Marc Gafni! Oh no, please sing praises to Integral
Ya see there was this sexual fracture in Integral nights that was loud but then just a whisper. Marc and all those Integral flys attracted and repulsed all at the same time came to scene of an orgasmic snap and a mouse fart in the night. Those there involved in the scene, left early without looking like they left. Allowed the clouds to drift away and start their sex orgy fire all over again but with no flies. If you fly? No see. If you got good sniffer. Smells right as rain.
What word do they use instead?
Kosmo Erotic Humanism
I’m late to this party. I consider this is a very important thread because it has implications for the validity 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.
Two philosophy academies with reputable associated journals in the UK and US. I entered this search command: Ken Wilber OR Integral Theory.
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.
But 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?
1 Like
Hi Wesley, welcome to the community! We’re glad /sad/mad to have you (a little bit of Integral humor) 
What I have witnessed is that critical reviews of Wilburs work are viewed as “attacks” by people “who hate ken”.
Its also presented as “take it or leave it” meaning if you disagree with an aspect of it and want to discuss it, you just arent Teal enough to undrstand Kens genius.
There is for sure a cult aspect to Integral that resists critical review.
As far as modern philosophers - I follow “Hanzi Frinacht” on facebook and he often discusses Integral adjacent topics but without ever saying “integral”.
This seens to be the way to go - theres a lot of cultish baggage to deal with when discussing “Integral Theory”, but if you just use synonyms or derivative terms and never mention Ken you can avoid all of that.
2 Likes
I’m a longtime reader, first-time poster. Three interrelated challenges come to my mind: the mean Green meme, Ken Wilber’s response to his critics generally, and citation specifically. Elaborating on all of these would make for a long post, but one illustration is Wilber’s dialog with Jorge Ferrer during the transpersonal psychology movement’s turn to participatory pluralism.
The marriage of sense and soul, which (unlike Sex, Ecology, Spirituality) has no endnotes, has this summary of valid spiritual knowledge:
Authentic spirituality, in short, must be based on direct spiritual experience, and this must be rigorously subjected to the three strands of all valid knowledge: injunction, apprehension, and confirmation/rejection—or exemplar, data, and falsifiability.
~ Wilber, K. (1998) The marriage of sense and soul: integrating science and religion. 1st. Broadway Books trade pbk. ed. New York: Broadway Books.
In his 15-page review of The marriage of sense and soul, Jorge Ferrer mentions falsifiability 37 times across eight pages; of his six dozen citations, nine are on falsifiability; and a handful of his 14 quotes from the book are about falsifiability as well, for example:
Central to Wilber’s proposal is a defense of Popper’s principle of falsifiability as the criterion for both anchoring the validity of knowledge claims and demarcating between genuine and dogmatic knowledge in every domain: sensory, mental, and spiritual. In the sense Wilber uses it, falsifiability holds that genuine knowledge must be potentially refutable by experiential evidence, and that this falsifiability allows us to demarcate between science and pseudoscience: “The falsifiability principle,” he tells us, “becomes an important aspect of the knowledge quest in all domains, sensory to mental to spiritual. And in each of those domains, it does indeed help us to separate the true from the false, the demonstrable from the dogmatic” (p. 160).
~ Ferrer, J.N. (1998) ‘Speak Now Or Forever Hold Your Peace: A Review Essay Of Ken Wilber’s The Marriage Of Sense And Soul: Integrating Science And Religion’, The Journal of Transpersonal Psychology, 30(1), pp. 53–67.
In this quote, Ferrer addresses two points:
- falsifiability as a strand of valid knowledge, and
- falsifiability as demarcating between science and pseudoscience.
Wilber replies to Ferrer in four pages with no quotes and four citations (all his own books). Three of the pages confirm a point already granted in Jorge’s quote, that the mental and spiritual domains are different from the sensory domain–the word “sensory” appears 13 times. Falsifiability is the topic of one paragraph, addressing Ferrer’s second point:
Jorge’s other two issues-falsifiability and the perennial philosophy—can be dealt with rather briefly. I agree that falsifiability does not work as the sole or even major criterion of scientific knowledge; I never said it did. Rather, I use a very general version of falsifiability as merely one of several criteria of valid knowing (as does Habermas, Peirce, etc.). It simply means we hold all of our experiences open to further refinement (corroboration or challenge). Even if a single spiritual teacher doesn’t do this, the experience of a broader community does, or else no new religious insights would ever emerge.
