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

Dr. Joseph Dillard is a psychotherapist with over forty year's clinical experience treating individual, couple, and family issues. Dr. Dillard also has extensive experience with pain management and meditation training. The creator of Integral Deep Listening (IDL), Dr. Dillard is the author of over ten books on IDL, dreaming, nightmares, and meditation. He lives in Berlin, Germany. See: integraldeeplistening.com and his YouTube channel.

SEE MORE ESSAYS WRITTEN BY JOSEPH DILLARD

Commentary on a Wilber Interview

With Layman Pascal on The Integral Stage

Joseph Dillard

I found this interview enlightening. People have joked that the most creative thing that has come out of Wilber in the last twenty years is his wig. Well, his wig was indeed in fine form in this interview, but so was Ken. At almost seventy-five (January, 2025), Ken still has his marbles. He is able to explain Integral theory in detail, providing appropriate examples and multiple historical references. Ken is still able to do what Ken Wilber does best: explain Integral theory.

Like many others, I have wondered why Wilber habitually regresses from questions into long renditions of the details of Integral theory. During this interview, a plausible explanation for why he does so occurred to me. “Growing Up,” one of the five basic metaphors Wilber currently uses to describe Integral, addresses developmental stages. It is, in Wilber's opinion, as stated in this video as well as in plenty of other places, the most important and the least understood of the five components of Waking Up (state openings), Growing Up (stage development), Opening Up (line development), Cleaning Up (moral development), and Showing Up (quadrant behavioral investment).

That conclusion that “Growing Up” is most important, is an assumption, and while it certainly makes sense and is valid and useful within certain domains, it makes less sense, is less valid, and less useful within other domains. While Wilber may appreciate that awareness, he does not indicate same in this video, nor have I found that he does so to any persuasive degree throughout his writings. However, I am also confident that Wilber would disagree with me on that.

It also became clearer to me how and why Wilber views the cognitive line as leading. That is because perception of one's perspective, as a cognitive ability, determines development to an integral, post-personal developmental stag, and for Wilber that is the primary challenge for human evolution. His prescription for the plights of humanity is evolution to 2nd Tier awareness. And the best way to do that is through understanding Integral, which means grasping cognitive multi-perspectivalism.

From that assumption, it follows that Wilber needs to educate his audience regarding growing up, because it holds the keys to understanding the other four components of evolution. So Wilber's strategy and approach makes sense, in that it follows from that basic assumption. You aren't going to be able to grow into the perspectives of pluralism (green/late personal), then into those of paradigms (teal/vision-logic), then into super-paradigms, such as Integral theory (turquoise/transpersonal), if you don't first cognitively grasp the model.

All well and good. That assumption is clearly laid out in the video interview. However, I couldn't help but notice the elephant in the room. And that is,

“How is it that Integrally informed, highly intelligent individuals, clearly at teal and probably at turquoise cognitively, since they understand Integral, justify or ignore fascism and genocide committed in their names and in which they are complicit?”

Where is the ongoing genocide, made possible by the military, economic, and media support of the greater West, mentioned in this interview? I thought genocide was a big deal. Jews certainly thought genocide was a big enough deal to get memorials placed in capitals around the world and a museum placed on the central mall of Washington DC. Jews, and many non-Jews certainly have thought that genocide was a big enough deal to not only get important coverage in national educational curricula but to censor as hate speech those who minimize it. And after all, we have been witnessing daily what Amnesty International and many Jewish organizations view as an ongoing genocide. Even the International Court of Justice, the ultimate legal body for international crime, considers it a probable example of genocide. So why isn't it addressed in an interview with Wilber dealing with politics? Is that issue not relevant to waking up, growing up, opening up, cleaning up, and showing up? Is its absence simply an oversight? What does it mean when the elephant in the room is ignored or overlooked by both questioner and respondent?

