effect that  polemical discourse  is  not  necessarily  unspiritual. (20)  His diverse criticisms included  some pertaining  to the  Grof  conceptual  model.  An irony is that  these adverse  reflections were marginal  by comparison  with certain other criticisms of Grof theory, also dating to the 1990s, and which have been considered a relevant contrast.  (21)

Resort to nonjudgmentalism can be a very cowardly option, though it is today a common political and academic convenience. That resort is explicitly favoured by some  of  the  worst  trends  in  the “new age” commerce.  Wilber has  stood  out  in  some  respects  from the  insipid  slumber of the  Esalen prototype, but his philosophical position is  considered precarious by a fair number of critics.  Of course, any ventured  judgment  must  be  accurate, and  this does  not  always  happen by any means. So much depends upon  the  context  of  criticism, and  in  this  respect  Ken  Wilber  did   move  to  a lamentable excess.  

In his longest work, he delivered a pointed thrust at religious traditions that  he considered to be repressively ascetic. The  crime  list  here  includes  the Gnostics, Theravada  Buddhism, Manichaeism, Christianity, and  a type of  Advaita  Vedanta.  (22)   Wilber is quite explicit in his denunciation of the rejected traditions, which are described as being "shot through with Phobos, with ascetic repression, with a denial and a fear and a hatred of everything 'this-worldly,' a denial of vital life, of sexuality, of sensuality, of nature, of body (and always of woman)." (Sex, Ecology, Spirituality, p. 340.)

This particular bias  confirmed   suspicions  that  Ken  Wilber  neo-perennialism  strongly converged with the “American  new  age” retreat  from  traditional  discipline. Monastic formats were not popular in America,  and  Mahayana  Buddhism  underwent  strange adventures in that country when  the  vinaya (monastic code)  was  neglected. At the time of writing  his attack, Wilber  was  a  twice  married  man, his first marriage  having occurred in 1972  when  he  was in  his early  twenties.  The historical “perennial philosophy” had a rather strong ingredient of celibacy, and the aspersions of  Wilber in that direction imply an affinity with neo-Mahayanist preference  and  transpersonal conceptualism of the late twentieth century.

Though  Wilber  does  not  say  so,  even  his  beloved  Zen  was  rigorously  monastic in the  countries  of origin (China  and  Japan).  Yet  in  Wilber neo-perennialism, there is no  historical  (or semantic) analysis of the  texts, the  monastic  discipline, the cultural characteristics, the biographies of monks, and so forth. There is instead a reliance upon spectrum theory, transpersonal sociology, psychotherapy, cultural evolution theory, and the elaborate  integralist  phraseology of  the Great Chain of Being,  which merely sounds  poetic  to  historians  and social  scientists.

The  neo-perennialist  viewed  Plotinus  with  favour, and  attempted  to  divest  him  of ascetic characteristics. Yet  Plotinus (204/5-270 CE) has been described in terms of moderate asceticism by specialist scholarship. His treatise Against the Gnostics affirms his version of Platonism as being quite superior to Gnostic doctrine, which he is said to have associated strongly with Christianity. Gnostic groups were diverse, spread over a wide geographical area, and included women. Plotinus mentions that some of his pupils had previously been adherents of Gnosticism, and were still partial to the teachings of that movement. Plotinus and his disciple Porphyry took exception to the Gnostic demotion of Plato, and also to the sectarian books which described Gnostic doctrines in relation to various "revelatory" figures.

Wilber moved to an extreme in his depiction of the conflict between Plotinus and  the Gnostics. That conflict   betokens  a  complex ideological situation  in  third  century  Rome.  Plotinus definitely did criticise the Gnostics in his  Enneads, but  his  reasons for  doing  so  were  not   those  emphasised  by Wilber, who  tends  very  much to  deduce that  the Gnostics  were  under  fire  because  they were  too ascetic and world-renouncing. The actual charges  made  by  Plotinus  against  his  rivals  amount  to  much more  than  asceticism.  Quite to the contrary, it was  Plotinus  who  realistically  emerges as  the  austere disciplinarian, while the Gnostics he opposed were accused of being lax in conduct and harbouring tendencies to magic and superstition. 

Because of  such  misunderstandings and distortions in transpersonalism alias integralism, it is not advisable to support  the  reductionism  achieved by the American  cultural  evolution "Up from Eden." Various ancient events have to  be  probed  with  more  care, and  in  the  light of  the  antique  European and  Asiatic sources rather than the canons  of  contemporary  integralism.  

The  following  is  an  extract  from  a  recent  British  commentary  on Plotinus:

“Employing  a  transpersonal  doctrine  about  Brahman, Wilber  presents  Plotinus as a sort of proto-Mahayanist who was quite at home in this-worldliness and who castigated Gnostics for their asceticism.... Wilber sees  the  Gnostics  as  rabid ascetic  Ascenders and  is  evidently  eager  to promote the catchphrase  of  ‘the  way  up  is  the  way  down’ (the  title of  the  relevant  chapter), obviously not realising that this was one of the Gnostic themes attested in the Nag Hammadi documents. Wilber is some eighteen centuries behind the Gnostics, who were expressing   his borrowed  theme  in  a  more authentic  manner.

“A  point  to  grasp  is  that  the  ascetic  Plotinus  would  not  have  been  very amenable  to  Wilber’s emphases, and  nor  those  of his colleagues. The  critique which  Plotinus  aimed  at  the  Gnostics (or a section of  them) was  far  more  intricate   than  transpersonalism  has  cognised.  A  problem  was that ascetic  discipline  and   self-purification  were  not  duly  upheld  by  many  Gnostics, a disability which that contingent  had  in  common  with  Daists  [the Adi  Da faction]....  Plotinus  strongly disapproved of their resort  to  pleasures  of  the body, which he deemed incompatible  with  the characteristics  of  a spiritual nature.... he  would  have  considered  transpersonal  doctrines  to  be anathema  to  the true spirit  of Platonism.  One  of  his  underlying  and  basic  accusations was that the vaunted  Gnostic prerogative  of his  rivals  led  to  excuses  for  immoral  conduct.”  (23)

There  were  rigorously ascetic  Gnostics  and  austerely celibate   NeoPlatonists,  and  also  some  factors in common.There were also other types of Gnostic. Yet  such  matters are  lost   to view  in  the “Up from  Eden” milieu creating  “integral” confusion. There were various Gnostic sects, ranging from the Carpocrateans to the Valentinians. Plotinus does not specify any sectarian identities. In a place like Rome, many Gnostic affiliates are unlikely to have been ascetics, but merely followers of doctrines and "secret teachings."

Plotinus was not attacking Gnostics for asceticism, but for what he considered to be an inferior doctrine. He disliked the claim to gnosis (spiritual knowledge), instead advocating the gradual method of Platonist enquiry. He objected to the caricature of the material world as evil, as a prison of the soul, though an aspect of Plato's teaching is not totally removed from that perspective. Plotinus insinuated that the Gnostics were indulging in jargon, and were arrogant in refusing to acknowledge the created gods. This particular argument of his is less convincing to modern analysts than to the classical world of his day. More convincingly, he opposed the Gnostic claim to control higher powers by magic or theurgy, and to cure diseases by casting out demons.

Some scholars have urged that Plotinus was confronting the "Sethians," which is also the Gnostic identity proposed for the Nag Hammadi library discovered in 1945. More well known categories of Gnostic are the Carpocrateans and Valentinians, named after Carpocrates and Valentinus, both dating to the second century CE. The former sect gained an antinomian repute via the works of Irenaeus (of Lyons) and Clement (of Alexandria). Yet Carpocrates is a very obscure figure. His son Epiphanes was identified by Clement as the founder of the movement.

Clement was writing in the early third century, and attributes to Epiphanes a doctrine of communal possession of property and women which led to licentious assemblies.Valentinus is slightly better known, and his school has a more philosophical association. Many Valentinians appear to have pursued normal vocations, marrying and raising children like other Christians. The basic difference was that they rejected ecclesiastical authority, believing in equality and direct experience via gnosis.

In his Adversus Haereses, the second century Christian ecclesiastic Irenaeus accused Gnostics of depravity, though modern scholars have ascertained that none of the Gnostic texts from Nag Hammadi contain any incitement to immoral behaviour. An obvious factor against Bishop Irenaeus is that he disapproved of the many women who were attracted to Gnostic groups. The ecclesisastical rules were severe about women, who were not permitted to teach or baptise, amongst other prohibitions. The Gnostic teacher Marcus gained numerous female followers in the Rhone valley, and was depicted by Irenaeus as a seducing magician.

Some remarks of Plotinus have been thought to indicate a Neoplatonist version of the ecclesiastical logic. Yet there are other textual indications of anomalies, including the late Gnostic text Pistis Sophia, which denounces the inverted festive meals (of semen and menstrual blood) associated with the Phibionite extremists of Egypt. Disputes about conduct appear to have developed within Gnostic circles of the third and fourth centuries. So Plotinus could easily have been correct in his insinuations about deficiencies, though the actual scale of these occurrences is very obscure.

An increasing assimilation of pagan practices may have led to the conceptual and behavioural deteriorations. Two generations after Plotinus, the Christian heresiographer Epiphanius encountered a Gnostic sect in Egypt which rejected asceticism to a pronounced degree. In his Panarion, Epiphanius reports how the women in that sect attempted to seduce him, and he further describes a collective copulatory ritual and attendant practises which offended him. This encounter occurred circa A.D. 335, and the report has been considered relevant, though prone to exaggerations. One of the names applied by Epiphanius to these extremists is Phibionites.

A relevant factor in these studies is the inclusion of women in Gnostic ranks. "The percentage of women was evidently very high and reveals that Gnosis held out prospects otherwise barred to them, especially in the official church." (Kurt Rudolph, Gnosis, p. 211). Women are known to have frequently gained positions as Gnostic teachers, prophetesses, priestesses, and missionaries. They were able to take a leading role in the Gnostic version of Christian ceremonies like baptism and eucharist. The extension in exorcism was a feature more likely to encourage superstition. A century before Plotinus appeared in Rome, the female Gnostic teacher Marcellina travelled to that capital circa A.D. 150 to proselytise for the Carpocratean sect (a grouping who claimed to receive secret teaching from three celebrated women, namely Mary, Salome, and Martha).

The "integral" tactic of castigating such circles as extremist agents of ascetic repression is rather unconvincing. It is, moreover, obvious that Plotinus was probably more of an ascetic than many of his rivals. In his biography of Plotinus, the disciple Porphyry commenced with the observation that his teacher "seemed ashamed of being in the body; so deeply rooted was this feeling that he could never be induced to tell of his ancestry, his parentage, or his birthplace." (The Enneads, MacKenna trans., ed. John Dillon, p. cii.)

There are not many modern Europeans or Americans who would obliterate their date of birth (as did Plotinus), and in basic respects, the ascetic spirit of both the Neoplatonist and Gnostic traditions is a total mystery to the new age, whether declaredly integralist or no.

4.7    Quadrant  Theory, Andrew  Cohen, and  Stanislav  Grof

The late 1990s  books of Ken Wilber demonstrated the increasingly complex terminology  of  his  broad-ranging metaphysical  theory.  Wilber  now  became controversial  for  referring numerous  matters to  his formulation  of Four Quadrants of consciousness, a theme  innovated  in  his  longest  book.  This ingenious device is purported to encompass both individual and collective consciousness, with divisions into intentional, behavioural, social, and cultural. 

With all this industry in conceptualism, readers could  easily anticipate a dramatic surge forward  in clarity. Precisely  what  social and  cultural  standards  were  being set?   The  crazy  wisdom  of  Adi  Da and Chogyam Trungpa  continued to be in favour,  permitting conclusions of a massive discrepancy. Even some critics  were surprised  when  the  integralist  exemplar  commenced  to  liase  with an  increasingly influential American neo-Advaita guru (and "crazy wisdom" enthusiast), namely Andrew Cohen.  This  new  development  was very visible, and to such an extent that Wilber was installed as a permanent  collaborative feature in the glossy pages of What Is Enlightenment?  That publication was Cohen’s own magazine. The celebrated duo conversed in terms of the  guru  and  pundit, Cohen  being  the  guru and  Wilber  the  pundit.

The  guru  and  the  pundit

Critics said that Wilber was now supporting the extremist camp more than ever before. Cohen had gained fame and donations as an enlightened being, despite a book by  his mother  Luna Tarlo  that denied  his claim.  (24)  There  were  a  growing number  of  discontented  ex-devotees  of  Cohen  who resorted  to their  own website for the  purpose of  communicating  anomalies.  I  have referred to this matter on an earlier webpage. See Perennial Philosophy for "Rude Boy Andrew Cohen."   Cohen denied the accusations as lacking due context, but this is very  difficult to  believe. Ken Wilber  was  impervious to  discrepancies, and evidently enjoyed the limelight in his pundit role. The close relationship  between these  two “transpersonal”  celebrities  has  continued  ever since.See article 2.8 on this website.

An ex-devotee of Cohen is William Yenner, who spent thirteen years as a prominent member of Cohen's Foxhollow community known as EnlightenNext. "He [Yenner] was left disillusioned and disappointed after a series of debilitating, abusive experiences. Following his departure [from EnlightenNext], and in order to secure the return of a large monetary donation that he had been pressured to give to Cohen, a gag order prevented his writing or speaking publicly about his experiences in Cohen's community." See American Guru. When the gag order terminated in 2008, Yenner wrote and edited a revealing book. See William Yenner et al, American Guru: A Story of Love, Betrayal and Healing - former students of Andrew Cohen speak out (2009). This was not the first critical book on Cohen, but it does comprise a milestone in documentation. An excerpt (available on the Yenner website) is reproduced here:

"Face slapping and name-calling, while they were uncalled for and may have been damaging, were mild in comparison to other questionable manifestations of 'crazy wisdom' that occurred at Foxhollow. One such incident involved a student (Mikaela) who was responsible for the marketing of Andrew's publications and who had fallen out of favour by reminding him that something he had criticised her for doing had been his idea in the first place. He decried her as evil and ordered that the walls, floor and ceiling of her office (which had been relocated to an unfinished basement room) be painted red to signify the spilled blood of her guru. She was ordered to spend hours there contemplating the implications of her transgression, with the additional aid of a large cartoon on the wall depicting her as a vampire and the word 'traitor' written in large letters next to it.

"Andrew often employed red paint in this fashion to create environments designed to induce shame and guilt in students that he felt had questioned his judgment or disobeyed him. Another female student who had displeased Andrew and, after leaving the community, had returned to help out on a weekend painting project, was summoned to another basement room. There she was met by four female students who, having guided her onto a plastic sheet on the floor, each poured a bucket of paint over her head as a 'message of gratitude' from Andrew. She left the property traumatised and fell ill in subsequent days (during which she was harassed by phone calls from another student who, at Cohen's instigation, repeatedly called her a 'coward') and never again returned to Foxhollow."

Despite  the  innovation of Quadrant  theory, Wilber’s  coverage  continued  to be lacking in historical analysis of the  perennial  philosophy,  which  remained a metaphysical  abstraction in his version. Instead  of  that necessity, he supplied an abridgment  of  his  longest  work  in  A  Brief  History of Everything (1996). The sequel was The Eye of  Spirit (1997).  There  was  again no historical analysis of religions  and  sects.  Instead, there was the claim that “modern day integral studies can do something about  which the great traditions [perennial philosophy] rather badly failed: they can trace the spectrum of consciousness not just in its intentional but also its behavioural, social, and  cultural manifestations.” (25)  The glorification of Quadrant theory here eclipsed the under-researched "perennial philosophy," which remained a toy of what could be called the American cultural  evolution (Up  From Eden)  complex.

Stanislav  Grof

The  same sequel  volume  presented “integral  art  and  literary  theory,” and  offered another  modified criticism of Grof  doctrine.  This   had  the  drawback  of describing  the  Esalen  hero  in  terms of “arguably the  world’s  greatest  living psychologist.” There  was  also the disclosure that “Stan  [Grof]  and  I  are in substantial agreement  about  many  of  the  central  issues   in human psychology, the spectrum of consciousness,  and  the realms of  the  human  unconscious.” (26) 

Grof  had  made  superficial  references to  the  obscured  perennial  factor  in his therapy books, and subsequently in The Cosmic Game (1998). That  strategy of Grof   served to promote a trademark enterprise (Holotropic Breathwork) encouraging hallucination  and  trauma (and also, by association, a degree of drug experimentation). Wilber  was not  a  holotropic  enthusiast, as  he  made  plain, and he had escaped LSD many  years before. Yet exegetical problems clearly persisted.

In this integral scenario,  we  have Wilber and  Grof (despite certain strong disagreements) pioneering great psychological  achievements in  the  transpersonal  sphere.   What does all this really amount to? The final chapter of The Eye of Spirit is markedly poetic, and totally remote from any research into the fabulated and diminished subject of perenniality  so frequently claimed. The chapter is called Always Ready: The Brilliant Clarity of Ever-Present Awareness.  Wilber  there  makes spectacular   statements  like the following:

“Thus, as I  right  now  rest  in this simple, ever-present Witness, I am face to face with Spirit.  I  am with  God today, and always, in this simple, ever-present, witnessing  state.”  (27)

Some  analysts  describe  these  poetic  assertions  in terms of  a  reassurance  factor.  Quadrant  theory  is not convincing  as  a  rationale  for  all  the  religious  and  sectarian manifestations, let  alone  the multiplicity  of  social  and  cultural  intricacies in addition.  The  poetry   was  an  accompaniment  to   “the guru and pundit” features  in  the  commercial  Cohen  magazine,  which  critics  say  has  failed  to answer the  looming  question: What  is  Enlightenment? 

Wilber’s  next  book  was  entitled  The  Marriage of  Sense and Soul (1998). This related to the integration or reconcilement of  science and religion. Many other authors have also dilated  upon  this  theme, which seems  no nearer  to  any effective  resolution.

4.8    Claim  to  Nondual  Experience

The  following  year  appeared  One  Taste: The  Journals  of  Ken  Wilber  (1999). This was  a  rather  more radical offering  than  former  works.  Wilber’s  diaries  here  date  to 1997, and  include extensive reference to his mystical experiences. The phrase “one taste” refers to  the  non-dual experience claimed  by Wilber, and which is perhaps reminiscent of his inspirer Adi Da.  Ken Wilber  details his daily routine as a writer, which included meditation and weightlifting.  He  suggests  that  his meditations have  enabled  him to personally experience all the stages of spiritual development that he has described in his spectrum model. The faithful Frank Visser stated that  “in these passages Wilber acts as an authentic spiritual teacher.”  (28)

The  claims  of  Ken  Wilber  in  respect  of  spiritual  experiences  are  quite  strong. “For Wilber, dreamless sleep, which is normally a period of unconsciousness, became a conscious experience.” (29) The implication is that the  frequent  spiritual  experiences  of  the  integralist  had  mastered  the  cycle of life  and  death. There are also contradictory  statements  such  as  “Who is not  already Enlightened ?” The  sense of  flippancy detracts from  the claims.

The Visser commentary refers very sympathetically to Wilber’s books and experiences,  and  indeed, virtually from the  perspective  of  a  follower. There are only  faint  hints of  any  necessity  for critique. Visser subsequently became a critic, and  personally experienced  a  backlash  from  the declared nondualist  and “Wild West” blogger who caricatured his critics as outlaws.  The taste had turned memorably  sour.

Reactions to One Taste have been varied. The options seem to be basically as follows:

1)  The partisan view that  the  nondual  experiences of Ken Wilber constitute advanced  mysticism.

2)   The critical  view that  those  experiences represent  rather  more preliminary stages  pertaining  to the basically  uncharted  “perennial  philosophy.” There are states of  mental  fixity  and  meditation  which are  quite different  from  the expansions   associated  with  the  “spiritual  path.”

3)  The  more  pronounced  mood  of denial  that  there  is  any  value  at  all  in such experiences, whether those of Wilber  or  other  claimants  to  spirituality.

