• 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 Semantics of “Spirit”

Wilber, Brad, and the Science Perspective

Frank Visser / ChatGPT

This is a response to a Facebook comment from Brad Reynolds. Here's an analysis, or should we say diagnosis?[1]

In contemporary debates about spirituality and science, few words carry as much philosophical baggage as “Spirit.” Its meaning shifts dramatically depending on who is speaking, the tradition they draw upon, and the metaphysical scope they assume. This slipperiness is not merely an academic curiosity—it fuels deep misunderstandings, accusations of bias, and charges of outright ignorance.

In the ongoing conversation between Ken Wilber, Brad Reynolds, and Frank Visser, “Spirit” has become a contested semantic territory. While all three claim to be speaking with precision, each treats the word in a fundamentally different way.

1. Three Positions on Spirit

1. Science: Spirit is 0% of reality

From a scientific perspective, “Spirit” is not a recognized category in nature. It has no operational definition that allows for testable predictions, measurable properties, or empirical validation. At best, Spirit is seen as a poetic metaphor; at worst, as a non-explanatory placeholder for ignorance.

2. Wilber: Spirit is the driver of evolution

Drawing on German Idealism and neo-perennialism, Wilber situates Spirit at the heart of cosmic unfolding. For him, evolution is not a blind, aimless process, but “Spirit in action”—a self-actualizing drive toward increasing complexity, consciousness, and unity. This is neither the 0% of science nor the 100% of mystical absolutism, but a directed evolutionary process imbued with purpose.

3. Brad Reynolds: Spirit is 100% of reality

In Brad's metaphysics, everything is Spirit, full stop. Spirit is not a hidden driver but the entirety of existence itself—transcendent, immanent, and indivisible. Science, philosophy, and even Wilber's nuanced middle position are seen as partial truths that fail to recognize the totality of Spirit.

2. A Triangular Dispute

The debate is not linear; it's triangular.

• Science vs. Wilber: Science rejects Wilber's “Spirit in action” as metaphysical speculation without empirical basis.
• Wilber vs. Brad: Wilber sees Brad's “everything is Spirit” as collapsing useful distinctions, erasing the creative dynamism that makes evolution intelligible.
• Brad vs. Science: Brad rejects science's materialism as a form of spiritual blindness.
• Brad vs. Visser: Brad accuses Visser of misunderstanding both Wilber and Spirit itself, due to his “reductionistic, materialistic worldview.”

Ironically, both Brad and science find Wilber's formulation problematic—science for being too metaphysical, Brad for not being metaphysical enough.

3. The Fallacy of Misplaced Concreteness—Twice Over

Alfred North Whitehead's “fallacy of misplaced concreteness” warns against treating abstractions as if they were concrete realities. Wilber has been accused—by Visser—of committing this fallacy by reifying “Spirit” as a concrete agent in evolution. Yet Brad flips the accusation: Visser commits the fallacy by reifying matter as the whole of reality, denying the fuller truth of Spirit. In other words, both sides accuse the other of over-concretizing their preferred ontology:

• Visser says Wilber is over-concretizing Spirit.
• Brad says Visser is over-concretizing matter.

4. The Authority Problem: Who Gets to Define Spirit?

At the heart of the dispute lies an authority problem.

• Science claims the right to define reality based on empirical evidence.
• Brad claims the right based on mystical insight and the accumulated wisdom of sages.
• Wilber claims a synthetic authority—bringing empirical and mystical modes into a higher, integrative vision.

Each sees the other as epistemically disqualified:

• Science sees Brad and Wilber as making unfalsifiable claims.
• Brad sees science and Visser as spiritually blind.
• Wilber sees science as too narrow and Brad as too indiscriminate.

5. A Symmetry of Dismissals

The symmetry is striking:

• Science dismisses Wilber and Brad for metaphysical overreach.
• Brad dismisses Wilber and Visser for spiritual underreach.
• Wilber dismisses science and Brad for failing to integrate partial truths into a coherent whole.

The debates around Spirit, then, are not simply about ontology—they are also about jurisdiction.

• Who has the right to define the ultimate nature of reality?
• Whose methods count as valid?
• And most tellingly: what counts as knowing?

The “Spirit” debate between science, Wilber, and Brad is less a matter of deciding what Spirit is, and more a clash over how Spirit can be known, who can speak authoritatively about it, and where the boundaries of reality lie. Until those meta-questions are addressed, “Spirit” will remain not just a contested concept, but a contested territory.

The concept of “Spirit” sits at the center of much debate in Integral circles. But it is not simply a dispute over whether Spirit exists—the disagreements hinge on semantics, epistemology, and even cultural history. This essay looks at how three different perspectives—Ken Wilber's, Brad's, and the scientific-materialist critique—use and interpret the term “Spirit,” why these disputes persist, and why they can get so heated.

6. The Semantic Tangle Around “Spirit”

At its core, the disagreement stems from the slipperiness of the word “Spirit.” It can mean:

• An ontological ground of being (as in Advaita Vedanta or certain forms of mysticism)
• A developmental process that “moves” evolution upward, as Wilber often describes
• A poetic metaphor for the interconnectedness of life, used without metaphysical commitment

When participants in a debate use the same term but attach different meanings to it, misunderstanding is inevitable. Wilber often treats Spirit both as Ground and as Eros-like evolutionary impulse, switching between these without always clarifying the distinction. Critics like Frank Visser insist that if “Spirit” is presented as an actual force in evolution, it must be subject to the same scrutiny as any scientific hypothesis—and they find the evidence lacking.

