Both Wilber and Baars address the question of necessary features of an encompassing model. In Wilber's view such models must balance the subjective and objective perspectives. However, it is Revonsuo, one of the editors of the Baars text, whose description of "a realist ontology for consciousness" is the most interesting and provocative for me. Revonsuo (1994, pp.265-266) lists the necessary features as (again, my interpretation): 1) an organic hierarchy spanning the range from the phenomenal (subjective) to the empirical (objective), 2) an explanation that binds the phenomenal to the empirical, and 3) an explanation of the evolutionary efficacy of such a system. I believe this expresses precisely the project that Wilber took on abstractly, while Baars approached it concretely. Now, the interesting thing for me, here, is that Wilber is a proclaimed philosophical idealist. In the effort to produced unified models of consciousness, we seem to be actually making some progress.

Systematic Analysis of Wilber's Sex, Ecology, Spirituality

Explicit Ontology

Wilber's ontology is idealistic, that is to say, the cognitive categories of the mind (reality) match the actual categories of the universe. Not that they are the actual categories, but that our ideas are the possible manifestations of an intuitive link to an absolute, independently existing, universe. The universe is not ontologically distinct from reality, yet lies behind what is distinct: our perceptions and our ideas concerning those perceptions. The universe can only be known through interpretations in which the characteristics of the knower are completely embedded. Thus the universe not only evolves on its own but also by the way we know it.

Epistemological Assumptions

Universal Pluralism As Proof By Process

"The question itself (Why is anything at all happening? Why am I here?)-the question itself is said to be confused, pathological, nonsensical, or infantile. To stop asking such silly or confused questions is, they all maintain, the mark of maturity, the sign of growing up in this cosmos." (p. vii)

For Wilber, "their" opinion is not necessary to the validity of many important questions, nor, we assume, to the propositions that may be offered as answers. The question for us is: how does Wilber justify the validity of the propositions he offers? His propositions seem highly speculative, but are they?

If we take . . . largely-agreed-upon orienting generalizations from the various branches of knowledge . . . we will arrive at some astonishing and often profound conclusions, conclusions that, as extraordinary as they might be, nonetheless embody nothing more than our already-agreed-upon knowledge. (p. ix.)

Wilber thus prepares us to believe his propositions are true because they are already common knowledge. However, "not a sentence that follows is not open to confirmation or rejection by a community of the adequate . . .. Can we not stare into that vast and stunning Kosmos and respond with something more mature than oops?" (p. x)

It is not the forces of darkness but of shallowness that everywhere threatens the true, and the good, and the beautiful; and that ironically announce themselves as deep and profound. It is exuberant and fearless shallowness that everywhere is the modern danger, the modern threat, and that everywhere nonetheless calls to us as savior. (p. xi)

We see here that Wilber appeals to our belief, not as a modern "scientist" or purveyor of shallow material truths, but as a spiritual leader, a guide to the realms of deeper and more binding connections. The threat comes from one-dimensional perspectives that compete with the multidimensional knowledge of the ages for status as truth. Wilber's epistemological foundations provide us the criteria we can use to validate these claims.

The danger of the modern worldview is that it has become "pathologically hierarchical." This perspective overwhelms the holistic, relational, integrative view that perceives existence ecologically. We should not consider the latter view as simply romantic or poetic. Ecological sciences are "rooted in the hardest of scientific evidence." (p. 6) Despite what modern science might think of these theories, the "larger part" and "greater number" (p. 8) of opinions cite them and validate them.

Simple numerical majority is not the issue here. Wilber mentions other criteria that serve to validate beliefs. The adage "everything is connected with everything else" is an example. The coalescence of "basic regularities that repeat and recur" is another. (Quotations from Ervin Laszlo on p. 7) These and other criteria oriented toward a coherent and unified worldview were inundated by the great mechanistic enterprise of modern science that denied the systemic and balanced nature of all existence. Science also denied the idealistic form that existence took in human consciousness. In particular, the power oriented forces of industry and war misinterpreted the natural form of systemic hierarchy as organization for control and dominance.

