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: 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 II: Hans-Will Weis and Ironic Put Downs

Ken Wilber's Philosophy--A Critical Appraisal by Hans-Willi Weis 

Hans-Willi Weis recently published an article highly critical of my work, replete with ironic put-downs of my position and filled with a lovely spirit of ill-will and 
mean-spiritedness. How refreshing! I shall try to respond, although I am probably not as good at ironic put-downs as Meister Weis. 

The following are summaries of Weis's criticisms. If these do not accurately represent his position, I apologize for any errors. If I ridicule a position and it is not 
actually Weis's position, then please apply the ridicule to some other accurate position of his. :-) 

1. The spectrum of consciousness and its fulfillment through the transpersonal 

KW's system is closed, the transpersonal stages are not just some further stages that might or might not exist (this is for science to decide), but the final stages of 
development--period. 

This is quite incorrect. The system is open at almost every point. As I explained above, the nature of future evolution of humanity (and the Kosmos at large) is not 
predetermined, but is rather a product of (at least) all four quadrants as they manifest and interact. I call this "tetra-evolution," and it is open is almost every way, 
constrained only by the generalities of the twenty tenets, which are not a priori postulates but a posteriori conclusions based on empirical investigation. Once certain 
patterns emerge, they often become Kosmic habits, but when they first emerged, they had a great deal of creative freedom and openness. 

Most of all, development is open in the subtle dimensions, which are part of the great creative fountain of Spirit. As I clearly state at the end of Part I of Sex, 
Ecology, Spirituality , evolution can (and might) continue into billions and billions of other worlds. There is no period, period. 

Wilber's system claims universal validity, is immune for criticism and uses empirical data only by way of illustration. 

The system I have proposed does not claim universal validity in any a priori fashion, but concludes that there are some aspects of the system that appear to be 
universal, and it makes this conclusion based on empirical and phenomenological investigation by hundreds of researchers from around the world using reconstructive 
broad science. Weis is clearly unaware of my writing in this regard. He might start to learn about my work in this area by reading Integral Psychology . In many 
ways, my position here is not much different from aspects of Jurgen Habermas's approach. 

2. The Great Chain of Being and its formulation by the Philosophia Perennis 

By relating the spectrum of consciousness to the Great Chain of Being, Wilber crosses the border between science and metaphysics, between psychology and 
ontology. 

I do not identify myself with the perennial philosophy, and I have not done so for over fifteen years. As I have stated on many occasions, I categorically reject most 
of the work of the major perennialists, including Schuon, Coomaraswamy, Pallis, Guenon, etc. (For the latest statement of my rejection of the perennial philosophy, 
see TOE). 

My major criticisms of the perennial philosophy are numerous and too detailed to summarize here. But perhaps my strongest criticism is that we can no longer 
conceive of "levels of reality" in a separative ontological sense. I reject entirely the notions of levels of reality as separate ontological existents (as explained in many 
endnotes in Integral Psychology ; see the following Appendix 1). Rather, any levels of reality must be conceived in a post-Kantian, post-metaphysical sense, as being 
inseparable from the consciousness that perceives them. This consciousness is investigated, not by metaphysical speculation, but by empirical and phenomenological 
research (see part I). 

I have outlined this post-metaphysical and postmodern approach in numerous places, including several endnotes in SES, The Marriage of Sense and Soul (which 
specifically addresses the need for, and methodology of, a post-Kantian spirituality), and long endnotes in Integral Psychology . I suggest Weis start with those if he 
would like to learn more about my position. 

What has an dogmatic repetition of concepts found in the wisdom traditions to do with empirical transpersonal research? 

Nothing, which is why I categorically reject them--unless they can be reconstructed using good broad science and reconstructive science. Some of them can, many 
cannot; but we repeat none of them on blind faith. 

3. Philosophia Perennis as foundation--the argument from authority 

Conceiving the transpersonal realistically as the ens perfectissimum of theology, one can only point to the authority of the spiritual scriptures. 

True, which is why I categorically reject that approach as well. I am a major critic of the perennial philosophy for all those reasons. The only areas of the perennial 
philosophy that I have been willing to support are those that have continuing and ongoing grounding in empirical and phenomenological investigation, such as the 
existence of three major states of consciousness (waking, dreaming, sleeping). But otherwise, all of the perennial philosophy is up for review based on good, broad 
science and confirmed by reconstructive science. 

