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

Brad Reynolds did graduate work at the California Institute of Integral Studies (CIIS) before leaving to study under Ken Wilber for a decade, and published two books reviewing Wilber's work: Embracing Reality: The Integral Vision of Ken Wilber (Tarcher, 2004), Where's Wilber At?: Ken Wilber's Integral Vision in the New Millennium (Paragon House, 2006) and God's Great Tradition of Global Wisdom: Guru Yoga-Satsang in the Integral Age (Bright Alliance, 2021). Visit: http://integralartandstudies.com

Grading Ken Wilber's Interview with Layman Pascal on The Integral Stage

Brad Reynolds

First, I feel Layman Pascal—having recently reread Wilber's book Trump and a Post-Truth World (2017), now just called A Post-Truth World (2024)—was prepared to have a deeper (and more intelligent) conversation with Ken Wilber on his podcast The Integral Stage than what he got.[1] Layman was energetic and articulate and had a set of good questions addressing the current state of American politics and the recent re-election of Donald Trump, which he hoped Wilber would address in an integral manner. If Layman wasn't disappointed, I sure was (as were many of the comments under the YouTube interview). Sadly, Wilber failed to meet the mark. For example, after Ken's first barrage of answers, which hardly seemed grounded in reality or any in-depth understanding of American politics, Layman asked if Wilber was that interested in politics and if he closely monitors the news. Ken, of course, said he was very curious, yet from what I heard, Wilber showed a severe lack of development in the line of political intelligence. It was shocking, to tell you the truth. Wilber seemed to be treading in waters where he doesn't know how to swim very well.

Surprisingly, it seems Wilber is now resigned to supporting Trump—“Let's see how he does,” he said—and then offered a revisionist version of history by suggesting Trump's first term was positive, saying it “was fairly good and fairly healthy.” What the fuk? Trump openly (and loudly) incited an attempted insurrection that invaded the US Capitol Building on January 6, 2021, to disrupt Congress in performing their constitutional duties, he tried to overthrow a fair election and refused to concede power until the last minute. Has Ken forgotten that? Let alone, over a million people died because of Trump's inadequate response to the COVID-19 pandemic—“Maybe we can inject bleach to help,” “It will all go away,” etc.—but now we're supposed to forget all of that? He scared our allies into thinking the United States might not keep its commitments, destroyed treaties, levied tariffs (that required government compensation to farmers), separated children from families (at the borders), embraced ruthless dictators in “love affairs,” and other heinous act, let alone insulting the press and the public by the way he talks, yet this was healthy and positive, according to Wilber.

The only real legislative accomplishment of the Trump administration was tax cuts for the rich, and, oh yes, he tried to repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA) or Obama's most significant legislation, while seeking substantial spending cuts to major welfare programs, including Medicare and Medicaid. We could mention how he had the police attack protesters in the streets of Washington DC, reversed numerous environmental regulations, withdrew from the Paris Agreement on climate change, or how he cuddled up to Vladimir Putin, saying he trusted Putin more than our intelligence agencies over Russian interference in our elections, tried to bribe a foreign government official (President Zelensky) to investigate his political opponent (Joe Biden) to discredit him (for which the House impeached him), and so on. The federal deficit significantly increased under Trump due to spending increases and tax cuts. But, right, according to Wilber, Trump “was fairly good and fairly healthy”—WTF? Talk about living in an ivory tower disconnected from the real world. Or is it just memory loss and dementia? Wilber's line of political intelligence—my grade so far: F (for failure)!

