Ken Wilber

The publication of Jurgen Habermas's Nachmetaphysisches Denken (Post-Metaphysical Thinking) and the publication of a Hans-Willi Weis article about my work prompted several people in Germany to approach me with questions about my response to those pieces. What follows is a brief reply to both.

Questions were submitted by Edith Zundel and Frank Visser, among others. I have simply listed their questions and my brief responses. Part I deals with issues raised primarily by Jurgen Habermas, and Part II with Weis.

PART I | PART II | APPENDIX I | FOLLOWUP | APPENDIX II | NOTES

Part I: Habermas and Post-Metaphysical Spirituality

Mr. Wilber, your view is evolutionary from beginning to end.

Well, be careful right there. My view has been summarized as "quadrants, waves, streams, states, types, self"--and of those, only waves and streams (or levels and lines) are essentially developmental or evolutionary. The other variables and dimensions are not. For example, states of consciousness do not usually show development. And when you are at a given stage or wave, the types at that stage do not develop. And most important of all, the timeless Urgrund does not develop (although its manifest aspects often do). But my approach does include developmental and evolutionary aspects as part of the integral model, because that is what the evidence demands at this time.

The scientific doctrine of evolution is a reconstruction of the past; any view of future evolution is by definition speculative. On what data do you base your ideas of future evolution?

My ideas of future evolution are based largely on a reconstructive science , and are predictive only within that range. That is, we watch individuals of today who develop into stages that are beyond the average or typical, and based on a reconstruction of these individuals' development (namely, their own realized higher stages), we suggest that future higher development on the whole might be similar in certain deep patterns.

Here is an example from natural science: let us say that we are a "Martian scientist" watching life evolve on Earth. We see quarks emerge, then atoms, then molecules. And then, in a few rare instances, we see molecules gather together into cells. Based on that empirical observation, we conclude that if other molecules continue their evolution, they too will likely form cells. This is NOT a metaphysical speculation, but an empirical conclusion based on a reconstructive science.

Just so, in today's world, we watch those individuals (the molecules) who develop into higher stages (the cells), and we predict, based on empirical research, that future development will likely follow those general trends. But those trends themselves are an open system, based on realities in all four quadrants (intentional, behavioral, social, and cultural), [1] and we cannot predict with any certainty the actual forms and surface features of the future realities, which is why the system remains open in so many ways.

Unlike the perennial philosophy, the details of which I mostly reject, I believe that the levels of consciousness are largely plastic, and the "Great Nest" is actually just a vast morphogenetic field of potentials (see Integral Psychology for a discussion of this idea) and not a predetermined set of levels through which humanity must rigidly march on the way to its own realization. However, once a level of consciousness emerges in enough people, then that level becomes a Kosmic pattern for future development, and thus it becomes something of a fixed level, not in a Platonic sense, but in the sense outlined by Charles Peirce, namely, a set of Kosmic habits, habits that are consequently repeated in stages of subsequent development (just as atoms and molecules are part of all subsequent evolution). This approach overcomes and rejects a metaphysical viewpoint and replaces it with an empirical, phenomenological, experiential and evidential approach.

Under those circumstances, a past reconstructive science can predict the general features of some future forms. Let me give an example, using the stages of Spiral Dynamics [2]: When humanity was first evolving, it was at the beige (or archaic) stage, generally speaking. But certain evolutionary pioneers pushed into the next developmental stage, the purple (or magic) stage. When they did so, this stage was not predetermined in any substantial fashion. Rather, all that was given (by the Great Nest) was a potential for higher, more complex functioning--a principle of creativity (according to Whitehead), or a principle of Eros (Plotinus), or simply a possibility of self-organizing systems (as today's complexity and chaos theories maintain--the work of Stuart Kaufman, for example). Furthermore--and this is quite important in my own system--the actual form of the purple wave was created and molded by all four quadrants (intentional, behavioral, social, and cultural) operating at the time. None of those items were predetermined at all.

Now jump forward around one-hundred-thousand years to the time of, say, the Roman Empire: humanity has evolved from beige (archaic) to purple (magic) to red (mythic) to blue (mythic-rational). In each case of evolutionary emergence, the same principles were at work: namely, a principle of creativity or self-organization to a higher level of complexity, whose actual features were not predetermined but were filled in by all four quadrants. Again, none of those particular features are Platonically determined, and the actual form of each major stage--purple, red, blue, etc.--could have unfolded in an almost infinite number of ways. But once the wave unfolded and took on its manifest form, that form became a Kosmic habit that was then repeated wherever it emerged. This is very similar to, e.g., Rupert Sheldrake's theory of morphic fields.

