• 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).

Reimagining AQAL Through a Personalist Lens

How Wilber's Model Conditions What We See—and What We Miss

Frank Visser / ChatGPT

When Ken Wilber reintroduced the four-quadrant model as his signature framework, he wasn't just offering a new map of reality—he was shaping how we attend to people, language, and the Other. Yet, if we look closely at how the quadrants handle the you dimension—the very idea of relational presence—the model reveals a surprising weakness: it treats persons not as irreducible centers of meaning, but as slots in a perspectival grid.[1]

Why Personalism Matters

In classical personalist philosophy—as developed by thinkers like William Stern—persons are not reducible to viewpoints or categories. Each person carries interior worlds of thought, emotion, and agency that can never be fully captured by structural diagrams or conceptual maps. This contrasts sharply with Wilber's “AQAL” approach, which uses the four quadrants to represent the I, We, and It(s) of experience.

But there's a problem when that map becomes the lens: instead of people meeting people, we end up with perspectives meeting perspectives.

AQAL and the Transformation of “You” into “We”

Wilber's framework often collapses the second person (you) into the first-person plural (we). In his explanation, when I speak to you, the interaction becomes a we. The quadrants then allocate these interactions into upper-left (interior) and lower-left (plural interior) spaces.

On the surface, this might seem tidy. But in lived communication, you and we are not always interchangeable:

• You can be close, responsive, present.

• We can be generic, depersonalized, or assumed.

Reducing you to we scrambles the anatomy of relation. It risks glossing over the distinct interiority of the other person—what makes you unique.

Language and Distance: Here, Near, and Far

To sharpen this point, look at everyday language. Many languages contrast here/near/far—the spaces in which communication actually happens. The first person (I) is here; the second person (you) is near; the third person (he/she/it) is far. These distinctions matter when we talk, listen, disagree, or learn.

By comparison, AQAL's mapping has a different logic: it partitions experience into four structural quadrants, but it does not adequately account for relational distance—those psychological and communicative gradients that define how persons truly come into contact.

The Personal—Lost in Perspectivism?

A personalist perspective emphasizes that persons are not just bundles of inner states or external behaviors. They are agents, interlocutors, bearers of meaning. When we interact with someone, we do not merely traverse interior and exterior spaces. We engage with conscious beings who may agree, disagree, misunderstand, or surprise us.

Wilber's model excels at showing perspectives—how different vantage points align with interior vs. exterior or individual vs. collective domains. But it does less well at showing people—how the other can be present, responsive, and irreducible to any quadrant.

The Human Cost of Quadrant Logic

There's a subtle but significant risk here: if everything is ultimately reducible to quadrants and perspectives, then disagreement looks like misalignment of frames rather than a clash of persons. This can lead to dismissive responses instead of genuine dialogue—a dynamic Visser suggests may partly explain some controversies within the broader integral community.

In everyday life, we do not communicate with abstractions. We communicate with yous who may feel unheard, unseen, or misunderstood—experiences that cannot be fully captured by grids of “interior/exterior” or “singular/plural.”

Toward a Personalist Revision of Integral Thinking

What would happen if we started from the reality of persons first? If, instead of assigning you to a quadrant, we acknowledged the you as fundamentally distinct—a center of consciousness not reducible to a shared “we” or an “it”?

A personalist corrective like this does not abolish the quadrants. Rather, it reorients them:

• Quadrants become tools for understanding structure, not substitutes for relational presence.

• Perspectives become maps, not masters of the terrain of dialogue.

• Persons are encountered as beings, not boxes.

Conclusion: Persons Before Perspectives

Integral philosophy owes much to structural mapping. Yet if the maps overshadow the walkers on the ground—the real people in contact—we miss what matters most. The richness of discourse is not just in abstract categories, but in the unpredictable, concrete, and irreducible reality of persons meeting persons.

Wilber's AQAL may help us see the terrain of experience. But a personalist lens keeps us honest about whom we are actually trying to understand, respect, and engage with.

Appendix: From “We” to Groupthink: When Critics Become an “It”

One of the less examined consequences of Wilber's I/We/It framing is how easily it can foster groupthink. The problem is not merely theoretical; it emerges naturally once the We is treated as the privileged space of shared meaning, development, and mutual understanding.

In principle, the We represents intersubjective culture: shared values, mutual recognition, communal sense-making. In practice, however, it often becomes a normative in-group. Those who speak its language, accept its premises, and affirm its narratives are “in.” Those who do not are, by definition, outside the We.

And once outside, critics are no longer encountered as you.

They are reclassified as an It.

How Quadrant Logic Encourages Boundary Policing

Within the AQAL framework, disagreement is easily reinterpreted as a matter of perspectival limitation:

• Critics are said to be “operating from a different quadrant”

• Or stuck at an earlier “altitude” or developmental stage

• Or privileging exterior over interior dimensions

• Or lacking access to certain experiential disclosures

The result is a subtle but powerful maneuver: critique is depersonalized. Instead of engaging a concrete interlocutor with reasons, arguments, and intentions, the critic is treated as an object of diagnosis. Their position is explained about them, rather than addressed to them.

At this point, the dialogical you disappears. What remains is an It to be mapped, located, and managed.

This is textbook groupthink: internal coherence is preserved not by better arguments, but by redefining dissent as external, deficient, or misaligned.

The Moral Cost: From Disagreement to Dehumanization

This shift has ethical implications. To treat someone as an It is not merely to disagree with them; it is to deny their standing as a co-participant in meaning-making. They are no longer someone who might be right, but someone whose position can be safely discounted in advance.

Ironically, a framework designed to integrate perspectives ends up foreclosing genuine dialogue. The richer the internal “We” becomes, the easier it is to insulate it from challenge.

What is lost is precisely what personalism insists upon: the irreducibility of the other person as a center of experience, intention, and agency.

Edwards' Alternative: Restoring the Third Person

Mark Edwards has proposed a telling correction to Wilber's impersonal It: instead of treating the third person as an objectified It, he suggests interpreting it as He / She / They.

This may seem like a small linguistic adjustment, but it has significant philosophical consequences.

• It implies objectification, detachment, and instrumentality.

• He/She/They preserves personhood, even at a distance.

Under Edwards' proposal, critics are not reduced to exterior data points or lower-level perspectives. They remain persons who can be wrong—but also possibly right. Disagreement remains interpersonal rather than diagnostic.

In other words, the third person is not expelled from the moral universe of dialogue.

Persons, Not Positions

Seen from this angle, the I/We/It model does more than categorize perspectives; it shapes social dynamics. When the We becomes epistemically privileged, dissent becomes suspect. When critics are treated as Its, groupthink follows almost automatically.

Edwards' reframing does not solve every problem in integral theory, but it points in the right direction: restore persons where systems have taken over. Disagreement should occur between yous and mes—even when mediated by theys—not between an enlightened We and a reified It.

Only then can integral discourse live up to its own aspiration of genuine inclusion.

NOTES

[1] Earlier versions of this essay appeared in 2006 (offline) and 2020. Above is a more engaging, reader-friendly rewrite by ChatGPT.