Gurus/Spiritual Masters

Ken Wilber
current suggested assesment

Pandit (adapted term in this

definition); despite
Ken Wilber "Guru" or
"Pandit"? devotion of his follwers,
rejects guru role
(admirable)
Originally Transpersonal
Psychology, but since
established his own
Tradition tradition, theIntegral
Community, inspired by
Developmental Psychology
Author's note: Because his opinions are and Nonduality spirituality
very forthright and not infrequently Previously Adi Da, now a
controversial, and his attempt at a grand Gurus/Teachers
number of Buddhist figures
synthesis of all human knowledge is so
ambitious, Ken Wilber has been a very Philosophy/Worldv Evolutionary/Integral/Nond
iew ual
difficult person to write about. In this
critique I have tried to strike balance Middle
between a too-worshipful and a too- Methodology Mental intellectual universa
critical stance. lism
Allan Combs, Stuart Davis,
Mark Edwards, Sean
Esbjorn-Hargens, Steve
Important Students
McIntosh,Brad Reynolds,
Frank Visser (now a critic),
many many others.
Important Integral
Paradigm theorist who
seems to derive his
amazing enthusiasm and
Assesment power
from daimonic charisma.
Generous to those who
praise him, less so to those
who criticise him

It has been said that Ken Wilber stands in the tradition of   William James as
psychologist of the spiritual and "far and away the most cogent and penetrating
voice in the recent emergence of uniquely American wisdom." [  Tony
Schwartz Foreword to Ken Wilber's   A Brief History of Everything].  His
first book, The Spectrum of Consciousness, was written in 1973 when he was
only twenty three, and published in 1977, after being rejected by twenty
 publishers. It became an immediate best-seller, and Wilber's output has been
prodigious and constant since. Although considered one of the founders
ofTranspersonal Psychology, he has since disassociated himself from the
movement.

Wilber is credited with developing a unified theory of consciousness,

synthesising all of the world's great psychological, philosophical, and spiritual
traditions, and using as a starting point a laudable eclecticism and the Perennial
Philosophy's Great Chain of Being and progressing ever further and broader with
each successive iteration of his thought. Says one supporter

"Wilber's approach appears to have provided a coherent vision that seamlessly weaves together truth-
claims from such fields as physics and biology; the eco-sciences; chaos theory and the systems sciences;
medicine, neurophysiology, biochemistry; art, poetry, and aesthetics in general; developmental
psychology and a spectrum of psychotherapeutic endeavors, from Freud to Jung to Kegan; the great
spiritual theorists from Plato and Plotinus in the West to Shankara and Nagarjuna in the East; the
modernists from Descartes and Locke to Kant; the Idealists from Schelling to Hegel; the postmodernists
from Foucault and Derrida to Taylor and Habermas; the major hermeneutic tradition, Dilthey to
Heidegger to Gadamer; the social systems theorists from Comte and Marx to Parsons and Luhmann; the
contemplative and mystical schools of the great meditative traditions, East and West, in the world's major
religious traditions."

Jack Crittenden -   What is the Meaning of "Integral"?

An impressive claim. Wilber's critics may consider it a bit too impressive. But
this is not to deny that Ken Wilber in some respects seems like a latter day Pico
della Mirandola, unifying fields of knowledge that have for the most part been
separate and isolated since the Renaissance at least (Pico was a Renaissance
Neoplatonist who incorporated all fields of human knowledge into a single all-
embracing philosophical-religious system). It is just a question of whether -
giving the current exponential growth in human knowledge (in my mind a
symptom of a coming technological singularity) such a synthesis is even possible,
and if it is, how best to go about doing it? (and yes this is a subject that I myself
am also concerned with)

In any case, despite his powerful intellect, huge sweep of knowledge, and
tremendous sincerity, Wilber is not an original thinker in the style of, say,
Plato, Hegel, Spinoza,   Whitehead, or Sri Aurobindo, to name just a few.  Nor
I am sure would he claim to be (even if some of his followers do!). And like most
monolithic systematisers - like me, he is a Hedgehog, but he is far more extreme
than I am - he does tend to put things in boxes, in fact, he does this with far more
enthusiasm than I ever would.  Time and again, he takes widely divergent maps
of consciousness and squeezes them into the same   procrustean bed (for a good
example of this, see the table of charts at the back of   Integral Psychology).
Perhaps because he reads so widely he does not have time to absorb in depth the
intricacies and details of each scientific field, and each spiritual teaching. Because
of this he tends to misunderstand teachers like Sri Aurobindo who go beyond the
simple Zen and Advaita-based monism of his own belief-system

Influences

Wilber draws eclectically from a large number of modern Western and traditional
Eastern philosophers and writers, almost all of whom he gives his own
interpretation on. These include evolutionary philosophers such as Hegel,
Schelling, Nicolai Hartmann, psychoanalytical theories of personality
and developmental psychologists like Piaget, postmodernists like Habermas, for
the West, and Indian, Tibetan, and Sino-Japanese non-dualist schools of
mysticism and metaphysics (Advaita Vedanta (especially Ramana Maharsha),
Madyamika (Nargajuna), Mahamudra in Tibetan Buddhism, and Ch'an/Zen) for
the East (along with western guru Da Free John / Adidam, who teaches the same
thing basically); and a few others like Plotinus, Sri Aurobindo (but not
Teilhard?), perennial traditionalists like Fritjof Schuon and Huston Smith, along
with flirtations with modern science, especially physics.

Wilbers I through V

The great 20th century linguistic philosopher   Wittgenstein's ideas are divided
into two quite distinct phases, the Yonger or earlier Wittgenstein (Tractatus
Logicus Philosophicus) and the the later Wittgenstein (Philosophical
Investigations). Perhaps somewhat tongue in cheek, Ken has gone one better and
divided the development of his ideas through four stages or phases [see e.g.   

The Eye of Spirit,      One Taste Nov 16 entry, and   Integral

Psychology p.255, n.15], which he terms Wilber I, Wilber II, Wilber III, and
Wilber IV (more recently a Wilber V has been added). In keeping with his all-
embracing syncretism, he says that the subsequent phases do not negate earlier
phases, but transcend-and-include earlier phases, incorporating them into a deeper
and more integrated whole. The only phase he rejects outright is Wilber-I

Phase 1 (1977-1979). Wilber refers to this as his "romantic-Jungian" or

"recaptured goodness" model. Inspired by the Jungian interpretation of
psychodevelopment, it sees consciousness as a single spectrum, and spiritual
growth as a return to an original non-dualistic condition, a position that he since
radically rejects, For this reason, Ken tells his students to begin at Wilber-II.

Phase 2 (1980-1982). This is a more specifically evolutionary or developmental,

"growth to goodness" model, with an elaborate series of stages of
psychodevelopment that reminds me a lot of Freud's Psycho-developmental
Stages, but extending these further to the mystical attainment. During this period
Wilber adopts a (pop-)Tibetan Buddhist-inspired cycle of involution-evolution
(based on the Bardo Thodel), and integrates Western psychology and Eastern
mysticism as the two halves of the same process. Arvan Harvat provides
a powerful critique of this paradigm, and its attempt to weld two completely
disparate systems of thought, as well as Wilber's misreading of Mahayana
Buddhism.

Phase 3 (1983-1987), added developmental lines, so that development is no

longer understood as a homogenous process in which the self passes through the
stages described in phase 2, but as a complex process consisting of a number of
distinct lines of development (cognitive, emotional, social, spiritual, etc)
proceeding in an independent manner, and that the self somehow has to maintain
a delicate balance between these lines.

The period from 1987 represents a period of deep personal crisis for Wilber, as
his wife develops cancer and he nurses his through her illness, treatment, and
conscious death in 1989. This period is chronicled in the book    Grace
and Grit in 1991.

Phase 4 (1995-2001), in which he adds a socio-cultural dimension to his model of

individual development, and develops the four quadrants model, called AQAL
(All Quadrants All Levels). By now the whole thing was starting to look on the
one hand like a sort of neo-Renaissance synthesis, and on the other like the
immensely elaborate cosmologies of Blavatsky (with who's work and Wilber's
there are a number of parallels) and Steiner. This phase marks the beginning of
Wilber's Modernism/Postmodernist phase, in which he develops a shrewd
analysis of Western "Postmodern" state of mind. At this time he also acquired
some harsh critics (in addition to devotee-like fans) when in    Sex,
Ecology, and Spirituality, considered by some as his greatest book, he came out
as being against Ecological Spirituality. And although he has always been closely
associated with and enthusiastic about Adi Da's teachings and revelation, the
period from 1996 onwards marked his start of his criticism of the "World
Teacher"'s activities and the movement itself.
 Phase 5 (2001-present), in which he retains everything of the Phase 4 AQAL, but
becomes increasingly postmodernist (rejection of metaphysics and absolute
answers), shifting his focus from the metaphysical to a more Buddhistic
"emptiness" (shunyata) teaching. He also adopts a more pragmatic attitude of
teacher in the world (via multimedia), and works with the Spiral Dynamics model
of human evolution. However, all the complexities of the original AQAL model
are retained, as well as a few new elements like Rupert Sheldrake's "formative
causation".

