• 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).

This is a test to see how much ChatGPT has improved since May 2023, when I first started to experiment with it (here). I must say the results are spectacular. ChatGPT as mediator in a long lasting conflict situation.

Wyatt Earp and Evolution Revisited

A Closer Look at Integral Communication

Frank Visser / ChatGPT-4o

Me to ChatGPT:

• What exactly happened between Ken Wilber and his Dutch biographer Frank Visser?
• This conflict came to a climax in 2006 around the so called Wyatt Earp blogs posted by Wilber. What is the story here?
• Vissers main concern was about Wilbers misreading of science, especially evolutionary theory (in particular neo-Darwinism). What was at stake here?
• Can Wilber be classified as a creationist, since he appeals to Spirit/Eros in the context of biological complexity?
• Wilbers creationism may be more sophisticated than its fundamentalist cousin, but he believes that reality has emanated from Spirit and is pervaded by it. He considers creativity in the universe to be a fundamental metaphysical principle. We could call him a "creativist".
• How does Wilbers view differ from creationist schools such as "theistic evolutonism" or "evolutionary creation"?
• If evolution is an expression of Spirit, leading to more complexity and consciousness, where does that perspective leave room for death, decay and degeneration?
• In this context, how should we understand Wilbers claim: "The whole notion of the universe as 'running down' is ridiculous."
• In a more scientific understanding, increased complexity is possible in local areas, at the expense of an increase of entropy, by capturing energy flows from stars. Wilber doesn't seem to get this principle.
• Wilber seems to wobble between two views of Spirit: (1) as a principle behind everything in the universe and (2) as a principle leading to greater complexity and consciousness. How can both be true?
• Yet, Wilber definitely claims explanatory capacity that is superior to science: "But the notion of a prior involutionary force does much to help with the otherwise impenetrable puzzles of Darwinian evolution, which has tried, ever-so-unsuccessfully, to explain why dirt would get right up and eventually start writing poetry."

ChatGPT:

What exactly happened between Ken Wilber and his Dutch biographer Frank Visser?

The relationship between Ken Wilber, an influential American philosopher and writer known for his work in transpersonal psychology and integral theory, and Frank Visser, his Dutch biographer, has been complex and marked by significant tension.

Background on Their Relationship

Frank Visser initially admired Ken Wilber's work and became deeply involved in the study and promotion of integral theory. He wrote a biography of Wilber titled "Ken Wilber: Thought as Passion," which provided a comprehensive overview of Wilber's life and ideas. This biography was generally well-received and positioned Visser as a key figure in the integral community.

Points of Conflict

Critical Perspectives:

Over time, Visser's views on Wilber's work evolved, and he began to offer critical perspectives on integral theory. He published various articles and essays questioning some of Wilber's ideas, methodologies, and the development of integral theory. Visser's critiques addressed perceived inconsistencies and gaps in Wilber's theoretical framework and its applications.

Public Disagreements:

The tension between Wilber and Visser became more public as these critiques were published. Wilber, known for his strong personality and assertive defense of his ideas, did not respond favorably to Visser's criticisms. Their disagreements were not just about specific theoretical points but also about the tone and nature of Visser's critiques.

Visser's Website:

Frank Visser founded the website IntegralWorld.net, which became a platform for alternative and critical views on integral theory, featuring contributions from various scholars and practitioners. This site provided a space for discussions that were often critical of Wilber's work, which further exacerbated the tensions between Wilber and Visser.

Personal Attacks:

The conflict eventually took on a personal dimension, with Wilber and Visser exchanging harsh words. Wilber, in his blog and other writings, made pointed and sometimes dismissive remarks about Visser and other critics. This personal animosity added a layer of bitterness to their professional disagreements.

Key Outcomes

Divergence in Perspectives:

The conflict underscored a significant divergence in perspectives within the integral community. While Wilber continued to develop and promote his integral vision, Visser and others fostered a more critical and pluralistic approach to integral theory.

Community Impact:

The public nature of their disagreements had an impact on the integral community, highlighting the challenges of intellectual discourse and the handling of criticism within the framework of a philosophical movement.

Conclusion

In summary, the relationship between Ken Wilber and Frank Visser transitioned from one of mutual respect and collaboration to one marked by significant intellectual and personal conflict. This evolution was driven by Visser's critical stance on Wilber's work, the public nature of their disagreements, and the personal dynamics that accompanied their professional differences.

This conflict came to a climax in 2006 around the so called Wyatt Earp blogs posted by Wilber. What is the story here?

The climax of the conflict between Ken Wilber and Frank Visser in 2006 centered around a series of controversial blog posts by Wilber, known as the "Wyatt Earp" blogs. These posts were a critical and somewhat aggressive response by Wilber to his critics, including Visser. Here is a detailed account of what happened:

Background

In the early 2000s, Frank Visser and other critics began to voice concerns about aspects of Ken Wilber's work and the development of the integral community. Visser's website, IntegralWorld.net, became a prominent platform for these critiques. The critiques addressed various aspects of Wilber's theories, including perceived inconsistencies, lack of empirical grounding, and the cult-like behavior of some of Wilber's followers.

