A threat to the credibility of Integral Theory?

Academy
1

This post concerns a potential threat to the credibility of Wilber’s metatheory of knowledge. I have been following Wilber since the mid 90s and therefore have ‘skin in the game’ for the legitimacy of his work as it relates to ontology and epistemology. For some 30 years I have seen various attempts to engage with intellectuals and other interested parties regarding Wilber’s intellectual project. However, I’ve been waiting for a significant uptake by the relevant academies of learning to provide Wilber with a proper vetting of his ideas among a jury of his peers.

Crickets.

For example, I recently conducted a literature search on two venerable philosophy journals (Wilber identifies as a philosopher) from two philosophy academies, one in the UK and the other in the US.

The Philosophical Quarterly is a UK peer-reviewed journal established in 1950, published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Scots Philosophical Association and the University of St Andrew. Over the years, it has garnered a reputation as one of the leading platforms in the UK for philosophical discourse.

The American Philosophical Association is the primary professional organization for philosophers in the United States. It was founded in 1900. Its associated journal publication is the Journal of the American Philosophical Association, published by Cambridge University Press. This journal features a vigorous, triple-peer-reviewed process, covers a wide range of philosophical research, and encourages interdisciplinary discourse.

So we have two philosophy academies with reputable associated journals in the UK and US. I entered this search command: Ken Wilber OR Integral Theory.

More crickets.

Where are the academic conferences that discuss Wilber’s contribution to philosophy that are then published as conference proceedings? Is there a major philosopher who has provided a critical review of Wilber’s philosophy, such as Putnam, the late Rorty, or Blackwell?

It is my view that Wilber supplies the most comprehensive, postmodern metaphysic currently available. In particular, he has made an extraordinary contribution to the return of spirit, spirituality, and religion in the field of philosophy. I am therefore gobsmacked that after 30 years I can find no serious engagement with a reputable philosopher from one of the major philosophy academies with an associated journal entry. I would be delighted to be wrong about this.

If the foregoing is correct, what are the implications for the legitimacy and credibility of Wilber’s truth claims? For philosophy academies, why have they not seriously engaged with Wilber? For Wilber, why has there been no formal, serious engagements (to my knowledge) with the academies of philosophy? Siloed knowledge, the fragmentation of knowledge, the failure to communicate, and echo chambers are surely not part of the spirit of Integralism, as Wilber’s many publications for the general public will attest.

So then, where may I find the formal vetting of his ideas by a jury of his philosophical peers, published in an official journal of the academy? What’s going on here?

Save EditClose

3 Likes
2

Hello wbuch:

I study Ken Wilbur’s theories and love his work. I’m just starting to apply it to my own work in cultural anthropology (PhD from Cornell in 2007). Normally Ken has to submit an article to these journals and wait to receive peer review, feedback and (we hope) acceptance for publication. Only then can philosophers engage with it. He also needs to site (which he does) other people in the field. Maybe you know this already, but if not, it was worth writing. Furthermore, once he is published, those of us who refer to him also have to publish and reference his work. You are right that this is important. Anyone publishing in the academic fields who quote any of Ken’s books will put him on the map in academics. In my experience, scholars are allergic to such forward thinking…this is why I left formal scholarship…but maybe that will change.

1 Like
3

This topic appears to run parallel to the current, " Where is the serious academic work on Integral in the last 15 years?," thread and raybennett’s most recent comment there.

Academia and science both try to view Wilber from a “flatland” lens. Frank Visser, of News on Ken Wilber, seems to have been dedicated (obsessed?) with discrediting Wilber, as a case in point.

I think if I were Wilber, I’d have left academia behind sooner, rather than trying to get them to “see.” Science, rather “scientism,” reveals that you can’t see what you can’t see.

" Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig." - Robert Heinlein

2 Likes
4

I have been reading Wilber since 1983 :wink: and I totally agree with @wbuch’s assessment of his significance:

As an academic in recovery myself, specifically a cultural historian who specialized in the Western Middle Ages, here’s my take.

Universities are in essence a Medieval institution. They were first created in the 12th century as an arm of the Catholic church. While they did (ironically) help gestate and give birth to the Western Enlightenment by fostering intellectual inquiry, their core purpose has always been to identify the current orthodoxy and defend it.

Nowadays the core dogma of mainstream academia is post-modernism. Wilber is too far out ahead of it for its denizens to see his work in focus. Or indeed at all.

I don’t doubt that academia will catch up eventually. It has successfully moved on from championing pre-modern dogma into championing modern science and reason, and on from there to post-modern multi-perspectivity. When a large enough portion of contemporary society has moved into Integral, academia will follow once again. That’s my prediction.

The two previous respondents to this post have already given some specific reasons why mainstream academia is blind to Wilber so far. I will add two more.