~ Wilber, K. (1998) ‘Response To Jorge Ferrer’s “Speak Now Or Forever Hold Your Peace- A Review Essay Of Ken Wilber’s The Marriage Of Sense And Soul”’, Journal of Transpersonal Psychology, 30(1), pp. 69–72.
It appears to me that Jorge and Ken were talking past each other, and that Jorge’s approach was more “academic.”
You are straightforward and boldly so. You’ve definitely raised some important points here. Many thanks. “There is for sure a cult aspect to Integral that resists critical review.” I am particularly concerned about any ‘resistance to critical review’ rather than engaging directly and persuasively. But where in any philosophy publication from just one of at least 10 major philosophy academies is there any critical review? So far, I’ve found zip.
2 Likes
Wow. That was well put together, complete with source citations. After reading your thoughtful response, I’m appreciating your conclusion that two bright people are talking past each other. There was an attempt at meaningful engagement, even if it didn’t really connect fruitfully. But at least there was an attempt at engagement. My problem is that I’m not finding such engagement in any well-established, philosophy academy or related journal publication. This means that Wilber’s intellectual peer group in philosophy have not formally vetted, evaluated, or even commented on Wilber’s philosophical project. Sigh.
2 Likes
The points raised here are resonating.
The sense I have is that Ken’s work is too important to stand on the sidelines.
If there were a solution to the problems stated above, would anyone be interested in collaborating?
2 Likes
I’m happy to hear of your interest. I am planning to do my part in the area of psychology and interfaith practical theology. What do you have in mind regarding collaboration?
1 Like
Thanks for your reply. I’m doing some work with AI that intersects both psychology and interfaith practice. I’d be curious to explore whether that’s a shared interest.
2 Likes
It seems this discussion ended without any satisfying conclusion. What in integral theory can be formulated and articulated as scientifically testable and falsifiable hypotheses?
That’s a great question, Benjamin. I agree it’s worth exploring what elements of Integral Theory might be made empirically testable, especially when engaging academic or scientific audiences.
My interest leans more toward Integral’s role in shaping developmental awareness, relational practice, and systems thinking—so the frame I’m working with is a bit different. But I’d be curious to see what emerges if we brought those lenses into dialogue.
I’m still here with all of you—just feeling into whether there’s an invitation to keep going.
It seems like there should be some way of scientifically researching integral theory. Different versions of it do make various claims on reality, human nature, and society. For example, some aspects of stages and stages should be testable. It seems that would be a way of entering integral theory into legitimate and respectable scholarly debate.
1 Like
If Ken Wilbur can just out of the blue pronounce Donald Trump as “a very Orange, rational guy” in 2024 I doubt if any serious scientific review of his theories is possible.
1 Like
The entire problem as I see it is that many self-proclaimed experts in Intergral Theory (including Ken) conduct analysis based on zero measurements or clear definitions.
First: who should be able to claim to be an expert in Integral Theory? I constantly encounter people who are essentially cultists. Their concept of Integral Theory is “Ken Said, therefore Integral”. “You disagree with Ken, therefore what you say is Amber”.
Second: Is there any system of measurements? If Ken says Donald Trump is “a very rational guy” and I say Trump isn’t - what are the specific measurements that will prove or disprove opinions about “rational”? I observe Trump to be completely irrational. Ken observes completely rational. What measurements can be conducted to establish fact from opinion?
Trump is a very significant case study. People who claim to be experts on Integral theory disagree strongly whether he is Healthy Orange, Caustic Green or Integral Savior. As long as there is no way to establish unbiased measurements, Integral cannot be taken serious academically.
1 Like
You’re not wrong about this. That said, I might be able to argue for the utility of his 4 quadrants when assessing depression causation vs other depression models. This is different than testing the actual validity of his quadrants, although they certainly seem reasonable to me. Putting Wilber’s integral theory to the test is no different than testing a model of physics: you find small parts of the theory that are testable and go from there. Daniel Dennett suggested the same for religions: find hypothesized effects of religion and test those.
2 Likes