• home
• about
• new
• essays
• AI
• book

Frank Visser, graduated as a psychologist of culture and religion, founded IntegralWorld in 1997. He worked as production manager for various publishing houses and as service manager for various internet companies and lives in Amsterdam. Books: Ken Wilber: Thought as Passion (SUNY, 2003), and The Corona Conspiracy: Combatting Disinformation about the Coronavirus (Kindle, 2020).

The Integral Landscape around Ken Wilber

And its Many Offshoots

Frank Visser / ChatGPT

• What does the integral landscape around Ken Wilber look like?. What offshoots have emerged in the integral diaspora?
• Please provide a brief timeline or evolution of how these groups splintered or emerged from the original Wilberian hub.
• What are its academic connections (conferences, journals, courses)?
• What about academic critiques of Wilber?
• How is the integral field perceived by the outside world?
• How does Wilber see the future of his own movement?
• Who do you see as the most relevant integral reformers?
• I'd like to explore Secular Integral - what is included, what gets excluded?
• I would like you to formulate a Secular Integral manifesto
• What were the key shifts in thinking between Ken Wilber and Frank Visser?
• What does Frank Visser still appreciate in Wilbers model, and what has he rejected?

The integral landscape around Ken Wilber has become increasingly diverse, fragmented, and creative over the past two decades. While Wilber remains the central figure and his Integral Theory—especially the AQAL (All Quadrants, All Levels) framework—is still the most recognizable articulation of “integral thinking,” there's now a lively integral diaspora of thinkers, practitioners, and movements that have adapted, critiqued, or moved beyond his original system. Here's a bird's-eye view of that landscape:

1. Core Wilberian Integral (the Mothership)

Integral Life / Integral Institute: These organizations continue to host Wilber's writings, courses, and discussions.

Integral Spiritual Experience / Superhuman OS / Integral Life Practice: Lifestyle and spiritual programs integrating psychology, spirituality, fitness, etc.

AQAL Framework: Still central to Wilberian discourse, used in coaching, leadership, and developmental models.

2. Integral Offshoots and Diaspora Movements

A. Meta-Integral / Sean Esbjörn-Hargens

Once Wilber's close associate, he branched out with MetaIntegral, a more pragmatic and academically engaged approach.

Emphasizes applied integral in business, education, sustainability.

Developed the concept of Integral Pluralism, moving beyond Wilber's grand metanarrative to a more multi-paradigm lens.

B. Steve McIntosh / The Institute for Cultural Evolution (ICE)

Blends integral ideas with American idealism and evolutionary politics.

Positions integral thought as a post-progressive political philosophy.

Less esoteric, more civically oriented, aiming at mainstream cultural influence.

C. Layman Pascal / “Weird Integral”

A post-Wilberian voice blending postmodern playfulness, meta-modern memes, and embodied philosophy.

Known for experimenting with integral language and critiquing spiritual bypassing and abstraction in Wilberian thought.

Encourages ironic sincerity and engagement with complexity without totalizing narratives.

D. Bonnitta Roy / Process-Oriented Integral

Develops a post-metaphysical, process philosophy-infused version of integral.

Emphasizes emergent sense-making, relational fields, and critique of hierarchical stage models.

Her work influences systems thinkers, regenerative design, and education.

E. Frank Visser / Integral World

Hosts a long-running critical website featuring essays by skeptics, ex-Wilberians, and sympathetic critics.

Focuses on scientific rigor, naturalistic evolution, and philosophical coherence.

Major critiques include Wilber's spiritual metaphysics, stage-based evolution, and hidden creationism.

F. Metamodernism (e.g., Hanzi Freinacht)

Though not directly Wilberian, metamodernism overlaps heavily with integral themes: developmentalism, complexity, meaning-making.

Presents a political-philosophical alternative to integral, using irony, sincerity, and structured stage models.

Gaining traction among younger intellectuals and activists.

3. Related Integral-ish Currents

Game B / Consilience Project / Daniel Schmachtenberger: Evolutionary thinkers integrating systems thinking, development, and ethics—integral-adjacent but not Wilberian.

Embodied and Relational Practices: Circling (Guy Sengstock), Authentic Relating, and other somatic practices influenced by integral ideas.

Coaching and Leadership Models: Many coaching systems (e.g. Integral Coaching Canada) use AQAL or similar frameworks for developmental diagnostics.

4. Key Trends in the Integral Diaspora

De-Wilberization: Many offshoots retain integral insights while rejecting Wilber's metaphysics, stage absolutism, or guru positioning.

Post-metaphysical Turn: Emphasis on phenomenology, enaction, intersubjectivity, and process-relational ontology.

Cross-pollination: Integration with systems theory, complexity science, metamodernism, and regenerative culture.

Cultural Critique: Engaging with real-world issues (politics, ecology, race, gender) often overlooked in classic Wilberian thought.

