Frank Visser on Ken Wilber (a video interview)

I have been planning to blog something about the event, but it will not be the sort of blog that you would likely pull off!  Just a little report on it, and maybe some photos…

Great interview!

To Bruce, and other 1st Biennial ITC-ers…. please do share! I'm all bright-eyed and bushy-tailed for some Integral Scoop :-)

Cheers, ~Stacy

I saw that video on Visser's site, Integral World.  He came off sounding sincere in his interest and not merely a Wilber-basher.

The people running the conference had some writing posted on Integral World.  It was a good read.  I was glad to see that they were reaching out to the critics.  They said that Visser was invited.

“We also, as Visser knows, approached him and encouraged him to consider attending and would have been excited about him presenting.”

Thanks for directing my attention to that Visser vid, C.

I wish I could attend the conference! I am moving to San Francisco on Monday – if only I had been a week earlier I'd have been there!

Balder, I am looking forward to your review of the conference!

Does anyone know if mp3's are being recorded, and if so whether they will be free of charge or what? I'd love to see JFK University get involved with iTunes U by offering lectures….

I think that every point Frank makes in this interview is bang on. I have not heard, or seen in print, a more clear and succinct presentation of the “issue” of  Wilber's work as it relates to the larger intellectual community. Clearly, Visser has had time to reflect on this particular issue, and no doubt, given his “encounters” with Ken over the last several years, he has had reason to do so.

But first: What a cool guy. I'm impressed. I suddenly feel inspired to go off on rant, which I think I will now proceed to do…, :-) though I'd like to come back to this interview at some later date and address some of the points Frank brings up in greater detail (perhaps in a blog).

To start: now, one might disagree with the Visser's attempt to bring up the “integral circus” that, as he interprets things, has tended to surround Ken. I personally am not all that interested in whether or not , or the degree to which, Ken's persona “reflects spiritual values,” as I feel that to bring up that kind of issue in the first place assumes certain idealizations about what it means to  “be spiritual.” However, at the same time, and with respect to the cluster of issues surrounding Ken's persona, I think Frank puts his finger on another important problem: the essentially rhetorical nature of Ken's use of things like “authorities” – specifically, as Frank mentions, how Ken manages get particular philosophers, or heads of spiritual orders, to agree with him on specific points of doctrine or theory, etc., in print.

And this issue of  “agreement” brings me to my main point, the thing that has “inspired” this rant at this particular time. 

The point I find particularly interesting in this interview, and what I think is of absolute importance vis a vis critical discussions of Ken's work, is what (I think) Frank refers to as the “culture of agreement” that is endemic in integralism. 

As I see things, integralism inherits this stance from perennialism, which, in its own turn, inherits a particular “application” of, what it sees as,  “non-dual thinking.” In other words, perennialism is all about sameness, in and among traditions, and as such, it impies notions such as harmony, and specifically, the search for a harmonious “ecumenical spirit” among traditions.

Now, there is nothing wrong with harmony or ecumenism per se. But there is something wrong when this spirit is used, or misused, toward specific rhetorical, nay, polemical ends. And what I have in mind here is how this spirit of  “harmonization” (cf. Shankara and Vedantic inclusivism) is used to silence criticisms of Ken' work. Specifically: I think that there is a tendency among certain integralists (who will, for the time being, go unnamed) to “cut short” critiques of Ken, under the rubric of  things like, “I would prefer if discussions from here on in be more positive in nature.” What I am suggesting is that this kind of move – and I think it is a “move,” whether it is unconscious (defensive) or not  – serves a particular rhetorical and polemical end, even if this end is not overt. And that end is the glossing over or avoidance of the spirit of critique in the name of the spirit of harmony and ecumenism. In short, it reflects a bias of “identity” over “difference,” and, at the same time, an attempt to silence difference in the name of  “sameness.”

Frank is a good guy. I remember when he stayed overnight in my dweling during German Wilber Conference in 2002. I sensed in these day a first drifitng away from KW..

Regarding Wilber criticism, AQAL Theory in general and conceptual growth of Integral in widest sense ..this is one voice in a concert of increasing number of music instrument. Who is componist? Who is dirigent?

Guess nobody at this time. Or is anybody claiming he or she is God?

The Beck Wilber rift as far as I see now has something to do what Visser adressed too.