Such misinterpretations are typical of an anthropocentric view of existence that must eventually give way to universal pluralism. Universal pluralism distinguishes hierarchy as a basis for agency from hierarchy as a basis for communion. (p. 531 n. 44) Wilber describes the natural occurrence of hierarchy in a context of interrelated levels of consciousness as and as a function of transcendence rather than control. Universal pluralism intentionally embraces context, instead of bracketing it, as has been the habit of modern science. Wilber suggests that if the attentions of the various scientific disciplines could be turned outward to the whole of consciousness instead of inward, focusing on the details of reality, the potential for a syncretized whole to be produced would serve to validate all knowledge in a way that no perspective can be validated individually.

Understanding this position relates to the anomalies mentioned in the introduction: the illusion that accompanies sensibility and the contradiction that accompanies reason. These anomalies are evidence that reality, as a Gestalt produced by consciousness, is more than sensibility, or perception, and reason. Consciousness adds a certain, difficult to define, something to make reality whole. The existence of this "difficult to define something" results in the sensations of illusion and contradiction. Focusing on inward details, which has been the strategy for eliminating the indeterminacy of illusion and paradox from science, strips reality of an essential element that makes it whole. "Whole" truth requires a focus outward to everything consciousness contributes, whether or not we can "scientifically" define these marginal elements.

Validity Claims As Collectively Grounded Belief

Collective intelligence has philosophical foundations, the observance of which serves as a ground for valid knowledge. On this foundation is built a structure Wilber calls "injunction." (pp. 273-276) Within the injunctive structure are algorithms or collectively agreed upon practices that organize the results of perception, or "apprehension." When the injunctive structure is properly used as the basis for accumulating and presenting experience, the collective agrees to treat the products as "truth" by "communal confirmation." "Bad data are rebuffed by the community of those whose cognitive eyes are adequate to the addressed domain." (p. 276) Communal confirmation, if it is open to those sensitive to the full range of consciousness, in other words, those conscious elements added to produce a "whole" reality, can also be confirmed. As truths are confirmed, they are integrated and become part of the injunctive structure.

The process of injunction-apprehension-confirmation is recursive, that is, it is performed on itself, creating a hierarchy of injunction, or "paradigm." As the lower levels of paradigm come to support upper levels, the lower become less and less subject to revision, in other words, questioning. This explains why philosophical questions are collectively proscribed (silly) as Wilber describes in the quotation on p. 216 above. However, these revisions in the philosophical foundations result in evolution in human intelligence. Providing the ultimate context, philosophy sets the limit to our intelligence until internal or external changes force us to build on new ground.

Meanwhile, validation of truth claims may be subject to collective misapprehension, in other words, believing that validation occurs exclusively in the "it" realm. Experiences not within the bounds of broader paradigmatic injunction, in other words, not recognized by the experts, may be communally refuted (rebuffed) without acknowledgment of a growing need for evolving changes in philosophical bases. Continued differentiation may be forced outside the community to emerge in an entirely new structure, and new community, based on new philosophical foundations.

Validity Claims As Individual Figure Against Ground

Validation of knowledge claims does not rest exclusively with the collective "we." The individual has local means of validating claims in the "I" realm (p. 556). Presence of "valid awareness," the prerequisite to deeper truthfulness, can fluctuate in each of the four quadrants.) However, description of this means seems controversial. There is purported to be an unmediated source of validation within each individual that does not directly justify collective validation. These "transcendental signifieds" (p. 602 n. 16) are not accessible in language, the medium of validation in the collective. In other words, there is, for the individual, a sense of universal validity that can only be felt, not expressed. For Wilber, this awareness exists in the translinguistic "theosphere." (p. 605 n. 16) My impression of this argument is that this universal validation emerges holistically, if imperfectly, from cultural (communal) expressions of validity. As it emerges, it is again validated by individual translinguistic awareness. Thus, validation does not end with the collective. In a recursive way (see Figure 18), the individual is ultimately effecting validation by a means we cannot empirically demonstrate; we can only say that it must be there, which is a validation that supports the proposition.

Explicit Epistemology

Based on his ontology (his idealistic foundations), Wilber's speculations are not empirically testable, in modern science's positivistic sense. The ultimate justification of his, or any other model, is its collective acceptability, in turn based on its intuitive tenability to many individuals. Not only does Wilber describe the working of this epistemological system, he also assumes it as the means by which his own model will be validated, "not a sentence that follows is not open to confirmation or rejection by a community of the adequate" (p. x). Reality is radically ambiguous, so any speculation is adventitious and is ultimately the source of new ideas. New ideas form the figure against the ground, without which neither individual nor collective learning would occur. (p. 603) These ideas, both individual and collective, are produced through reciprocal, dialectic effects of the interior-intentional and the exterior-behavioral.