First “big pictures” are anathema to the deconstructionist mode of post-modernism that conquered the humanities back in the 1980s. And Wilber’s AQAL meta-synthesis is the biggest of big pictures.

Second, Wilber’s very success in enfolding spirituality coherently in his AQAL Theory of Everything is also anathema to post-modern intellectuals – because any transcendence is anathema to them.

BTW I actually do know of one academic who was awarded his Ph.D. on the subject of Wilber’s philosophy. But he lives in Finland, not the USA.

4 Likes
5

Personally, I follow Wilber because of the framework that he provides while (i) am decoding ongoing and past metaphysical and spiritual realizations. for myself, (i am) much better at making art then selling it. (i) must admit, some of you concern me. Ha Ha Ha

6

My PhD dissertation was based on Wilber though it was from a more open-minded institution (The Union Institute) than most. I did get a lot of push back from one professor.

2 Likes
7

I wouldnt worry too much it. Academic “credibility” is a self eating ororobus and pointless except to feed itself.
Such credibility has more to do with commercialization of controlling learning and exclusivity than it does actual validity of theories.
Buddha never recieved such credibility nor did Jesus of Nazareth. Yet billions find their teachings useful.
Not that Wilbur is on such a level, but neither do Yogis pass academic scrutiny and when they try to do so it becomes twisted into some kind of weird theoretical Yoga - aka not Yoga.

Tbe proof of an idea isnt in endless analysis of it in academia, but in its usefullness of application, or the belief that it may one day be developed into something useful.

2 Likes
8

In my own armchair opinion, TLDR academic publication applies to the truth claims of Orange and Green.

And no, this doesn’t mean Teal and Turquoise have diplomatic immunity from being fact-checked. It really means that Integral isn’t establishing facts. It’s establishing connections: containers, points of focus; it’s an open-source framework. What kind of academic paper does one put forth to advance a way of thinking, feeling, and being that integrates and organizes truths from all cultures and times? I’m sure there are many one could come up with, who are academic scholars and not an iconoclastic philosophy author (Ken Dub claims to be a dropout, but that’s suss), and I think Wilber would agree that people who are in academics and passionate about Integral should pursue academic publication of Integral notions.

From what I understand, the raw deal is that Wilber has much to write, and many other activities, and he is an elderly man, and he prefers to spend the time that he has writing and advancing the Integral Theory, as he basically always has, rather than pushing his work into academics - that is a monstrous undertaking, something that Wilber would not enjoy, and I’m sure that it seems doable, or even a dream for some people, but I personally assume that Wilber leaves the responsibility of spreading Integral Theory into academics (as well as numerous other explicit and implied goals of Integral as a social movement, or Level) to the individuals who are academics and want to apply it to their academic work. imo.

Same can be said for religions, for politics, for health, for communication, for AI and tech, for culture and media - this is a holistic worldview and it requires the participation of everyone at that Level feeling passionate about it. Wilber ain’t no moses patriarch. He’s just a nerd that mapped out his discovery of a new stage of consciousness that sees reality as stages of consciousness, and he’s done it very well for a long time, in public speech and in writing, and that’s just kind of what the guy does. What he doesn’t do, to everyone’s disappointment, is the actual implementation of Integral Theory to every facet of human life. That’s what we do. Homeboy made us a map. I am mostly useless, so I talk about Integral Theory on the internet. It’s very, very rewarding, but not in ways that would appeal to Orange and Green.

Integral can be kind of paranoid about “mean” Green meme always kicking it down a peg. It’s more like, Integral is not on the radar of the first Tier of stages. In general, and being generous to Orange and Green, they find Integral Theory to be a superfluous pursuit, and non-relevant to academics. Extreme versions of Green (which gravitate to colleges) will add in that trying to rank people or to create a hierarchy of observable trends in development are highly inflammatory and likely biased in many ways. I have personally seen (and I’m like a former bachelor of arts btw so take with a grain of salt) papers that invoke Integral Theory, like as background material, and I can see why that would be considered superfluous. One doesn’t often define one’s philosophical orientation as a parameter of their research or experiment.

If you really think about it, the grade school system is designed to maximize adults at Orange. College is maximized to deliver Orange and Green. These institutions were built with a rather top-down style. I mean that schools are a government or business institution, with funding, with backing, with regulatory and public oversight. The goal of those institutions is to deliver at worst a practical ability in today’s world and at best a full liberal education and a pathway to future development of career and self. If you truly buy into Integral Theory, then it stands to reason that academic institutions that are made by and for Orange and Green would reject Integral Theory, which is intrinsically Teal. I always say, and if you don’t believe me, go and try to discuss Integral Theory with someone who is predominantly expressing Orange and Green. Yeah, that’s what academia does, too. I’m not saying it’s impossible or undesirable at all. I’m just saying it’s a Copernicus kinda situation.