The "Wyatt Earp" Blogs

In June 2006, Ken Wilber posted a series of blog entries on his personal website, collectively referred to as the "Wyatt Earp" blogs. The name "Wyatt Earp" is a reference to the famous American lawman, suggesting Wilber saw himself as taking a stand against his critics.

Key Features of the "Wyatt Earp" Blogs

Tone and Style:

The blogs were notable for their confrontational and dismissive tone. Wilber used strong language and sarcasm to criticize his detractors.

He adopted a combative persona, which contrasted sharply with the typically academic and philosophical discourse in his previous writings.

Content and Criticisms:

Wilber accused his critics, including Visser, of misunderstanding and misrepresenting his work.

He defended his integral model and claimed that his critics lacked the necessary depth and understanding to engage with his theories properly.

Wilber suggested that his critics were motivated by personal animosity and intellectual inadequacy rather than genuine scholarly disagreement.

Impact on the Integral Community:

The blogs caused a significant stir within the integral community. Many of Wilber's followers supported his defense and his call for a more rigorous and respectful engagement with his work.

However, others felt that Wilber's approach was overly aggressive and not in keeping with the principles of open dialogue and critical inquiry that he purported to espouse.[1]

Reactions

Supporters:

Some members of the integral community rallied behind Wilber, agreeing with his assessment of the criticisms and appreciating his defense of his work.

Critics:

Frank Visser and other critics saw the "Wyatt Earp" blogs as an unprofessional and hostile response to legitimate intellectual critiques. They argued that Wilber's personal attacks and dismissive attitude undermined the integrity of scholarly debate.

Neutral Observers:

Some observers were dismayed by the tone of the discourse and the apparent inability of both sides to engage in a more constructive dialogue. They saw the episode as indicative of deeper issues within the integral community regarding how to handle dissent and critique.

Aftermath

The "Wyatt Earp" blogs marked a turning point in the relationship between Wilber and Visser. The conflict had become highly public and personal, and it highlighted the challenges of maintaining a balance between defending one's ideas and fostering an open intellectual environment. In the years following the blogs, the rift between Wilber and his critics, including Visser, remained significant, with both sides continuing to develop their views independently.

Overall, the "Wyatt Earp" episode is seen as a pivotal moment that exposed underlying tensions within the integral community and raised important questions about the nature of intellectual discourse and the handling of criticism in the context of philosophical movements.

Vissers main concern was about Wilbers misreading of science, especially evolutionary theory (in particular neo-Darwinism). What was at stake here?

Frank Visser's primary concern with Ken Wilber's work centered around Wilber's interpretation and integration of scientific concepts, particularly evolutionary theory and neo-Darwinism. Visser and other critics believed that Wilber misrepresented and oversimplified these scientific ideas, which had significant implications for the validity and coherence of his integral theory.

Key Issues at Stake

Misrepresentation of Evolutionary Theory:

Wilber's View: Ken Wilber's integral theory incorporates an evolutionary perspective that emphasizes a progression towards greater complexity, consciousness, and spiritual realization. He often critiques what he sees as the reductionist and mechanistic tendencies of mainstream neo-Darwinism, arguing for a more holistic and teleological view of evolution.

Visser's Critique: Frank Visser and other critics argued that Wilber misunderstood or misrepresented the core principles of neo-Darwinism. They contended that Wilber's portrayal of evolution as primarily driven by a spiritual or teleological force was not supported by empirical scientific evidence. Neo-Darwinism, based on natural selection and genetic variation, does not imply any inherent direction or purpose beyond survival and reproduction.

Scientific Validity and Rigor:

Wilber's Approach: Wilber's integral model attempts to synthesize insights from various domains, including science, philosophy, and spirituality. While this integrative approach is innovative, critics like Visser argued that it sometimes led to a superficial or inaccurate treatment of complex scientific theories.

Visser's Concern: Visser emphasized the need for a rigorous and accurate understanding of scientific concepts within any philosophical framework. He believed that Wilber's misinterpretation of evolutionary theory undermined the credibility of integral theory and its claims to provide a comprehensive understanding of reality.

Holistic vs. Reductionist Perspectives:

Wilber's Critique of Reductionism: Wilber often criticized reductionist approaches in science for failing to account for the higher dimensions of human experience, such as consciousness and spirituality. He advocated for an integral perspective that recognizes the interdependence of all levels of existence, from the physical to the spiritual.

Visser's Defense of Scientific Method: Visser and other critics defended the scientific method and its emphasis on empirical evidence and testability. They argued that while holistic perspectives are valuable, they should not come at the expense of scientific accuracy and integrity. Visser believed that Wilber's critiques of reductionism sometimes strayed into the territory of pseudoscience.

Implications for Integral Theory

Credibility and Acceptance:

Within the Academic Community: Wilber's misreading of evolutionary theory and other scientific concepts made it difficult for his integral theory to gain acceptance within the mainstream academic community. Critics argued that for integral theory to be taken seriously, it needed to engage more rigorously with established scientific knowledge.

Philosophical Coherence:

Integrating Science and Spirituality: One of the central aims of Wilber's work is to integrate science and spirituality. Visser's critiques highlighted the challenges of this endeavor, particularly when it came to accurately representing scientific theories. Misinterpretations could lead to philosophical inconsistencies and weaken the overall coherence of the integral framework.

