An in-house criticism of Ken Wilber

Steve McIntosh's book "Integral consciousness and the future of evolution" is an in-house critique of Ken Wilber's Integral Theory. While McIntosh considers himself to be a supporter of Integral philosophy, he has taken the liberty to revise or amplify Wilber's system on a number of points. Thus, his book is less sycophantic than most other "integral" works.

The most obvious difference between McIntosh and Wilber is that the former doesn't want to connect Integral philosophy to a specific spiritual tradition. Wilber, by contrast, is preaching a version of Advaita or Vajrayana. McIntosh is spiritual, but seems to stand closer to Christianity than to the Eastern systems of thought. He doubts that humanity can prove, at the present time at any rate, which spiritual system is the highest or best. He therefore advises Integral philosophy to affirm spirituality in general, while remaining uncommitted on the question of which spiritual tradition is closest to the truth.

Somewhat ironically, McIntosh also criticizes Wilber's post-metaphysical turn. Logically, post-metaphysics should suite McIntosh better, since he wants to remain uncommitted on the exact nature of Spirit. However, the author believes that at least a "minimal metaphysics" are necessary, since nobody can really dispense with metaphysical speculations.

Other criticisms feel very in-house, as when McIntosh criticizes some aspects of Wilber's Four Quadrant model.

Perhaps to free himself from Wilber's overarching shadow, McIntosh briefly describes the ideas of philosophers and psychologists he considers to be the forerunners of Integral Theory. The list includes Hegel, Bergson, Teilhard de Chardin, Aurobindo, Whitehead and Jürgen Habermas. Interestingly, McIntosh doesn't mention Plotinus, Schelling and Lovejoy's book "The Great Chain of Being", all considered of paramount importance by Wilber. Also, McIntosh plays down Aurobindo, which Wilber does not. They only concur on seeing Habermas as extremely important.

"Integral consciousness and the future of evolution" also contain some pretty weird political proposals for a world federation. These are nebulous, naïve and contradictory.

On one point, at least, McIntosh is actually more simplistic than Wilber. His overview of human history lacks any mention of the matrifocal societies of the Neolithic. Nor does it mention the existence of peaceful high cultures such as the Indus Valley Civilization. Instead, McIntosh jumps directly from "tribal" consciousness (presumably the Palaeolithic) to "warrior" consciousness (presumably Homeric Greece). Wilber, by contrast, have attempted to wrestle with the implications of a matriarchal stage in human history. Personally, I don't think he has succeeded very well, but at least he sees the problem. McIntosh does not.

To be honest, I found "Integral consciousness and the future of evolution" to be boring, tedious and in-house. Half-way through, I got tired of the book. It's probably of interest only to those who consider the world of Ken Wilber worth the while investigating.