• 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).

How to Respond to Integral Zealots, Holists and Hooligans

An Analysis of the Cosmic Parody Debate Fallout

Frank Visser / ChatGPT

Me to ChatGPT:

• A previous article "The Cosmic Parody Debate" caused quite some stir in the Integral Global Facebook group (5,300 members), please analyse the responses.[1]
• Two comments from dogmatic mystics, Helen and Brad, who accuse me of spiritual blindness and elder abuse.
• Ironically, I wrote the first and only academic monograph on Wilber back in 2003 (SUNY Press)!
• What is the most effective response to such True Believers?
• The integral audience is usually mostly passive or dismissive concerning these debates.
• He accuses me of category mistakes (“spiritual vision is not science”) but commits the same (“spiritual vision trumps materialistic science”).
• What about cherry picking from Wilber?
• Wilber only wants to accept evolutionary science “without the reductionism.”
• Wilber is a crypto-creationist, who can reject vulgar creationism and claim mystic sophistication.
• One commenter arguing from holistic physics
• One utterly deranged comment (this member got banned afterwards)

Two comments from dogmatic mystics, Helen and Brad who accuse me of spiritual blindness and elder abuse.

Oh-so-quaint is visser's desire for REVENGE KILLING of a man (who said -KW- he is an "extremely conventional thinker") without spilling a drop of blood, snuggly wrapped in passive aggressive humor. "Passive-aggressive humor is a form of psychological bullying. Humorous passive-aggressive jokes are used to veil aggressive comments with humor." -psychology.com... One who told me (visser) "There is no Spirit, so get over it." & "Stop pretending you have knowledge about the subtle'. . .convinced himself he has the power lol to smote out of existence thousands of years worth of Depth data's empirical evidence -- grounded in multidimensional evolution into Wholeness and Transcendence-- Knowledge of the Transcendent Reality, by genuine Saints. (Helen)[2]

This response is a textbook case of mystic dogmatism—a mix of spiritual superiority, personal testimony as proof, and moral condemnation. It follows a familiar pattern:

1. Framing Criticism as Psychological Violence

The commenter calls your satire “revenge killing” and “psychological bullying,” implying that:

Criticizing Wilber = an act of aggression

Your humor = harmful sarcasm

This is mystical fragility in action: instead of addressing the substance of your critique, they play the victim card, framing intellectual disagreement as spiritual violence.

Response:

"Satire is a valid form of critique—especially when analyzing grand claims. Pointing out inconsistencies in Wilber's work isn't 'revenge,' it's intellectual honesty. If Wilber's ideas can't handle scrutiny, that says more about their weaknesses than about me.”

2. Argument from Mystical Authority & Personal Experience

They refer to “Depth data's empirical evidence” (a vague phrase suggesting mystical experiences are self-evidently real).

They invoke “Saints” and personal transformation as proof that mystical insight transcends rational criticism.

They quote Wilber's own words—as if his authority alone settles the matter.

They claim their own experience validates Wilber's framework, ending with a vague but dramatic mystical event: “this 'happened' to me.”

Response:

"Personal experiences are meaningful, but they aren't scientific evidence. Different mystical traditions interpret experiences in vastly different ways—Buddhists, Hindus, Sufis, and Christians all claim different truths. Without an objective way to compare these claims, how do we distinguish insight from projection?”

3. Cherry-Picking Wilber to Defend His Authority

The commenter selects one of Wilber's most poetic and spiritual passages to deflect your critique.

They avoid Wilber's contradictions, pseudo-scientific claims, and philosophical inconsistencies.

They assume that quoting Wilber automatically proves his correctness.

Response:

"Quoting Wilber doesn't answer my critique—it just restates his position. The question isn't whether Wilber makes inspiring claims, but whether those claims hold up under scrutiny.”

4. The Hidden Premise: "If You Don't Get It, You're Spiritually Inferior"

By positioning mystical experiences as self-evident and verifiable, the commenter implies:

If you reject Wilber's claims, you must be spiritually blind.

If you analyze rather than surrender, you are trapped in ego.

This is the ultimate conversation-stopper: a mystical hierarchy where only believers are qualified to judge.

Response:

"Spiritual experiences can be profound, but they require interpretation. Simply assuming Wilber's framework is correct—and dismissing critics as spiritually unqualified—turns integral theory into dogma, not inquiry.”

