• 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).

Spirit-in-Action or Explanatory Evasion?

Why the Wilber-Evolution Debate Refuses to Go Away

Frank Visser / ChatGPT

For more than two decades, Ken Wilber's interpretation of biological evolution has generated persistent controversy—particularly his claim that evolution is best understood as Spirit-in-action, animated by Eros, an intrinsic drive toward greater complexity, depth, and consciousness. Critics have argued that this view amounts to a metaphysical alternative to neo-Darwinian evolution, while defenders insist that Wilber never intended Spirit or Eros to function as causal forces. Instead, they argue, everything is Spirit-in-action, and evolution is no exception.

At first glance, this defense appears to dissolve the conflict. On closer inspection, however, it exposes a deeper ambiguity at the heart of Wilber's project—one that explains why the debate remains unresolved and, for many, deeply frustrating.

The central ambiguity

Wilber's defenders often frame the issue this way: Spirit is not a fifth force, not an interventionist agency, not a substitute for natural selection or genetic variation. Spirit is simply the ultimate ground of being, manifesting in all phenomena. Evolution, like gravity or digestion, unfolds within Spirit and therefore can be described as Spirit-in-action—without altering the explanatory framework of biology.

If this were consistently Wilber's position, there would be little to debate. Neo-Darwinism would remain the complete scientific account of biological evolution, while Spirit would serve as a metaphysical or contemplative lens—interpretive rather than explanatory.

But Wilber does not, in fact, leave it there.

Why neo-Darwinism keeps reappearing as a problem

If Spirit adds no explanatory content to evolution, one must ask a simple but decisive question:

Why does Wilber repeatedly single out neo-Darwinism for critique at all?

Throughout his work, neo-Darwinian theory is described as partial, flatland, or reductionistic—incapable of accounting for novelty, creativity, depth, or direction. Evolutionary biology is said to explain the mechanisms of change, but not the why: the intrinsic tendency toward increasing complexity and consciousness.

It is precisely at this point of alleged explanatory insufficiency that Wilber introduces Eros.

This is not incidental rhetoric. It signals a displacement of explanatory authority. Neo-Darwinism is not merely contextualized; it is subtly demoted. Spirit, via Eros, is invited to explain what biology supposedly cannot.

And that is where the trouble begins.

Eros: metaphor or metaphysical principle?

Defenders typically respond that Eros is merely a poetic or metaphorical descriptor, not a causal agent. But Wilber's own language repeatedly exceeds metaphor. He speaks of:

• a drive toward greater depth,
• a tendency toward complexity
• a creative push intrinsic to the Kosmos,
• something “as real as” the fundamental forces of physics (even when later qualified).

These are not neutral descriptions. They are explanatory insinuations.

• A “drive” that does nothing explains nothing.
• A “tendency” without causal relevance is an empty gesture.

Once Eros is invoked to account for directionality or novelty in evolution, it enters explanatory space—whether acknowledged or not. At that moment, Wilber is no longer merely interpreting evolution spiritually; he is offering a metaphysical supplement to scientific explanation while denying that he is doing so.

The inflationary move: everything is Spirit-in-action

One common defense attempts to dissolve this tension by expanding Spirit to include everything indiscriminately. If everything is Spirit-in-action, then evolution is Spirit-in-action—but so are erosion, entropy, disease, and traffic jams. Spirit becomes ontologically universal and explanatorily inert.

But this move fails for a simple reason: Wilber does not treat Spirit as explanatorily irrelevant everywhere.

He mobilizes Spirit—and especially Eros—selectively, precisely where evolutionary theory is said to fall short: in accounting for increasing complexity, consciousness, and value. That selectivity reveals intent. Spirit is not merely a background ontology; it is a directional principle doing philosophical work.

If Spirit explains everything equally, it explains nothing specifically. Yet Wilber repeatedly uses Spirit to explain this rather than that.

A debate embodied: Reynolds and Visser as representative positions

This abstract disagreement has, over the years, taken on a concrete form in an extended exchange between two long-standing interlocutors in the Integral world: Brad Reynolds and Frank Visser. Their disagreement is not merely personal or interpretive; it crystallizes the deeper fault line running through Wilber's evolutionary metaphysics.

Reynolds has emerged as one of Wilber's most persistent and articulate defenders. His position is consistent and principled: Wilber does not posit Spirit or Eros as a causal force within biological evolution. Evolution proceeds according to standard scientific mechanisms, while Spirit functions as the ever-present ground of manifestation. From this perspective, critiques that accuse Wilber of advancing a metaphysical alternative to neo-Darwinism commit a category error—mistaking ontological context for explanatory competition. Any language suggesting otherwise is treated as metaphorical excess, rhetorical flourish, or occasional imprecision.

Visser, by contrast, has argued for years that this defense fails to account for Wilber's actual argumentative practice. His critique does not hinge on isolated phrases or rhetorical slips, but on the systematic role that Spirit and Eros play in Wilber's critique of evolutionary theory. When neo-Darwinism is repeatedly portrayed as explanatorily insufficient—and when Eros is introduced precisely at those points of alleged insufficiency—the distinction between interpretation and explanation begins to collapse. From this vantage point, Wilber is not merely offering a spiritual gloss on evolution; he is advancing a metaphysical narrative that implicitly competes with biological explanation while refusing to acknowledge that competition.

What makes the Reynolds-Visser exchange emblematic is that both parties are, in an important sense, reading Wilber accurately—but applying different standards of evaluation. Reynolds approaches Wilber primarily as a spiritual philosopher articulating a comprehensive metaphysical vision. Visser approaches him as someone making claims about evolution that intersect with the philosophy of science and therefore demand conceptual clarity and explanatory accountability.

The persistence of their disagreement is thus instructive. It does not arise from misunderstanding or bad faith, but from Wilber's own unresolved ambiguity.

The real project: transcendence without intervention

Wilber's evolutionary vision attempts to satisfy four competing constraints simultaneously:

• No supernatural interventions (to remain post-metaphysical),
• A real directional arc to evolution (to ground spiritual ascent),
• Compatibility with modern science (to avoid creationism),
• A meaningful Kosmos that legitimizes mystical hierarchy.

The result is a quasi-teleological metaphysics that cannot clearly say whether it is descriptive, explanatory, symbolic, or causal. Ambiguity becomes structural. Metaphor bleeds into ontology. Critique of science stops short of responsibility for offering an alternative.

Supporters treat this ambiguity as depth. Critics see it as equivocation.

The unresolved dilemma

The issue can be stated plainly:

• If Spirit-in-action adds no explanatory content to biological evolution, then Wilber's sustained critique of neo-Darwinism is gratuitous and misleading.
• If it does add explanatory content, then Wilber is advancing a metaphysical alternative to evolutionary biology while denying accountability for doing so.

One cannot have it both ways.

This is why the debate never ends. Wilber's defenders are safeguarding the coherence of a spiritual system. His critics are evaluating claims about evolution by the standards of explanation and evidence.

Until Wilber's evolutionary metaphysics is stated with conceptual clarity—owning either its explanatory ambitions or its purely interpretive status—the conversation will continue to circle the same unresolved fault line.

The problem is not that Wilber is misunderstood. The problem is that his position itself remains unresolved.

And ambiguity, however spiritually appealing, is not a substitute for clarity when one enters the domain of explanation.