I am separated from Ken Wilber by one Degree of Separation (see Six Degrees of Separation). In the early 1980s, my old teacher at La Trobe Uni, Moshe Kroy, travelled to America and met Ken, as he related it the two got on famously.

I read Wilber's books many years ago; the early ones like The Spectrum of Consciousness (Phase I) and The Atman Project (Phase II) when I was still developing my own ideas.  I quite enjoyed his work at the time, and was absolutely impressed by the great scholarship and huge list of references, and the way he integrated the stages of the various theories of psychological and spiritual development into a single unified paradigm. I was however disappointed with the follow-up to The Atman Project - called Up From Eden (also Phase II) - in which he presented a very rigid and unbelievable view of the evolution of consciousness (rather in the mould of the clockwork cosmologies of Blavatsky, Leadbeater, Steiner, and Meher Baba.) I stopped reading him at that point, and have only recently looked at his more recent work (Phase IV and V) , basically through the Web and reviews, and more recently a few books themselves that I bought. ( A Brief History of Everything, Integral Psychology. and The Revised, Second Edition of Sex, Ecology, Spirituality. He is an excellent writer, clear and easy to understand, but passionate and enthusiastic as well. And there is no denying his ideas have developed tremendously; indeed with the more flexible and complex "Waves, Streams, States, and Lines" approach of his AQAL and "post-metaphysical AQAL" integral philosophy, he resolves many (but by no means all) of the limitations of his older books. Even so, there remains a certain rigidity, due to Wilber's inability to go beyond a reliance on Advaitin-Vajrayana-Daist metaphysics and bridge the divide between the (admittedly higher intuitive insights of the) dualistic rational mind and monistic higher consciousness. This is exacerbated by Wilber's tendency to retro-date his own interpretations so that they are made to seem part of the perennial philosophy or authors he is referencing, in that way he pretends he is not saying anything new but simply repeating what sages of old have said (this is actually a common practice in premodern wisdom cultures). For example, according to Wilber the Great Nest of Being has been described by Plotinus, Vedanta, Huston Smith, etc etc. But nowhere will you find anything about a holarchical nest of being in any of those teachings. An ontological gradation, sure, but not a "holarchy". If he had said "Plotinus (or whoever) describes a metaphysical hierarchy of being, which I have reinterpreeted as a non-metaphysical holarchy" I would have no objection.

Add to that a fixed and simplistic metaphysic (yes I know that Ken doesn't like metaphysics, but how else do you define his holons? :-) with a simplistic linear evolution and a simplistic putdown of ecophilosophy, and, reading A Brief History of Everything, I had the strange experience of passionately agreeing with half of what Wilber is saying,a nd equally passionately disagreeing with the other half!

The Reason for Wilber's Success

Why has Wilber become so successful, when so many other innovative thinkers have fallen by the wayside or continued but with little acknowledgment? Personally I don't think he is any more profound than others. In fact, in many places he is less profound and original than many other recent grand synthesisers (look at Edward Haskell, Arthur M. Young, Erich Jantsch, Stan Gooch ...), while Alan Watts had already who incorporated East and West in the 1960s, and for that matter Blavatsky did in the late 19th century.

One explanation for his success might be that in the world of dry and meaningless postmodern academia, with its fragmented disciplines and surface-bound understanding, Wilber is a refreshing voice that points the way to deeper spiritual states. In the first few chapters of The Eye of Spirit he speaks eloquently of spiritual awareness. There are inspirational paragraphs dotted through A Brief History of Everything, and so on. In a world where anyone who goes beyond or beneath surface consciousness and expouses mystic truths is considered a nutter, he has the courage of his convictions. And that is admirable.

Another reason for his appeal lies in his neo-"Renaissance" universalism. He provided a philosophy that was right for the time; in the spiritual supermarket full of disparate teachings in areas as diverse eastern philosophy, human potential movement, psychedelic drug experiences, the revival of ancient wisdom, transpersonal psychology, new age workshops, gurus and channellers, shamans and hippies, Wilber has woven it all together: Freud, Fechner, Chogyam Trungpa, Plotinus, Nagarjuna, quantum theory, evolution,... a unifying framework based on an all-inclusive paradigm that ties everything else together. It's the appeal of the "theory of everything". The last instance of this in the West was Hegel (who Wilber quotes approvingly). Wilber represents and carries on to this human yearning for grand visions of "everything" and thirst for complete certitude. It also helped that he lives in America, a polarised yet vibrant nation which is always looking for new gimmicks and ideas.