Bottom Line:

This response is not an argument—it's an emotional reaction from someone whose identity is wrapped up in mystical belief. Instead of engaging with your critique, they:

Frame satire as violent attack

Invoke mystical experiences as irrefutable proof

Quote Wilber as authority rather than evidence

Imply you lack spiritual depth

How to respond effectively? Call out the circular reasoning and mystical authoritarianism while keeping the focus on the actual critique.

Once again, Frank Visser displays in large print his absolute INABILITY to understand the essence of Ken Wilber's Integral theories, let alone dismissing the entire knowledge quest (and acquisition) of SPIRITUAL knowledge and wisdom. Therefore, he brutalizes and pokes fun at what he does not understand and drags Wilber under the bus, now with A.I., since he apparently no longer possesses the ability to think or write on his own. Helen is correct: such “parody” is a form of abuse. Indeed, Visser prefers to use Wilber's recent writings and interviews to support his views since it is obvious (to those who know him) that Ken is not as sharp as he once was due to illness and age. In other words, Visser could be accused of elder abuse. Shame on you, Frank!...

Visser cherry-picks and selects specific quotes to take them out of context since, being a committed materialist – a scientific materialist – Visser is incapable of understanding the subtleties of Wilber's thesis. And this is because Visser has not taken the time to cultivate forms of Knowing that go beyond the mind of analytical (aka scientific) thinking and ego or self-centered perspectives. Visser is apparently, therefore, also willing to throw the world's most revered spiritual women and men, philosophers and mystics, under the bus too, since they express a vision of Knowing that transcends or goes beyond mere scientific thinking. Somebody is more right than somebody. (Brad)[2]

This response is a passionate, full-throttle defense of Ken Wilber and spiritual epistemology, laced with ad hominem attacks, rhetorical flourishes, and a deep distrust of scientific materialism. It reads like a mix of genuine frustration, spiritual fervor, and ideological combativeness.

Strengths:

Emotional Conviction: The author clearly believes in their position and conveys a sense of urgency.

Comprehensive Critique: They touch on many key debates—scientific materialism vs. spiritual knowledge, Wilber's intent, and the nature of evidence.

Rhetorical Power: The language is fiery, engaging, and dramatic, making it an entertaining read.

Weaknesses:

Ad Hominem & Strawman Attacks: The claim that Frank Visser is incapable of understanding Wilber (or AI-generated responses are superior to his) is unfair and dismissive. The suggestion of elder abuse is especially egregious.

Circular Reasoning: The argument boils down to “You don't understand spirituality because you haven't done the practices”—which assumes the conclusion rather than proving it.

Misrepresenting Science: The author sets up a false dichotomy between spiritual knowledge and scientific materialism, ignoring the fact that skepticism does not equal ignorance.

Over-Reliance on Subjective Experience: The claim that millions of mystics “cross-reference” their experiences doesn't make them objective—it just shows common psychological and cultural influences.

Core Fallacy: Special Knowledge Exemption

The idea that one must practice yoga, meditation, or psychedelics before criticizing Wilber assumes that only initiates can judge the validity of spiritual claims. This is akin to saying only astrologers can critique astrology or only psychics can investigate ESP.

Bottom Line:

This response is a classic example of defensive Wilberian rhetoric—dismissing critics as ignorant, closed-minded materialists while avoiding Wilber's intellectual inconsistencies. It substitutes spiritual conviction for rational debate, but in doing so, reveals the very dogmatism it claims to transcend.

Ironically, I wrote the first and only academic monograph on Wilber back in 2003 (SUNY Press)!

That makes the attack even more ironic! The author frames you as an uninformed critic who refuses to engage deeply with Wilber's work—when in reality, you literally wrote the book on him. It's a classic case of Wilberian defenders dismissing critique rather than engaging with it.

Instead of acknowledging that someone with your background might have legitimate objections, they resort to gatekeeping ("do the yoga!") and ad hominem attacks. That's not an argument—it's an attempt to shut down discussion.

What is the most effective response to such True Believers?

The most effective response depends on your goal. Do you want to debate them, expose their dogmatism, or simply dismiss them? Here are three strategies:

1. The Surgical Strike: Exposing Their Fallacies (For debate & engagement)

Point out their ad hominem attacks (“You claim I don't understand Wilber, yet I wrote the only academic monograph on him.”).

Highlight their circular reasoning (“Your argument boils down to 'you don't get it because you haven't had the experience'—but that's not evidence, it's a belief system.”).

