• 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. He can be contacted at: [email protected]

SEE MORE ESSAYS WRITTEN BY JOSEPH DILLARD

Ambiguity as a Two-Edged Sword

The Uses and Abuses of Integral Multi-Perspectivalism

Joseph Dillard

Frank Visser's ChatGPT mediated essay, “Eros and Evolution Redux,” has served the important purpose of bringing the strengths and weaknesses of a fundamental concept of Integral Theory, multi-perspectivalism, into sharp focus. Under what circumstances is multi-perspectivalism important, even necessary? Can we have too much as well as too little multi-perspectivalism? Under what circumstances does multi-perspectivalism become an enemy of clarity and action?

In what follows, I will make the case that multi-perspectivalism is essential at the opening stages of any conversation or exploration, in order to cast as wide a net as possible regarding possibilities, theories, and potentials for development. As such, it is closely aligned with creativity, art, and imagination. I will also argue that multi-perspectivalism is problematic at best, and at worst, an avoidance of responsibility when decisions need to be made, whether in the realms of personal behavior, science, or justice.

Decisions are both important and unavoidable

I will begin by assuming we share the assumption that there are life situations when decisions need to be made. As a general rule, breathing, eating, and health are better choices than not breathing, not eating, and disease. This, not withstanding that we learn valuable things from not breathing (to a point!), not eating, or even from experiencing disease. There are positives available in any and all circumstances. However, as a general principle, when and where choices have to be made, there are good reasons why we move from ambiguity to a commitment to some position. We may be devious about this, or pretend that we remain open minded, but our behavior tells a different story: we closed off ambiguity in some area when we made a choice.

This should not be a difficult conclusion to understand. When we take a job we close off other jobs. We move out of ambiguity. When we choose to marry, we are making a choice for one partner. When we choose polyamory, we are making a choice for multiple, not a single, partner. When we choose ambiguity, we are making a choice for ambiguity, not clarity. When we choose clarity, we are closing off ambiguity and multi-perspectivalism, at least to some degree. There is a time and place for ambiguity and a time and place for clarity. Knowing the difference and acting on it is a fundamental and important life skill.

The strengths of ambiguity

In the above referenced video, Layman Pascal defends ambiguity, in the specific case of Wilber's use of “Eros” to explain evolution, on the basis of its poetic value. He sees Eros as a “placeholder” for cosmic complexity or a “skewing” of reality toward certain trajectories. He says, “(Eros is) like…a placeholder for getting me emotionally involved in studying that stuff.” He's open to reformulating Eros as a testable hypothesis, suggesting ambiguity could bridge science and spirituality.

Pascal presents Teilhard de Chardin's ideas of eros as a cosmic drive toward complexity and unity. He frames evolution as a participatory, emergent process and less as a mechanistic unfolding. It is more of a dance of consciousness and matter. Evolution isn't a straight line or a single “truth” but a multi-perspectival unfolding across quadrants, levels, and states. Ambiguity is baked into this depiction. Pascal doesn't want to pin down evolution to a single explanation, like the random mutation and selection of neo-Darwinism. Instead, he advocates for a holonic, four quadrant approach: what are biological, psychological, cultural, and spiritual perspectives on evolution, and how do they add to our understanding of it?

There is a more fundamental reason why Pascal supports ambiguity and integral multi-perspectivalism. His “sacred naturalism” points to how multi-perspectivalism opens us to the depth, breadth, and transcendence of the sacred, to human possibilities and potentials. As someone who has worked personally and professionally with dreams for over fifty years, perhaps the most ambiguous realm of human experience, I agree. Ambiguity and multi-perspectivalism are essential, particularly when cognitive multi-perspectivalism (“map reading”) is accompanied by empathetic multi-perspectivalism (taking the perspectives of different elements on the terrain itself). Ambiguity keeps options open, encouraging tolerance and multidimensional thinking and inspiring growth. Ambiguity is a virtue in Integral theory and spirituality, reflecting the world's nuanced, rainbow-like complexity. It counters toxic black-and-white thinking and fosters wisdom, empathy, and tolerance by keeping multiple perspectives open.

Limits of ambiguity

Does Wilber use Integral's complexity to sidestep clear stances? Regarding evolution, does he overemphasize consciousness over empiricism? Regarding issues of law and justice, does Wilber prioritize “all perspectives” over evidence of systemic injustice? Does AQAL's holonic embrace potentially blur the lines of accountability?

In the above-mentioned video, Layman Pascal makes the case for ambiguity and multi-perspectivalism, framing evolution as a poetic, eros-driven process. At the same time that Pascal argues for the usefulness of Eros, even if it is ambiguous, he acknowledges its limitations by saying, “(Wilber's) articulation has a penchant for a dismissive…attitude towards some of the findings of the sciences.” Pascal calls for sharper boundaries between the domains of science, philosophy, and spirituality to compensate for problematic aspects of ambiguity.

