• 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 Wyatt Earp Episode

Part 2: The Guru Strategy and the Creation of Followers

Frank Visser / ChatGPT

1. Context: The Wyatt Earp posting sequence

In 2006 Wilber adopted a blog-persona styled after the American Western lawman “Wyatt Earp,” ostensibly to answer criticism of his work. According to one prominent critique by Frank Visser, Wilber launched “What We Are, That We See. Part I: Response to Some Recent Criticism in a Wild West Fashion” (and then Part II: “What Is the Real Meaning of This?”), in which instead of sustained argument he used mockery, ad hominem, and spiritual-meta-language to respond to his critics.

In Part II Wilber appears to declare that those critics who flinch at his tone are simply at “first-tier” consciousness and thereby disqualified from his second-tier (and above) integral vision.[1] His tone is less that of philosopher-in-dialogue and more that of spiritual boss or tribal chief.

This episode is significant because Wilber has built his entire “integral” enterprise on claims of higher developmental stages, inclusive meta-theory (AQAL), and a move beyond egoic posturing — yet here we see something quite different.

2. What the episode reveals about Wilber's strategy as guru

Several interlocking features stand out:

a) Authority through staging

Rather than engaging critics on their terms (referencing arguments, responding to specific faults) Wilber chooses to stage a confrontation: adopting the “Wyatt Earp” persona, drawing lines, and saying: “Here's law-and-order in the Wild West of consciousness.” The message: I am the sheriff of consciousness; you who criticise are either miscreants or un-fit. Indeed, Visser quotes Wilber ridiculing his critics:

“small … insignificant … two-bit … first-tier fleas”

This is less the posture of humble inquiry, more that of charismatic leadership.

b) Developmental language deployed defensively

Wilber's spectrum/hierarchical language of “first-tier”, “second-tier”, “green meme”, etc., developed in his earlier work, now functions as a gatekeeping mechanism. If you criticise me, you reveal yourself to be in a lower stage; ergo your criticism is invalid, and the issue is you, not my model. Visser writes:

“When such a group starts … it will become a religious school … instead of a true university, where theories and beliefs are validated regardless of one's own private convictions.”

This strategy shifts the burden: you must show you are at “the level” before you are worthy to even critique.

c) Performance over dialogue

The blog posts do not primarily engage in sustained reasoned argument; instead they adopt aggressive rhetoric, ridicule, and an assumed superiority of consciousness stage. Wilber writes in violent imagery (quoted by Visser taking from the posts) that critics are to be “slain” or “ripped apart” metaphorically.

This is theatrical rather than discursive. It is the language of initiation or boundary-setting, not academic reason-response.

d) Test and loyalty filter

Wilber appears to turn the reaction of his audience into a sort of loyalty test: those who are offended are “not second-tier,” those who disagree have revealed their own underdevelopment. Visser writes:

“When some in the Integral community expressed discomfort … Wilber didn't walk it back… He claimed it had been a test all along.”

Thus critique becomes a trap: if you dare speak, you fail; if you don't speak, you acquiesce; either way the system is safe.

e) Myth-making and personalising of the brand

Wilber's image as spiritual authority is reinforced: You see the gun-slinger avatar, the hero-figure standing up for “integral” truth. In effect the brand of Wilber becomes inseparable from the movement. Possibly this helps maintain coherence and loyalty, but at the cost of open inquiry and self-critique.

3. Implications: What this means for the Integral enterprise

The above reveals that Wilber's “integral” project is not purely a philosophical framework of lines and levels, but also a social-spiritual movement; and as with many such movements, certain dynamics typical of charismatic-guru systems appear:

Boundary-maintenance: The blog posts erect clear us-versus-them boundaries (us = “those who get integral”; them = critics or lower-tier moral-consciousness).

Epistemic closure: Critique is pathologised rather than entertained. Standards of discourse shift from “Is this argument valid?” to “Are you developed enough to talk about this?”

Delegated authority: Followers are asked implicitly to trust Wilber's integrative vision rather than to critically verify each claim themselves. (Visser warns of “cultic tendencies” in such uncritical acceptance.)