What empirical proof do historical spiritual figures present us with? 

None, which is why their claims must be open to ongoing experiential research. 

What proof do we have that they represent our future development? 

None, which is why their claims must be open to ongoing experiential research. I have said that some of the great sages "represent our future," but only in the 
sense--and to the extent--that they have experienced higher or wider or deeper states of consciousness that humanity as a whole might discover (as I explained in 
Part I). But whether or not that happens depends on events in all four quadrants, each of which is an open, evolving system. Again, Weis is taking a very superficial 
and narrow reading of my work and trying to extrapolate it, and the results are his own dogmatism, not mine. 

4. The transpersonal as a promise of the evolutionary future 

Wilber sees the transpersonal as potential evolutionary stages, not as actual realities, which is another proof his thoughts move on an abstract level, high above the 
empirical world. 

That is incorrect on both counts. As I explained above, the transpersonal realms are universal potentials for transcendence that can be experienced by virtually 
anybody right now, as a concrete reality, but its actual forms are filled out by all four quadrants. These higher potentials might become higher evolutionary stages, but 
that will only happen based on concrete realities in all four quadrants. 

Further, as my overall writings make clear, I maintain, based on empirical and phenomenological evidence, that "the transpersonal" actually contains "states," "stages," 
and "realms." As states, they are ever-present realities, not future potentials. In other words, my model can accommodate both Weis's position and an evolutionary 
position, whereas his model does not. 

Ideas about future evolution can only be speculative and have nothing to do with the scientific concept of evolution, which is retrospective, reconstructive. 

Correct, which is why, as I explain in SES, the higher stages can only be explicated with a reconstructive science (see Part I above). Weis might have missed these 
sections. The point is that if we take a reconstructive approach to those who have already demonstrated a present competence in higher stages of development (i.e., 
stages beyond turquoise), then those stages will likely give us some of the general patterns that future evolution on a larger scale might follow (as a Kosmic habit), but 
even then, the actual forms will only be determined by emergent realities in all four quadrants. I don't think Hans-Willi is quite following the argument here, but I'm 
sure if he did, he could still find something wonderfully nasty to say about it. :-) 

5. Meditation as scientific proof for metaphysical statements? 

Metaphysics is concerned with understanding the (higher) world, science with facts. Science does not know if development is in itself desirable. 

Correct, and again Weis repeats much of my own position as if it were merely his. My stance here is again somewhat similar to Habermas's, but whereas Habermas 
stops his account of development at the centaur (turquoise), I continue the account into the transpersonal as it becomes a concrete reality in development (and can 
be demonstrated with a reconstructive science). And, as I said, I categorically reject metaphysical approaches in every way. We need a postmodern, post-Kantian, 
empirically and phenomenologically and experientially grounded science of the transpersonal, which operates through a reconstructive science to suggest the higher 
stages and states that are available as present realities (facts) to those who continue their development beyond the stages recognized by conventional theorists such 
as Habermas. 

Does meditation prove in a "scientific" way the metaphysical statements of the spiritual traditions? Metaphysics and science can never meet. (A scientific proof of the 
existence of God is a contradiction in terms.) 

Generally I agree with the points that Weis is making here, but only from within his own narrow definitions. There is an enormous literature--in both Germany and 
America--on what the meaning of "science" is. Weis typically collapses my position--which contains at least three separate answers to that question--into one lump 
answer, which is nowhere near my actual stance. So let me unfold my actual position on "science," if I may, and repeat a few points I made previously: 

1. If by "science" we mean sensorimotor empiricism, then there is no scientific proof for God. Nor is there any scientific proof for any realities higher than sensory 
(including mathematics, logic, etc.--all of those become "nonscientific" because they are nonsensory). This is often called "narrow science." 

2. If by "science" we mean propositions ground in direct experiential evidence, then of course there is a "proof" of God's existence, and it is called "satori," the direct 
realization of the Suchness or Isness (tathagata) of the world. This is often called "deep or broad science." 

3. I believe that both of the above statements are true, but I have added a third and I believe very novel consideration to this debate, namely: that when a person 
experiences satori (in the Upper-Left quadrant) and thus has a "deep science" direct experience of Spirit, then narrow science (in the Upper-right quadrant) can 
simultaneously track the brain changes that occur during satori (or sahaj samadhi, moksha, unitive consciousness, etc.), thus fleshing out our understanding of higher 
states of consciousness and giving us a much fuller, "all-quadrant, all-level" overview of higher realities. This approach is spelled out in The Marriage of Sense and 
Soul and briefly outlined in A Theory of Everything and Integral Psychology .
 

