• 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).

Wilber and Novelistic Truth

Integral World Podcast #10

Frank Visser / NotebookLM

This is an informal, AI-generated conversation by Google's NotebookLM, based on "Wilber and Novelistic Truth" written by Andrea Diem-Lane in 2017.[1]

All right, let's dive in. We're looking at uh this article called "Novelistic truth" today.

Okay.

It's on the uh Integral World website written by Andrea Diem-Lane.

She's a philosophy professor and she's got this well kind of a bold idea.

Yeah.

She thinks Dan Brown's Origin, the thriller, you know, right, might actually be like more convincing about the origins of life than Ken Wilber's uh whole Eros theory. So, get ready to go deep on this one. right? It really makes you think about how these two works, even though they're totally different, tackle this huge question. Where did we come from?

Exactly. It's a question that's haunted humanity forever.

For sure. Okay. So, maybe first a quick recap of Origin for anyone who hasn't read it.

That's good.

So, I've got Robert Langdon, Dan Brown's uh, you know, famous symbologist.

Oh, yeah. He's like a recurring character.

He is. And in this book, he's trying to solve the mystery behind his friend's murder. Edmond Kirsch, a tech genius, right? But this isn't just any murder. Kirsch was on to something huge, like worldchanging.

Let me guess. It's about like the origin of life.

You got it. He basically figured out how life came from non-living stuff.

Whoa. That's uh that's a pretty big deal.

It is. And Brown uses this discovery to get into this whole debate between science and religion.

Ah, a classic conflict.

Totally. And the characters really embody those different sides.

I could see that.

You've got Kirsch, the hardcore atheist. Science is everything for him, right? Then there's Langdon, who's grappling with his own faith, trying to make sense of it all.

I mean, that's a struggle a lot of people probably face.

I think so. It's like, how do our beliefs hold up against scientific discoveries?

Yeah, that's a big one, especially when those discoveries kind of shake things up.

Absolutely. Okay, so let's get into the specifics of Kirsch's discovery.

All right, break it down for me.

So Kirsch, he's a computer scientist, built this incredibly advanced simulation, but it's based on like real science things like uh...

Oh, what was that experiment? Wait, are you thinking of the Miller-Urey one?

Yes, that's it. The one that showed like organic molecules could just form, you know, like in those early earth conditions. Crazy stuff.

Exactly.

So, Kirsch, he takes that idea and runs with it. His model shows how life itself could just emerge from the laws of physics. No creator needed.

So, that's where Diem-Lane gets hooked, right? like this fictional model feels more real, more grounded in actual science, she says, than Wilber's whole Eros theory, which to be fair, I don't think a lot of people fully grasp.

It's pretty dense, right?

Yeah. Want me to like give the super condensed version?

Please, that would be awesome.

All right. So, Ken Wilber, he's the philosopher who came up with like this integral theory thing supposed to be like a map of everything, all of reality, very. And within that, there's this concept of Eros. Eros like the Greek god of love sort of but more like a a fundamental drive in the universe towards complexity and consciousness.

So he sees that as the driving force of evolution.

Exactly. Guiding everything towards like a meaningful outcome, a purpose.

Ah so there's intentionality built into his theory then.

Totally. Whereas Kirsch's model is all about the physics. No guiding hand needed.

Wow. That's a pretty fundamental difference in how they see the universe for sure. One's got a purpose baked in. The other is more like a beautiful accident, right? And it makes you wonder which one is more accurate.

Well, that's the million-dollar question, isn't it?

It is. And Diem-Lane seems to be leaning towards the uh the beautiful accident side.

It's interesting, right? That a fictional character might be closer to the science.

I know. And Brown doesn't just pull this out of thin air. He actually uses real scientists like Jeremy England.

Oh, yeah. I've heard of him.

Didn't he have that idea about like a life being inevitable?

Yes. Dissipative adaptation. Something like that.

That's the one. He basically said life is as unsurprising as like rocks rolling downhill.

It's mindblowing, isn't it? That maybe life isn't this miracle, but just a consequence of how things work.

Totally changes your perspective.

You're right. Absolutely. And Diem-Lane points out that that has huge implications for how we see ourselves.

No kidding. If we're not the center of some Grand Design, where does that leave us?

Okay. Whoa. That's a lot to unpack right there.

It is. But before we go to too far down that rabbit hole...

Good point.

...I want to circle back to this science versus religion thing. Brown really plays with that through Langdon.

Oh, yeah. He's struggling with it the whole time, right?

Totally. And there's this key moment where he brings up this code versus pattern idea.

Okay. Tell me more about that.

So, he's arguing that a pattern like, you know, the way water swirls or clouds form, those can just happen randomly.

Okay.

But a code like DNA that suggests there's a designer behind it.

Like it's too complex to just arise by chance.

Exactly. He's saying there has to be some intelligence driving the complexity of life.

It's like he's saying you can't get that level of organization without some kind of plan.

Right. And that's where the whole Kirsch versus Wilber thing gets really interesting because Kirsch is all about those patterns emerging naturally.

Yeah. While Wilber's Eros, it's like that code Langdon's talking about.

So they're both looking for meaning in a way.

Exactly. Like Diem-Lane points out, both Wilber and Langdon, they reject that idea of a meaningless universe.

But isn't it possible we're kind of forcing meaning onto it?

Yeah.

Because we crave it.

That's a great question. And Diem-Lane, she doesn't shy away from that. Like, are we projecting our need for purpose, right? Because the universe itself maybe doesn't care.

