• 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).

Wilber's Strategic Ambiguity

Why 'Intra-Physical Realities'
Are Far from Post-Metaphysical

Frank Visser / ChatGPT

"Thus, what the premodern sages took to be META-physical realities are in many cases INTRA-physical realities; they are not above matter, nor beyond nature, nor meta-physical, nor super-natural; they are not above nature but within nature, not beyond matter but interior to it." (Integral Spirituality, p. 222)

This quote is often cited as a central statement of Wilber's so-called post-metaphysical turn. On the surface, it seems like a laudable repositioning of spiritual claims within a modern epistemological framework. It appears to reject supernaturalism and metaphysical dualism by locating spiritual experience within nature, not above it. Yet a closer analysis reveals that this formulation remains deeply metaphysical—just in more subtle and rhetorically sophisticated ways.

In what follows, I will argue that Wilber's “intra-physical” reframing is not truly post-metaphysical in either content or method. Instead, it represents a kind of crypto-metaphysics: a rhetorical repositioning of traditional metaphysical claims under a modern, quasi-naturalistic veneer. Despite the language of integration and immanence, the architecture of Wilber's thought continues to rely on teleological assumptions, interiorist dualisms, and a re-enchanted cosmos masquerading as philosophical neutrality.

1. Metaphysical Content in Disguise

Wilber's language is carefully hedged: metaphysical realities are no longer “above” or “beyond” but “within” and “interior to” nature. Yet this spatial metaphor simply relocates the metaphysical rather than dissolving it. The structure of reality still contains “realms” or “dimensions” of consciousness that transcend mere material description. These so-called “interiors” are presented as ontologically real—just not in the naïve terms of the old metaphysics. They are reinterpreted as domains of experience, structure-stages of development, or interiors of holons.

But this interpretive shift does not eliminate metaphysical presuppositions; it only translates them into a different idiom. The notion that consciousness unfolds through intrinsic levels or stages within the Kosmos, that Spirit “self-actualizes” through evolution, or that interiors are developmentally nested—is not something discovered by empirical science. It is a philosophical and metaphysical worldview smuggled in under the banner of “integration.”

If post-metaphysics means, as Wilber himself often says, a refusal to make ontological claims that cannot be grounded in experience or intersubjective validation, then this quote violates its own principles. It claims that ancient metaphysical realities are actually real, just misunderstood in their vertical location. But this presupposes that these experiences—of subtle energies, higher realms, divine presences—have some objective intra-physical basis that is not simply interpretive or phenomenological. That is not a post-metaphysical stance. It's a metaphysical reinterpretation.

2. Interior Domains as Reified Structures

Wilber's core innovation in AQAL is the mapping of reality into four quadrants, with the upper-left representing the “interior individual” domain—subjective consciousness, phenomenology, intentionality. This quadrant is indispensable for understanding first-person experience. But in Wilber's hands, it is often treated not just as a domain of lived experience but as a structure-laden reality with intrinsic developmental direction, telos, and ontology.

When Wilber says that spiritual realities are “interior to” matter, he implies that interior domains are just as real as exterior ones—just less accessible to third-person methodologies. This move sounds pluralistic, even anti-reductionist. But it ends up reifying interiority as a metaphysical substrate or realm—a kind of invisible, developmental scaffolding of the cosmos.

This is most clearly seen in his use of stage models (Fulcrums, SD levels, Wilber-Combs lattice) that present interior development as a lawful, hierarchical unfolding. Such staging implies more than mere description of patterns; it gestures toward a metaphysical structure of reality, one that pre-exists individual experience. These are not merely interpretive models, but ontologized maps.

Wilber might insist this is “post-metaphysical” because it includes phenomenology and avoids naïve literalism. But any system that posits real stages, intrinsic holarchies, and actual spiritual realities “within” matter is, by definition, metaphysical in content. That these realities are called “interior” rather than “supernatural” does not change their metaphysical status.

3. The Re-Enchantment of Nature

A hallmark of post-metaphysical thinking is its restraint. It avoids making claims that cannot, in principle, be empirically supported, intersubjectively validated, or coherently debated across worldviews. By contrast, Wilber's vision re-enchants nature with purpose, direction, and Spirit. He claims not that people interpret evolution as spiritual, but that evolution itself is Spirit-in-action. He speaks of an Eros that moves atoms to brains to Buddha, a drive inherent in the cosmos toward greater depth.

This teleological narrative—central to Wilber's project—is unambiguously metaphysical. It makes a claim about what reality is, not merely how it is experienced. Even if he wraps this in “all quadrants, all levels” packaging, the ultimate metaphysical import remains: Spirit is real, directional, and manifesting within time.

In this light, his “intra-physical” move is simply a repackaged cosmotheism. It echoes Schelling's “nature is visible Spirit” and Hegel's Geist unfolding in history. Such views may be powerful, even beautiful—but they are not post-metaphysical. They are speculative metaphysics draped in phenomenological robes.

4. Wilber's Strategic Ambiguity

Part of Wilber's rhetorical strength lies in his strategic use of ambiguity. He often speaks as if he is simply describing patterns of experience or mapping phenomenology. But then he slides into ontological assertions: that interiors are real, that development has directionality, that evolution is Spirit manifest.

