Incredible review, Erik, profoundly deep and extremely accurate (I haven’t read every detail but 85%) but wanted to give a huge positive reception. I agree with your primary thesis: nobody knows the Real Wilber which is why he’s probably destined to a Hegelian enterprise: a moment of great fame and collapse but not really appreciated until after he died and people had a century or more to digest all that he’s said. You made an excellent start and appreciation. I won’t begin to make an academic response but rather a personal bravo 👏 Anyone who starts with Wilber’s “Odyssey” knows his Wilber; and A Sociable God—btw, the first book Ken signed for me in October 1982—is spot on (yet you didn’t mention Eye To Eye)… yet nowhere do I hear you begin to approach the depth of his spirituality (imo his most important and misunderstood contribution), beginning with his satori in Odyssey. But no one review can include EVERYTHING! I will say I am no fan of the Wilber-Combs Lattice, which I find to be horribly simplistic (and untrue except in broad strokes)—I was there when Ken and Allan began their journey… but that’s another discussion. Thanks for reminding me of the Fischer article and emphasizing the Ferrer-CIIS institutional split, too often overlooked (even by Segall), again, I was there (at least on the periphery). Great article, profound, inclusive, groundbreaking… I love what you’re doing. Glad you and Matt are going to podcast in March. I’m a new fan and supporter (we should talk sometime). BTW, my new book addresses some of the issues you are addressing about Wilber, post-metaphysics, and all, if you’re interested.
Incredible review, Erik, profoundly deep and extremely accurate (I haven’t read every detail but 85%) but wanted to give a huge positive reception. I agree with your primary thesis: nobody knows the Real Wilber which is why he’s probably destined to a Hegelian enterprise: a moment of great fame and collapse but not really appreciated until after he died and people had a century or more to digest all that he’s said. You made an excellent start and appreciation. I won’t begin to make an academic response but rather a personal bravo 👏 Anyone who starts with Wilber’s “Odyssey” knows his Wilber; and A Sociable God—btw, the first book Ken signed for me in October 1982—is spot on (yet you didn’t mention Eye To Eye)… yet nowhere do I hear you begin to approach the depth of his spirituality (imo his most important and misunderstood contribution), beginning with his satori in Odyssey. But no one review can include EVERYTHING! I will say I am no fan of the Wilber-Combs Lattice, which I find to be horribly simplistic (and untrue except in broad strokes)—I was there when Ken and Allan began their journey… but that’s another discussion. Thanks for reminding me of the Fischer article and emphasizing the Ferrer-CIIS institutional split, too often overlooked (even by Segall), again, I was there (at least on the periphery). Great article, profound, inclusive, groundbreaking… I love what you’re doing. Glad you and Matt are going to podcast in March. I’m a new fan and supporter (we should talk sometime). BTW, my new book addresses some of the issues you are addressing about Wilber, post-metaphysics, and all, if you’re interested.
Much enjoyed this. I've long taken Wilber to be an interesting flake, but in your restatement of his stance resonates with themes I'm to a large degree in agreement with.
I appreciate this essay for it’s emphasis on Wilbers nuance and rigor.
Much if the wording of your essay also reminded me of high level LLM speech. Mostly around phrases like “Not a collapse into relativism, but a true epistemic versatility“, or “not out of some egoic lifestyle clique, but out of real philosophical depth” etc. curious why that might be, or if im imagining.
I also want to emphasize a relationship to epistemic plurality that is both inclusive and transcendence: varying perspectives can be appreciated and situated within a holistic inclusive framework, all contributing to and counting as real knowledge, while also being ranked, evaluated, or reduced to a common denominator or framework, which transcends them.
Im curious and a bit confused why youd push again “relativistic equality” while also resisting reductive evaluations of varying epistemic modes to a common/more fundamental mode. You seem to lean fairly heavily into the idea that the varying experiences, cultures, and paradigms cannot be evaluated against eachother or places on a hierarchy of value.
I think youd find value in taking a look at my very brief introductory substack post to my paper “positive realizations”
Thanks for the deep engagement with Wilber. I was a fan of his work in the 1990s when I first encountered it. I later drifted away from it the more I studied Indian philosophy, the philosophy that influenced his earliest work (Sri Aurobindo was a big influence on him as I'm sure you know). I don't have the time to get into all the reasons Wilber eventually lost me but I do think it would be interesting to examine his larger project from the perspective of Indian critiques that he has digested Vedic philosophy in a way that is somewhat colonialist in flavor.
Wilber’s work contains some important insights, and he deserves to be treated as a significant figure in the history of philosophy. My biggest gripe is that his “framework” never yields any specific advances in particular subject areas, and never will. Nothing original proceeds from an “integral” analysis of different theories in a field; it yields no new technical methodologies or capabilities; it fosters no previously unthought-of ideas or observations about specific processes.
From my point of view, the idea that philosophers shouldn’t seek to advance knowledge, especially technically-oriented knowledge, about particular subjects while simultaneously dealing in generalities is like telling a jazz musician that his music shouldn’t swing.