I get an impression of a spiral effect: rotation through validation in the four quadrants leads to a fundamental differentiation in awareness that emerges as a new level of awareness having new validation criteria. Thus, stages of cognitive development have distinct forms of injunction-apprehension-confirmation and accompany the emergence of new holons, or levels of wholeness.

Conclusions Concerning Foundations

Recursivity within human systems can make the descriptions of those systems problematically complex and impossible to describe using empirically demonstrable and linear models. A "bootstrapping" technique is to identify simple organic components that are the fundamental building blocks for this complex structure, and show how their recursive use results in the building of the structure. For Wilber, the simple organic components are, ontologically, the "holon," and, epistemologically, the injunction-apprehension-confirmation cycle. Such models are not deterministic, but this does not invalidate the model because we understand that the systems we are describing are not in themselves deterministic.

Philosophical systems are such complex structures. When they have become internalized and the basis for the praxis of an entire culture, it is virtually impossible to "deconstruct" them because their structure is the very basis for any kind of rationality and discourse. Yet they have been observed to exhibit characteristics that produce unfortunate effects in the structure of the cultural systems built on top of them. When philosophical systems are shattered, as they were by the discourse at the time of Augustine's City of God, Dark Ages are apt to follow.

Alternatively, we may prepare a new philosophical base, strengthened by virtue of being more integrative and comprehensive than the old. Being an idealistic system, there is no necessary mutual exclusivity. The new system can be erected in the same space as the old. Then the old system can be allowed to, as it has been put, "wither away." This is within the power of human intellect working with ontological and epistemological models. Then, if necessary, we can perform the entire process again. There is no end of history.

Our past problem has been that we reify these idealistic models and protect them with our lives. Wilber's narrative explains this tendency and offers an alternative. His explanation is not perfect, but it adds to the revelation of what "is" in a way that offers impetus to an improved way of perceiving reality, knowing that the objects of consciousness transcend our individual perceptions and ideas.

Structure in Wilber's "Sex, Ecology, Spirituality"

Reality as a System

Since Wilber expresses his structure as a system, or organic whole, we will expect to find the classic analytical elements (developed in Engelhart, 1995 and further supported by Bertalanffy, 1969; Boulding, 1985; Laszlo, 1972; Parsons, 1949) that compose a system. Although the following are not Wilber's terms, if his structure is indeed a system, these analytical elements will appear even if expressed differently:

1. Purpose - the end toward which the structure evolves.

2. Content - the conditions of the components of the structure at any point in evolution.

3. Process - the means or changes by which the content of the structure moves from one point of evolution to the next.

4. Control - criteria to which the contents and process must conform in order to obtain the purpose.

The above elements are largely implicit in Wilber's structure. At this point, we begin to classify the explicit aspects of Wilber's system and catalog them into the analytical elements as specified above. This is accomplished by reviewing the relevant text sequentially, extracting propositions concerning the structure. Each proposition is classified according to the scheme of analytical elements and added to a consolidated statement describing each analytical element in Wilber's terms. Within each analytical element, propositions are arranged into a logical sequence and inspected for redundancies, which are eliminated, and lacunae. Where lacunae occur, the original text is thoroughly reviewed, seeking hints of what the missing pieces should be. Finally, based on the results of thorough review, extrapolations and interpolations are made from the clear propositions to the missing ones. The resulting integrated descriptions of the four analytical elements constitute the structure of the system. Because of the myriad references involved in each of these propositions, including many external to Wilber that constitute his context, it is not possible to show them all within the scope of this section. Major references will be provided in footnotes to avoid disruption of the text. Extrapolations and interpolations are shown in bold type.

Wilber's Universal Structure

Purpose

The ultimate purpose of the universe is complete chaos¹ (infinitely stable) but this can only be attained through complete order² (infinitely unstable³). Until that time, ordered structures extend themselves locally, attempting to integrate⁴ other structures, and allowing to dissolve⁵ those structures that are not conducive to unified extension. Ultimately, all structures are united and, when the energy to maintain this final structure is exhausted, the entire structure collapses into complete chaos⁶.