Please provide a brief timeline or evolution of how these groups splintered or emerged from the original Wilberian hub.

Here's a brief timeline tracing the evolution and divergence of the integral landscape, from Ken Wilber's early dominance to the current diverse diaspora. It shows how various offshoots and reactions emerged in relation to key publications, events, and tensions:

Phase 1: The Wilberian Foundation (1980s–early 2000s)

1980–2000: Ken Wilber publishes The Atman Project, Up from Eden, Sex, Ecology, Spirituality, and A Brief History of Everything—establishing the AQAL model and his reputation as a spiritual philosopher integrating East and West.

Early 2000s: Formation of the Integral Institute (II). It becomes the center of the integral movement, drawing thinkers from psychology, spirituality, business, and ecology.

Phase 2: Fractures and Critiques Emerge (2004–2010)

2004–2006: Wilber's "Wilber-5" phase emphasizes states and structures of consciousness, with Integral Spirituality attempting a post-metaphysical approach.

2006: Frank Visser's website Integral World becomes the main hub for critiques of Wilber, especially from a scientific-naturalistic perspective. David Lane and others expose Wilber's "subtle creationism" and stage-based evolution as speculative.

2006–2008: Disillusionment grows among early supporters. Internal splits occur at Integral Institute due to organizational issues and concerns about Wilber's authority and metaphysical claims.

Phase 3: Applied Integral and Academic Breakaways (2010–2016)

Sean Esbjörn-Hargens (former II leader) launches MetaIntegral, promoting Integral Pluralism—a move toward applied, post-Wilberian integral theory in business, education, and sustainability.

Integral Coaching Canada and others formalize AQAL-based coaching and leadership training, abstracting the theory from its metaphysical roots.

Bonnitta Roy critiques stage-based thinking and introduces process-oriented models, influencing systems thinkers and educators.

Phase 4: Emergence of Cultural and Political Alternatives (2016–2020)

Steve McIntosh launches the Institute for Cultural Evolution, pushing for a "post-progressive" political philosophy inspired by integral values but more civic-minded and non-esoteric.

Metamodernism emerges in parallel (especially in Europe) with Hanzi Freinacht's 2017 The Listening Society, offering developmental politics and stage theory without Wilber's spiritual framing.

Game B thinkers (e.g., Schmachtenberger, Jordan Hall) address systemic collapse and sense-making, with integral-adjacent complexity thinking but little direct Wilber influence.

Phase 5: Post-Metaphysical and Weird Integrations (2020–Present)

Layman Pascal popularizes "Weird Integral"—a mix of humor, meta-irony, and post-rational spirituality, drawing on Wilber, Deleuze, metamodernism, and circling.

Embodied practices like Circling, Authentic Relating, and somatic coaching become more central to post-Wilberian development, emphasizing intersubjectivity and real-time relationality.

The integral landscape becomes a networked ecosystem, with no clear center, where Wilber is respected by some, critiqued by many, and ignored by others.

Summary of Key Divergences

What are its academic connections (conferences, journals, courses)?

Integral Theory's academic footprint has always been relatively niche, but it has carved out semi-academic spaces—in conferences, journals, and graduate programs—especially in transdisciplinary or alternative education circles. Here's an overview of its institutional and academic connections, both historical and current:

1. Conferences

Integral Theory Conferences (ITC)

Years: 2008, 2010, 2013, and 2015 (at JFK University)

Organized by: Sean Esbjörn-Hargens and JFKU's Integral Theory department

Significance: Main academic venue for Integral Theory. Hosted keynotes by Wilber (remote), presentations by Bonnitta Roy, Zak Stein, Mark Forman, and more.

Themes: Integral in education, ecology, leadership, philosophy, and critiques of Wilber.

Status: Defunct after 2015 due to JFKU closure and disbanding of MetaIntegral.

Other Conferences with Integral Presence

Jean Gebser Conferences (e.g. at CIIS or Gebser Society meetings): Hosted integral-adjacent thinkers, including Jeremy Johnson and Jean Gebser scholars.

Transpersonal Psychology and Consciousness Studies conferences: Some presentations reference AQAL or post-Wilberian models.

Integral European Conference (IEC):

Held in Hungary since 2014, led by Bence Gánti.

Mix of academics, coaches, spiritual seekers.

Welcomes Wilberian and post-Wilberian voices, though more practice-oriented than scholarly.

2. Journals

Journal of Integral Theory and Practice (JITP)

Years Active: 2006–2013

Published by: Integral Institute, then JFKU

Focus: Applied AQAL theory across disciplines—psychology, sustainability, business, etc.

Status: Discontinued. PDF archives circulate informally.

Integral Review

Status: Still active (since 2005)

Scope: Peer-reviewed transdisciplinary journal exploring consciousness, development, and complexity.