One emphasis of Wilber which has received strong criticism is his frequent theme that meditation can accelerate the level of personal development. The disputed emphasis was repeated in One Taste (p. 263), and also on a CD entitled Kosmic Consciousness. The excursion into audio is reminiscent of new age celebrity tactics. Ken Wilber has demonstrated an awareness that meditation can also exert negative effects, although he has been accused of providing "only a very few warnings of the potential hazards." Go to http://www.integralworld.net/visser19.html.

4.9   The  Beck-Wilber  Alliance

The year after  One Taste  saw  the  publication  of  Integral   Psychology  (2000), which  gained  enthusiastic reviews  from  supporters.  There  have  been  more restrained  comments  from   sceptics. The  contested book starts  with  the  theme of perennial philosophy, referring  briefly  to  such  entities  as Coomaraswamy, Plotinus, and  Aurobindo.  However,  the  treatment  soon  develops  into   recent transpersonal  vistas on the Great  Nest of Being, with  references  to  Piaget, Gebser, and others. There is still no  in-depth analysis of  any  historical developments  in religion  over  the  many  centuries demoted,  and   instead readers  are treated  to  a description of  ideas  presented  by  such  very  recent theorists  as  Don Beck.

Dr. Don Beck was a management consultant and co-author of Spiral Dynamics: Mastering Values, Leadership, and Change (1996), assisted  by  his  former graduate student  Christopher  Cowan.  Beck  had been  a colleague of Professor  Clare Graves (1914-1986), an American  psychologist who elaborated eight different value levels. The Gravesian “emergent  cyclical levels of existence theory” appealed to management  theorists. Beck utilised  that  theory  and  introduced  the  concept  of “value memes.” Beck also inaugurated Spiral Dynamics Integral (SDI), which has been  dubbed “the Theory  that  Explains Everything.”  This tag is reminiscent of the Wilber project.

l to r: Don  Beck, Ken  Wilber

In  1999  Beck  engaged  with  Wilber, who  began to  promote  meme  theory. There  have  since  been criticisms  of  high  charges  made  for  SDI  workshops, which are part of  the  alternativist  commercial trend.  See Spiral Dynamics  and  the  Ken  Wilber  Crisis, which is  article  13.18  at  kevinrdshepherd.net. Click here. Cowan did not agree with the alliance, and remained independent of Wilber, gaining the repute of a critic. See 4.15 below.

The Beck-Cowan trend of exegesis was assimilated by Wilber with additional flourishes. This “meme” theory has aroused objections, positing eight stages of thought or value system, and allocating a colour identification to each one. The fifth is orange or scientific achievement.  The sixth is the green meme, signifying “the sensitive self: communitarian, human bonding, ecological sensitivity, networking.”   (30)  The first six memes are  denoted  by the phrase “first-tier thinking.” Stages seven and eight are emphasised as  being  much  more advanced, comprising second-tier thinking, the specified colours being  yellow and turquoise, the lastmentioned  meme comprising  a  “universal holistic  system.”  (31)

The  word  holistic  can  sound  alarm  bells  in  view of  some  other  recent  alternative  trends which extensively employ the same  word.  However, quite apart from the holistic conceptual jungle,  meme theory is considered simplistic  by  critics.  One  problem with  the  yellow-turquoise  zone  is  that  many alternativists imagine they inhabit  this  as  holistic experts, and  are  therefore  superior to  all  the other population sectors. More likely red for danger, say the sceptics. Depreciating references to “greens” have been known to occur, and this has aggravated confusions  about  holistic  spirituality  being transcendent of ecological  sensitivity (though Wilber criticises "green" in a more extensive value context).  Some  critics say  that  the  best  recourse  is  to  be colourless, so one cannot  be  identified  as inferior  by  those  in  more  presumably  elite  holistic  roles.

The Beck-Cowan theory imposes a very constricting tabulation for the first four memes.  These are described in terms of archaic-instinctive, magical-animistic, egocentrism and power-gods, and conformist or absolutist-religious. All these designations are  given a  chronological  context  in  the evolution of societies, though overlapping  with  later  retarded  characteristics  even  in  America. However, the unflattering assessment of so much  human  life  in the past  evidently  revolves  around twentieth century  American  alternative conceptualism.

Wilber  evidently  found  the  constrictions  of  meme  theory  attractively  convergent with  his  own hypothesis of “Up from Eden,” which  likewise  marches  forward (or upwards) to circa 1970 as  the  basic denominator  for progress.  Of  course, that  was when Ken Wilber and others started to think in the Esalen mode of therapy/mysticism/development, and   they  are  believed by supporters to have the upper hand over so much that went  before.  Wilber  is  noted  for  his  critique  of  the  narcissistic  baby boomers associated  with  that supposedly progressive  era (Boomeritis, 2002), though  other  problems have  passed  unrecognised.

The  green  meme  is  indicated  as  having  started  in  nineteenth  century  America, though  it  is  more strongly associated by Wilber with, e.g.,  ecology, postmodernism,  humanistic  psychology,  Greenpeace, Foucault/Derrida, and  human rights  issues.  However, the “second-tier thinking” of memes 7 and 8 is indicated as  having  started  amongst  a  smaller  number of  exemplars.  Meme 7 is process-oriented or “systematic” (Beck) and  “integrative” (Wilber),  while  meme  8 is synthesis-oriented  or “holistic” (Beck). The Beck-Cowan theory  (Spiral Dynamics)  is  said  to have  been successful in  solving social and business problems, though  critics maintain  that  a  great  deal of confusion has been  generated  in relation  to history, religion, and  psychology.

The Wilber critic Michel Bauwens has referred to the alliance  between Beck and Wilber as  being against  the explicit  wishes  of  Cowan.  Further,  reference  is  here made to a  disconcerting  accusation that  was  one consequence  of  the  alliance. “If  you did not follow Wilber and Beck, you  were immediately branded ‘green’ (backward if compared to ‘yellow’), if worse, you were afflicted by the Mean Green Meme, but in any case, guilty of first-tier thinking.” See  Bauwens, The Cult of Ken Wilber (2005).

Michel  Bauwens

Michel  Bauwens  is  a  Belgian  philosopher, sometimes  described  as  an integralist. He  was  a  fan of Wilber books  for  many years, but  eventually  became  critical.  He complains that  “the  encounter of  Ken Wilber with Don Beck has been an unmitigated  disaster.”  This  verdict  illustrates  the  informed discontent with  both sides of  the  alliance. “Colour  coding  has  become  a Stalinist  technique  to silence critics, to  make  a debate  on  the merits of  arguments impossible.”  Aversion to colour coding can be acute  in  view  of  such  strictures.  Bauwens also  accuses Spiral  Dynamics  of  operating  as  a business, being  “marketed to business and political leaders as a means of social  manipulation.”  See Michel Bauwens, A Critique of Wilber and Beck’s SD-Integral (2005).  

The  Beck-Wilber  alliance has since ended, and  Wilber  has  adapted  the  colour  coding  to  fit  his  own specific integralist format. Meme colours are still in favour on the Wilber video entitled Is an Integral World Federation Possible?" This is dated 25th March 2009, and comprises a talk of political complexion in the blog section at www.kenwilber.com. In recent years, Wilber has developed an increasingly political orientation.

4.10    Boomers, Green  Meme, and  Suppression

Ken Wilber's novel Boomeritis (2002) has been criticised on grounds of both style and content. This very contemporary offering was described in the preview by Frank Visser in terms of:

"Since its main subject was the pathology of extreme postmodernism, the novel was to embody most of its characteristics, by being heavily autobiographical, self-absorbed, provocative, and even shocking." (Visser, Ken Wilber: Thought as Passion, p. 230).

Boomeritis was certainly provocative, and not everyone agreed with the sub-title declaring this to be "a novel that will set you free."

What some readers deemed an invidious comparison  appeared in the Andrew Cohen magazine What Is Enlightenment ?  (abbreviation WIE).  This  was  in 2002, coinciding with   Boomeritis, and relating  to an interview with  Don  Beck, who like Wilber, was keen to feature in the supposedly holistic publication of the alternative circuit.  To quote from a critical source:

“In the pages of  WIE, a Christian nun  has  been  represented  as  being part of the ‘blue (absolutist) meme’ which arbitrarily  dates  back  to  5,000  years  ago.  Whereas an ageing hippy is depicted as being in the ‘green (egalitarian) meme’ commencing 150 years ago (WIE, Fall/Winter 2002, pp. 106-7).... This argument is aggravated for critical  attention because  of  Wilber’s  defence  of  his ‘boomer’ generation as the  first  one in  history ‘where a significant percentage was in fact at  this fairly  high pluralistic level of development’ (ibid., p. 41). This is a reference  to  the  green  egalitarian  meme who were  so far in advance  of previous religions  that  Wilber’s prowess in  perennial philosophy  is mythical.... The critical response to  these and  other  generalisations  and errors  requires to  be  firm and unambiguous.”  (32)

Unfortunately, the “boomer” generation associated with the late 1960s were not in general dedicated pluralists. Many of them subscribed to a rather vague and fashionable sense of the “progressive,” which basically decoded to drugs, sex, and loud music.  Enthusiasms  for  Eastern  mysticism were largely  superficial. Ken Wilber  was prudent  enough  to  take  only  one  dose of  LSD  (John Horgan, Rational Mysticism, 2003, p. 61), preferring meditation  and  study, though many others  were  less fortunate.  A  fair  number of  these  boomers  were sidetracked  by therapy  lures, and  too frequently became  candidates  for  psychiatry  because  of  their immoderate  consumerism in sensation and addiction.

If  one  compares  this  milieu  with earlier  environments, then, e.g.,  the Mohist tradition of  philosophy in ancient China  could  easily  appear  preferable, involving a contingent of self-educated men whose successors clarified terminology  to  an  extent  facilitating the conclusion “that  the  same  basic  linguistic process was occurring in the ancient Chinese language as in English during the seventeenth century when the language was reformed by the Royal Society.” (33)  By comparison, American  diction  was afflicted  by the  Dirty Speech Movement  of  the “pluralists,” whose  decadence  assisted  the  decline of Hollywood and related media into the unscientific distraction  of  video  garbage  and  affiliated entertainments.

The  Mohists  developed  their  tenets  in  the  wake  of  Mo Tzu  (Mozi), and  became a major school  of Chinese  philosophy  during  the  Warring States era (403-221 B.C.), predating  the Han dynasty.  Much is still obscure about  this  period, though the Mohists  are  thought  to  have  emerged  from  a  new  class of  craftsmen, merchants, and  soldiers  that  gained ascendancy. There was an egalitarian complexion to some  teachings, having an underlying  affinity with  the  peasantry,  whose  sons  were  recruited  into  the armies of  aristocrats. The  complex  tradition  of  Mohism  subsequently  disappeared  in  the  shadow  of Confucianism,  an ideology which  gained  the  key  role  in  official  circles  as  the  state  religion. 

Wilber is very critical of the green meme, despite the "Up from Eden" context. The Wilber novel Boomeritis (2002) is noted for a verdict on his generation (the baby boomers) as being narcissistic in tendency. This negative view is accompanied by the insinuation of nihilism, which is basically how Wilber views academic postmodernism. He has complained at the postmodernist argument that there is no generally valid or objective truth, the relative "truth" being determined by the society and culture to which the individual belongs. He is correct in some basic respects perhaps, though his adamance has been strongly contested.See 4.14 below.The academic scenario is rather varied.

My own confrontation with "postmodernism," occurring many years ago, found that the relativist philosopher of science Paul Feyerabend was a significant problem. Although it is now commonly believed that Feyerabend displaced the natural sciences, permitting other worldviews equality, he also promoted a rather flippant relativism that is too frequently overlooked. About this drawback, see my web article On Paul K. Feyerabend (2008).

The Visser commentary, extending Wilber's critique, refers  to  the  influence of the “green front” within the ranks of  transpersonalists.  Frank  Visser  here   states: “These circles now depict Western civilisation as an ethnocentric, eurocentric, racist,  and  rationalist  culture  that is  hostile to  nature, the body, and women, and embrace  the  counterparts  to  any  of  these  stances  as  a  form of spirituality.” (34)

l to r: Ken  Wilber, Kate Thomas

The victims in those circles have been miseducated by the alternative commerce, which is too often americentric. The assumption of countercultural non-suppression is disproven  by  such  factors as  the Findhorn Foundation suppression, excision, and libel of the major female  (British)  dissident  Kate Thomas. Too  many of the suppressors in her case were  complacent Americans preaching empty concepts of conflict resolution, unconditional  love, spirituality,  holistic therapy,  green freedom, low carbon footprint, peace, Grof  therapy, Beck Spiral  Dynamics, and  Ken  Wilber integralism.  (See  articles 1 and  3 and also 2.7 on  this  website.)  Beware  the purported memes  7 and  8, which are more problematic than Derrida and Foucault.

The (deceased) second wife of Ken Wilber, namely Treya (Terry) Killam, was a member of the Findhorn Foundation during the late 1970s. However, he himself had no obvious connection with that organisation (in Moray, Scotland) until 2009 (see 2.8 on this website). It is quite possible that Wilber did not know about the suppression tactics of the Findhorn Foundation, who are masters of evasionism and excised detail. The general situation in the new age requires due scrutiny from more responsible parties.

4. 11   Integral  Psychology  at  Issue

Returning  to  the  contested  pages of  Ken  Wilber’s  Integral  Psychology, the  format  adapts to  “some important modern  pioneers” of  the  integral approach, who transpire to be James Mark Baldwin, Jurgen Habermas, Shri Aurobindo, and  Abraham Maslow. It  is very unusual  to  find  the  first   two  names  in alternativist  formats,  though  the  last  two  are  relatively  common.

By page 87, we gain “Fruition,” which is part 3, and the final part.  This  denotes  Wilber’s  integral model, which now  claims  the  best in premodernity,  modernity, and  postmodernism.    Here we find, e.g., the “archaeology of Spirit”  and  a  rather  poetic  closing  chapter  entitled The Integral Embrace. An “all-level, all-quadrant” approach is advocated, ranging across disciplines such as science and  history to politics and business. There is reference to a threefold complexity: “integral psychology, integral therapy, and integral transformative practice” (p.193).

The  last  sentence  of  text (p. 194) refers to “the  ocean  of  One Taste, never really  lost, never  really found.” One of the accompanying charts (p. 200) includes the terminology of Adi Da along with that of Aurobindo and Vedanta.  The  taste  might  easily  turn  sour  for  the  enthusiasts   of  conflation. Transformative practice is in question.

The chapter entitled Sociocultural Evolution has received particular attention from some analysts. Wilber here commences  by  finding  fault  with  the Great  Chain (one of his terms for perennial philosophy). The contemporary psychologist declares “a truly integral approach” to remedy the major inadequacies he mentions. Wilber  stresses  that  the  Great  Chain  had  not  elucidated the  Four Quadrants on an adequate scale. American integralism is here in the ascendant. Wilber emphasises that strong criticisms had been made of the Great Chain since the German Enlightenment. He adds the postmodernist critique that consciousness is strongly conditioned by cultural background and social structure. (Integral Psychology, p. 143.)

The amorphous "Great Chain" covers rather a lot of traditions that receive only skeletal mention in the integralist format. Some of these are far from being negated by postmodernist contextualism, and nor by the Christianising accents of the German Enlightenment. Wilber is evidently referring to a "Great Chain" doctrine that he has extrapolated, though another interpretation of "perennial philosophy" does not approach the subject in this manner (and nor in the mode associated with Coomaraswamy and Schuon). Wilber's more recent emphasis upon a "post-metaphysical" slant is evidently concerned to compete with the doctrine he has selected for "traditional religion." See 4.15 below. This presentation is misleading from another exegetical standpoint.

One could easily deduce that Hegel’s version of  Islamic  philosophy  was  on  a par with the similar ignorance  of Wilber about  the  vast number of manuscripts in the relevant archives. While even Plotinus has not yet been appropriately decoded by American  integralism, it is perhaps unlikely that Arabic and Persian will  yield up all linguistic complexities  to any armchair convenience.

There is an obvious problem with regard to  linguistic  repertories that require bridging  between different cultures.  For instance, the Muslim falasifa  (philosophers) mediated  Greek  philosophy  insofar as linguistic channels permitted in  their  own  era. The  Platonist, Neoplatonist, and Aristotelian components of their heritage have all been credited with perennial relevance elsewhere, though  Ken Wilber’s particular  configuration of  the Great  Chain  is  strongly  rooted  in  Mahayanist   thought  and neo-advaita “nondualism.” American  English  is basically  unfamiliar  with Greek and Arabic, and so a few things may have been missed out  here and there in spectrum  theory  and  the  sequel.

We  are  told  that  one of  the  inadequacies “in  the  traditional  Great  Chain is its lack of understanding of evolution, an understanding that is also a rather exclusive contribution of  the  modern West” (Integral Psychology, p. 144).  The integralist  definition of  “Great Chain”  is  at  issue.  Wilber  was evidently unaware  of  such  basic data as is afforded, e.g., by the Iranian  Muslim  polymath and scientist  Abu Raihan al-Biruni  (973-1048).  For  instance, the  latter’s well  known  India  (Tahqiq ma l’il Hind) comprises a historiographical  work of some note elsewhere, to  the extent  that  al-Biruni  has been called  the  father of  Indology. A reference in that work has considerable significance for evolutionism.  To quote one commentary:

“The India  had been available in an English translation for some fifty years  before T. I. Rainow  called attention  to  the fact  that  Darwinian  theory  had  been expounded by  Biruni more  than  eight  hundred years before  publication of  the  theory of  natural selection.”  (35)

Ken Wilber  also  omits  to  mention  a much more recent evolutionist work, composed by a Persian-speaking Irani Zoroastrian,  that was  published  during the 1950s in such an obscure metropolis as New York. The language  was  English, though  featuring many Arabic, Persian, and Sanskrit words. It would doubtless be quite useless to mention the name  of  the  Irani  integralist  author, in view of  the more  exclusive  accents  found  in the new  world. (36)  Obviously, this  rather  up  to date contribution was too  much  for American  integralism to cognise, the  preference  instead  being  for, e.g.,  ambiguous antique  Zen  koans, contemporary  American crazy wisdom,  and   Esalen  Aurobindo.

The new age (and baby boomer) cult of Aurobindo in California was one of the components employed by the commercial drive of Esalen workshops. Though the Arabo-Persian lexicon is so unfashionable in transpersonal and integralist sectors, it is arguable that  the  foreign pronunciations  are  more authentic  for  “Great Chain” commentary  than  the  very recent  language of  American “Up from Eden” adventures  in pleroma/uroboros, magical/typhonic, and centaur,  while not  forgetting the  highly  coloured meme vocabulary and AQAL omniscience.  As for  Sanskrit  Vedanta, Wilber  has associated  that  with  Adi Da  nondualism  (pseudo-advaita), a distortion which  effectively disables  the original context. The Marathi  inflections would  be  even more obscure in sectors eschewing such dimensions.

Readers  are  told  by  integralism  that  “the  contributions of  Western  psychology are decisive” (Integral Psychology, p. 144).  This  is a reference to the early development  of  the  individual  until  adolescence and after.  We  are  informed  that  there are “at  least  four major stages of growth: magic (2-5 years), mythic (6-11 years), rational (11 onward), and  integral-aperspectival  or  vision-logic (adulthood, if then).”

The absence of such (controversial)  formulations  is here the cue for Wilber to accuse “most of  the perennial philosophy” of “substantial stretches of superstition.” (ibid.).  The  Up  from  Eden strategy appears to have developed a superiority complex.  Spectrum  theory  leads to an  integralism  in  which the  Western  wins  over  the  Eastern, though  the  claims of  One Taste  are  clearly  rooted  in  neo-Mahayanist  meditation associated with the "boomeritis" era.

It  may  be  added that  Western  adolescents are currently one of the major drawbacks in British society. Yob syndromes and manifestations have not benefited from the supposed advances of  Western psychology, which has  been in  such  disarray  for  the past several decades that some affiliates actually migrated to anthropology and sociology in the hope of more clarity.