No significant action of AQAL is to detect in large scale global systems strategy. Its no coincidence that APA offered SDi to establish a complete new branch of knowledge with Large Scale Psychology. I posted several clear statements from Don Beck repeatedly where he made clear that nothing speaks against some differences in framing. However lots of modules of Sdi were quasi kidnapped from some AQAL guys who had no significant firsthand understanding of SDi.

I do not expect significant progress from the conference. Maybe as early as 2009 next steps wil become visible.

The framework of Wilber 4 and Wilber 5 , directed to Integral Mathematics, will need some decades to be verified or falsified or something similar. The same is true for extensions, modifications and development of Clare graves model.

And  for the Wilber Critics, I see good work from Mark Edwards.

For me personally the challenge is to inject Integral into the global mainstream without watering its best quailties down. Invisible Integral so to speak. With utter determination. Its easy to go around as member of some instiute and do some evangelizing.IIts tough to so in a steallth fashion.

When I look into Franks face I see a subtle hidden melancholy and tiredness. Can understand it. Perhaps he played to long the role Eckerman played in Germany as Goethes assistant. He should step out o the shadow and try some integral re-birthing with a complete new focus and mission and vision statement.

However boldness, confidence, unstoppable enrgy and infectious clarity of ones own purpose and intentions are needed. A Call to the arms and merging the different global streams of integral awakening. This rwequires unlimited passion.

Wilber 4 and 5 and Lots of Clare Graves Approach are my personal favorites
.
The key is for me no longer neither in criticizing not worshipping single approaches, however unique they may be.

its in moving largest global constellations . Steve McIntosh answered in his questionaire for Evolutionary Gathring at Deepal Chopras House in Karlsbad this question quite remarkably. Entering the Convergence Zone, as Barbara Marx Hubbard recently expressed it in a newletter is NOT a homogenous movement. Don Beck AND Steve McIntosh see it the same way.

And I ams sure, KW too.

Integral , and even all healthy impulses of integration in first tier without this specific label -think of modes of Collective Intelligence, P2P etc -needs collaboration of very distinctive and self thinking innovatiors and leaders. However these forms are labeled.

And this form will certainly have another design in Europe as in US and elsewhere.
A Paradign shift is not only about new mindesets and thinking. its about- as Ken Wilber says himself in the excerpts of Kosmos Trilogy 2 -about tetra -meshing ALL Quadrants in a dynamic vortex.

To lead and shape this wihirlwind of flickring and ultra-fast momentum and dynamics on a global scale seems to be the main integral. challnge for me.

One coach said something which seems to summarize it:

its like playing basket ball in an earthquakre area in the midst of a tornado orbit.

And I would add sometimes like driving the engine while laying the railways and improving the maps simultaneously.

The whole integral theory debate -besides some very few exceptions -is often missing this crucial fact. While critical theory. as expressed by Jürgen Habermas f.e. -had always the simultaneous action in the world in culture, poltics, science and economy, media and arts, its only now that this all quadrantic impulses are manifested as spirit in action, directed significantly towards mainstream…

And, once again…mainstream is another one in China, India.than in US or Europe or Africa…or Russia….

Integral theory is really the intersection between two powerful streams of human thought: ancient wisdom and modern evolutionism. So far it is more car wreck than creative emergence. But there are reasons to be hopeful about the future. I think Wilber's personality/philosophical contribution exemplifies both of these possibilities. He is too antagonistic and assuming, but has nonetheless assembled a tremendous amount of important signs pointing us in the direction we ought to be heading.

Visser mentioned biology as an area where Wilber has not fully developed his thought. I think he is right. Ernst Mayr says nothing in biology makes sense but in light of evolution; though I don't think science has even fully appropriated it yet. Humanity has been called to recognize it's origin, its idenity with becoming/being. It ain't easy.  No individual human being is going to give us all the realization.

I like the comment Visser makes about taking a second reading.  He makes a good point about the scientific community relative to how disagreement, re-evaluation and subsequent refinement are welcomed.  Visser's comments about the circus, commercialization aspects and socializing seem fair, yet we must also take into account how could the complexity of integral be best disseminated to the mainstream?  Could this be achieved mass-cross-culturally (socio-economic, levels of education…) and retain its integrity?

I'm not sure that KW means to infer that he's figured it out and everybody else is stupid, though I can see how some might perceive it this way.  Maybe I'm too new or green and have missed key interviews :)  But I agree with Visser that there is a lot of focus on classification and that there does exist the dismissal of those on “lower” levels - not only critics, but many with a sincere interest in integral who might appear to be at a lower stage merely due to lack of integral-speak and terminology (I'm working on that!).  Yes, that has been my own experience on occasion, but from discussing these topics with others I've learned others have also encountered this experience from time to time.

