• 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).

Eros and Evolution Redux

An Analysis of the Integral Stage Interview

Frank Visser / NotebookLM

• Briefing Document: "Eros and Evolution" Discussion
• Key Points and Core Ideas
• Frequently Asked Questions about Eros and Evolution in Integral Theory
• Criticism of Wilber's Eros and Evolutionary Thinking
• What fundamental disagreements exist between Wilber's ideas about Eros and evolution and more naturalistic perspectives?
• What do Pascal and Visser propose to improve the relationship between Integral thinking and science?
• Why is Visser critical of Wilber's scientific expertise?
• What role could a secular approach play within Integral Theory?
• How do Pascal and Visser see possible connections between Integral Theory and evolutionary science?
• What is Pascal's opinion about Visser's reputation?

Briefing Document: "Eros and Evolution" Discussion

Source: Excerpts from “Eros and Evolution: Discussing one of the most un-debated topics in the integral world; Is there a universal, spiritual drive towards increasing complexity and consciousness? Is there any place for Eros in evolution?” by Frank Visser and Layman Pascal, originally posted on Integral Stage, Facebook, June 26, 2019, and archived at Integral World: Exploring Theories of Everything.

Authors: Frank Visser (cultural and religious psychologist, founder of IntegralWorld) and Layman Pascal (public speaker, nondual theologian, and yoga & meditation teacher).

Moderator: Bruce Alderman

Purpose of this Document:

To provide an overview of the key themes, ideas, and facts discussed in the source text, with a focus on the critical debate around Ken Wilber's concept of “Eros” in relation to evolution and science.

Key Points and Core Ideas:

The central question of the discussion is whether there exists a universal, spiritual force (Eros) driving evolution toward increasing complexity and consciousness, as posited by Ken Wilber. Frank Visser strongly criticizes this idea, while Layman Pascal adopts a more nuanced approach, exploring possible interpretations and connections with scientific perspectives.

1. Critique of Wilber's “Eros” as an Evolutionary Theory

Visser's Position:

Visser argues that Wilber's concept of Eros is not a scientific theory of evolution, but rather a form of “evolutionary theology.” He sees Eros as an ambiguous idea (is it a metaphor, theory, or meta-theory?) that is unjustifiably mixed into empirical scientific discourse.

Visser quote: “Eros, is it a theory, is it a meta-theory, is it a metaphor?”

Visser quote: “So Wilber, instead of having an evolutionary theory he has an evolutionary theology.”

Visser quote: “I have nothing against poetry if it's clear from the start that it is meant to be poetry. But if it's mixed with empirical questions then it is basically without meaning to me.”

Visser critiques Wilber's tendency to mystify complexity and invoke Eros as a cause instead of relying on scientific explanations.

Visser quote: “Every complexity for him is a mystery. As if he says, hey, there are molecules, and a boundary drops around them and they become cells. He is mystifying every step in the process.”

Visser considers Wilber's perspective a form of creationism, replacing God with “Spirit” as a necessary agent behind complexity and evolution.

Visser quote: “And Wilber is a creationist as far as I am concerned. The only difference is, his God is different than Jehovah but in terms of logic and argument he is a creationist.”

Visser highlights Wilber's lack of expertise in evolutionary science and his dismissive attitude toward mainstream scientific theories (such as neo-Darwinism), noting his uncritical embrace of Intelligent Design critiques.

Visser quote: “The issue is that the central metaphor for integral Theory, evolution, is taken up from a field of science in which he has shown to have almost no expertise. For me that's an odd thing.”

2. Pascal's More Nuanced Stance

Pascal acknowledges the ambiguity surrounding the concept of Eros and the conflation of different levels of discussion within integral theory. He sees value in Eros as a poetic metaphor and as a possible indicator of some as-yet-unknown form of energy or cosmic predisposition.

Pascal quote: “One is as a poetic metaphor for the complexity of the cosmos. It's like, almost like a placeholder for getting me emotionally involved in studying that stuff.”

Pascal quote: “There's also a possibility that we could think towards whether there is or is not some additional energy or some additional way of thinking about energy that might have consequences for organic development.”

Pascal quote: “There's a sense in which we could think about the preconditions of reality as having a slant or a skewing which makes certain kinds of evolutionary trajectories more probable than they otherwise might be.”

Pascal agrees with Visser that Wilber's articulation of Eros often carries a dismissive attitude toward science and that invoking a force external to the system is problematic.