Meditation does not follow the three strands of science, for the data of meditation cannot even be put in words. So this is an empty analogy. 

Oh, here Weis is showing his old grandmother Zen. He only has half of the Zen truth. "You Must Say Something!" is the name of Katigiri Roshi's latest book, and it 
points out the other half of Zen: of course the Real is ineffable, but you must say something! So what can you say? Quite a lot, it turns out, which is why real Zen 
Masters talk about Emptiness all the time. This is acceptable IF you have had satori, in which case you will know exactly what they mean. 

There is a long section in SES, which Weis might not have read, where I talk about why ALL experiences are ineffable unless you have had the experience yourself. 
Experiences such as making love, watching a sunset, listening to Bach: none of them can be fully put into words. The same is true of mystical experiences, but that 
does not stop us from communicating quite a bit about them--just as we can talk quite a bit about sex, even though it is ineffable. All that is required is a bit of good 
will and mutual understanding, which Weis might want to consider as a happy alternative to his resolute desire to not agree with a single thing I have ever said. :-) 

Stripping Wilber's system from its ontological and cosmological assumptions leaves us with an attempt at classifying transpersonal phenomena, which is neither 
compelling nor necessary. It is only one out of many other possible interpretations of the transpersonal. 

First, there are no ontological assumptions, as I explained, but rather conclusions reached by empirical and phenomenological research based on broad sciences and 
reconstructive sciences. Weis is free to ignore this research, but his own model or system will clearly suffer for doing so. 

Second, the "classification" system that results from including this data and research involves several dimensions--including states, stages, and realms--and Weis 
shows no indication that he is familiar with this research, so I would imagine that he would not find it compelling. 

6. The clinical approach to the transpersonal 

Wilber's classification of stages, pathologies and treatment modalities sees the field of spirituality with the eyes of a therapist, as if all deviations from the "norm" are 
pathological. 

Not at all. The idea is simply that, wherever we find development occurring, including transpersonal development, we often find that there can be problems, snarls, or 
miscarriages in this development, and if that happens, painful symptoms of the developmental problem can occur. We naturally do not want to reduce transpersonal 
problems to merely personal problems, and therefore, if we are acting as transpersonal therapists, we want to extend our therapeutic compassion to these higher 
dimensions as well. It's a simple matter of kindness and consideration. 

If we are to understand transpersonal phenomena in an empirical way, we have to let go of all normative and finalizing assumptions about how things should be. 

Obviously. But once we collect a great deal of data and experiential evidence on the unfolding and development of consciousness, then we can legitimately draw 
normative conclusions in a very general sense (again, just as Habermas does; see also Part I). There is nothing suspect about this; it is very straightforward; and it 
certainly does NOT include finalizing assumptions. 

Who are we to say that the world-rejecting Gnostics were "pathological," an assessment Wilber attributes to Plotinus? Each spiritual/existential viewpoint is valuable 
in itself. 

Here Weis's green-meme (or merely pluralistic) orientation asserts itself clearly. He exhibits the standard performative contradiction: no view is higher or better than 
another, except his own view, which is the one correct way to see things. It is exactly to avoid such performative self-contradictions that a more integral approach to 
spirituality would be helpful. 

7. Weis' proposal for an alternative view of the transpersonal 

Wilber's system is far too abstract to be useful for transpersonal researchers, who have to deal with specific and detailed issues. 

Then Weis should quickly alert the millions of readers around the world who are using this system and finding it quite useful. And please hurry, they are clearly 
wasting their lives! :-) But the point is, use the abstract framework and also apply whatever details you wish (my work offers a fair amount of details as well), and 
then you will have the best of both worlds. 

Let's not focus on stages but on states (induced or spontaneous) in empirical transpersonal research. That is something we can handle. 

My model includes both states and stages, since that is what is warranted by the empirical and phenomenological evidence to date. If Weis wants to ignore this huge 
body of evidence, then he must tell us why he ignores this evidence, and he must tell us what defects in the researchers led to their finding this evidence. Until he does 
that, any truly integral model will include all the relevant facts as disclosed by reputable researchers. I do not think we should toss out evidence as easily as Weis 
does. 
 

