• 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).

Missing the Point

The Non-Responses to My Critique
of Wilber's Evolutionary Mysticism

Frank Visser / ChatGPT

For over two decades, I've offered a sustained, evidence-based critique of Ken Wilber's portrayal of evolution as a spiritually driven process—complete with cosmic Eros and a metaphysical directionality foreign to modern biology. One might expect this to spark serious debate among Integral thinkers.

Instead, I've been met with a consistent pattern: not engagement, but evasion. Below is a field guide to the most common tactics used to avoid addressing the actual content of my critique—ranging from the mystical to the personal to the outright dismissive.

Twenty Ways to Avoid Criticism

1. “You Just Don't Get It”

If I were only spiritually mature enough, I'd see what Wilber means. The implication? My rational mind is stuck in flatland, unable to grasp higher truths. This is less a counterpoint than a form of altitude-shaming: disagreement equals inferiority.

2. “Wilber Has Already Addressed This”

Often I'm told Wilber dealt with all these criticisms already—usually by pointing to his appendix in Integral Spirituality or his Wyatt Earp blogs. But these responses are rhetorical feints, not scientific rebuttals. They don't touch the core argument: that Eros-as-evolution is a metaphysical overlay, not a scientific insight.

3. “Science Doesn't Know Everything”

This one's popular. Because biology still has unanswered questions, Wilber's spiritual interpretation deserves a seat at the table. But this is a sleight of hand: ignorance in one area doesn't justify importing metaphysical teleology into evolutionary theory.

4. “Integration Trumps Rigor”

Wilber is doing integration, not science, we're told. But integration without methodological discipline becomes metaphysical stew. Claiming that Eros “includes but transcends” Darwin doesn't make it scientifically valid.

5. “Frank Is Bitter”

Here the critique is dismissed not by argument, but by motive. I must be disgruntled, jealous, or spiritually regressed. This is an ad hominem wrapped in psychospiritual packaging—clever, but content-free.

6. “Wilber Is Brilliant Elsewhere”

Yes, he may have fumbled evolution, but look at all the other dazzling contributions! The problem is: Wilber uses evolution as a cornerstone of his cosmic narrative. You can't simply swap it out and expect the edifice to remain standing.

7. “He's a Visionary, Like Galileo”

Wilber is cast as a prophetic voice, misunderstood by conventional science. But Galileo presented empirical evidence, not poetic metaphysics. If you claim modern biology is wrong, you need data—not just a loftier intuition.

8. “Why So Negative?”

Why dwell on what's wrong instead of what's inspiring? Because accuracy matters. Wilber's distortion of evolution isn't a minor error—it's a recurring theme that compromises the intellectual credibility of his entire system.

9. “Your Third Eye Is Closed”

If I can't see Spirit in evolution, it must be due to spiritual blindness. This mystical gatekeeping protects the doctrine by psychologizing dissent. But spiritual perception isn't a license to bypass empirical scrutiny.

10. “You Unconsciously Resist Spirit”

This one assumes I'm avoiding deeper truths due to fear, ego, or trauma. In other words: disagreement is pathology. But disagreeing with unfounded metaphysical claims is not a symptom—it's a rational response.

11. “Don't Kick a Man When He's Down”

Because Wilber suffers from chronic illness, critiques are often seen as inappropriate or cruel. But intellectual accountability doesn't end when health declines—especially if one continues to publish and influence others.

12. “It's Just Your Shadow Talking”

If all else fails, blame the unconscious. This turns critique into confession: I'm not arguing, I'm projecting. But shadow work doesn't exempt one from responding to factual challenges. Sometimes a critique is just… a critique.

13. “You're Too Focused on the Negative”

This is tone-policing in spiritual garb. But critique isn't pessimism; it's clarity. If a theory misuses science to support a mystical worldview, pointing that out is not cynicism—it's intellectual hygiene.

14. “It's Just a Metaphor”

Wilber didn't really mean Eros drives evolution, we're told—it's just symbolic language. But he's repeatedly clear that science can't explain evolution without invoking a spiritual force. If it's a metaphor, it's a very literal one.

