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

Frank Visser, graduated as a psychologist of culture and religion, founded IntegralWorld in 1997. He worked as production manager for various publishing houses and as service manager for various internet companies and lives in Amsterdam. Books: Ken Wilber: Thought as Passion (SUNY, 2003), and The Corona Conspiracy: Combatting Disinformation about the Coronavirus (Kindle, 2020).

The Problem with 'I-Amness'

Ken Wilber's Shortcut to the Absolute

Frank Visser / ChatGPT

A Powerful Practice Wrapped in a Questionable Metaphysics

Ken Wilber's older video “Anchoring I-Amness” is a good example of both the appeal and the limitations of his spiritual teaching. The video, published in 2006, emerged from the same period in which Wilber was closely associated with Genpo Roshi's Big Mind approach. Its central proposal is deceptively simple: rather than trying to eliminate the ego, one should learn to rest in the immediate sense of “I Am”—the awareness that is supposedly present before and behind all particular experiences. The practice is presented as a way of recognizing and stabilizing an already-existing state of consciousness.

There is something genuinely valuable here. Wilber is right to be suspicious of the spiritual ambition to get rid of the ego. The attempt to destroy the ego can easily become an ego project of the most sophisticated kind: I am going to become the person who has no ego. His advice to notice the self-contraction rather than wage war against it is psychologically sensible. A person can learn to observe anxiety, self-consciousness, defensiveness, and the feeling of being a separate self without immediately being overwhelmed by them.

But Wilber makes a crucial leap. He moves from the relatively modest claim that we can become aware of the process of selfing to the much more ambitious claim that the awareness in which selfing appears is our ultimate identity. That transition is the philosophical weak point of the whole exercise.

The “I” That Cannot Be Found

Wilber's argument depends on a distinction familiar from Advaita Vedanta and other nondual traditions. Everything we can observe is an object of consciousness: sensations, emotions, thoughts, memories, bodily feelings, and even the ordinary sense of personal identity. Therefore, the argument goes, the witnessing awareness itself cannot be another object. It is the subject—the pure “I Am.”

This is an intriguing phenomenological observation. When I pay attention to my experience, I can indeed distinguish between what I am aware of and the fact that I am aware. I can observe my thoughts without being completely identical with them. I can notice my changing moods. I can even notice the feeling of being a particular person.

But the conclusion does not automatically follow.

The fact that awareness cannot be observed in exactly the same way as an ordinary object does not establish that it is a metaphysically independent entity, much less that it is the universal ground of reality. There is a difference between saying “awareness has a peculiar status within experience” and saying “awareness is the Absolute.”

Wilber tends to slide across that distinction almost imperceptibly.

The video is strongest when treated as a practical exercise in metacognition. It becomes much more questionable when treated as a demonstration of ultimate ontology.

From “I Am” to “I Am the Absolute”

The phrase “I Am” carries enormous philosophical baggage. It can refer simply to the minimal sense of existing: I am here. It can refer to the phenomenological fact of consciousness: there is awareness. It can refer to the personal ego: I am Frank, Ken, or whoever. And in mystical traditions it can refer to an ultimate, transpersonal Self.

These are not interchangeable.

Wilber's genius—and sometimes his problem—is his ability to move rapidly between these levels. A simple introspective exercise can become the entry point into a vast metaphysical system involving consciousness, Spirit, nonduality, emptiness, and evolutionary development.

But the experience itself does not necessarily contain all those conclusions.

Suppose I close my eyes and notice that thoughts come and go while awareness remains. That is an interesting experience. Suppose I then notice that the sense of being a separate individual also fluctuates. That is more interesting still. But nothing in those observations, by themselves, demonstrates that awareness is cosmic, eternal, or identical with the ultimate nature of reality.

The mystical interpretation may be meaningful. It may even be transformative. But it remains an interpretation.

This is where Wilber's language can become more certain than his evidence warrants.