The same can be said about the obvious slide of the West into fascism. Now I know that some of those who are reading these words will take immediate umbrage at that remark. They will take it not only as inaccurate and unfair, but evidence I am in league with the Axis of Evil. But I am not the only one who is drawing that conclusion. Several public figures have expressed concerns about Western societies exhibiting tendencies they associate with fascism. Notable individuals include Jason Stanley, a professor of philosophy at Yale University. Stanley argues that certain political developments in the United States reflect characteristics of fascist politics. He emphasizes the manipulation of truth and the erosion of democratic norms as indicators. Anthony DiMaggio is a political scientist who, in his book Rising Fascism in America: It Can Happen Here contends that fascist politics have taken root in the U.S. He calls for public acknowledgment and active resistance against these trends. Cornel West, a prominent philosopher and political activist and X-Harvard professor, has warned about the emergence of “American-style fascism,” citing elements such as systemic racism and authoritarian policing practices. Former White House Chief of Staff, John Kelly, has described Donald Trump's approach to power as fascist, expressing concerns about the implications for American democracy. Kamala Harris has labeled Donald Trump a fascist, pointing to his authoritarian tendencies and admiration for dictators as evidence. So both genocide and fascism are important issues that one would reasonably assume would be considered in a discussion of Wilber's book on Trump, Trump and a Post-Truth World, as seen through the lens of his successful re-election to the presidency of the United States.

Another way of putting that question is,

“How and why is there a seeming disconnect between development in the lines of cognition and spiritual intelligence, on the one hand, and morality on the other?”

For indeed there is, and it is not only undeniable; it is glaring in its elitism, hypocrisy, and hubris. Consider the following data points:

• How is it that so many smart people ignore both the West's support of genocide and its fascist elements?
• Where in this video of Trump's re-election and the blow-out of the Democrats is there discussion of the ongoing genocide?
• Why is there an ignoring of policies by Western democracies that, when they were carried out by Germany in the 1940's, were called fascism?
• Why the focus of this video largely on wokism instead of on state-sponsored terrorism by supposedly “green” democracies?
• How is it that so many spiritual paragons, when closely examined, turn out to be moral pygmies?
• Why is there, in western media and general western discourse, the ignoring of land-grabs by Israel while shrieking about Russia's invasion of Ukraine?

Wilber states that “the cognitive line leads.” This assumption is fundamental to understanding where Wilber is coming from. It follows from that assumption that Growing Up and educating people regarding stages, states, lines, and quadrants is the necessary priority. If people don't have an adequate map, how can they be expected to walk the territory?

There are two fundamental recognitions that go a long way toward explaining why Integral has not caught fire among broader humanity:

1. While the cognitive line leads in self development, the moral line leads in collective development.
2. While cognitive multi-perspectivalism is essential for understanding maps, empathetic multi-perspectivalism is essential for walking the territory.

Let's unpack those two recognitions as well as their implications for Integral and humanity.

An emphasis on the cognitive line amounts to an emphasis on the interior quadrants. An emphasis on self development is an emphasis on the interior individual quadrant, and in terms of transpersonal development, altered states. We find these well-represented in Wilber's AQAL.

In contrast, an emphasis on morality means an emphasis on the exterior quadrants. An emphasis on interpersonal relationships necessarily means an emphasis on the exterior collective quadrant, and in terms of conflict resolution, justice. While Wilber takes great pains to emphasize that AQAL includes these elements, I don't think any objective assessment of his writings will conclude he gives anywhere near the consideration to them that he does to the former. His presentation in this video supports that conclusion.

Integral has a great deal to say about Growing Up in particular, and relatively little to say about Cleaning Up. This reflects its bias toward the leadership of the cognitive line and self development. The consequence of this is that Wilber and Integral AQAL have a great deal to contribute regarding Waking Up, Growing Up, and Opening Up, but not so much about Cleaning Up and Showing Up. While Wilber would argue that understanding and applying quadrant awareness contributes a great deal to Showing Up, that is not what most people mean by “showing up,” nor is it the type of showing up they are concerned with. For most people, “showing up” boils down to walking one's talk. We ask, “Is your behavior congruent with your stated intentions?” If it is, you show up. If it isn't congruent, you don't show up. This is a reason why, for example, Wilber's involvement - or non-involvement - in the Joe Firmage legal imbroglio matters to at least some Integralists. They want to know, “How moral were Wilber's actions?” They want to know, “Was Wilber's behavior consistent with what he professes or not?” “Wilber's map is fine. How is he at walking the territory?”

