• home
• about
• new
• essays
• AI
• book

John Abramson is retired and lives in the Lake District in Cumbria, England. He obtained an MSc in Transpersonal Psychology and Consciousness Studies in 2011 when Les Lancaster and Mike Daniels ran this course at Liverpool John Moores University. In 2015, he received an MA in Buddhist Studies from the University of South Wales. He can be contacted at johnabramson@btinternet.com

When the Proposed Solution Is Not Integral

A reply to Frank Visser on Harris, Dillard and Gaza

John Abramson / Claude

Frank Visser's essay on the Harris-Dillard exchange "When Integral Perspectives Become Irreconcilable" is right about almost everything, and I want to concede the diagnosis in full, because my disagreement is not with the diagnosis at all.

He is right that Harris and Dillard share an integral vocabulary and reach irreconcilable conclusions; that the argument does not converge; that each new event is absorbed into a prior causal model; that the Harris-Meyerhoff pattern has reappeared twenty years on with only the names changed. Above all he is right about the deep point: taking more perspectives tells you nothing about how to weigh them. Perspectives do not adjudicate themselves. That observation is true, important, and not dissolved by any quantity of Integral vocabulary.

My disagreement is with the remedy—and, as it turns out, with the remedies offered in the comments beneath the essay as well. Having diagnosed a deadlock that lives entirely within the register of reason—competing narratives, competing causal hierarchies, competing rankings of moral weight—all three participants reach for a cure that lives inside that same register. That is a category error: not a bad answer, but an answer pitched at the wrong level, and therefore one that cannot do the thing an integral solution would actually have to do.

Three proposals, one structure

Read the essay together with its comments and the same move appears three times.

Visser proposes agreement on independent standards for weighing evidence, causation, power, law and moral principle—a shared tribunal.

Dillard answers that this is exactly why humanity codified norms into law and gave law the power to determine guilt and assign compensation. Law is the tribunal.

Harris insists the real issue is good history against bad history—"a good faith, unbiased examination of the historical facts," and "actually determin[ing] objectively what is true" as the first step of any reconciliation. Objective historiography is the tribunal.

Three tribunals—standards, law, good history. One identical structure. Each locates the resolution of the conflict in the adjudication of competing justice-claims: find the right procedure, apply it in good faith, and the correct verdict follows. And each presents its proposal as the properly integral one. Yet none of them has crossed the boundary that Integral Theory is supposed to make crossable. They differ over which rational criterion should govern; not one has left the realm of reason.

That is the category error stated precisely. It is not that Visser chose an inadequate standard, or Dillard the wrong court, or Harris a naïve historiography. It is that all three have answered a question about level with a refinement of technique.

And the technique cannot reach the problem, for a reason the essay half-sees. Weighting is itself a rational operation. So a better way of weighting perspectives—a better tribunal, a better standard, a better history—is only a more elaborate instance of the very thing that has already failed for twenty years. Agreement on independent standards does not end the argument; it relocates it to the interpretation of the standards. Dillard's law adjudicates only where the parties already accept a sovereign whose verdicts bind them, which warring parties by definition do not. And Harris's "what is objectively true" is not a neutral bench; it is the ground the two sides are fighting over. You cannot end a dispute about which facts are causally decisive by an appeal to the facts.

So when Harris remarks that "of course AI will frame this in terms of algorithms," the instinct is sound but misaimed. The mistake is not that the missing ingredient has been described as an algorithm. It is the assumption that the missing ingredient is a decision-procedure of any kind—algorithm, tribunal, standard, method for scoring perspectives. That assumption is what all three share, and it is what no better version of itself can repair.

A different operation, not a better one

Here is the point on which everything turns, and I want to state it plainly and early, because it would be easy to read this essay as one more plea for compassion, and it is not that.

An integral solution is not a better solution than a rational one. It is a different kind of operation. Reason adjudicates: given several competing solutions, it asks which is correct. What reason cannot do, working on its own terms, is generate the standpoint from which several incompatible rational solutions become parts of one solution. That second operation is not adjudicative but synthetic. It does not ask which of these wins? It asks what higher-order condition would let what is valid in each be held together, without one of them being required to defeat the other?

This is what "transcend and include" was always supposed to mean, and it is worth being concrete about it here rather than leaving it as a slogan.

