• 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 Integral Realist's Virtual Conference

Session 4: Is Enlightenment Just a Really Good Explanation?

Frank Visser / ChatGPT

The afternoon session. No alcohol. No coffee. The organizers have confiscated the conference-room kettle after the events of Session Three.

The four philosophers return to their seats.

Ken Wilber looks rested.

Roy Bhaskar looks skeptical.

Edgar Morin looks amused.

Sean Hargens looks worried.

On the screen:

SESSION 4 IS ENLIGHTENMENT JUST A REALLY GOOD EXPLANATION?

Underneath, in red:

PLEASE DO NOT TURN THIS INTO A METAPHYSICS.

Wilber: Who put that there?

Hargens: Everyone.

Bhaskar: Including me.

Morin: Especially me.

Wilber sighs.

Wilber: Fine. Let's begin.

Hargens: Today's question is deceptively simple: what happens when a profound human experience becomes a theory?

Morin: Ah.

Bhaskar: Now we're getting somewhere.

Wilber: I assume I'm about to be blamed.

Hargens: Not necessarily.

Wilber: That's worse.

The Experience

Hargens: Suppose someone experiences what they describe as nondual awareness. The ordinary distinction between self and world temporarily dissolves. There is a sense of unity, timelessness, profound clarity.

Wilber: Exactly.

Bhaskar: We agree that the experience can be real.

Morin: And psychologically significant.

Hargens: But what follows?

Wilber: It may reveal something about the nature of consciousness.

Bhaskar: It may.

Wilber: You really enjoy that word.

Bhaskar: It is an epistemically responsible word.

Morin: And a very useful one.

Wilber: But suppose thousands of people across cultures report similar experiences.

Bhaskar: Then we have an interesting cross-cultural phenomenon.

Wilber: And perhaps evidence for a common underlying reality.

Bhaskar: Perhaps.

Morin: Or evidence for common features of human neurobiology.

Wilber: Or both.

Bhaskar: Yes.

Morin: Now we're thinking.

The Problem of Interpretation

Hargens: Here is the problem. The experience itself is one thing. The interpretation is another.

Wilber: Obviously.

Hargens: Is it?

Wilber: Yes.

Hargens: Then why do spiritual traditions so often treat mystical experience as confirmation of their metaphysics?

Wilber: Because the experience can feel self-authenticating.

Bhaskar: Exactly.

Morin: And that is epistemologically dangerous.

Wilber: But not necessarily false.

Bhaskar: Correct. The feeling of certainty is evidence of something—namely, that the person experienced extraordinary certainty.

Morin: But certainty about an experience is not automatically certainty about its ultimate cause.

Wilber: So the mystic could be right about reality and wrong about the explanation.

Bhaskar: Precisely.

Morin: Which means mystical experience deserves neither dismissal nor automatic canonization.

Hargens: That's an important middle position.

Wilber: I can live with that.

Morin: You are becoming suspiciously reasonable.

Wilber's Counterattack

Wilber leans forward.

Wilber: But let me turn the argument around.

Bhaskar: Please.

Wilber: Why should ordinary waking consciousness be privileged?

Bhaskar: It isn't.

Wilber: Science is based on ordinary waking cognition, instruments and public observation. Mystical traditions say that this is only one mode of consciousness.

Morin: That's fair.

Wilber: If consciousness has multiple states, then shouldn't we investigate them systematically?

Bhaskar: Yes.

Wilber: Then why not treat contemplative practice as a kind of disciplined phenomenological research?

Bhaskar: We can.

Morin: But with the same distinction between observation and interpretation.

Wilber: Agreed.

Hargens: So we have arrived at an intriguing proposition: contemplative experience can be taken seriously as data without treating the metaphysical interpretation of that data as automatically established.

Wilber: Exactly.

Bhaskar: I have no objection.

Wilber: Roy, are you feeling all right?

Bhaskar: Don't push your luck.

The Integral Trap

Morin: There is another danger.

Hargens: Which one?

Morin: The desire to integrate spiritual experience with science can produce another grand theory.

Wilber: You're talking about me again.

Morin: You keep volunteering.

Wilber: So how would you approach it?

Morin: Carefully.

Wilber: That's not a theory.

Morin: Exactly.

Bhaskar: Morin has a point. The moment we say, "Science explains the exterior, spirituality explains the interior, and integral theory unites them," we may have created a division that reality itself does not respect.

Wilber: But methodological distinctions are useful.

Bhaskar: Yes. Ontological separation is another matter.

Hargens: This may be one of the places where Critical Integral Realism modifies integral theory most significantly.

Wilber: How?

Hargens: Instead of saying, "There are four quadrants, therefore reality has four quadrants," we say, "There are multiple legitimate ways of investigating a phenomenon, and these investigations can reveal different causal and experiential dimensions."

Morin: Much better.

Wilber: Less elegant.

Morin: Reality is not obliged to be elegant.

The Enlightenment Problem

A member of the audience submits a question.

AUDIENCE: If enlightenment is real, shouldn't an enlightened person become psychologically healthier and ethically better?

Wilber sits back.

Wilber: Ah.

Bhaskar: That's a good one.

Morin: Very good.