The disconcerting vista is one of Freudians versus Jungians versus cognitivists versus transpersonalists versus yet other tributaries of  the  burgeoning logjam. This indecisive  situation  has proved  too  much  for citizen patience to endure, at least in my case.

Pressing his vision-logic even further, Ken  Wilber  insists  that  the  Great Chain “failed to grasp the types  of  psychopathologies that often stem from complications at  these early stages” (ibid.).  He adds that meditation will not cure these problems, in  which case we are less obliged to accept One Taste as a manual of  wisdom.  It has been rather obvious for  many years  that  numerous  meditators do not gain enlightenment.

Wilber’s  optimistic  resort  (evident in some other texts) of  viewing  the  “nondual  adept”  Adi  Da as a blend of enlightenment and psychopathology, is unconvincing. This  compromise is arguably  one  more symptom of the severe confusion created by the “Up from Eden” neo-Esalen trend in permissive "new age" America. 

4.12    Missing  History  of  the  Great  Chain   

There  are  further  significators  in  the  worldview of Integral Psychology.  The  chapter  on  sociocultural evolution  moves  on  to  celebrate  Jean  Gebser  and  other  aspects of Quadrant theory. “For several decades the  green  meme successfully  fought any evolutionary thinking in academia” (ibid., p. 148). The reference  is  to twentieth  century  developments,  and  indicates  the  assimilation  of  Beck  meme  theory. The  message  is that we  should  move from  green  to  yellow-turquoise,  a  transition  signifying  “from pluralistic relativism  to universal  integralism”  (ibid., p. 145).

The implications are that the  perennial philosophy has been superseded in this presumed achievement   by  the American  neo-perennial Great  Chain, which is the field of  Quadrant theory, meme colours, and Great  Nest poetry. The only tangible reference to antique “Great Chain” history occurs in a  few  lines  extolling  nondualism and  Vajrayana  Buddhism.  To  quote:

“The great  Nondual  traditions  began  around  200 CE, especially with such figures as Nagarjuna and Plotinus; but these  traditions, particularly  in  their  advanced forms as Tantra, began  to  flower  in  India around  the  eighth to  the  fourteenth  century.”  (37)

Neither Nagarjuna  or Plotinus were nondualist  in the conflatory sense assumed here. Significantly, Nagarjuna has  been  presented  by specialist scholarship as being in affinity with the earliest phase of Buddhism. For a commentary, see my web entry Nagarjuna (2008).

The Emptiness doctrine of Nagarjuna is not Advaita (nondualism), and has no similarity to the teaching of Plotinus. Furthermore, neither of these misunderstood figures  had  any  connection with Tantra, despite the much later legends adhering to Nagarjuna.  Advaita Vedanta was also quite a different subject  to Tantra (whether Hindu or Buddhist). Integralist  nondualism  is a  hybrid of attributions that are unconvincing  to  scholarship. Moreover, the pseudo-nondualist  Adi  Da can  be  described  as  a left hand  Tantric of  the more ominous  kind, discernibly indulging in a form of vampirism that is mentioned in some antique texts associated  with Tantric license.   (38)

4.13    The  “Everything”  Model  Disputed

Transpersonal  psychology  became  integral psychology  in the  Wilber  model.  (39) Via  Quadrant   theory and related  innovations, the  Up  from  Eden exemplar  has  replaced  the  largely  unplumbed  perennial philosophy with a contemporary "post-metaphysical" format that  is controversial. See 4.15 below.  Yet Wilber nevertheless claims to combine the "enlightenment of the East" with the "enlightenment of the West, " to borrow from a recent description provided by Integral Books.

The integralism of Wilber is basically concerned with spirituality, though he has claimed an outreach in diverse disciplines. He employed the term vision-logic, and the full development of this he equated with the turquoise or holistic meme in "second-tier thinking." Conceptions of "holistic" have in general varied, and that fashionable word has met with objections as a questionable significator,  (40) especially in the direction of new age commerce and the so-called "holistic movement."

Despite  the  strong  popularity of  Ken  Wilber  paperbacks  in  the  alternativist  zone, the number of critics increased, regarding the integral  model of  “Everything” as being   too theoretical  and flawed. Various  aspects of Ken  Wilber’s role came under query, including his  new  Integral Institute, which notably  encompassed  the controversial guru figure Andrew Cohen.  The Institute commenced in 1998, and was still at a formative stage in 2000, when the founder composed a statement of objective including the phrase: "this integral vision attempts to honour and integrate the largest amount of research from the greatest number of disciplines" (Frank Visser, Ken Wilber: Thought as Passion, 2003, p. 237).

The disciplines specified in that summary statement were the natural sciences, art, ethics, religion, psychology, politics, business, sociology, and spirituality. Neurology and ecology were allocated to the natural sciences. The inclusion of business aroused query. The founding members are listed as including Andrew Cohen, Michael Murphy (of Esalen), Deepak Chopra, Don Beck, and Frank Visser (along with many others).

The strongly advertised project has recently become the Integral Institute Inc., being based in Colorado. The website integralinstitute.org has been described as commercial. That site certainly does invite the visitor to "subscribe and get naked" (accessed February 2009). The phrase Integral Naked has become a strongly visible component, and in relation to that enticement, there is the phrase "hot philosophy, sexy ideas."In other words, the vaunted integralism is oriented to the American consumer society.

The same website informs that Integral Naked is a lifestyle. There are some who resist the prospect quite strongly. We are also told that:

"Integral Naked is the world's first multimedia portal into Integral consciousness, featuring hundreds of hours of audio and video conversations with today's greatest thinkers."

The  friction with resisting assessment  climaxed in the “Wild West” blog episode of 2006, in which Wilber denounced his critics, who by then included Frank Visser. (41)  Wilber here compared himself to Marshal Wyatt Earp, being  obliged  to  deal  with the  outlaws. Unfortunately, his  blog  attack  did  not convince  sceptics  that he was  justified  in  his  argument. Furthermore, international  critics  noted  the Wilber blog degeneration into  vulgar American  language  of  the  type  favoured  in  Hollywood  trash videos.

The  formerly  partisan  Frank  Visser  has  criticised  the  recent  books  of  Ken Wilber.  For  instance, the Dutch commentator  describes  The  Integral Vision (2007) as “a rehash of material” from Integral Spirituality (2006), [see 4.15 below] and was evidently not impressed by “a lot of flashy techno-erotic illustrations” that were added to the sequel work mentioned.  See Visser, Wilber  Assessment Versus Advertising, September 19 2007, at http://wilberwatch.blogspot.com.  Some  analysts  have  been similarly sceptical  of a  rather lurid  animation  device  which  appears on a  Wilber website. Elements spelling commercial appeal  are  no  proof  of content performance at  the  intellectual  level. 

Jeff  Meyerhoff

Supporting the critical assessments of Frank Visser (and others) appearing on the web, a notable contribution came from the American Jeff Meyerhoff, in the online book entitled Bald Ambition: A Critique of Ken Wilber's Theory of Everything (2003). This is a systematic analysis of the subject from a "contextualist" standpoint. A number of rather significant factors are there addressed. For a lengthy review, see Andrew P. Smith, Contextualizing Ken (2004), likewise at integralworld.net.

Meyerhoff is bold in his confrontation. For instance, he contests and dismisses vision-logic, a phrase frequently used by his subject. This claimed faculty is described by Wilber as superior on the grounds of transcending and including rationality, integrating all that has come before (Bald Ambition, chapter 3).The critique also disputes such topics as holarchy (holons and quadrants etc.), Wilber mysticism, and the integral version of social evolution and Western history.

The rather exotic theme of Ascenders and Descenders,as applied to Western events, gained expression in Sex, Ecology, Spirituality (known as SES), but Meyerhoff is iconoclastic. "Wilber's hope for a grounded spirituality which integrates ascending and descending approaches is attractive, but he has not demonstrated that Western civilisation is driven by those forces and heading towards that resolution" (Bald Ambition, chapter 6). Click here.

The psychology theory also comes under fire. Wilber has relied upon the developmental model of Jean Piaget, though Meyerhoff reveals that this has been challenged strongly elsewhere and even described as having collapsed. Similarly, Wilber's elevation of Lawrence Kohlberg meets with resistance. Meyerhoff observes that, although Wilber cites legitimate sources to support his belief in Kohlberg's model, "he neglects to inform his readers of other sources that validate the opposite view" (Bald Ambition, chapter 2). Click here.

Such features of approach have aroused indignation at Wilber's preferential tactic of exegesis, leading to the accusation of an ambitious theory which is structurally unsound due to various components in question. The transpersonal integralist version of "perennial philosophy" is another target for the contextualist counter. For instance, Meyerhoff is keen to cite Professor Steven Katz on the neglected subject of Shankara's heated polemics with Buddhist opponents and theistic Hindu interpreters. The basic point here is that the contextualist (or constructivist) orientation asserts disagreement amongst mystical traditions (ibid., chapter 4). I have myself drawn attention to the obvious division between Advaita Vedanta and Mahayana Buddhism, not to mention the other schools of classical Hindu philosophy. To quote:

"He (Shankara) was dogmatic enough in his attack on Buddhism, and ideas of a perennial philosophy should have been revised by Aldous Huxley while his brain was still relatively clear. Shankara argued for Brahman, the Buddhists for Emptiness and non-Brahman. If certain experiences were the same in both religions, then such a factor was lost upon diverse exponents, Gaudapada excepted (and his early Advaita text is problematic). Shankara emphasised discrimination between self [atman] and not-self; the Buddhists did not recognise any atman." (42)

However, my own version of textual interpretation is not conducted from within a constructivist framework, even if a degree of convergence does occur in some respects. It has always seemed obvious to me that the "perennial philosophy" is a contradictory concept at the level of doctrinal formulations and religious rivalries. The only feasible validity is at an experiential level, which is unfortunately elusive. Linguistic formats are like sectarian programmes: they become anachronistic. Retrospective updating requires versatile (and detailed) philosophical analysis, which seems to be rare. That recourse must inevitably include a degree of scholarship (however independent) to grant basic confirmations.

Chapter 7 of Bald Ambition is entitled Poststructuralism and Postmodernism. Click here. Meyerhoff says that:

"Wilber's integral project can be read as a reaction to what he sees as the fragmenting effects of poststructuralism and postmodernism. Wilber tries to create one great Kosmic narrative which incorporates poststructural truths, while not succumbing to the relativism and nihilism he diagnoses in extreme postmodernism."

Jacques Derrida

Meyerhoff then moves on to the poststructural entity Jacques Derrida, whose "deconstruction" method evolved in opposition to the structuralism of Claude Levi-Strauss. Derrida deconstruction has been very influential outside France, but as Meyerhoff observes, this "anti-method" approach "does not provide a clear-cut positive program to replace what has been deconstructed." Another poststructuralist is also mentioned, namely Michel Foucault, though without dwelling on the controversial nature of thesadomasochistic impulse which inspired his death by AIDS. (43)

According to Meyerhoff, the poststructural critique asserts radical propositions such as: "differing perspectives are not reconcilable into some larger scheme... the natural sciences offer no epistemological certainty... humanism which places 'man' at the center of all things is an intellectual and historical fiction; and meta-narratives, which attempt to describe the history of humanity or existence, crush differences and are exclusive while trumpeting integration" (ibid., chapter 7).

The commentator then accuses Wilber of sidestepping this critique and conveying the idea that postsructuralism essentially agrees with his "holarchic view," being driven by "a conception of holons within holons, of texts within texts within texts (or contexts within contexts within contexts)." Meyerhoff is here citing Wilber's magnum opus Sex, Ecology,Spirituality (SES), which did evidence a degree of preoccupation with the critique. The commentator then argues that the Wilber system "exemplifies the intellectual excesses that poststructuralism arose to attack." The excesses are defined as:

"the centrality of Man; the simplistic historical story-telling; the unproblematic use of language as transparent conveyer of truth; the purported creation of an inclusive system of integrated partial truths which denies profound differences; his unexplained role as teller of the Kosmos's story; the essentializing of the subjective realm in the face of the decentering of the subject in structuralism and deconstruction" (ibid.).

It may be observed here that criticism of the Wilber system does not require poststructuralist argument, as in my own case. I have elsewhere made a point of standing against deconstruction without denying Derrida the civilised right to a hearing in critical sectors. See my web article On Jacques Derrida and deconstruction (2008). The anti-scientific and anti-humanist tendencies of poststructuralism do not arouse admiration or endorsement in other fields. Nevertheless, the basic point of Meyerhoff's response is to emphasise that Ken Wilber integralism has evaded "any relativistic difficulty."

Part of the Wilber problem is discernibly a habit of attempting to integrate discrepant factors within his system of "Everything." Esalen, Adi Da, Andrew Cohen, and Beck meme theory are some points of convergence in dispute. One of the reasons why Iexpressed such a pointed disavowal of Paul Feyerabend's relativism (in my first book Psychology in Science) was my conviction that Dadaistic flippancy has no place in viable philosophy or psychology. That flippancy has since made such inroads into "postmodernism" that I feel quite justified in a non-integral approach. The contest against "anything goes" continues, even if that also means opposing deficient integralism.

Reverting to Meyerhoff, he goes on to state that the poststructuralist "emphasis on the mediation of knowledge by language has engendered an intellectual approach called constructivism." The constructivist angle relates to "knowledge of the world as a construction rather than as a discovery of what is simply there."

Constructivism is strongly associated with Professor Steven Katz, who edited the work Mysticism and Philosophical Analysis (1978). This is well known as running counter to "perennial philosophy" cliche. Meyerhoff emphasises that constructivism posed a "great obstacle" for Wilber. The impediment arose because:

"Constructivists argue that it is language that allows us to have a conscious experience of what we conceive of as reality; language arises from socio-cultural contexts, one aspect of which is religious traditions; mystical practices are embedded within the particular worldviews of these religious traditions; these contexts determine the content and form of the mystical experiences that spiritual practitioners have" (Bald Ambition, chapter 7).

The basic idea involved here is that all mystical experiences are mediated by language, cultural conditioning,and mental concepts.

Meyerhoff analyses Wilber's response to Katz theory, and finds this to be confused. He observes that in SES, Wilber quotes the statement of Katz: "there are no pure (i.e. unmediated) experiences." According to Meyerhoff, Wilber misleadingly omitted the qualification from Katz that this represents the "single epistemological assumption" (of Katz). It was not claimed as an absolute truth, but as an assumption that Katz was trying to prove in his books. According to Meyerhoff, the Wilber response is extreme and contradictory, and resorted to using a misinterpeted quote from Derrida as a counter. This recourse is viewed as an attempt to transform (the relativistic) Derrida into an intellectual ally against constructivism. Wilber is construed as indulging in "silly invectives" via his conclusion that:

"Katz's position is a blunder of half-baked neo-Kantian aphorisms, pressed into the service of a deconstructive atmosphere of self-contradictory(and self-congratrulatory) rhetoric. It is shot through with aperspectival madness, the dominant form of intellectual insanity for the postmodern mind. As therapia, let Katz answer Habermas; we'll talk with the winner." (Wilber, SES, 1995, p. 603.)

The same phrase "shot through" was also applied to the Gnostics and other ascetic "ascenders" who reaped the displeasure of the contemporary integralist (see 4.6 above). Even Theravada Buddhism was disowned, and so Gautama Buddha (not to mention Mahavira the ascetic Jain) is apparently less relevant than Derrida and Habermas.

There is a different way to counter the constructivist argument, and without becoming a quasi-integralist (or a pseudo-integralist). Katz was ambivalent in his statement, relayed by Meyerhoff, that "it is not being argued either that mystical experiences do not happen, or that what they claim may not be true, only that there can be no grounds for deciding this question, i.e., of showing that they are true even if they are, in fact true." If those experiences happen, and may be true, then the grounds for decision should remain open.

If a transcendent experience cannot be put into words (as many maintain), then lesser experiences can, depending upon the degree of language skill and cultural receptivity. The grounds for decision may vary in respect to the receptivity factor and the degree of mature perception. In the commercial sector associated with Esalen, almost any experience can be enthusiastically received and promoted, though the disadvantages are legion in the case of, say, LSD therapy or Holotropic Breathwork. Even Ken Wilber cannot prove that his "One Taste" is any advanced form of non-dualism, as distinct from an introduction to more transcendent achievements.

Coming back to Meyerhoff, he poses such poststructuralist questions as: "How do we legitimise truth-claims when there appears to be no foundation from which to legitimise truth?" One could answer that it is better to try in the direction of scientific (or even scholarly) verification rather than opt for the masochistic path to AIDS that was the resort of Foucault. Derrida was more sophisticated, but not necessarily correct in his pessimistic verdict that "there is nothing outside the text." Wilber may have been trying much harder, though his meta-narrative has invited pronounced cautions.

The dispute now moves into the deep waters of antique texts. Meyerhoff observes that Wilber has selected Nagarjuna and Plotinus as philosophical exemplars, to whom "all Nondual roads lead." The integralist version of both these figures has been considered misleading. Nagarjuna is an even more difficult subject than the Neoplatonist, and Meyerhoff gives some idea of the complexities from a poststructuralist standpoint. In SES, Wilber opted for an outdated work on Nagarjuna without covering the more extensive literature on that problematic exegete. The favoured book was T.R.V. Murti, The Central Philosophy of Buddhism: A Study of the Madhyamika System (1955). This was described by Wilber as "the finest treatment of Nagarjuna in English."

Murti's analysis relied substantially upon the commentary of Candrakirti, an interpreter who lived several centuries after Nagarjuna. The Murti version did gain high praise, but this was later modified when, e.g., Candrakirti came into query for some of his interpetations. However, Meyerhoff does not mention this, and instead follows the poststructuralist revision in terms of the absolute and the relative.

The revision explains that Murti wanted to clear Nagarjuna from the charge of nihilism. Yet Murti also wished to be faithful to "the radically skeptical nature of Nagarjuna's argumentation." So he argued for an absolute component in the ostensibly nihilist philosophy of the Indian Buddhist, who lived nearly two thousand years ago. The paradoxical presentation was enthusiastically claimed by Wilber, who in this manner assumed a formative version of nondualism that is associated with Advaita Vedanta.

The stress on Emptiness (shunyata) found in Nagarjuna is complex. Shorn of the absolute factor, that doctrine appears relativist, and has been welcomed as such by the poststructuralists. Nagarjuna argued that all existent things are "empty," no enduring substance being present. His major work comprises aphoristic verses arranged in 27 chapters, and is entitled Mulamadhyamakakarika (Basic Verses on the Middle Way).

Yet there are different versions of the "relativist" Nagarjuna, some of these not being influenced by poststructuralism in any way. The argument of the Indian Buddhist was set against a complex background of differences between Buddhist exponents at the point of juncture between the Hinayana and Mahayana traditions. He cannot be seriously understood without reference to that background in time. One versatile specialist interpretation disavowed the Mahayanist associations preferred elsewhere.

Nagarjuna has been viewed by some scholars as being in strong affinity with Hinayana, meaning that he was relating to the early Buddhism prior to Mahayana. By implication here, he was neutral to both traditions, and perhaps a nascent Mahayanist, with an orientation very different to that of the later Mahayana which is more well known. The commentary of Candrakirti came under criticism as moving towards a Vedantic interpetation. That was the conclusion of Professor Kalupahana, who also stated in relation to a verse of Nagarjuna's major treatise:

"His [Candrakirti's] commentary on this [negativist] verse is more than one tenth of his entire work, and it is a stupendous commentary filled with lots of metaphysical trivia and diatribes, mostly directed at Bhavaviveka and the Svatantrika tradition." (44)

Bhavaviveka may have lived in the fifth century CE, shortly before Candrakirti. His school is known as Svatantrika, meaning the "independent," in the sense of independent arguments being created. Bhavaviveka composed a commentary on Nagarjuna's major work, in which he argued that logical proofs were required to elucidate the compressed verses of his predecessor. This event was part of the developing Madhyamaka tradition, meaning the school associated with Nagarjuna which eventually transferred to Tibet.