When decisions need to be made, clarity, not ambiguity, is necessary, even essential. In science, ambiguity can obscure “most likely” explanations. Visser points out that Wilber's Eros minimizes, dismisses or overlooks neo-Darwinism's genetic and fossil evidence. Visser rejects Wilber's Eros as an ambiguous mashup of poetry and science—calling it “evolutionary theology” rather than a theory. Visser says, “Every complexity for (Wilber) is a mystery…He is mystifying every step.” Visser sees Eros as a creationist dodge that replaces God with Spirit and lacking in empirical grounding. Visser: “Wilber is a creationist…his God is different than Jehovah but in terms of logic and argument he is a creationist.”

Visser argues Wilber's multi-perspectival approach to evolution mystifies the complexity of molecules to cells when reductionist science, in the explanations of natural selection and self-organization, already explains it with fewer assumptions, by applying Occam's Razor. He draws broader conclusions, in light of a minimal response to his 2010 paper about the uses and misuses of Wilber's “Eros as Spirit-in-action,” that it uses ambiguity as a shield against scrutiny.

Ambiguity is problematic when clarity is needed and decisions need to be made, whether in our personal lives, in science, such as regarding the nature of evolution, or regarding justice, such as the determination of genocide. In such cases, Occam's Razor, favoring the simplest, evidence-based explanation, should cut through multi-perspectivalism when it avoids prioritizing “most likely” truths.

In the realm of justice, a lack of empirical grounding dilutes accountability. Wilber does this regarding the Palestinian genocide when he attributes it to “red” tribalism and mythological world views on both sides, Palestinian (Islam) and Israeli (Judaism). The result is that Wilber can avoid alienating one side or the other while maintaining a lofty perspective that understands, includes, and then transcends both squabbling children. He is the adult in the room.

The question is, “Isn't part of the role of adult or parent to administer justice as necessary?” Do parents let children make the rules in the family? Do adults let civilization descend into chaos instead of imposing laws and administering justice? In justice, multi-perspectivalism easily dilutes accountability. If there is violence, who is responsible for it? It avoids naming facts even when facts are foundational for human progress and human relationships. Spirituality adherents, as well as humanity in general, can easily use ambiguity as a shield against scrutiny. This is a human tendency we all need to be aware of and guard against.

Solutions

Complexity is best approached as an awe-inspiring “mystery” when creativity, transpersonal development and open-ended exploration are priorities. But poetry and metaphor are untestable and unfalsifiable, dodging evidence for the allure of mystery. There are life circumstances, like when wanting to make a commitment and sticking to it, or needing someone else, say in a business transaction, to do the same, where clarity is non-negotiable. That is also the case in matters of science and justice, when theorizing and evidence-gathering has been done and it is time to draw conclusions upon which to base concrete action. In such cases, when you want clarity, decisiveness, or justice, complexity is best approached as a process, like self-organization, emergence, or adaptation, not as a mystery.

Art, ambiguity, and multi-perspectivalism are important at the front end of decision-making, while science, clarity, and decisiveness are important at the tail end. Phenomenal depth shouldn't trump observable outcomes. That would be to prioritize interior quadrants over exterior ones and individual quadrants over collective ones. Wilber makes clear the quadrants are interdependent and need to be balanced for tetra-mesh to occur for stable advancement from one level to the next. One could say with some justification that Wilber is ambiguous on this issue. On the one hand, he advocates for a scientific degree of clarity and substantiation for Integral AQAL. Integral Life Practice is about making decisions about life priorities and sticking to them. On the other hand, he argues for the inherent ambiguity of AQAL multi-perspectivalism.

The ambiguity of multi-perspectivalism acts as a barrier to rigor when decisions need to be made for the purposes of clarity, problem-solving, and reliable decision-making. So, for example, ambiguity and multi-perspectivalism are good and fine in initially approaching dreams. All perspectives are to be respected and a representative sample needs to be considered in order to gain a range of potential framings of a dream, important life issues, and recommendations to be tested in one's waking life. Once that ambiguous information is collected, then it is time to apply the Law of Parsimony: which reframings make the most sense and are most helpful? Which recommendations are most likely to be testable in our daily lives so that we can determine whether consulting dreams is practically beneficial or simply more spiritual woo? My work, Integral Deep Listening, is about demystifying dreams while maintaining their sacred nature, through pragmatic application of a Dream Yoga, a form of integral life practice. In this regard, I endorse Pascal's “sacred naturalism.”

The bottom line is paradoxical: If you do not support multi-perspectivalism and ambiguity you will likely be perceived as a dogmatic ideologue, lacking in creativity, open-mindedness, empathy, and respect. However, if you do not support clarity and decisiveness in decision-making you will likely be perceived as a passive, people-pleasing persona, without an authentic, confident core. To make matters worse, if you fluctuate between the two of these extremes erratically, so that no one knows when you are really open-minded or when you are going to suddenly turn dogmatic, you will become unreliable and untrustworthy. Advocating for mystery when clarity and facts are both available and important undermines credibility. If people value stability in their relationships, they may well steer clear of you.

Obviously, getting the above mixture right is an art form based on experience, wisdom, and making a lot of mistakes. I do not claim to have it right. I can only say that being aware of these issues is important, and attempting to get the right blend of multi-perspectivalism and decisiveness in your life is a challenge that is central not only to integral anything, but to healing, balancing, and transformation.