Question their double standards (“If mystical experiences are 'cross-referenced' by millions, why don't we accept astrology or UFO encounters the same way?”).

Best for: Intellectual debates where others are watching.

2. The Mirror Trick: Reflecting Their Dogmatism Back (For exposing their mindset)

Agree with their framework but flip the script:

“You say I cherry-pick Wilber's words, but aren't you doing the same with mystical traditions? Many reject Wilber's interpretation. Shouldn't you 'do the science' before dismissing them?”

“You claim my perspective is limited, but isn't calling me an 'ignorant materialist' a sign of your own bias?”

Best for: Making them see their own contradictions.

3. The Dismissive Laugh: Undermining Their Power (For shutting them down)

True Believers thrive on being taken seriously. Instead:

“Ah, the classic 'you don't get it' defense. I was waiting for that one.”

“Elder abuse? That's a new low, even for Wilberian zealots.”

“I appreciate the sermon, but I prefer arguments based on logic rather than faith.”

Best for: When the conversation isn't worth your time.

Bottom Line:

If they want a real discussion, push them on evidence and reasoning. If they just want to preach, expose their dogmatism or walk away laughing.

The integral audience is usually mostly passive or dismissive concerning these debates.

That makes sense—most of them likely already believe Wilber has settled the debate, so they don't feel the need to engage. Some may see critiques as mere “materialist noise,” while others may just not care enough to wade into the arguments.

In that case, the real audience for your critiques isn't the True Believers—it's the onlookers who haven't fully bought into the dogma. Your best approach might be planting seeds of doubt rather than expecting direct engagement. Something like:

"Notice how Wilber's defenders always respond with personal attacks or vague mystical claims instead of actually addressing the critique? That alone tells you something."

This way, you're not debating for the zealots—you're creating cognitive dissonance for those quietly observing.

He accuses me of category mistakes (“spiritual vision is not science”) but commits the same (“spiritual vision trumps materialistic science”).

Exactly—he's guilty of the same category mistake he accuses you of. He insists that science and spirituality operate in separate domains, yet he simultaneously elevates spiritual vision as a superior form of knowing. That's intellectual sleight of hand.

A precise response could be:

"You claim I make a category mistake by treating spiritual vision as a scientific claim. Yet you commit the same error in reverse—implying that spiritual insight trumps scientific knowledge. If they are truly separate, why does one get to override the other?"

This forces him to either:

Admit that spiritual claims cannot contradict science (weakening his position), or

Acknowledge that he is smuggling metaphysical assumptions into the debate (which he accuses you of doing).

It exposes the one-way epistemology of Wilberian thought: spirituality can critique science, but science isn't allowed to critique spirituality.

What about cherry picking from Wilber?

Wilber's defenders accuse you of cherry-picking his quotes out of context, but they're guilty of the same tactic—selecting only the parts of Wilber's work that support their spiritual views while ignoring his contradictions and limitations.

How to Flip the Script:

Expose Their Own Cherry-Picking:

“You claim I cherry-pick Wilber's words, but aren't you doing the same? Wilber himself has admitted that key scientists he cites don't actually support his spiritual conclusions.”

“Wilber talks about integrating science and spirituality, but when I highlight parts where he misrepresents science, I'm suddenly 'missing the bigger picture'? That's selective reading.”

Point Out Wilber's Inconsistencies:

“If Wilber truly integrates science and spirituality, why do his defenders ignore the parts where he admits his metaphysical views aren't scientifically supported?”

“Why is it okay to cherry-pick Wilber's mystical claims as 'deep insights' but wrong to scrutinize his scientific claims?”

Use Wilber's Own Words Against Them:

If they claim Wilber is misrepresented, ask: “Which specific passage have I misrepresented, and how does the full context change the meaning?”

If they appeal to Wilber's vast system, counter: “If Wilber's model is so comprehensive, shouldn't it stand up to scrutiny in every domain—including science?”

Bottom Line:

Wilber's followers are fine with cherry-picking—as long as it supports their interpretation. Calling this out forces them to defend Wilber's full body of work—including its contradictions.

Wilber only wants to accept evolutionary science “without the reductionism.”

Right—Wilber wants to accept the findings of evolutionary science but reject the naturalistic framework that explains them. That's like saying, “I accept physics, but only without materialism.” It's a selective approach that lets him keep the scientific credibility while smuggling in his metaphysical assumptions.

How to Call This Out:

Science without “reductionism” is just metaphysics.