What this means is that, for example, a person born into a blue culture is still born at square 1--is still born at beige, and then evolves to purple, and then to red, and then to blue.... How do we know this? Only through extensive empirical and phenomenological research into stages of development (see Integral Psychology ), which is itself a reconstructive science. But this means that, if we see somebody today who is at, say, purple, we can predict that if they continue their development, they will develop into red and then into blue capacities, and that prediction is based on nothing but a past reconstructive science of those who have developed beyond purple. There is precisely nothing metaphysical about any of this--and developmental psychologists do it all the time!

We cannot say, however, what the actual form the future development will take in any person. Nor can we say what form leading-edge evolution will take. All of those are still open and fluid--and they are molded by all four quadrants which are constantly changing in many aspects. So any given future development will be a mixture of at least these five factors: the potential for higher development contributed by Spirit (or the Great Nest, or Eros, or self-organization); a person's own autonomous intentions and desires; a person's actual behavioral patterns; social systems and institutions; cultural values and shared meanings--all of which have aspects that are always open and free (in addition to the many aspects that are conditioned, determined, or karmic and habitual). [3]

Likewise, the subtle dimension is not a fixed level but a great reservoir of future stages of consciousness unfolding. This is why I state, in SES, that leading-edge evolution can continue into literally billions of worlds. None of those future "levels" is fixed or predetermined. [4] But once a particular level/stage emerges in evolution, its deep pattern becomes a Kosmic habit that is then repeated wherever it emerges--just as purple and red and blue waves are patterns that human beings now repeat in their own development (as cross-cultural research has consistently shown). [5] Again, none of this is metaphysical; it is entirely empirical, phenomenological, and experiential, occurring under the province of a reconstructive science. Metaphysics is an approach I specifically and strongly disavow.

This question is perhaps a bit unfair, for nobody can do everything at once. In what sense do you see your system as helpful for meditative practice? I sometimes feel that a spiritual traveler not only needs a good map (such as the one you have produced) but also a kind of Lonely Planet guide book, that goes into the descriptive details of the territory. Does your stage model also answer questions such as: what happens to beginning meditators, what ordeals do advanced meditators have to face?

The question is not unfair at all; it makes a lot of sense. But perhaps I should say that the way that I work is to try to provide the most generalized map possible, because the specific details can only be filled in by concrete practice, usually with an experienced guide in a particular tradition. The same is true whether studying Zen, cooking, gardening, mathematics, or car racing. It would be silly of me to try and give all those details, when most of them are experiential, not theoretical.

Rather, what I am trying to do is this: If we take all of the truths that have been advanced--in the West and the East; in premodern, modern, and postmodern times--and we put them all together, then what system of thought can honor, acknowledge, and integrate the most number of truths from the most number of traditions?

I believe that the integral system that I have suggested can honor and include more truths from more traditions, and therefore it is a system that can better offer people a way to open their minds and hearts to the vast array of the Kosmos--its goodness, its beauty, and its many truths. [6] But for the details, as always, we must immerse ourselves in the concrete realities and particularities of this moment. When it comes to spiritual practice, this means studying with a teacher whom you trust and working out your own salvation with care.

How do we handle different cultural meditative backgrounds in the interpretation of meditative experiences (e.g. the self vs. no-self debate between yogis and Buddhists)?

This is exactly why we need something like the four quadrants (or the realization that all actual occasions have intentional, behavioral, social, and cultural dimensions as intrinsic features of their being-in-the-world). The "levels" of consciousness that are now available to human beings are not given in some sort of predetermined Platonic (or Hegelian or Aurobindoian) fashion: rather, they are given as potential forms and patterns (reflecting the gradient of evolutionary tension that is the Great Nest), and those emergent forms take their flesh and content from the intentional, behavioral, social, and cultural patterns operative at that time. Certain of those features we find to be universal (based on a careful reconstructive science), but those universals are simply universal habits and not pregiven, unyielding molds (and they could have conceivably been quite different in a different universe created by the same Spirit, because Spirit's "play" involves all four quadrants).
This suggests that specific meaning (in any given historical-cultural context) is a combination of both universal (or context-transcending) aspects and context-bound aspects (a view similar to that of Habermas, although his developmental map does not include the higher, postrational states and stages of consciousness, which limits his otherwise wonderful contributions). In my view, the universal aspects that we find in human endeavors come from at least two sources: the potential of Spirit as a capacity for creativity or self-transcendence (which allows virtually anybody to transcend into higher states; this universal potential for transcendence is the gradient of potentials or morphogenetic field known as the Great Nest, although none of its surface forms are predetermined); and the deep patterns of Kosmic habits that have already been laid down by past development (as we saw with Spiral Dynamics). [7]