Pascal quote: “I think Wilber's ideas are probably a little bit sharper than his actual articulation but I definitely see his articulation has a penchant for a dismissive or denigrating attitude towards some of the findings of the sciences.”

Pascal suggests that Eros-related concepts are not yet sufficiently formulated to engage with science but sees potential for turning them into testable scientific hypotheses.

Pascal quote: “I think the concepts of Eros have not been formulated in such a way that they can approach the science yet, right.”

Pascal quote: “Likewise, the idea that the cosmos itself, reality itself, you know, outside of the terrain of biological evolution, contains certain patterns and certain structures that still changes over time in a particular direction. That might be a scientifically verifiable hypothesis.”

Pascal calls for clearer distinctions between the domains of science, philosophy, and spirituality within integral theory.

Pascal quote: “I agree! I think there's a lot of unclarity about the boundaries of what these discussions are.”

3. The Role of Science and Reductionism

Visser emphasizes the success of scientific, often “reductionist,” explanations in understanding complexity in nature. He sees Wilber's rejection of reductionism as a denial of the power of scientific analysis.

Visser quote: “In almost all cases which Wilber uses as example so many more interesting scientific, reductionistic if you want, explanations at hand that it becomes for me a meaningless exercise to repeat again and again there's an Eros in the cosmos.”

Visser quote: “All the significant discoveries in that field have been done by reductionist means.”

Pascal believes that “reductionism” has a bad reputation in the integral community, even though integral theory aims to validate multiple domains. Still, he acknowledges the power of reductionism within specific scientific areas.

Pascal quote: “When you say 'reductionism' you mean; don't throw out this domain like we're looking at this domain. We're against reductionism in that sense but a particular domain reductionism is a very beautiful and powerful thing which we see in the material sciences.”

4. Alternative Perspectives and Ideas

The debate touches on Lamarckism vs. Darwinism, with Visser arguing that Wilber's views align more with pre-Darwinian “transformational” ideas than Darwin's “variationist” natural selection.

The role of self-organization (Kauffman, Prigogine) is briefly mentioned, with Visser noting it complements natural selection but does not require a spiritual explanation.

The four quadrants of integral theory are mentioned, with Visser suggesting they may be useful for classifying theories, but should be separated from the concept of Eros as a cosmic force.

Layman Pascal introduces the idea of “sacred naturalism” as a possible direction for integral theory—recognizing the depth and richness of nature itself without invoking transcendent, mysterious forces.

5. The State of the Integral Community and Critical Dialogue

Visser expresses frustration at the lack of serious, scientifically grounded discussion within the integral community regarding evolution and the role of Eros. He notes a lack of expertise and interest in critically examining Wilber's ideas.

Visser quote: “Basically there was zero response on that paper except: one peer reviewer said, yeah, but what is this alternative? That was for me a sign that basically there is no scholarship or expertise within the integral community about this particular topic.”

He criticizes the tendency to dismiss or ridicule criticism, which he sees as an obstacle to academic credibility.

Pascal agrees that Visser's critique has not been sufficiently engaged and advocates for a more open and critical stance.

Pascal quote: “I have the feeling that your critique hasn't been engaged with very well, and I can understand why that hasn't happened but I think that zeppelin-quality has to be counteracted.”

6. Future Directions for Integral Theory

Both authors seem to agree that integral theory needs a more grounded foundation in the sciences and a better interface with social critique.

Pascal sees potential in exporting science's rigorous validation methods to other domains within the scope of integral theory.

Visser advocates for a “Secular Integral” that recognizes internal experiences without drawing metaphysical conclusions from them.

Quotes That Capture the Core of the Discussion:

Visser: “So yeah, Eros, is it a metaphor, is it a theory, is it a metatheory? It is unclear what Wilber has in mind, and the way he employs the term Eros, often in the context of scientific debates about what is empirically probable and isn't probable, muddles the waters even more.”

Pascal: “I think there are several areas where the underlying ideas expressed could be scientific hypotheses, if they were formulated more clearly, and people should work on these formulations. We should tease apart the bits of the phrasing that lead us to metaphysical thinking and the bits of the phrasing that open us up to possibilities that we could check on and then find out if they're true or not.”

Visser: “The phrase 'evolution is Spirit-in-action' is nice as a slogan but it's hopeless as a theory and we don't know what's in the middle—if anything is something in the middle.”