Then, to say Trump is operating from the “Orange” level of modern, rational development, as Wilber did, seems absurd. He wants to call a man who does not obey or honor the rule of law, including inciting a treasonous insurrection, who was sued and convicted for fraud numerous times, sexually assaults women, openly insults people in public he does not like, who is not worldcentric by any stretch of the imagination for he is racist and ethnocentric (e.g., condemning Mexicans as “rapists and criminals” and excluding Muslims from entering the country), encouraging white supremacist groups (such as the Klu Klux Klan and Proud Boys), let alone leading the anti-Obama birther movement (before he was President), etc. In addition, Trump has little or NO understanding of science, is self-centered, and cares more about his own wealth and fame than he does about America, let alone Americans who do not agree with him, and on and on. Yet, Wilber wants to call this “Orange”? Political intelligence rating: big fat F!

Then Wilber has the audacity to say, “Trump has changed,” and worse, that his cabinet choices are “highly qualified” (Wilber's words). There has never been in the history of the United States such an unqualified cabinet selection. But Wilber suggests (as do the GOP conspirators) that since they are loyal to him, to the Boss, then he might get more done, even if that means damaging the United States government. That is Wilber's assessment. Sure, we all can see the need to IMPROVE the federal government, but to undermine it is not the answer. The Biden Administration showed how effective the Government can be run—he saved the US economy, even bringing down inflation that he did not cause, got us out of a deadly pandemic, reestablished our power in the world, and made mistakes—every administration has issues and problems (that is par for the course). Indeed, I (and 75 million other people) believe that VP Kamala Harris would have possibly done an even better job. But not Ken Wilber. Not once did he praise or even say Joe Biden's name—though he did keep sarcastically complaining about a “Crazy Uncle Joe.” As for Kamala Harris—whose name he could not properly pronounce—he called her “a very bad candidate” while “Donald Trump is “an interesting character.” My grade for Wilber's sanity and depth of political wisdom: C– (below average), and that is being kind.

Arguably, Trump won the election with the needed financial help from Elon Musk, the world's richest man set to gain from Trump's tax cuts (and who may be high in the cognitive line, yes, but way low in other lines of development). Yet, Wilber doesn't care. Apparently, Ken Wilber believes dismantling the “deep state,” actually displacing and firing dedicated, non-partisan government workers who have sworn allegiance to the United States Constitution, is a good idea. No, it is a bad idea! Has Wilber even read any of Project 2025? I doubt it (I have). Is he in agreement with cutting social welfare systems for the poor and struggling lower middle class? Dismantling labor unions? Deregulating environmental safety standards? He didn't even seem aware this is what is coming next year. Instead, Wilber suggests, “Let's wait and see” how Trump does in his second term. Is he mad? Crazy Ken?

Yet, it is easy to see that Trump is going to lead a government “for the billionaires by the billionaires”—an elite oligarchy (“a small group of people having control of a country”) who pay next to nothing in taxes. And Wilber is okay with that? Wilber mentions none of this; in fact, he seems to want to give Trump a free pass. Political awareness and memory grade: F (failed)! Mythic, utopian thinking, and illusions grade: A or B+ (ugh).

I could not believe it. Has Wilber given up? Has he waved the white flag, exposing his skin-color and prejudices, his elite status with an upper middle-class upbringing, his protected career as a scholar and author insulted from real work (okay, he worked at a grocery store and restaurant during college), unaware of his privileged status? Talk about ivory tower elitism. Do these aging white guys just want to give up? They seem tired of fighting for what is right, tired of making quality value judgments. I thought I heard Layman shitting his pants (but maybe it was just me).

It was even worse. As to why Trump “won big” (in Wilber's words)—which is NOT true, since out of 150 million votes, he won only by less than 2.5 million votes (or one point six percent); his electoral college win was less than Obama's two elections (whereas, e.g., Reagan in 1984 won 49 out of 50 states—therefore, Wilber has succumbed to Republican talking points (aka propaganda) and has not seriously examined the evidence himself (see, e.g., my article reviewing the recent election). The reason Vice-President Harris lost, according to Wilber's failing analysis, is that Kamala Harris was “a very bad candidate” with “enormous problems.” She was “broken green,” in Wilber's view. Well, Ken, nearly half of the American voters felt otherwise. Including the MAJORITY of college-educated voters, so where does that place your analysis? My grade: D (at best).