The commentary of Bhavaviveka includes a critique of rival traditions, notably the Vijnanavada, and extending to the Hindu schools such as Vedanta and Sankhya. He frowned upon the daring Vijnanavada (Yogachara) innovation of thusness (tathata) as ultimate reality, described as empty but nevertheless real. Bhavaviveka criticised this doctrine as leading to Brahmanism (Hinduism). The reserve is significant in this Mahayanist trend of exegesis. Professor Warder expressed one aspect of the emerging complexity for Bhavaviveka and other interpreters:

"The ultimate reality or 'thusness' is not an existing eternal entity like the brahman of the Vedanta and similar 'realities' of other schools, although other philosophers have occasionally had correct intuitions and even given correct formulations of its nature. The fact of occasional agreements with Vedanta and other statements does not imply that the Madhayamika doctrine is false (as critics of the early [Mahayana] schools had suggested, holding that the Mahayanists had gone over to the Vedists with their conception of an ultimate reality and abandoned the doctrine of the Buddha)." (45)

The route to Buddhist Tantra was effectively opened, with an underlying infiltration of Shaiva teachings from Hinduism. The laconic Nagarjuna verses on Emptiness were faithfully preserved over many generations, and the content has aroused criticism from some scholars. Professor Snellgrove affirmed:

"Despite their claim to truly represent the Middle Way, the Madhyamikas tended to exceed in their use of the via negativa, and they were certainly regarded by their opponents, Buddhist as well as non-Buddhist, as all but nihilists." (46)

That observation tends to reflect the attitude of Shankara, the pivotal exponent of Advaita Vedanta who clashed with the Buddhist logicians, at perhaps circa 800 CE. He treated Buddhism as a heresy denying the Veda. Some have suggested thatShankara did not understand Madhyamaka philosophy, though it can equally well be argued that the opponents did not understand Advaita.

Ken Wilber makes only fleeting references to Shankara, despite the overwhelming significance of Advaita (Nondualism) in hisown (Wilber's) exposition. Nondualism did not exist in Buddhism, according to many scholars. The aberrant version of Advaita associated with Adi Da Samraj is no compensation for the general confusions. The present writer mentioned a few of those confusions in an earlier work:

"None of the relevant scholarship is mentioned in popular works like Ken Wilber's neo-Hegelian treatise on evolution, which lends a 'Dharmakaya' sense of overwhelming priority to the Buddhist Madhyamaka philosopher Nagarjuna in relation to early Vedantic matters. Wilber states of Nagarjuna that 'his thinking/contemplation had a far-reaching influence on Shankara' (Up From Eden, p. 249). No supporting evidence is supplied for this unqualified affirmation, which tends to make of perennial philosophy a matter of doctrinal influences loaded in favour of Buddhism. Furthermore, Shankara is described by the same writer as the 'founder of Vedanta Hinduism,' which is also misleading. Such popular assumptions have the effect of obscuring the earlier Vedantic tradition, and are objectionable when made in the context of an evolutionary improvement upon the Upanishadic era so facilely relegated by transpersonalism." (Minds and Sociocultures Vol. One, 1995, p. 664.)

4.14   The  Postmodernism  Problem

Over the years, I have heard and read various definitions of postmodernism. These sometimes conflicted, and I was occasionally perplexed by the discrepancies. What exactly is postmodernism? Is it a deceptive creation of avant garde intellectuals? Some say that the phenomenon commenced with Foucault, Derrida, Feyerabend, and related figures. The 1960s would appear to be the pivotal era. There have been various disconcerting references to Nietzsche as the ancestor of this trend. Poststructuralism tends to gain high rating as a major component of the ongoing conceptualism involved.

l to r: Ken  Wilber, Jeff  Meyerhoff

Ken Wilber has made strong references to postmodernism, and has contributed the integral version of this phenomenon. These references were covered by his critic Jeff Meyerhoff in chapter 7 of the online book Bald Ambition. I will attempt to distill some of the significances here.

Meyerhoff expresses a basic caution. "That the phenomenon of postmodernism even exists, let alone what its nature is, is highly debateable and it has spawned an enormous literature mainly in social and cultural studies" (Meyerhoff, Bald Ambition, chapter 7). Click here.

The Wilber references are decoded by Meyerhoff to mean:

"Wilber takes for granted that our current social world is postmodern, but, unlike those who try to describe and explain this world, he tends to think of postmodernism as naming a world-view....for him the 'ism' on the end of the word postmodernism suggests a belief-system like the words Marxism or Judaism." (Ibid.).

The probe further locates three "insights of postmodernism" appropriated by Wilber, who "tries to incorporate these insights while identifying and criticizing the extremes, and offering a remedy through his integral synthesis." These three insights are referred to by Wilber in terms of constructivism, contextualism, and integral-aperspectivalism. The lastmentioned isa phrase borrowed fromJean Gebser, and signifies pluralism or the respect for multiple perspectives.

These insights are treated as "an historical advance over the modern rational consciousness," but have also developed extreme symptoms according to Wilber. Constructivism represents the idea that reality is a construction. "The degree to which interpretation affects our description of reality is an advance over modernity's unthinking realism." Yet the extreme of this idea is the emphasis that there is nothing but interpretation, a concept militating against any objective truth, which is a possibility shunned by poststructuralists. An example of this extreme is the well known Derrida maximthat "there is nothing outside the text."

Contextualism refers to "the boundlessness of contexts," and in relation to the idea expressed as "the meanings that we interpret to understand the world are context-dependent." Meanings are "intersubjective creations" arising from diverse personal, social, and other contexts. This idea is attended by the proviso that there is no ultimate context (because contexts are boundless), and the extreme of this approach is a destructive relativism and nihilism in which no perspective is deemed superior to any other.

Pluralism similarly becomes extreme relativism when no ranking of perspectives is considered possible. Individual depths of consciousness are then seen as "a socially created illusion of modernity and nothing more than crisscrossing societal forces." Further, the Wilber model claims that modernity denied individual depths via scientific reductionism, and that postmodernism accomplishes a similar denial via linguistic reductionism.

Meyerhoff urges that there are problems with the Wilber critique of postmodernism. "Wilber accuses extreme postmodern thinkers of denying reality to the objective world and for asserting that no view is better than any other, contradictorily assuming that their view is better than all others; yet he never quotes any postmodern thinker asserting these extreme views" (ibid.).

Meyerhoff goes on to state that one extreme postmodern thinker (Stanley Fish) has explicitly denied anti-realism and moral relativism. The critic adds that there are non-postmodernists who do deny reality to the objective world, meaning university philosophers in America and Britain who argue for anti-realism. (It is relevant to supplement here that Professor Fish has gained much criticism in academic ranks, including the accusation of extreme relativism from Professor Martha Nussbaum, the philosopher who accused him of sophistry in her book Love's Knowledge, published in 1990.)

The critic then emphasises how Wilber "also exaggerates the extent that extreme postmodernism has taken over the university and culture in general." The integralist is noted for identifying the "green meme" with extreme postmodernists, and this equation underlies his assertion that "the green meme dominates virtually all of conventional academia and countercultural academia" (ibid., citing an internet source).

Here Meyerhoff can interpose that Wilber is not keeping due sociological track of what is actually occurring in the American universities. A new trend has there been in operation that:

"is away from degrees and classes in the humanities and social sciences and towards degrees in business, accounting, communications, computers and marketing; this is a fundamental and pervasive shift away from the traditional idea of a liberal education that teaches critical thinking, to a vision of college as vocational education." (Ibid.).

If that commercial orientation continues, then American universities could indeed be viewed as a retrogressive problem, whether or not there is any postmodernism involved. Most of the students will not even get to the stage of reading Derrida or Feyerabend.

Meyerhoff has declared his interest in the contributions of Richard Rorty (1931-2007), the American philosopher who has the repute of being a deconstructionist. Meyerhoff has stated on his blog that "I like reading those who undermine philosophical attempts at certainty, absolutes, foundations, essences, finding the Truth, etc." This reflection comes from Meyerhoff, "The Interplay of Personal Psychology and Philosophy" May 15, 2009, at www.philosophyautobiography.blogspot.com.

I am not myself a fan of Rorty, and have far more interest in confirming certainty, doubt being too easy an alternative. The problem being that claims to certainty can also confuse, similar to the pedigrees of doubt going back to Nietzsche.

The Wilber audio system has been active in replying to critics like Meyerhoff. See the PDF entry "Ken Responds to Recent Critics: Mark Edwards, Jeff Meyerhoff, and Others" (2006) at www.kenwilber.com/Writings/PDF. Very briefly, Wilber proved tolerant towards his mild critic Mark Edwards, but was dismissive of the more relentless Jeff Meyerhoff.

It is obvious that prodigious scope for confusion exists in relation to the postmodernism issue. Wilber's basic delivery on this subject was contained in chapter 13 of his book Integral Psychology. The relevant chapter is entitled From Modernity to Postmodernity. The language is strongly coloured by integralist terminology. For example:

"To say cognitive development evolves from formal to postformal is to say that cultural evolution moves from modern to postmodern; this is, of course, a complex, four-quadrant affair....This vision-logic not only can spot massive interrelationships, it is itself an intrinsic part of the interrelated Kosmos, which is why vision-logic does not just represent the Kosmos, but is a performance of the Kosmos."( Integral Psychology, 2000, pp. 167-8.)

Some find this vocabulary overpowering, or rather disconcerting. This particular statement arose from a celebration of Jean Gebser and the German Idealists, and is followed by the assertion that "vision-logic evolutionarily became conscious of itself in Hegel" (ibid., p. 168). Further, "Saussure took vision-logic and applied it to language" (ibid.). Ferdinand de Saussure is claimed as an ancestor by poststructuralism, and now by integralism. Can any mistakes have been made in this glowing portrayal of Kosmos vision-logic ?

Wilber then launches into the "bad news" about extreme postmodernism, mentioned above. He seems correct enough in stating certain of the views which gained circulation, such as "all voices should be treated equally, with no marginalising and no judging" (ibid., p. 171). In that way, SUNY Press could publish Grof's enticement to LSD therapy entitled Beyond the Brain (1985). The full casualty rate is unknown, though post-1960s psychedelic consumption is believed to have substantially increased in academic circles as a consequence. However, this realistic detail is not mentioned by Wilber, who moves on to announce that "constructive postmodernism, on the other hand, takes up the multiple contexts freed by pluralism, and then goes one step further.... pluralistic relativism gives way to integral holism" (ibid., p. 172).

What is the nature of the new transition achieved by constructive postmodernism ? A list of achievers is given in this respect, one of whom is Don Beck, who gains an eulogy in the penultimate paragraph of the relevant chapter. "In the terms of Spiral Dynamics, the great strength of postmodernism is that it moved from orange scientific materialism to green pluralism, in a noble attempt to be more inclusive....but the downside of green pluralism is its subjectivism and relativism" (ibid.). Second-tier thinking is then declared by Wilber to be the path of constructive postmodernism. See also 4.9 above.

Some critics say that the new integral holism has unfortunate accents of American capitalism, as demonstrated by workshop ventures of Spiral Dynamics Integral. See 13.18 at kevinrdshepherd.net, which is entitled Spiral Dynamics and the Ken Wilber Crisis (2008). Most people associate green with ecology, which is one ingredient of the green meme as specified by Wilber in the same book (p. 50). Yet the ecology component is notably in low profile. The only other tangible reference to this component in the volume under discussion occurs in a passagethat has amazed some careful analysts. To quote here:

"The ecological crisis - or Gaia's main problem - is not pollution, toxic dumping, ozone depletion, or any such. Gaia's main problem is that not enough human beings have developed to the postconventional, worldcentric, global levels of consciousness, wherein they will automatically be moved to care for the global commons." (Integral Psychology, p. 137.)

To make sure that readers get the message, Wilber further says that would-be ecologists must undergo "at least a half-dozen major interior transformations, ranging from egocentric to ethnocentric to worldcentric, at which point, and not before, they can awaken to a deep and authentic concern for Gaia" (ibid., pp. 137-8).

Instead of "vision-logic," we can here use some less elite form of assessment to gauge this leisured appproach to global problems. The integral ideal is evidently that of declaring "One Taste" nondual realization and then soon afterwards (the very next year) invoking an automatic caring at some unspecified date. While we are waiting for the other transformed initiates to change the "worldcentric" indifference to pressing international problems, we may conclude that constructive postmodernism of the integralist variety has drawbacks.

While integralism was reposing in the postconventional meditation, certain other reluctant ecologists were discovering a very upsetting fact. The global commons needed urgent care, as the Club of Rome had stipulated three decades before. The capitalist American sector of oil interests had been debunking Club of Rome warnings. Energy economists were very disapproving. Whether they wore orange suits is not on record. One suspects thatthey were hyper-allergic to the colour green in all known shades.

Yet a shock to the general complacency was administered the very same year that Wilber's Integral Psychology was published. In 2000, Simmons and Company International posted an internet report which substantially vindicated the Club of Rome manifesto in 1972. Not only had the Club been misrepresented by detractors, but they had proved stunningly accurate in their prediction for population growth by the year 2000. Furthermore,Simmons divulged that "the Club of Rome got the whole picture right; it was the rest of us who missed the mark." (Cited in Shepherd, Pointed Observations, 2005, p. 315).

The belated honesty in assessment was slow to percolate all relevant sectors. The present writer duly commented: "How many years will it take for the rest of them to catch up with the research of Simmons conducted three decades after basic Club conclusions?" (Ibid.). Even the person who passed me the internet report of Simmons had difficulty in adjusting to the new information, which contradicted what he had formerly been led to believe by distorting sources.

Those who are waiting for the meditators to gain an automatic sense of care for the global environment may have to wait a long time, and it is already too late, according to some of the most alert ecologists. Such factors were at the root of my earlier objection to therelative neglect of hard core ecology in the theory and speculation of the integralist approach, an objection expressed at the end of my web article Investigating Perennial Philosophy and Ken Wilber (2008). A subject known as Integral Ecology is associated with some of Wilber's supporters, thoughhe himself appears to rate therapy quite as much as ecology.

The Wikipedia entry on Ken Wilber lists him as a writer on "psychology, philosophy, mysticism, ecology, and spiritual evolution" (accessed 06/06/2009). His angle criticising "deep ecology" is associated with SES, but this is largely an internal new age conflict. Hard core ecology exists outside the new age, and has exhibited different interpretations of the relevant data, which are not obliged to delay for integral transformations.

Wilber has recently made a gesture towards ecology via an Integral Naked media encounter with a bestselling novelist. This referred to the Al Gore documentary on global warming, one entitled An Inconvenient Truth. However, critics view this as being rather too late in the day for the psychologistic approach, especially in view of what has been considered an almost sycophantic gesture to the politician, who is said to have read Wilber. One version of the reservation may be found in the Visser blog Some Convenient Truths, March 17 2008, at http://wilberwatch.blogspot.com.

It has taken forty years for a basic ecological message to percolate American politics. Experts in the old world say that the affluent and indulgent lifestyle of America has been a severe problem for the new world and disastrous for the planet. As the worst contributor to the ecological deficit, America does not have the answer to global problems, despite a certain amount of retrospective analysis that may be respected.

4.15   Integral  Spirituality

With the exception of his novel Boomeritis (2002), Ken Wilber did not publish any major books after Integral Psychology (2000) and A Theory of Everything (2001) for five years. In 2006 appeared his Integral Spirituality. This work quickly gained a review by Frank Visser, which appeared on the internet. That was only three years after the publication of Visser's own commentary on Wilber, referred to above and in my annotations below. Yet the style of reporting was now very different, far more critical, and lacking the earlier commendation that is pervasive in Ken Wilber: Thought As Passion (2003). The title of the new review by Visser was rather evocative: Lord, Give Us Integral But Without the Hype (2006). Go to http://www.integralworld.net/visser16.html.

What had happened to change the perspective of Frank Visser during the interim ? Some idea of this will be attempted in 4.16 below. In the present section, I will give a synopsis of his significant review, followed by some of my own reflections. Visser is intimately familiar with the Wilber corpus, including unpublished material, and has personally interviewed the subject.

Visser commences his review by reflecting on his disappointment with the earlier work Integral Psychology. That book is highly rated by Wilber fans, but Visser states the drawbacks quite clearly, affirming that the treatment exhibited very little in relation to the current academic field of psychology:

"While broad in scope, it failed to address questions of research, areas of controversy within psychology, and recent advances made during the last decades in that large field. It reflected a sweeping style of writing, a rushed state of mind, that has become typical of Wilber over the last years. As a consequence, it failed to serve as a text that would be taken up by professionals and researchers in the field of psychology."

Of course, the fans could say that Wilber had written on a new format of psychology, and that the conventional experts would be biased against such a radical presentation. Yet the point is made by the reviewer that he wanted far more context than was on offer. Further, his main point is that the failing was repeated in the new book Integral Spirituality, which does not discuss what scholars in the field of comparative religion, or the sociology of religion, had contributed. The word integral did not connote comprehensiveness in that respect. Instead, Visser complains that the new instalment comprised "another quick 'application' of Wilber's main concepts, written in a feverish style, full of repetitions and references to Wilber's other writings."

The accusation is made that "the reader has to wade through shamelesss self-promotion," which apparently means in terms of the integral image. Visser quotes the phrase "If you like this, join Integral Institute !" That organisation was Ken Wilber's new front since 2000, though Visser is clearly sceptical, addingthat "marketing has taken over." The Wilber message amounts to: Get  Integral, no need to go anywhere else for fragments.

However, the reviewer also informs that "the book has substance to it as well." The main argument of Wilber here is that spirituality is doomed in the absence of becoming reconciled to the demands of modernity, and especially postmodernity. So Wilber is adopting a "post-metaphysical" approach, which means that traditional religion and mysticism is demoted. Integralist metaphysic is exalted, however, and so the post- tag can be misleading. Visser dares to ask if Wilber is reducing the perennialist tradition to a postmodernist outlook. (47)

Frank Visser complains at the repetitiveness of suchWilber themes as "spiritual traditions still believe in the 'myth of the given.'" The myth decodes to accepting beliefs as being the simple truth. Yet the full complexity has to be conveyed here. Postmodernity is accused by Wilber of having killed both modernity and premodernity. Visser complains again at the aggressive metaphors. So Wilber seems to be reconciling himself to the killer, who may resemble Katz or Foucault. The conclusion of Visser is that: "the book has a lot of integral theory, but little spirituality in it."

However, there is "a major new theoretical advance in integral theory." The disputed Four Quadrants, innovatedby the magnum opus SES in 1995, are now subdivided into eight "primordial perspectives." Visser remarks that this new developmentis "an implicit confession" of problems in Quadrant theory. "As the lengthy debates in the Integral World [website] reading room testify, the concept of the quadrants (and of holons) is riddled with ambiguities." Yet we are informed that "Wilber did not want to hear any of it."

Another complexity looms. The new "post-metaphysical" approach is called Wilber-5. Some analysts have traced the beginning of this approach to 2001. Wilber has been ingenious over the years in demarcating former phases of his thinking in terms of Wilber-1, Wilber-2, and so on. This is by no means a common feature of authors; indeed, it is very unusual. However, the mounting integralist tendency is to disown criticism of former phases.

Frank Visser adds an enlivening anecdote to the Wilber-5 drama. Originally, the suggestion of a necessary phase 5 was made by a contributor to integralworld.net (of which Visser is webmaster). When Frank communicated this to Ken (date unspecified), the latter implied a misrepresentation. Yet with the passing of time, more people started to notice the emerging criticisms of integralism, and Ken became reconciled to the idea of phase-5. The reconcilement is now official, and Frank observes that "presently, Wilber-5 is all the craze, and criticising ideas from the Wilber-4 period or earlier is seen as backward."The partisan stance is here represented.

The book Integral Spirituality has more references to Wilber's favoured theme of gross-subtle-causal-nondual. Visser takes exception to the integralist assertion that one can access the subtle stage from virtually any stage "simply because one sleeps and dreams." Visser complains that even cats and cowscould become enlightened in the face of such qualifications. He also says in his review that Wilber uses the word "simply" no less than 268 times in Integral Spirituality.