The lack of attention to the leadership of the moral line in human interaction results in an Integral blind spot. It doesn't recognize its own elitism, exceptionalism, hubris, and hypocrisy. But people at lower cognitive lines of development can and do see it. Why? Because the moral line matters for them, because success in interpersonal relationships is for them as important and probably MORE important than cognitive development.

Why is that? It is because you can be the smartest, most spiritually awake person in the world, but if people don't like you or trust you, bad things happen. You get ostracized, defenestrated, economically sanctioned, pilloried, ignored, thrown in jail, tortured, or killed. For most people, avoiding such outcomes takes precedence over reaching 2nd Tier perspectives. And that makes a lot of sense to me. It may be because most Integralists are insulated from such concerns in their lives that they have the luxury of focusing on the preeminence of cognitive development. But Terrorism, The Movie, may be coming soon to a theater near you.

So people at “lower levels” of development, those who need enlightenment, the dispensation of self development and the Integral world view, look at the elitism, exceptionalism, hubris, and hypocrisy, the blind spot of Integral, and say, “I don't trust it.” “I don't trust it because it doesn't respect where I live, in my real fears of ostracism, in my real fears of economic insecurity, in my real fears that I can't afford child care or health care.” “I don't trust it because it chalks genocide up to warring tribal mythologies that won't change until they access an Integral world view when the real problem is a double standard regarding justice.” “I don't trust it because it abhors fascism and terrorism while enjoying the benefits of fascism and terrorism.” “I don't trust it because terrorism is personally affecting my life.”

Look at how Wilber describes Cleaning Up in this video. He associates it with the recognition that our unhappiness is a projection and that health is a reincorporation of those projections. He credits Freud with the discovery of this principle and Perls with the discovery of the method for the reincorporation of those projections. This is personal Cleaning Up; this is morality seen as essentially an interior and individual aspect of self development. This assessment and explanation demonstrates no recognition that cleaning up for most people involves adherence to mutually agreed social and legal norms. This is because if I censor your web presence, deny your health claim, jack up the cost of college tuition so you choose to go into the military to pay for it, bomb your house, or authorize terrorism, those actions have zero to do with me or you withdrawing our projections. Instead, it very much involves the lack of my accountability before mutually agreed social and legal norms, for any number of a variety of reasons.As George Carlin famously said, “There is a club, and you're not in it.”

Wilber's definition of Cleaning Up focuses on taking individual responsibility, which is in line with mainstream spiritual, religious, and psychological teaching. However, it fails to recognize how power can and will take advantage of that definition to avoid its own responsibility. If I am in the untouchable caste because of things I did in a past life, then you, in the Brahman, Warrior, or Merchant classes, are off the hook. You have no responsibility for the various ways you benefit from a system that denies me the freedoms that you enjoy. If it is your responsibility that you are poor because you just haven't worked hard enough, I am excused of the obviously discriminatory benefits I have accrued from the family and wealth I was born into, the opportunities I was given that you were not, the social network that was able to form that you could not, the education I got that you could not afford, the jobs I got because I was qualified for that you were not.

Why don't Wilber and Pascal discuss the responsibilities of society to enforce laws, to make all equally accountable, and to make sure that the privileged do not benefit at the expense of those who are not? Is that irrelevant to why Trump won the election? Is it not highly, perhaps centrally, relevant to the political future of the U.S., the greater West, and humanity in general? Wilber and Pascal, in this video interview, demonstrate no interest or consideration of this aspect of Cleaning Up. Why not? My conclusion is that they both subsume Cleaning Up under the cognitive line and self development. But if so, this is a mistake. In collectives, the moral line leads, not the cognitive line. Not self development, but the rules of interaction lead. These boil down to, “Do you respect me?” “Do you reciprocate?” “Are you trustworthy?” “Are you empathetic?” Again, Wilber and most Integralists see themselves as doing these things, but that is not the point. The point is that the “other” has an opinion too, and if they don't agree, Wilber can be a genius at Turquoise with non-dual realizations and the world won't care. Integralists can be sure they are on to something and the world will seethe with resentment.

The second recognition that is not addressed in this interview, that is important for understanding the rise of Trump and the failure of the Democratic Party, and which is also critical for understanding the lack of broad acceptance of Integral, is that while cognitive multi-perspectivalism is essential for understanding maps, and empathetic multi-perspectivalism is essential for walking the territory.