Throughout 1999, Shambhala Publishers released Wilber's multi-volume

collected works. This is the first time an author has had their collected works
published during their lifetime. Considering Wilber's prodigious output, this is
one series of collected works that will have to be constantly revised and amended
for some time to come!

In 2000 Wilber founded the   Integral Institute, a think-tank for studying issues
of science and society in an integral way. The term "Integral" refers to the Grand
Synthesis approach of his more recent (Phase IV and onwards) philosophy.
Wilber has since been involved in the development of an Integral psychology and
Integral politics. This marks his movement away from a theorising-only
approach, into the practical world as well; the difficult realm of "ahriman" as
Rudolph Steiner would say, which one must master if one is to have any effect or
make any serious change in the world.

See also   The five phases (a concise summary of the five phases of the
development of Wilber's ideas), and   Overview of Ken Wilber's Theory of
Integral Psychology by Don Salmon, PhD (a good overview of the first four
phases, written before Wilber announced Phase V)

Wilber on Wilber

One thing I like about Wilber is that he doesn't seem to take himself too seriously
(although at least   one blog post indicates he is defensive about criticism). The
following two quotations from the   wikipedia pageare worth repeating here,
lest the reader think that with all his incessant theorising he is trying to create an
absolute system of thought. These quotations are also good in that they reveal the
way Wilber goes about explaining things.

"In other words, all of my books are lies. They are simply maps of a territory, shadows of a reality, gray
symbols dragging their bellies across the dead page, suffocated signs full of muffled sound and faded
glory, signifying absolutely nothing. And it is the nothing, the Mystery, the Emptiness alone that needs to
be realized: not known but felt, not thought but breathed, not an object but an atmosphere, not a lesson
but a life."

"Foreword", in   Frank Visser's Ken Wilber: Thought as Passion, 2001

Incidentally, this very Adi-Da-like statement reflects Wilber's adherence to

the True Truths position of acosmic monism. He is telling his more enthusiastic
disciples (and his critics as well for that matter) not to take him too literally,
because ultimately only the Absolute is real

"I have one major rule: everybody is right. More specifically, everybody - including me - has some
important pieces of the truth, and all of those pieces need to be honored, cherished, and included in a
more gracious, spacious, and compassionate embrace."
"Introduction", Collected Works of Ken Wilber, vol. VIII, p. 49 and in A Theory of Everything: An Integral Vision
for Business, Politics, Science and Spirituality, 2000

Ultimately Wilber is a relativist. Everyone has something true to say. I can
understand where he is coming from, and sympathise with it, but I find this
position simplistic.

"Post-metaphysical" Developments

In researching this critique on Ken Wilber, I was most interested to read this
small hagiographic document   Where's Wilber At? The Further Evolution of
Ken Wilber's Integral Vision During the Dawn of the New Millennium, by Brad
Reynolds. In spite of the author's over-enthusiastic style and language, I did get a
genuine feel of Wilber as someone who has made a breakthrough to a higher state
of spiritual attainment (this marking the latest (Phase V) stage of his
development) [Afterword 17 Dec 06 - I now consider this assesment false, I was
just tapping into an Intermediate Zone daimon). However, Michel
Bauwens' negative experiences with Wilber seem to indicate no such thing, since
surely what spiritual attainment comes down to is how one has become a better
person, everything else regarding claims of worshipfulness is egotistic cultism
and pop-guruism? In any case, Reynolds suggests that most critics of Wilber are
criticising his early work, and that he has already taken their concerns on board,
addressed their concerns and modified his views accordingly. Perhaps some of
Wilber's future writings may address the important issues Arvan and I have raised
here.
 And in fact, one of his students has replied to one of them, or so it seems from the
very informative entry on him in   Wikipedia. I quote:

Some (namely, the Croatian esoteric philosopher Arvan Harvat) have noted that attempting to integrate a
thoroughly non-dual approach like Zen with an evolutionary view is ultimately impossible: if your model
includes all possibility, how can it change? Wilber's response is that his theory is actually a 'rational
reconstruction of a trans-rational state of consciousness'. In effect, Wilber concedes the ultimate futility -
from a rational perspective - of his quest. His writings point beyond the rational to the mystical.

The point however is that it doesn't have to be futile to at least attempt such an

integration. But it is necessary to move beyond a strictly Advaitin and
Mahayanist perspective if this is to be done. Not to reject it, not by any means,
but simply to include it as part of a wider perspective.

Ken Wilber: Thought as Passion Frank Visser, provides a comprehensive

overview of the development of Wilber's thought. This book has received a bad
press as it is claimed that it "doesn't cover Wilber-5". The second edition will, but
only when Wilber-5 has crystallised sufficiently - which is a bit difficult for a
book that appeared in 2001 in Dutch.

  Embracing Reality: The Integral Vision of Ken Wilber : A Historical

Survey and Chapter-By-Chapter Review of Wilber's Major Works by Brad
Reynolds - a Wilber primer and overall summary. In view of Wilber's rejection of
Frank Visser's Thought as Passion (too Theosophical? Or not inclusive of
Wilber's latest ideas?), Embracing Reality claims to be the only comprehensive
coverage of Wilber's ideas, but this is debatable. Both Visser and Reynolds cover
exactly the same ground, the only difference being that Brad has relabelled part of
Wilber-4 as Wilber-5 (actually, for him, Wilber-5 starts withIntegral Psychology,
which seems very much Wilber-4). Where's Wilber At seems to be an extract
from this book (or if not, it's still by the same author). So if you don't like the
latter's style, best not to get the book. Perhaps some objectivity is needed?

My Take on Ken Wilber

I am separated from Ken Wilber by one Degree of Separation (see   Six
Degrees of Separation). In the early 1980s, my old teacher at La Trobe
Uni, Moshe Kroy, travelled to America and met Ken, as he related it the two got
on famously.

I read Wilber's books many years ago; the early ones like The Spectrum of
Consciousness (Phase I) and    The Atman Project (Phase II) when I was
still developing my own ideas.  I quite enjoyed his work at the time, and was
absolutely impressed by the great scholarship and huge list of references, and the
way he integrated the stages of the various theories of psychological and spiritual
development into a single unifiedparadigm. I was however disappointed with the
follow-up to The Atman Project - called   Up From Eden (also Phase II) - in
which he presented a very rigid and unbelievable view of the evolution of
consciousness (rather in the mould of the clockwork cosmologies
of Blavatsky, Leadbeater, Steiner, and Meher Baba.) I stopped reading him at that
point, and have only recently looked at his more recent work (Phase IV and V) ,
basically through the Web and reviews, and more recently a few books
themselves that I bought. (  A Brief History of Everything,   Integral
Psychology. and   The Revised, Second Edition of Sex, Ecology, Spirituality.
He is an excellent writer, clear and easy to understand, but passionate and
enthusiastic as well. And there is no denying his ideas have developed
tremendously; indeed with the more flexible and complex "Waves, Streams,
States, and Lines" approach of his AQAL and "post-metaphysical AQAL"
integral philosophy, he resolves many (but by no means all) of the limitations of
his older books. Even so, there remains a certain rigidity, due to Wilber's inability
to go beyond a reliance on Advaitin-Vajrayana-Daist metaphysics and bridge the
divide between the (admittedly higher intuitive insights of the) dualistic rational
mind and monistic higher consciousness. This is exacerbated by Wilber's
tendency to retro-date his own interpretations so that they are made to seem part
of the perennial philosophy or authors he is referencing, in that way he pretends
he is not saying anything new but simply repeating what sages of old have said
(this is actually a common practice in premodern wisdom cultures). For example,
according to Wilber the Great Nest of Being has been described by Plotinus,
Vedanta, Huston Smith, etc etc. But nowhere will you find anything about a
holarchical nest of being in any of those teachings. An ontological gradation,
sure, but not a "holarchy". If he had said "Plotinus (or whoever) describes a
metaphysical hierarchy of being, which I have reinterpreeted as a non-
metaphysical holarchy" I would have no objection.

Add to that a fixed and simplistic metaphysic (yes I know that Ken doesn't like
metaphysics, but how else do you define his holons? :-) with a simplistic linear
evolution and a simplistic putdown of ecophilosophy, and, reading A Brief
History of Everything, I had the strange experience of passionately agreeing with
half of what Wilber is saying,a nd equally passionately disagreeing with the other
half!

