Integral Criticism: The Solution is Easy

There has been plenty of genuine and valid criticism directed at Ken Wilber and his integral theory, most of which I believe is easily addressed. The solution? Response through authentic, unbiased, old-fashion research. That's it. I really believe that would be best for everyone and it's so bloody simple. As Frank Visser says:

Actually, this is a win-win strategy. If Wilber is validated, good for him. If not, good for truth. Wasn't that after all what we were looking for, when we started reading Wilber?

One of the problems with resolving some of these issues is the criticism has mainly come from people "outside" the integral circle, and hardly any from within. Also, I think the criticism is painted, wrongly or rightly, as being overly harsh attacks at Wilber, rather than honest questions by folks who care. Some of this criticism is just that attacks, but a lot of it is not. All those involved with integral theory and approach need to step up to the plate and address the valid criticisms. And didn't Wilber arrive at his integral theory by making criticisms himself? Wouldn't probing further, digging deeper, and asking critical questions of his own theory only help us to find deeper truth, expand his own theory.

But let's be careful in always referring to integral theory as belonging to Wilber. That's too easy. He has a great deal of responsibility in all of this, but so do all those who purport to support and embrace that theory. On that point, let me jump to clarification about validation, which Visser notes as being on of the desired outcomes of these criticism, to show proof or lack thereof. With regard to that, I think there are at least four ways that people assert a truth:

1. Asserting a truth without proof.
2. Asserting a truth and providing solid proof.
3. Asserting a truth with proof, but that proof is not substantial.
4. Asserting a truth and claiming proof, but not providing it.

I believe it's been sufficiently demonstrated that Wilber has done all four of these. The glaring problem is with number four, and that is Wilber's responsibility alone. The others are shared responsibility, in my opinion. As for one and three, sure, there is responsibility involved in acting on that truth and in exhorting others to also embrace that truth without having evidence; but I don't find that to be as bad a sin as some make it out to be. Granted, Wilber and the integral community should realize that many won't take them seriously with subjecting their truths to the rigors of genuine research. I am not saying that has not happened, but certainly not with all of integral's claims. I dig integral theory. My freaking blog is called "Integral Awakening". But I also have a basic understanding of the demands of good research, which has nothing to do with "mean memes" rejecting truth because it's out of their value structure. It has everything with authentic means to discovering truth.

Technorati tags:Wilber, integral theory, integral, Visser

Comments

[Jay Allen]

Great points, Ryan.

Obviously, some criticism is better off ignored. Folks like Geoffrey Falk obviously have an ax to grind, and any truth in their points has to be sifted out of a large heap of polemics. On the other hand, we've all read responses to critics where Wilber et. al. seems downright cranky and self-defensive. Not good.

I'm finding the Integral community in the blogosphere to be very good about critiquing itself. It's not that the upper echelon squashes dissension (at least that I've ever seen); they just don't do enough to cultivate it.

[joe perez]

I like your distinguishing between four different ways of making a point. But I don't think it's particularly useful unless you can also spell out what exactly you mean by "proof" and "truth." Wilber and other post-green theorists/writers (my hand's up) are operating from within an intellectual framework wherein all truths and proofs are understood to be contextualized and dependent upon injunctions which are themselves informed by theories that have their own validity claims based on separate sets of theories and injunctions. And so the levels of proof and truth go round and round. You seem to want cut and dry proofs, so please tell us what they would be.

Where would you put assertions that derive from an intuitive framework? If you throw them out because there's no proof, then new hypotheses and theories never get proven. You have to allow cutting edge thinkers the flexibility to invent new hypotheses that CAN be tested, so evidence gathered that would otherwise be missed. Unless you conceive that MAYBE the world isn't flat, despite all visual evidence to the contrary, and allow for that hypothesis, then you can't conceive of the experiment (sail around the world) that will validate the hypothesis. Theories don't exist in a vaccuum, you know.

Also what do you charge Wilber has done that fits your category 4? I suspect any examples you would provide are cases where you are using "proof" and "truth" in very limited ways that Wilber would not consent to him, then criticizing him based on a more limited perspective. But maybe you aren't, so please elaborate if you care to. :)

[ryan]

Hey Joe, excellent questions and you're right, I was fairly ambigious in my post (I'm an intuitive person and tend to do that:P).

First, let me say that what you, ebuddha, and I are doing right now is so important. Let's dig deeper and discuss what it means to for integral theory and Wilber's claims to be valid, and how we/they should go about establishing validity, whatever is meant and needed for that.

I agree with what you've have said. I'm not cricizing assertions derived from and intuitive framework. I embrace Wilber's model on the whole by way of intution and I think it needs no further "proof". But specifically, Wilber has made some claims within his model that we have no solid evidence for, even though he claims it (category 4). The example I think of most is his assertion that someone who meditates and strength trains will progress faster than those not strength training. I've heard that the Wilber's evidence is out there, but I've not found out myself. If it is, the question is, is it solid? Personally, I think he's right and it makes sense, but that's different from concrete evidence arrived at via the relative injunctions (in this case we would use methods of verification in some sort of meditative, contemplative tradition). This is more than an intuitive conclusion.

As an example of solid research being done, Alan Wallace's Shamatha Project. He is an integralist and is doing research that will likely support some claims made by Wilber (correlations between meditative states and brain states). The assessments he will be using are appropriate, meditative, psychological, neurological, etc. This will conclusively establish truth (or disprove hypotheses, but I've got a good feeling on this!:P).

I still need to reflect more and go to specific claims Wilber has made to provide more examples. Again, I don't think this rests on Wilber. As far as I'm concerned he's done his job and others need to pick up where he's left off.

Probably what would be best is for me, all of us, to find these truths that we intuitively sense is spot on and find ways to verify them, in their own relative contexts (quadrants, zones, etc). As ebuddha mentioned, it's not an easy task because it takes time and money, some sort of incentive. Hard to come by.

Personally, I'm fine using Wilber's model and work without all of this, but I don't expect others to without sufficient verification of truth claims.

Have I made any sense?:) Or have said a whole bunch of nothin'? I'm writing this at work, so it's quite likely!

[ryan]

also, I haven't spelled out what I mean by "truth" and "proof" because it's relative to the claim being made. I felt that these categories likely apply for many of Wilber's claims that fall into different contexts. Also, the above categories are not exhaustive. And rather than being cut and dry, they're ambigious and/or very general. It was just a way to start talking about all this from a more pragmatic, matter-of-fact point of view, however insufficient it may be, rather than the seeming black-and-white dialogue that typically happens (i.e., either you're a Wilberite or he's full of shit).