Community and Discourse:

Dialogue and Criticism: The conflict between Wilber and Visser underscored the importance of open and constructive dialogue within the integral community. It highlighted the need for intellectual humility and the willingness to revise one's theories in light of valid criticisms. The "Wyatt Earp" episode demonstrated the difficulties of maintaining such a dialogue, especially when personal and ideological differences come into play.

Conclusion

At stake in the conflict between Ken Wilber and Frank Visser was the intellectual integrity and scientific credibility of integral theory. Visser's critiques of Wilber's misreading of evolutionary theory and neo-Darwinism brought to light important issues regarding the integration of scientific knowledge into broader philosophical and spiritual frameworks. The debate emphasized the need for accuracy, rigor, and openness in the pursuit of a truly comprehensive understanding of reality.

Can Wilber be classified as a creationist, since he appeals to Spirit/Eros in the context of biological complexity?

Ken Wilber cannot be accurately classified as a creationist in the traditional sense.[2] Creationism typically refers to the belief that the universe and life originated from specific acts of divine creation as described in religious texts, particularly the literal interpretation of the Bible's account of creation. Creationists often reject the scientific consensus on evolution, particularly the aspects of natural selection and common descent.

Key Differences Between Wilber and Creationism

Wilber's Evolutionary Perspective:

Integration of Science and Spirituality: Ken Wilber seeks to integrate scientific understanding with spiritual insights. He does not reject the process of evolution but rather proposes that evolution is guided by a deeper, underlying spiritual force or principle he often refers to as Spirit or Eros.

Teleological Aspect: Wilber's view of evolution includes a teleological component, suggesting that evolution has an inherent direction or purpose towards greater complexity and consciousness. This contrasts with the mainstream scientific view of evolution, which does not attribute any inherent purpose or direction to the process.

Creationism's Rejection of Evolution:

Literal Interpretation of Religious Texts: Traditional creationists base their views on a literal interpretation of religious scriptures, rejecting the scientific evidence for evolution, including the fossil record, genetic evidence, and the mechanisms of natural selection.

Young Earth Creationism: Some creationists, such as Young Earth Creationists, believe that the Earth is only a few thousand years old, directly contradicting the extensive scientific evidence for an ancient Earth and the gradual development of life over billions of years.

Wilber's Position

Evolution as a Spiritual Process:

Wilber posits that evolution is not just a biological process but also a manifestation of a spiritual dynamic. He uses terms like "Spirit-in-action" or "Eros" to describe a force that drives evolution towards greater complexity and higher levels of consciousness.

Acceptance of Scientific Evidence:

Unlike creationists, Wilber does not reject the scientific evidence for evolution. He acknowledges the mechanisms of natural selection and genetic variation but adds an additional layer of meaning by suggesting that these processes are part of a broader, spiritually infused evolutionary narrative.

Philosophical Integration:

Wilber's approach is more philosophical and integrative, attempting to bridge the gap between science and spirituality. He does not adhere to a literal interpretation of religious texts but rather incorporates elements from various traditions and scientific disciplines into his integral theory.

Conclusion

While Ken Wilber introduces spiritual and teleological elements into his understanding of evolution, this does not align him with creationism. Creationism fundamentally rejects key aspects of evolutionary theory and often relies on a literal interpretation of religious texts, whereas Wilber seeks to integrate scientific insights with a broader spiritual framework. Therefore, it is more accurate to describe Wilber's views as a form of evolutionary spirituality or integral philosophy rather than creationism.

Wilbers creationism may be more sophisticated than its fundamentalist cousin, but he believes that reality has emanated from Spirit and is pervaded by it. He considers creativity in the universe to be a fundamental metaphysical principle. We could call him a "creativist".

Describing Ken Wilber as a "creativist" could be a fitting term to capture his unique perspective on evolution and the nature of reality. This term reflects Wilber's belief in a fundamental creative principle underlying the universe, which he often refers to as Spirit or Eros. Here's how "creativist" aptly encapsulates Wilber's views:

Key Aspects of Wilber's "Creativist" Perspective

Emanation from Spirit:

Spiritual Foundation: Wilber posits that reality emanates from a fundamental spiritual source. This view is not merely about a supernatural creator but about a pervasive, intrinsic Spirit that manifests through all levels of existence.

Holistic Ontology: His integral theory proposes a holistic ontology where Spirit is both the ground and the goal of all evolutionary processes, imbuing the universe with purpose and direction.

Creativity as a Metaphysical Principle:

Fundamental Creativity: Wilber sees creativity as a fundamental metaphysical principle. This means that the process of evolution, the emergence of complexity, and the unfolding of consciousness are all expressions of an inherent creativity within the universe.

Eros and Evolution: He uses the term Eros to describe this driving force of evolution, suggesting that there is an innate tendency towards greater depth, complexity, and integration in the evolutionary process.

Sophisticated Integration of Science and Spirituality:

Integrationist Approach: Unlike fundamentalist creationism, which often rejects scientific findings, Wilber's creativist view seeks to integrate scientific understanding with spiritual insights. He accepts the mechanisms of biological evolution but argues that these are expressions of a deeper, creative process.

Teleological Dimension: Wilber's perspective includes a teleological dimension, proposing that evolution is not random or purely mechanistic but directed towards increasing complexity and higher consciousness.