The Reason for Wilber's Success

Why has Wilber become so successful, when so many other innovative thinkers
have fallen by the wayside or continued but with little acknowledgment?
Personally I don't think he is any more profound than others. In fact, in many
places he is less profound and original than many other recent grand synthesisers
(look at Edward Haskell, Arthur M. Young, Erich Jantsch, Stan Gooch ...), while
Alan Watts had already who incorporated East and West in the 1960s, and for
that matter Blavatsky did in the late 19th century.

One explanation for his success might be that in the world of dry and meaningless
postmodern academia, with its fragmented disciplines and surface-bound
understanding, Wilber is a refreshing voice that points the way to deeper spiritual
states. In the first few chapters of   The Eye of Spirit he speaks eloquently of
spiritual awareness. There are inspirational paragraphs dotted through A Brief
History of Everything, and so on. In a world where anyone who goes beyond or
beneath surface consciousness and expouses mystic truths is considered a nutter,
he has the courage of his convictions. And that is admirable.

Another reason for his appeal lies in his neo-"Renaissance" universalism. He

provided a philosophy that was right for the time; in the spiritual supermarket full
of disparate teachings in areas as diverse eastern philosophy, human potential
movement, psychedelic drug experiences, the revival of ancient wisdom,
transpersonal psychology, new age workshops, gurus and channellers, shamans
and hippies, Wilber has woven it all together: Freud, Fechner, Chogyam Trungpa,
Plotinus, Nagarjuna, quantum theory, evolution,... a unifying framework based on
an all-inclusive paradigm that ties everything else together. It's the appeal of the
"theory of everything". The last instance of this in the West was Hegel (who
Wilber quotes approvingly). Wilber represents and carries on to this human
yearning for grand visions of "everything" and thirst for complete certitude. It
also helped that he lives in America, a polarised yet vibrant nation which is
always looking for new gimmicks and ideas.

A third reason for Wilber's success is that because his presentation is very simple,
even simplistic, generalization of philosophy (e.g. ecospiritualism is lumped with
materialism, Aurobindo's Supermind is identified with the Vedantic Atman, etc).
His appeal is to those who can no longer accommodate the limited perspectives of
materialism or exoteric religion, not to serious esotericists. In this way he is like
Rajneesh, except he's writing for academia and the intelligent layperson rather
than spiritual (but with ego) "seeking" middle-management late baby boomers
with lots of liquid assets. But this simplicity and overgeneralisation of opinions is
actually a bonus, because he is able to reach more people that way (just as
Rajneesh could). Not everyone has the patience to read Plotinus, Hegel, or
Aurobindo!

The Bridge Builder

This last-mentioned fact, that Wilber is not writing for serious esotericists, but for
those who are between materialism and gnosis, is why Wilber can be best
understood as a bridge-builder rather than an esotericist. It seems that esotericists
in general seem to take a dislike to him (apart from myself; even if I'm critical, I
like the guy!), as do academics from the other side of the spectrum, who consider
him New Age (there's just no pleasing some people!). In fact, "New Age" - at
least in the common or limited definition - is what Wilber is not. His own
adaptation of the Great Chain of Being that serves as the central metaphor for
most esoteric philosophies and pre-modernist teachings, cultures and societies,
completely rejects metaphysics, in an effort to appeal to modernism and
postmodernism. Thus is quite materialistic, although it is
certainlyholomaterialism (emergent evolution) rather than reductionistic
hylomaterialism.

But this rejection of metaphysics is necessary in building this bridge. Like Jung,

who had to create a ridiculous "racial unconscious" to explain non-physical and
timeless archetypes that are part of standard occult knowledge, Wilber has no
alternative but to compromise the mystic vision. Perhaps he himself actually
believes that there are no metaphysical realities. While there is no denying the
genuine wisdom in his work, and the passion and the clarity with which he writes
is like a breath of fresh air, Wilber's generalisations at times so forced, that it gets
tedious. Nevertheless I have a lot of admiration for him and I do feel he is
potentially a historically important figure (assuming the integral movement does
continue to grow). One of the really good things about Wilber is that he makes
the genuine esoteric traditions respectable, and this hopefully means he'll
encourage at least a few people to read Plotinus and Aurobindo in the original
(they'll then to discover to some surprise that what these sages said isn't quite
what Ken says they said! ;-)
 Parallels

Ken Wilber's thought has paralleled my own intellectual explorations in some

respects. For years I had been trying to develop my own universal system (the
equivalent of Wilber's integral system) through correlating different esoteric
systems of thought, and through attempting (always never satisfactorily) to
incorporate esotericism and science. In 2004 I made another attempt with my
essay Towards a Foundation of a Universal Esoteric Science. Having not read any
of Wilber's work since Up From Eden, and coming now to look at his Integral
Quadrant paradigm, I have been inspired to further develop these themes, and
many others. This was one of the inspirations for my own Metaphysical Theory
of Everything

Why the Criticisms?

Finally, the pro-Wilberian reader may ask, why the Ken Bashing on this site?
(albeit only mild Ken bashing)

I agree that the mistakes that Wilber makes are no worse than those of other
universalists (Ed Haskell's Unified Science for example is extremely rigid and
simplistic in its classifications). In some ways, Wilber's "AQAL" theory is an
even better approximation, as a single "map" of reality, to the presentations of
Hegel, Blavatsky, Gurdjieff and Ouspensky, Haskell, etc.

But because Wilber's goal is so spectacular, no less then a complete classification

of all human knowledge, a return to Rennaisance Universalism, a new "Integral"
worldview, it would be a shame if so much promise were wasted or lost because
of the unavoidable weaknesses that result from relying on any one personality
alone. Constructive criticism is necessary, not to attack his work, but to further
strengthen the positive contributions he has made.

Moreover, Wilber's promethean effort inspired me to launch my own universal

metaphysical theory; hopefully avoiding his mistakes (and no doubt nmaking new
mistakes of my own!). In a sense I build on the foundations he laid (although it is
true I also rely and build much more on Sri Aurobindo's far sturdier foundations)

Finally, if any of Wilber's students are reading this, and feel I have gotten
anything wrong in any of these pages, I ask you to please contact me so that such
mistakes can be rectified forthwith.
 Links - Ken Wilber

"Official" Sites

 Ken Wilber On-line - his home page, sponsored by Shambhala publishers.

Lists Wilber's books and has some on-line essays.  There was an on-line
discussion group / message board but I can't find this from the main page.

 Integral Institute

 Integral Naked - funky spin-off from Integral Institute

 Integral University - another bold project.

 The Manifest - e-zine about, and for, the integral movement.

Non-official but supportive of Wilber

 Ken Wilber - by Alex Burns - December 16, 2000 - good summary and
huge list of links

 Ken Wilber - bio etc

 An introduction to the work of Ken Wilber - by Michel Bauwens 1998 -

sympathetic review of several books and of Wilber's philosophy. Like so many
others, Michel was later to become highly dissillusioned with Wilber

 A Light in the Wilberness by Brian Van der Horst - written in 1997, this is
a sympathetic overview of Wilber's teachings upto and including phase IV
  Ken Wilber: Understanding and Applying His Work - by Daryl S.
Paulson

 another table - with Disorders & Treatments

 Core concepts in the work of Ken Wilber - pretty good overview

 For Ken Wilber - an artist's spiritual friend - Alex Grey - a short page
dedicated to Ken Wilber, with a visionary portrait

 The Euro-report: around the world with Ken Wilber - by Brian Van der
Horst - a detailed sympathetic review of the the influence of AQAL and Wilber's
ideas in general in Europe.

Critical of Ken Wilber - and Criticism and Response

 Integral World - Exploring Theories of Everything - Frank Visser's site

dedicated to Ken Wilber, originally supportive, now mostly critical, hosts many
articles about Integral Theory (Wilberian philosophy), critiques of Wilber etc, and
serves as an essay-forum for both supporters and critics to discuss and critique all
things Wilberian; Visser's blog   Wilber Watch is rarely updated. Integral
World site includes  Critics on Ken Wilber; a list of papers critical of Wilber,
and A Spectrum of Critics (Critics of Wilber arranged from "strong positive"
(strongly pro-Wilber) to "strong negative" (strongly anti-Wilber)). Also A
Suggestion for Reading the Criticisms of My Work, Wilber's reply to his critics,
since rendered redundant by his antagonistic self-styled cowboy behaviour

 Critiques of Wilber by Geoffrey Falk and others, also   Geoffrey

Falk's Blog. Falk speaks his mind and hence is much despised by Wilber's
followers. I too originally thought he was a bit extreme, but Wilber's blog-attack
on Visser made me reassess my opinion of him. See Falk's books   Stripping
the Gurus (chapter on Wilber) and   Norman Einstein: The Dis-Integration of
Ken Wilber. Good if simplistic when it comes to abusive gurus, however
his reductionist/skeptical tone in comments on spirituality and authentic gurus
show he has no idea what he is talking about. But absolutely brilliant when he
comes to exposing Wilber's bumbling as regards hard science. I have noticed that
the Integral Community< /a>in general is good with psychology, modern
philosophy, and Buddhism, but very weak on the science and maths front. A
scientific incompetent like Wilber will attract people who like him have no
understanding of Western science; anyone with real knowledge of scientific
method and the material world will straight away be put off.