Plus, to show how out of touch Wilber is, he continued to mispronounce Ms. Harris's name as “Kamila” (and other distortions). Her name, Mr. Wilber, is “COMMA-LA”—therefore, in my opinion, this betrays some of Wilber's own misogynistic and racist (or white-privileged) tendencies. In other words, Wilber did not clean up his shadow and make sure he LEARNED how to pronounce the name of the woman who was the Democratic nominee for the President of the United States of America. I, too, had to learn how so I wouldn't come across as a fool, but not Wilber, for he thinks she has “enormous problems”—but she doesn't; it is America that has enormous problems. Grade for name pronunciation and common respect for others (not like him and his race): F-minus (grow up, why don't you?)

Then Wilber went on to rant about his personal grievances against “Green” or “progressive postmodern pluralism” and their failure—i.e., “broken green” or the “mean green meme” (MGM)—in his opinion, the root of America's problems (as his book confirms). As a reminder, this is coming from a man who has spent a large part of his career trashing Green-postmodern thinkers, particularly in his book Boomeritis (2002). Wilber has a problem with his own generation, the “baby boomers” (born between 1946 and 1964, which includes me), which he likens to “dharma bums,” extreme postmodernists, and cultural relativists. He usually has little good to say about them, yet they have done more to make America a just nation than any other worldview (outside of the Founding Fathers). The Civil Rights movement, led by leaders such as Martin Luther King and Jesse Jackson, John Lewis, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, and countless others, are postmodern pluralists. Yet, Wilber never mentions them by name but is usually mocking this stage of “Green” thinking as cartoon cut-outs perpetuated by media stereotypes and extremes, it seems to me.

Yet, these “New Age” thinkers—the leading-edge of collective evolution (short of the Integral stage)—are environmental-friendly, eco-sensitive, anti-pollution, anti-racism, and anti-misogyny (the forefront of the feminist revolution); they experiment with altered (and higher) states of consciousness, are interested in Eastern approaches to spirituality (such as meditation and yoga), they resist inequality in all areas of society, and therefore are called “liberal” and “progressive,” and mocked relentlessly by conservatives and the far-right wishing to maintain the status quo, including traditional religionists and the rich oligarchy who despise, resist, and fight economic equality to no end (like Trump), and so on. Wilber almost always attacks these “Greens,” telling us how unhealthy they are because, yes, some have gone too far in demanding fair treatment for all (aka as being “woke” and “politically correct”).

I suggest we be more compassionate to Green and level our critique more to scientific materialists and industrial exploitation (aka unhealthy Orange) and to counter traditional bigots and intolerant racists (aka unhealthy Amber). But Wilber's integral approach wants to embrace and honor the lower levels of traditionalism and modernism more than any postmodern “Green” worldview, or so it seems. I feel this has been a perpetual problem in Wilber's theories, especially since the late 1990s when he came under attack from postmodernists who thought he had gone too far in critiquing indigenous cultures and archetypal mythic thinking. And he probably had, but instead of making adjustments, he went on the offensive. In other words, ironically, Wilber might have contributed to the Green Problem (with his harsh reactivity) instead of helping to heal it.

Of course, as I saw up close (when I worked with him), part of this comes from the heavy dose of criticism he received from progressive postmodern theorists who lambasted his idealistic evolutionary theories about human cultural evolution, where Wilber consistently—to this day—fails to give any credit to tribal, magical cultures, and fails miserably to understand the value of myth. As an example, in the interview, he mockingly makes fun of the “Virgin Mary” having “sex with God” and how stupid all of that is. He fails to see how she symbolically is an archetype of divine receptivity, where Mary represents the sacred feminine principle—the receptive, nurturing aspect of consciousness. Her virginity, therefore, symbolizes a state of purity, not necessarily in a physical sense, but as an unconditioned openness and readiness to receive divine inspiration or the “logos” (or universal truth), which is what Jesus Christ represents. Wilber gives no recognition to mythic esotericism, interpreted symbolically, for he always complains about its literal interpretation by traditional religions, usually Christianity (correct, he does acknowledge this higher view in some of his writings but never in his interviews). Grade for appreciation of the “lower” level of pre-rational mythic thinking: D– (failure to appreciate views other than scientific rationalism or mystical emptiness).