Relation to Wilber: Inspired by integral theory but broader; includes critiques and alternative models.

Notable contributors: Mark Edwards, Bonnitta Roy, Zak Stein, Bruce Alderman.

World Futures

Editor: Ervin Laszlo (formerly)

Occasionally featured integral-friendly systems theory, spiritual evolution, and holistic science articles.

Other Related Journals

ReVision, Journal of Conscious Evolution, Transpersonal Psychology Journal

— All offered occasional space for integral and Wilberian content, though none are mainstream academic platforms.

3. Academic Courses and Programs

John F. Kennedy University (JFKU)

Program: Integral Theory MA (founded by Sean Esbjörn-Hargens)

Curriculum: Based on AQAL, included coaching, ecology, leadership, and research.

Status: Closed in 2020 after JFKU shutdown.

California Institute of Integral Studies (CIIS)

Programs: Transpersonal Psychology, Philosophy, Consciousness and Integral Studies.

Relation: Inspired by similar values but not explicitly Wilberian; more pluralistic.

Notables: Jorge Ferrer (a critic of Wilber's hierarchical model), Sean Kelly.

Fielding Graduate University

Hosted dissertations and research projects informed by Integral Theory.

Ubiquity University

Online university offering courses in “integral development,” metamodernism, and leadership.

Often hosts Bonnitta Roy, Zak Stein, and Layman Pascal.

4. Dissertations and Research

Dozens of graduate theses and doctoral dissertations have applied or critiqued AQAL, particularly in psychology, education, and sustainability studies.

Integral Theory occasionally appears in Google Scholar citations, but remains outside the mainstream academic canon.

Summary: Integral's Academic Ecosystem

What about academic critiques of Wilber?

Academic critiques of Ken Wilber have come from several quarters, ranging from philosophical and theological critiques to scientific and pragmatic objections. These critiques, while not always fully integrated into mainstream academic discourse, have had a significant influence in post-Wilberian and alternative academic spaces. Below are some of the most significant academic critiques of Wilber, categorized by focus area.

1. Philosophical Critiques

Reductionism and Oversimplification

Critics: Frank Visser, David Lane, John Heron

Core Argument: Wilber's AQAL model (All Quadrants, All Levels) oversimplifies complex human experience. Critics argue that Wilber's integration of multiple perspectives (e.g., science, art, spirituality) tends to flatten the richness of individual disciplines, reducing them to a unified framework that fails to honor their nuances.

Notable Example: Visser's critique: He argues that Wilber's desire for a "grand synthesis" ultimately results in intellectual overstretch, where Wilber tries to fit heterogeneous systems (e.g., science, mysticism, and ethics) into an overarching framework that dilutes their distinctiveness.

2. Critiques on Mysticism and Metaphysics

Overemphasis on Mysticism

Critics: Jorge Ferrer, David Lane, Shahzad Rana

Core Argument: Wilber is accused of romanticizing mysticism and elevating it to a status of privileged knowledge. Critics argue that Wilber's integration of mystical experience into his model leads to epistemological bias, particularly in how he interprets higher stages of development as inevitably leading to spiritual enlightenment.

Notable Example: Ferrer's critique of Wilber's "all-inclusive" mysticism: Ferrer argues that Wilber's work tends to essentialize mysticism by ignoring the plurality of spiritual practices and cultural perspectives. He contends that mystical experiences cannot be generalized across all stages of human development.

3. Scientific Critiques

Overreach into Science

Critics: David Lane, Michael Shermer, Massimo Pigliucci

Core Argument: Wilber's attempt to integrate science into his framework often distorts scientific concepts to fit his integral vision. Critics claim Wilber selectively applies scientific theories, often misinterpreting or overstating their implications, especially when it comes to evolutionary biology, neuroscience, and complexity theory.

Notable Example: Lane's critique of Wilber's teleological evolution: Lane and others argue that Wilber's belief in Eros as a cosmic force guiding evolution is unsupported by empirical science. This leads critics to accuse Wilber of pseudo-scientific claims in his metaphysical speculations.

4. Developmental and Psychological Critiques

Stage Models and Developmental Hierarchies

Critics: Don Beck, Chris Cowan, Jorge Ferrer

Core Argument: Wilber's hierarchical stage models (e.g., Wilber-4 model) are often criticized for linear thinking about psychospiritual development. Critics argue that his theories often impose western-centric developmental frameworks and rank higher stages as more evolved.

Notable Example: Ferrer's critique of Wilber's hierarchical model: Ferrer and others, including Cowan and Beck, have argued that Wilber's stage theory has cultural biases and spiritual elitism embedded within it. They suggest a more non-hierarchical view of development that is pluralistic and less reductionistic.