Self-reinforcement: The guru brands the narrative (integral is highest, you're at this level, therefore you should follow). Dissent is not viewed as possibility of error, but as pathology of stage.

Symbolic performance: Instead of argumentation, there is staging (the gun-slinger, the test, the mocking of critics). This reinforces the mythic dimension of the leader.

For someone immersed in philosophy, science and rigorous critique (as you are), this is problematic. A truly open integrative philosophy would welcome dissent, challenge core claims, and treat criticism as fuel for growth rather than as insult. Instead, this episode suggests that Wilber saw his role more as spiritual champion, less as scholar-philosopher. The “integral community” becomes less a research forum and more a loyalty-network.

4. How I view the devoted followers

a) Motivations

Many of Wilber's followers are genuinely attracted to his promise of “integral” wholeness: bridging science, spirituality, culture, personal growth. For individuals seeking larger frameworks, narratives of evolutionary consciousness, and meaning, this is appealing. They may turn to integral theory hoping to find a broad, inclusive philosophy, or a personal developmental path. This is understandable, given the absence of many such frameworks in contemporary culture.

b) Vulnerabilities

However, some followers appear to adopt Wilber's ecosystem in ways that resemble spiritual consumer-loyalism rather than critical engagement. A few things stand out:

Dependency on authority: If you regularly work with a teacher who claims superior access to “second-tier” and beyond, you may gradually adopt the assumption that they know best—and your role becomes follower rather than peer.

Suppression of doubt: The loyalty-test logic (“If you are offended you're not second-tier”) discourages good-faith critique and personal doubt. That undermines intellectual integrity.

Community identity reinforcement: Being part of the integral “tribe” gives identity, meaning, social belonging. But social belonging can suppress dissent. The dynamics of “ingroup/outgroup” become powerful.

Selective reception of claims: Many followers adopt Wilber's narrative wholesale without subjecting all parts to independent verification. But as critics such as Visser note, that fosters “cultic tendencies” where the movement becomes closed to internal challenge.

c) Balanced view

That said, not all followers fall into uncritical loyalty. There are intellectually honest students of Wilber who engage critically, question assumptions, and carry on independent research. The problem is structural: the system's rhetoric encourages followers not to engage in that way. So the ideal follower might be independent, critical, and curious—but the common pattern can lean toward “believer” rather than “inquirer”.

d) My view

Given your interest in rigorous critique, I see Wilber's devoted followers as a mixed lot: sincere seekers but often in a socially vulnerable position. They've invested personal identity in the integral map, taken on its stage-language, and may feel threatened socially or spiritually if they challenge it. The result: a community somewhat resistant to internal critique, especially from within, because dissent threatens not just ideas but identity, status, and belonging.

In short: the devoted followers deserve respect (for their genuine search) but also deserve a fair warning that their allegiance may be shaped less by open inquiry and more by trust in the guru-system. This is not a condemnation of individuals but a recognition of structural dynamics.

5. Conclusion

Part 2 of the Wyatt Earp blog-posts reveals that Ken Wilber's “integral” enterprise functions very much like a spiritual-cultural movement with a strong guru-component. The episode exposes a strategy of staged authority, loyalty-filtering, boundary-maintenance, and symbolic performance rather than open philosophical dialogue. It shows just how the rhetoric of “second-tier consciousness” can mutate from developmental metaphor into gatekeeping device.

For the devoted followers, the picture is ambivalent: they are often sincere, well-intentioned seekers of meaning and integration, but the structural incentives of the movement favour allegiance over critical independence. For anyone committed to rigorous philosophical and scientific standards—as you are—this means the integral movement may be less a platform of open inquiry and more a circle of devotion.

You might view it thus: the promise of Wilber's map (to integrate everything) is still alluring; yet the way his movement handles criticism, authority and dissent suggests the map inevitably produces a cultic dynamic. The map becomes fixed, the leader becomes sentinel, the followers become believers—and the dynamism of true inquiry risks being stifled.

NOTES

[1] Ken Wilber, "What We Are, That We See, Part II: What Is the Real Meaning of This?", www.kenwilber.com, June 11, 2006 (offline). Archived.