Visser also complains at the scarce references to research in Wilber-5 spirituality, and "when, on rare occasions, research does get mentioned (but not quoted, not referenced), it is the same old research (the boomers' protest against Vietnam, meditation speeds up development, etc.) that has been mentioned in Wilber's previous books."

Ken  Wilber

The meme theory of Spiral Dynamics had been assimilated by Wilber in Integral Psychology (see 4.9 above). However, the sequel volume of 2006 indicated that the alliance had weakened. The integralist now declared that meme theory was not comprehensive, though still suitable as an introductory tool. This meant that "we (Beck and Wilber) firmly part ways here" (Integral Spirituality, p. 86). More pointedly, Wilber stated:

"SD (Spiral Dynamics) has not incorporated a single criticism, from me or anybody else that I can tell, largely, in my opinion, because it is not possible to have an academic discussion with individuals whose economic livelihood depends upon one model being the only correct model" (ibid., pp. 86-7).

The colour coding was now altered by Wilber. Blue became amber, and yellow became teal. Some further colours were also innovated, namely indigo, violet, ultraviolet, and Clear Light. These additions are described in terms of "third tier," depicted by Wilber as being more advanced than "second tier" thinking associated with holistic turquoise. Visser has commented that Wilber was here returning to the spectrum of light metaphor discernible as an inspiration for his first book. Moreover, the third tier comprises the mystical stages acquired from some "perennial philosophy" traditions that are deemed outdated. Many writers have referred to these mystical stages, but which is the correct version ? The sources are complex and generally ignored.

In a prominent Wilber chart, Clear Light is aligned with Supermind, reminiscent of Aurobindo, who became popular in the American new age associated with Esalen. Wilber refers in passing (ibid., pp. 95ff.) to the well known book of Evelyn Underhill (Mysticism, 1911), which is basically about Christian mysticism. Wilber refers to that coverage associatively in terms of "meditative states training," and it is clear that he is preoccupied with the Buddhist model. Underhill made a few brief references to Sufism, though that subject is missing from Integral Spirituality. Many Sufis were married men; some worked in occupations such as crafts and trades. They were not contemplative monks, though many were ascetics to some degree. Their teachings varied quite markedly, but the differences are a blank in American integralism.

There are a number of footnotes in Integral Spirituality, though not systematic annotations relating to the history of religion or other departments of scholarship. The impression conveyed is one of an avant garde new age schema with a more intellectual complexion than is frequently found. In providing the integral postmodernist version of spirituality, Ken Wilber seems to be starting his own religion. Certainly, it is obvious that he considers the AQAL format to be superior to rivals, both past and present.

The term AQAL still denotes "all quadrants, all levels, all lines, all states, all types." Wilber says that he first introduced the AQAL framework in his book SES (1995). A further refinement is described in terms of:

“the explicit disclosure and formulation of 8 fundamental perspectives and methodologies, in 2000, which led to the notion of training or exercising each of those zones, not just in an academic setting, but in a personal life practice – what is now called AQAL Praxis or Integral Life Practice.” (Integral  Spirituality, p. 201).

This emerging doctrine was amplified by the Integral Institute, which in 2004 inaugurated the first public Integral Training “seminars and workshops” (ibid.). Thus, the integralist platform basically follows the new age “workshop” trend.  Integralism has been tailored to workshop fare. As the Mahayanist complexion has decreased in the "post-metaphysical" exegesis, the recent developments tend to place Ken Wilber (KW) more firmly in the new age category of conceptual innovation.

Since the 1960s, a substantial number of Americans have been fodder for entrepreneurial workshops in new age thought. The diverse “workshops” have supplied excitement, sensation, doctrines, techniques, and economic revenues. The clients often believe that they are being trained in “spiritual development” and similar accomplishments. Critical observers hold the beliefs and claims in strong doubt, and to the point of repudiation. The doubt does not necessarily imply any disbelief in spiritual development, which is perhaps far more rare than is commonly imagined in the new age of affluent leisure interests.

Wilber devotes the final chapter  of Integral Spirituality to Integral Life Practice (ILP). This activity is evidently regarded as the apex of the integralist pyramid. Wilber stresses the unique features of ILP, and he rhapsodises:

“As soon as Integral Institute began offering ILP workshops, it was apparent by the response that the Integral Approach resonated deeply with the passionate desires and inherent dimensions of the participants.” (Ibid., p. 202).

The desires of participants do not necessarily comprise a sufficient gauge for assessing what is in occurrence. Many new age workshops have provided what affluent clients most desired, which is frequently a sense of achievement and importance. A fair number have afterwards been disillusioned. It is not sufficient to believe the promotionalism, and integralism is perhaps no exception to that caution.

The ubiquitous and commercial new age term of “modules” is applied to the components of ILP. Four core modules and five auxiliary modules are specified. The four core modules are Body, Mind, Spirit, and Shadow (Therapia). Therapy is very much a component of ILP, which claims to integrate and transform the personal “shadow," a common theme in new age therapy, and yet to prove convincing. Big Mind Meditation (associated with contemporary Zen) and TM (Transcendental Meditation) are both listed in the Spirit module (ibid., p. 203), though Wilber himself clearly favours the former, which has been incorporated into ILP as a Gold Star practice.  

Wilber says that the auxiliary modules are also “particularly helpful,” and these are recommended by the Integral Institute. The auxiliary ballast comprises ethics, sexual yoga, work in the world, transmuting emotions, and relationships (ibid., pp. 204-5). There have been known problems in contemporary America with sexual yoga, which can easily confuse relationships.  

All the new age talk about transformation (in which Wilber also indulges) remains unconvincing to close analysts, especially in view of the KW jibe at traditional versions of spiritual discipline. “Dead from the neck down” (ibid., p. 206) is the "integralist" response to celibate contemplatives, who are caricatured in terms of: “no humour, no sex, no aesthetic sensibility whatsoever, wasting away, spending one’s days and nights  ignoring the world and lost in prayer” (ibid.).

Plotinus and Shankara were feasibly moving in  the opposite direction to the  Integral Institute, despite the awkward and contradictory elevation they have received in the integralist lore (e.g., ibid., p. 219). ILP decodes to a fashionable version  of the new age American  lifestyle  of  affluence.  The declared “new spirituality” of Ken Wilber affirms that “a sexual surrogate” is a “deeply spiritual” category (ibid., p. 206), which is an equation capable of producing extreme confusions.

The AQAL matrix requires due evaluation outside the commercial zone. The postmodernist claims of  integralism have little to do with Derrida.  Foucault is elevated as “a more sophisticated thinker,” and perhaps his sadomasochistic version of the sexual surrogate (leading to death by AIDS) would have been welcome in ILP. However, all we are really told by Wilber is: “With Habermas, I agree that Foucault is the postmodern poststructuralist that one simply must come to terms with” (ibid., p. 156). This apparently  means acknowledging gay  rights  and the problem of language (ibid., pp.279-80). 

The  postmodernist  lore  of  integralism  is in question, especially as the post-metaphysical paradigm transpires to be neo-Daist via ILP sexual yoga and nondualist superiority complex. Adi Da Samraj and Ken Wilber are now both strongly associated with the depression of traditional spirituality in preference for American innovations in “nondualism.” The Wilber version is more sophisticated.

Wilber uses the term "intersubjectivists" for the promoters of postructuralism and postmodernism. His last and third appendix to the book under discussion closes with a critical review of rival theorists whom he describes as playing into the hands of the intersubjectivists (ibid., pp. 282ff.). He describes writers who argued that mysticism has support from scientific discoveries. Wilber deems this a failure, the real enemy being the intersubjectivists and not science.

There is something to be said for this view, in that most of the new age writers show little or no comprehension of complexities known to philosophers and philosophers of science. However, critics say that Wilber himself has not succeeded in explicating what the solution is, having replaced the onus with ILP workshops and too many catchphrases such as Integral Naked.

The integralist critique here extends attention to several well known writers such as  Fritjof Capra, Ervin Laszlo, Deepak Chopra, Rupert Sheldrake, and Michael Murphy. All are found wanting, even though sympathy is expressed in certain directions. Wilber refers frequently to “the myth of the given,” a phrase in some respects denotinga contested empirical objectivity divorced from the contextualism and constructivism  preferred by the “relativists.” One definition supplied by KW is: "the myth of the given or monological consciousness is essentially another name for phenomenology and mere empiricism in any of a hundred guises" (ibid., p. 176).

Much of this argument really revolves around what different parties are capable of believing or achieving, though the illusions operating in so many beliefs (e.g., meditation prowess) are a stark reminder of the need for caution. Inflated and presumed achievements are rife in the new age, and the imposition of a proposed scientific credibility or endorsement in those directions is a hazard in the eyes of both rigorous empirical scientists and relativists. Yet the Wilber angle tends to be that integral spirituality has achieved the due objectivity and knowledge required for prowess in metaphysics and interdisciplinary extension. Are the integralist truth claims backed up by adequate evidence ?

Wilber relies heavily in his “developmental” groundplan upon writers like Jean Gebser, Jane Loevinger, Clare Graves (Spiral Dynamics), and Robert Kegan. His preference for “turquoise altitude” and third tier experiences does not prove that his version of “development” is correct or remedial. He has controversially claimed meditation prowess in One Taste (1999). See section 4.8  above.  There is still no proof that meditation leads to enlightenment.

KW has continued to invoke Jurgen Habermas, and supplies the quotation "not through introspection but through history do we come to know ourselves" (Integral Spirituality, p. 176). One could respond that, e.g., the relativist attack of Foucault upon the phenomenology of Edmund Husserl (d. 1938) was an academic development having no direct bearing upon the history of religion. Further, neither Foucault or Husserl were sufficiently empirical to satisfy other perspectives in contention. KW is proposing a rather subjective "post-metaphysical" theme based upon presumed stages of "development," a theme which is portrayed as valid because it is "integral." Some critics conclude that we are on safer ground with the expanding history of religion than with subjective meditation experiences and doctrinaire colour coding.

A chapter is devoted by Wilber to the subject of “boomeritis Buddhism,” which is an AQAL version of pathologies in the contemporary American scenario.  The treatment is loaded with integralist terminology, though Wilber does credibly convey that Buddhism, the religion of non-ego, so often became  in America “the religion of express your ego” (ibid., p. 105).  The complaint is made that Buddhism was being  “used to support and encourage green” (ibid.), that indigo texts were being translated into green texts.  A pronounced relativism is also expressed:

“I can come out of a nondual state of awareness, and if I am green, I will interpret Nonduality in green terms; if I am ultraviolet, then in ultraviolet terms.” (ibid., p. 106).

It is very possible that boomeritis has infected the integral discourse also. The prevalent assumptions about experiencing “nondualism” are rampant in contemporary neo-Buddhism, neo-Advaita, Daism, and yet other new age channels. The relativism in evidence via colour significations serves to pinpoint the drawbacks in assumption. For nondual state, read “temporarily suspended normal awareness in meditative state.”

To correct the fluent assumptions about experiences, one will not be able consult the original exemplars (of nondualism) such as Ramana Maharshi and Shankara. These are now deceased, and effectively (if unwittingly) caricatured by integralist lore as celibate non-participants in the freedoms of sexual yoga, a pathology preferred by Franklin Jones (Adi Da Samraj)  and related  hedonists (e.g., Chogyam Trungpa, for long favoured by Wilber). The postmodernist situation, in the new age sector, is more than a little disconcerting. The most rigorous empirical criteria are urgently needed in this deceptive field, which is currently prone to acute relativist sentiments and preferences.

Wilber complains that instructions to intensify meditation can cause the meditator to become a candidate for therapy. However, we are not obliged to accept the accompanying integralist rationale for this type of occurrence. Indigo teachings which "crash down into a pluralistic-green self" is not necessarily the most clarifying description of the problem mentioned (cf. ibid., p. 107). 

KW became strongly associated with the American Buddhism to which he has reacted. The general enthusiasm for Mahayana was not matched by sufficient discipline in too many cases. Some persons were unsuited to a celibate lifestyle. Zen and Vajrayana were popular, and became elevated to a unique status that was assisted by Wilber exegesis. The history of these traditions was neglected by enthusiasts, a situation that continues. Wilber subscribes to a constricting view of Hinayana that is commonplace in neo-Buddhism. He refers to the "realization of Nonduality" as "the cornerstone of both Mahayana and Vajrayana" (ibid., p. 108), although analysts of Vedanta say that the atman-Brahman nondualism has a different slant to the Mahayanist theme of "nirvana is samsara."

Wilber favours the commentary of Traleg Rinpoche,  but emphasises that “Buddhism, like all spiritual and contemplative traditions, has no real understanding of zone#2 stages” (ibid., p. 115). In the language of integralism, the elevated zone#2 denotes contemporary structuralism and related trends as understood by KW,a configuration which  includes Baldwin, Gebser, and Foucault (ibid., pp. 50ff.).

KW says "the claim of Integral Post-Metaphysics is that the invaluable and profound truths of the premodern traditions can be salvaged" (ibid., p. 46). Meaning in the face of recent scientific discoveries like DNA and the neocortex. Via the new stress on context, he refers to a medieval Tibetan meditator imagining that "he is contemplating timeless truths, truths that hold for everybody, whereas a good number of them are Tibetan fashions" (ibid., p. 45). Yet KW also says that "nothing needs to be changed" in relation to Buddhist psychology and philosophy, which he describes as sophisticated (ibid., p.115).

The ILP mandate is notably severe with Asiatic Buddhist monks. “Many Tibetan and Japanese meditation masters” are conceded to possess meditative ability, but are relegated to an amber-to-orange colour coding, which is below the despised green (ibid., p. 97). The implication is that they are too conventional and ethnocentric. The Dalai Lama is criticised by Wilber for beliefs averse to homosexuality and oral sex, and the rating here is amber (ibid., p. 98). One might not wish to know what the ultraviolet version of ILP will be doing in sexual yoga. There were necessary constraints in the Buddhist vinaya or monastic discipline, homosexual relations being regarded as a similar distraction to other forms of sexual activity. However, the history of monasticism is currently of no interest in the hedonistic sector of new age America, being eclipsed by  Integral Sexual Yoga and related emphases.

The pedigree of “nondual” integralism is no older than 1960s boomeritis. Plotinus, Shankara, Nagarjuna, Ramana Maharshi, and many other famous names of the past, were  celibates   and ascetics who do not fit into the new age lifestyles. The KW postmodernism, converging with both Foucault and Gebser, has an orientation closer to Esalen than to traditional spirituality.

The burden of Wilber’s depreciating refrains is that Integral Life Practice (ILP) is the saviour. Readers are told: “You need to vertically transform to around the indigo stage” (ibid., p. 116). That means if you can survive sexual yoga, unlike two Wilber heroes:  the rabidly heterosexual Adi Da, and the bisexual Chogyam Trungpa who is inseparably associated with the problem of AIDS. These are just unpopular cautionary footnotes in the workshop milieu, where the theorised passage from green to indigo  and Clear Light may constitute  a  primary  hazard.

The ILP resource urges that: “if you keep your spiritual path just as it is, and simply plug into an AQAL framework, the result is an ‘integral Christianity,’ ‘integral Buddhism,’ ‘integral Kabbalah,’ and so on.” (Ibid., p. 117). Is that plug proof of transformation ? Or is this theme just optimistic publicity for the Integral Institute ?

ILP has replaced neo-perennialism and the even more remote “perennial philosophy,” which is now such a compromised reminder of the pre-workshop era to the post-boomeritis entrepreneurs. AQAL means Get Integral, or the prospective client might get accused of being a fundamentalist, which is one suggestion that can be read between the lines of some integralist statements, e.g., those who practise only one path can become “both deep mystics and narrow fundamentalists at the same time” (ibid., p. 118).

The integralist theory has formulated eight "hori-zones" of conceptualism. These "horizontal" zones are a complement to the vertical stages of development associated with SD (Spiral Dynamics) colour coding. Zone #2 basically means "structuralism," which has not achieved perfection, though employed by Wilber against traditional rivals. The hori-zones are a support for KW Quadrant theory, strongly contested by critics. Zone #5 is described in terms of cognitive science (ibid., pp. 169ff.), though the KW version shows a preoccupation with theories of Francisco Varela, a Buddhist and a founding member of the Integral Institute. Varela is here described as attempting to bridge zones #5 and #1, the latter being defined as "interior phenomenology," and to which Wilber allocates meditation and traditional mysticism.

Zone #6 is designated as behaviourism and empiricism (ibid., pp. 163ff.). KW says he takes that zone seriously, and specifies two mistakes made in relation to this sector of the quadrant. He means that modernity has absolutized zones 5 and 6, while postmodernism has denied them. In general, KW Quadrant theory claims that integralism is at the convergence of premodern traditions, modernity (or "scientific materialism"), and postmodernity. "Shorn of their metaphysical baggage, the premodern wisdom traditions fit into an integral framework that allows modern and postmodern truths as well" (ibid., p. 46).

Quadrant theory is extended in the diagram known as the Wilber-Combs Lattice (ibid., p. 90), which claims to interpret "meditative states"in conjunction with evolutionary stages of growth. Allan Combs is the colleague of Ken Wilber. The meditative states are described as gross-subtle-causal-nondual. The accompanying evolutionary schema is borrowed from Jean Gebser, and proposes a sequence from archaic to integral. This combined format is no proof whatever that the experiential transition from "gross" to "nondual" is being charted successfully.

One of the metaphysical works which Wilber never mentions, differs rather significantly from his constructions. That book was composed by a twentieth century Irani Zoroastrian who was familiar with both the Persian and Sanskrit vocabularies. This book affirms that only a very small number of people gain "nondual" (nirvikalpa) experience in any one generation. That experience is depicted as one of the ultimate achievements, and has nothing to do with meditative states in this interpretation. Further, the "subtle planes" (of the reputed subtle world) are more commonly experienced than higher states, and these represent a danger in that a grave misuse of abilities can occur, indeed potentially leading to a disintegration of the entity. Even the "subtle planes" are depicted as being a fairly rare achievement, and meditative states do not enter into this picture. If there is any truth in such alternative formulations to theosophical and new age conceptualism, then more account should perhaps be taken of these. (See further Shepherd, Meher Baba: an Iranian Liberal, 1988, part two.)

There is a question as to whether various integralist allocations and deductions are accurate. For instance, readers are told that “around 70% of the world’s population is (sic) Nazis” (Integral Spirituality, p. 179). This seems an extreme deduction on the part of KW, even though Americans are included in the disapproval. The stigma is basically aimed at fundamentalist religion. The description is acknowledged by KW as being an extreme expression, though he seems content with it.

It is perhaps more accurate to reflect that about two thirds of the global population are economically disadvantaged by comparison to America, whose affluence annually produces increased fuel consumption for motor cars during the holiday season. China now competes with the Big Consumer. Meanwhile, the global predominance of poverty is scarcely cognised by new age America, whose affluence has created the misleading “workshops” purporting to represent spirituality (for a price). The insatiable consumerism even covers up the fact that AIDS originated in the new age of California, a detail  still on record in irksome academic sources not favoured by politicians and some politically correct universities. The embarassing problem was assisted by revellers like Foucault, a factor which perhaps ought to instil caution at the poststructuralist excesses, however academic the auspices in question.

More compelling is the KW recognition of the historical Nazi problem, now well known but still too often ignored by the new age. Very briefly, Hitler and his inner circle were enthusiasts of occultism. Goebbels and Himmler (head of the SS) are associated with the use of astrology to assist with battles, psychic pendulums to locate enemy warships, the daily practice of meditation, and even presumed experiences of unio mystica (ibid., p. 294). That is one reason why the nominal claim to mystical achievement must always be critically evaluated.

KW is evidently concerned about terrorism. That is quite understandable. However, America may require to deal more speedily with web terrorism on American soil, including the sectarian variant aimed at international reporters of allegations. The Sathya Sai Baba Organisation is currently implied in cyberstalking excesses associated with New Mexico, and I have myself been a victim of the aggressive and distorting strategy aimed at Google Search name listings, a strategy facilitated by such questionable media as blogspot.com and wordpress.com. See article 5 on this website.