![Integral [+] Facticity](https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!yhcJ!,w_120,h_120,c_fill,f_webp,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fbucketeer-e05bbc84-baa3-437e-9518-adb32be77984.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Ff8458843-3278-4fcc-accc-17ad21352205_1280x1280.png)
Incredible review, Erik, profoundly deep and extremely accurate (I haven’t read every detail but 85%) but wanted to give a huge positive reception. I agree with your primary thesis: nobody knows the Real Wilber which is why he’s probably destined to a Hegelian enterprise: a moment of great fame and collapse but not really appreciated until after he died and people had a century or more to digest all that he’s said. You made an excellent start and appreciation. I won’t begin to make an academic response but rather a personal bravo 👏 Anyone who starts with Wilber’s “Odyssey” knows his Wilber; and A Sociable God—btw, the first book Ken signed for me in October 1982—is spot on (yet you didn’t mention Eye To Eye)… yet nowhere do I hear you begin to approach the depth of his spirituality (imo his most important and misunderstood contribution), beginning with his satori in Odyssey. But no one review can include EVERYTHING! I will say I am no fan of the Wilber-Combs Lattice, which I find to be horribly simplistic (and untrue except in broad strokes)—I was there when Ken and Allan began their journey… but that’s another discussion. Thanks for reminding me of the Fischer article and emphasizing the Ferrer-CIIS institutional split, too often overlooked (even by Segall), again, I was there (at least on the periphery). Great article, profound, inclusive, groundbreaking… I love what you’re doing. Glad you and Matt are going to podcast in March. I’m a new fan and supporter (we should talk sometime). BTW, my new book addresses some of the issues you are addressing about Wilber, post-metaphysics, and all, if you’re interested.
https://a.co/d/0gOpIrY6
Incredible review, Erik, profoundly deep and extremely accurate (I haven’t read every detail but 85%) but wanted to give a huge positive reception. I agree with your primary thesis: nobody knows the Real Wilber which is why he’s probably destined to a Hegelian enterprise: a moment of great fame and collapse but not really appreciated until after he died and people had a century or more to digest all that he’s said. You made an excellent start and appreciation. I won’t begin to make an academic response but rather a personal bravo 👏 Anyone who starts with Wilber’s “Odyssey” knows his Wilber; and A Sociable God—btw, the first book Ken signed for me in October 1982—is spot on (yet you didn’t mention Eye To Eye)… yet nowhere do I hear you begin to approach the depth of his spirituality (imo his most important and misunderstood contribution), beginning with his satori in Odyssey. But no one review can include EVERYTHING! I will say I am no fan of the Wilber-Combs Lattice, which I find to be horribly simplistic (and untrue except in broad strokes)—I was there when Ken and Allan began their journey… but that’s another discussion. Thanks for reminding me of the Fischer article and emphasizing the Ferrer-CIIS institutional split, too often overlooked (even by Segall), again, I was there (at least on the periphery). Great article, profound, inclusive, groundbreaking… I love what you’re doing. Glad you and Matt are going to podcast in March. I’m a new fan and supporter (we should talk sometime). BTW, my new book addresses some of the issues you are addressing about Wilber, post-metaphysics, and all, if you’re interested.
https://a.co/d/0gOpIrY6
Much enjoyed this. I've long taken Wilber to be an interesting flake, but in your restatement of his stance resonates with themes I'm to a large degree in agreement with.
I appreciate this essay for it’s emphasis on Wilbers nuance and rigor.
Much if the wording of your essay also reminded me of high level LLM speech. Mostly around phrases like “Not a collapse into relativism, but a true epistemic versatility“, or “not out of some egoic lifestyle clique, but out of real philosophical depth” etc. curious why that might be, or if im imagining.
I also want to emphasize a relationship to epistemic plurality that is both inclusive and transcendence: varying perspectives can be appreciated and situated within a holistic inclusive framework, all contributing to and counting as real knowledge, while also being ranked, evaluated, or reduced to a common denominator or framework, which transcends them.
Im curious and a bit confused why youd push again “relativistic equality” while also resisting reductive evaluations of varying epistemic modes to a common/more fundamental mode. You seem to lean fairly heavily into the idea that the varying experiences, cultures, and paradigms cannot be evaluated against eachother or places on a hierarchy of value.
I think youd find value in taking a look at my very brief introductory substack post to my paper “positive realizations”
Thanks for the deep engagement with Wilber. I was a fan of his work in the 1990s when I first encountered it. I later drifted away from it the more I studied Indian philosophy, the philosophy that influenced his earliest work (Sri Aurobindo was a big influence on him as I'm sure you know). I don't have the time to get into all the reasons Wilber eventually lost me but I do think it would be interesting to examine his larger project from the perspective of Indian critiques that he has digested Vedic philosophy in a way that is somewhat colonialist in flavor.
Some of my most enduring ideas came from Ken Wilbur.
Wilber’s work contains some important insights, and he deserves to be treated as a significant figure in the history of philosophy. My biggest gripe is that his “framework” never yields any specific advances in particular subject areas, and never will. Nothing original proceeds from an “integral” analysis of different theories in a field; it yields no new technical methodologies or capabilities; it fosters no previously unthought-of ideas or observations about specific processes.
From my point of view, the idea that philosophers shouldn’t seek to advance knowledge, especially technically-oriented knowledge, about particular subjects while simultaneously dealing in generalities is like telling a jazz musician that his music shouldn’t swing.
The explanation of God is a dullness that diminishes the reality of the relationship of things to being and the being of thing’s.