The universe ultimately tends⁷ toward entropy⁸ (inertness⁹) but locally, and temporarily, it tends toward negentropy¹⁰ (intentionality¹¹) because that is ultimately the most efficient route to entropy.¹² The purposes of all parts of the universe are determined by the wholes to which they belong.¹³ Distribution of entropy and negentropy in the universe determines potentials¹⁴ between chaotic distribution, which is stable, and orderly distribution, which is unstable. Content changes by virtue of process from chaotic to orderly¹⁵ distribution.

Content

The content of the universe is holarchies in dynamic equilibrium.¹⁶ A holarchy¹⁷ is a coherent, unified structure comprising a network of mutually interacting¹⁸ holons, the smallest structural element.¹⁹ Holons are arranged in a hierarchy, the holarchy,²⁰ in which each level encompasses all lower levels.²¹

Intentionality is manifest in energy, making the universe a harmonic pattern²² of manifest energy in dynamic tension.²³ The configuration of manifest energy at any particular time constitutes reality.²⁴ Manifest energy forms holons that are defined by the surrounding structure and can only exist in context.²⁵ Thus, the universe is composed entirely of holarchies formed from other holarchies and their holons, infinitely extended.²⁶

Process

Holarchies evolve by creation²⁷ and integration²⁸ to form more inclusive²⁹ holarchies. Holons assume a form dependent on the surrounding reality, or context.³⁰ The effect of intentionality on holarchies is to produce structures that more efficaciously accomplish³¹ the purpose of the universe.³² This is done by converting chaos into order,³³ with the lower, or less ordered, holons in a holarchy determining the possibilities of the higher, or more ordered.³⁴ The higher holons determine the probabilities of the lower.³⁵ Conversion into order takes two forms, translation, where preservation or adaptation of the holons occurs on a single level, and transformation,³⁶ where transcendence produces a new level of holon encompassing the old, or where an entire holon level collapses in dissolution.³⁷

Control

Progress toward purpose is assured by maintaining an equilibrium that is selectively overridden by evolutionary pressures.³⁸ Equilibrium is maintained by a dynamic tension between opposing strategies³⁹ for use of energy. Energy is conserved until the surplus energy makes the structure unstable, at which point surplus energy is directed toward creating a more inclusive and stable structure.⁴⁰

Thus, tension occurs between opposing forces of the structure creating an equilibrium.⁴¹ Intentionality acts on this equilibrium to produce evolution in the structure toward higher levels of organization.⁴² Evolutionary pressures cause translation⁴³ to holons that better conserve energy. When sufficient energy is available, evolution occurs as transformation⁴⁴ to a new, more inclusive,⁴⁵ form of holon. Evolution is characterized by distinct realms of being,⁴⁶ representing quantum movement to new levels of intentionality. These realms are matter, life, mind,⁴⁷ and ultimately spirit⁴⁸ in a measured progression toward complete intentionality.

Notes

¹ See "far from equilibrium," p. 13 and "all embracing chaotic Attractor," pp. 74-78. A significant problem in defining purpose is the attempt to express linearly that which only occurs holistically. We linearly define equilibrium and disequilibrium, or order and chaos, as distinct whereas holistic perception shows the one inseparably built into the other. Thus order and chaos are both distinct and identical. However, logic precludes the holistic form in explanation and demands the linear form. In the case of Wilber's universe, the cognitive result takes the form of a circle, or cycle, but we must realize that form only attempts to express the inexpressible and paradoxical identity of chaos and order.

² Pp. 11, 13.

³ P. 501. Hegel's "all that is determinate and finite is unstable" leads to the conclusion that the completely determined is infinitely unstable, and vice versa.

⁴ Pp. 67-74. Under tension between integration and differentiation, structures are "pushed" ultimately toward integration by the purpose of the universe (as a whole acting as telos) selectively weakening one or the other of these forces but favoring integration.

⁵ Pp. 22-24, 44-46, 105. The possiblity of dissolution and regression suggests the role of energy as a criteria for selection of holons that contribute to universal purpose. Note the Laszlo quote on p. 75. Energy is also the prime factor in the classic definition of entropy, which Wilber seems to avoid. An interesting allusion to energy is "power of . . . causation," p. 22.

⁶ See Omega as magnet, p. 628 n. 66.

⁷ See directionality of evolution, pp. 67-78, tenet 12.

⁸ Second Law of Thermodynamics, p. 9.

⁹ Pp. 45, 112, 628 n. 66. The perfection of Form is Formlessness.