The Virtue of Anchoring

Nevertheless, the idea of “anchoring” has considerable practical merit.

Human attention is notoriously unstable. We become absorbed in thoughts, worries, memories, fantasies, and social roles. A contemplative practice that repeatedly returns attention to the simple fact of awareness can interrupt this automatic identification.

In that respect, “I-Amness” can function as a useful psychological anchor.

The practitioner does not have to believe in the Absolute. One can simply notice:

I am aware.

Then:

This thought is appearing in awareness.

Then:

This emotion is appearing in awareness.

And finally:

The feeling of being a separate self is also something I can notice.

This sequence can create psychological distance without requiring any supernatural assumptions. It resembles forms of mindfulness and metacognitive awareness that can be understood in entirely naturalistic terms.

The interesting thing is that the practice may retain much of its value after Wilber's metaphysical claims have been bracketed.

That is an important distinction. A practice can be useful even when the philosophy attached to it is debatable.

The Witness Is Not Necessarily a Thing

Wilber's notion of the Witness presents another difficulty.

If the Witness is defined as that which is aware of all objects, then one can easily start treating it as a hidden entity behind experience. But perhaps there is no such entity.

Perhaps “the Witness” is simply a way of describing a functional distinction within consciousness: the distinction between attention that is identified with its contents and attention that observes those contents with some degree of detachment.

This would make the Witness less mysterious but potentially more plausible.

Consider the difference between saying:

“I am angry.”

and:

“Anger is arising in me.”

The second formulation creates space. It does not require us to posit an eternal Self behind the anger. It simply changes our relationship to the experience.

Wilber's interpretation goes further. The Witness is not merely a useful stance; it is said to be our deepest identity. That may be a legitimate spiritual conviction, but it is not something the exercise itself proves.

The danger is that a useful psychological distinction gets reified into a metaphysical substance.

The Strange Paradox of “Anchoring” the Unchanging

There is also an interesting paradox in the very title of the practice.

If I-Amness is truly ever-present, why does it need to be anchored?

If awareness is always already present, then nothing needs to be added. If I have to repeatedly remind myself to return to it, then what exactly is being stabilized?

Wilber's answer would presumably be that awareness is always present but that our recognition of it is unstable. The practice therefore does not create I-Amness; it strengthens our ability to recognize it.

That is a coherent answer. But it subtly changes the claim.

What is being cultivated is no longer the existence of awareness itself. What is being cultivated is a particular relationship to awareness.

This distinction is important. It shifts the practice from metaphysics toward psychology.

And perhaps that is where it works best.

The Problem of Mistaking Recognition for Realization

Wilber is also operating within a long-standing mystical tradition in which enlightenment is described as the recognition of something that has always already been the case. The Self is already free. Awareness is already pure. The Absolute is already present.

This creates a seductive paradox: enlightenment is simultaneously something you already have and something you have yet to realize.

There is truth in this formulation. A person can possess capacities without recognizing them. We can be unaware of patterns that nevertheless govern our behavior.

But the same formulation can also become unfalsifiable.

If someone experiences a profound state of unity, that is interpreted as evidence that the ever-present Self has been recognized. If they fail to experience it, they are told that the Self was nevertheless present but unnoticed. Whatever happens, the theory survives.

This is a warning sign philosophically.

A framework that can explain every possible outcome risks explaining nothing in particular.

The Integral Escape Hatch

Wilber's distinctive contribution is that he does not stop at mystical realization. He insists that spiritual awakening must be integrated with psychological development. His larger integral framework distinguishes states of consciousness from stages of development and emphasizes the importance of shadow work and embodied functioning. This is, in principle, a valuable corrective to simplistic enlightenment claims. The mere experience of nondual awareness does not automatically make someone emotionally mature, ethically trustworthy, or intellectually sophisticated.

Indeed, this may be one of the strongest aspects of Wilber's mature framework.

But it also exposes a tension in the “I-Amness” teaching.