Ken  Wilber

The "turquoise altitude" claimed by KW has aroused criticism. This situation became accentuated the same year that Integral Spirituality appeared. A disagreement then occurred between Wilber and major critics. Frank Visser says that both he and Don Beck were on the receiving end of Wilber's displeasure in the celebrated "Wyatt Earp" blog episode of 2006. Ken Wilber here resorted to a characterisation of his position as being that of Wyatt Earp against the bad guys. Marshal Earp, alias Ken Wilber, was out to gun down the outlaws with his integralist blog revolver. Critics complained that the AQAL law enforcer was not disposed to debate, but instead committed to a dismissal employing offensive language.

Another outlaw was Christopher Cowan, the "green" colleague of Don Beck who resisted the assimilation by integralism. Commentator Frank Visser informs that Wilber took aim at Cowan with the words:

"I will say that personally I have never seen any professional writing as toxic as Cowan's; his anger laces every word, acidly, unrelentingly, eating away at the reader, as it surely must its author."

That quote comes fromthe now notorious "Wyatt Earp" (and Zen swordsman) blog of June 8, 2006. Cowan was galvanised into response, or rather two responses, one using a Wild West idiom and the other a more professional delivery. Both of these are commemorated at integralworld.net. Amongst other matters, Cowan objected to the statement of Ken Wilber that "I am at the centre of the vanguard of the greatest social transformation in the history of mankind."

Cowan expressed the observation that:

"Despite all the self-aggrandizing 'I'm a turquoise' or 'we second-tier folk' talk that abounds in the Integral community, the definitions many rely on are based in descriptions from the old 1996 Spiral Dynamics book, descriptions we know too much about to take very seriously anymore." (Observations on Ken Wilber's June 8th Rant). See note 41 below.

Cowan made due reference to the Cowan/Beck split, meaning that meme theory had achieved a division. One reason for the split had been the antipathy of Beck for the green meme, "a system which he doesn't seem to understand." The loyal green Christopher Cowan indicates that the alliance of Beck and Wilber was a distraction of which he firmly disapproved.

Reactions to Wilber-5 have included very critical assessments. One may reflect upon some of the more obvious anomalies. Many early readers were impressed by Ken Wilber's support for the "perennial philosophy," though most of them were probably only very marginally familiar with that popularised subject. However, Ken Wilber's confrontation with postmodernism has resulted in an assimilation of this factor to a noticeable degree, pushing aside earlier preferences of description associated with more antique conceptualism. The recent "post-metaphysical" orientation is still very metaphysical, but treats the traditional religions as decisive rivals.

Some critics have dwelt upon the commercial aspect of the Integral Institute, which strikes a tangent from the early Wilber role of "hermit." The Wilber-5 Kosmic Consciousness is celebrated for audio and video innovations of integralism, though these have offended some restrained tastes which formerly lionised the Einstein of consciousness research. In 2004, a set of ten Ken Wilber cassettes sold for seventy dollars in the ad pages of WIE, the disputed Andrew Cohen magazine, and these were considered so great a bargain that satisfaction was guaranteed. (Shepherd, Pointed Observations, 2005, p. 409.)

The integralist pundit Ken Wilber has become known in some circles as a video guru. The KW video phenomenon has gained both admirers and critics. The charismatic pundit (or guru) of integralism exhibits a confident vocal delivery. Assertions are complemented by fluent hand gestures. Two videos at myspace.com have aroused comment. In one of these performances, Wilber dilates upon the theme of I Am-ness, which is stated in terms of "it is absolutely infallible - it's that simple." This theme is closely related to present-centredness and the accompanying assertion of "I Am Big Mind." Critics have described the Wilber exposition in terms of neo-Mahayana, and more especially American Zen. The "Big Mind process" was created by a contemporary American Zen roshi, and has been praised by Wilber as an important innovation.

The related video performance features the pundit discoursing on Integral Sex. This celebration refers to erogenous zones and kundalini chakras. There are also references to Theravada Buddhism and Mahayana Buddhism, though the latter is dominant in terms of Tantric imagery. The audience of new age Americans appear to be very attentive, to the point of unquestioning acceptance. What if there are any errors in the "infallible" themes ? Affirmations do not necessarily denote achievements. To what extent can an affluent and pleasure-loving audience become susceptible to fashionable new age topics ? Are the subscribers really Big Mind achievers orare they confused by sex talkand contemporary chakra lore ?

Despite his references to Brahman, Ken Wilber does not emerge as an advocate of purist Advaita, which has been displaced by American innovations. Vintage Advaita Vedanta texts are far removed from the contemporary idioms of "neo-Advaita." There is no Tantra in the authentic documents, no chakra references or sex talk. The ascetic milieu was pronounced, and represented the stage in which the householder became divorced from caste life. The pursuit of atman-Brahman complexities followed a celibate code of jnana (knowledge) that is basically foreign to the affluent lifestyles of America and Europe.

For instance, verses in a key Shankara text urge discrimination of the Self (atman) from the body, senses, and the intellect. These obstacles comprise ignorance (ajnana), which is superimposed upon the atman. (Upadeshasahasri, chapter 15). That text may be over a thousand years old, and exhibits semantic complexities set against a further context of obscure historical developments. This text "has gained credence as an authentic work, even though possibly redacted in its present form at a slightly later date than the author" (Shepherd, Minds and Sociocultures Vol. One, 1995, p. 878 note 318).

American countercultural present-centredness commenced circa 1970 with Richard Alpert, who was so confused by the psychedelic new age that he changed his name to Ram Dass, an event accompanied by other identity switches such as those demonstrated by Adi Da Samraj, alias Da Free John, alias Da Avabhasa, alias Da Avadhoota, alias Franklin Jones. Again, affirmations do not necessarily denote achievements.

Another example of the Ken Wilber video output is Descartes: Reviving the West's Greatest Vedantist, which may be viewed at the Visser digest Ken Wilber Videos on YouTube. The acknowledgment of Western philosophy is here couched in a rather unusual idiom. I can easily credit Wilber's sense of empathy with the Vedantic and Buddhist traditions, and his gesture of inclusiveness towards Descartes is refreshing by comparison with certain insularisms encountered elsewhere in relation to "dualism." However, it is very debateable as to whether Descartes can be considered a Vedantist on the basis of his affirmation "I think, therefore I am."

Dissidents from the Wilber worldview have been caricatured by the "Wyatt Earp" affirmation complex, in perhaps much the same way that a certain relative of mine was blacklisted at the Findhorn Foundation, which has the repute of being an American-inspired new age colony thriving on "workshop" commerce deriving from Esalen in California (see article 1 on this website). See also 4.10 above. Affirmations and superficial therapies were rife in that environment, and the only problem to be officially checked (and suspended) was Grof hyperventilation.

l to r: Andrew  Cohen, Ken  Wilber

The Integral Institute has been keen to emphasise an accredited programme in partnership with John F. Kennedy University. Yet close analysts have noted discrepancies in the educational outreach. For instance, Ken Wilber has maintained his strong affiliation with the neo-advaita guru Andrew Cohen, and has recently been promoted as an accompanying celebrity to Cohen in a package hosted by the Findhorn Foundation in May 2009. That three day event advertised Wilber as a participant via phone bridge. Cohen was an on site attraction.

The inclusion of Wilber in the commercial workshop programme of the "second Esalen" is perhaps unlikely to commend the Integral Institute to the more rigorous academic universities. The fee for the three day event at the Findhorn Foundation was £475. The elevated title of that event, in the new age idiom, was "Co-Creating an Awakened Culture." See further article 2.8 on this website.

4.16   Frank  Visser  in Transition

The website known as integralworld.net has been the major focus for the critical response to Ken Wilber integralism. The webmaster of this site is Frank Visser, and his instance affords an example of Wilber enthusiast turned reassessor. The transition was influenced by the increasing wave of query amongst similar enthusiasts, and also by more critical contributions.

Wouter J. Hanegraaff

In the latter category was Professor Wouter J.Hanegraaff, of the University of Amsterdam, and author of New Age Religion and Western Culture (1996). This authority on New Age developments contributed a review of the orginal Dutch edition (2001) of Visser's book Ken Wilber: Thought As Passion. That review appeared in 2002 in a Dutch magazine, before the English translation of the book was published the following year. Hanegraaff gave Wilber some credit for his self-taught career, but was also cautious. The web version of his review includes the observation:

"In university circles, interest in Wilber is practically nil....The reason for this is not hard to find: Wilber approaches the psychology of religion and the analysis of religion and culture from a decidedly 'spiritual' perspective, based on specific mystical beliefs; and his books are not published by prestigious University Presses but by theosophical or otherwise esoterically-oriented publishing houses....Wilber is seen by psychologists and religious studies scholars as a New Age author, from whom of course one cannot expect any serious contribution to scholarly debate."

However, Professor Hanegraaff was not himself offput by such routine considerations. He conceded the claim of Visser that Wilber wrote "academic" books showing a familiarity with professional literature. Yet he was evidently concerned at the danger of scientific credibility being lost by an "integral" psychology of religion and culture based upon metaphysical axioms. Accordingly, he felt that the Visser book was lacking in critical evaluation of the Wilber phenomenon. "Visser completely identifies with the perspective of his hero."

The academic commentator urged that the fundamental problem with Wilber's approach is the "totalitarian" character, "in the sense that all existing psychological and religious perspectives are assigned their proper place within an all-encompassing metaphysical model." There is no real possiblility for a dialogue, rooted in equality, with those of a different religious perspective. "Wilber does not speak with 'the other,' but only to him." This was serious critique, and the academic reviewer added that "in my opinion, Frank Visser therefore errs in stating that Wilber cannot be accused of Western ethnocentrism." Neo-perennial philosophy was here in question. Many Wilber partisans had ignored this aspect of the integralist corpus. Hanegraaff drove home his point further by stating:

"What is it that gives Wilber the right to dismiss the idiosyncratic perspectives of those other cultures as mere 'peculiarities,' which can be generously tolerated on the condition that they will be so kind as to conform themselves to Wilber's 'universal' and therefore evidently superior point of view? The answer is clear: Wilber believes he has that right because his own perspective just happens to be the most correct and complete one of all." (48)

For some time thereafter, the Hanegraaff review remained one of the largely subterranean components of the critical reaction. Ken Wilber had achieved phenomenal salience as a popular author, and Hanegraaff was careful to acknowledge "eight voluminous tomes" comprising The Collected Works of Ken Wilber, a project commenced at the time of Wilber's fiftieth birthday.

What was happening behind the scenes during the next few years? Everyone knew that Wilber had started the Integral Institute in Colorado. Disillusioned reports emerged that were interpreted in terms of a dictatorial attitude prevailing. Visser himself divulged that things were not as they should be. In May 2006, he posted an item entitled Talking Back To Wilber: A Call for Validation.

Frank Visser

Visser here relates that, two years earlier, Wilber had assigned him the task of detecting whenever the Integral Institute was being "less than integral." In relation to a projected book, he was also asked to collect all online criticism of Wilber's output. Visser took up the requested role quite rigorously, and reports that he had collected over 150 essays on integral philosophy in the Reading Room of his website. These articles came from all over the world, though mostly from America, Britain, and Australia. "Many of these, but not all of them, have been critical of Wilber's version of integralism, or aspects thereof."

Visser goes on to explain that the Reading Room "provides space for reflection on all things integral in a non-promotional and non-commercial setting - a conditio sine qua non for objectivity." He adds that it is well known how Wilber had not given much attention to the essays under discussion, except for some minor cases a few years earlier when he posted replies to the authors, mainly brief. Wilber had even asked Visser to post a warning to readers of the essays, "stating that whenever they criticised his views across the board, they were unreliable."

Yet the critical essays were insistent that things were "not as simple, sturdy, straightforward, or sweeping as Wilber suggests." Those essays were generally a call for validation, i.e., "what is the proof for this statement?" Visser adds the words clarification and qualification, defining these in terms of "what is meant by this terminology?" and "does this statement hold true in all cases?" He also comments that this procedure should be "standard practice for a school of thought that claims to be scientifically and/or philosophically sound."

The commentator goes on to emphasise that if the validation process is considered irrelevant, then this refusal will strengthen the "conditioning and cultic tendencies latent in all spiritual communities, including the integral ones." A true university curriculum will validate theories and beliefs regardless of personal convictions.

Frank Visser adds that the Integral Institute had become suspect with regard to discouraging critical assesssment. Critics were viewed as "attackers" requiring a defence mechanism on the part of integralism. Critics were accused of "misrepresentation," and also of being "green" (including "mean green"). The latter stigma was imparted by the Wilber version of meme theory. Visser singles out Jeff Meyerhoff's Bald Ambition as being "a sustained effort to reflect on core integral concepts from a particular perspective, postmodernist in this case." Visser had chosen to serialise that contribution on his website, and observes that he had witnessed the full gamut of defence mechanisms in operation from the Wilber sector, i.e., ignoring, ridiculing, dismissing, discrediting.

The major conflict now commenced. Ken Wilber's response to the call for validation was expressed in his now famed blog attack upon the critics as outlaws. His dramatically reactive stance as Wyatt Earp against the outlaws was rather unyielding, and regarded as unmerited polemic by the recipients, who notably included Frank Visser. The blog was dated June 2006. Go to www.kenwilber.com/blog/show/46. That gesture evoked a wave of resistance from the dissidents, and caused Visser to post his entry The Wild West Wilber Report (2006) at www.integralworld.net/visser15.html.

A subsequent posting of Visser was entitled 'If You Meet Wilber on the Road, Kill Him': On the Importance of Independent Integral Research (2007). Click here. The rather dramatic wording can have a shock effect, though it was expressed in the contemporary spirit of emulating an antique Buddhist slogan of iconoclasm. Also, and perhaps more to the point, Wilber's Dutch biographer was lamenting that he had undergone five basic stages in his approach to the subject, meaning those of fan, student, biographer, critic, and outcast from the Integral Institute. Such a disadvantage is very strongly reminiscent of the situation of ex-devotees and gurus, though Wilber has never claimed to be a guru. His repute as an assertive pundit has nevertheless been problematic for some former admirers.

In another web item, Visser divulged information about his past connection with the disputed integralist. That entry is entitled The Trouble with Ken Wilber: A Plea for a Change of Discourse (2008). Click here. He started to read Wilber books in 1982, shortly after starting his university studies in the psychology of religion. Wilber became his "author hero," and in the 90s he translated The Atman Project into Dutch. He had to stop at SES, because that book was too long for the Dutch market. Instead he translated A Brief History of Everything, said to have represented Wilber's canny move to make his SES thesis more popular.

The committed partisan also took over the role of webmaster for the site known as The World of Ken Wilber. That website then comprised only a dozen pages. Nothing very impressive, though in 2008, and renamed integralworld.net, that same site "totals over 1,000 pages in 12 languages, all realised with no funding and as an integral grassroots phenomenon."

In 1995 Visser gained fax contact with his hero. In 1997 he attended a Wilber conference at the California Institute of Integral Studies. He was afterwards able to visit Wilber at his home in Boulder, Colorado. Subsequently he returned to stay with Wilber for five days, producing a 90-page transcript of the interview which resulted. His host was at that time composing the material for One Taste (1999). Then around 2000, several authors started to submit articles to Visser's website, and the webmaster was surprised at Wilber's "defensive" attitude to the accumulating articles, which were written in an analytical spirit. Wilber complained that the critics misrepresented his work. Visser comments that "my Wilber website was virtually the only place in the world where people took the time and the effort to apply the tools of reason to Wilber proposals."

"Around 2004, Wilber urged me to change the name of this website 'The World of Ken Wilber' to something else, unrelated to his name, since he no longer felt his work was accurately reflected by this website." Visser complied, choosing the name Integral World, though maintaining focus on the same entity. In 2004, Wilber submitted a statement to the Visser website to the effect that "only critics who are in personal contact with him have a chance of understanding his work correctly, and therefore have the opportunity to criticise it, if at all." This response was seen as a violation of public dialogue or debate. The point is made that Ken Wilber had probably not been in personal contact with any of "the hundreds of authors he has so freely criticised."

More writers became represented at integralworld.net, and quite a substantial number are now listed on that site. In 2006, Wilber's annoyance with this phenomenon "exploded during the Wyatt Earp episode, in which Wilber insulted his critics, degrading and dismissing them by basically stating that he was smarterthan everybody else." This fraught event (see 4.15 above) was accompanied by "another attempt at starting a debate with Wilber, this time on his views of biological evolution." This attempt is said to have been aborted by aggressive dismissal. Visser states that the episode "ended my faith in Wilber as someone who could really make a difference in the world of science and spirituality."

Frank Visser further depicts this problem in communication as leading to an ideology of integralism, accompanied by an increasing sales language at the Integral Institute. Visser thinks that Wilber should listen to critics like Jeff Meyerhoff and even sceptics like Geoffrey Falk. Yet Ken Wilber obviously thinks that it is best to remain aloof, and to further Integral Life Practice and the web profile of his Institute. (49)

Despite being a dissident from the Wilber model, it is evident that Frank Visser does not wish to see integralism destroyed, but rather validated in a due critical and scientific manner. He evidently sees benefits in a generalising approach, as distinct from the purely specialist approach operative in the academic field. He has stated that "integral as a wave towards a generalisation is always good," though at the same time he envisages this trend in ideal terms as one "that speaks to every separate field of science." (50) The ideal will not be the easiest to achieve.

In conclusion here, to  avoid any misunderstandings, I  should express my own orientation in what I have called citizen philosophy (and interdisciplinary anthropography).   The philosophical  quest is a demanding pursuit, and does not require to "integrate" diverse and conflicting doctrines and opinions. Where some synthesis is attempted, I believe that it is better to avoid claiming any integral qualification, in case the presumed  expansion transpires to be a contraction in terms of scientific (and philosophical) validation. For instance, validation might disqualify some components as being a hindrance, and disclose that omitted elements are actually far more pressing. Such prospects should inspire due caution, and also diligence with regard to complexities of any kind.

However, despite my extensive  disagreements with the  theory  of  Ken  Wilber,  I  am  easily  able  to concede that, far  more  than  most of  the  other alternativists, he  has  acted  as  a  catalyst  for  diverse probings  and reassessments. I have never been a Ken Wilber partisan, and in that respect must be regarded as a total outsider. My preliminary work Meaning in Anthropos (1991) was published in between the two creative periods of Wilber output, and it was only after this event that I read closely several books of Wilber (phases 1-3). Prior to that, I had encountered Up From Eden (1981), though without being convinced by the contents.

Kevin  R. D. Shepherd
August   2009  [with additions February 2010]

Copyright © 2010 Kevin R. D. Shepherd. All Rights Reserved. Page uploaded August 2009, last modified February 2010.

ANNOTATIONS

(1)     See, e.g., the  Wilber  discussion  site  at  www.integralworld.net.  Frank Visser is  the webmaster of that site, which has numerous  contributions  in  the “Reading Room.” The  entries vary greatly in emphasis and interpretation. The articles include a significant number by Visser, though many other writers are represented.   See also the Collected Works of Ken Wilber  (Boston: Shambhala, 1999-----, multi-volume work).  See also the partisan sites  http://wilber.shambhala.com  and  www.kenwilber.com

(2)       Ken Wilber, 2002  Foreword  to  Frank Visser, Ken Wilber: Thought As Passion (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2003), p. xii.  Wilber also states: “I myself have some friendly disagreements  with  Frank about many of these topics, but I always learn something important  from him in our exchanges” (ibid.). The  relationship was evidently  very amicable at that time. Frank Visser’s book is noticeably  partisan  in  tone, commending his subject in  many ways, giving a detailed analysis  of  the  Wilber  corpus  and  affording  insight  into  biographical  details.