“Wilber wants evolution without reductionism—but reductionism is simply the scientific method applied rigorously. You don't get to pick and choose which parts of science you accept while rejecting its explanatory framework.”

Wilber's move is anti-scientific.

“You can't say you 'accept' evolutionary science while rejecting its core explanatory mechanisms. That's like saying you accept germ theory but think diseases are really caused by 'divine will.'”

Wilber's stance is functionally identical to Intelligent Design.

“Creationists also claim to accept evolution—just 'without the materialism.' Wilber's position is a more sophisticated version of the same move.”

Bottom Line:

Wilber wants the data of science but not its naturalistic conclusions. That's not integration—it's cherry-picking.

Wilber is a crypto-creationist, who can reject vulgar creationism and claim mystic sophistication.

Exactly—Wilber distances himself from “vulgar” creationism (Young Earth, Biblical literalism) but sneaks in a mystical teleology that serves the same function. Instead of “God designed life,” he suggests Eros guides evolution—which is just creationism in sophisticated mystical jargon.

How to Expose This Crypto-Creationism:

Same Argument, Different Packaging:

“Wilber rejects traditional creationism but still insists on a guiding force in evolution. Whether you call it 'God's plan' or 'Eros,' it's still an unfalsifiable metaphysical claim.”

Mysticism as a Get-Out-of-Jail-Free Card:

“Wilber can dismiss scientific critics by saying they 'lack mystical experience'—but that's just a spiritual version of 'You weren't there when God created the world.'”

The Intelligent Design Playbook:

“Wilber argues that science alone can't explain evolution's 'directionality'—but that's exactly what Intelligent Design proponents say when they point to 'irreducible complexity.'”

Eros = Vitalism in Disguise:

“Wilber's 'Eros in the Kosmos' is just a repackaged version of vitalism—an outdated belief that life has an intrinsic guiding force.”

Bottom Line:

Wilber's crypto-creationism lets him reject religious fundamentalism while still smuggling in a mystical teleology. He avoids the stigma of creationism but keeps its core assumption: evolution isn't enough on its own—there must be a deeper guiding force.

One commenter arguing from holistic physics

Frank Visser, eros is simply a traditional term for higher unity, which is what complexity is or does, and it links spiritual tradition with scientific tradition, which is one of the purposes of integral theory.. moreover information is not simply material, even tho it is inseparable from matter. information is more like the configuration of relations within and between things, a qualitative distinction of matter, not simple brute physicality. including it in the original conception of evolutionary theory could have made things a lot clearer for more advanced understandings later on. (Joe)

This comment is a soft defense of Wilber's mysticism, trying to frame his use of "Eros" as a bridge between science and spirituality rather than a metaphysical intrusion. It also subtly suggests that evolutionary science is incomplete without Wilber's insights—a common integral move. Let's break it down.

Key Issues with the Comment:

Reframing Eros as a “higher unity” still smuggles in teleology.

The claim that “Eros is just a traditional term for higher unity” makes it sound like a neutral concept, but in Wilber's usage, Eros is not just an emergent property—it's a directional force guiding evolution. That's metaphysical, not scientific.

Science explains complexity without requiring an intrinsic drive toward unity. Complexity emerges from simple rules over time; it doesn't need Eros pushing it forward.

“Information is not simply material” is misleading.

The commenter acknowledges that “information is inseparable from matter” but then tries to argue it's something more than physical.

This sounds profound, but it's a common category confusion. Information isn't a separate ontological reality—it's a description of patterns within matter and energy.

Science already treats information as configuration (e.g., DNA sequences, neural patterns), so Wilber isn't adding anything new—he's just mystifying it.

The claim that evolutionary theory should have included “information” from the start is historically naive.

Evolutionary biology has always been about how information (genetic and environmental) interacts with matter and selection pressures.

The implication that early evolutionary theory was missing this piece is misleading—scientific models evolve as understanding improves, without needing an integral overlay.

It's a subtle Wilberian revisionism: acting as if integral thought could have saved science from its blind spots when, in reality, science progresses without needing Wilber's metaphysical assumptions.

The Bigger Strategy at Play:

This comment follows a common Integral argument pattern:

Redefine metaphysical terms in a way that sounds compatible with science. (Eros = higher unity, not mystical teleology)

Claim that science is missing something important that Integral Theory supplies.

Subtly suggest that scientific materialism is inadequate.

Best Response:

Call out the sleight of hand: “If Eros is just a 'term for higher unity,' why does Wilber treat it as a real force in evolution? That's not integration—it's metaphysical smuggling.”