If the discovery of the Witness is so fundamental, what exactly has been discovered? Is it an ultimate metaphysical Self? Is it a recurring state of consciousness? Is it a shift in attentional perspective? Is it a developmental achievement? Or is it a mixture of all four?

Wilber's terminology can make these distinctions difficult to maintain.

His integral model is supposed to prevent the conflation of states and stages. Yet his language about “I-Amness” can itself encourage a different conflation: the movement from a particular experience of consciousness to a claim about the ultimate structure of reality.

The Secular Alternative

A more modest interpretation may actually preserve the most useful part of Wilber's teaching.

We can say that human beings have the capacity to become aware of their own mental processes. Attention can turn back upon itself. The experience of being a self can become an object of reflection. This creates a degree of freedom from automatic identification.

No metaphysical Absolute is required.

From this perspective, “I-Amness” is not the discovery of a cosmic Self but the cultivation of reflexive awareness.

That may sound less grand. It is also considerably easier to defend.

And perhaps it is enough.

The difference between “I am the Absolute” and “I can notice the process by which I construct a sense of myself” is enormous. The first is a metaphysical proposition. The second is a phenomenological observation. The first demands justification. The second can be tested in one's own experience.

Wilber's tendency is to move from the second to the first with remarkable speed.

What Wilber Gets Right

It would be unfair, however, to dismiss the teaching simply because its metaphysical interpretation is debatable.

The central practical insight is important: we do not have to believe every thought we have, nor do we have to identify completely with every emotional state that arises.

The self is not as solid as it seems.

Our ordinary identity is constructed from memories, habits, bodily sensations, social relationships, narratives, and expectations. Learning to observe this construction can indeed be liberating.

Wilber is also right that trying to eradicate the ego can become counterproductive. The self does not necessarily have to be destroyed. It may be better understood, observed, and placed in a larger context.

This is perhaps the most defensible reading of the video.

The practice does not have to tell us what the universe ultimately is. It can simply teach us to relate differently to what happens within us.

That is already a considerable achievement.

The Ken Wilber Problem in Miniature

“Anchoring I-Amness” therefore contains the entire Wilber problem in miniature.

At his best, Wilber takes a simple and valuable insight and places it within a larger intellectual architecture. He reminds us that consciousness has multiple dimensions, that psychological development matters, and that mystical experience should not be confused with complete human maturity.

At his weakest, he takes a plausible observation and inflates it into a comprehensive metaphysical conclusion.

The observation is:

Awareness can notice thoughts, emotions, and even the sense of self.

The conclusion becomes:

Therefore, awareness is the timeless Self, the ground of Being, and ultimately identical with Spirit.

That “therefore” is doing an enormous amount of philosophical work.

The first claim is accessible to introspection. The second requires metaphysics.

The first can be practiced. The second has to be argued.

Wilber is at his most persuasive when he stays close to the practice and at his most vulnerable when he treats the metaphysical interpretation as if it were contained within the experience itself.

A Useful Practice Without the Cosmic Baggage

My final judgment on this old video is therefore mixed but ultimately appreciative.

The practice of returning to the bare sense of awareness can be valuable. It can loosen identification, interrupt compulsive thought, and provide a stable point from which to observe the changing contents of consciousness. It can also serve as a useful antidote to the endless attempt to improve, defend, or perfect the ego.

But none of this establishes that the bare sense of “I Am” is the Absolute.

The most interesting lesson of the video may therefore be one Wilber himself does not fully draw out. We may not need to settle the metaphysical status of consciousness in order to benefit from becoming more conscious.

The practice survives the metaphysics.

And perhaps that is precisely where Wilber's teaching becomes most useful: not when we accept his claim that we have discovered the ultimate Self, but when we take the experiment seriously enough to ask a simpler question—what happens when I stop taking every thought, feeling, and self-description to be the whole of who I am?

That question is modest.

But unlike the cosmic claims built upon it, it is one we can actually investigate.