Let's see how people integrate these states into their personality, and how they affect their larger behavior. 

That's exactly what my approach does. But it also includes the effect of stages, types, developmental lines, the self as integrating tendency, and so on, which gives us 
a much more complete and integral view than that of Weis, in my opinion. 

Trying to fit the transpersonal in an abstract and theoretical framework is a hopeless enterprise, all mystics have said the spiritual cannot adequately be formulated. 

Yes, and all of traditions of the mystics have nonetheless offered general maps of the journey to Spirit (such as the ten Zen Ox-Herding pictures). It turns out that 
there are family resemblances to these maps, and these resemblances seem to reflect certain deep potentials in the human bodymind (deep potentials for 
self-transcendence given as the Great Nest). We don't try to fit anything into an abstract and theoretical framework. Instead, we attempt a reconstructive science that 
concludes, based on empirical and phenomenological research and evidence, that there are higher states and stages available to men and women (but again, not in a 
predetermined fashion, since their manifestation is molded by all four quadrants--behavioral, intentional, social, and cultural). This is a much fuller approach than 
Weis offers, I believe. 

Let me finish by saying that I believe I truly resonate with some of the genuine worry and concerns that Weis demonstrates--particularly the concern about closed 
systems, authoritarian control, lack of openness, and potential for abuse. But I have already written extensively about those issues and about why we therefore need 
a post-metaphysical, deep-scientific or experiential approach to such issues, and why we must sharply differentiate such post-metaphysical spirituality from both the 
perennial philosophy and the many New-Age movements. I'm sure if Weis would read my work in this area that he could find something to hate about it, too, and 
we are all eagerly looking forward to his next round of criticism, although I'm sure that I will be forgiven if I don't respond, since I might have more important things 
to do, like feed my goldfish. 

Appendix 1: On The Need for a Post-Metaphysical and Critical Spirituality

The following endnotes are taken from Integral Psychology . They point up, once again, my belief that we need to move from a metaphysical approach (which 
assumes that numerous planes or levels of reality exist in a radically independent fashion from the consciousness that knows them) and move toward a much more 
critical approach (which investigates the structures of the subject that knows the object, or in this case, that knows the levels of reality). In the following notes, I try to 
make two major points: (1) we can no longer conceive planes or levels of reality as entirely pre-existing, pre-given ontological structures; (2) we can, however, 
continue to refer to ontologically real levels of reality, but only if they are conceived as fundamentally codependent on the consciousness that perceives and 
co-creates them. This allows us to retain planes, levels, or realms of reality as separate and quasi-independent variables, but only by realizing that those levels of 
reality are internally related to levels of consciousness, and that if a particular human consciousness does not perceive a realm, that realm can exist only because it is a 
realm of consciousness held in Spirit (a Spirit that human consciousness itself can directly realize in satori or enlightenment). This dramatically shifts independent levels 
of reality known by a priori metaphysical speculation, to levels of consciousness known by direct experience (and hence open to continual criticism and refinement 
via deep science, research, and investigation)--the shift, that is, from metaphysical to postmetaphysical spirituality. 

Some of the following notes might not make complete sense unless one reads the book from which they are taken ( Integral Psychology ), but by and large I think 
they are clear enough to get the general idea. I have edited these notes slightly for emphasis. This appendix is followed by several follow-up questions and my 
responses. 

1.3 [which means, endnote 3 to chapter 1]. As Huston Smith points out in Forgotten Truth , in the great traditions, the levels of consciousness (or levels of selfhood) 
are sometimes distinguished from the levels of reality (or planes of reality), and I also follow that distinction. However, for most purposes they must be treated 
together, as the being and knowing aspects of each of the levels in the Great Nest. In other words, the basic structures of knowing (the levels of 
consciousness/selfhood) and the basic structures of being (the planes/realms of reality) are intimately and internally connected, and unless otherwise specified, both of 
these are indicated by the terms basic structures or basic levels of the Great Nest. (Huston Smith indicates this by using the same figure of concentric circles to cover 
both levels of reality and levels of selfhood.) But the reason it is necessary to distinguish them is that a given level of selfhood can encounter a different level of reality, 
as we will see in subsequent discussions, and thus these need to be preserved as two independent variables. Nonetheless, there are advantages, in modern 
discourse, to emphasizing the epistemological component over the ontological, as I will point out in the following discussion. 