Let me give a major example: say that you have an powerful experience of cosmic consciousness, or a sense of being one with the entire manifest world. Now the deep pattern of that experience is quite similar no matter what culture it appears in--you can have this experience of oneness if you are Chinese, Indian, German, or Mexican, living now or a thousand years ago (reflecting the universal capacity for self-transcendence). But the actual contours, contexts, surface features, and specific meanings of that experience will usually vary from culture to culture and even from person to person. In my integral model, the universal features (which reflect a universal capacity for self-transcendence that is not fixed and determined but open and fluid) and the relative or context-dependent features (determined by the four quadrants as they "tetra-evolve") are both included. This approach therefore offers what I believe is a more comprehensive view of these intricate problems.

Likewise, the various waves (or stages) of consciousness that unfold in meditators show certain context-transcending similarities (certain experiences in meditation are universal, reflecting the universal gradient of potential for transcendence that is the Great Nest); but the specific details, the actual path, the types of states of consciousness experienced along the way, and the concrete meanings given to them, vary from culture to culture, from tradition to tradition, and often from teacher to teacher. This is simply part of the wonderful diversity of manifestation that needs to be included along with the demonstrable universals and similarities.

Which brings me to a question about the status of "spiritual science" such as meditation. What is the role played by conditioning (Buddhist, Hindu, Sufi) in all this, and to what extent does that color our experiences in meditation? Isn't that pure conditioning? Where is the objectivity here, where the discovery of inner reality, and where cultural and religious conditioning?

That is where a reconstructive science has the most to offer. If you look at the studies on the stages of meditation made by Daniel P. Brown (Wilber et al, Transformations of Consciousness [CW4]; and Wilber, Integral Psychology [CW4]), it appears that the same general waves of higher consciousness development can be found in most of the major spiritual traditions, at least in their deep patterns (although their surface patterns vary considerably). Likewise, meditators today who develop into permanent nondual consciousness have been shown to traverse the same general waves (Wilber, "Waves, Streams, States and Self," Journal of Consciousness Studies , 7, no. 11-12, 2000, pp. 145-76), although again the surface features vary (because the four quadrants are different). The question then becomes, is it possible that these stages of consciousness development are merely conditioning?

That does not appear to be the case. The same charge can be made against any stage conception, including that of, for example, Lawrence Kohlberg in moral development. How do we decide if these stages are merely conditioned? We pursue a reconstructive science to the best of our ability. Using Kohlberg as an example, his model of moral development has now been tested in several dozen First-, Second-, and Third-World countries, and to date no major exceptions to his stages have been found . The green-meme (or merely pluralistic) mentality rebels violently at this conclusion, but the research is quite clear: "Similar findings [about Kohlberg's stages] have emerged from studies in Mexico, the Bahamas, Taiwan, Indonesia, Turkey, Honduras, India, Nigeria, and Kenya.... So it seems that Kohlberg's levels and stages of moral reasoning are 'universal' structures...[and] Kohlberg's morals stages do seem to represent an invariant sequence." Shaffer, D., Social and Personality Development, 1994, 417-8. As another researcher summarizes the evidence: "Comprehensive reviews of cross-cultural studies suggest that Kohlberg's theory and method are reasonably culture-fair and do reflect moral issues, norms, and values relevant in other cultural settings. Further, these data also support the developmental criteria implied by his stage model [giving] impressive support for his developmental theory and its nonrelativistic stance...." Vasudev, J. 'Ahimsa, Justice, and the Unity of Life,' in M. Miller and S. Cook-Greuter, Transcendence and Mature Thought in Adulthood , 1994, 241. This does not mean that Kohlberg's model covers all the relevant morals issues in various cultures, only that it has proven to be universal in those stages that it does address (not because they are Platonic/Hegelian/Aurodindoian archetypes, but because those stages have now become Kosmic habits of development). Kohlberg's stages are nonrelativistic and not due to conditioning, as far as the evidence of a reconstructive science can determine.

Just so with any stages of meditation that we may find. We carefully check the evidence in as many cross-cultural settings as possible, and we see if any commonalities or similarities emerge. If so, we are justified in suspecting "quasi-universals." Again, there is nothing metaphysical or merely theoretical about any of this; it is based on empirical and phenomenological evidence subjected to rational analysis after the fact, even if some of the stages themselves are transrational (stages that are directly known, not by rational analysis or a reconstructive science, but rather by direct meditative practice or spiritual science--see below). Both the rational reconstructive science and the direct spiritual practice are aspects of the more integral approach that I am suggesting.