A third reason for Wilber's success is that because his presentation is very simple, even simplistic, generalization of philosophy (e.g. ecospiritualism is lumped with materialism, Aurobindo's Supermind is identified with the Vedantic Atman, etc). His appeal is to those who can no longer accommodate the limited perspectives of materialism or exoteric religion, not to serious esotericists. In this way he is like Rajneesh, except he's writing for academia and the intelligent layperson rather than spiritual (but with ego) "seeking" middle-management late baby boomers with lots of liquid assets. But this simplicity and overgeneralisation of opinions is actually a bonus, because he is able to reach more people that way (just as Rajneesh could). Not everyone has the patience to read Plotinus, Hegel, or Aurobindo!

The Bridge Builder

This last-mentioned fact, that Wilber is not writing for serious esotericists, but for those who are between materialism and gnosis, is why Wilber can be best understood as a bridge-builder rather than an esotericist. It seems that esotericists in general seem to take a dislike to him (apart from myself; even if I'm critical, I like the guy!), as do academics from the other side of the spectrum, who consider him New Age (there's just no pleasing some people!). In fact, "New Age" - at least in the common or limited definition - is what Wilber is not. His own adaptation of the Great Chain of Being that serves as the central metaphor for most esoteric philosophies and pre-modernist teachings, cultures and societies, completely rejects metaphysics, in an effort to appeal to modernism and postmodernism. Thus is quite materialistic, although it is certainly holomaterialism (emergent evolution) rather than reductionistic hylomaterialism.

But this rejection of metaphysics is necessary in building this bridge. Like Jung, who had to create a ridiculous "racial unconscious" to explain non-physical and timeless archetypes that are part of standard occult knowledge, Wilber has no alternative but to compromise the mystic vision. Perhaps he himself actually believes that there are no metaphysical realities. While there is no denying the genuine wisdom in his work, and the passion and the clarity with which he writes is like a breath of fresh air, Wilber's generalisations at times so forced, that it gets tedious. Nevertheless I have a lot of admiration for him and I do feel he is potentially a historically important figure (assuming the integral movement does continue to grow). One of the really good things about Wilber is that he makes the genuine esoteric traditions respectable, and this hopefully means he'll encourage at least a few people to read Plotinus and Aurobindo in the original (they'll then to discover to some surprise that what these sages said isn't quite what Ken says they said! ;-)

Parallels

Ken Wilber's thought has paralleled my own intellectual explorations in some respects. For years I had been trying to develop my own universal system (the equivalent of Wilber's integral system) through correlating different esoteric systems of thought, and through attempting (always never satisfactorily) to incorporate esotericism and science. In 2004 I made another attempt with my essay Towards a Foundation of a Universal Esoteric Science. Having not read any of Ken's work since Up From Eden, and coming now to look at his Integral Quadrant paradigm, I have been inspired to further develop these themes, and many others. This was one of the inspirations for my own Metaphysical Theory of Everything

Why the Criticisms?

Finally, the pro-Wilberian reader may ask, why the Ken Bashing on this site? (albeit only mild Ken bashing)

I agree that the mistakes that Wilber makes are no worse than those of other universalists (Ed Haskell's Unified Science for example is extremely rigid and simplistic in its classifications). In some ways, Ken's "AQAL" theory is an even better approximation, as a single "map" of reality, to the presentations of Hegel, Blavatsky, Gurdjieff and Ouspensky, Haskell, etc.

But because Wilber's goal is so spectacular, no less then a complete classification of all human knowledge, a return to Rennaisance Universalism, a new "Integral" worldview, it would be a shame if so much promise were wasted or lost because of the unavoidable weaknesses that result from relying on any one personality alone. Constructive criticism is necessary, not to attack his work, but to further strengthen the positive contributions he has made.

Moreover, Wilber's promethean effort has, as mentioned, inspired me to launch my own universal metaphysical theory; hopefully avoiding his mistakes (and no doubt nmaking new mistakes of my own!). In a sense I build on the foundations he laid (although it is true I also rely and build much more on Sri Aurobindo's far sturdier foundations)

Finally, if any of Ken's students are reading this, and feel I have gotten anything wrong in any of these pages, I ask you to please contact me so that such mistakes can be rectified forthwith.

June 2006 Update - Wilber becomes a Cult Leader

I have to admit that Wilber's transition from pandit to abuusive cultic guru surprised and shocked me. But the writing has been on the wall for a long time. In any case, Wilber has totally forfieted any chance of being considered a respectable thinker. This is the beginning of the end for him, and for his whole organisation. I can't say that I'll be sorry to see him go; my only regret is that I allowed myself to be fooled into thinking he was in any way my intellectual equal. He is not, never was, and never will be. He's just a bitter, sexually frustrated loser who can't handle criticism, and wants everyone to accept what he says in an absolutely uncritical manner - the hallmark of any cultic leader.

Quite possibly he is also entity possessed as well; most cult leaders seem to be.