1.5 This is similar to the Mahayana Buddhist notion of the alaya-vijnana, the "collective storehouse consciousness," which is present in every person, and which is 
said to be the repository of the memory traces ( vasanas) of all past experiences, both of oneself and others (i.e., it is not just collective but transpersonal, embracing 
all sentient beings; in my system, it is the high-subtle to low-causal). It is said that, in higher stages of meditation, one can contact this transpersonal consciousness, 
which helps to release one from a narrow and restricted identity with the individual self. Thus, according to Mahayana Buddhism, the alaya-vijnana is: (1) a real 
transpersonal realm, an actuality, that exists in all people; (2) it is, however, rarely contacted in a conscious fashion, so for most people, that conscious contact is 
merely a potential; (3) as a collective storehouse, it is evolving and changing as more and more vasanas are collectively accumulated; (4) thus its actual contours are 
constantly coevolving with people's experience--it is definitely not a pregiven, unchanging mold or eternal archetype; (5) even though it is constantly evolving, any 
individual, at any given time, by directly experiencing that realm, can be released from the constrictions of individuality; (6) thus, the fact that this subtle realm is 
evolving and changing does not mean that it cannot confer transpersonal liberation at any given time. 

Of course, final liberation is said to be beyond even the subtle forms or vasanas, into the formless or causal (and then nondual). The causal is the only basic "level" 
that does not change and evolve, because it is purely formless. But even the nondual evolves in part, because it is a union of causal emptiness (which does not 
evolve) and the entire manifest world (which does). 

To my mind, this conception (which is a reconstruction of the Buddhist view) is more adequate than that of eternally unchanging archetypal molds (see the 
Introduction to volume 2 of the Collected Works for a fuller discussion of this theme [this is reprinted below in Appendix 2, "The Nature of Involution"]; some 
aspects of the Kosmos must still be assumed to be archetypal, but far fewer than the perennial philosophy generally imagined). In my opinion, all of the holons of 
existence (including the basic structures) are, in part, these types of evolutionary memories or habits. And, for the present discussion, it should be remembered that 
the higher levels are still evolving themselves, and thus they are great potentials, not pregiven absolutes, but this still does not prevent them from being able to release 
us from the constrictions of the lower realms. 

8.1 As indicated in the text, states of consciousness are very important, but for them to contribute to development they must become structures/traits. Planes or 
realms are important, but they cannot be conceived pre-critically as ontologically independent realities, but rather as coproductions of perceiving selves (see note 8.2 
[which follows]). Thus, the simplest generalization is that individual development involves waves, streams, and self, without in any way denying the importance of all 
of those others factors, from states to planes to numerous heterarchical processes and patterns. 

8.2 In my view, the basic structures in the Great Nest are simultaneously levels of both knowing and being, epistemology and ontology. For reasons discussed in the 
text (namely, modernity rejected most ontology and allowed only epistemology), I usually refer to the basic structures as "the basic structures of consciousness" (or 
"the basic levels of consciousness"); but their ontological status should not be overlooked as long as their internal connection to consciousness is not ignored. 
Generally, the perennial philosophy refers to the former as levels of consciousness (or levels of selfhood ), and the latter as realms or planes of existence (or levels of 
reality ), which we should understand as inextricably interwoven (see note 1.3). Thus, as Huston Smith pointed out (Forgotten Truth), the body level of 
consciousness corresponds with the terrestrial realm or plane of existence; the mind level of consciousness corresponds with the intermediate realm or plane of 
existence; the soul level of consciousness corresponds with the celestial plane of existence; and the spirit level of consciousness corresponds with the infinite plane of 
existence. Since these are correlative structures (levels of consciousness and planes of existence), I include both of them in the idea of basic structures or basic levels 
of the Great Nest. 

However, on occasion it is useful to distinguish them, because a given level of self can experience a different level or plane of reality . I have often made this 
distinction when analyzing modes of knowing (see Eye to Eye , chapters 2 and 6; A Sociable God , chapter 8), and I will do the same in the text when we discuss 
modes of art. Moreover, in ontogeny, the structures develop but the planes do not (the self develops through the already-given potential planes or levels of reality 
[which pre-exist only as a potential gradient of transcendence]); however, in both Kosmic involution and evolution/phylogeny, the planes/realms also develop, or 
unfold from Source and enfold to Source (so we cannot say that planes show no development at all: they involve and evolve from Spirit; see note 1.5 [above] for the 
ways in which the planes themselves coevolve). But a given level of self, generally, can interact with different levels of reality, to various degrees, so that we need to 
keep these two (structures and realms) as independent variables. 