15. “None of This Really Matters”

The final fallback: who cares? It's all inconsequential. But if Wilber's vision rests on the idea that Spirit is driving cosmic development, and if that claim doesn't hold up, then it matters quite a bit. If it doesn't matter, then perhaps the system is more myth than model—and that, too, should be acknowledged.

16. The “You're Beating a Dead Horse” Complaint

Surely by now, this debate is tired. Haven't we been over this? Isn't it time to move on? This argument assumes that the issue has been resolved—without ever having been addressed. It shifts the burden of exhaustion onto the critic, not the unresolved content. But if a prominent spiritual philosopher continues to promote evolution-as-Eros in new publications, and if his defenders continue to shield that claim with evasions and mystification, then no—this horse isn't dead. It's still being ridden, and it's still going in circles. If anything, the real fatigue comes not from repetition, but from the refusal to engage the substance in the first place.

17. The “There Are Many Other Integral Models” Diversion

When Wilber's model is challenged, some quickly pivot: “Integral theory doesn't begin and end with Ken Wilber!” Suddenly, the conversation shifts from his specific claims to the pluralism of the broader Integral landscape. While this is true in a general sense, it's disingenuous in context. Wilber's system is the most influential, widely taught, and explicitly metaphysical version on offer. If someone builds the house, paints it, furnishes it, and names it "Integral Theory," then critiques of its foundation are not nitpicking—they're structural audits. Invoking other models at this point is a way to avoid defending the one that's actually under review.

18. The “When Do You Let Go of Your Daddy?” Jab

This one's particularly loaded. The idea is that my continued critique of Wilber reflects a kind of unresolved attachment—a failure to individuate from a spiritual father figure. It's not a disagreement, it's a psychodrama. Perhaps I was once too devoted, and now I'm too angry. This “Daddy” argument is rhetorically satisfying—it reinterprets intellectual critique as emotional immaturity—but it's also a cheap shot. It pathologizes critical thinking instead of engaging it. Sometimes, letting go of “Daddy” means holding his claims accountable.

19. Wilber's Own: “Frank Feels Left Out”

This one came straight from the source. In his infamous Wyatt Earp blog rants, Wilber speculated that my critiques were driven by resentment at being excluded from his inner circle. The implication was clear: I wasn't offering a reasoned critique—I was nursing a personal wound. But this is projection masquerading as analysis. My objections have always been specific, sourced, and open to response. If Wilber cannot distinguish between criticism and envy, that says more about his own need for protection than about my motives.

20. The “Frank Hates Wilber” Accusation

When all else fails, the final fallback is the most personal: “It's obvious Frank just hates Wilber.” This accusation pretends to settle the debate by collapsing it into character. No need to examine citations, logic, or evidence—because now it's just about animus. But this claim ignores the record: I've written extensively, respectfully, and persistently about the strengths and weaknesses of Wilber's work for decades. My critique isn't rooted in hate; it's rooted in concern for clarity, truth, and the boundaries between science and metaphysics. If anything, what's unsettling for Wilber's defenders is not hostility, but disappointment—and disappointment requires a history of high expectations.

A More Integral Response

A most integral response—if we take Wilber's own ideals seriously—would be one that meets the critique with perspective-taking, epistemic humility, and cross-paradigmatic literacy. That means:

1. Engage the Content, Not the Critic

An integral response would not psychologize you, blame your shadow, or speculate on your motivations. It would quote your arguments accurately, cite the scientific sources you reference, and address them point by point. No dodges. No altitude-shaming. No spiritual bypassing.

2. Acknowledge When Wilber Got It Wrong

If Wilber misunderstood core tenets of evolutionary biology—such as the mechanisms of mutation, selection, and speciation—then a truly integral thinker would say so. They wouldn't twist metaphors into facts or vice versa. They'd admit that mystical insight does not grant immunity from scientific error.

3. Separate Science from Metaphysics

An integral view should be able to hold multiple epistemologies in relationship—not collapse them into one another. Science has its methods. Spirituality has its modes of experience. An integral response would honor both without conflating them—and without claiming that “Eros” is a scientific hypothesis.