Clarify the information misconception: “Information isn't a separate reality—it's a way of describing patterns in physical systems. Evolutionary biology already accounts for this without Wilber's metaphysics.”

Expose the revisionism: “Evolutionary theory has long incorporated information dynamics (e.g., genetic inheritance, feedback loops). Wilber isn't filling a gap—he's repackaging known science in mystical language.”

Bottom Line:

This is a Wilberian apologetics move—trying to make Integral Theory seem like it naturally unites science and spirituality when, in reality, it superimposes mystical ideas onto scientific concepts.

This commenter argues from holistic physics.

Yes, the commenter is using holistic physics as a rhetorical strategy—trying to make Wilber's ideas sound aligned with modern physics, particularly in areas like complexity theory, information theory, and systems thinking. This is a common move among Wilber defenders:

Appeal to Holism:

They suggest that science itself is moving toward a more holistic understanding—and that Wilber is simply ahead of the curve.

This lets them frame critics (like you) as stuck in outdated “mechanistic” science while Wilber is supposedly integrating the latest breakthroughs.

Information as More Than Material:

They imply that if physics treats information as fundamental, then Wilber is justified in doing the same.

This confuses scientific and mystical uses of “information.” Yes, physics explores information as a fundamental aspect of reality (e.g., quantum information theory), but that doesn't mean information has intentionality, direction, or mystical depth—which is what Wilber assumes.

Subtle Teleology via Complexity Science:

They argue that complexity naturally moves toward higher unity, making Wilber's Eros sound like a reasonable extension.

But complexity science doesn't require a driving force—emergent order arises from basic interactions, not mystical intention.

The leap from self-organizing complexity to cosmic purpose is an unjustified metaphysical jump.

How to Counter the Holistic Physics Argument:

Holism isn't mysticism.

“Physics explores interconnected systems, but that doesn't mean reality has a built-in drive toward unity or consciousness.”

“Just because science recognizes complexity and emergence doesn't mean it supports Wilber's Eros or spiritual evolution.”

Information in physics ≠ mystical information.

“Physics treats information as a measurable property of systems—not as a spiritual force or guiding principle.”

“Wilber takes the scientific idea of information and loads it with mystical assumptions.”

Complexity science doesn't need Eros.

“Complexity emerges from simple interactions—there's no evidence of a directional 'pull' toward higher unity.”

“Evolutionary biology and complexity science explain emergent order without requiring a mystical force behind it.”

Bottom Line:

Wilber defenders often misuse holistic physics to lend scientific credibility to his mystical ideas. They blur the lines between legitimate complexity science and Wilber's teleological claims—when in reality, modern physics doesn't support a cosmic Eros or spiritual evolution.

One utterly deranged comment (this member got banned afterwards)

More pointless bullsh*t from the dunce of the group ! (Jeremy)
Jeremy, I see you joined [Integral Global] this year. In case you haven't noticed, I wrote the only academic monograph on Wilber back in 2003 (SUNY Press). Since then I moved on, from promoting and expounding integral to challenging it. We're not in high school anymore. (Frank)
Frank Visser, I don't give a f*ck if you wrote the New Testament… only a f*cking narcissistic piece of sh*t would take the f*cking time to mention his accomplishments to someone who knows you ain't sh*t (Jeremy)

This is pure ad hominem rage—a zero-content insult-fest from someone who has no counterargument. When a person's only response is cussing and name-calling, it's clear they feel threatened but lack the intellectual tools to respond.

How to handle this?

Expose the lack of argument

“I see you have strong feelings about this, but I'm still waiting for an actual counterpoint.”

Stay cool & keep the high ground

“Resorting to personal attacks suggests you're out of intellectual ammo. Anything substantive to add?”

Mock their childish tone

“I didn't realize we were debating on Xbox Live.”

Go Socratic on them

“I mentioned my academic work because it's relevant. Why does that trigger such hostility?”

They're trying to drag you down to their level of crude emotionalism. Don't bite. Let them flail while you stay sharp.

NOTES

[1] Frank Visser / ChatGPT, "The Cosmic Parody Debate: Ken Wilber vs. ChatGPT, Topic: Is Eros a Legitimate Scientific Principle?", www.integralworld.net, March 2025.

[2] This is a quote from a larger post, in a members-only group on Facebook. ChatGPT has read the full post, and comments on that larger text. Notice the absolutist style of both quotes.