This does not mean that all the experiences of today's meditators are already laid down as Kosmic habits, because (1) the leading-edge stages are always open and free in any event; (2) the reality of the higher stages are given as potentials by Spirit, not yet as Kosmic habits (the gradient of transcendent potential that is the Great Nest is universal, even if its surface features are not); (3) any specific experience is a product of all four quadrants, so an individual's experience of the higher stages (or any stages) will always be unique in many ways.

One of your books, The Marriage of Sense and Soul , is subtitled: "Integrating Science and Religion"--this could be seen as the motto for your oeuvre as a whole. Many scientists I have met get very skeptical when they hear about this. They suspect that, instead of integrating religion and science, you smuggle religion into science, which can only lead to bad science. Science and religion are two discourses that never meet--water is H2O or holy water, there is nothing in between. What would your comment be on that?

Well, your scientist friends would be entirely correct if by "religion" we meant the common or typical meaning, which is that religion is essentially the mythic wave of development (red to blue). Most "integrations" of science and religion involve things such as Christian theologians attempting to smuggle their theology into the tenets of natural science, and thus "prove" that the Big Bang was created by their specific God--Jehovah--and that "integrates" science and religion!

I reject that approach entirely. It is yet another example of the metaphysical approach to the problem of higher states and stages. A post-metaphysical and reconstructive science proceeds by quite different means: it is based on direct evidence gathered by an investigation of those who have repeatedly demonstrated competence at the postrational waves of development. This involves both a rational reconstruction of the essential elements or deep features of these higher stages and a call to develop these higher stages in oneself by taking up the practices of transformative practice that have been empirically demonstrated to accelerate the unfolding of these higher waves. These direct spiritual experiences are entirely compatible with a general scientific attitude that demands evidence, carried out through research, and grounded at every point in experiment and experience. This is the post-Kantian and post-metaphysical approach that I have suggested for spiritual studies as part of a larger integral studies. The "religion" you refer to is pre-Kantian, dogmatic, and mythic, an approach suited only to premodern waves of evolution.

You have identified common procedures in both natural science and social science. On top of that, you have postulated a third type of science, almost nobody has mentioned so far--"spiritual science"--such as yoga and meditation, which would result in repeatable conclusions about the spiritual. Are you really suggesting we can now prove the existence of God as simply as we can prove the existence of the moon?

No. It's actually much simpler, but that's another story!

Let me start by pointing out that, just as with the word "religion," there are numerous meanings of the word "science." In my various writings, I have pointed out that reputable scholars have used at least two major different meanings of "science" and at least three levels of "science." To take them in that order:

The two major meanings are "narrow science" and "broad science." Narrow science refers to a science that accepts as real nothing but sensorimotor occasions, or, secondarily, attempts to tie its rational and theoretic analysis to nothing but sensorimotor occasions. Most of the "hard sciences," such as biology and chemistry, are taken to be examples of narrow science. For the narrow sciences, "empiricism" likewise means "experiences originating in the five senses or their extensions" (microscopes, telescopes, etc.).

But many philosophers of science have pointed out that there are other types of science that do not depend strictly on the senses: mathematics and logic, for example. Likewise, there are the social sciences or geist sciences, which function in many ways with symbolic and not just sensory occasions. These are called the "broad sciences" or "deep sciences," and even the narrow sciences (such as physics) depend in part on the deep sciences (such as mathematics and logic).

The deep sciences often deal with realities that can only be seen with the "inward eye" (such as Boolean algebra and imaginary numbers). For all of the broad or deep sciences, empiricism is used in a much wider and richer fashion: namely, an occasion is empirically real if it can be directly experienced by individuals in a peer group competent in the means of accessing the occasion. Thus, competent mathematicians can mentally experience the string of symbolic equations constituting the Pythagorean Theorem, and they have concluded that the Pythagorean Theorem is true (or that it represents genuine realities). In other words, most forms of deep science reject the radical dualism between thought and experience, since thoughts can themselves be experienced by consciousness. This is the general basis of the geist sciences, including the interpretive sciences of hermeneutics and introspective sciences of the phenomenological variety. That is, the geist sciences can investigate the objects or the phenomena or the experiences that present themselves to any subject or consciousness, whether the objects or experiences are sensory, mental, or spiritual.