Conclusion:

The conversation between Visser and Pascal offers a critical examination of a central element in Ken Wilber's integral theory: the role of “Eros” in evolution. Visser presents a strong scientific critique, arguing that Wilber's ideas amount to a theological construct lacking empirical support. Pascal takes a more exploratory stance, seeking ways to connect the intuitions behind Eros to scientific thinking, while also recognizing the ambiguity and problematic framing in Wilber's work. The discussion highlights the need for the integral community to develop a more critical and scientifically informed approach, with clearer distinctions between the realms of philosophy, spirituality, and science.

Glossary of Key Terms

Holon: A term from integral theory referring to an entity that is both a whole in itself and a part of a larger whole. Individual organisms, cells, and even atoms can be seen as holons.

Self-transcendence: The capacity of a holon to exceed its current limits and integrate into a more complex, higher level of organization. According to Wilber, Eros is the driving force behind this.

Evolution (Integral Perspective): In Wilber's theory, a layered process of increasing complexity, consciousness, and inclusivity, driven by Eros and an inherent “spirit-in-action.” It includes both vertical (stages of development) and horizontal (different aspects within each stage) growth.

Evolution (Scientific Perspective): The process of gradual change in the heritable traits of biological populations over successive generations. The dominant theory is natural selection acting on genetic variation.

Reductionism: The philosophical stance that complex systems can be understood by breaking them down into their fundamental components and interactions. In this context, it's often associated with a purely materialistic and mechanistic view of reality.

Orange (in the Integral Model): Refers to the rational, scientific worldview that emphasizes objectivity, logic, and empirical evidence. Pascal sometimes calls Visser “obsessively Orange.”

Metatheory: A theory about theories. Integral theory is often described as a metatheory that aims to integrate various disciplines and perspectives.

Creationism: The religious belief that the universe and life on Earth originated from one or more supernatural acts of creation. Visser accuses Wilber of espousing a form of creationism.

Intelligent Design: A school of thought that claims certain features of the universe and life are too complex to have arisen through natural processes alone and must therefore be the result of an intelligent designer. Wilber is quoted as acknowledging some of Intelligent Design's criticisms of Darwinism.

Neo-Darwinism: The modern synthesis of Darwin's theory of evolution and Mendelian genetics. It emphasizes natural selection, genetic variation, and population-level thinking as the main mechanisms of evolution.

Lamarckism: An outdated theory of evolution proposing that acquired traits during an organism's life can be passed on to offspring. Visser views Wilber's ideas about Eros as a form of pre-Darwinian Lamarckism.

Variationist: An evolutionary biologist who believes evolution happens primarily through selection acting on existing variations (a core Darwinian idea).

Transformationist: An evolutionary thinker who believes species transform into new species through internal or mysterious forces.

Secular Integral: Visser's idea of an integral approach that acknowledges inner experience without drawing metaphysical conclusions about a “World Ground” or similar concepts. It would emphasize a naturalistic explanation of reality.

Sacred Naturalism: A worldview that sees nature as sacred or spiritually meaningful, but within a naturalistic framework that does not rely on supernatural entities or forces. Pascal suggests integral theory should move more in this direction.

Frequently Asked Questions about Eros and Evolution in Integral Theory

What is the concept of “Eros” within Ken Wilber's integral theory, as discussed by Frank Visser and Layman Pascal?

According to the source text, quoting Wilber, Eros is one of the four fundamental drives of an individual holon. It is described as the vertical urge of the lower to "reach up" toward the higher—a drive toward self-transcendence and toward greater, deeper, and broader wholeness. However, Visser argues that it remains unclear whether Wilber intends Eros as a theory, a metatheory, or a metaphor, and that its use in the context of scientific debates only adds confusion. Pascal sees potential in Eros as a poetic metaphor for the complexity of the cosmos, a possible reference to additional energies, or an inherent "tilt" in reality that makes certain evolutionary trajectories more likely.

What is the core of Frank Visser's critique of Ken Wilber's view of evolution, especially the concept of Eros?

Visser believes that Wilber's approach to evolution is more “evolutionary theology” than scientific theory. He argues that Wilber posits a “cosmic Eros” as the driving force behind increasing complexity and consciousness, a claim that Visser finds questionable. He contends that in most cases where Wilber invokes Eros, more interesting and scientifically grounded explanations are available. Visser views Wilber's repeated claims about a cosmic Eros as an ill-conceived ideology that overlooks scientific insights. He considers Wilber a kind of "creationist" because he claims that without Spirit, complexity wouldn't exist—a view Visser sees as missing the scientific explanation for evolution.

How does Layman Pascal respond to the concept of Eros and to Frank Visser's critique?