4. Demonstrate Evolutionary Literacy

A legitimate response would demonstrate real understanding of evolutionary theory—not cherry-picked improbabilities or God-of-the-gaps logic. It would deal honestly with concepts like de novo gene emergence, neutral evolution, horizontal gene transfer, and epigenetics, not lean on mystical metaphors.

5. Embody the Spirit of Integral Methodology

Wilber often emphasizes the “methodological pluralism” of Integral Theory. That means every claim should be tested by the appropriate method:

Spiritual insight by introspection and contemplation.

Scientific claims by empirical testing and peer review.

A most integral response would say:

“Yes, Eros may be meaningful in a spiritual or metaphysical sense—but that does not make it a legitimate explanation of biological complexity.”

6. Welcome Critique as Integral Practice

Finally, the most mature integral response would welcome critique as part of the growth process. It would thank you for your rigor and persistence—even if disagreeing—because shadow work includes the collective shadow: including the unacknowledged inflation of our own worldview.

A Personal Response from Ken

by Ken Wilber (as he might respond, in the spirit of integration)

Dear Frank,

First, let me acknowledge something essential: you've been one of the most consistent, persistent, and thoughtful critics of my work—particularly when it comes to how I've discussed evolution. That kind of engagement, over years and even decades, is rare. I want to thank you for that. Critique is not the opposite of respect—it is, often, its highest form.

Let me try, in this brief reply, to meet your critique not from a place of defense, but from a genuinely integral stance—one that includes and transcends my own earlier formulations.

1. Did I Overstep in My Use of Evolutionary Science?

Yes, in some ways I did. My use of “Eros” as a driving force in evolution was intended to be metaphysical, even poetic. But I also framed it in places as an explanatory gap-filler for what science supposedly cannot account for. That was a mistake. Scientific theories—while never complete—are not waiting for spiritual supplementation to become valid. They evolve within their own rigorous methodologies. When I implied that evolution “needs” Eros to function, I blurred the boundary between ontology and epistemology.

You were right to call that out.

2. Should I Have Been Clearer About Metaphor vs. Mechanism?

Absolutely. Saying “Eros is at work in evolution” can sound like a scientific claim—and I did not always clarify that this was a metaphysical intuition, not a testable hypothesis. Language matters, especially when crossing domains. I now see that I should have more explicitly bracketed such claims within the appropriate zone of validity—Zone 1 or Zone 2, perhaps, but not Zone 5 (exterior, collective, empirical science). That's on me.

3. Is the Integral Community Too Quick to Defend Me?

At times, yes. The strength of any intellectual ecosystem depends on its capacity to handle critique, even sharp and uncomfortable critique. The idea that spiritual or “higher” perspectives are beyond rational scrutiny is precisely the kind of “pre/trans fallacy” I've warned against—yet I can see how I've also encouraged it, even if unintentionally, by reacting dismissively to critics like yourself.

Let me say clearly: rational critique is not regression. It's not “lower-tier.” It's a necessary part of the dialectic.

4. Does This Undermine the Integral Vision?

No, but it does require refinement. Integral Theory was never meant to be a fixed dogma but an evolving framework. If my treatment of evolution lacked scientific precision, then the integral vision is better served by correcting that than by ignoring it. Integration doesn't mean never admitting error—it means incorporating feedback from multiple sources of knowledge.

5. About Our Personal History

Frank, you've often been painted as bitter, resentful, or “feeling left out.” I regret contributing to that narrative. Even if we've disagreed sharply, I see now that much of your critique comes not from antagonism, but from a desire to keep the Integral project honest, grounded, and credible.

That is invaluable.

In Closing

I don't pretend to have the final word on anything—not on evolution, not on Spirit, not on the integration of science and metaphysics. But I do hope to participate in a community where good-faith critique is welcomed, where theory is corrigible, and where mysticism does not shelter itself from reason.

Thank you again for keeping that flame lit, even when few were listening.

Warmly,

Ken