Hargens: Ken?

Wilber: No.

Everyone looks at him.

Wilber: Not necessarily.

Bhaskar: Interesting.

Wilber: Awakening and psychological development are not identical. A person can have profound spiritual realization while retaining psychological problems, narcissism, emotional immaturity or ethical blind spots.

Morin: Now that is progress.

Wilber: I've been saying this for years.

Bhaskar: Then we agree.

Wilber: An extraordinary state of consciousness does not automatically produce an extraordinary personality.

Morin: Exactly.

Hargens: Which means that "enlightenment" is not a single variable.

Wilber: Correct.

Bhaskar: And that is precisely where developmental theory needs greater differentiation.

Morin: Spiritual insight, cognitive complexity, emotional maturity, moral development and social wisdom may interact without being identical.

Wilber: That's an integral point.

Morin: Yes.

Wilber: Thank you.

Morin: Don't get used to it.

The Guru Problem

Hargens: What about teachers?

Wilber: What about them?

Hargens: If enlightenment doesn't guarantee psychological or ethical maturity, what happens to the guru?

Wilber: The guru can be spiritually realized and still flawed.

Bhaskar: That's an understatement.

Morin: And potentially dangerous.

Wilber: Which is why discernment matters.

Hargens: But isn't there a structural problem? If the guru's spiritual realization is treated as evidence of superior authority, criticism becomes difficult.

Bhaskar: Very difficult.

Morin: The epistemic hierarchy becomes a social hierarchy.

Wilber: That's a legitimate danger.

Hargens: So an integral spirituality needs a critical theory of spiritual authority.

Wilber: Yes.

Bhaskar: Including mechanisms for accountability.

Morin: And the possibility that the disciple may know something the guru does not.

Wilber nods.

Wilber: That's harder for spiritual traditions to accept.

Morin: Which is why they need to accept it.

The Big Question

Hargens: Let's return to our title.

He points at the screen.

IS ENLIGHTENMENT JUST A REALLY GOOD EXPLANATION?

Wilber: No.

Bhaskar: We don't know.

Morin: It depends what you mean by enlightenment.

Hargens: Excellent. We have achieved maximum philosophical agreement.

Wilber: I would say enlightenment refers to a family of extraordinary transformations in consciousness.

Bhaskar: That's phenomenologically respectable.

Morin: But metaphysically incomplete.

Wilber: Naturally.

Bhaskar: And we need to distinguish between a transformation occurring and the worldview subsequently constructed around it.

Wilber: Yes.

Morin: The experience may change the person. The interpretation may change the culture. The institution may change the interpretation. The culture may then change the institution.

Hargens: Recursive complexity.

Morin: Exactly.

Wilber: That's why spiritual traditions evolve.

Bhaskar: And why they can also become distorted.

Morin: Every transmission introduces transformation.

The Unexpected Visitor

The door opens.

A young graduate student enters.

STUDENT: Sorry I'm late.

Hargens: Who are you?

STUDENT: I'm here for the conference.

Bhaskar: Which department?

STUDENT: Philosophy.

Morin: Good.

Wilber: What do you study?

STUDENT: Consciousness.

Everyone looks at one another.

Bhaskar: Dangerous subject.

Student: I have a question.

Wilber: Go ahead.

Student: If mystical experiences are real but their interpretations are uncertain, how do we decide which interpretation is better?

The room becomes quiet.

Bhaskar: Evidence.

Morin: Coherence.

Wilber: Transformative consequences.

Hargens: Critical scrutiny.

Student: Can they all matter?

Bhaskar: They should.

Morin: None is sufficient alone.

Wilber: Now you're talking integral.

Morin: Don't spoil the moment.

The Four Criteria

Hargens writes on the board:

EXPERIENCE

EVIDENCE

EXPLANATION

CONSEQUENCES

Hargens: Perhaps this is where our four traditions actually converge.

Bhaskar: Experience gives us something to investigate.

Morin: Evidence constrains interpretation.

Wilber: Explanation organizes the experience.

Hargens: Consequences tell us something about whether the interpretation is fruitful—or pathological.

Bhaskar: And all four remain fallible.

Morin: Good.

Wilber: Very good.

The Cat Returns

The door opens again.

The cat walks in.

Everyone groans.

It jumps onto the table.

A small projector activates.

A slide appears:

SESSION 5

CAN FOUR PHILOSOPHERS AGREE ON ANYTHING WITHOUT CREATING A NEW SCHOOL?

Underneath:

SPONSORED BY CATGPT™

Wilber: Absolutely not.

Bhaskar: I agree.

Morin: So do I.

Hargens: That's four votes.

They look at one another.

Wilber: Wait.

Bhaskar: We just agreed.

Morin: On something.

Hargens: Without creating a school.

The cat meows.

Wilber: Don't you dare.

The cat walks across the keyboard.

The slide changes.

CRITICAL INTEGRAL COMPLEX REALISM

Everyone freezes.

Bhaskar: No.

Morin: Absolutely not.

Hargens: I didn't do it.

Wilber: Actually, that's not a bad name.

Three voices:

NO!

The cat curls up on the projector.

The screen goes black.

CONFERENCE ADJOURNED.

For now.