5. Sociopolitical Critiques

Wilber's Political Framework

Critics: Andrew Cohen, Jean Gebser, Rajeev Bhargava

Core Argument: Wilber's conservative political leanings and his tendency to support a unified spiritual worldview have been critiqued for reflecting elitist tendencies. Some argue that his vision of an integral society veers into the dangerous terrain of techno-eliteism or an integral globalism that risks undermining diversity and democratic processes.

Notable Example: Andrew Cohen's critique: Cohen, an integral scholar turned critic of Wilber, argues that Wilber's vision of evolutionary spiritual politics can reproduce the dynamics of control and authoritarianism. Critics suggest that Wilber's notion of “higher stages of civilization” can end up being elitist and exclusive, dismissing large swathes of the world population as being at a “lower stage.”

6. Critiques on Wilber's Relationship with Critics

Elitism and Intellectual Overreach

Critics: Frank Visser, David Lane, Mark Edwards

Core Argument: Wilber's dismissive attitude toward critics and his self-referential style of scholarship have been pointed to as a key flaw. Critics argue that his tendency to frame his work as the ultimate truth about human development leads to intellectual arrogance and marginalization of dissenting voices.

Notable Example: Visser's critique of Wilber's “Wyatt Earp” essay: In 2006, Wilber published the “Wyatt Earp” essay, which ridiculed critics as being caught in the “green meme” of postmodern relativism. This alienated many early followers and intellectuals, further solidifying the view that Wilber's theories are dogmatic.

7. Epistemological and Methodological Critiques

Lack of Rigorous Methodology

Critics: David Lane, Chris Cowan, Bennet Wong

Core Argument: Wilber's lack of systematic empirical evidence for his models (such as AQAL, developmental stages, and cosmological evolution) has led to accusations of methodological weaknesses. Critics argue that Wilber's work is more philosophical or speculative than scientifically or methodologically rigorous, making it difficult to validate his claims.

Notable Example: Lane's critique of AQAL: Lane and others note that AQAL, despite its wide applicability, lacks clear empirical validation, often relying on philosophical conjecture and conceptual speculation rather than robust data-driven research.

Summary of Key Academic Critiques of Wilber

These critiques have played a key role in both the development and deconstruction of Wilber's ideas. His intellectual journey has been marked by vigorously defended positions and equally intense critiques, with certain segments of the Integral community remaining fiercely loyal to his framework, while others have branched off to offer more pluralistic, empirically grounded, or relational approaches.

How is the integral field perceived by the outside world?

The integral field, especially as developed by Ken Wilber, has a mixed reputation in the outside world—particularly in academic, spiritual, and intellectual circles. It's seen by some as a brilliant synthesis, by others as pseudo-intellectual or even cultish, and by many as largely marginal to mainstream discourse. Here's a breakdown of how it's perceived across different domains:

1. Academic Perception

Status: Largely peripheral, with pockets of interest.

Critique of Scholarly Rigor: Academics often criticize Wilber and the integral movement for lacking methodological rigor, overgeneralization, and uncritical use of sources. The lack of peer-reviewed scholarship, especially on Wilber's part, has limited acceptance in fields like philosophy, psychology, and religious studies.

Influence in Some Fields: There has been some academic interest in transpersonal psychology, education, leadership studies, and organizational development, where Wilber's models (especially AQAL) have been used as frameworks for systems thinking.

Critics like Frank Visser, Geoffrey Falk, and Len Oakes have highlighted the mythic and metaphysical elements in Wilber's work, questioning its scientific grounding and calling out guru dynamics in its community.

Limited Institutional Presence: Though some universities offer courses referencing Integral Theory (e.g., CIIS, JFKU, Naropa), Wilber's framework has not been adopted by major academic institutions or journals.

2. Spiritual and New Age Communities

Status: Mixed reception—embraced by some, rejected by others.

Adoption by Spiritual Teachers: Wilber's model has been popular among nondual teachers, meditation communities, and those in the "evolutionary spirituality" movement. Figures like Adyashanti, Sally Kempton, and formerly Andrew Cohen engaged with it, though often critically.

Criticism from the Nondual World: Some nondual or Buddhist teachers have criticized Wilber's developmental framing of enlightenment, arguing that it reintroduces ego and hierarchy into a realm that should emphasize immediacy and simplicity.

Guru Culture Concerns: Wilber's past endorsements of controversial teachers (e.g., Andrew Cohen, Marc Gafni, Da Free John) have made some spiritual practitioners wary of Integral as being too top-down and personality-driven.

3. Popular Intellectual Sphere

Status: Niche and obscure, with occasional admiration.

Admiration from Systems Thinkers: Writers and thinkers interested in complexity, systems theory, and post-postmodernism sometimes regard Wilber as a pioneer trying to transcend the fragmentation of modern knowledge. Examples include occasional mentions by Jordan Peterson, Daniel Schmachtenberger, or Rebel Wisdom, though often with caveats.