Implications of Wilber's Creativism

Philosophical Coherence:

Synthesis of Disciplines: Wilber's creativism represents a synthesis of scientific, philosophical, and spiritual disciplines. It attempts to offer a more coherent worldview that encompasses both empirical evidence and metaphysical speculation.

Evolutionary Spirituality: His views contribute to a form of evolutionary spirituality, where the unfolding of the cosmos is seen as a sacred process, infused with meaning and purpose.

Critiques and Challenges:

Scientific Scrutiny: Critics, including Frank Visser, argue that Wilber's interpretation of evolutionary theory may lack empirical support and might blur the lines between scientific rigor and metaphysical speculation.

Balancing Perspectives: The challenge for Wilber's creativist view is to balance the spiritual and scientific aspects in a way that respects the integrity of both domains. Ensuring that metaphysical claims do not undermine empirical science is a crucial concern.

Community and Dialogue:

Intellectual Discourse: The term "creativist" can help clarify Wilber's position in intellectual discourse, distinguishing it from both traditional creationism and purely materialistic views of evolution. It emphasizes the innovative and integrative nature of his approach.

Engagement with Critics: Using the term "creativist" might facilitate more nuanced discussions with critics by framing Wilber's ideas in a way that acknowledges their distinctiveness without conflating them with fundamentalist creationism.

Conclusion

Ken Wilber's creativist perspective offers a sophisticated and integrative view of evolution, positing that the universe is fundamentally driven by a creative spiritual principle. This approach seeks to reconcile scientific understanding with a profound sense of purpose and meaning, distinguishing it from traditional creationist views while contributing to a rich dialogue between science and spirituality. The term "creativist" aptly captures the essence of Wilber's unique philosophical stance.

How does Wilbers view differ from creationist schools such as "theistic evolutonism" or "evolutionary creation"?

Ken Wilber's perspective shares some similarities with theistic evolutionism and evolutionary creationism, as all three seek to integrate religious or spiritual beliefs with the scientific theory of evolution. However, there are key differences in how each approach conceptualizes the relationship between science and spirituality. Here's a detailed comparison:

Theistic Evolutionism and Evolutionary Creationism

Theistic Evolutionism:

Definition: Theistic evolutionism (or evolutionary theism) is the belief that God uses the process of evolution to bring about the diversity of life on Earth. It maintains that evolutionary science is fully compatible with religious faith.

Key Features:

God as the Creator: God initiates and sustains the evolutionary process.

Compatibility with Science: Accepts mainstream scientific findings about the age of the Earth, the fossil record, and the mechanisms of evolution.

Non-Interventionist: Typically, God is seen as not intervening directly in the natural processes, allowing them to unfold according to the laws of nature established by God.

Evolutionary Creationism:

Definition: Evolutionary creationism holds that God is both the Creator and sustainer of the universe, and that the process of evolution is a tool used by God to develop life. This term is often used by Christians who emphasize a more direct relationship between God and the process of evolution.

Key Features:

God's Active Role: While it accepts evolutionary science, it emphasizes God's active involvement in the evolutionary process.

Divine Purpose: Evolution is seen as having a divine purpose and direction, guided by God's will.

Integration of Theology and Science: Aims to harmonize biblical teachings with scientific understanding.

Ken Wilber's Integral Theory

Wilber's Integral Evolutionism (Creativism):

Definition: Wilber's view integrates evolutionary theory with a metaphysical and spiritual framework, suggesting that evolution is driven by an underlying spiritual force or principle (often referred to as Spirit or Eros).

Key Features:

Holistic Integration: Seeks to integrate insights from science, philosophy, and spirituality into a comprehensive worldview.

Teleological View: Proposes that evolution has an inherent directionality towards greater complexity, consciousness, and spiritual realization. This teleological aspect is not typically found in mainstream scientific accounts of evolution.

Levels of Reality: Posits that reality consists of multiple levels, including the physical, biological, mental, and spiritual, each with its own evolutionary dynamics.

Spiritual Evolution: Evolution is seen as a manifestation of Spirit-in-action, with an ultimate aim towards the realization of higher consciousness and spiritual awakening.

Key Differences

Role of God/Spirit:

Theistic Evolutionism/Evolutionary Creationism: Emphasizes a traditional religious understanding of God as a personal, often interventionist, deity who uses evolution as a tool.

Wilber's View: Focuses on a more abstract, impersonal concept of Spirit or Eros as the driving force behind evolution, without necessarily invoking a personal God.

Intervention in Evolution:

Theistic Evolutionism: Generally sees God as setting natural processes in motion and not intervening directly.

Evolutionary Creationism: More open to the idea of divine intervention and guidance throughout the evolutionary process.

Wilber's View: Views Spirit as immanent and integral to the process of evolution itself, with evolution being an expression of Spirit rather than a process guided from outside.

Nature of Evolutionary Process:

Theistic Evolutionism: Often aligns closely with the scientific consensus, viewing evolution as a largely natural process.

Evolutionary Creationism: Also aligns with scientific consensus but incorporates a stronger emphasis on divine purpose and guidance.

Wilber's View: Adds a teleological and metaphysical dimension, suggesting that evolution is inherently directed towards higher complexity and consciousness.