I have suggested that both of those two major forms of science (narrow and deep) share at least three common features--namely, they both operate by injunction/exemplar, experience/evidence, and confirmation/rejection--the so-called "three strands" of all good science. That is, all "good science," whether narrow or deep, attempts to follow these three strands (which is what grounds their truth claims and makes them "scientific"). These three strands were suggested in order to explicitly incorporate the valid aspects of the theory of science advanced by Thomas Kuhn (the necessity of exemplars/injunctions/paradigms), empiricism (the necessity of experiential grounding), and Karl Popper (the importance of potential refutation). I further claim that these three strands are generally followed by sensory science, mental science, and spiritual science.

Which brings us to the levels of science . Since broad or deep science investigates any direct experiences presented to consciousness that can be shared and communicated within a peer group of competence, and since we have already seen that there are levels of consciousness , it follows that there are as many levels of phenomenological science as there are levels of consciousness. Since there are demonstrably three great levels/states of consciousness (namely, gross, subtle, and causal--correlated with, e.g., waking, dreaming, and sleeping), it follows that there are (at least) three major levels of science--gross, subtle, and causal--or, more commonly, sensory, mental, and spiritual science.

Thus, a more integral approach suggests that there are sensory, mental, and spiritual sciences (based on an investigation of gross, subtle, or causal objects/phenomena of consciousness, respectively). Narrow science generally refers to level one: it investigates primarily material, sensory, or gross objects of consciousness. Broad or deep science goes further and investigates both the second and third levels of phenomenological experience: namely, the mental, symbolic, hermeneutic, and interpretive objects or phenomena of consciousness (level two), as well as--further yet--the spiritual, causal, transrational, supramental phenomena of consciousness (level three).

All of those levels of science, if they involve good science, involve the three strands of all good science, namely: injunction, experience, validation/refutation. I have given extensive examples of this from various mental and spiritual disciplines (e.g., Eye to Eye , The Marriage of Sense and Soul , A Theory of Everything ).

And I have made one final suggestion: using the quadrants, we can correlate the findings of broad science (e.g., meditative experiences) with the findings of narrow science (e.g., brainwave patterns during meditation registered by an EEG machine). This "all-quadrant, all-level" approach therefore allows us to do something that neither premodern spiritual traditions nor modern science can do on their own: namely, track all four dimensions of an actual occasion (intentional, behavioral, social, and cultural) and therefore offer, for the first time, a more integral approach to science, consciousness, and spirituality. [8]

In your view of human pathology you have not only restructured the field of conventional psychiatry, but also added new fields of "therapy": the personal and the transpersonal domains. Aren't you imposing the categories of therapy and pathology on these domains? Shouldn't we see spirituality with completely fresh eyes?

Shouldn't we see spirituality with completely fresh eyes? Sure, if we could--which of course we can't, since all perception is always already context-bound, and those who suggest otherwise simply mean, shouldn't we see spirituality as they see it?

My simple point is that, based on a reconstructive science, we find that certain patterns of development, as judged by the individuals undergoing the development, are more appropriate, authentic, or "healthy," and other patterns are more fractured, unhealthy, or pathological. All traditions--even Zen--recognize "sickness" on their paths. For example, "Zen sickness," as Hakuin called it, is related to improper concentration and can result in debilitating physical, emotional, and mental problems.

All that a more integral approach does is to take all of these possible pathologies and list them as warning signs that a therapist, teacher, or student might watch out for during their own practice. I am certainly not attempting to pathologize the higher waves or turn them into a therapeutic endeavor. But for those who wish to take advantage of this more integral approach, then various therapeutic interventions are available for those who are having trouble in the transpersonal stages or states of their own being and becoming.

Your system seems very normative. As you wrote in A Sociable God , it delineates what can go wrong (critical) and how things should be (normative). In what sense can science and norms go together?

Depends, as usual, on which "science" you mean. Narrow science has no norms. Broad science deals with norms all the time.

Generally, the objection that science only deals with facts (what is) and not values or norms (what should be) is an objection raised solely by those who believe only in narrow science (even though narrow science itself depends on broad science, as we saw above, and broad science embraces norms as inescapable). Moreover, broad science itself offers guidelines to more authentic and less authentic norms, based (in part) on a reconstructive science.

For example: broad science investigates the unfolding of the stages of consciousness (as we saw with Kohlberg and Spiral Dynamics). In that development, the what is of one stage becomes the what should be of a previous stage, and thus facticity is converted into normative trends with every evolutionary unfolding. What is gives way to what should be, scientifically tracked and demonstrated. The gradient of potential given by Spirit turns out to be a normative gradient unfolded in developmental evolution-- as discovered by a broad reconstructive science .