Integral theory is cognitive multi-perspectivalism. It's about understanding paradigms, which are maps, and constructing super-paradigms, like Integral theory, which is a map of maps. From the perspective of animals and humans, you can understand all the maps in the world, you can be able to take an 8th person perspective, but if you haven't walked the territory you don't have empathy. Without empathy, you lack credibility, because people don't sense that you understand them, who they are, and what is important to them.

I can illustrate this with personal examples. I have been taken to the woodshed by quite a number of fellow Integralists for siding with Russia over the Ukrainian conflict and with Hamas and the Palestinians over the Gaza conflict. The foundation of the disagreement, as I see it, is that I can empathize with the perspectives of the Russians and the Palestinians while my critics do not. Their position is that I do not sufficiently emphasize with the perspectives of Ukrainians and Israelis. However, that is not true, because I can recount the perspectives of Ukrainians and Israelis to their satisfaction and tell you why they make them. I can empathize with them. But what I see in my critics is an inability or unwillingness - take your pick - to empathize with Russia or the Palestinians. What they offer are caricatures of those perspectives, perspectives that Russians and Palestinians themselves, on the whole, would not sign on to, although there are always exceptions to the rule.

Analysts like John Mearsheimer, Jeffery Sachs, Scott Ritter, and Alexander Mercouris are capable of empathetic multi-perspectivalism in the sense that they can articulate the perspectives of Russians, Iranians, and Palestinians in ways that the majority of those groups would agree with. That ability to do so does not necessarily signal agreement, but that is the conclusion that cognitive multi-perspectivalists often jump to: “You are Putin's useful idiot.” “You are anti-Semitic!” We know that because the above-named people are not invited onto mainstream media. Their views do not echo the groupthink of map readers and so they are effectively ostracized. Similarly, I commonly get accused of agreeing with, or endorsing Russian or Palestinian positions because I can articulate them empathetically. But I can do that regarding opposing positions as well, positions I do not endorse.

The ability to do both cognitive and empathetic multi-perspectivalism does not make one “better,” or even more accurate, but it does enhance credibility both among devalued groups and among objective observers in any group. That enhanced credibility translates into greater respect, which means one gets a broader hearing. This is not what has been happening over the decades for Integral. Common complaints are that Integral is “too intellectual,” and Wilber is “narcissistic,” meaning that people don't feel like the rubber is meeting the road, that Integral is mostly focused on self, not others. I would say that in large part that is true; Integral focuses on self development and enlightenment far more than it does on interpersonal relationships, morality, and justice.

That imbalance is reflected in the dialogue between Wilber and Pascal. It ignored issues of justice and the major reasons why people voted for Trump, which were economic. Blacks, Latinos, and Women, groups that Democrats thought would vote for them, voted for Trump because they thought their economic prospects were better with him than with Harris. Wokeness was a sideshow. People weren't voting for or against the mean green meme, post-modernism, or pluralism. To focus on those topics conveys to the average, non-Integral listener, how out of touch the conversation is from who they are and what matters to them.

I am fairly confident Wilber's response to that assessment would be, “Integral already contains that.” “You just aren't paying attention.” He may be right on both counts. His map of the territory is very good indeed. However, that is missing the point. The problem does not lie in some lack of clarity of the map. Wilber is quite eloquent and clear in the way he lays out his model and explains its concepts. The problem is that AQAL tells people, “You need to grow up and perceive the world the way I do.” The world looks at Integralists and sees them ignoring or blind to its elitism, exceptionalism, its benefitting from institutionalized, historical exploitation, its ignoring or justifying of genocide and fascism. The world then thinks, “Hmmm… do I really want to become like that?” “What does that have to do with correcting the injustices I experience every day?”

I am appreciative for Pascal and Wilber holding this interview, and I recommend it to fellow Integralists. By pointing these things out I am not claiming I walk the territory better than anyone else. And I certainly am not as good a map reader as many other Integralists. To gain credibility Wilber and Integralists need to address the elephant in the room head on. They need to either stop pretending it's not there or discount those who are being ripped apart by it.