Thanks for reading, if y’all did. <3

3 Likes
9

To further underscore my points, I just came across the following passage while reading Wilber’s 2000 work A Theory of Everything. Here he is explaining how he came up with his AQAL model and wrote Sex, Ecology, Spirituality:

“I realized, with a shock, that four of the words I used in the very first paragraph were no longer allowed in academic discourse (developmental, hierarchy, transcendental, universal)… What had happened in my ten-year writing hiatus, and to which I had paid insufficient attention, is that extreme post-modernism and the green meme had rather completely invaded academia in general and cultural studies in particular – even the alternative colleges and institutes were speaking postmodernese with an authoritarian thunder. … Pluralistic relativism was the only acceptable worldview. It claimed that all truth is culturally situated… “(p. 50 in my e-text).

1 Like
10

You’re right about the process of publication. It has definitely not been my experience that “scholars are allergic to such forward thinking.” Rather, the larger the truth claims or the more comprehensive the model, the more one should look forward to submitting one’s ideas to various learned communities for vetting and feedback.

11

Thanks for a thoughtful reply, especially regarding the history of universities. As for your addition of specific reasons why mainstream academia is blind to Wilber. (1) my experience of academic communities is that post-modernism has largely had its say and become a part of a heuristic of humility for any who wish to make truth claims. Used in this way, I welcome such a heuristic. I would add that postmodern thought has been more interesting to some parts of the academy than others, such as the humanities (critical theory, art, and some philosophy), but not so much in the sciences. (2) I’m grateful for Wilber’s moves in Integral Spirituality and Finding Radical Wholeness in his attempt to find a place for spirit. However, once again, I have not experienced this in academia. For example, my first doctorate examined exorcism seekers from perspectives associated with religion, social psychology, and psychiatric psychopathology. I had 100% welcome and support for this study that ranged from theory to quantitative statistical analysis. So, it appears that our opinions come from very different experiences of academic life.

1 Like
12

Thanks Sidra. I don’t know how to merge the topics. Your point about scientism as a blinder is certainly something I’ve encountered. However, to leave academia behind on this basis now would deny the heterogeneity in the academic community. For example, your suggestion that the academic community would all view Wilber from a “flatland” lens is unlikely given this heterogeneity. My greater fear is that the academic community doesn’t know about Wilber because the IT community has not engaged with Wilber’s thought. Why this is so, whether from the academia side or the IT side, is what bothers me after so much time has passed.

13

Self-eating ororobus - I had to look that up! You have dismissed academic credibility as pointless and you suspect such credibility has more to do with issues of control, guild-building, and money - an analysis that would make Foucault proud. I have no doubt that in any organization, there will be evidence of such motives because of the humans in that organization. One could wonder about the IT community in the same way, again because humans are involved. That being said, is there anything else that can be learned from either academic or IT communities? I definitely think so for both. I also agree with you that a supportive consensus of academia is not a guarantee of credibility.

Here’s my concern. Let’s say that I’ve been toiling away in some university basement laboratory putting together some ideas about something I’m calling Quantum Mechanics. I think my ideas have potential to make a grand contribution to physics. At some point I wonder what others might think of my theoretical ideas. So, I might run some of my ideas past family and friends. But would I not want to submit my ideas to a ‘jury’ of my peers for vetting and feedback. In this case, the Physics Academy would be the appropriate place. Of course, I could write books, organize workshops, develop an online community, and even a university committed to quantum everything. But why not fellow physicists? Ken Wilber identifies as a philosopher. Even though he has no formal academic credentials as a philosopher, why did he not early in IT history start a rigorous engagement with fellow-philosophers? This strikes me as very odd. And I will be showing just how odd in another post where I look for engagement with Wilber and/or IT in close to 10 major philosophy academic communities in multiple countries with virtually nothing to say about him. It’s not that this is the only way to evaluate IT theory or its credibility, but it is surely an important one. One of my friends suggested that I take my curiosity directly to Wilber for comment. It’s worth a try.

14

Greetings Wesley. On “merging the topics:”

I suspect that if you went directly to Wilber, He might suggest that the part of the brain academia plays in is not the same part that accesses what goes on in a zendo. In other words, academia (my reference to “flatland” and “scientism”)= “growing up,” whereas zendo pursuits = waking up."

By extension, I imagine the IT community predominantly hangs out in the “growing up” area, right there along with academia, which is a lot easier, accessible and distracting, than jumping into the “Void” portals of “waking up.”

15

I agree that academia is stuck in the same hole as the economy and society as a whole. I call it “gaslight capitalism” where after a certain point providing value becomes a hinderance and providing less while promising more becomes more profitable.
This manifests in education where people get degrees they believe will be useful in gaining employment and recruiters decieve applicants and make false claims and graduates find themselves 50k in debt and with equal employability as if they never attended.
Documented examples of this are Colorado Technical College, Heald Business College and the like. This also goes up to the PhD level .