Brad, on the other hand, sees “Spirit” as the central truth of reality, supported by centuries of philosophical and mystical testimony. For him, to deny Spirit is to miss the deepest dimension of existence entirely.

7. Wilber's Framing: German Idealism and Neo-Perennialism

Wilber's defense of Spirit draws deeply from German Idealism, especially Hegel, Schelling, and Fichte. These thinkers saw reality as the unfolding of an Absolute—an all-encompassing consciousness or Spirit realizing itself through nature, history, and thought. For Wilber, this philosophical lineage provides intellectual legitimacy to the claim that Spirit is not just an add-on to science but the underlying reality science itself studies from within.

In parallel, Wilber draws from a neo-perennialist stance, affirming that the world's spiritual traditions—despite cultural variations—point to a single metaphysical truth: Spirit as the Ground and Goal of all being. This move is intended to weave mystical testimony into a grand synthesis with modern science.

Critics argue that this blending risks equivocation: importing a term from mystical or philosophical contexts and then treating it as though it had empirical force in evolutionary theory.

8. The Irony: Both Sides Call for Clarity

Ironically, both Brad and Frank—despite being polar opposites in metaphysical commitment—often call on Wilber to clarify his position. Brad wants Wilber to speak more boldly about Spirit as the ontological center of reality and not dilute it with “as-if” metaphors or hedged claims. Frank wants Wilber to clearly distinguish between metaphorical, philosophical, and empirical claims about Spirit, so scientific critique can proceed without semantic fog.

In both cases, the call is the same: stop slipping between meanings and state precisely what is meant—and how it is justified.

9. Why These Disagreements Can Get Heated

Disputes over “Spirit” in the Wilber–Brad–science triangle aren't merely academic. They strike at the core of each side's identity, epistemology, and even sense of existential security.

For Wilber, “Spirit” is the integrative linchpin of his entire philosophical architecture. If this is rejected, the coherence of his AQAL model suffers a deep fracture. To Brad, “Spirit” is not just an idea but the very substance of reality, so criticisms can feel like a denial of reality itself—and by extension, a dismissal of his lived and studied experience. From the scientific-materialist side, introducing “Spirit” into explanations of evolution can look like an attempt to smuggle metaphysics into a domain where methodological naturalism has been hard-won and carefully guarded.

Because each party is defending a different primary value—Wilber, an integrative vision; Brad, a metaphysical certainty; science, empirical rigor—any challenge is often heard as a threat, not an invitation to dialogue. Add to this the fact that “Spirit” is a highly loaded term, entangled with centuries of religious, philosophical, and cultural baggage, and you have a recipe for heated exchanges. The conversation is less about data and more about worldviews, meaning that the stakes feel personal and the disagreements can quickly turn passionate, if not outright hostile.

Conclusion

The “Spirit” debate between Wilber, Brad, and the scientific critique is not simply about truth claims—it's about incompatible languages of reality. Until the term “Spirit” is unambiguously defined and its intended epistemic status made explicit, the conversation will continue to produce more heat than light. Ironically, both sides want that clarity—but for very different reasons.

NOTE

[1] Brad Reynolds, Integral Global, August 11, 20225. A response to my "The Semantic Slipperiness of Spirit" essay:

It is absolutely annoying the ignorance Frank Visser continues to propagate article after article showing his total inability to understand what he's obsessed about yet fails to comprehend. Almost every statement he shoves into my (“Brad's”) mouth is a distortion of my views except on a most superficial level. But this is not surprising since Visser has never engaged in an authentic dialogue or sincere discussion with me. Not once has he ever acknowledged I am correct about anything nor have my cogent, clear, articulated arguments convinced him to ever modify his positions one iota. All he does is (mis)interpret me and Wilber in the most superficial (and distorted) ways. He is so wedded to his own limited, reductionistic, materialistic worldview that he is totally incapable of seeing anything beyond his preferred position.

So there's really no reason to listen to anything he says about Spirit or spiritual matters. Visser is ignorant—as in uninformed and inexperienced—or what Vedanta calls advidya which is simply a state of being unaware of the deeper TRUTHS of reality or the breadth and depth of the very existence in which we inhere. Visser wears blinders yet his arrogance proclaims only his view is correct, therefore, he contorts and distorts philosophers and “metaphysics” to suit his own views, which are actually the true examples of misplaced concreteness.

I encourage everyone not to listen to “Brad” or even Ken, but to the vast wealth of other philosophers, scientists (of all types), theologians, yogis, shamans, saints, and sages from every century and every culture who totally refute the ignorance and limited mindset from which Visser speaks and spits out his distorted misinformation. Listen to them! Follow their advice and engage, participate, and actually DO the practices they suggest to Awaken your mind and heart to the truth of reality. When you do so—an intellectual activity Visser is vacant in—you will discover Frank Visser has no idea what he's talking about, no matter what he thinks!