Pascal acknowledges the ambiguity surrounding the concept of Eros and the blending of multiple disciplines within integral theory. He finds the idea of Eros appealing as a poetic metaphor and sees potential in exploring additional energies or a fundamental “tilt” in reality that could influence evolution. However, like Visser, Pascal is uneasy with the idea of a force coming from “outside the system.” He advocates for greater clarity and an effort to bring these concepts closer to evolutionary science, although he recognizes that many integralists may be satisfied with the current formulations. Pascal emphasizes the need to better distinguish the various domains of knowledge and how they relate to one another.

Why is Frank Visser disappointed with the response from the integral community to his critique of Wilber's theory of evolution?

Visser is disappointed by the lack of serious academic engagement with his critique, especially his 2010 paper The Spirit of Evolution Reconsidered. He interprets the lukewarm response as a sign of a lack of expertise or interest in this particular topic within the integral community. He finds it puzzling that evolution—a central metaphor in integral theory—comes from a scientific field in which Wilber, according to Visser, has little expertise. Visser is concerned that many integralists are more interested in identifying the “next phase” of evolution (psychological or spiritual) than in critically examining the relationship between integral theory and science.

What is the difference between Darwin's “variationism” and the “transformationist” view of evolution, and how does Wilber relate to these perspectives according to Frank Visser?

Visser explains that Darwin's “variationism” holds that evolution occurs through natural selection acting on existing variations in nature, without the need for internal transformations or intentions on the part of organisms. By contrast, “transformationists” believed in a mysterious force that transforms one species into another. Visser sees Wilber as more of a pre-Darwinian transformationist, invoking an internal or spiritual driving force (Eros or Spirit) to explain novelty and complexity in evolution, rather than emphasizing variation and selection.

In what ways do Visser and Pascal see potential overlaps or useful perspectives between integral theory and evolutionary science?

Pascal suggests that one possible point of overlap lies in exploring what evolution would look like if reality were indeed structured as integral theory claims (with four quadrants and various states of consciousness). These other dimensions could potentially play a role in the adaptation process. Visser believes the four quadrants may be useful as a classification system for theories, but that the concept of Eros as a cosmic driving force is separate from that and unnecessary for understanding evolution. Both seem to agree that a more rigorous and open approach to scientific critique is needed within the integral community.

What objections do Visser and Pascal raise against Wilber's integration of science and religion, particularly his use of concepts like “Spirit-in-action” to explain evolution?

Visser finds Wilber's statement that “evolution is Spirit-in-action” meaningless as a scientific explanation. He believes Wilber mystifies complexity and disregards the scientific effort to understand evolutionary processes step by step. Visser sees Wilber's appeal to Spirit as a form of creationism. Pascal acknowledges that Wilber's formulations do not do justice to science and that his integration often seems more descriptive than explanatory. He sees greater promise in “sacred naturalism” as a way to reconcile spirituality and science without requiring transcendent forces to intervene from outside.

What is Frank Visser's view on the future of integral theory in relation to science and criticism?

Visser advocates for integral theory to adopt a more open and eager attitude toward criticism, rather than dismissing critics. He believes the theory should aim to become “conventional” in its honesty toward its own ideas and critics, similar to scientific practice. Visser is disappointed by the lack of critical reflection within the integral community, despite forty years of Wilber's publications. He would like to see more expertise in the community and an open discussion of the scientific basis of integral theory, even if that means people disagree with his own critique.

Criticism of Wilber's Eros and Evolutionary Thinking

Both Frank Visser and Layman Pascal express multiple criticisms of Ken Wilber's concept of Eros within integral thought, particularly regarding its interpretation of evolution. Below is an overview of their main points of critique, based on source materials and our conversation:

Frank Visser's Criticism:

Wilber's view of evolution is theology, not science: Visser argues that instead of offering a scientific theory of evolution, Wilber presents an "evolutionary theology," with Eros as a kind of spiritual driving force at its core.

Unclear definition of Eros: Visser questions whether Eros is meant as a theory, a metatheory, or merely a metaphor, and finds it unclear what Wilber is actually proposing.

Problematic blending with scientific discourse: Visser criticizes Wilber's use of Eros in the context of empirical scientific debate, arguing that it blurs lines and that poetry and science should remain distinct.

Eros as an unnecessary explanatory device: He doubts that invoking a cosmic Eros helps clarify the evolutionary process and suggests that better scientific explanations are often available.