 David Lane's critiques/essays/reviews of Wilber

 A tangle of lines and levels: a critique of Wilber's integral psychology -

by John Heron. (see also Heron and Wilber)

 Let me set the record straight - Interesting insider blog post by Matthew
Dallman on Integral-Institute / Integral University as merchandising. It fits with
my own more superficial and "outsider" impressions too. I have noticed a certain
uniquely American capitalist marketting approach on the desperation in the
Integral Institute websites. Does it mean anything? Yepo, it's just the New Age
and America trying to make a buck. Of course true spirituality is not about money
at all, but I wouldn't begrudge the Wilberians the opportunity to sell their wares.
On the otrher hand, Wilber's claim to Dallman's intellectual property is more
reprehensible.

Neuro-Linguistic manipulation. A rather strange blog post; perhaps all it

means is that people who are into Wilber but now criticical are still susceptible to
him. I think this refers more to a subconscious "vital interchange" that goes on all
the time, than to anything sinister. Still, worth including, if only for curiosity
value.

de Quincey and Wilber (and others)

 The Promise of Integralism - A Critical Appreciation of Ken

Wilber's Integral Psychology essay by Christian de Quincey

 Intersubjective Musings: A Response to Christian de Quincey's

"The Promise of Integralism" - Sean Hargens' reply to Christian de
Quincey

 Do Critics Misrepresent My Position? - A Test Case from a Recent

Academic Journal - Ken Wilber's reply
  Response to Ken Wilber - Robert McDermott's reply to Wilber.

 Response to McDermott - Ken Wilber's reply to McDermott

 Critics Do. Critics Don't. - A Response to Ken Wilber de Quincey's

counter-reply to Wilber

Heron and Wilber

 A Way out for Wilberians - criticism by John Heron

 Ken Wilber's response to John Heron - reply by Ken Wilber

 Way out further - retort by John Heron

Unlike the deQuincy-Wilber brawl, this one   ended well.

Comparative

 Integral Psychosynthesis, a comparison of Wilber and Assagioli by

Kenneth Sørensen - This MA study demonstrates that Roberto Assagioli's
original conception of Psychosynthesis is fully Integral with levels, lines, states,
types and quadrants, and that Firman/Gila have developed a different version of
psychosynthesis.

Other developments

 Ken Wilber's AQAL Map and Beyond - website by Rolf Sattler, includes
the online book of the same name. The first part of this book discusses some of
the most fundamental limitations of Wilber’s map, and in the second part presents
a dynamic mandala that overcomes them.
  Integral (Holistic) Mathematics - A sort of spin-off theory from Wilber's
integral philosophy (heterodox rather than orthodox)

Phase 1 - The Romantic Period (1977-1979)

Wilber refers to the first stage in the development of his ideas as his "romantic-
Jungian" phase. This is exemplified by the books Spectrum of
Consciousness and No Boundary.

The Spectrum of Consciousness was Wilber's first attempt to devise a unified

theory of consciousness by correlating both Eastern and Western psychological,
philosophical, and spiritual maps of consciousness (No Boundary recapitulates
these themes in more concise form). The premise, long held by Theosophists, the
Guenon-Schoun school of Esoteric Traditionalism, and others, is that there is a
single, universal teaching running through the apparently conflicting spiritual,
philosophical, and psychological traditions, and what seems to be conflicts are
actually the result of addressing different stages of consciousness. (According to
Esoteric Traditionalism (all religions are inspired by the same Logos or Godhead
and so have the same esoteric truth, despite their exoteric differences). This idea
that all the different teachings are just different parts of the one whole - as in the
parable of the blind men and the elephant, has been a continual theme in Wilber's
work, constantly refined and incorporated into ever more complex and
sophisticated edifices of thought, but never rejected.

This first version of a grand unified theory presents a rather simplistic, but still
interesting, thesis in which consciousness emerges from an underlying Ground of
Being, a   transpersonal psychological idea, and that the further up one goes, the
more consciousness is split up into progressively more limited dualistic opposites.
The first split is between the Ground of Being and the Self, the second between
organism and environment, the third between ego and body, until finally one gets
to the fourth split, resulting in very limited persona-shadow of everyday
consciousness. It reminds me a lot of an inverted version of the Gurdjieff-
Ouspensky law of three (more laws with each level), although here there is a two-
fold rather than a three-fold division.
The goal in psychospiritual development here is to reunite each duality and
reclaim the unity underlying each split until finally one attains the monistic
cosmic consciousness of the consummate mystic and realises one's identity with
the Absolute Reality. The different strata or divisions are each associated with
different psychoanalytical methods, as shown in the diagram above.

The interesting thing about this diagram is that - at least to my emanationist way

of thinking (and I'm sure others - including Wilber himself in later developments
of his thought would say likewise) - is that it is upside down. The Godhead (cum
Collective Unconscious) is at the bottom, which consciousness emerging from
and eventually returning to it. No wonder Ken Wilber calls this his romantic
phase. Looking back now on this early stage of the development of his ideas, he
says that as with many romantic philosophers and Jungian psychologists, he saw
spiritual growth as a return to an edenic condition which existed in the past, but
which has been lost during the process of development and culturalisation.

Baby and Bathwater

Even so, Wilber may have been inflexible in rejecting his early ideas. As Stephen
Dinan points out
Grof has found that authentic regression into the deepest layers of traumas, blocks, and neuroses is vital to
healing and further growth. In this respect, his model of development aligns more with Carl Jung or
Michael Washburn, who see adult development as a process of spiraling through origins to reaccess lost
potentials of the psyche: a descent and return. The world of children, and especially fetuses, is charged
with an enlivening numinosity (sacredness), something adults typically lack.
Stephen Dinan Post-Modern Monk and Modern Shaman: The Theories of Ken Wilber and Stan Grof, Originally
appearing in The Inner Door

It is difficult to know how authentic this childhood or fetal numinosity is. I would
tend to be extremely sceptical of it, inasmuch as (in Grof's work, profound as it
may be) it is filtered through the lense of adult consciousness enhances or altered
through psychotropic drugs, hypnotic recall, free association, and so on). Small
children, like animals, live in a world of the immediate present, of sensation and
association and strong feelings, but that doesn't mean they are necessarily
spiritual or mystical (or conversely that they aren't, it doesn't matter either way.
But the fact that the experience is so widespread mean sit must amount
to something. As a pheonomeologist I accept the validity of all expriences first,
and then fit them into a unified theory later.

Christian de Quincey in his paper, "  The Promise of Integralism", in the

Journal of Consciousness Studies (Vol. 7 No. 11/12 [2000]), sees Wilber's
rejection of his early work as one of the indicators of his rejection of "the
ontological significance of feeling....For Wilber, feelings are a lure for
"regressive" Romantics who hark back to some mythical golden age." This
criticism however is part of a larger "war" between Ken Wilber and the California
Institute of Integral Studies, where the teachings of Grof and Washburn (which
are in keeping with Wilber-I) are favoured

See also Gerry Goddard,   Perspectives in Transpersonal Theory, for more on

the Wilber - Grof controversy, and an attempt at synthesis

It should however also be emphasised that, despite holding some differences of

understanding, Wilber doesn't reject Grof. To quote:

"Stanislav Grof is one of the world's greatest living psychologists. He is certainly a pioneer in every sense
of the word, and one of the most comprehensive psychological thinkers of our era. Fortunately, Stan 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."

 Eye of Spirit, Chapter 7, Page 151

Bibliography - 1977-1979:

 
The Spectrum of Consciousness, Quest Books, 1977 

  No Boundary: Eastern and Western Approaches to Personal Growth , 1979

Shambhala Publications, 149 pp
 Phase 2 - The Pre-Trans Cycle of Being (1980-1982)
The Life Cycle

Inspired by Tibetan Buddhism and Sri Aurobindo, Ken Wilber makes a radical
break from his original psycho-cosmology of Spectrum of Consciousness, and
in The Atman Project (1980), Up From Eden (1981),A Sociable God (1983)
and Eye To Eye (1983) proposes a paradigm of the Cycle of consciousness and
psychological development, from totally pre-personal to completely
transpersonal. Instead of the ego lifting its repression of the unconscious, Wilber
focused primarily upon the Great Chain of Being with an unveiling
an evolutionary pantheism in which each successive stage follows upon and
includes the capacities of those that preceeded it, while transcending their
weaknesses (this is to be a standard theme throughout Wilber's later
formulations). Unfortunately, he misunderstood Sri Aurobindo, and his
experience then, as now, was based on a more monistic Advaitin realisation. He
also still retains the Jungian and Freudian concept of a primordial psychic unity
right at the beginning; there is no real conception of an original Absolute, despite
the apparent emphasise on involution and evolution.
 Wilber's Critique of the Romantic-Jungian position.