(3)      Ibid.  Earlier, Wilber had aligned himself with transpersonal psychology, a format  that  is  strongly associated with  Stanislav  Grof  and  Esalen. The  claims made  for  transpersonalism have frequently been dramatic, and have aroused criticism  from  other  sectors.  For  instance, there  was  the announcement  from Jack Crittenden that  the  twenty-first  century  had  only  three  choices: Aristotle, Nietzsche, or Wilber. Cf. Shepherd, Some Philosophical Critiques and Appraisals (Dorchester, Dorset: Citizen  Initiative,  2004), pp. 90ff.

(4)       The  controversial  book  which  launched  Holotropic  Breathwork  was  Grof, The Adventure of Self-Discovery  (Albany: State  University  of  New  York Press, 1988). See  also  Grof,  Psychology of the Future (SUNY Press, 2000). For a critique of  Grof  and  his therapies, see  Shepherd,  Pointed Observations (Dorchester, Dorset: Citizen Initiative, 2005), pp. 6-24, and  see  also  index page  417.  

(5)       Visser, Ken Wilber: Thought As Passion, pp. 26-7.  Wilber  became  noted  for  a “relatively reclusive lifestyle.” He  had  earlier  dropped out of Duke University, being keen to practise Zen meditation and to study mystical and philosophical matters  outside  his  scientific  curriculum.  He  got  married  in the  early 1970s, and took  menial  jobs  during  that  decade.  For a  year  or  so, he  gave  many  lectures on  his first book, but subsequently  realised  that  this  resort  was  blocking  his  creativity.

(6)      Shepherd, Minds  and  Sociocultures Vol. One  (Cambridge: Philosophical Press, 1995),  p. 113. My commentary  here  observes (p.112)  that  A  Sociable God  had  gained  two  sub-titles, namely  Toward a New Understanding of  Religion  and  A Brief  Introduction  to  a  Transcendental  Sociology.

(7)     Visser, op. cit., pp. 136-7.   Wilber’s assessment of  Jurgen Habermas as an important  philosopher  is associated  with  the  former’s Eye to Eye: The Quest for the  New  Paradigm  (New York: Doubleday, 1983).

(8)     Shepherd,  Minds and Sociocultures Vol. One,  p. 115.  Four  years  after A Sociable God,  a  co-edited work  entitled  Spiritual Choices  included   Da  Free John (Adi Da) in a critical  treatment  of  controversial cult  figures. See Dick Anthony, Bruce Ecker, and Ken Wilber, eds., Spiritual Choices: The  Problem of Recognising Authentic Paths to Inner Transformation (New York: Paragon  House, 1987).  The bohemian American  guru  here  figured in a critique  extending  to  Chogyam Trungpa, the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, Swami  Muktananda, and  the  Zen celebrity  Richard  Baker.  This  book  gained  some  recognition, though it was  later  said   that  Dick  Anthony was  responsible  for  the  critical  comments on  Da  Free  John and Chogyam Trungpa, who  were  both  known  favourites  of  Wilber.   Cf. Visser, op. cit., pp. 139ff., who reports that the co-edited volume  was  originally  prompted by a seminar of 1980-81 on the New Religious Movements. On Adi  Da, see  also  Georg  Feuerstein, Holy Madness  (second  edn,  2006); Shepherd, Some Philosophical Critiques  and  Appraisals  (2004), pp.  74-85.

(9)       Shepherd, Minds  and  Sociocultures  Vol. One  (1995), pp.110-112. The Wilber supporter  mentioned in this passage was  Professor  Roger  Walsh, of the University of California, who also became  noted  for his partiality to shamanism.  On this, see Shepherd, op.cit.,  pp. 4-6, and  citing Walsh, The Spirit of  Shamanism (1990).

(10)      Visser, op. cit., pp. 98-9.  Visser  urges  that “the  similarities  are   remarkable” between  Gebser and Wilber, though  Gebser  does  not  refer to transpersonal stages of  development.  Wilber  actually used the  terms of Gebser  as  a  prefix  to  his  own  specifications  derived  from  mythology.  Jean (Hans) Gebser (1905-1973) was a German  thinker, and  is favoured  by  the  current  integralist   sector.  His major work is The Ever-Present Origin (1985),  which  is  a  translation  from  the  German  original.  Though praised by integralists,  the  theory  of  Gebser  is  regarded  as  very  speculative  by  critics.

(11)      Visser, op. cit., p. 104. The form of presentation devised by Wilber can arouse resistance.  For instance,  the Wilber vocabulary in Up From  Eden states that “this  analysis  is  supported, not  just  by the hierarchic  ordering of  past  transcendent heroes, but  also  by  the  hierarchic  disclosures  of present-day meditators” (cited by Visser, p. 104).  There   are  strong  disagreements  possible.  For instance, there is no compelling reason  to believe in  any  collective  repetition of  minority achievements.     Wilber was clearly influenced in this respect by his belief that contemporary meditators could  gain “final  and complete enlightenment,”   a  belief   that  can  be  deemed   deceptive.  

(12)      Visser, op. cit., p. 106. Nevertheless, the   Wilber  presentation  does  express some ideas that strongly resemble certain “new age” concepts, as in the Up From Eden statement “because we are now collectively  at the precise point in history where the exoteric curve is  starting  to run  into  the esoteric  curve” (cited in Visser, p. 104).

(13)      Ibid., p. 25,  citing  the  verdict  of  John  White.  A slightly less emphatic support came from Jean Houston, associated with humanistic psychology, who commented that “Wilber might likely do for consciousness what Freud did for psychology.”

(14)     See   Geoffrey  D. Falk, “Norman Einstein”: The Dis-Integration of Ken Wilber (2008),  a  strongly opposing   online  book  at  http://www.normaneinsteinbook.com. Falk has the reputation of being the most relentless of all Wilber's critics, who are rather varied in temperament. He is also very critical of the Integral Institute, founded by Wilber in Colorado. In Chapter 12, Falk lists founding members of that Institute, with some rather sceptical comments. In Chapter 9, he refers very pointedly to Wilber's "Wyatt Earp" blog of June 2006. The chapter is entitled Bald Narcissism. Falk urges "all that one would have to do is read that blog by Wilber to see why he is losing respect even from those academics who used to think he deserved his high standing in the transpersonal/integral community." Falk accuses Wilber of "intellectual abuse" in fitting details from varied sources into his theorisings, a feat which does not amount to integration in this sceptical perspective.

(15)     Shepherd, Minds and  Sociocultures  Vol. One (1995), pp. 101-127, and addressing  the  Wilber  format as  transpersonal  sociology.  The closing  paragraphs  of  that  review  dispute  Wilber’s  elevation  of Hegel’s phenomenology  of  Spirit,  which  is  discrepant with many aspects of   "perennial  philosophy."

(16)      Visser,  Ken  Wilber: Thought  As  Passion, p. 308  note  65.  Visser  here drewupon Wilber’s The Eye of Spirit  (1997), p. 63, which specifies “neoperennial philosophy,” and also praises Hegel’s idea of history as evolution in terms of “propounded  the  doctrine  with a  genius rarely  equalled.” Some  other commentators have been far less sympathetic to Hegel’s glorification of  the Prussian  monarchical state (though Wilber does acknowledge  the “almost  manic enthusiasms” of  the  German  philosopher  in that  direction).

(17)      John Horgan, Rational Mysticism (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2003), p. 70. Horgan refers to Wilber’s dogmatism, and says that “Wilber speaks with an authoritarianism, pedantry, and  didacticism  that  imply omniscience” (ibid., p. 65). Horgan also affirms: “There  is  much  to  admire  in  Ken  Wilber....Wilber was more modest and amiable than I had expected. But he did make it quite clear that vanishingly few people have reached his level of enlightenment. Not  even the Dalai Lama  can  sustain  nondual awareness  through  deep sleep, Wilber informed me, as he can” (ibid., pp. 64-5).  The  interview  occurred at Wilber’s home in Colorado, apparently in 2000, after the publication of  the  provocative   One  Taste (1999). In  that  book, Wilber  claimed  to have achieved nondual  awareness,  meaning  spiritual enlightenment.

(18)    Visser, op. cit., pp. 22-3. The Zen influence is considered to have been the strongest on the early Wilber, who tracked  down  Philip  Kapleau, author of  The Three  Pillars of Zen.  Frank Visser’s  research into  the  life and career   of  Ken  Wilber was  assisted  by  his  six-hour  interview  with  the  latter  in Colorado, dating to  1997 (ibid., p. 289  note 2).

(19)      See  Shepherd, Pointed  Observations  (2005), pp. 58, 62ff., and with reference to Wilber, “A Spirituality That Transforms,”  What Is Enlightenment?  (Fall/Winter 1997) Issue 12, pp. 22-32. In that disputed  article, Wilber attempted  to  vindicate  the careers of Trungpa  and  Adi  Da  with the  theme of “radical transformation.” The article  was  so  popular  that  WIE  reprinted  it.  Wilber  appeared  on the front cover of this glossy magazine in 1997, along with his statement: “Authentic spirituality is revolutionary; it does not console the world; it shatters it.” The  anomalies  in  this  emphasis  have  been noted (Pointed Obs., p. 57). WIE described the Wilber article with the following caption: “America’s foremost transpersonal theorist  points beyond conventional  religious pursuit to  the revolutionary possibility of authentic spiritual transformation.” Some muted criticism of  the New Age guru  Deepak Chopra  appeared in the same  issue,  but  Wilber was considered beyond reproach in these  circles.

(20)       Wilber, The Eye of Spirit: An Integral Vision for a World Gone Slightly Mad  (Boston: Shambhala, 1997), pp. 277ff.  Wilber here rather discrepantly includes Nietzsche in a list of  polemical  “spiritual philosophers” extending to Plato and Plotinus. Other analysts describe Nietzsche as a nihilist.

(21)       See Shepherd, Meaning in Anthropos  (Cambridge: Anthropographia, 1991), pp. xxxiv-xliv; id., Minds and Sociocultures Vol. One (1995), pp. 61-84. Cf. D. Rothberg and S. Kelly, eds., Ken Wilber in Dialogue: Conversations with  Leading Transpersonal  Thinkers  (Wheaton, Illinois: Quest Books, 1998), which includes Grof-Wilber exchange. Wilber's more well known discussion of Grof theory in Sex, Ecology, Spirituality (1995) declared only "relatively minor" differences with his own model, and in this respect he referred to "the Grof/Wilber overlap." Wilber even stated here that Grof's basic perinatal matrices were "completely consonant" with his own model. See Shepherd, Some Philosophical Critiques and Appraisals (2004), pp. 94-5, in a section commenting on Wilber's longest book. (Most of my Philos. Critiques was written in 1996-97.) See also note 26 below.

(22)      Wilber, Sex, Ecology, Spirituality: The Spirit of  Evolution  (Boston: Shambhala, 1995), pp. 340, 520. The disapproving reference to “a  type  of  Advaita Vedanta” has  been  decoded to mean the Shankara Order and the Ramakrishna Order, as  distinct  from  the  neo-advaita   associated  with  Wilber and  Adi  Da Samraj. See Shepherd, Some  Philosophical  Critiques and  Appraisals  (2004), p. 278 note  276.  The  neo-advaita trend  in  the West  has  taken  different  forms, including the  rather  amorphous  variant associated  with Andrew  Cohen.

(23)     Shepherd, Some Philosophical Critiques and Appraisals, pp. 99-100. See also the chapter on Plotinus, pp. 160 ff., including the observation: “Plotinus gives the impression that he was aware of suspect undercurrents which Gnostic doctrines harboured, though the references are of a generalised nature. He appears to have made an effort to be polite for the benefit of his Gnostic acquaintances.” (Ibid., p. 180). Professor Rist stressed of Plotinus "his moderate asceticism, his strict sense of morality" (J.M. Rist, Plotinus: The Road to Reality, Cambridge University Press, 1967, p. 15). See also John Dillon, "Plotinus: An Introduction," in Dillon, ed., The Enneads, trans. Stephen MacKenna (London: Penguin, 1991), who describes the subject as "a mystic who is also a rationalist, for whom the intelligible world is more real than the physical, but who is confident that its contours and functions can be established by reasoned argument" (ibid., p. xc). Still a useful work is Kurt Rudolph, Gnosis: The Nature and History of Gnosticism (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1984), which stresses that Gnosticism was essentially a city religion found in Antioch, Ephesus, Alexandria, Rome, and Seleucia-Ctesiphon, and with the centre of gravity in the Near East from Egypt to Asia Minor (p. 291). The Valentinians were the most frequently reported Gnostic school, but many details remain obscure. Like Plotinus, Valentinus moved from Alexandria to Rome, though a century earlier. See also Giovanni Filoramo, A History of Gnosticism (Oxford: Blackwell, 1990), p. 186, comparing the heresiographical tactic of Irenaeus to the procedure of Plotinus. "Having established correct ethical positions, he [Plotinus] then draws the logical conclusions, accusing the Gnostics of immorality." Professor Filoramo also supplies a translation of the relevant passage in the Panarion about the orgiastic sect encountered by Epiphanius, and comments that "however coloured it might be, the very prudishness of the account guarantees the substantial truthfulness of the picture" (p. 183). There are ongoing probes of textual complexities in Gnostic and heresiographic works, e.g., Alastair H. B. Logan, Gnostic Truth and Christian Heresy: A Study in the History of Gnosticism (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1996), deducing that the Gnostic worldview presented by Irenaeus is Platonist, and "being not far removed fromthe ideas of Syrian Middle Platonists of the second century like Numenius of Apamea," though being "essentially a Christian scheme" and reflecting "the experience of salvation through a Christian Gnostic initiation ritual based on baptism" (p. 22). In relation to Plotinus, a strong suggestion is that the Nag Hammadi treatises Zostrianos and Allogenes are the very same apocalypses mentioned by Porphyry as being "produced or used by Gnostic attenders at Plotinus' lectures and refuted by him and his pupils in the period between 244 and 269 CE" (p. 51). Those apocalypses have been attributed to the Sethian Gnostic group; Porphyry indicates that this obscure sector were Christians, despite their assimilation to Neoplatonism (ibid.).

(24)     See  Luna  Tarlo, The  Mother  of  God  (New York: Plover Press, 1997).  See also Andre van der Braak,  Enlightenment  Blues: My Years with an American Guru (New York: Monkfish, 2003). Van  der  Braak lived in  Andrew  Cohen’s  community for  over  ten  years, and  was  one of  the original editors of  the What Is Enlightenment? magazine created by Cohen. In contrast, Ken Wilber’s glowing descriptions  of Cohen  have  met  with   scepticism  from   varied  analysts.

(25)     Wilber, The Eye of Spirit  (1997), p. 35. The followingchapter is sub-titled “Integral Psychology and the Perennial Philosophy” (pp. 37-57). This tells us very little about the second subject, though much more about the first. Wilber’s basic theme is one of how his schema has updated and modernised perennialism. He specifically mentions  his  third book The Atman Project (1980). To quote: “The Atman Project  was, as far as we  can  tell, the first  psychology  that suggested a way of uniting  East and West.... In so doing, it  incorporated a good number of approaches,  from  Freud  to  Buddha,  Gestalt  to Shankara, Piaget to Yogachara, Kohlberg to Krishnamurti”(ibid., p. 51).  The disadvantages of conflation are sometimes  evident.  Freud  is no gauge for the Buddha, who is still very imperfectly known. Gestalt has  no  relation  to  Shankara,  who  is better served by the advanced textual and semantic studies missing from The Atman Project.  Krishnamurti  is  not regarded as part of the “perennial philosophy” by  close  analysts,  but  rather as  a  distraction exhibiting  serious doctrinal and moral flaws. See further Shepherd, Minds and Sociocultures Vol. One (1995), pp. 101-105. “Very suspiciously, he (Krishnamurti) denied  the  relevance  of  a developmental ‘path,’ a convenience which  was  an increasing fashion  in  the  New Age  that  came  under  his  influence  to  no  small  degree” (ibid., p. 104).

(26)   Wilber, The  Eye of  Spirit,  p. 165.  Despite Wilber’s declared degree of agreement  with  Grof, he does articulate  a pointed  criticism  of  the  perinatal  theory devised  by the latter.  That  theory  relates to the apparent reliving of biological  birth in  psychedelic  experiences.   Wilber  stresses  that  the  Grof theory arises primarily from  intense  LSD  sessions, whereas  “the necessity for first experiencing oneself as a fetus is found in  none of the traditional  texts” (ibid., p. 172).  Wilber appropriately  observes that  there  is  no necessity to relive clinical birth in a process of  transpersonal development. The LSD (and Holotropic  Breathwork)  phenomena are  not  at all  paradigmatic  for  transpersonal (or spiritual) development.  Wilber also refers (ibid., p. 175)  to  the critique of Grof  theory  by  Huston Smith in Forgotten Truth (1976).  Yet  it  is  disconcerting  to read  the relevant  Appendix to the Smith book, which tends in some  ways to validate  the Grof theory as being in convergence with traditional concepts. A more  recent  work by Huston Smith has drawn criticism for  providing a misleading approach to entheogens. See Smith, Cleansing  the  Doors  of Perception (New York: Tarcher/Putnam, 2000).  The Appendix on Grof  is  there  reprinted  as  chapter  six, along  with  a  retrospective preamble  including the statement: “I found his  (Grof’s)  findings  so  in  keeping  with  the  traditional  concept of  the  self that  I  had outlined  in  my book that  I  added  an  Appendix  to  my  book  to  summarize  his work” (ibid., p. 79).  Cf. Shepherd,  Pointed  Observations  (2005),  p. 78.  Cf. Horgan,  Rational  Mysticism  (2003), pp. 20-21.

(27)     Wilber, The  Eye  of Spirit, p. 291.  Although  a  quotation  from  Eckhart follows, the  mood  is reminiscent of the 1970s  vogue for present-centredness, which  has  persisted  until today. Certainly, in Wilber’s  two earliest books (published in the late1970s), there is a  strong  emphasis  on   the  now, associated  chiefly  with  Krishnamurti,  whom  Wilber  substantially  endorsed.

(28)      Visser,  Ken Wilber: Thought  as  Passion, p. 220.  A factor in Wilber’s teaching that  has aroused query  is the theme  that  one of  the “two  crucial errors....is  to  imagine  that  the  step  from  the  Self  to the One requires an  effort” (ibid., p. 219).  His meditation injunctions refer to, e.g., resting as the Witness and in Freedom.  "Relax in the space of Freedom that you are" (ibid.). Realistically, this approach  affords  a prodigious scope  for deception. Meditation exercises  are not  the same  as enlightenment, which  is merely  mystified  by such  themes as  “Who is not already enlightened?” The relaxation option is certainly more amenable to the current consumer demand. There is reason to believe that meditation is unsuitable for some people, various drawbacks being on record.

(29)       Ibid., p. 221.  Visser  also remarks  that “for  Wilber  these  spiritual states are a  daily  experience, even  if  they  are  not  yet  constantly sustained” (ibid., p. 222).  Journalist  John  Horgan  was  rather  more critical during this  same  period.  He  comments  in  one  of  his  relatively   dour   paragraphs   that: “For all  his  (Wilber’s) warnings  about  the  perils  of  narcissism, or  ‘psychic  inflation,’ he  does  not  seem  to have  entirely avoided  that  pitfall  himself. Soon  after  I  started  reading  his  books, a  sentence  popped into  my  head, one  that  came back  to  me  again and  again  during  my  research  for  this  book: I’m enlightened, and  you’re not. ” (Horgan, Rational  Mysticism,  2003, p. 65.) An analysis of Wilber's Kosmic Consciousness CD reveals that he has explicitly not claimed a full enlightenment, though his general angle receives strong criticism in Jim Andrews, Ken Wilber on Meditation (2006), which comprises an appendix to the online book by Geoffrey Falk. See note 14 above.