Romantic and uncritical ideology: Visser sees Wilber's approach as a form of romantic ideology that goes largely unchallenged.

Outdated view of evolution: He considers Wilber a kind of pre-Darwinian transformationist who believes in a mysterious force driving species change, as opposed to Darwin's emphasis on variation and selection.

Mystification of complexity: Visser accuses Wilber of mystifying every increase in complexity by invoking Spirit or Eros instead of analyzing natural processes.

Comparison with creationism: He even compares Wilber's position to creationism, with Spirit playing the role of a divine force necessary for the emergence of complexity.

Neglect of scientific insights: Wilber is said to ignore or bypass scientific theories in favor of spiritual explanations.

Unscientific accounts of cosmic phenomena: Visser criticizes the postulation of an inner drive toward complexity to explain phenomena like planetary formation, calling it a case of begging the question.

Spiritual explanations lack explanatory power: While not opposed to spiritual language in itself, Visser notes that such explanations offer no real mechanism for phenomena like the evolution of wings.

Critique of “transcend-and-include” and “creative advance to novelty”: He sees these as unnecessary and unsupported hypotheses.

Misleading integration of science and religion: Visser finds it "preposterous" that Wilber presents his spiritual interpretation of evolution as a fusion of science and religion.

Cosmic solutions to local problems: He objects to the use of a cosmic-level answer (Eros) to explain problems already elegantly solved by natural selection.

“Evolution is Spirit-in-action” as a hopeless theory: He calls this phrase a beautiful slogan but hopeless as a theory.

Eros should be uncoupled from the Four Quadrants: Visser suggests keeping the quadrant model but dropping Eros as an explanatory principle.

Lack of serious reflection and challenge within the integral community: He's disappointed with the absence of critical engagement and the unhealthy way criticism is handled in the community.

Layman Pascal's Criticism:

Unclear boundaries of the discussion: Pascal acknowledges that the fuzzy boundaries within integral theory and metatheory make it difficult to meaningfully discuss concepts like Eros and evolution.

Wilber's occasional dismissiveness toward science: He notes that Wilber's formulations sometimes exhibit a dismissive tone toward scientific findings.

Eros is not scientifically articulated: Pascal holds that Eros has yet to be clearly defined in a way that would allow it to function as a scientific hypothesis. More work is needed to clarify and operationalize it.

Possible focus on probabilistic framing: Pascal suggests that Wilber may be associating Eros with concepts like morphogenetic fields (e.g., Sheldrake) and certain views on cosmic probability.

Questioning the scientific added value: Even if there's a kernel of truth to Eros, Pascal wonders what concrete value it adds to material evolutionary science.

Eros is descriptive, not explanatory: He agrees that Eros currently functions more as a poetic description than as a causal explanation.

Need for scientific elaboration if Eros is a real force: If Eros is to be taken seriously as an actual force, it must be scientifically thought through.

Lack of openness to criticism in the integral community: Pascal also recognizes that the community tends to avoid or dismiss criticism, which is problematic.

Warning against empirically suggestive statements: He cautions against language that sounds empirical but lacks evidence, urging for skepticism.

Wilber's selective engagement with evolutionary science: Pascal observes that while Wilber pays close attention to science in some developmental models, he neglects it in evolutionary theory, which skews the overall model.

Eros may serve better as a “night language” for metatheory: Pascal suggests that Eros might be more useful as a poetic or evocative night language—a symbolic mode of metatheoretical expression—rather than as an explanatory principle within specific scientific domains.

Summary

Both Visser and Pascal criticize Wilber's concept of Eros for its lack of scientific rigor and clarity, its theological framing of evolution, its potentially misleading appeal to poetic but unproven ideas, and its stifling effect on critical, scientifically-informed dialogue within integral thought.

What fundamental disagreements exist between Wilber's ideas about Eros and evolution and more naturalistic perspectives?

There are fundamental disagreements between Ken Wilber's ideas on Eros and evolution and more naturalistic perspectives. These disagreements center around the nature of Eros, the role of Spirit in evolution, Wilber's treatment of scientific evolutionary theory, the explanation of complexity and novelty, the need for a “better” alternative to neo-Darwinism, and the integration of science and religion.

Here are the key points of divergence:

The Nature of Eros:

Wilber sees Eros as a universal spiritual force aimed at increasing complexity and consciousness. It is one of the four fundamental drives of a holon—a vertical impulse from lower to higher, toward self-transcendence and greater wholeness.