I think the type of academic rigor you are talking about has harmed itself by being in the same organizational structures with what i am describing.

Where this becomes significant to your topic is this: if i want to promote an ideology, there are more effective sectors to do it in than academia. A movement would only want to approach academia to produce a study or resaerch that shows some kind of scientufic proof (actually corrolation) to some benefit to the customer.

Ill give three examples.

Holosync - in their sales pitch they point to scientific studies that correlate use of brainwave entrainment to overall well being and development. This aids sales / recruitment.

The Guru Sadhguru points to a reasearch study where participants of his specific method experience lowering of physical symptoms that can be measured like blood pressure, for example.

Wim Hoff allowed scientists to experiment on him while connected to measurement devices and superhuman results were achieved. He then trained others in his method and they also achieved these results measured scientifically in controlled settings.

What all these have in common is that their goal was to prove some benefit for the potential member and use science backed by academic bonafides to make sales.
Integral claims to “make sense”. At least, that is the big lead in to this website. In addition to being impossible to prove scientifically, only a small sector will see this as valuable. I think Ken said somewhere around 10% of the population were ready for this. I disagree and think less than1% are ready to move into Teal and this number has been falling since around 2014. I believe Humanity is regressing.

I think the risk of failing academic scrutiny is higher for Integral Theory than the benefits of academic scrutiny.

1 Like
16

Thanks to all who are contributing to this conversation. I appreciate the topic question, and I can see value and truth in most of your insights. How about exploring our opportunities to publish about the application of Integral Theory in our respective areas of work, as some researchers have done? As several of you have pointed out, this is not going to come from Ken Wilber, and I respect him for the choices he had made. Instead of focusing on why doors are closed in relation to the topic question, what are the windows we can open? My own areas of interest are leadership development and leadership coaching. Currently, I’m following the discussion on metatheory development in response to the metacrisis with great interest. That opens a window to review and write about various metatheories that practitioners and researchers can learn from. Another example is research on worldviews, of which I have read a PhD thesis recently. What windows can you think of opening?

17

Another insightful reply, imo. Yes, depending on the nature of the attempts and responses between Wilber/IT and academia, there may well be a law of diminishing returns at play - perhaps for both sides (which I would feel disapppointed about). This does not mean it should not be attempted. And yes, academia (and the Integral Community) have business aspects. In academia this is generally obtained by producing good publications that attract subscribers. Academic communities are often linked to universities which want to attract students for business reasons. This should not diminish the worthiness of their contribution any more than it would Integral’s business interests.

But you then appear to privilege the gnostic, enlightened Teal people as those who might definitely show interest in IT. But why shouldn’t we find people in academic communities who are Teal? And where might the disconnect be?

Once again, if my car engine is making worrisome, loud sounds, surely I would want to ask around for an explanation, and especially to a car mechanic who specializes in car engines! Now it’s true that my uncle (a mechanical genius) could tell me the solution for free. But why not a duly credentialed, experienced car mechanic as a second opinion for good measure?

I’m hoping that you’re wrong about humanity, but then again I’m an optimist, and these days my optimism for us consciousness-bearing humans is definitely taking a hit. I have a friend who sincerely believes that our days are numbered and at that time the pond scum will take over and have a turn!

18

Thanks for your contribution, Coach. Very sensible

My own academic field is clinical & rehabilitation psychology and my research area is depression and chronic pain, with interdisciplinary interests in the intersection between clinical psychology and religion. I will definitely be attempting to submit at least one attempt at IQAL and depression, pain. We will see how that goes.

19

I’m glad that your experience of academia has not been as harsh as mine was at Cal back in the 1970s. Evolution happens!

1 Like
20

Greetings Wesley.

You wrote,"….there may well be a law of diminishing returns at play - perhaps for both sides (which I would feel disappointed about)…"

I think “disappointment” is an extra and unnecessary reaction to the realization that academia will only go so far. Wilber tried (hard) for a while, to connect the dots between objective and subjective. He also held from the get-go that that elusive “waking up” experience was the most crucial part of understanding Integral.

Wilber lamented that consensus handling over time would entropically water down his work, and that the academics would forget about that elusive “waking up” part in favor of remaining infatuated with all the charts and graphs (“flatland,” “scientism”).

Wilber has been critical of the “hard” sciences, physics for example, for their truncated thinking that deeper and deeper understanding of factoids about the physical universe = enlightenment.

Your proposed paper on the intersection between clinical psychology (a soft science) and religion (subjective belief) seems worthwhile, but once the academics get hold of it, good luck in having the finished product look anything like what you might have envisioned.