As I mentioned, this fear and disgust with postmodernists goes back at least to the 1998 book Ken Wilber in Dialogue written by Wilber and professors at CIIS, an “Institute of Integral Studies” in perpetual battle with many of Wilber's ideas. Wilber, therefore, is in constant reactive mode against these progressive thinkers who are basically resisting modern scientism and the racism of the Western world. In other words, what the Right and GOP have mislabeled as “Woke” and “Wokism,” so of course, Wilber falls right in line with their right-wing critiques.

But, I for one, claim Wilber does not know what he is talking about in this regard. In my opinion, Kamala Harris is a fine example of HEALTHY GREEN—she is multi-cultural (even in her biological racial make-up), she is sensitive to the ecological crisis (which, by the way, Wilber did not mention ONCE in his interview), she is an advocate for addressing the vast inequalities of wealth in this country (another topic Wilber failed to mention), she is happy and joyful, a trait of advanced spiritual-moral development (that Wilber fails to acknowledge), she is concerned with world affairs and how the United States is crucial for world peace—showing her highly-developed worldcentric worldview, and among other positive green traits she adheres to the rule of law (being a lawyer and state prosecutor). Obeying the law and her vows to the Constitution alone show how she has integrated the “orange” or mental-rational level of democratic values, unlike her opponent, who drastically fails at this task. But Wilber claims she has “enormous problems” and was a failed candidate. Yet, he gives Trump a “get out of jail free” card and wants to “see how he does”? OMG! My grade for adequate developmental level analysis of the two Presidential candidates: a resounding F, F, F (complete failure).

Admittedly, I am sad to say all this, for I used to admire Ken Wilber. But he seems as fake as his atrocious wig and persistent ticks of licking his fingers when he talks. And this is the leader of the Integral Movement? No wonder Integral has failed… and is failing to take hold. Hopefully, people like Layman Pascal (who I think is brilliant, asking excellent questions) and others can take up the slack—for most of us know that Integral Thinking, which Wilber did help initiate, to his credit, but he does not own, is valid in many, many ways that can help the world Grow Up, Clean Up, and Wake Up, or better than these slogans, evolve into a brighter future. Too bad Wilber fails to live up to the high bar he helped set—although he loves to take credit for it, as he gleefully (and egoically) told us in the interview. Indeed, we need adequate thought-leaders who can better articulate and envision the Integral stage of consciousness, the vision-logic centaur, more than Ken Wilber does with his inadequate political views.

As another example of how badly Wilber interprets today's politics, let's quickly review his comments on Bernie Sanders. Layman suggested that perhaps the Democratic Party failed to support Sanders enough (in 2016) since he was a voice for the working-class frustrations, which is a large part of where Trump's base resides. However, they sold out to Hillary Clinton, who many people perceived as having an elitist agenda. Wilber's answer? Bernie is a “likable sort… but is a mistaken socialist thinker.”

Bernie is a DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST that is clearly distinct from traditional socialism, which involves government ownership of the means of production. Sanders, in this case, has never advocated for the nationalization of industries. Bernie clearly (and eloquently) supports a market-based (i.e., capitalistic) economy, but one with strong regulations to ensure fairness and reduce exploitation. He strongly advocates for policies that reduce income inequality, tax the rich fairly (especially the hyper-rich) in comparison with other taxpayers, expand social nets (instead of tax breaks for the rich), and ensure universal access to healthcare and education. In other words, something like the policies in Denmark, Sweden, Norway, and the Netherlands—does Wilber not understand this? He acts unaware of who or what Bernie Sanders—and his millions of supporters—is about. Wilber plays into the outdated trope that “socialist” means that someone is a Marxist or authoritarian socialist, a hostile political label used by right-wing conservatives (and the rich) to ridicule and dismiss anyone advocating for progressive policies that will serve the many, not the few. Wilber could have explained that more enlightened view but instead showed his ignorance of what he was talking about. Grade for Wilber's understanding of economics, the rights of the poor and struggling middle-class: Zero, nada, another F (for failing us).