In 'The Atman Project' Wilber points out that the Jungian and Jungian-based

concept of the pre-rational and pre-natal collective unconscious being identical
with the transpersonal Absolute of the mystics is actually a confusion of two
different realities. Here he makes a good point - I remember how shocked and
surprised I was (when in my early twenties) for example to learn that Jung
considers the Pleroma of the Gnostics as the same as the depth of the collective or
racial unconscious. Since the 19th century, Westerners have tried to explain away
the eastern concept of Liberation or Enlightenment, and the "oceanic" mystical
experience, as a sort of return to the experience of the womb, or - in the Jungian
paradigm, a more primitive strata of consciousness. And Wilber was the first
western thinker to critically reject this assumption (rather than just intuitive
saying - as I did - what a lot of crap), by distinguishing between what he
called prepersonal states which exist prior to the formation of the individual ego,
and transpersonal states in which the individual ego has been transcended. The
confusion of the two he calls the pre/trans fallacy. He would elsewhere describe
this as "the confusing of pre-rational states and trans-rational states simply
because both are non-rational." Spiritual growth is now seen as an evolutionary-
developmental process from preconsciousness through mature ego to ego-
transcendence and self-enlightenment.

The outward arc and the inward arc

Wilber's central thesis is the "pre-trans" cycle of involution and evolution (or the
outward arc and the inward arc as he terms it).  This is the idea that in it's
development the psyche - whether a newborn human infant or a prehistoric
hominid evolving greater intelligence, or the beginnings of myth and civilisation -
begins in a state of undifferentiated unconscious universalism.  From there it
passes through stages of increasing individualisation and ego-development
(outward arc) whereby it is able to recognise itself as a separate entity.  Only after
having attained this state is one able to progress on the mystical path and
transcend the ego in order to consciously return to the undifferentiated One
(inward arc).

Although presented as an objective analysis, his thesis is actually rather a

reinterpretation of the myth of cosmological cycles.  Indeed there are some
fascinating parallels between his own stages and those of Rudolph Steiner.

Interestingly, there is also a strong parallel with Arthur M Young's Theory of

Process, although that is not surprising as Young was in part inspired by (among
many other things) theosophical ideas (although not to the same degree as
Steiner)

Wilber's cyclic sequence is described in the following stages:

 the Pleromatic stage

 the Uroboric stage
 the Axial and Pranic stage - Early Body Ego
 the Image Body Self - Late Body Ego
 the Verbal-Membership stage
 the Mental Egoic stage
 the Biosocial stage
 the Centauric stage
 the low Subtle
 the high Subtle
 the low Causal
 the high Causal
 the Ultimate (= the Absolute Reality)

His follow-up to The Atman Project - a book called Up From Eden - in which he
presented a historical linearisation of his sequence of planes of consciousness - 
was a disappointment.  I found it presented a very simplistic and rigid view of
the evolution of consciousness, albeit no worse than the clockwork cosmologies
of Blavatsky, Leadbeater, Steiner, and Meher Baba. It is certainly easier to simply
categorise planes of consciousness then to describe the organic evolution and
transformation of that consciousness though the various planes.

A Critique of Ken Wilber's Pre-Trans thesis

Although Ken Wilber's map of consciousness contains many fine and profound
elements, there are also points of weakness too, which arise when his theory is
accepted as a literal description of the evolution of consciousness.  Just to list a
few (you can find more here):

1. The Pre-Trans theory means that children are unable to have genuine mystical
experiences (that is only possible he claims after the development of the adult
ego).  But there is plenty of evidence that children can and do have mystical
(transpersonal) experiences no different from those of adults.  (I read an
interesting paper that points this out, giving examples, unfortunately I don't
have it at hand - when I dig it up I'll put the reference on this page)
 2. again, it is assumed that because infants cannot talk they exist in an amorphous
state of undifferentiated unity with their environment (a fallacy that dates back
to Freud).
3. the same assumption is made regarding animals.
4. it is also assumed that human evolution and civilisation proceeds from magical-
animistic to mythical to rational-scientific (an old Victorian chestnut, with
embellishments by Julian Jaynes The Bicameral Mind)
5. it is further assumed that "magical" thinking is considered inferior (pre-) to
rational thinking, rather than understood as mentation pertaining to a different
strata of existence.

In short, whereas Ken Wilber's powerful intellect and wide grasp of facts are not
disputed, his actual conclusions are both simplistic and unpersuasive. Worse, they
are not amenable to disproof as they ignore all facts that contradict them.
According to the Pre-Trans paradigm it is not possible for a child to have genuine
mystical experiences, because they are still at the "Pre" stage, and have not yet
developed a full ego and then graduated to "trans". However, T. Armstrong,
(1984) "Transpersonal experience in childhood" the Journal of Transpersonal
Psychology, 16(2), 207-230 and more recently Jayne Gackenbach   Childhood
Experiences of Higher States of Consciousness: Literature Review and
Theoretical Integration both refer to transpersonal mystical experiences among
children. confirms this in more detail. All this makes Wilber's methodology seem
very dubious

The point is that Wilber's theories constitute a popular paradigm in of the   

Transpersonal Psychology and New Paradigm movements.  Moreover, as a myth,
his theory with its various stages is extremely interesting, and may refer to actual
phenomena regarding the evolution of consciousness on subtle (etheric and/or
psychic) planes.  Wilber's pre- stages mimic those of Rudolf Steiner, except
Steiner gives his stages a literal objective cosmological relevance, whereas
Wilber understands them as psychological.  The fact that there are such parallels
indicates that Wilber is certainly onto something.  It's just that his observations
have no more, and no less, relevance than those of Steiner, Edgar Cayce, and
others.  Personally I think what all these individuals are describing are
transformations within the subtle physical of the Earth, which is  a really
interesting and profound topic.  Only, because we are dealing with metaphysical,
rather than physical, realities, things are hard to pin down and hence are
interpreted differently according to where the propounder is coming from. 
Steiner uses a theosophical mythology, Cayce a quasi-Christian mythology,
and Jung, Jaynes, and Wilber a quasi scientistic mythology.
 The Atman Fiasco - a detailed critique of the Atman Project, by Arvan Harvat

Towards an Occult Interpretation and synthesis of Steiner's Cosmology and

Wilber's psychology

Arthur M. Young's Theory of Process - another arc-based cosmology

Bibliography - 1980-1982:

 
The Atman Project : A Transpersonal View of Human Development 
by Ken Wilber 

Represents a complete metaphysical turnaround from the Spectrum of

Consciousness. However the central thesis rests on very dubious foundations.

 
Up from Eden : A Transpersonal View of Human Evolution 
by Ken Wilber 
applies the thesis of Atman Project to the evolution of humanity, of
consciousness, and the development of culture and civilization. The approach
draws heavily from Julian Jaynes (The Origin of Consciousness in the
Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind). Personally I don't believe in it, but there are
interesting parallels with Rudolph Steiner's theory of the development of human
consciousness

Up from Eden: A Transpersonal View of Human Evolution, 1981

The Holographic Paradigm and Other Paradoxes: Exploring the Leading Edge
of Science, 1982

 Perspectives in Transpersonal Theory by Gerry Goddard - Dr Stan Grof's

work reveals that the prenatal one is a profoundly mystical one, as opposed to
Wilber's rejection of this position. This on-line essay provides a detailed
coverage, and an attempt at synthesis.

 Ken Wilber and Sri Aurobindo: A Critical Perspective - by Rod Hemsell

- explains in detail how in formulating his Involution-Evolution philosophy,
Wilber consistently mis-quotes and misunderstands Sri Aurobindo, and how Sri
Aurobindo's evolutionary-transformative paradigm differs from Wilber's cyclic
Buddist-inspired approach - mirror
 Phase 3 - Multiple Development and Holographic Mind
(1983-1987)
This is more a transitional stage between the Pre-Trans Cycle and the AQAL
paradigm than a complete phase of philosophy. Inspired by the western
developmental models of Piaget and others, and educational psychologist Howard
Gardner's research into multiple lines of personal development, Wilber rejects the
idea of a single homogenous and simplistic process of self-development from
pleromatic to absolute. Instead, he sees the different aspects of the personality
mature along several lines of development (cognitive, emotional, moral,
psychosexual, interpersonal, spatio-temporal, social, spiritual, and so on) For
example, the emotional development may be more advanced than the mental, or
vice-versa.