Integration of Knowledge:

Theistic Evolutionism/Evolutionary Creationism: Typically focuses on integrating biblical or religious teachings with scientific findings.

Wilber's View: Seeks a broader integration that includes not just religious and scientific knowledge but also philosophical and spiritual insights from various traditions.

Conclusion

While theistic evolutionism and evolutionary creationism focus on harmonizing traditional religious beliefs with evolutionary science, Ken Wilber's integral approach offers a broader and more metaphysical perspective. Wilber's "creativism" suggests that evolution is driven by an inherent spiritual force aiming towards greater complexity and consciousness, presenting a holistic and teleological view that goes beyond the typical frameworks of theistic evolutionism and evolutionary creationism.

If evolution is an expression of Spirit, leading to more complexity and consciousness, where does that perspective leave room for death, decay and degeneration?

Ken Wilber's integral perspective on evolution, which views the process as an expression of Spirit leading to greater complexity and consciousness, does indeed leave room for death, decay, and degeneration. These phenomena are essential aspects of the evolutionary process and the broader dynamics of existence. Here's how Wilber's perspective accommodates these seemingly contradictory elements:

Integral Perspective on Death, Decay, and Degeneration

Polarity and Balance:

Complementary Opposites: Wilber's framework acknowledges the role of polarities in evolution. Life and death, growth and decay, are seen as complementary aspects of the same process. This dynamic tension is necessary for the ongoing evolution of the universe.

Creative Destruction: In the integral model, destruction and decay are not merely negative phenomena but are essential for making space for new growth and higher levels of complexity. This concept aligns with ideas in ecology and systems theory, where disturbances can lead to greater resilience and diversity.

Cycles and Transformation:

Cyclical Nature of Life: Evolutionary processes are often cyclical, involving phases of growth, stability, decay, and rebirth. Wilber's perspective incorporates this cyclical nature, recognizing that death and decay are parts of the cycles that enable new forms of life and consciousness to emerge.

Transformation through Suffering: Suffering, decay, and death can be seen as catalysts for transformation. They push organisms and systems to adapt, evolve, and transcend previous limitations. This aligns with the spiritual notion of growth through adversity.

Levels of Reality and Development:

Holarchical Development: Wilber's model posits that reality is composed of nested holons (wholes that are part of larger wholes). At each level of development, there are challenges and breakdowns that drive the evolution to the next level. Decay and degeneration at one level can be a prelude to the emergence of higher-order structures.

Integral Embrace of Impermanence: The concept of impermanence is integral to many spiritual traditions and is embraced in Wilber's model. Change, including the processes of decay and death, is a fundamental aspect of reality and a driving force behind evolution.

Spiritual and Existential Dimensions:

Existential Realities: Wilber's integral philosophy does not shy away from existential realities such as suffering, death, and impermanence. Instead, it seeks to understand and integrate these aspects into a comprehensive worldview.

Transcendence and Inclusion: Evolution involves the transcendence of previous forms and the inclusion of their positive aspects into new, higher-order structures. The negative aspects, such as decay and degeneration, are part of what is transcended and included in the ongoing evolutionary process.

Integration of Death and Decay in Evolution

Evolutionary Mechanisms:

Natural Selection: Death and decay play crucial roles in natural selection, where the demise of less adapted individuals allows for the survival and propagation of more adapted traits. This drives the evolutionary process towards greater adaptation and complexity.

Ecological Balance: In ecosystems, decay and decomposition are vital processes that recycle nutrients, supporting new growth and maintaining ecological balance.

Metaphysical Implications:

Growth through Negation: Philosophically, growth through negation suggests that the breakdown of old forms is necessary for the emergence of new, more complex forms. This is a fundamental principle in dialectical thinking and is reflected in Wilber's integral theory.

Spiritual Evolution: Spirit, as conceived by Wilber, evolves through the interplay of creation and destruction, mirroring the natural processes observed in the physical world. This view sees Spirit as encompassing all aspects of existence, including those that seem negative or destructive.

Conclusion

Ken Wilber's integral perspective on evolution allows for a nuanced understanding of death, decay, and degeneration as intrinsic and necessary parts of the evolutionary process. These elements are not seen as contradictions to the idea of evolution as an expression of Spirit but as essential dynamics that drive the ongoing development towards greater complexity and consciousness. In this view, the challenges and adversities of life, including death and decay, are integral to the transformative journey of evolution.

In this context, how should we understand Wilbers claim: "The whole notion of the universe as 'running down' is ridiculous."

Ken Wilber's claim that "the whole notion of the universe as 'running down' is ridiculous" can be understood within the context of his broader integral philosophy, which emphasizes an evolutionary process driven by Spirit or Eros towards increasing complexity and consciousness. Here's a detailed exploration of what he means by this statement:

Understanding Wilber's Claim

Critique of Entropic View:

Second Law of Thermodynamics: The idea that the universe is "running down" is often associated with the second law of thermodynamics, which states that in a closed system, entropy (disorder) tends to increase over time. This law implies that the universe is gradually moving towards a state of maximum entropy, where no useful energy remains to perform work.

Wilber's Perspective: Wilber challenges the interpretation that the entire universe is simply running down into disorder. He argues that this view is overly reductive and ignores the complementary processes of evolution and emergence, which are evident in the increasing complexity and organization of life and consciousness.