Then, Layman decided to ask Wilber if he is proud to be an American, does he “love America”? Fortunately, at least he said he is a “globalist,” probably not the smartest term since it means technically planning a global economy, which goes against Trump's “America First” policy. However, I took it to mean he is a “world citizen,” or prefers to see himself that way, being integral and enlightened and all. Ken admitted he is “not a patriot,” per se, which I assume, being of the generation growing up during the Vietnam War, “patriot” was a dirty word. Ken is no “America, love it or leave it” type of guy. But is he an “America, love it and fix it” kind of guy? Apparently not, for he said he likes the history of the United States. What does that mean? He likes slavery? Racial segregation? Genocide of the Native Americans? Probably not, but he did not clarify. I kept waiting for him to mention democracy, the protection of equal rights under the law, and the advancement of human rights—the best and most noble qualities of the USA and our revolution from tyranny—but he did not mention one word in that direction. Grade for his understanding of the history and advantages of being an American: C to D (below average, since probably most Americans would not bring up freedom of speech, freedom to worship as one pleases, freedom to petition our government, freedom to peacefully assembly, etc.), which is not good, in my opinion. In fact, it is part of the reason we have Trump (again).

Oddly, Wilber kept mentioning that the Far Left is like a “Crazy Joe,” thinking he was being funny. Yet, did he realize that this is a phrase Trump has used to mock President Biden? Ken Wilber is sometimes so out of touch with the reality of America and most Americans that I find his credibility has fallen drastically in the past ten years or more.

For example, following Layman's advice, I picked up Wilber's book The Post-Truth World (2024) today and refreshed myself (I read it originally in 2017). I found Wilber spends the entire book criticizing “Green” or postmodern pluralism and how THEY were responsible for Trump's election—since people were reacting to “political correctness,” according to Wilber. Really? Traditionalists (and racists) might have been reacting to progressive values, but most people embrace or understand them. This brings me back to my comments above about Wilber being hyper-sensitive or allergic (his term) to Green Pluralism.

He suggests Postmodern Pluralists are supposed to embrace and honor Amber-Traditionalists and Orange-Modernists, for they are all necessary stages in developmental growth. Yet, nowhere did I read him criticize MAGA, for example, the Trump cult that wants to drag America back to pre-civil rights periods when “America was Great,” supposedly (I disagree strongly). Back when white people ruled, back when Christianity was the dominant religion, back when women were housewives only, and so on. Don't those people deserve to be as harshly criticized as Green? However, these traditional religionists, the large segment of the population that is racist and misogynistic, received no critique from Wilber in his book or his interview. Why is that?

One thing Wilber said that I agree with is that “an effective education [is] a primary task of what leading-edge [Green] must do to provide actual leadership” (2024, p. 87). He mentioned education in the interview, which is rare for him, suggesting we must “convey the truth to a person about the higher stages” and explain it to them to hopefully boost developmental growth. Exactly correct. He then complained about how recognizing the developmental worldview—a considerable part of being Integral—is lacking in this country and around the world. This is absolutely true. It is a significant factor that integral thinkers yearn for more people to realize: that people and worldviews develop along a spectrum of consciousness.