It is also at this period that Wilber adopts the paradigms of 'Holographic Mind'
taught by the Human Potential Movement, based on the teachings of Arthur
Koestler. In this incorporation of Koestler's thought into the Wilberian paradigm,
evolution is now understood as a holarchy, in which each layer is a whole (holon)
that is part of a greater whole, and each successive level - from matter to body to
mind to Spirit - encompasses and includes the former.

Bibliography - 1983-1987:

A Sociable God: A Brief Introduction to a Transcendental Sociology, 1983

Eye to Eye: The Quest for the New Paradigm, 1984

Quantum Questions: Mystical Writings of the World's Great Physicists

Transformations of Consciousness: Conventional and Contemplative
Perspectives on Development (co-authors: Jack Engler, Daniel Brown), 1986

Spiritual Choices: The Problem of Recognizing Authentic Paths to inner

Transformation (co-authors: Dick Anthony, Bruce Ecker), 1987
  Grace and Grit: Spirituality and Healing in the Life of Treya Killam
Wilber, 1991 Shambhala Publications; 2nd edition 2001 

Phase 4 - All Quadrants All Levels (1995-2001)

The first form Ken Wilber's unified theory took was of a bifurcating Spectrum of
Consciousness supported by a an underlying Ground of Being. This then gave
way to a very different diagram - the involution-evolution pre-trans cycle. The
final stage or metamorphosis of his cosmology, and the most sophisticated, is the
holon-quadrant

The Big Three

In 1995 Wilber published his 800 page opus Sex, Ecology, Spirituality. The core
of its argument was a call to integrate "the Big Three"--the big three of art,
morals, and science; or the Beautiful, the Good, and the True; or I, we, and it; or
first-, second-, and third-person dimension. These are each associated with a
pronoun:

"Sir Karl Popper's 'three worlds' (subjective, cultural, and objective); Plato's the Good (as the ground of
morals, the 'we' of the Lower Left), the True (objective truth or it-propositions, the Right Hand), and the
Beautiful (the aesthetic beauty in the I of each beholder, the Upper Left); Habermas' three validity claims
(subjective truthfulness of I, cultural justness of we, and objective truth of its). Historically of great
importance, these are also the three major domains of Kant's three critiques: science or its (Critique of
Pure Reason), morals or we (Critique of Practical Reason), and art and self-expression of the I (Critique
of Judgment)."
An integral theory of consciousness; Journal of Consciousness Studies, 4 (1), pp.71-92, 1997

Here we see Wilber's representation of the four quadrants, with the characteristics
of intentional (individual subjective) , neurological (individual objective), cultural
(collective intersubjective) and social or socio-economic (collective
interobjective). In addition, each has its own pronoun, the personal pronouns for
the interior quadrants (individual subjective being "I" and the collective
subjective "We" or "You"), and the impersonal (including a plural "it") for the
exterior ones.
Or in other word Arts (Upper Left), Morals (Lower Left) and Science (Upper and
Lower Right ); the True (Upper and Lower Right ), the Good (Lower Left) and
the Beautiful (Upper Left); and Self (Upper Left), Culture (Lower Left), and
Nature (Upper and Lower Right).

And indeed anyone who has studied comparitive esotericism may have many
examples of Archetypal triads. These might range from the theological trinities of
many religions (Egyptian, Hindu, Christian, etc), to the early Vedantics (Being,
Consciousness Bliss), Samkhyans (three gunas), Neoplatonists (Abiding,
Precession, Return; and Being, Life, and Mind, etc), Gnostics, Kashmir Shaivites,
Tantriks (three main nadis), andTaoists (three Tan Tiens), to twentieth century
esotericists like Steiner (Thinking, Feeling, Willing, three streams of evolution,
and the Three Fold Commonwealth), Gurdjieff and Ouspensky (Law of Three),
and many others have done. However it seems to the present author that Wilber's
triads don't match the conventional ones. The two left-hand quadrants are often
similar - corresponding to Steiner's or Jung's feeling principle (Arts and Morals,
or the Beautiful and the Good). The two right ones which he groups together
correspond to the thinking principle. There is a match here with some of the
polarities in Stan Gooch's Total Man. So it is not a true triad, but rather a
quaternity, which indeed is the basis of Wilber's system.

The Holarchy
 This Phase of Wilber's work,
further refined in follow up works
like Eye of Spirit (1997), Integral
Psychology (2000) and the grandly
but appropriately named A Theory
of Everything (2000), Wilber's
edifice reaches its maximum
complexity, with the development
of a so-called "integral theory of
consciousness." Here he
incorporates the physical,
neurological, social, cultural,
philosophical, and spiritual
dimensions of human
consciousness, creating an even
more detailed map than his earlier
ones, known as AQAL - all
quadrants, all levels.

This all-embracing worldview is based on the wholistic interplay of four distinct

but complementary and interrelated, interweaving realities, each with its own set
of correspondences. Essentially this is the mandala of traditional correspondence
systems, but updated to the modern western secular multi-specialised world. Just
like the Greek elements which matched hot and cold, wet and dry, Wilber
contrasts individual and collective, interior and exterior.

Each quadrant even has its own Great Chain of Being, although Wilber himself
rejects the latter term.

The Great Chain is perhaps a misnomer. It is not a linear chain but a series of enfolded spheres: it is said
that spirit transcends but includes soul, which transcends but includes mind, which transcends but
includes body, which transcends but includes matter. Accordingly, this is more accurately called "the
Great Nest of Being."
Ken Wilber Waves, Streams, States, and Self--A Summary of My Psychological Model (Or, Outline of An Integral
Psychology)

In other words "a nested hierarchy of Spirit", or more accurately, "a

nested holarchy of ever more embracing spheres of existence"
[Reynolds, Where's Wilber At? p.8], each higher of which includes the ones
beneath it. Here Wilber breaks with the Perennial Tradition of Huston Smith,
Fritjof Schuon, and others; considering them too hierarchical; although there are
also big problems with his own interpretation. In any case, Wilber interprets   
 Arthur Koestler's concept of the   holon, which along with the Four Quadrants
replaces the Chain of Being as the basis of his metaphysics

"the world is not composed of atoms or symbols or cells or concepts. It is composed of holons"

 A Brief History of Everything p.21.

According to Koestler, a holon is both itself a whole while at the same time being
a part of a larger whole, so that reality becomes a series of nested Holons. But
unlike Koestler, Wilber describes the characteristics of holons in terms of vitalism
and teleology. Holons have drives to maintain their wholeness and their partness,
they are units of consciousness. This Consciousness is diffused through all four of
their quadrants.

"consciousness actually exists distributed across all four quadrants with all of their various levels and
dimensions. There is no one quadrant (and certainly no one level) to which we can point and say, There is
consciousness. Consciousness is in no way localized in that fashion. It is true that the Upper Left quadrant
is the locus of consciousness as it appears in an individual, but that's the point: as it appears in an
individual. Yet consciousness on the whole is anchored in, and distributed across, all of the quadrants
intentional, behavioral, cultural, and
social. If you "erase" any quadrant, The AQAL Holon
they all disappear, because each is
intrinsically necessary for the
existence of the others."
Eye of Spirit p. 273

Thus all the four quadrants

are simply four interrelated
aspects of a single holon

A fundamental concept of the

AQAL is that a holon cannot
be reduced to any one of the
four quadrants with the
exclusion of the others. Doing
so results in a partial and
incomplete view of reality, as
indicated by the one-
sidedness of views that base
themselves on only one
quadrant, and doubt the
validity of the other
quadrants. Wilber applies the Graphic © from   Wake Up, The AQAL Matrix Has You: AQAL
term "flatland" to those Matrix Revolution
situations or systems of knowledge when the Left Quadrants (Subjective) are
ignored in favor of the Right Quadrants. I read somewhere that there is also a
corresponding "wonderland" to when the Right Quadrants (Objective) are ignored
in favor of the ones on the Left, but this has never been verudfied. It's a great term
though, so I might as well adopt it. While Wilber's formulation is original, he is by
no means the first to present this insight; as Stan Gooch was saying very much the
same thing 20 years earlier, in his book Total Man. Gooch's System A corresponds
to Flatland/Right Quadrants, his System B to the Left Quadrants (what I call
Wonderland).