(30)   Wilber, Integral Psychology: Consciousness, Spirit, Psychology, Therapy (Boston: Shambhala, 2000), p. 50. The  green  meme is  here  described as  applying to ten per cent of the population. It is classified in terms of: “deep ecology, postmodernism...humanistic psychology, liberation theology, World Council of Churches,  Greenpeace, animal rights, ecofeminism, postcolonialism, Foucault/Derrida, politically correct, diversity movements, human rights issues, ecopsychology” (ibid. pp. 50-51).  More  exception  has  been taken  to  the analysis of  scientific  achievement, here denoted by the fifth or orange meme, said to comprise thirty per cent of the  population.  The  Wilber  coverage  of this  disputed meme includes “Wall Street, the Riviera,  emerging middle classes around the world, cosmetics industry, trophy hunting, colonialism, the Cold War, fashion  industry, materialism, liberal  self-interest” (ibid., p. 50). Critics say  that  the  analysis is confused, reflecting  a certain type  of  contemporary  reductionism  in value terms. Realistically, scientific  achievement  is  nowhere  near  thirty  per cent.

(31)    Ibid., p. 52.   Memes  seven  and  eight  are  viewed  with  reserve  elsewhere.  The yellow meme is described as integrative. The turquoise  or “holistic” meme “sometimes  involves  the  emergence  of  a new spirituality” (ibid.).  These two memes  comprise  “second-tier thinking,” and  encompass  only  one per cent  of the  population. Yet  Wilber  states  that  only  0.1 per cent are at turquoise level, which is evidently elite territory. “Beck and Cowan  mention  items  ranging from  Teilhard de  Chardin’s noosphere  to the growth of transpersonal psychology” (ibid.). One could  guess that  Wilber, Adi Da, and  Andrew  Cohen  are in the turquoise zone, nondualism being  the  highest  achievement  in some transpersonal canons. Wilber does mention that green is not to be abandoned, but  instead  enriched (ibid., p. 53), though one suspects that distractions could occur, as in the instance of  disillusioned ex-devotees  and  admirers.

(32)    Shepherd, Pointed  Observations  (2005), pp. 64-5, and  utilising  the  WIE article “An interview with Dr. Don Beck.” My  critical  comments  were in  reaction to  the  glamorisation  of circa 1970  as a “transpersonal” dateline in meme theory for advanced minority achievements.  In reality, the achievements were very largely potential, it may be countered, and  substantially offset by the distractions created via management consultants, new age therapists, and other  presumed  holistic experts.  “The elitist dimensions of  this theme are lent stigma by the  implication  that  the transpersonalist  jet set are in the vanguard”  (ibid., p. 63). 

(33)     Shepherd, Meaning in Anthropos: Anthropography as an interdisciplinary science of culture (1991), p. 97.  The  Mohist  philosophical  tradition  appears  to  have  flourished  in  the  fourth  century  B.C., “being rooted  in the  trades  and  crafts of the towns, amongst  people  who  were  normally  inarticulate” (ibid., p. 98). The movement  was  at  first  religious  in  complexion, but  subsequently  developed  into a highly rationalised approach. “In the Mohist worldview, the extravagances of the  nobles  wasted  the resources  of  the  land  and  the  people” (ibid.).  It is arguable that the  Mohist  scientific  flair in optics and  mechanics  defies  the  simplistic  formulae  of  American  “orange  meme”  theory.  See  further A. C. Graham, Later  Mohist  Logic,  Ethics, and  Science (London: School of  Oriental  and  African Studies, 1978); idem, Disputers  of  the  Tao  (La Salle, Illinois: Open  Court, 1989).

(34)     Visser,  Ken  Wilber: Thought  As  Passion (2003), p. 231. Visser  also  says  Wilber  is  averse to the extreme expression  of  postmodernism  “that  has  taken  root in the American universities” (ibid.), instead maintaining “the search for  generally valid truths” which  are  denied  by  the  postmodern argument (ibid.).  It is very much easier to  agree  with that  form  of  expression  than  the confusions inherent in meme theory.  A drawback  being  that  the  truths  can  be  simplified  or  over-generalised. Further, the Wilber version of postmodernism has been contested. See section 14 of this article. Furthermore, relativism in the American new age is extensive. However, there are some problems in academe which can be considered reprehensible. For instance, the policy of SUNY Press in publishing misleading new age books by Stanislav Grof affords proof of a backward relativism. Wilber has not mentioned such problems. Cf. my Pointed Observations (2005), p. 343. "The mass of citizens are potential guinea pigs for Grofian experiments endorsed by SUNY" (ibid.).

(35)     Shepherd,  Meaning  in  Anthropos  (1991),  p.  160,  and citing  J. Z. Wilczynski, “On  the  Presumed Darwinism of  Alberuni  Eight  Hundred  Years  before  Darwin,”   Isis (1959) 50: 459-66.  The comments of Rainow were  published in 1943. The  critical  coverage of  this issue  by  Wilczynski  conceded  that  Biruni’s India  really does  contain “views resembling  the  basic  principles  of  Darwin’s future doctrine,” though affirming that these views  are “vague and accidental.” There  have  since  been  other  learned discussions of  this and related matters in  the corpus of al-Biruni.  The  familiarity of  al-Biruni  with Indian  religion  extended  to quoting the Bhagavad-Gita, though he was  also  conversant  with  Hindu scientific works. His distinctive treatise  Kitab al-Jamahir  “briefly  expressed  the  view  that  mankind evolved  through  the  species  until  the  form  of  cats  was arrived at,  subsequently  passing  on  to  bears,  and  then  to  primates  before  reaching  the anthropoid stage” (Meaning  in Anthropos, p. 161).  Not only  this, but al-Biruni  somehow  discovered that animal life exists at  a very low level of cellular organisation. “He  maintained  that  sponges are  animals, and credited corals with the possession  of organs of  perception, a  sense  of  touch, and  contractions which  he  regarded as animal properties. This has  recently  been  considered to  mark  the  greatest  advancement  in  the  field of zoology until Cuvier or  Lamarck  (which  brings  us   forward  in  time  very  close  to Darwin).  Even in seventeenth century scientific  Europe, corals were still regarded as plants.” (Ibid.).  Furthermore, one should note here  that  the concept  of  slow geological  transition  was  widely  recognised  amongst  Muslim scientists even before al-Biruni. “Aside from such specifically modern concepts as the Darwinian theory of evolution, there are many modern geological  ideas, such  as  the  change of  land  and  sea, sedimentation,  rise  of  mountains, and so on, which are to  be  found  in  various  medieval  Muslim treatises,  particularly  those  of  al-Biruni.” This quote comes from Seyyed Hossein Nasr, An Introduction to Islamic Cosmological   Doctrines  (revised  edn,  London: Thames  and  Hudson, 1978), p. 141.

(36)    See  Meher  Baba, God  Speaks: The Theme of  Creation  and  Its Purpose (New York: Dodd, Mead & Co., 1955).  This  dictated  work  of  the  Irani  mystic  exhibits some linguistic complexity, though  the  basic format  is English. The  contents  depict a  form  of  spiritual  evolution, though   with  a  distinctive  version of  progress through species-forms  that  escapes  totally  from  the  rather  diffuse  ideas about retrograde reincarnation that can be found elsewhere.  There is a supplement  strongly  associated  with Meher  Baba’s  Muslim  disciple  Dr. Abdul  Ghani  (Munsiff).  Some  misunderstandings  were  caused  via the  introduction  by  Don  E. Stevens, an American devotee who failed to elucidate the nature of the contents  and  who  misrepresented  the  title  with some  devotional  preferences. Because of  the prodigious  attention  given to  the  works of  Aurobindo  in the Esalen-inspired  new  age,  it  may  be considered a flaw  for various  American  commentators  to  have  ignored  God Speaks,  especially in view of  the  author’s strong  ancestral  links  with  Iran. See  also  Shepherd, Meher Baba, an Iranian Liberal (Cambridge: Anthropographia, 1988), pp. 248-9. See  also  article  6.9  on  this  website, and especially  the text  relevant  to  note 56  concerning  the  religio-mystical  syncretism  occurring  in Maharashtra. 

(37)    Wilber, Integral   Psychology  (2000), p. 155.  The  appropriation  of  Plotinus  by  the  American “nondual” tradition  has  met  with scepticism.  The  juxtaposition  of that  Neoplatonist  with  both Nagarjuna  and Tantra  is not  convincing, as  the  varied  teachings  do  not  tally.  In  the  same  passage, Wilber  describes TibetanTantra in terms of an “unparalleled flowering,” and specifies the eighth to the eighteenth centuries  in  this  context.  The evident  estimation of  Vajrayana  can perhaps lose moorings in other directions, whether or not one chooses to describe Florence and  the  rise  of  humanism in terms of “the  first  collective  or average-mode glimmers of vision-logic” (ibid.).  The  elaborate  terminology  of integralism  can  arouse  disagreements. 

(38)    See  further  Shepherd, Minds  and  Sociocultures Vol. One (1995), pp. 18-19, on the subject of Taoist yoga, vamachara, and discrepancies  in  the  exegesis  of  Mircea  Eliade.  “Ignorance of psychic depletion is currently pronounced, and  doubtless   facilitated  by  the  talk  of  altered  states  of consciousness” (ibid.).

(39)      In 1997, Wilber’s  definition  of  transpersonal psychology  referred to five major approaches, namely systems  theory, altered  states  of  consciousness, the Grof holotropic model,  “various forms of Jungian psychology,” and his own spectrum or  integral  theory (Wilber, The  Eye of Spirit, 1997, p. 139).  Since then, versions  of  the  integralist  outlook  have  included  broad-ranging  definitions  extending  to  Aurobindo, Gebser, Michael  Murphy  (of  Esalen),  and the philosopher  Richard Tarnas.  The  lastmentioned  is  noted for his  book The  Passion of  the  Western  Mind (1991), and  is  associated  with  Grofian affinities. Wilber was very critical  of the  Grof  connection  here,  and  commented  that  Tarnas “seems  to  miss  so much that is actually crucial  to the historical  emergence  of  modernity” (Eye  of  Spirit,  p. 169). The relation of Wilber to Michael Murphy was rather more positive, signified by Wilber's statement in the same book that "Michael Murphy very well might be the single most significant spiritual pioneer of our generation" (ibid., p. 259). Murphy had recently praised Wilber's Sex, Ecology, Spirituality (1995) as one of the four great books of the twentieth century. This exchange of compliments tends to underline the basic affinity discernible between Ken Wilber and the Esalen milieu.

(40)     The  term  holistic  achieved   exposure  during  the  1970s,  becoming associated  with  intuitive faculties  in some  formats  of  psychology.  This   trend was  later  pirated  by  the popular “holistic movement” associated with entrepreneurial  workshops.  Moving  in  the  direction  of  popularisation  was Robert E. Ornstein, The Psychology  of  Consciousness  (1972; second edn, 1977), who drew upon a number of  trends  in his presentation of  brain  theory   and  the  holistic mode  of consciousness. Cf. Colin Blakemore, Mechanics of the Mind (Cambridge University Press, 1977), for a more severe neurobiological view.  Cf. Shepherd, Psychology in Science  (Cambridge: Anthropographia, 1983), pp. 192ff., noting Professor Ornstein’s disclaimer of Transcendental Meditation and  the  contrasting  promotion  of  TM  in Peter Russell, The Brain Book  (London: Routledge, 1979).  There followed the overwhelming popular trend of opposing the mechanistic worldview of Cartesian-Newtonian science, a  trend strongly associated  with Fritjof  Capra, The Turning Point  (London: Wildwood House, 1982). Cf. Peter Medawar, Pluto’s Republic (Oxford University Press, 1983).  Cf. Shepherd, The Resurrection of Philosophy (Cambridge: Anthropographia, 1989), pp. 82ff., for a  criticism  of  the  Capra  format  without  denying   the holistic conception  of  reality.  However,  at  commercial  level, so-called  “holistic” concepts are effectively meaningless and  even  predatory.

(41)    Wilber, What  We  Are, That  We  See Part 1: Response to Some Recent Criticism in  a  Wild  West Fashion (June 8, 2006) at  www.kenwilber.com/blog/show/46. Ken Wilber here asserted: "I have done my homework, and done it much better than my critics." He also described himself as "using his Zen sword of prajna to cut off the heads of critics so staggeringly little that he has to slow down about 10-fold just to see them.... and then rip their eyes out and piss in their eye-sockets." The scenario of the giant sword-wielder against the little critics has earned some strong reflections elsewhere, including the accusation of prepersonal verbal indulgence. Counts have been made of the indecent wordings used, and even some Wilber fans were shocked by the Wild West Zen idiom. On this dispute, see Frank Visser, The Wild West Wilber Report (2006), which is located at www.integralworld.net/visser15.html. This feature gives access to the various Wilber blogs and the critical responses involved from diverse sources. See especially Visser, Games Pandits Play: A Reply to Ken Wilber's Raging Rant (June 14, 2006). This item refers to "the immature and abusive language" used on the Wilber blog of June 8, and affirms that "all ingredients of cultic logicare in full swing now at Integral Institute." Visser stresses that "Wilber's posting was phrased rudely on purpose: to separate the green from the yellow." The Wilber contingent being the elevated yellowmeme, and the critics representing the inferior green meme. Michel Bauwens also accused the Ken Wilber movement of "becoming a closed cultic environment," a symptom of this being "a total inability to deal with criticism." See Bauwens, Ken Wilber is losing it (June 2006). The Belgian analyst also complains that the Boomeritis novel of Wilber had already revealed a strong stylistic streak "full of sexual innuendo that we should not expect, and I think, accept, in a man of such purported stature." From another angle, the Spiral Dynamics exponent Christopher Cowan commented that "the number of people we encounter who have been programmed to dislike the sixth level (green [meme]) because of Wilber's writings is astounding." See Cowan, Observations on Ken Wilber's June 8th Rant (June 2006). Another critic, Jeff Meyerhoff, expresses his belief that Wilber has been exposed and cannot confront the truth. Meyerhoff accuses Wilber of avoiding critical engagement via such diversions as mockery and "the supercilious and unexplained notion of altitude," meaning the sense of spiritual elevation that is insidiously conveyed. See Meyerhoff, An "Intellectual Tragedy" (2006).

(42)   Shepherd, Some Philosophical Critiques and Appraisals, 2004, p. 140, and adding that there is no reference to any personal religious experience in the works of Shankara. Firm attribution of those works has proved difficult in a number of instances. Shankara was basically concerned to elevate knowledge (jnana) above ritual, opposing his ritualist opponents known as Mimamsakas. "Though Advaita is attractive to many Westerners, it is very closely bound up with the exegesis of brahmanical scripture according to medieval standards" (ibid., p. 141).

(43)   Ibid., pp. 245ff., for a critical version of Foucault. See also J. Miller, The Passion of Michel Foucault (London: Collins, 1993). Foucault "made no secret of his special interest in the consensual form of sado-masochistic eroticism that flourished in a number of San Francisco bathhouses" (Miller, p. 27). During his visit to California in 1975, Foucault ingested LSD and became active in the flourishing gay community of San Francisco. He returned several times in his pursuit of "forbidden pleasures," and recklessly referred to "the sensuality of death" and other dubious themes (ibid., p. 280). He had an obsessive interest in the writings of the Marquis de Sade. The indulgent example set by Foucault is a deterrent to any viable philosophy.

(44)   David J. Kalupahana, Nagarjuna: The Philosophy of the Middle Way (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1986), p. 105. The negative verse involved here reads: "No existents whatsoever are evident anywhere that are arisen from themselves, from another, from both, or from a non-cause." (Ibid.). Candrakirti emphasised the Prasangika method of reductio ad absurdum, and Kalupahana is more sympathetic to "Nagarjuna's disciples like Bhavaviveka and the more positive thinkers of the Madhyamika school" (ibid., p. 26).

(45)   A. K. Warder, Indian Buddhism (second edn, Delhi: Banarsidass, 1980), p. 478. Bhavaviveka argued against Buddhapalita, an earlier Madhyamaka philosopher who represented the Prasangika school, maintaining a strict form of argument based upon inferring consequences from the positions of opponents. Later, Candrakirti supported the Prasangika attitude against Bhavaviveka. There have been more recent arguments about the complexities.

(46)   David L. Snellgrove, Indo-Tibetan Buddhism: Indian Buddhists and Their Tibetan Successors(London: Serindia, 1987), p.89. Opponents of the Madhyamikas identified them as nihilists (nastika). Snellgrove adopts the more severe form of assessment. "There may be a lack of logic in the Madhyamaka position, but as it is claimed throughout that any stance is essentially a nonstance, they can scarcely be judged by logical considerations" (ibid., p. 91). Earlier, the French scholar Louis de la Vallee Poussin had stated a similarity of ascetic emphasis between Hinayana and Nagarjuna. "Nagarjuna's method is quite similar; the ascetic persuades himself that in real truth, misery and pleasure, the I and the you, etc. are all void of misery and pleasure, of I and of you" (ibid., p.92, and citing la Vallee Poussin "Reflections sur le Madhyamaka," in Melanges Chinois et Bouddhiques, Brussels 1933, 2:1-59). The close connection with ascetic psychology is too rarely emphasised. Insofar as is known, all the varied Buddhist commentators of those early periods were monks.

(47)   Frank Visser has dated the "post-metaphysical" development to an interview in 2001, and since then "Wilber has most vocally and fiercely criticised what he sees as the shortcomings of perennialism." See Visser, PerennialismLite: Comments on 'Integral Post-Metaphysics' (2008), located at http://www.integralworld.net/visser29.html.

(48)   Wouter J. Hanegraaff, "Everybody is Right": Frank Visser's Analysis of Ken Wilber, presented anew at http://www.integralworld.net/hanegraaff.html. The title phrase comes from a statement of Wilber reproduced by Visser, the context being that "every perspective contains a certain, although limited, amount of truth," the purpose of Wilber being to demonstrate how the limited truths complement one another within the all-encompassing integralist scheme. Hanegraaff also comments with reserve on a chapter featuring in the Wilber novel Boomeritis, in which the author attacks the "cultural relativism of postmodernists and deconstructivists." That distinctive Wilber tactic here accuses the opponents of being "morally responsible for the catastrophe" afflicting the WorldTrade Center in 2001. Professor Hanegraaff closed his review by allocating Ken Wilber to the same bracket as Jung, Rudolf Otto, and Mircea Eliade, who were here considered to be similar upholders of a religious (or metaphysical) perspective.

(49)   "Wilber's intent has not been to open up his work for a true academic debate, or even an online debate among those thoroughly familiar with his works, but to teach his ideas to an increasingly wider circle of his own students.... to even create an Integral University of his own." This verdict comes from Visser, Telling the Story As If It Were True: Review of "The Integral Vision" (2008). Click here. The web item is a review of Wilber's book published in 2007. Visser deems that work to be a rehash of Integral Spirituality, and says "this is a blatant Wilber-commercial." He characterises the approach as "telling the story as if it were true, with all the rhetorical devices at his [Wilber's] disposal - wild claims of support from scientific research, from spiritual traditions, from his own experience." Visser evidently does not take seriously the fact that "Wilber gives 1-minute exercises to strengthen your subtle and causal bodies."

(50)   Randi Cecchine, Frank Visser on Ken Wilber: A Video Interview with Frank Visser, Full Transcript (2008). Click here. In this interview, Visser says that he has distanced himself from the "integral circus" for the past six or seven years.He admits to an ambivalence in that he is still a fan of Wilber, though also an antagonist. "In the academic world, Wilber is mostly seen as a bookshelf tumbling over....an overkill of sources and name calling, with five famous names in one single sentence....what he's catering to is impressing the laymen." The purport of this criticism is that Wilber presents the famous names as being in agreement with his theory. The interview states that Visser now represents about seventy authors on his website, all of them (or mostly) amateurs. That site (integralworld.net) is here said to involve five thousand print-out pages (some authors have contributed many articles). The dimensions of that site are indeed notable, and the contents significant in terms of alternativist reappraisal. Some observers find puzzling the belief that "we have to go through the long process of building an integral school around Wilber, which will produce the studies and literature needed to attract attention from other scientists." Why has this unusual project got to be so irrevocably tied to the American author? However, the accompanying proviso makes due sense, in that "a sensitivity to objections, criticism, second thoughts, etc. should be kept alive, to avoid turning it [the counter project] into an ideology."

Copyright © August 2009  Kevin R. D. Shepherd. All Rights Reserved.