Let me give a specific example from Spiral Dynamics. A developmental psychologist using good, broad, reconstructive science (i.e., science that uses all three strands--that's the "good" part--when investigating interior/phenomenological realities--that's the "broad" part--in a population of those who have already demonstrated competence in a particular developmental task--that's the "reconstructive" part) finds that, in a general fashion, consciousness development proceeds from beige to purple to red to blue to orange (to perhaps higher waves). That is the conclusion based on a reconstructive science that finds these stages after the fact, not imposes them in any a priori fashion.

But once a reconstructive science has demonstrated the what is of each stage--that is, after it has merely described, in a largely phenomenological fashion, the contours of each stage of development in a competent population--then the reflective intellect is able to spot patterns in the unfolding development. One such pattern is that each succeeding stage involves an increase in perspectivism and thus an increase in the capacity for mutual care and compassion (i.e., it is scientifically demonstrable that orange has a wider capacity for compassion than red). The what is of each stage of consciousness development gives way to a pattern of certain increasing variables, and thus the factual what is of each stage unfolds into a series of normative trends and tendencies, such that it is factually true that normative compassion increases with consciousness development (established by a reconstructive science). Thus, for example, IF you value compassion, then a reconstructive science can tell you this: what should a red meme do? It should continue its development to orange.... (And a more integral reconstructive science, which carries its investigation into the transpersonal domains, would be able to say: IF you value compassion, then orange should continue its development into causal and nondual waves, as a scientific fact .)

Can normative value be read directly and merely off the direction of evolution itself? Only in a metaphysical, pre-Kantian fashion. A post-metaphysical, experiential approach--which denies the ontological status of "levels of reality" divorced from the knowing consciousness--suggests instead that normative tendencies can be read not merely from evolution, but only into evolution with the help of a realization of the higher waves of development. That is, a realization of causal and nondual waves of consciousness development--secured by a good, broad science of the transpersonal domains--brings with it the normative grounding of the entire sequence. As Buddha said when asked why a person should be moral, "Because of nirvana." "Nirvana," of course, is not a mythic heaven or everlasting afterlife, but is rather a state of consciousness. Buddha is saying that moral actions help secure the higher state of consciousness known as nirvana, and thus, in addition to whatever relative value they might have in their own right (such as increasing good karma for the egoic self), their ultimate value lies in the fact that they are conducive to the direct realization of Spirit itself. Thus, the ultimate normative grounding of the entire developmental unfolding cannot be read from any stage or series of stages, but only from a direct realization of the Urgrund itself, which is secured by a good, broad science of the post-rational waves of development and confirmed by a reconstructive science of those who have demonstrated competence in that regard.

Thus, ultimate normative grounding--or what should be --is found in the what is of the transpersonal domain, demonstrated by good broad science and confirmed by careful reconstructive science. And in the developmental unfolding itself, normative tendencies of certain variables can be shown to increase with further development, so that IF one values those variables, normative statements can be read off the stages themselves. [9] Both of those factors--the relative increase in certain normative values during development, and their ultimate grounding in the transpersonal domains (or Spirit itself)--are open to good broad science and reconstructive science.

Of course, those who believe only in narrow science will believe none of this. But then, they don't even believe in the geist sciences, so what can I say? (Of course, ask a narrow scientist why he defends narrow science so aggressively as being the only correct approach to truth--ask him, that is, why he values narrow science so much when he claims that narrow science completely lacks values and yet is the only truth--and that is when the conversation gets really interesting. Since, according to him, there are no values in reality, then where exactly did his come from?)

What is the status of a "critical science," in relation to the more "objective" sciences?

A "critical theory" can be established in any major discipline--whether in art, morals, or science. It simply depends on whether one has an approach that one claims to be more authentic, or more comprehensive, or more accurate, or more valuable, or "more something." The Frankfurt School, for example, developed a critical social theory that they claimed offered more political and personal freedom. You can have a critical art theory, critical moral theory, critical spiritual theory, and so on. But all critical theories are internally bound to a series of normative claims that they then must justify as compelling and in some sense binding on others. That's the tricky part, of course.

Since I have offered an "integral theory" that I claim honors more types of truths than the alternatives, then I must offer a series of justifications for this claim, and that is what my books attempt to do. Since I believe that in many cases I can justify my claims to be more integral than the alternatives, I have often criticized the alternative views as being partial and "less integral" or "less comprehensive" (and therefore presumably "less true"). So yes, I have offered a "critical integral theory." (See Jack Crittenden's Foreword to The Eye of Spirit , where he summarizes my critical theory.)