Criticism for Grandiosity: Many intellectuals see the integral field as overreaching—trying to create a "theory of everything" that ends up being more grandiose than useful.

Pop Culture and Self-help: Integral Theory occasionally shows up in self-help, coaching, and organizational development circles—often stripped of its metaphysical trappings. For example, models like Spiral Dynamics, 4 Quadrants, or Lines of Development are sometimes used without explicit reference to Wilber.

4. Media and Public Perception

Status: Largely unknown, occasionally sensationalized.

Mainstream Media: Ken Wilber and Integral Theory are almost entirely absent from mainstream public discourse. The few mentions often focus on Wilber's more controversial ideas or spiritual associations, not his theoretical contributions.

Cult or Guru Associations: Some media representations portray Wilber's circle as cult-like due to insularity, esoteric jargon, and the elevation of Wilber as a near-omniscient thinker.

5. Tech and Meta-Modernism

Status: Gaining new relevance among post-rational thinkers.

Metamodern and GameB circles: New integrative movements like Metamodernism, GameB, and sensemaking communities (e.g., The Stoa, Emerge) engage with Wilber's ideas as part of the intellectual genealogy, but often seek to move beyond him. They credit him as a precursor, while critiquing the rigidity and guru dynamics of early Integral culture.

Digital Education: Platforms like Integral Life, Rebel Wisdom, and Perspectiva have explored Wilberian ideas in video and course formats, often as part of a larger conversation about meaning-making in a post-truth world.

Summary Table

In short, Integral Theory is influential in certain subcultures, but it is often seen from the outside as esoteric, overly ambitious, and lacking critical scrutiny. At the same time, it has inspired ongoing efforts to build more integrated, post-fragmentation worldviews, even among those who don't accept Wilber's model wholesale.

How does Wilber see the future of his own movement?

Ken Wilber's vision for the future of his movement is both ambitious and evolutionary—rooted in his belief that Integral Theory offers a necessary framework for navigating the next stage of human consciousness. He sees it as indispensable for solving global problems, guiding personal transformation, and shaping culture, science, and spirituality. Here's a breakdown of how he sees the movement evolving, based on his writings, interviews, and public statements:

1. Integral as the “Next Stage” of Consciousness

Wilber sees Integral consciousness (Teal/Turquoise in Spiral Dynamics terms) as an inevitable emergence—the leading edge of human development beyond postmodern relativism.

He often refers to this as the rise of the “Integral Age”, a cultural shift akin to the transitions from mythic to rational, or from modern to postmodern.

In Integral Spirituality and The Religion of Tomorrow, Wilber argues that without this leap to integral consciousness, humanity is unlikely to solve the meta-crises (climate change, culture wars, institutional decay).

2. Integral Life and Educational Platforms

Wilber has supported and helped found platforms like Integral Life, Integral Institute, and Integral Naked as vehicles to disseminate the theory.

He envisions integral education—especially online—as a crucial method for spreading his ideas across disciplines: psychology, leadership, spirituality, health, politics.

He has expressed interest in creating “integral universities” or curricula that span quadrants and levels, though few concrete institutions have emerged.

3. Political and Social Impact

In books like Trump and a Post-Truth World, Wilber articulates a vision where integral politics can reconcile polarized ideologies by honoring all value systems (traditional, modern, postmodern) while integrating them into a coherent worldview.

He believes Integral Politics and Integral Ecology can help heal left-right divisions and provide holistic policies that avoid reductionism.

His hope is that Integral Theory becomes a meta-framework used by leaders, thinkers, and activists to navigate complexity with clarity.

4. Integral Spirituality and Religion

Wilber envisions an “Integral Religion” that transcends and includes the world's mystical traditions, grounded in postmetaphysical spirituality.

He anticipates a future where science and spirituality converge through phenomenology, states and stages of consciousness, and neuroscience, without resorting to mythic dogma.

The Religion of Tomorrow lays out his roadmap for a spirituality that is evolutionary, inclusive, and developmentally aware.

5. A Movement of Movements

Rather than becoming a standalone ideology, Wilber hopes Integral Theory becomes a scaffold for other movements:

He has expressed admiration for emerging currents like Metamodernism, GameB, systems thinking, and regenerative culture, which he sees as proto-integral.

Wilber's long-term vision is that his AQAL model can inform but not dominate—serving as a kind of epistemological GPS for the pluralistic, complex future.

6. Cultural Acceptance and Legacy

Wilber is aware that his movement remains on the margins, but he sees this as typical for a "leading-edge" paradigm.

In his view, major transformations (like the rise of modern science or democracy) were initially resisted, and Integral will follow a similar arc.

He often compares himself to Hegel or Teilhard de Chardin, whose work only gained full recognition long after their lifetimes.

7. Challenges and Limitations (Which He Acknowledges)

Despite his optimism, Wilber has admitted in interviews and forewords that the movement has suffered from:

Insularity: A tendency toward echo chambers and hero worship.