Harris's analysis contains propositions that are not false: Jewish historical vulnerability is real, Islamist ideology is real, Israeli security is a genuine need. Dillard's analysis contains propositions that are also not false: Palestinian dispossession is real, the asymmetry of power is real, occupation and settlement are real. Reason can argue for ever about which cluster deserves priority—that is precisely the argument that does not converge. The synthetic move does not choose a cluster. It imposes a constraint at a higher level: that any admissible solution must hold what is valid in the security claim without making Palestinian existence and dignity expendable, and must address dispossession without making Israeli existence conditional on Palestinian defeat.

Notice what that constraint is, and what it is not. It is symmetric, and it is formal. It draws no border, allocates no sovereignty, apportions no blame, settles no contested fact—I take no position here on any of that, and the argument requires me to take none. What it does is rule out an entire class of outcomes: any outcome purchased by writing one of the parties out of the future. The competing rational analyses are not discarded; their valid contents are relocated inside a frame that forbids the zero-sum resolution each of them, left to adjudicate alone, tends toward.

What "love" is, and what it cannot do

That higher-order condition is what I mean by love, and I am aware the word arrives here trailing every reason to be dismissed, so let me fix its sense exactly.

By love I do not mean warmth, or forgiveness, or splitting the difference, or the studiously balanced "both sides have a point" the essay rightly calls insufficient. I mean two things held together: a constraint—that no party may be dropped from the field of regard, none treated as the acceptable cost of the other's security or the other's liberation—and a motive—action oriented towards the other's continued existence rather than the other's defeat.

And I want to concede at once, and without reluctance, the thing that looks like the fatal objection. Love does no epistemic work. It cannot tell you whether Harris or Dillard has the history right, where the causal chain begins, or which cluster of claims weighs more. That remains entirely the work of reason, evidence, historiography and law, and I am not proposing to relieve anyone of it. If the objection is "love cannot determine who is objectively correct about Gaza," the objection is correct, and it misses the claim. Love is not that kind of thing. It does not adjudicate the conflict; it changes the conditions under which adjudication becomes capable of ending the conflict rather than feeding it.

That this is not softness, or a refusal to look at horror, is the burden of a hard old story I will keep very short. In the Mahayana literature of skilful means the Buddha, in a former life, is the captain of a ship carrying five hundred merchants; learning that a robber aboard means to murder them all, and finding no other way, he kills the robber—saving the five hundred, sparing the robber the karma of mass murder, and taking the weight of the killing upon himself. Love, in that tradition, is not the refusal of terrible responsibility; it is responsibility that keeps everyone within its regard, including the one who would otherwise become a murderer. I hold the example at arm's length, because a story in which compassion licenses killing is exactly the sort of thing both sides in this conflict could enlist to sanctify their own violence. Its point here is narrow: the moment "love" is used to justify eliminating or subordinating one of the parties, it has become justice-as-I-see-it in a borrowed robe. The captain's love is defined by the fact that it drops no one—not even the robber.

Where Wilber actually stands

This is the point the essay treats as having failed the test, and I think it has been misread.

On Wilber's account, moral development is the widening of the circle of care—egocentric, ethnocentric, worldcentric, and at the limit a regard that excludes no one. The integral claim was never that a higher stage supplies a better algorithm for justice-as-I-see-it; and—this is the part worth saying flatly—it was never that higher consciousness determines the historically correct answer. It does no such thing. What development changes is not the verdict but the conditions under which a verdict is sought: whether the parties enter the inquiry already requiring the other's disappearance, or enter it having ruled that outcome out. Harris and Dillard each extend real moral regard, and each, at the decisive moment, lets it stop at the border of the party he has chosen to defend. That is care that remains, at the crucial instant, ethnocentric while speaking a worldcentric vocabulary—and no quantity of added perspectives reaches it, because addition is horizontal and the missing thing is a matter of altitude.

The objection I have to answer

The strongest reply is one the essay hands me, and I would rather meet it in full than pretend it away.

It runs like this. Harris recovers a neglected perspective and privileges it; Dillard recovers a neglected perspective and privileges it; and here I come, announcing that love is the neglected perspective and privileging that—a third combatant, with the added insult of claiming the high ground: you two have mere justice; I have love, and the wisdom to see it. That is the oldest and least attractive move in the Integral repertoire, the theorist crowning himself above the fray, immune to correction because to disagree is to prove that you lack the altitude. And Harris in particular cannot be waved at from a height: he brings a long contemplative life and has spent years, rightly, exposing exactly this manoeuvre.