Evolution as a Counterbalance:

Emergence and Complexity: Wilber points to the phenomenon of emergence, where higher levels of complexity and order arise from simpler systems. Biological evolution, the development of ecosystems, and the emergence of human consciousness are examples of increasing complexity and organization.

Integral Evolution: In Wilber's view, evolution is not just a physical process but also a spiritual one. Spirit, or Eros, drives the universe towards greater depth, integration, and consciousness, counterbalancing the entropic tendency towards disorder.

Holistic View of the Universe:

Multi-Level Reality: Wilber's integral theory posits that reality is composed of multiple levels, including the physical, biological, mental, and spiritual. While entropy may apply to physical systems, it does not account for the creative and evolutionary processes occurring at higher levels of reality.

Non-Reductionist Approach: By rejecting a purely reductionist view, Wilber emphasizes the need to consider the universe in its totality, recognizing both the dissipative and creative aspects of existence.

Teleological Aspect:

Purpose and Direction: Wilber's integral philosophy incorporates a teleological aspect, suggesting that the universe has an inherent directionality towards increasing complexity and consciousness. This stands in contrast to the entropic view, which sees no inherent purpose or direction in the cosmos.

Creative Drive: The concept of Eros or Spirit as a driving force implies that the universe is fundamentally creative, continually giving rise to new forms and higher levels of organization.

Reconciling Entropy and Evolution

Local Decreases in Entropy:

Open Systems: While the second law of thermodynamics applies to closed systems, the Earth and living systems are not closed; they receive energy from the Sun. This influx of energy allows for local decreases in entropy, leading to the development of complex structures and life forms.

Dynamic Equilibrium: In open systems, there can be a dynamic equilibrium where energy flows and matter cycles through various states, leading to periods of growth and decay but overall increasing complexity and adaptability.

Creative Tension:

Dialectical Process: Wilber's view incorporates a dialectical process where growth and decay, creation and destruction, are seen as interdependent. This creative tension is what drives the evolution of more complex and integrated forms.

Holarchical Development: His concept of holarchical development suggests that each level of complexity transcends and includes the previous levels, leading to an ongoing evolutionary progression despite local instances of entropy and decay.

Conclusion

Ken Wilber's assertion that "the whole notion of the universe as 'running down' is ridiculous" reflects his integral view that evolution and the emergence of complexity are fundamental aspects of the universe, counterbalancing the entropic processes described by the second law of thermodynamics. Wilber argues for a more holistic understanding of the universe, recognizing the interplay between entropy and the creative drive of Spirit or Eros that leads to increasing complexity, organization, and consciousness. This perspective emphasizes the dynamic and evolving nature of the cosmos, where both decay and emergence are essential to the ongoing process of evolution.

In a more scientific understanding, increased complexity is possible in local areas, at the expense of an increase of entropy, by capturing energy flows from stars. Wilber doesn't seem to get this principle.

You're correct that scientifically, the increase in complexity and order in local systems, such as life on Earth, is possible due to the influx of energy, primarily from the Sun. This local increase in order is achieved at the expense of an overall increase in entropy in the universe. Here's a more detailed scientific explanation and how this principle might intersect with or differ from Ken Wilber's views:

Scientific Understanding of Complexity and Entropy

Second Law of Thermodynamics:

Entropy: The second law states that in a closed system, the total entropy tends to increase over time. Entropy can be understood as a measure of disorder or randomness.

Open Systems: The Earth is not a closed system; it receives energy from the Sun. This energy input allows for local decreases in entropy, leading to the development and maintenance of complex structures and life forms.

Energy Flows and Life:

Photosynthesis and Energy Capture: Plants capture solar energy through photosynthesis, converting it into chemical energy that fuels the growth and complexity of biological systems.

Energy Dissipation: While local systems (such as organisms) decrease in entropy, they do so by increasing the entropy of their surroundings. For example, the energy transformations in living organisms release heat, contributing to the overall increase in entropy in the universe.

Local Order at the Expense of Global Entropy:

Localized Complexity: Complex structures, from galaxies to ecosystems, can form and evolve in local regions by exploiting energy gradients. This local increase in order occurs with a compensating increase in disorder elsewhere.

Thermodynamic Imperatives: The creation and maintenance of local order are consistent with the second law of thermodynamics as long as the total entropy of the system and its environment increases.

Ken Wilber's Integral Perspective

Holistic and Teleological View:

Spirit and Eros: Wilber's integral theory posits that evolution is driven by an underlying spiritual force or principle (Spirit or Eros) that aims towards increasing complexity, integration, and consciousness.

Directionality: This view suggests an inherent direction or purpose in the evolutionary process, which is not typically addressed by purely scientific explanations of entropy and complexity.

Potential Misunderstandings:

Scientific Details: Critics like Frank Visser argue that Wilber may overlook or misunderstand some scientific principles, such as the detailed mechanisms of how local increases in complexity occur through energy capture and entropy management.

Integration vs. Misrepresentation: While Wilber aims to integrate scientific insights with a broader spiritual framework, there is a risk that this integration might sometimes lead to oversimplifications or misrepresentations of scientific concepts.