Tied in with quadrants and holons is a detailed array of structures, levels, lines,

and waves, designating the various evolutionary and psychodevelopmental stages
that make up the "Great Nest of Being"

" "Structure" indicates that each stage has a holistic pattern that blends all of its elements into a structured
whole. "Level" means that these patterns tend to unfold in a relational sequence, with each senior wave
transcending but including its juniors (just as cells transcend but include molecules, which transcend but
include atoms, which transcend but include quarks). And "wave" indicates that these levels nonetheless
are fluid and flowing affairs; the senior dimensions do not sit on top of the junior dimensions like rungs in
a ladder, but rather embrace and enfold them (just as cells embrace molecules which embrace atoms).
These developmental stages appear to be concentric spheres of increasing embrace, inclusion, and holistic
capacity."
Ken Wilber Waves, Streams, States, and Self--A Summary of My Psychological Model (Or, Outline of An Integral
Psychology)

Moreover, as the diagram indicates, each higher holon includes the ones beneath
it, and is itself included in the ones above it. The whole thing is summed up in the
following cosmological diagram
But while impressive, this diagram also contains a lot of arbitrary assumptions,
and there are many inconsistencies between quadrants and levels, and indeed in
Wilber's entire holistic AQAL philosophy, as explained here

It is at the Wilber-IV phase that he proposes 4 stages of his own writings, and
critiques his earlier work. As he later explains, "the earlier books (are
only)...useful in forming the subcomponents of a more integral theory." [Wilber,
forward to Frank Visser, Ken Wilber: Thought as Passion 2003]. Of these earlier
books, Phase I, which he calls his Romantic-Jungian stage, is the result of his
own Pre-Trans fallacy, whilst Phase II with its Involution-Evolution cycle he
sometimes refers to as (among other things) the Aurobindo/Wilber model [Eye of
 Spirit], thus associating his own misreading of Aurobindo with Aurobindo
himself.

Wilber uses the word "integral" - meaning "to integrate, to bring together, to join,
to link, to embrace. Not in the sense of uniformity...but in the sense of unity-in-
diversity, shared commonalities along with our wonderful differences" [A Theory
of Everything] to describe his philosophy. In 1999 some Sri Aurobindo followers
expressed concern at Ken Wilber using the term "Integral Psychology" as a title
for one of his new books, as this term has already been used by the Aurobindo
community to refer to a spiritual/esoteric/occult psychology based on the
teachings of Sri Aurobindo and the Mother. In the 1960s Swami Satchidananda
had also adopted the Aurobindoan term "Integral Yoga" for his own completely
unrelated teaching).  However, it seems that Wilber himself had actually adopted
the term from Swiss cultural historian Gene Gebser (1905-1973) as early as the
mid 1970s [Where's Wilber At? p.28 n.8]

Wilber's definition is much more limited than my use of the term, because he is
concerned here only with one aspect, all--inclusiveness, and does not consider (at
least not in his definition) the other, equally important aspects of evolutionary
transformation (although this is implicit in his own developmental model)
and Divinisation (which he denies in favour of old-fashioned Daist and Buddhist
nonduality)

Wilber-IV and AQAL marks the beginnings of Wilber's Postmodernism, and

postmodernistic techniques of criticism are enthusiastically applied to all fields of
knowledge. Through his model, Wilber claims to have deconstructed the
compartmentalized, disconnected worldview of science (objective), religion
(subjective), and ethics (intersubjective) and replaced it with a more unified
integrated one, with each area of knowledge going in one of the quadrants. Each
quadrant has its own validity claim, its own relative, partial, but still totally
authentic truth. With each type or knowledge there are specific types types of
evidence and validation procedures. Thus he says

...Propositions in the Upper Right are said to be true if they match a specific fact or objective state of
affairs: a statement is true if the map matches the territory - so-called objective truth representational truth
and the correspondence theory of truth).... 

In the Upper Left quadrant, on the other hand, a statement is valid...if it authentically expresses a
subjective reality...not just truth but truthfulness or sincerity... 

In the Lower Right quadrant of interobjective realities, the validity claim is concerned with how
individual holons fit together into interlocking systems; truth in this quadrant concerns the elucidating of
the networks of mutually reciprocal systems within systems of complex interaction...(the) functional fit.
In the Lower Left quadrant, on the other hand, we are concerned not simply with how objects fit together
in physical space, but how subjects fit together in cultural space. The validity claim here concerns the way
that my subjective consciousness fits with your subjective consciousness, and how we together decide
upon those cultural practices that allow us to inhabit the same cultural space...in other words, concerns
the appropriateness or justness of our statements and actions (ethics in the broadest sense).
An integral theory of consciousness

This is shown in the following diagram:

The above represents a very profound approach, which can serves as contributing
to the foundation for a new universal science. The only thing I would disagree
with is, why only four types of validity claim? Yes I know this is tied in with the
four-quadrant model, but one could equally posit seven (corresponding
to Christopher Hill's Phoneix Evolution), seven or twelve (as in
classical astrology), or more realities or perspectives of consciousness, each with
their own truth and justification.

A bigger problem however with Wilber's ideas is his inability to

incorporate esotericism, metaphysics, and occultism. For this reason I consider
Wilber and his school (which includes the Mainstream Integral Movement) to
pertain to the holistic, rather than the esoteric-gnostic, stage of transformation of
consciousness and society. This limitation in Wilber's thinking would become
progressively more marked in his later,"Post-Metaphysical" phase

In the late part of this present phase though, Wilber publishes   Integral
Psychologywhich integrates over a hundred different psychologies and models of
the levels of consciousness, East and West, premodern, modern, and postmodern;
and the grandly but appropriately named A Theory of Everything, in which he
proposes the intriguing idea of the "Human Consciousness Project" (A Theory of
Everything, p. 7). This would involve the mapping of consciousness found in
cross-cultural variations of the Great Chain or Nest of Being, the Four Quadrants,
and the "waves and streams" of consciousness of the Spiral Dynamics of Clare
Graves, Don Beck and Christopher Cowan, to create an "all-level, all-quadrant"
model of consciousness, equivalent to, or even greater than in scope and
importance, the Human Genome Project.

 A Critique of Ken Wilber's "AQAL" Philosophy 

Bibliography 1995-2001:

  Sex, Ecology, Spirituality: The Spirit of Evolution , Shambhala Publications

1995, 2nd revised edition, 2000, 851 pages

  A Brief History of Everything, Shambhala, Boston & London, 1996,

Shambhala Publications; 2nd edition, 2001, 330 pp

The Eye of Spirit: An Integral Vision for a World Gone Slightly Mad, 1997
Shambhala Publications, 432 pages

  The Essential Ken Wilber: An Introductory Reader , 1998

 The Marriage of Sense and Soul: Integrating Science and Religion, Random
House, New York, 1998, Broadway; Reprint edition, 1999

  One Taste: The Journals of Ken Wilber, 1999 , Shambhala Publications;

revised edition, 2000, 356 pp

  Integral Psychology: Consciousness, Spirit, Psychology, Therapy , 2000,

Shambhala Publications; 303 pages

  A Theory of Everything: An Integral Vision for Business, Politics, Science

and Spirituality, 2000, Shambhala Publications; 189 pages

Ken Wilber: Thought as Passion Frank Visser, 2003, 352 pages State

University of New York Press

 An Integral Theory of Consciousness - on-line essay by Wilber.

 Waves, Streams, States, and Self--A Summary of My Psychological

Model (Or, Outline of An Integral Psychology) - Ken Wilber

Critiques and Criticisms

 Ken Wilber's Flawed Metaphysics - By Michelle Mairesse - critical

review of The Marriage of Sense and Soul and A Brief History of Everything

A Glance at Ken Wilber's "A Brief History of Everything" - review by

Arvan Harvat
  The Promise of Integralism - A Critical Appreciation of Ken Wilber's
Integral Psychology by Christian de Quincey, argues that Wilber is against the
ontological significance of feeling. This essay launched a argument between
Wilber and de Quincey. Ken Wilber's reply. de Quincey's counter-reply where he
argues that Wilber completely misinterpreted his critique of the former's Integral
Psychology, and that he also moreover fails to address the "hard" mind-body
problem.

 Ken Wilber - A Theory of Everything: An Integral Vision for Business,

Politics, Science, and Spirituality - a down to earth critique, with some dollops
of sarcastic humour. If you don't like Wilber, this the one to go to.

 Some comments on Wilber's Models of Reality - concisely but powerfully

argues that Wilber's four quadrant levels presented in A Brief History of
Everything are inconsistent and badly formulated.