Two things defeat the objection, and neither is a denial that the danger is real.

The first: my claim is not about who possesses love. It is about the level at which a proposed remedy operates. A deeply realised person can propose—as Harris does—a solution pitched entirely at adjudication. The category error is in the remedy, not in the person; one does not need to lack love to reach, at the decisive moment, for a tribunal.

The second, and the one that actually dissolves the regress: love, as I have defined it, is not a verdict. A third combatant hands down a fourth judgment from a higher bench—and if that were what I were doing, the objection would be exactly right, and I would merely be reproducing the structure one storey up. But the move I am pointing to is not another judgment about the conflict. It is a change in the conditions under which any judgment is sought—the prior ruling-out of the other's disappearance, within which the real work of history, evidence and law can go forward without being turned into a weapon. That is categorically not the same act as taking a side, which is why adding it does not simply lengthen the loop. It is not a higher place to stand and look down from. It is a change in what the participants are trying to do while they stand where they already are.

Relocation, not replacement

None of this discards the hard questions the essay ends on—power, historical starting-points, terror and oppression, security and occupation, the ranking of moral principles. They do not vanish. They are relocated: worked through inside a frame that has already ruled out the elimination of either party, rather than serving as the court that is supposed to end the argument by itself. That single shift—relocated, not vanished—is very nearly the whole of what I am proposing.

It is also where I can meet Harris most directly, and most fairly, because he has already named the right process—truth and reconciliation—and then, I think, inverted it. He makes truth first and reconciliation its reward: settle the facts objectively, and reconciliation becomes possible. The integral order is the reverse; and I should be precise about what I mean by reconciliation, since I do not mean forgiveness, and I do not mean prior political agreement. I mean the minimal, prior commitment that the other remains part of the future. That commitment is the frame within which truth-telling stops being a weapon and becomes bearable. Truth-work without it settles nothing; it collapses back into what the essay describes so well, where every fact the other side offers is reclassified as a symptom of the other side's ideology. Harris is right that there is good history and bad history. I think he has the order of operations reversed.

This is also how I would handle the historical cases, more carefully than a first draft is tempted to. It is easy, and wrong, to say that Good Friday or South Africa show that love works where adjudication fails. They show no such thing: both ran heavily on negotiation, institutions, constitutional design and law. The point is the opposite of a contest between the two. In each case the legal and political machinery became effective because it operated inside a prior, higher-order acceptance that the other side was going to go on existing—an acceptance the machinery itself could not have manufactured. The transcendent element did not replace the rational mechanisms; it made their synthesis possible. That is the pattern I am claiming: not that reason is dispensable, but that reason's instruments do different work depending on whether they sit inside that frame or outside it. Outside it—where the parties are still seeking the other's disappearance—the same instruments become weapons, which is roughly what we observe wherever the frame is absent. That is as much of a falsifiable edge as an honest version of the claim can carry, and I would rather claim that much and hold it than claim more and lose it.

Gaza, of course, is a million miles from that frame; and the Good Friday comparison fails at precisely the preconditions Gaza lacks—a hurting stalemate both sides acknowledge, political wings that can deliver their constituencies, mediators both can trust. That failure does not refute the claim. It explains why the present is frozen, and it tells us what is actually missing—which is not a better tribunal.

The closing irony, and the way through it

So the Harris-Dillard stalemate is not evidence that Integral Theory failed to add enough perspectives. It is evidence that perspective-taking, pursued as adjudication, produces only more refined irreconcilability—which the essay observed exactly, and then met with more adjudication.

I will not exempt myself from the essay's own final irony, because it lands on me with full force. Frank's piece stands above two combatants and names what neither can see; my reply stands above three and names what none of them can see. If the answer to that regress were simply "the higher place is love," I would have reproduced the very structure I am complaining about, one storey taller. The only thing that saves the argument from self-coronation is the thing I have laboured to establish: what I am pointing to is not a further verdict from a higher bench, but a change in the conditions under which verdicts are sought. No one has to grant that I stand at a higher altitude. They have only to ask whether a settlement is possible at all while each party still requires the other's disappearance—and, if it is not, who among them is wise enough to call the alternative out of people. That last question is the one Frank's tribunal cannot answer for us, because it is not a question reason can adjudicate. It is the question of whether we are willing to stop keeping score long enough for reason to do its proper work.