Reconciling the Views

Complementary Perspectives:

Scientific and Spiritual: The scientific understanding of complexity and entropy does not necessarily negate Wilber's integral perspective but rather provides a detailed mechanism for how local complexity arises. Wilber's view can be seen as adding a metaphysical layer to the scientific explanation.

Different Focuses: Science focuses on empirical, mechanistic explanations of how energy flows and entropy work, while Wilber's integral theory emphasizes the broader, holistic, and teleological aspects of evolution.

Potential Harmonization:

Energy and Spirit: One way to harmonize the views is to see the flow of energy that enables local complexity as a physical manifestation of the deeper, spiritual principles that Wilber advocates. The spiritual drive towards complexity and consciousness could be understood as working through the natural processes described by science.

Acknowledging Limitations: It's important for integrative theories like Wilber's to acknowledge and incorporate scientific principles accurately. Recognizing the role of energy flows and entropy management can strengthen the integrative approach.

Conclusion

Ken Wilber's assertion that the universe is not simply "running down" can be understood in the context of his integral philosophy, which emphasizes a broader, spiritual drive towards complexity and consciousness. However, from a scientific perspective, local increases in complexity are indeed possible due to energy flows from external sources like stars, and these processes are consistent with the second law of thermodynamics. A nuanced integration of these perspectives requires recognizing and accurately representing the scientific principles of entropy and energy while exploring their potential metaphysical implications.

Wilber seems to wobble between two views of Spirit: (1) as a principle behind everything in the universe and (2) as a principle leading to greater complexity and consciousness. How can both be true?

Ken Wilber's views on Spirit can indeed seem to oscillate between two interpretations: Spirit as a foundational principle behind everything in the universe, and Spirit as a guiding force specifically leading to greater complexity and consciousness. These perspectives can be reconciled by considering them as complementary aspects of a single, holistic understanding of Spirit in Wilber's integral theory. Here's how both views can coexist coherently:

Spirit as the Ground of All Being

Universal Foundation:

Immanence: In this view, Spirit is immanent, meaning it pervades all aspects of the universe. Everything that exists is an expression of Spirit. This is a panentheistic perspective, where Spirit is both within and beyond the universe.

Non-Duality: Wilber often speaks of non-dual awareness, where Spirit is the ultimate reality or ground of all being. From this perspective, everything—matter, life, mind, and consciousness—is a manifestation of the same underlying spiritual reality.

Spirit as the Evolutionary Drive

Evolutionary Principle:

Eros and Teleology: Here, Spirit is seen as the driving force behind evolution, propelling the universe towards greater complexity, integration, and consciousness. This view incorporates a teleological element, suggesting that evolution has an inherent purpose or direction guided by Spirit.

Emergent Complexity: As the universe evolves, new levels of complexity and higher forms of consciousness emerge, reflecting the dynamic and creative nature of Spirit.

Reconciliation of the Two Views

Unified Framework:

Holarchical Structure: Wilber's integral theory posits that reality consists of holons—wholes that are parts of larger wholes—in a nested hierarchy (holarchy). Spirit, as the ground of all being, manifests through these holarchical levels, from the simplest particles to the most complex forms of consciousness.

Dynamic Manifestation: Spirit as the ground of all being provides the static, foundational aspect, while Spirit as the evolutionary drive represents the dynamic, progressive aspect. Together, they depict a universe that is both grounded in a fundamental spiritual reality and actively evolving towards greater complexity and awareness.

Complementary Perspectives:

Static and Dynamic Aspects: By understanding Spirit in both static and dynamic terms, Wilber's view can accommodate the idea that Spirit is the ever-present ground of all existence (static) and also the force that drives the evolutionary process (dynamic).

Process Theology: This dual understanding is akin to process theology, which views God (or Spirit) as both the ground of being and an active participant in the unfolding of the universe.

Non-Dual Awareness and Evolution:

Non-Duality: In the state of non-dual awareness, one perceives the unity of all existence, where Spirit is recognized as the essence of everything. This aligns with the view of Spirit as the ground of all being.

Evolutionary Growth: Within the manifest world, Spirit is seen as driving the evolutionary process, leading to greater complexity and higher consciousness. This aligns with the view of Spirit as the evolutionary principle.

Practical Implications

Integration in Practice:

Meditative and Contemplative Practices: Practices that cultivate non-dual awareness help individuals experience Spirit as the ground of all being, fostering a sense of unity and interconnectedness.

Engagement with Evolution: Understanding Spirit as the evolutionary drive can inspire efforts towards personal and collective growth, ethical development, and ecological sustainability, seeing these as expressions of the unfolding of Spirit.

Theoretical Coherence:

Integral Philosophy: Wilber's integral philosophy aims to provide a comprehensive framework that integrates various dimensions of reality—matter, life, mind, and spirit. Recognizing both aspects of Spirit allows for a more nuanced and holistic understanding of the universe.

Conclusion

Ken Wilber's two views of Spirit—as the foundational principle behind everything in the universe and as the guiding force leading to greater complexity and consciousness—can be understood as complementary aspects of a single, integrated perspective. Spirit as the ground of all being represents the static, ever-present reality, while Spirit as the evolutionary drive represents the dynamic, progressive force. Together, these views offer a holistic understanding of the universe as both grounded in a fundamental spiritual essence and actively evolving towards greater levels of complexity and consciousness.