Guru dynamics: Especially in early Integral circles.

Lack of implementation: The theory is widespread in theory, but rarely applied in systemic, measurable ways.

Difficulty of translation: Integral ideas are complex and often inaccessible without prior scaffolding.

He sees these as growing pains, not fatal flaws.

Summary of Wilber's Vision

Who do you see as the most relevant integral reformers?

Here's a curated list of the most relevant Integral Reformers—thinkers who deeply engage with Ken Wilber's Integral Theory yet significantly revise, critique, or reorient it. They don't merely extend it but rework its assumptions, often in post-metaphysical, scientific, or pragmatic directions.

Key Integral Reformers

I'd like to explore Secular Integral - what is included, what gets excluded?

Great question. Exploring Secular Integral is a fruitful way to clarify the tensions and possibilities within the broader Integral project. It reflects a desire to retain the structural sophistication of Wilber's Integral Theory while shedding its metaphysical and spiritual assumptions—or at least reframing them in non-religious terms.

Here's a breakdown of what Secular Integral includes, what it excludes, and how it relates to Integral Post-Metaphysics:

1. What Is Included in Secular Integral?

Secular Integral tends to retain core features of Wilber's framework that are compatible with a naturalistic, scientific, or philosophically agnostic worldview:

a. The AQAL Model (in stripped-down form)

Quadrants: Maintains the four perspectives—subjective, intersubjective, objective, interobjective—as a heuristic for holistic analysis.

Lines of Development: Includes cognitive, moral, aesthetic, etc., but treats them as empirical and contingent, not teleological.

Levels/Stages: Preserves models like spiral dynamics, ego development (Loevinger/Cook-Greuter), or moral development (Kohlberg), not as sacred hierarchies but as descriptive developmental typologies.

States: May acknowledge altered states (e.g. meditation, flow, psychedelics), but without assuming they reveal metaphysical realities.

Types: Retains typologies like Myers-Briggs, Big Five, or masculine/feminine, but treats them as provisional or culturally embedded.

b. Systems Thinking and Complexity

A strong embrace of integrative thinking, complexity science, and multi-perspectival analysis that seeks to bridge disciplines.

c. Values Pluralism and Meaning-Making

Endorses the notion that different worldviews have partial truths and that we need frameworks for integrating plural values.

Concerned with meta-crisis response, collective intelligence, and post-ideological problem-solving.

2. What Is Excluded from Secular Integral?

Secular Integral tends to reject or radically reinterpret the following:

a. Spiritual Teleology

No Eros-in-the-Kosmos, no metaphysical drive toward greater consciousness.

No claim that the universe is evolving toward Spirit or that consciousness is the ground of being.

b. Absolute or Ultimate Claims

Rejects the notion of an ultimate, formless awareness as the base of all reality, unless treated phenomenologically.

The nondual realization is seen as a subjective insight, not a metaphysical fact.

c. Guru Culture and Spiritual Hierarchy

Secular Integral is allergic to the guru model, spiritual elitism, or Wilber's endorsement of figures like Adi Da, Andrew Cohen, or Marc Gafni.

There's often a push for horizontalism, open dialogue, and epistemic humility.

d. Mythic Echoes in Wilber's Work

Suspicious of Wilber's Neoplatonic metaphors, Great Chain of Being language, or evolutionary spiritual destiny.

Sees these as narrative overlays, not integral necessities.

3. How It Relates to Integral Post-Metaphysics

Wilber himself introduced the term Integral Post-Metaphysics in Integral Spirituality (2006) to move away from pre-modern metaphysical assertions. This was partly in response to critics like Frank Visser and atheistic thinkers who found his earlier work too mystical.

Key Features of Wilber's Post-Metaphysics

Claims to strip Integral of ontological assertions and focus instead on phenomenological enactment.

Introduces the concept of "Kosmic addresses"—different perspectives or “altitudes” through which realities are disclosed.

Spiritual claims are reframed as developmentally structured experiences, not truths about the universe.

However...

Many critics argue Wilber didn't go far enough. His post-metaphysical turn still smuggles in teleological evolution, nondual ultimacy, and consciousness as a kosmic drive.

Secular Integral picks up where Integral Post-Metaphysics stops, pushing for:

Fully naturalized models of development

Agnostic spiritual psychology

Non-theistic mysticism or non-religious contemplative practice

In short: Integral Post-Metaphysics tries to translate the spiritual into modern terms, while Secular Integral often deconstructs or brackets the spiritual altogether.

4. Examples of Secular Integral Approaches

5. Summary: What Secular Integral Is About

I would like you to formulate a Secular Integral manifesto

Great! Here's a Secular Integral Manifesto, written in the spirit of clarity, inclusivity, and critical evolution. It's designed to honor the strengths of Integral Theory while shedding its mythic, metaphysical, or guru-like elements. This is a living document—open to revision, dialogue, and testing in the real world.

