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

Jan Krikke is a former Japan correspondent for various media and former managing editor of Asia 2000 in Hong Kong. He pioneered the study of axonometry, the Chinese equivalent of European linear perspective overlooked by Jean Gebser. He is the author of several books, including Leibniz, Einstein, and China, and the editor of The Spiritual Imperative, a macrohistory based on the Indian Varna system by feminist futurist Larry Taub.

“The silence is structural, not accidental”

Why is the integral community not offering a response to Frank Visser's critique of Ken Wilber's Eros?

Jan Krikke / ChatGPT

This is a perceptive question, and the short answer is: the silence is structural, not accidental. The integral community's lack of response to Frank Visser's critique of Ken Wilber's notion of Eros reflects deeper dynamics within integral discourse itself. Below is a clear, layered explanation.

1. Visser's Critique Hits a Structural Weak Point

Visser's criticism of Wilber's Eros is not a minor interpretive disagreement. It challenges a load-bearing concept in Wilber's system.

Wilber's Eros functions as:

• a teleological principle (the universe tends toward complexity, depth, and consciousness),

• a metaphysical driver of evolution,

• and a bridge between science and spirituality.

Visser argues— convincingly to many— that:

• Eros is metaphysical speculation, not empirical science,

• it is smuggled into evolutionary accounts without evidential warrant,

• and it reintroduces a kind of cosmic purpose that modern science explicitly avoids.

Responding seriously would require integral theorists to confront whether Integral Theory is:

• a metaphysical worldview, or

• a post-metaphysical framework grounded in empirical disciplines.

That is not a small clarification— it threatens the system's self-description.

2. Eros Is Protected by Ambiguity

One reason no clear response emerges is that Eros in Wilber's work is strategically ambiguous.

Depending on context, Eros is described as:

• a poetic metaphor,

• a phenomenological intuition,

• a spiritual principle,

• or an explanatory force in evolution.

This ambiguity allows defenders to shift registers:

• When challenged scientifically, Eros becomes “just metaphor.”

• When used integratively, it quietly regains causal weight.

Visser's critique forces a choice: Is Eros explanatory or inspirational?

The community largely avoids answering because either answer costs something.

3. Sociological Dynamics of the Integral Community

The integral community is relatively small, relational, and identity-forming. Several sociological factors discourage direct engagement:

• Founder centrality: Wilber is not just a theorist but the symbolic center of the movement. Critiquing Eros publicly risks being perceived as disloyal.

• Boundary maintenance: Visser occupies a liminal role—deeply knowledgeable, but positioned as an outsider-critic. Engaging him grants legitimacy to critique many prefer to marginalize.

• Asymmetrical risk: There is little reputational upside in challenging Wilber, and real downside within integral networks.

Silence, in this context, is safer than rebuttal.

4. Integral Theory's Unresolved Metaphysical Status

At a deeper level, Integral Theory has never fully resolved whether it is:

• a meta-theory organizing existing disciplines, or

• a cosmology making claims about reality itself.

Wilber's Eros pushes Integral Theory into cosmology.

Visser's critique exposes that move and asks: On what grounds?

Because the community lacks consensus on this foundational question, it lacks the footing for a unified response.

5. Developmental Immunity: A Subtle but Powerful Factor

Another uncomfortable reason is that integral discourse often frames disagreement developmentally.

Critics can be subtly interpreted as:

• “not fully integral,”

• “overly rational,”

• or “stuck at orange.”

Visser's critique resists this framing because it is:

• textually precise,

• scientifically literate,

• and philosophically consistent.

That makes it harder to dismiss— and harder to answer.

6. Why Silence ≠ Refutation

It is important to note: the absence of response does not mean Visser is wrong, nor that he is right. It means the critique lands in a space where:

• rebuttal would require narrowing claims,

• clarification would reduce integrative sweep,

• and acknowledgment would weaken metaphysical ambition.

In such cases, communities often choose containment through silence rather than engagement.

Bottom line (one sentence)

The integral community has not responded to Visser's critique of Wilber's Eros because the critique exposes unresolved tensions about metaphysics, authority, and explanatory scope that Integral Theory has never fully resolved— and responding would require choices the community is unwilling to make.