• 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 Death of Dialogue in Integral Culture

On Spiritual Defensiveness, Intellectual Censorship, and the Limits of Wilberian Discourse

Frank Visser / ChatGPT

In a recent outburst in the Integral Global Facebook group, Brad Reynolds—fellow author, long-time Wilber supporter, and self-appointed guardian of spiritual correctness—leveled yet another personal attack against me. It read, in part:

“Isn't there a limit on people posting, Corey? What's up with the endless Frank Visser posts? We know Frank hates Wilber and shows no respect, so why must we tolerate his endless insults and distortions?... It's Artificial Unintelligence.”

This wasn't an isolated moment of frustration. It was the latest in a long-running campaign to discredit me not by engaging with my arguments, but by impugning my motives, marginalizing my voice, and portraying my critiques as spiritually stunted.

In a follow-up post, Reynolds went even further:

“Frank Visser misunderstands and therefore misrepresents how ‘Wilber deals with science'… You don't even listen to your writing mate AI or ChatGPT… Your knowledge in transpersonal and mystical matters is lame and nearly non-existent… Perhaps you should back off and reflect on your own limitations instead of insisting your view is the only correct reading of Wilber.”

Let's unpack what's really going on here.

Not a Misunderstanding, But a Disagreement

To dismiss my decades-long engagement with Wilber's work as a “misunderstanding” is not just lazy—it's dishonest. I've published the first and only sympathetic academic monograph on Wilber (SUNY Press, 2003), translated his work into Dutch, hosted the Integral World platform for over twenty years, and written dozens of detailed critiques tracing the arc of Wilber's thought.

If I misrepresent him, it is with footnotes.

Reynolds's real issue is not that I don't understand Wilber—it's that I no longer agree with him. I don't accept the metaphysical claims Wilber has grafted onto the theory of evolution. I don't accept “Eros” as a scientific explanation. I don't accept that Spirit hides behind every developmental sequence. I believe in critical thinking, methodological transparency, and intellectual humility—all of which are sorely lacking in the way the Integral movement now handles internal dissent.

The Wilber Defense: Spiritualized Deflection

Brad's responses are emblematic of a broader failure in the Integral community: the inability to distinguish criticism from betrayal. Any deviation from the orthodoxy is pathologized as a form of ego, unconsciousness, or “first-tier limitation.” Any attempt to ground Wilber's cosmic speculations in empirical reason is dismissed as materialism, scientism, or (ironically) “Artificial Unintelligence.”

When you criticize Wilber's metaphysics, you're told to go meditate.

When you question his reading of evolution, you're told you're "frozen in your perspective."

When you use reasoned arguments, you're told you're not awake enough to understand.

This is not Integral. This is defense masquerading as transcendence.

A Note on AI—and Who's Really Listening

Brad Reynolds

Brad makes the curious claim that I “don't even listen to ChatGPT,” implying that this language model understands Wilber better than I do. But I do listen to ChatGPT—closely. I use it to reconstruct Wilber's claims, test them, triangulate their coherence with mainstream science, and explore counterpoints. In fact, I've published dozens of AI-assisted dialogues on Integral World to stimulate precisely the kind of multi-perspectival thinking the Integral movement claims to value.

What I don't do is treat AI as a guru. I use it as a mirror, not an idol. If ChatGPT seems to explain Wilber more clearly than his disciples, that's not a weakness in my critique—it's a comment on the imprecision of Integral apologetics.

The Real Elephant in the Room: Wilber Himself

Let's not forget that the spiritual tone of the Integral community was set by Wilber's own conduct during the infamous Wyatt Earp blog posts. In those posts, he referred to critics as “green-meme hacks,” and told one to “suck my dick.” These rants were interspersed—ironically—with passages on doing shadow work.

The community's response? Mostly silence.

When Wilber consulted leading integralists about his intention to post these blogs, many objected. But after the posts went live, Wilber later claimed it had all been a test—to see who was “second tier” enough not to object to his abusive language.

This is not integral development. It is a spiritualized double standard, where charisma overrides conduct and where intellectual critique is seen as a threat rather than a contribution.

The Eye of Spirit—and the Fallacy of Epistemic Superiority

Brad Reynolds has also insisted that my critiques of Wilber are invalid because, in his words, my "third eye" is closed. That is, I supposedly lack the spiritual depth or mystical experience to understand what Wilber is actually saying. This is not just a personal jab—it's a fundamental claim about epistemic hierarchy: that only those who have awakened the so-called "Eye of Spirit" are qualified to interpret or critique Integral Theory.

This line of argument is as old as esotericism itself: spiritual insight trumps rational critique. But in practice, it functions as a conversation-stopper, a credentialing mechanism based not on logic or evidence but on unverifiable inner states. It replaces open dialogue with mystical exceptionalism.

Let's be clear: the Eye of Spirit is a metaphor—one Wilber borrowed from medieval philosophy and adapted to his triadic model of knowing. But a metaphor is not a monopoly. I reject the notion that only those who meditate or practice yoga can speak meaningfully about metaphysics, evolution, or the scientific method. Wilber presented Integral Theory as a meta-theory, open to philosophical, empirical, and introspective scrutiny. If it now requires spiritual initiation to grasp, it has ceased to be a theory and become a spiritual aristocracy.

If Wilber is truly “over my head,” as Brad claims, it is not because my mind is closed. It's because Wilber has retreated above the clouds, beyond the reach of reason, and then calls it altitude.

That's not transcendence. That's insulation.

On Being "Smarter than Wilber and All the Mystics"

One of Brad Reynolds' more theatrical accusations is that I act as if I'm “smarter than Ken Wilber and all the world's mystics.” Let's unpack that.

No, I don't think I'm smarter than all the world's mystics. I think I'm asking a different kind of question. Mystics offer profound insights into human consciousness and experience. That deserves respect—but not exemption from critique when they make claims about the cosmos, biology, or evolution. Wilber's great mistake was to elevate mystical insight into a universal epistemology—one that supersedes not only science but any viewpoint that doesn't confirm its metaphysical assumptions.

I've never claimed to be “smarter” than Wilber. But I do claim that critical thinking, empirical grounding, and philosophical rigor matter. That means even a brilliant system can harbor fundamental flaws. In fact, the smarter the theorist, the more intricate—and potentially misleading—the framework can become.

Saying “Frank Visser thinks he's smarter than all the mystics” is a convenient way to dodge the hard work of argumentation. It frames critique as ego, and reverence as virtue. But reverence without scrutiny is not wisdom. It's intellectual surrender.

If Wilber's vision can't withstand reasoned disagreement, then it's not Integral. It's just inflated mysticism with footnotes.

Integral Has a Choice

Brad Reynolds and I are, in a strange way, in the same boat. We've both published on Wilber. We've both been marginalized—by the integral inner circle. I value our dialectic precisely because it forces me to clarify my position. But when that dialectic devolves into character assassination, public shaming, and mystical gatekeeping, it reflects not on the critic—but on the culture.

The Integral movement stands at a crossroads. It can mature into a pluralistic, critical, open-source philosophy. Or it can harden into a metaphysical bubble, protected by gatekeepers, immune to critique, and haunted by the shadow it refuses to own.

I know which path I've chosen. And I won't be backing off anytime soon.