Yet, Wilber definitely claims explanatory capacity that is superior to science: "But the notion of a prior involutionary force does much to help with the otherwise impenetrable puzzles of Darwinian evolution, which has tried, ever-so-unsuccessfully, to explain why dirt would get right up and eventually start writing poetry."

Ken Wilber's assertion that an "involutionary force" helps solve puzzles that Darwinian evolution cannot, and his critique of science's ability to explain phenomena like the emergence of consciousness and culture, does raise important questions about the relationship between scientific and spiritual explanations. Here's a closer look at Wilber's claim and its implications for the scientific and philosophical discourse:

Wilber's Claim of Involutionary Force

Involution and Evolution:

Involution: Wilber introduces the concept of "involution" as a spiritual process that precedes and guides evolution. Involution is described as the descent of Spirit into the material world, embedding potentialities that later unfold through evolution.

Evolution: In his view, evolution is the unfolding or actualization of these potentialities, leading to increasing complexity and consciousness.

Critique of Darwinian Evolution:

Limitations of Science: Wilber argues that Darwinian evolution and natural selection, while explaining the mechanisms of biological change, do not fully account for the emergence of consciousness, culture, and higher levels of complexity.

Explanatory Power: He suggests that introducing a prior spiritual force provides a more comprehensive explanation, filling gaps that scientific explanations leave open.

Evaluating the Claims

Scientific Explanations:

Mechanistic and Empirical: Science explains the emergence of life and consciousness through empirical evidence and natural processes. Theories like natural selection, genetic variation, and the study of neural networks provide substantial insights into these phenomena.

Complexity and Emergence: Scientific theories of complexity, such as those from systems biology and neuroscience, explore how simple interactions can lead to complex emergent properties, including consciousness and culture.

Philosophical and Metaphysical Layers:

Metaphysical Additions: Wilber's involutionary force is a metaphysical addition, not an empirical one. It provides a philosophical or spiritual interpretation of why evolution progresses towards greater complexity and consciousness.

Purpose and Teleology: This approach introduces a sense of purpose or teleology, suggesting that evolution is guided by a pre-existing potential rather than being purely the result of random mutations and natural selection.

Reconciling Science and Spirituality

Complementarity vs. Superiority:

Complementary Approaches: A complementary approach respects the empirical basis of science while exploring additional philosophical or spiritual interpretations. This perspective views scientific and spiritual explanations as addressing different aspects of reality.

Claims of Superiority: Wilber's claim that his perspective offers a superior explanation can be contentious. It risks undermining scientific explanations by suggesting they are insufficient or incomplete without spiritual supplementation.

Epistemological Boundaries:

Different Domains: Science and spirituality often operate in different epistemological domains. Science focuses on empirical, testable phenomena, while spirituality deals with metaphysical and existential questions.

Respecting Boundaries: It is important to respect these boundaries and recognize the contributions of both without conflating them. Scientific explanations are robust within their domain, while spiritual interpretations offer meaning and context beyond empirical data.

Addressing Wilber's Critique

Emergence and Complexity in Science:

Scientific Progress: Advances in fields like complexity science, artificial intelligence, and cognitive neuroscience are increasingly explaining phenomena that once seemed impenetrable, such as the emergence of consciousness and complex behaviors.

Interdisciplinary Approaches: Interdisciplinary research combining biology, physics, psychology, and other fields continues to expand our understanding of evolution and consciousness.

Integrative Perspectives:

Holistic Understanding: Integrative approaches can enrich our understanding by combining scientific insights with philosophical reflections. However, these approaches should not claim empirical superiority but rather offer complementary perspectives.

Conclusion

Ken Wilber's assertion that an involutionary force offers a superior explanation to Darwinian evolution introduces a metaphysical dimension that he believes addresses the limitations of scientific explanations. While this can provide a broader interpretive framework, it is important to differentiate between empirical scientific explanations and metaphysical or spiritual interpretations. Respecting the strengths and boundaries of both domains allows for a more nuanced and integrative understanding of evolution, complexity, and consciousness. Such an approach fosters dialogue between science and spirituality without diminishing the empirical rigor of scientific inquiry.

NOTES

[1] For an inside view of the Integral Institute around that time, see Marco Morelli's blog "Integral and Me: A Brief (Partial, but True) History of My Years as a Meta-Revolutionary". Morelli is co-author of Integral Life Practice (2008). From which:

But Ken's take-down of these critics, where he suggested, among other things, that they (metaphorically) fellate his manhood, became a fault line within the community. It was harsh, sarcastic, funny, one might even say brilliant from a certain literary perspective… but also unfair and unbecoming of a leader of a global institution purporting to address the big, serious problems of our time.

[2] But see David Lane's classics: "Wilber and the Misunderstanding of Evolution" (1996, reposted 2006) and "Frisky Dirt: Why Ken Wilber's New Creationism is Pseudo-Science" (2011). From which:

I couldn't believe what I was reading, especially from a thinker I had so long admired. I thought to myself, Ah, no wonder Wilber isn't tackling the hard questions raised by Visser, Meyerhoff, and others. Wilber is more of a dyed in the wool creationist than I realized, even as he pretends (not so convincingly by the way) to be 'on top' of the latest research in biological evolution.