The Secular Integral Manifesto

Toward a Post-Metaphysical Framework for Human Complexity

1. We Begin with Perspectives, Not Absolutes

We recognize that all knowledge arises within perspectives—biological, cultural, cognitive, linguistic, technological.

There is no God's-eye view.

Yet by mapping perspectives, we can approximate a more complete understanding of reality.

We retain tools like quadrants, lines of development, and levels to clarify complexity—not to assert dogma.

2. We Embrace Development Without Destiny

Human beings develop—cognitively, morally, emotionally, relationally.

This development can be tracked, encouraged, and understood—but it is not guaranteed, linear, or predetermined by Spirit.

We reject metaphysical teleology.

Instead, we see growth as emergent, fragile, and always context-dependent.

3. We Honor Depth Without Deifying It

Inner life matters. States of consciousness, introspection, altered states, and aesthetic rapture reveal important truths—but not ultimate ones.

Mystical experiences are valuable human phenomena, not evidence of cosmic hierarchies.

We study spiritual experiences with curiosity, humility, and scientific rigor—free of the need to convert or conform.

4. We Value Integration Without Totalization

We aim to integrate multiple domains—science, art, psychology, culture, systems—into a coherent map.

But we resist the temptation to totalize—to claim a “Theory of Everything” or to flatten complexity into a single narrative.

The map is not the territory.

Integration is never finished.

There will always be pluralism at the edges.

5. We Seek Transcendence Without Elitism

We affirm the human capacity for insight, perspective-taking, compassion, and wisdom.

But we reject the spiritual superiority complexes, guru dynamics, and secret initiations that have plagued past movements.

All frameworks are tools, not crowns.

We do not ascend—we complexify, contextualize, and coordinate.

6. We Replace Faith with Epistemic Humility

We no longer speak in terms of Spirit-in-Action, Eros of the Kosmos, or ascending Great Chains.

We are post-mythic, post-metaphysical, and still enchanted by reality.

Mystery remains. But we approach it not with dogma, but with disciplined wonder.

7. We Work in Service of the Meta-Crisis

The integration of perspectives is not merely philosophical—it is practical and urgent.

Our world is fractured: ecologically, politically, psychologically.

We need integrative frameworks that support coordination across worldviews, not domination by any one.

Secular Integral exists to serve this pluralistic unfolding, not to master it.

8. We Learn from Wilber—And Move Beyond Him

We honor Ken Wilber as a trailblazer, whose early synthesis inspired a generation.

We also recognize the limitations, metaphysical residues, and personality-driven culture that followed.

We carry forward what works. We let go of what doesn't.

We evolve the vision—without canon, without cult.

9. We Are Cartographers, Not Priests

We draw maps. We build models. We create lenses.

And we remain aware: our maps are partial, temporary, and revisable.

We invite criticism. We thrive on dialogue.

We stand against dogma in all forms—even our own.

10. We Cultivate Integral Practice as a Human Art

To live integrally is to live in awareness of multiple perspectives, dynamic contexts, and ongoing development.

It's not an ideology—it's a discipline, a lens, a stance of openness.

There is no end point.

Only the art of integrating complexity—moment by moment, choice by choice.

Signed:

The Secular Integralist

What were the key shifts in thinking between Ken Wilber and Frank Visser?

1. Early Phase (Pre-2000): Esoteric-Metaphysical Alignment

Ken Wilber

Wilber's early works (The Spectrum of Consciousness [1977], Up from Eden [1981], Sex, Ecology, Spirituality [1995]) are steeped in Neoplatonic metaphysics, evolutionary spirituality, and the Great Chain of Being.

Presents Spirit-in-action, Eros as kosmic drive, and the unfolding of Atman to Brahman as metaphysical realities.

Synthesizes Theosophy, Vedanta, Buddhism, transpersonal psychology, and systems theory.

Frank Visser

Publishes Ken Wilber: Thought as Passion (2003), which sympathetically explores Wilber's system as a profound spiritual synthesis.

Operates from a Theosophical or neo-esoteric lens at this time.

Launches IntegralWorld.net as a hub for integral ideas and discussion, primarily in support of Wilber.

2. Wilber's Post-Metaphysical Turn (~2005–2006)

Ken Wilber

With Integral Spirituality (2006), Wilber declares a move to "post-metaphysical" spirituality:

Replaces metaphysical claims with enactive epistemology.

Introduces the idea of Kosmic addresses (truths are enacted from developmental stages).

Avoids ontological assertions about “Spirit,” emphasizing phenomenology and enactment instead.

Reframes mystical insights as structures of experience, not descriptions of ontological reality.