In my writings, I constantly maintain that we must activate the higher transpersonal potentials of the human being, which can only be accessed via shamanistic and yogic practices, self-discipline, meditation (and even Guru Yoga), studying the esoteric religious traditions of the world and teachings of the Enlightened Adepts, etc. But Wilber did not mention any of that or offer any solutions about how we educate people about those higher states and stages of consciousness evolution—other than reading his books, of course. Naturally, he brought up his catchphrases about the “5 Ups” (i.e., Growing Up, Cleaning Up, Opening Up, Showing Up, and to cover spirituality, Waking Up)—lecturing us about how his views are the best solutions ever devised on planet Earth, the only ones that are whole and holistic. Again, hyperbole and exaggerations, even if partially correct. My grade for providing reasonable solutions to the “culture wars” or the “war of worldviews”: B to B+ (yea, good news).

Indeed, as usual, the majority of the interview was spent allowing Wilber to ramble on explaining his WILBER DOGMA. Layman knew better than to interrupt at this point or challenge him since it is best to let Wilber be Wilber and tell everyone how it is and how he came up with the best way to save the world. Yawn. It's not that SOME of what Wilber says isn't true or correct; for some of it is very true. But, overall, he is a classic example of his own motto: “Everyone is correct but partial.” No one is 100% wrong. I wish Wilber would realize this is true of himself as well and be more humble.

Another of Wilber's pet peeves in the interview was hearing him rage about the mistake of criticizing “toxic masculinity,” a trait he claims is pervasive in “Broken Green.” Why he is so upset about this? I am not sure. To me, “toxic masculinity” is about a set of harmful beliefs and behaviors that are often associated with traditional male roles, such as being dominant over other people, especially a man's partner or woman, sometimes leading to spousal abuse and domestic violence, being anti-feminist or believing that women should keep to their traditional roles—e.g., how dare we think a woman could be President—being sexually aggressive to women, being homophobic, expressing yourself through violence and being critical of so-called feminine traits, such as accepting help, domesticity, and most emotions. I am for transcending those toxic and unhealthy traits. But is Wilber? He confused me here. This brings me back to the qualified WOMAN Kamala Harris—I saw much more positive qualities than negative ones or “enormous problems” (Wilber's words). I want to see a woman leader as President of the United States. I think that would be healing—and Kamala IS “healthy green”—for our country and the entire world. And for those (mostly men) who think otherwise, they need to be educated out of their lower levels of thinking and grow up. But Wilber failed to mention any of this.

Instead, Wilber's solution is to throw around terms like “Teal” and “Turquoise” and how only by following his Integral dogma is there a way out of our current mess. Unless, perhaps, we give Trump a chance, for maybe, who knows, everything is gonna be alright. I doubt that. In fact, I bet a few months after he is sworn into office, all of these passive critics and current supporters of the evil Don the Trump—the real “Crazy Uncle”—are going to regret giving him another shot at destroying our country.

In this interview, for a man who claims to be the most “leading-edge Integral thinker” in the world—Ken Wilber—I did not see sufficient evidence in his conversation or understanding of politics to warrant such a claim. And, for me, this is heartbreaking (for I love Ken Wilber). Yet, all Ken can do is outline his model ad nauseam, claiming only he can provide Integral Wisdom and the way to radical (or “at the root”) wholeness. Yet, anyone who wants to give a convicted felon another chance at the Presidency of the United States of America has failed to see what is going on. Anyone who wants to give Donald J. Trump the reigns to the most powerful and influential leadership role in the world, his finger on the nuclear button and the world's most powerful military, and who believes in a “let's wait and see” attitude and that maybe “Trump turns out not to be that bad,” as Wilber suggests, is far from thinking integrally… or even sanely.

Ken Wilber needs to retire and stop distorting the Integral Vision, which, granted, he ably initiated at one time. But now, he is doing more harm than good, and that is just plain “silly,” like an old uncle, “Krazy Ken.”

NOTES

[1] The Integral Stage, "My Kind of Country (Ep. 3: Ken Wilber)", www.youtube.com, 16 dec 2024.