And she brings up this quote from Steven Weinberg, a physicist. He says something like, "The more we understand the universe, the more pointless it seems."

Ooh, that's a bit harsh, isn't it?

It is kind of bleak, but it captures this feeling.

Like the more science reveals, the less magical it gets.

Yeah. And that can be unsettling. Like we want to feel special, you know?

Totally. It's comforting to think there's some grand plan we're part of.

Absolutely. And both Wilber and Landon, they're pushing back against that pointlessness.

Even though one's a philosopher and the other's well, a character in a book.

Exactly. They're both searching for that code, that reason behind it all.

But what if, and maybe this is a stretch, what if the meaning isn't out there to find.

You're saying what if we have to make it ourselves?

Yeah. Like maybe it's not about discovering the universe's purpose, but creating our own.

I like that. And honestly, it ties into something Diem-Lane talks about with Wilber supporters.

Oh yeah. What's that?

There's this guy Jack Crittenden. He claims we only have three choices these days.

Three choices for what?

For understanding the world. Aristotle, Nietzsche, or Ken Wilber.

Whoa, hold on. So he's saying those are the only valid options?

That's what it sounds like. But Diem-Lane, she pushes back hard against that.

Good. It feels kind of limiting, doesn't it? Like we have to fit into these pre-made boxes, right? And she's suggesting maybe we need to look beyond traditional philosophy even.

So is that where Dan Brown comes in?

It is. She thinks Kirsch, even as a fictional dude, might offer a more compelling vision than Wilber. Why is that?

Because Kirsch embraces science and tech like he sees them shaping our future instead of just trying to explain the past. Yeah, Kirsch is all about this future where we merge with tech, AI becomes part of us.

Whoa, that's getting into some sci-fi territory.

It is. But it raises these huge questions that Diem-Lane wants us to think about.

Like, what does being human even mean if we're part machine?

Exactly. Our sense of self, our values, all that gets way more complicated.

It's not just about our biology anymore, right? It becomes about the choices we make, the meaning we create in this new world.

It's almost like Kirsch is taking science to its ultimate conclusion. You know, if the universe is just physics, maybe we become the physics in a way.

It's mind-blowing, but also kind of scary, right?

Definitely. And Diem-Lane, she's not giving us answers. More like, "Hey, think about this."

Which is honestly what good sci-fi does best.

Makes you question everything you thought you knew.

I'm starting to see why Diem-Lane found Origin so powerful. It's more than just a story.

It's like a thought experiment about the future of humanity.

And maybe that's where its truth lies, not in the science itself. But in the questions it raises.

Exactly. And sometimes fiction can get us thinking in ways that non-fiction just can't.

Yeah. It's making me rethink my whole to read list. Maybe bump Origin up a few spots.

Seriously, it's worth it. And hey, while you're at it, maybe check out some Ken Wilber, too.

Okay.

It's fascinating seeing these two minds, novelist and philosopher, asking the same big questions.

It really highlights that, you know, it's not just about the answers, it's about the questions themselves.

Totally. And I keep thinking about that Weineberg quote, the universe being pointless.

Yeah, it stuck with me, too.

But what if, and maybe this is me being optimistic,

I'm listening...

What if the search for meaning isn't about finding something out there?

Okay.

What if it's about creating it ourselves? Like the meaning isn't inherent. We make it.

That's a shift in perspective.

It is. And it kind of connects to what Diem-Lane says.

Wilber and Langdon both reject that meaningless universe.

They do. Even though they come at it from such different angles, right? They're both seeking that code, that purpose, even if it's something we bring to the universe, not find in it.

So maybe it's not about the universe having a purpose, but us living purposefully.

Exactly. And that idea, it becomes even stronger when you think about Kirsch's vision of the future.

Oh, right. With the whole merging with tech, becoming part machine.

Yeah. If that's where we're headed, the question of what is human gets even bigger because it's not about our bodies anymore. It's about like our essence, right? Our choices, our values, what we create, that's what defines us.

Then that's a lot of responsibility.

In a way, it is. And that's where Diem-Lane's article really gets to me. It's not just about comparing theories.

It's about what kind of future we're building.

Exactly. And what role will tech play in all that heavy stuff.

It is, but it's exciting too in a way to have that power, you know, to shape our own destiny.

Absolutely. And maybe that's the real point of Origin, not the science itself, but the conversation it sparks.

Yeah, making us think about these big ideas in new ways, which is honestly what we're trying to do here with these deep dives, too.

For sure. Exposing people to cool ideas, challenging assumptions, getting those brain juices flowing.

Exactly. So, to sum it all up, Andrea Diem-Lane, she makes this bold claim. That a Dan Brown book might have more to say about the origins of life than like serious philosophy.

It's a provocative idea. Whether you buy it or not, she makes you think about science, religion, even the role of stories and how we understand the world.

And as always, we want you to decide for yourself what stood out to you.

What made you go, "Hm, never thought of it that way."

We always say check out the source material, Novelistic truth, on the Integral World site.

And of course, Dan Brown's Origin. If you're up for a thriller, that'll make you think.

So, until next time, keep diving deep, keep those minds engaged, and keep searching for those truths wherever they may be hiding.

REFERENCES

[1] Andrea Diem-Lane, ""Novelistic Truth, Comparing Ken Wilber's Eros Theory with Dan Brown's Latest Fictional Narrative, Origin", www.integralworld.net, 2010.