¹⁰ See evolution, p. 11. Wilber has not compellingly eliminated the evidence for the Second Law of Thermodynamics, in other words, that entropy proceeds in the opposite direction from what has been called negentropy, but he has convincingly demonstrated that the "two" arrows of time are the same arrow.

¹¹ Pp. 107-122. Like his treatment of "energy," Wilber's treatment of "intentionality" seems subliminal and enigmatic. Only a holistic view of his system causes these terms to emerge as important concepts.

¹² The way up is the way down. This is the ultimate implication of uniting the "'two arrows' of time," pp. 356, 511-524.

¹³ P. 18, 73.

¹⁴ See structural potentials, pp. 627 n. 65, 634 n. 26. In my interpretation this is the basis for Wilber's idealism. "Kosmic" structural potentials are "recognized" by the human organism to provide the link between the actual universe and what we perceive as reality. In this view "truth" is always an intuited element of our rationalizations.

¹⁵ "[O]rder out of chaos," p. 14. Directionality is defined in tenet 12, pp. 67-78.

¹⁶ See imbalance, p. 41, and pp. 13, 78.

¹⁷ Pp. 15-31. I believe Wilber could eliminate the confusing (to me) and controversial concept of holarchy, and replace it with the concept of recursivity. The latter term expresses the "nesting" (p. 18) characteristic of holons while avoiding connotations of control and retaining the ability to describe inter-holon relationships in terms of "span" and "depth." This would simplify the universal structure by reducing its construction to iterations of a single unit, which seems to be Wilber's objective.

¹⁸ P. 66, tenet 11.

¹⁹ Pp. 35-40.

²⁰ P. 21.

²¹ P. 17.

²² Pp. 15, 32, 78.

²³ P. 45.

²⁴ Pp. 32-33, 35. We need to remember we are defining reality in idealistic terms (see note 12). This means the universe as manifested in ideas is recognized by the human organism as reality, but is only related via structural potential to the actual universe (see p. 634 n. 26). The idea "holon" includes much more than ideas, it includes everything, whether we apprehend it or not, and that includes the actual universe. As used here, the holon is the fundamental unit of human apprehension which is itself "embedded in the structure and the dynamic process of the Kosmos."

²⁵ Pp. 30-31, 39.

²⁶ Pp. 35-40.

²⁷ Pp. 35, 42, 529 n. 12.

²⁸ Pp. 68-69.

²⁹ Pp. 51, 105, 530 n. 36.

³⁰ P. 40, tenet 2.

³¹ P. 22. The natural influence of encompassing holons over those holons encompassed is limited to influence that fulfills the purposes of even broader contexts. Limits are not imposed by control but by virtue of exigencies that result in the perishing of offending holons.

³² The purpose of the universe determines the purposes of all its holons. See "contextual determination of meaning," p. 39.

³³ P. 14.

³⁴ See depth as an indicator of order, p. 56, tenet 7. Note the implication that consciousness is thus related to order (p. 57, Addition 1).

³⁵ Pp. 52-56.

³⁶ P. 59.

³⁷ Pp. 44, 59-61.

³⁸ Pp. 197-199.

³⁹ Pp. 67-78, 101-105.

⁴⁰ Pp. 67-74

⁴¹ Pp. 74-78.

⁴² Pp. 481-482.

⁴³ Pp. 59-61.

⁴⁴ Pp. 59-61.

⁴⁵ P. 51, 530 n. 36.

⁴⁶ P. 67, tenet 12.

⁴⁷ Pp. 7, 15, 262, 681 n. 32.

⁴⁸ Pp. 528 n. 28, 681 n. 32.

Discussion

Please note that a cross section of the Holarchy Continuum shown in Figure 19 produces Wilber's "Four Quadrants," shown in Figure 20.

Although the Quadrants are expressed graphically in "it" terms ("linguistic signifiers are all Right-Hand components," p. 545 n. 24), we must balance that perspective with the "I/we" perspective. In other words, although Wilber presents the Quadrants, and the objects they represent, as a reality we can "see," we must also accept the model as both the idealistic product of, and representation of, the human mind. By "representation of" I mean that the Quadrants can be "seen" as the evolving structure of the human mind instead of external objects. The emphasis here is on idealism, which progressively weights the reification of "external" objects less and less, and the appreciation of the instrumentality of "internal" ideas more and more. In these subjective terms, the Continuum represents, not the physical (span, depth, p. 56) expansion of holons of the Quadrants, but the evolving importance of the respective vectors to human efficacy, which seeks infinite intentionality.