Naturalistic perspectives, on the other hand, do not consider Eros a necessary explanatory force in evolution and at most see it as a poetic metaphor. Frank Visser questions whether Eros is a theory, metatheory, or metaphor, and criticizes its mixing with empirical questions.

The Role of Spirit in Evolution:

According to Wilber, the evolution from atoms to molecules to the human brain is evidence of Spirit in action. He argues that such complexity would be impossible without Spirit.

Naturalists reject this theological approach. They argue that complexity is explainable through natural processes such as natural selection and self-organization—without recourse to any spiritual entity. Visser considers Wilber a kind of creationist, albeit with a non-traditional concept of God, who nevertheless invokes an external force to explain life's complexity.

Wilber's Handling of Scientific Evolutionary Theory:

Visser criticizes Wilber's lack of expertise in evolutionary science and his often dismissive attitude toward scientific findings. He argues that Wilber misunderstands or disregards modern evolutionary theory and clings to pre-Darwinian ideas about species transformation via mysterious forces.

Naturalists advocate for a rigorous scientific approach to evolution, grounded in evidence and critical reasoning.

Explaining Complexity and Novelty:

Wilber attributes the emergence of complexity and novelty in evolution to Eros or Spirit.

Naturalistic accounts emphasize variation, natural selection, self-organization across different levels, and other scientific mechanisms. Visser argues that Wilber “mystifies” every step of the evolutionary process by positing the necessity of Spirit, even though science already offers explanations—for example, how fingers evolved from bones in fish fins.

The Need for a “Better” Explanation:

Wilber suggests that his concept of Eros offers a superior or more reasonable explanation for the origin of complexity than neo-Darwinism.

Naturalists like Visser believe that while scientific explanations are not always complete, they are based on evidence and offer real insight, whereas introducing Eros does not clarify anything. Visser calls Wilber's argument—that evolutionary science ignores Spirit—a weak one.

The Integration of Science and Religion:

Wilber attempts to integrate science and religion by weaving Eros and Spirit into evolutionary theory.

Naturalistic perspectives—especially those leaning toward “sacred naturalism”—suggest that a deep appreciation of nature itself can evoke a sense of the sacred, without invoking a separate spiritual force driving evolution. They argue for keeping metaphysical and empirical domains distinct to avoid confusion. Visser advocates for a “Secular Integral” approach, in which inner experience does not lead to metaphysical conclusions about reality.

Summary:

From a naturalistic point of view, Wilber's notion of Eros is seen as an unnecessary and unscientific addition to evolutionary explanation—rooted more in theology than in empirical science. It is viewed as a flawed interpretation of established scientific insights. Naturalists emphasize scientific rigor, evidence, and natural explanations for the complexity and diversity of life.

What do Pascal and Visser propose to improve the relationship between Integral thinking and science?

Both Frank Visser and Layman Pascal offer a range of suggestions for improving the relationship between Integral thinking and science.

Frank Visser suggests that Integral thinking should cultivate openness—and even eagerness—to hear and reflect on challenges, rather than downplaying or dismissing critics. He believes Integral should aspire to conventional standards of honesty when it comes to engaging with theories and criticism, which he finds lacking at present. Visser advocates for greater scientific expertise within the Integral community, particularly in fields like evolutionary biology. He stresses the need for a critical examination of the claims made in Integral thought, especially after forty years of Wilber's publications.

Additionally, Visser recommends retaining the four quadrants as a useful classificatory framework for theories, but decoupling the concept of Eros from the dynamics that supposedly transform atoms into humans. He calls for a “Secular Integral” in which no metaphysical conclusions are drawn from internal experiences. In his view, Integral should not pretend to speak authoritatively about empirical matters, especially in scientific domains where it lacks the necessary expertise.

Layman Pascal emphasizes the importance of doing more work to distinguish the various disciplines within Integral thinking and to explore how these domains relate to one another. He sees a role for integrative metatheory as a “cultivator, a gardener, and a steward” of the relationships among domains—but acknowledges that this requires more skill than currently demonstrated.

Pascal proposes that Integral thinking should attempt to export the rigor of scientific validation into other domains not usually associated with science. He encourages the formulation of core Integral ideas as testable scientific hypotheses. He also suggests we learn to separate the parts of Integral formulations that invite metaphysical speculation from those that offer investigable possibilities. Like Visser, Pascal points toward a future in the direction of “sacred naturalism”—a reverent engagement with the natural world that does not rely on supernatural assumptions.

Both emphasize the need for the Integral community to be more open to critique—and to actively seek it out. Pascal insists on extreme skepticism toward any Integral claims that sound like they make empirical assertions without proper grounding.