But I should say that I hold this integral critical theory very lightly. Part of the difficulty is that, at this early stage, all of our attempts at a more integral theory are very preliminary and sketchy. It will take decades of work among hundreds of scholars to truly flesh out an integral theory with any sort of compelling veracity. Until that time, what I try to offer are suggestions for making our existing theories and practices just a little more integral than they are now....

How do you see your position in relation to Habermas, who advocates a critical science?

As many people know, I consider Habermas the world's greatest living philosopher. This does not mean, however, that I agree with all of what he has to say. But in very general terms I do find much agreement with his quasi-universalist approach; his developmental perspective; his dialogical methods; his three domains and three validity claims (art, morals, science--one version of the four quadrants); his championing of the lifeworld in addition to the systems world; his attempt at a reconstruction of the pragmatic history of embodied consciousness; his normative boldness; his blend of both transcendental and context-bound claims; and his critical stance.

I respectfully disagree on many of the details of those broad programs, however; and I strongly part ways with Habermas on his treatment of both the pre-linguistic and trans-linguistic realms. Habermas relates humans to both preverbal Nature and transverbal Spirit in ways that I believe are profoundly incorrect. A more integral (or "all-quadrants, all-levels, all-lines, all-states") approach allows us to handle a much larger view of the Kosmos than Habermas allows.

Many people feel spirituality should be approached through image and metaphor, not through rational and academic discourse.

Well, again, it depends on what you mean by "spirituality." Some levels of consciousness have spiritual aspects that are best approached through image and metaphor; some through rational and academic discourse; and some through direct practice and realization. My approach attempts to include and honor all of those.

At the same time, a critical integral theory does indeed make suggestions about which of those approaches are more authentic than others, and the conclusion is that different types of spirituality are appropriate at different stages of consciousness development. [10] There are different types of spirituality found at virtually every level of the spectrum of consciousness, using "spirituality" or "religion" interchangeably in this case to mean that which is one's ultimate concern and that in which one puts ultimate faith.

For example, at the magic and mythic stages, dogmatic mythological religion is not only the most prevalent type of spirituality, it is virtually the only type of spirituality that can be sustained at those levels. This spirituality is metaphysical and pre-Kantian in almost every sense, because it confuses structures of consciousness with ontological levels of reality separate from consciousness--which happens to be entirely appropriate at those waves, and, anyway, we can't really change the contours of those Kosmic habits now.

We can, however, continue our own growth and development beyond the mythic waves and into the rational waves. At the rational stages, spirituality (or one's ultimate concern and one's ultimate faith) involves a type of rational-scientific approach to the universe (where "science" means level-one and level-two science). At these intermediate levels of consciousness, one believes in rationality and empirical phenomena with a type of blind religious faith, even though there is no rational-empirical proof for it: there is no scientific proof that scientific proof alone is real, and yet the egoic-rational level believes with all its heart and soul that rationality alone offers the secrets of the universe. Just as at the previous stages, where one identified with mythology and therefore found religion in mythic dogma, at these rational stages one identifies with reason and therefore finds religion in rational proclamations of scientific faith. Habermas's religion or ultimate concern, for example, is communicative reason, which is entirely appropriate at these waves.

A rational-stage believer puts his faith in reason, just as at the previous stage a person puts his or her faith in myths. "Faith" in all these senses is not meant in a derogatory fashion, but in a positive way: one has faith in that which one "knows" to be real, and at each wave of consciousness development, a person is directly introduced to various phenomena of consciousness: at the magic waves, one sees magic phenomena (which are real as phenomena); at the mythic waves, one sees mythic phenomena (which are real as phenomena); at the rational waves, one sees rational phenomena (which are real as phenomena); and at the spiritual waves, one sees spiritual phenomena (which, it is further claimed, directly shade into noumenon itself, not in a metaphysical but experiential sense, demonstrated by a good, deep science in the direct experience of satori, for example).

When development continues from the mind and into the supramental or transpersonal or postrational realms (a development that can be rationally reconstructed but not rationally attained), one's spirituality shifts from an ultimate concern with the contents of the mind to an ultimate concern with the contents of transcendental consciousness as such (which, because it transcends and includes the previous levels, results ideally in an integral approach to spirituality, science, and the universe at large)--shifts, that is, from a faith in mind to a faith in spirit itself. As with the previous stages, this "faith" is not misplaced; it results from a direct realization of the spiritual reality disclosed at the postrational waves of consciousness development. Of course, some individuals see spiritual realities more clearly than others, just as some use reason more brilliantly than others. But for all who continue their development into the transpersonal waves, a reconstructive science of that development shows unmistakably its supramental and spiritual character--but this is now a spirituality that is based on direct experiential evidence (satori) that can be communicated in a peer group of those who have demonstrated competence in this development (sangha).