Thus, for example, as I pointed out in Eye to Eye , consciousness can turn its attention to the material plane (using its epistemological eye of flesh), the intermediate 
plane (using its epistemological eye of mind), or the celestial plane (using its epistemological eye of contemplation). The material, intermediate, and celestial planes are 
the ontological levels; in Eye to Eye I refer to them using the terms sensibilia, intelligibilia, and transcendelia (i.e., the objects in those planes or realms). The eyes of 
flesh, mind, and contemplation are the epistemological levels correlated with (and disclosing) those ontological planes of sensibilia, intelligibilia, and transcendelia. (Of 
course, this is just using a simple three-level version of the Great Nest; if we use five levels, there are then five planes of existence and five correlative levels of 
consciousness, and so on. In my scheme, since I often use 7 to 9 general levels of consciousness, there are likewise 7 to 9 general realms or planes of reality.) 

But notice: you can make essentially the same points using only the levels of consciousness (since being and knowing are two sides of the same levels). You can say 
that the mind can investigate the intermediate realm, or you can simply say the mind can investigate other minds. You can say the mind can investigate the celestial 
realm, or you can simply say the mind can investigate the subtle level. They are essentially saying the same thing, as long as you realize that any given level of selfhood 
(or consciousness) can turn its attention to any level of existence (or plane of reality). These two independent scales, in other words, can be stated as "level of 
consciousness investigates planes of existence"; but they can also be stated as "level of consciousness investigates other levels of consciousness," as long as we 
understand the correlations involved. 

I often use the latter formulation, simply because, as I said, it avoids the ontological and metaphysical speculations that modernity quite rightly finds so questionable. 
Premodern philosophy was unabashedly metaphysical (i.e., it assumed the nonproblematic ontological existence of all the various planes, levels, and realms of 
transcendental reality); whereas modern philosophy was primarily critical (it investigated the structures of the subject of thinking, and called into question the 
ontological status of the objects of thought), and thus modernity brought a much needed critical attitude to bear on the topic (even if it went overboard in its critical 
zeal and sometimes erased all objects of knowledge except the empirical and sensorimotor). 

A crippling problem with the perennial traditions (and the merely metaphysical approaches) is that they tend to discuss ontological levels (planes or axes) as if they 
were pregiven, independent of the perceiver of those domains, thus overlooking the substantial amount of modern and postmodern research showing that cultural 
backgrounds and social structures profoundly mold perceptions in all domains (i.e., the perennial philosophy did not sufficiently differentiate the four quadrants). For 
all these reasons, simply talking about "planes" as completely independent ontological realities is extremely problematic--yet another reason I have tended to 
emphasize the epistemological facets over the merely ontological ones. 

Follow-Up Questions

In a 1983 article inThe American Theosophist you called your approach the "Neo-Perennial Philosophy," to distinguish it from the anti-modern, anti-evolutionary 
versions. Do you still stand by that article?

Yes, I do still stand by that article. In fact, if you look at it, that article specifically defends only ONE item of the perennial philosophy: namely, the existence of the 
timeless, spaceless, formless Ground or unqualifiable Spirit as such. That article in itself is therefore a radical rejection of virtually everything the perennial philosophy 
has claimed. The title itself was an ironic put-down: you can't have a new version of that which claims to be unchanging! 

However, that does not mean that all of the conclusions of perennial philosophy are necessarily invalid; it only means that they have to be re-assessed to include a 
modern and postmodern perspective and reconstructed in the light of Spirit's own ongoing evolution and development. That was the major point of that article, and it 
marked my break with the perennial philosophy as such. (That article is included as chap. 2 in The Eye of Spirit ). 

Does that mean that between 1977 (with your first book) and 1983 you did embrace a version of the perennial philosophy, but you have stopped doing so? 

Yes, that is basically right. But there are several items here that need to be treated separately. 

First is the issue of a perennial philosophy itself: is it true that there is a set of doctrines, ideas, and practices that are essentially the same in all of the world's great 
wisdom traditions or religions? That is a very difficult proposition to demonstrate, obviously. Nonetheless, I believe that there are a handful of spiritual tenets that can 
indeed be found in most of the world's great religions. However, they are not "perennial," for they mostly appear only in those spiritual traditions that or