However, critics argue Wilber still smuggles metaphysics in via:

The idea of a teleological “Eros”

Assumptions about the inevitability of developmental unfolding

Enduring talk of “Spirit” as the highest perspective

Frank Visser

Still supportive during this period.

Interviews Wilber with Edith Zundel (2006) while still under a spiritual-esoteric influence.

Doesn't yet publicly challenge Wilber's spiritual framework, though cracks are beginning to form.

3. Visser's Shift Toward Reductionism (~2008–2012)

Frank Visser

Begins moving toward a naturalistic, scientific, and skeptical critique of Wilber's work.

Becomes heavily influenced by David Christopher Lane, who challenges Wilber on:

Neo-Perennialism

The non-scientific basis of his spiritual assertions

The lack of empirical rigor in his developmental metaphysics

Publishes numerous essays on Integral World

Starts emphasizing cognitive science, neuroscience, and biological evolution over mystical insight.

David Lane

Brings a strong scientific skepticism to the Integral world.

Challenges all forms of guru-based metaphysics and consciousness primacy.

Labels Wilber's vision as a form of sophisticated creationism cloaked in spiritual language.

4. Breakdown of the Wilber–Visser Relationship

Ken Wilber

In the infamous What We Are, That We See (2006), Wilber lashes out at his critics (including Visser), calling them “green-meme” thinkers, mean-spirited, and lacking developmental altitude.

Withdraws from Integral World and circles of open criticism.

Reinforces the Wilber-centric discourse on Integral Life, emphasizing loyalty and closed circles.

Retains support from figures like Marc Gafni, Andrew Cohen (until later splits), and other spiritual evolutionists.

Frank Visser

Distances himself definitively from the Wilber cult of personality.

Turns Integral World into a pluralist, critical platform, hosting voices from across the spectrum—including skeptics, scientists, atheists, and alternative integral thinkers.

Retains a structural appreciation of Wilber's system but rejects its spiritual absolutism.

Summary Table: Evolution of Positions

Conclusion

Wilber and Visser exemplify two diverging paths from the same intellectual rootstock:

Wilber: toward a post-postmodern spiritual synthesis, retaining a core evolutionary metaphysics.

Visser: toward a naturalistic, skeptical revision of Integral, retaining structure but rejecting mysticism.

This split is emblematic of the broader Integral Diaspora, where different thinkers reinterpret, revise, or reject various parts of Wilber's legacy. It also highlights how Integral Theory serves as a catalyst—not a conclusion—for many postmodern and post-spiritual thinkers.

What does Frank Visser still appreciate in Wilbers model, and what has he rejected?

Frank Visser's relationship to Ken Wilber's work is best described as critical yet structurally appreciative. Over time, he has preserved some elements of Wilber's system that he sees as valuable mapping tools, while discarding much of the spiritual metaphysics and evolutionary idealism that he now considers speculative or pseudoscientific.

Here's a clear breakdown:

What Frank Visser Still Appreciates in Wilber's Model

1. Structural Complexity

Quadrants (interior/exterior, individual/collective) as a useful heuristic for organizing knowledge and disciplines.

Lines of development (e.g., cognitive, emotional, moral) as an insight into multiple intelligences.

Stages or levels of development (e.g., pre-conventional, conventional, post-conventional) when empirically grounded—especially via developmental psychology (e.g., Piaget, Kohlberg, Loevinger, Kegan).

2. Integrative Ambition

Wilber's attempt to synthesize Western and Eastern knowledge, science and spirituality, psychology and philosophy—is respected as bold and visionary.

Visser acknowledges that Wilber brought together fields that needed dialogue, even if the synthesis didn't always hold up under scrutiny.

3. Cultural Critique

Appreciates Wilber's criticism of postmodern relativism, and his articulation of developmental depth beyond mere horizontal pluralism.

Values Wilber's altitude model (when not spiritualized) for making sense of worldview evolution.

What Frank Visser Has Rejected

1. Metaphysical Spirituality

Wilber's vision of Spirit-in-action, Eros-driven evolution, or ascending holarchies is rejected as non-scientific metaphysics.

Visser sees this as a kind of sophisticated creationism that lacks empirical grounding.

2. Teleological Evolution

Strongly critical of Wilber's idea that evolution is driven toward increasing consciousness or complexity.

Sees this as an idealist projection incompatible with Darwinian biology, systems theory, and evolutionary contingency.

3. Wilber's Personality and Group Dynamics

Rejects the guru dynamic, intolerance of critique, and spiritual elitism that emerged around Wilber and Integral Life.

Sees Wilber's attacks on critics (e.g., What We Are That We See) as anti-intellectual and dogmatic.

4. Non-Falsifiable Claims

Rejects any claims that can't be tested, falsified, or corroborated—such as those about subtle realms, higher beings, or metaphysical forces.

Champions scientific method, rational inquiry, and empirical humility.

Visser's Position in a Nutshell