This is therefore a thoroughly post-metaphysical, post-Kantian spirituality. It shuns ontological levels of reality for postmodern levels of consciousness (which are real as phenomenological occasions ultimately revealed as Spirit's potential for transcendence and known directly by a good broad science).

This type of post-metaphysical spirituality was most clearly announced in the East by the Buddhist genius Nagarjuna, who used a transcendental dialectic similar to Kant's (although Nagarjuna discovered it fifteen hundred years before Kant) to demolish belief structures and radically deconstruct myths in order to make way for direct experiential evidence (or science in the broad sense).

Thus, where myth and dogma are the material of metaphysical, pre-Kantian spirituality, direct experience and deep science are the material of post-metaphysical spirituality. As I stated in the introduction to SES: "If metaphysics means thought without evidence, there is not a metaphysical sentence in this entire book."

Hence, Habermas states that "there is no alternative to postmetaphysical thinking," I agree entirely. But what Habermas does not yet appear to realize is that this is exactly the foundationless foundation for a postmetaphysical spirituality of direct spiritual experience disclosed in postrational waves of consciousness development investigated by a good, deep science of those who have demonstrated developmental competence in those dimensions and confirmed by a reconstructive science of the entire range of human lifespan development.

Habermas writes of the New Age movements: "These more serious thinking movements oscillate within a surreal garland of closed worldviews that are composed of badly-speculated pieces of scientific theory. New Age satisfies in an ironic way the longing for the lost One and Whole with the abstract authority of a system of science that becomes more and more impenetrable. But closed worldviews can stabilize themselves in the sea of a decentralized comprehension of the world only on subcultural islands." What is your position towards this statement?

Oh, I agree with virtually all of it. But I believe we can be more precise in the analysis than Habermas. First of all, it is true that much New-Age thinking satisfies the longing for the lost One and Whole, but not merely in an ironic fashion, but by actual regression to earlier stages of "oneness" and "wholeness," which are not actually whole in any developed sense, but merely stages of infantile fusion and indissociation, magically and mythically charged (e.g., the purple and red waves). Second, the more sophisticated New-Age approaches do indeed use a type of recourse to science, but the science is almost always distorted (especially the "new physics" and the "web of life")--but Habermas is right, this pseudo-science is indeed impenetrable (which means, it hides from evidence and thus is not really science--it is simply a new mythology, hence its often regressive nature). Those New-Age worldviews are indeed closed, both in terms of development and in terms of falsifiability (and thus, once again, they are not real science, since they are immune to the three strands of good science). And finally, Habermas is quite right that these movements can survive only in subcultural islands. In America one of these subcultural islands is found in San Francisco, which is why I call the most prevalent version of the sophisticated New-Age approach the "415 Paradigm" (415 is the area code phone number of San Francisco). Another island of such beliefs is Boulder, Colorado, the town in which I live. Yikes.

This is why it is so important for integral psychology and all serious postmetaphysical movements to detach themselves wherever possible from such New-Age movements (which is why I myself no longer am a member of the transpersonal movement in America, which has all the earmarks of the New-Age movement as described by Habermas, alas).

This is why it is also important to sharply differentiate a postmetaphysical spirituality from the perennial philosophy, which is why I have not identified myself with the perennial philosophy in over fifteen years. Some of its conclusions are of course important and demand the utmost respect--but only if they can be reconstructed using good, broad science and reconstructive science. [11] I have repeated the necessity for this postmetaphysical and critical approach in several recent books, including SES and Integral Psychology . For those who have not read some of this material, I have included several endnotes from Integral Psychology in Appendix 1 following this article.

Finally, with reference to the Habermas quote, I would like to point out that a generalized type of New-Age belief is very appealing, not only to the prerational purple and red waves (magic and mythic), but also to the green meme (or the pluralistic stage of development), simply because this pluralistic stage is marked by its strongly subjectivistic stance. The green meme is around 25% of the adult population in America and Europe, so this part of the subcultural island is actually more like a huge continent, which both Habermas and I are doing our best to transcend.

PART I | PART II | APPENDIX I | FOLLOWUP | APPENDIX II | NOTES