Also

 AQAL - wikipedia page - the same on Integral Wiki

 Wake Up, The AQAL Matrix Has You: AQAL Matrix Revolution - a
funky presentation

 Ken Wilber - basic concepts

 Response to Ken Wilber's, "Integral Theory of Consciousness" by Garry

Jacobs

 Developing Leadership Capacity: Searching for the Integral - pdf html -

applies 4-quadrants - SD paradigm to leadership
 Phase Phase 3 -
Phase 1 - Phase 4 -
2 - The Multiple Phase 5:
Biography The All
Pre- Development Post-
and Ideas Romantic Quadrants
Trans - Holographic Metaphysical
Period All Levels
Cycle Mind

Kheper Home | Ken Wilber Home | Integral Mandala (Kazlev) and AQAL | Topics

Index | New or Updated | Search
 Phase 5: Integral Post-Metaphysics (2001-present)
With each successive iteration, it seems that Ken Wilber's metaphysics becomes
more complex, more elaborate, perhaps even profound, but also more unwieldly.
The original Great Chain of Being that defined his early thinking even from the
start has become lost in a maze of quadrants, levels, holons, lines, states, and
types that constitutes the mature Wilber IV. Now Wilber adds kosmic habits,
methodological perspectives, perspectives on perspectives, and altitude. And
although his supporters claim that Wilber does indeed propound a single unified
system of knowledge, seamlessly integrating all aspects of science and
spirituality, art and culture, ancient and modern knowledge, one could also say
the opposite (see critiques of Wilber's "AQAL" cosmology and of philosophical
method and Arvan Harvat's review/critique. These same criticisms, directed at
Wilber IV, do I feel apply equally to Wilber V.

Since I first posted this page more than five years ago, back in 2004, what was
then called Post-Metaphysical AQAL, and is now called Integral Post-
Metaphysics, has become the official philosophy of the mainstream integral
community. Its most important features are: the rejection of Huston
Smith's perennialist metaphysics (itself based on Vivekananda Neo-Hinduism and
Guenon-Schuon Traditionalism), and apostmodernist rejection of objective reality
(which is dismissed as a "myth of the given"), in favour of emphgasis on
perspectives

The rejection of metaphysics continues Wilber's earlier trend of rejecting a

Perennialist Great Chain of Being, in favour of a more Mahayana
Buddhistic "emptiness" (shunyata) teaching, inspired by
the Madyamika(Nagarjuna) and Yogachara schools [Brad Reynolds, Where's
Wilber At? p. 14]. This marks the increasingly postmodernist flavour of Wilber's
work, a movement towards the exoteric and the secular, as the promised
metaphysical synthesis of Wilber IV did not deliver the union of One and Many
that one might argue should be at the heart of every grand esoteric synthesis.

The impression I get from reading Brad Reynolds on-line chapter, is that Wilber
V represents a transformation in Wilber's own personal outlook, a spiritual
breakthrough or leap to a higher level. But, as Wilber himself pointed out in
his Wilber III phase, and in his critique of his guru Adi Da, not all developments
of the various components of the being proceed at the same pace. So whilst
Wilber's spiritual development might have progressed (at least this is the
impression I have from reading Brad Reynolds' hagiography of him, in that I did
contact a spiritual energy when reading it, but perhaps I was just picking up the
psycho-spiritual energy and would probably contact the same energy when
reading any devotional material; although I don't know enough to make a definite
unbiased statement), the intellectual position remains strongly intellectual, and at
leats as far as external writing goes, exotyeric and non-gnostic

One thing I do like about Wilber's current Post-Metaphysics is his emphasis on

"perspectives". It took me a while to get this, but when I did it really made sense
(not the convoluted "integral mathematics", but the basic idea). Indeed,
I incorporated it into my own current version of Integral Metaphysics. To me it
fits perfectly with the Jain insight of anekantavada

Wilber's problem unfortunately is that he throws the baby out with the bathwater.
Recognising certain unnecssary intellectual abstractions of non-
gnostic metaphysics and trying to attain a sort of Buddhistic nonduality purity
(through his enthusiasm for Nagarjuna), he ditches
authentic esoteric or gnostic metaphysics as well. But without metaphysics, there
cannot be emanation or planes of existence, so Wilber shifts his focus to a here-
now evolutionary view based on Rupert Sheldrake's notion of morphogenetic
fields and formative causation, applying it now to all four quadrants. Ironically, I
remember reading once in an issue of ReVision(maybe a quarter of a century ago)
where Wilber was dismissive of Sheldrake because the latter does not have a
proper hierarchy of being!

Ken Wilber diagram on "The Inheritance of the Past in All Four Quadrants"
 from Excerpt A: An Integral Age at the Leading Edge 
- Part I. Kosmic Karma: Why is the Present a Little Bit Like the Past?

Phase V also sees Wilber retain and further develop his and Don Beck's revised
version of Spiral Dynamics, using it as a paradigm for human evolution. He also
writes a curious novel attacking baby boomers (of which he himself is one), and
further works on his   Integral Institute, which has now established a number of
new projects like   Integral University and the rather hip-sounded   Integral
Naked (although if you expect to find sexy young new paradigm philosophers
doing tantric practice in the altogether you'll be disappointed).

It remains to be seen whether Wilber's current shift away from cosmology, to

social commentary and working in the pragmatic world, will be the last word, or
whether he will develop a further novel new system (Wilber VI so to speak) to
add on to the corpus of his previous work.

From what I have read of and about Ken Wilber, I would have to say the latter.

Some diagrams pertaining to Integral Post-Metaphysics

The above diagram (from Integral Spirituality and frequently reproduced) shows
Wilber's altitude scale; this being the latest iteration of his Great Nest of Being.
The colours are supposed to be based on the chakrasand represent, Wilber says, a
teaching three thousand years old (  Integral Spirituality p.66). I don't
mean to take a cheap shot, but ironically for someone who is so critical of the
"Green" New Age meme, Wilber doesn't seem to realise that the rainbow
spectrum of chakras is not much more that about thirty years old; the earliest
refernce I know of is Christopher Hill's Nuclear Evolution; an elaborate Integral
theory that predates Wilber's AQAL by several decades and deserves to be
written up on Kheper net, if and when I ever get around to it. Hill's book seems to
have had little or no influnence on the wider world, so Wilber's rainbow chakras
are probably based on pop-Osho New Age websites.

I won't go into Wilber's misinterpretation of Sri Aurobindo under the cognitive

line, the interested reader is referred to my earlier page on the subject, and   
essay on Integral World. Although these two essays were written before I had
seen Integral Spirituality, my criticism here remains as solid as ever. I actually
started writing an academic page, in which I provided a very indepth analysis of
just one or two passages from Sri Aurobindo, to prove that Higher Mind has
nothing to do with Vision-Logic (and vice-versa). Either I will eventually
puvblish this in a journal, or else I'll publish it on the web.

For the rest though, it's an intersting diagram. While simplistic and railroading all
these different systems intoa single developmental spectrum, I tend to look more
favourably now at Wilber, or at least some of his work, than i used to.

The above diagram shows Wilber's eight Integral Methdological Perspectives.

there is nothing wring with this diagram; i.e. it does not misrepresent things the
way his altitude diagram tends to (I've already mentioned Sri Aurobindo). But it
isn't anything particularily gnostic or cosmological either. Basically it's one
possible and purely arbitrary formulation on perspectivism, no better and no
worse than any other. In itself it's fine, but it should never be taken as absolute
classification.

Wilber's idea that "everything is perspectives" is basically inspired by Yogachara

Buddhism; it certainly is an interesting concept, and one possible reality (or one
possible perspective), but it shouldn't be thought to be the only possible
explanation.

Further reading

See also   Where's Wilber At? The Further Evolution of Ken Wilber's
Integral Vision During the Dawn of the New Millennium, by Brad Reynolds.
Unfortunately, the hagiographic style of the author is rather hard to take, and the
whole thing reads rather like an over-enthusiastic devotee praising their guru-
master, or the writings of a convert to a new religion (for the record, Wilber
himself denies he is any sort of guru, preferring to consider himself a pandit or
scholar of spiritual teachings). If you stomach (or ignore) that side of it, this essay
gives some good pointers of Wilber's current approach.

 Excerpt here (Word Format) on KW´s iteration #5

Bibliography - 2001-present:

Speaking of Everything (2 hour audio interview recording), 2001

  Boomeritis: A Novel That Will Set You Free, 2002

   Kosmic Consciousness (12 hour audio interview recording), 2003

Ken Wilber, Speaking of Everything, live audio interview with the world's most
widely published spiritual philosopher. Just $24.95 for 2 CDs plus Alex Grey
illustrated Glossary pamphlet.

Integral Spirituality: A Startling New Role for Religion in the

Modern and Postmodern World - Shambhala (November 13, 2007

Wilber's classic Post-Metaphysics text

Integral Ecology: Uniting Multiple Perspectives on the Natural

World by Sean Esbjorn-Hargens and Michael E. Zimmerman
(Integral Books, Boston and London, 2009). Application of Wilber
V perspectivism to ecology.