The classification and occasional dismissal don't thwart my interest and exploration of integral.  Hey, there's a lot of fantastic material in intergral that resonates with how I've lived, and am living, my life.  Integral is congruent (for the most part) with the way I see possibilities and potential within our communities!  Visser shares that he is a fan.  And I do appreciate that Visser invites and interacts with “amateurs” - an integral practice :)

Regarding his statement about biology, I understood it to be an example of the priority of focus on classification.  It would be intriguing to explore these examples one by one, if this has not already been done…  If it has, please, enlighten me :) 

buddhacious - “No individual human being is going to give us all the realization.”  Spot on!  But oh, so many wish someone would hand the answers to them…and it is to this that I think Visser is alluding when he mentions it's important to take an in-depth look at the substance behind, under and through KW's work… 

As passionate as KW and integralists are about the Truth and integral (operating systems, vision, life practice, theory, etc.), I wonder…maybe KW has been patiently waiting for just this kind of examination, following discussions and evolving movement?

Crouching Tiger

Try here

Much of the discussion there is triggered by Ken’s now notorious comments on the evolution of wings from forelegs in the first chapter of A Brief History of Everything, which includes the following: “A half-wing is no good as a leg and no good as a wing–you can't run and you can't fly. It has no adaptive value whatsoever.”

I remember laughing / choking on my muesli when I first read this. Now I’m not an evolutionary scientist but I actually grabbed my pencil and wrote “Bollocks!” in the margin. Somewhat surprised at the vehemence of my own reaction, I felt a little less perturbed when several years later I came across these criticisms from those actually specialising in the field.

Enjoy

James

P.S. See you on Julian’s and Bruce’s Symposium

Thanks for that link to Integral World, James. It is obvious that Wilber has not given much thought to what an integral biology might look like. If regurgitating Michael Behe is the best he can do, he's got a lot of homework left before anyone the slightest bit versed in evolutionary biology will take him seriously. Visser rightly points out that the strict dichotomy between evolution due to blind chance and due to a spiritual telos is false. There is plenty of room to produce a scientifically legitimate story that isn't based in reductionistic materialism or inflationary spiritualism. His work is rather complex, but I think Stuart Kauffman would be a better theorist for Wilber to look to support from, though it would not be support for his quasi-intelligent design approach. Kauffman is a breed of materialist, though definitely not a reductionist. He believes the first free-living cell arose all at once with a fully functioning metabolism due to creative emergence, which he sees as inherent to the physics of our universe. He draws from the work of physicist Ilya Prigogine, who suggested that far from equilibrium systems tend to produce higher and higher states of order to generate more net entropy than had they remained less ordered. Then there is the biologist Brian Goodwin, who is applying complexity theory to morphology and development to find something Goethe called the laws of form. Most biologists would agree that gene mutation and natural selection are not sufficient to explain all speciation, and certainly not to explain how individual organisms develop. Goodwin is trying to fill in the gaps, and he, Kauffman, and other systems oriented biologists may end up fundamentally changing the neo-Darwinist picture.

From wikipedia: According to Goodwin, the emergence of shape and form in organisms is not sufficiently explained by genetics: “genes are responsible for determining which molecules an organism can produce,” but “the molecular composition of organisms does not, in general, determine their form.”[1] Goodwin emphasizes that the forms that organisms can develop are limited by structural laws.

Darwin won't be proven wrong, but his theory may be recontextualized as science discovers sources of order he never could have fathomed, because all he had access to was Newtonian physics. These scientists are trying to prove their case using hard physical evidence and detailed mathematical arguments, not hyperbole and ipse dixit like we have seen from Wilber, at least to date.

Thank you James!  I did enjoy that link.

I've been cruising around IW and following links, reading further.  I love to incorporate critics as part of my reading mix. 

When I saw the link for Suck my… I thought that had to be a joke until I followed the link to KWs page.  I can just hear Holliday/Visser saying, ”I'm your huckleberry…”  (But maybe he's already used that line……I'm still reading!)

See you on the symposium,
Erin

Just came across everyones comments here. Interesting read. Planting a flag on the Integral Moon on an Apollo XI space mission won't make it Wilber's. There's many others now planting their flags too. Not only that, but the ground is fluid, not static. We'll see where it flows.