• 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).

What Remains

A Rationalist's Testament in a Spiritual Age

Frank Visser / ChatGPT

Introduction: The Quiet Resistance

For over two decades, I've been challenging the spiritual architecture of Ken Wilber's Integral Theory—a system that promised to unify science, spirituality, psychology, and culture. I began as a sympathizer, even an insider. I wrote the first academic monograph on Wilber's work.[1] I translated and interpreted his ideas. I helped build the platform of Integral World to host both endorsements and dissent.

But somewhere along the way, I realized that Integral wasn't evolving. It was metastasizing. What began as an ambitious synthesis became a metaphysical fortress, defended not by open inquiry but by insulation, jargon, and the elevation of mystical certainty above scientific doubt. I pushed back. Quietly, consistently, and publicly. And for the most part, I was ignored.

Later, I took up another fight: debunking the denialism surrounding COVID-19. I wrote two books exposing the pseudoscientific arguments of those who claimed viruses don't exist, that the pandemic was a hoax, that germ theory was fiction.[2] Once again, I assumed that clear reasoning and evidence would prevail. Once again, the silence was deafening.

Now, I find myself out of steam—not out of conviction, but out of illusions about how change happens. What follows is not another argument, but a testament. A reflection. A final arc.

Part I: Challenging the Guru Logic

Ken Wilber is no fraud. He's a gifted synthesizer, a charismatic thinker, and a genuinely contemplative mind. But he also represents a deeper problem: the spiritualization of complexity. By offering maps of reality that stretch from atoms to angels, he attracts those hungry for cosmic coherence—and repels those who ask hard questions about evidence.

I asked those questions. Over and over again.

Why does Wilber continue to rely on outdated or fringe science to support his metaphysical claims?

Why is Eros—his word for spiritual evolution—asserted rather than explained?

Why are critics labeled as "flatlanders" or "first-tier thinkers" instead of being engaged?

The answers never came. Or rather, they came dressed in developmental condescension: “You just don't get it yet.”

But I got it. I got that the system was designed to protect itself. That anyone raising doubts was either not evolved enough or spiritually undeveloped. That's how cultic logic works, even in intellectual circles: it's not what you know, it's how high you've climbed.

Integral Theory, for all its sophistication, became an echo chamber. One that speaks fluently about stages and states—but forgets that inquiry is not hierarchy, and transcendence is not a substitute for truth.

Part II: Science Isn't Enough—But It Matters

The parallels with virus denialism were uncanny.

Those who reject the existence of viruses, or deny the causes of pandemics, use the same rhetorical moves: misquoting scientific literature, elevating contrarians, constructing vast conspiracies, and turning complexity into confusion.

In both the spiritual and pseudoscientific worlds, skepticism becomes a weapon—selectively applied, never turned inward. Evidence is cherry-picked or reframed until it fits the narrative. The very methods that built modern medicine or evolutionary biology are dismissed as materialist dogma.

I wrote my two books on virus denialism not just to correct the record—but to defend the value of scientific reasoning in an age of magical thinking. I thought I'd be joining a public conversation. Instead, I watched the conversation get swallowed by louder, wilder voices.

What I learned is this: science isn't enough to convince someone who has already married meaning to metaphysics. But it still matters. It anchors us. It limits the fantasies we're allowed to entertain. And when paired with humility, it can still be a path toward deeper understanding.

Part III: Fatigue and Clarity

After twenty years of writing, debating, and hosting critical essays, I feel the weariness that comes from rowing against the current. There's a special kind of fatigue that comes not from failure, but from being prematurely right.

To see where things are going—to warn against the spiritual inflation of developmental maps, or the denial of empirical reality in the name of higher consciousness—and then to watch the world ignore it, that takes a toll.

At times I've asked myself: Was it worth it?

The answer, still, is yes. Not because it changed the system—but because it clarified my own mind. I never set out to win a war. I only wanted to speak honestly about what I saw.

Part IV: What Remains

So what remains?

A commitment to rational inquiry, even when it's unfashionable.

A respect for spiritual experience—but a refusal to let it become metaphysical dogma.

A belief that scientific truth is not the whole story, but it's the part we can test, revise, and share in common.

I no longer expect Wilber's followers to listen. I no longer expect virus deniers to read the data. But I do believe that future readers—those disillusioned by grand systems, and looking for something solid—might find value in this record.

Integral Theory will fade, mutate, or be reborn in some other form. Conspiracy theories will come and go. But the deeper task remains: to think clearly in a fog of narratives. That's what I tried to do.

Part V: Talking to the Machine

In the midst of my growing fatigue with public discourse, I found an unlikely companion: ChatGPT. What started as an experiment soon became a productive and even playful collaboration. I tested its capacity to engage with complex arguments—feeding it Wilber quotes, spiritual apologetics, virus denial claims, and philosophical detours—and found it surprisingly capable.

The results were successful: ChatGPT often responded with clarity, nuance, and even flashes of insight. It helped me sharpen critiques, generate dialogues, and reframe arguments in more accessible terms. At times, it even offered a clearer rendering of Integral Theory than some of its devoted followers.

What proved more mixed was the reception. Some readers found the AI-generated dialogues insightful or entertaining; others dismissed them, perhaps uncomfortable with the idea of a machine entering sacred intellectual terrain. But I wasn't aiming for consensus—I was exploring what a new tool could offer to old debates.

More than anything, these experiments brought a sense of renewed energy. They provided a space where I could test ideas without gatekeepers or ideological filters. A quiet, responsive echo chamber—but one that, at its best, pushed back with reason and coherence.

No, it didn't change the world. But it reminded me that dialogue—real or simulated—is still possible. And still worth having.

Conclusion: A Testament

This is not a call to arms. It's not even a final argument. It's a still point. A place to stand, after the debates and essays and battles have passed.

I challenged Wilber because I believed ideas matter—and that spirituality deserves better than mystical inflation. I debunked virus denial because lives were at stake, and truth is not a private experience. I wrote, even when few read, because clarity matters even in obscurity.

Ironically, Wilber once wrote a book on the psychology of cults. He would likely deny every claim I've made. But I've seen the patterns. I've traced the arc. And I've stepped away from the spiral.

I leave this not in bitterness, but in calm. What remains is enough.

NOTES

[1] Frank Visser, Ken Wilber, Thought as Passion, New York, SUNY Press, 2003.

[2] Frank Visser, The Corona Conspiracy, Combatting Disinformation About the Coronavirus, 2 vols, 2020, 2021. Available online.