In summary, both Pascal and Visser agree that the current Integral scene suffers from a lack of critical reflection regarding its relationship with science. They call for a more rigorous, open, and scientifically informed approach to the integration of Integral thought and empirical knowledge.

Why is Visser critical of Wilber's scientific expertise?

Frank Visser is critical of Ken Wilber's scientific expertise for several fundamental reasons, most of which revolve around Wilber's approach to evolutionary theory and his use of the concept of Eros.

First, Visser argues that Wilber lacks expertise in evolutionary science, despite evolution being a central metaphor in his Integral Theory. Unlike Wilber's careful engagement with the insights of scientists in other developmental domains, Visser notes that he pays little attention to what actual experts in evolutionary biology have to say. This lack of depth in a key scientific field is problematic for Visser, especially given Wilber's ambition to present a “Theory of Everything” that supposedly includes science.

Second, Visser criticizes Wilber's often dismissive or even disdainful attitude toward scientific findings. Wilber seems to favor invoking an external force—such as Spirit or Eros—to explain phenomena that science does not (yet) fully understand, which Visser finds troubling.

A third point of critique is Wilber's postulation of an “Eros in the Kosmos” as the driving force behind the complexity and diversity of reality, instead of relying on scientific, often “reductionist,” explanations. Visser believes that in most of the cases Wilber refers to, there are more interesting and plausible scientific explanations available—making the introduction of Eros a “meaningless exercise.” He considers Wilber's approach a form of “evolutionary theology” rather than a scientific theory.

Visser also argues that Wilber mystifies every stage of the evolutionary process by suggesting Spirit is necessary for complexity to arise—such as molecules from atoms or cells from molecules. This contrasts with the scientific method, which breaks down such processes and investigates them through a naturalistic lens.

Furthermore, Visser sees Wilber as adhering to a kind of pre-Darwinian view of evolution, comparable to “transformationists” who believed species changed into one another through some mysterious inner force. This stands in contrast to Darwin's variationism, which emphasizes natural selection acting on variation. According to Visser, Wilber has never fully accepted Darwin's radical insight that God is not necessary for the emergence of species—and instead reintroduces God (as Spirit) as a required element in evolution.

Visser is also critical of Wilber's suggestion that his concept of Eros offers a better explanation for the origin of complexity than neo-Darwinism. He disagrees and argues that Wilber's formulations misrepresent science and do not do justice to its findings.

Finally, Visser saw Wilber's recent foray into politics—where he used evolutionary concepts to explain political strategies—as evidence that his grasp of evolutionary science is inadequate.

In summary, Visser is critical because he believes Wilber shows insufficient knowledge of, and respect for, evolutionary science; introduces unscientific explanations; misrepresents scientific insights; and holds onto a pre-Darwinian worldview when it comes to evolution.

What role could a secular approach play within Integral Theory?

A secular approach could play an important role within Integral Theory by shifting the focus away from metaphysical conclusions and toward a more naturalistic and scientifically grounded view of reality. This idea is primarily advocated by Frank Visser in the sources.

According to Visser, a secular Integral Theory would:

Avoid drawing metaphysical conclusions from inner experiences. Visser points out that experiencing emptiness is fine in itself, but calling it the “World Ground” is unwarranted. He believes too many conclusions are drawn about external reality based on subjective experiences.

Acknowledge the richness of science as a form of sacredness. Rather than looking for something “behind” everything, a secular approach could see the complexity and beauty of the natural world—revealed through science—as meaningful and inspiring in its own right.

Emphasize critical inquiry and openness to challenges. Visser criticizes the integral community for what he sees as an unhealthy relationship to criticism, where dissenting voices are too easily dismissed. A secular approach would promote a more conventional scientific attitude of openness to critique and reflection.

Make a clearer distinction between description and explanation. Visser is critical of Wilber's use of concepts like Eros and Spirit as explanations for complexity, arguing that these are more descriptive in nature. A secular approach would aim for clear, naturalistic explanations of phenomena, aligned with scientific methods.

Develop a more grounded theory aligned with the material sciences and social critique. Both Visser and Layman Pascal see potential in an integral theory that is better integrated with scientific insights and societal issues.

Prevent Integral Theory from being perceived as a new religion. Visser expresses concern that the emphasis on Spirit and metaphysical ideas risks turning Integral Theory into a form of religion, rather than a serious philosophical and metatheoretical framework.