This ambiguity allows him to sound postmodern and post-metaphysical to one audience, and metaphysically spiritual to another. But in academic terms, this is a category error. One cannot simultaneously make empirical claims and hold metaphysical beliefs without clearly distinguishing between them. Otherwise, the epistemological boundary between interpretive map and ontological territory becomes blurred.

By redefining metaphysical realities as intra-physical, Wilber attempts to have it both ways: salvaging the metaphysical insights of the great traditions while claiming a modern, naturalistic framework. But this is not deconstruction; it's domestication. The old ideas are retained under a new spatial metaphor. Nothing is truly surrendered, only relabeled.

5. Ambiguity in Dialogue with Neo-Darwinists

Wilber's strategic ambiguity becomes particularly evident in how he positions himself in relation to neo-Darwinian scientists such as Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett. In Integral Spirituality and other writings, Wilber routinely critiques these figures as "flatland reductionists" who ignore the interior dimensions of consciousness and culture. But what's striking is how he does this while still trying to appear scientifically informed and respectful of empirical rigor. This dance of dismissal and appropriation is a hallmark of his rhetorical strategy.

To begin with, Wilber accuses thinkers like Dennett and Dawkins of confusing exterior mechanisms (like natural selection) with the full scope of reality. In AQAL terms, they allegedly reduce the four quadrants to just the exterior-right—third-person, empirical surfaces. But while this may be a fair critique of some reductive tendencies in evolutionary psychology, Wilber's response is not to remain within empirical bounds and add phenomenological nuance. Instead, he introduces a metaphysical construct—Eros—as an explanatory principle that supposedly accounts for the emergence of increasing complexity and consciousness. He thus reintroduces precisely the kind of speculative teleology that scientists like Dennett have spent careers warning against.

And yet, Wilber does not openly declare this to be metaphysics. Rather, he cloaks it in post-metaphysical language, calling it "an impulse within evolution" or "Spirit-in-action." He insists that he is merely describing what science itself fails to see due to its quadrant blindness. But when pressed for clarification, as in his exchanges on the Integral Naked forums or his Wyatt Earp blog entries, Wilber becomes evasive: is Eros a metaphor, a phenomenological interpretation, or an actual ontological principle? He rarely says outright.

This ambiguity serves a dual function. To scientifically literate audiences, Wilber presents his model as a more "integrated" approach that transcends the limitations of neo-Darwinism. To spiritual audiences, he reaffirms their intuitive sense that evolution is not random but purposeful—without having to defend the claim scientifically. In doing so, Wilber appears both modern and mystical, both scientific and spiritual.

But in dialogue with committed naturalists like Dennett, this ambiguity doesn't hold. Dennett, for instance, has written extensively on how evolution, when misunderstood through anthropomorphic lenses, becomes mystified and misrepresented. If Wilber were to bring his intra-physical Eros to the debate table, it would immediately be challenged as a non-explanatory pseudo-cause. But Wilber sidesteps this by claiming such critics lack the "vision-logic" to grasp higher perspectives.

Thus, Wilber's post-metaphysical rhetoric allows him to criticize neo-Darwinists without ever directly engaging them on shared methodological terms. It is not that Wilber's ideas are rejected by science—it's that they are rarely submitted to it. He does not argue from within evolutionary biology but around it, positioning his model as meta-theoretical while remaining metaphysical in content. In this way, ambiguity functions as a shield: it protects Wilber's metaphysical commitments from scientific scrutiny while presenting them as more encompassing than science itself.

This is not post-metaphysics. It is metaphysics by stealth.

6. A Truly Post-Metaphysical Alternative

A genuinely post-metaphysical approach would treat spiritual experiences as interpretive enactments arising within specific linguistic, cultural, and neurobiological contexts. It would acknowledge the depth of those experiences without reifying them into ontological domains. It would resist the temptation to posit hidden cosmic energies, telos, or interior realms unless those claims could be coherently grounded.

Such an approach is available in contemporary phenomenology, enactivist cognitive science, and constructivist epistemology. But Wilber stops short of this full embrace of post-metaphysics. He retains the scaffolding of metaphysics while changing the decor. He calls the soul “interior,” the spirit “evolutionary,” and the divine “immanent”—but all remain metaphysically posited, not just hermeneutically explored.

Conclusion: From Super-Nature to Hyper-Structure

Wilber's quote on intra-physical realities seems, at first glance, to signal a move beyond supernaturalism and metaphysical speculation. But it is better understood as a translation of metaphysical beliefs into a modern developmental register. The metaphysics have not been abandoned—they have been relocated, redescribed, and woven into the fabric of his AQAL system.

A truly post-metaphysical stance would let go of Spirit-as-cosmic-drive and treat the richness of human experience as just that—experience, not evidence of a hidden divine infrastructure. Wilber's system, for all its brilliance, remains wedded to a metaphysical vision. The premodern sages are still whispering in his ear—only now from within nature, not above it.

And in that subtle shift, metaphysics survives intact.