Thus, while Wilber's Four Quadrants represent an "external" view, the Holarchy Continuum attempts to represent an "internal" view. The obvious contradiction in the directions of the corresponding vectors on the "it" side of Wilber's Four Quadrants with those on the "inert" side of the Holarchy Continuum remains an undifferentiated antinomy, two unreconciled views of essentially the same phenomenon the "precise nature [of which] cannot be solved, only (dis)solved in contemplative awareness . . ." (p. 546 n. 24). That such unresolved issues may exist in Wilber's work in no way detracts from the overall efficacy of Wilber's model over other, less integrated, models. As Wilber's model reveals, such integration is an ongoing problem in the universe, and in the human mind.

Transcendence in Wilber's Sex, Ecology, Spirituality

Since we know where things have gone until now (descriptive model), we know where they will go in the future (predictive model), unless we do something now. When we intervene (act now), we want the results to be closer to our defined goals (normative model) than they would have been without intervention. However, each of these comparative elements of our knowledge (our models) only probably depicts the actual state of our affairs, and the only way to improve the knowledge is to act and see what happens. We intend, through our actions over time, to progress toward, if not to achieve, our purpose.

When we have a clear idea of where we want to go, although that idea may improve with experience, we have a goal. A goal is indispensable to perception of progress, because we perceive progress when interim actions directed toward broader purposes achieve an immediate goal. We intend action to produce progress toward the goals defined in the normative model, and not the less desirable results of the predictive model. However, actions can fail! If action produces a result that does not represent progress toward ultimate purposes, we must adjust either the models or the action. Progress is the only type of change that we do not resist with all our effort. It is the sole criterion for judging the success of any action because, without progress, the actor ultimately does not survive. On the other hand, if action consistently achieves lower level goals, higher level goals become important, or become "thematic" in Habermas' terms (Wilber, p.199).

Progress in Consciousness

By placing atoms, prehension, and galaxies at the center, Wilber's Four Quadrants model (p.193) implies that the basis for consciousness occurs at the atomic level and throughout space and time ("all forms are forms of consciousness," p.111). I infer, although Wilber is hesitant to claim it, that the idea of progress ("intentional symbolic logic," p.110) in some way occurs also at the atomic level and that the logic of progress is applicable to every holon. The purpose (intentionality) of the universe as a holon determines (in the sense of "limiting the indeterminacy," p.52) the probabilities of consciousness in lower level holons. I interpret this to mean that the purposes of universal consciousness determine the ultimate, but not immediate, purposes of all consciousness in lower level holons. Consequently, if we can generalize about the ultimate purposes of holons with which we are acquainted, we can deduce the purposes of the universe and everything that is in it.

Therefore, the progress model should apply to any holon and should describe how any holon directs itself to specific purposes. If the progress model describes direction for any holon, it implies an ultimate purpose shared by all. This last statement corresponds to the tenet that "evolution has directionality" (p.67). Directionality expresses the intentionality, or purpose, of any holon and must be reflected in its progress, or evolution. This explains the direction of evolution but does not explain its force.

To explain force, I will first define "action" (as found above in the progress model) as the directed use of energy. A.N. Whitehead recognized a universal creative drive he called "the underlying energy of realization" (p.69). To explain the ultimate force of this drive, I need to refer to the notion of "entropy." Entropy is a measurement of the useful energy and information in a system. When that energy decreases or knowledge becomes more uncertain, we say entropy increases (Yule, 1978, p.203). Although both components of the progress model, action and knowledge, are associated with the components of entropy, energy is the focus of my interest here. Our best understanding of the effect of use of energy in any closed system is that it produces an increase in entropy ("The entropy of the universe as a whole tends towards a maximum," Entropy, 1975). That is, whenever energy is used in the universe, less energy is available for use and some is entirely lost, determining a direction for the entire universe.