Although Layman Pascal does not explicitly advocate for a purely secular integral theory, he does speak of “sacred naturalism” as a possible direction for integrating science and spirituality. This could be seen as an approach that honors the value and “sacredness” of the natural world without invoking transcendent, metaphysical entities.

In summary, a secular approach within Integral Theory could support a more rigorous, scientifically oriented, and critically engaged form of integral thinking—better equipped to understand and explain the complexity of reality without falling into metaphysical speculation. It might also make Integral Theory more accessible and relevant to a broader audience, including the scientific community.

How do Pascal and Visser see possible connections between Integral Theory and evolutionary science?

Both Layman Pascal and Frank Visser recognize possible connections between Integral Theory and evolutionary science, though they place different emphases, and Visser is generally more skeptical of how Ken Wilber attempts to integrate the two.

Layman Pascal is more optimistic about the potential for meaningful integration. He suggests that:

The structure of reality as described by Integral Theory (such as the four quadrants and various states) might become visible in the adaptive processes of evolution—if viewed in a richer, more nuanced way. The different dimensions Integral Theory describes could potentially relate to the needs that systems adapt to. However, this would still need to be clearly formulated and empirically investigated.

While current formulations of concepts like Eros and Spirit are not compatible with science, it may be possible to reformulate them as scientific hypotheses. This would require carefully separating metaphysical aspects from testable ideas. Pascal gives the example of a hypothetical form of additional energy that could influence organic development, or an inherent “skewing” or bias in reality that makes certain evolutionary trajectories more likely.

Integral Theory could serve as a “cultivator” or “gardener” of the relationships between different domains of knowledge, including evolutionary science. Achieving this would require greater skill in both distinguishing and connecting various knowledge systems.

A more naturalistic reinterpretation of integral concepts like gross, subtle, and causal could help build a bridge to scientific understandings of reality.

Frank Visser, by contrast, is more critical of Wilber's attempt to integrate evolution and integral theory, especially through the introduction of Eros as a guiding force in evolution. His view on possible connections is more cautious:

He emphasizes the need to separate the four quadrants from the concept of Eros. While the quadrants may serve as a useful classification system for theories, he sees Eros as an esoteric mythology that fails to provide a scientific explanation for evolutionary dynamics.

Visser argues that Wilber lacks expertise in evolutionary science and often ignores or dismisses its findings. A meaningful integration would require Integral Theory to engage seriously and accurately with established scientific knowledge.

He sees potential in a “Secular Integral”—an approach that distances itself from metaphysical conclusions and instead embraces the richness of the natural world as revealed by science. This could lead to a more scientifically grounded version of Integral Theory that better aligns with evolutionary science.

Visser believes that Integral Theory should focus on classifying theories (as a metatheory) and should refrain from making claims about empirical matters—especially in areas like evolution, where science has already developed substantial knowledge.

In summary, both Pascal and Visser see potential in linking Integral Theory to evolutionary science, but they differ in how they believe this should be done. Pascal is more inclined to explore how integral concepts might be reformulated to be scientifically relevant, while Visser emphasizes a critical evaluation of Wilber's current integration efforts and advocates for a more secular, scientifically informed approach within Integral Theory. Both agree that greater clarity and rigor are needed to create a fruitful dialogue between these two frameworks.

What is Pascal's opinion about Visser's reputation?

According to the source, Layman Pascal discusses possible perceptions of Frank Visser within the integral world. He specifically mentions Visser's complaint that Ken Wilber does not challenge the strongest version of Darwinism.

Pascal suggests that there may be unfair positions taken regarding Visser. He refers to the perception that Visser is a reductionist, obsessively "orange" (rationalistic) thinker who is merely arguing a strawman version of Ken Wilber.

Pascal himself does not seem to agree with this position, stating, "That he is a reductionist, obsessively 'orange' [rationalistic] thinker, who is just arguing a strawman version of Ken Wilber. And that is not a very fair position as far as I can tell." He is actually interested in the situation and whether there is something useful for the community in it, something that the community should investigate further.

Furthermore, Pascal states in the source that, in his view, Frank Visser continues his integral interest in a progressive, evolution-focused, multidimensional approach to meaning-making in the world, with as much validity, rigor, and nuance as possible.

In summary, Pascal's opinion is that Visser's reputation as a simplistic reductionist who misrepresents Wilber is not fair. He acknowledges Visser's ongoing engagement with integral themes and sees potential in the discussion Visser sparks regarding the relationship between Integral Theory and evolution.