However, systems within the universe are not closed. Therefore, systems that use energy and information specifically to reduce entropy must absorb those resources from the universe around them, in other words, they are energy and information sinks. Energy and information must be consumed in inordinate quantities to keep those systems in existence. Whenever energy and information are concentrated in a locale, energy consuming systems are encouraged to exist, and energy consuming systems increase the concentration of energy (although ever more temporarily and locally). This may be the way the force of entropy balances the potential between relatively high levels of resources and relatively low levels: negentropy is the fastest means to increased entropy where it is out of balance. Thus, while the effect of what is a force toward entropy is generally to increase entropy, when relative levels of resources become unbalanced, a second force comes into effect that locally decreases entropy. We can call these forces entropic and negentropic forces respectively. I am speculating that the force Wilber describes as a creative drive, the drive toward differentiation/integration (p.69) that in turn results in increased complexity (p.67) and higher levels of structural organization (p.71), is identical to what I have described here as negentropic force.

I offer here in Figure 22 the "cross" that Wilber suggests as representing, on the horizontal axis, the "normal" behavior of conserving and accumulating resources, and, on the vertical axis, the "evolutionary" (with apologies to Thomas Kuhn) behavior of transformation to a higher level of being, or, in the case of failure, extinction (p.45).

Because these purposes are immanent in the universe, they are immanent in every holon, and every reciprocating "translation" in the above model, and every transformation (including both transcendence and dissolution) is a progressive step toward achievement of ultimate purposes. However, a technical observation, since all progress depends on the normative aspect of the future in the progress model, we can never prove progress in the "scientific" sense. Progress can only be something in which we believe.

Transcendence in Wilber's Universal Structure

Utopia is essentially the ability to escape the limits imposed by the universe on existence. This image occurs frequently in ontological schemes. For example, power over nature has been, in modern Western culture, supposed to solve every existential problem. Wilber points out that we fail to recognize the ecological pathology (p.531 n.44) of such aspirations, that our only interest is to put humans on top. What I find even more mysterious is that we fail collectively to recognize that these aspirations do not place all humans on top, but just some of them, those who are the most powerful. We even compete violently among ourselves to place our personal favorites on top.

I strongly relate the phenomenon, imagining means to escape the limits imposed on us, to the idea of transcendence. I also relate it to why the idea of transcendence is socially, and culturally, important to us: it is tied to notions of domination. Evidence of this relationship is a secondary objective of my analysis of Wilber's work.

Stephen Jay Gould's recent text explains why we should give up conventional notions of human domination. Gould notes "claims and metaphors about evolution as progress continue to dominate all our literature" (Gould, 1996, p.21). I will show that Gould's remark applies also to Wilber and that the emphasis on domination is not coincidental.

For Wilber all reality is ultimately within. This is what I mean when I say that, for him, the mind and the cosmos are identical. His quotation from Blanck and Blanck is evidence of his emphasis on levels of consciousness:

Evolution, to Hartmann [founder of psychoanalytic developmental psychology], is a process of progressive internalization, for, in the development of the species, the organism achieves increased independence from its environment, the result of which is that 'reactions which originally occurred in relation to the external world are increasingly displaced into the interior of the organism.' The more independent the organism becomes, the greater its independence from the stimulation of the immediate environment. (Wilber, p.255)

I believe we can be confident the "organism" mentioned here is homo sapiens. For humans, evolution is psychological development, and this becomes an exemplar for the entire cosmos. I claim that development is identical to what I have called "progress." As such, it requires a purpose. I discussed this fully in Part II, where I found the ultimate purpose of the universe, in Wilber's model, to be entropy (see Thanatos, p.330), and the local purpose for living organisms to be negentropy (Eros), or intentionality expressed as consciousness. The graphic representation of this aspect of Wilber's model is shown again in Figure 23.

Reaching this level of organization in Wilber's model is the result of the ultimate step, the ultimate transcendence of everything that is into what it must become: pure consciousness. Of course, Wilber does not state when this will happen, but timing is moot. As is the possibility of forms beyond consciousness. The process by which the universe obtains this ultimate form renders this end inevitable.

Wilber's argument depends on a particular type of change in organization that leads, step-wise, to this end: self-transcendence. The drive toward "finding greater and greater union-a higher and wider identity [Eros] . . . is essentially what we have been calling self-transcendence, the very motor [see the graphic on page 6 above] of Ascent or development or evolution: the finding of ever-higher self-identity with ever-wider embrace of others" (p.330). Self-transcendence "is a transformation that results in something novel and emergent-different wholes have come together to form a new and different whole" (p.42). Evolutionary transcendence progresses by stages of punctuated equilibrium, where periods of continuity are interspersed with periods of discontinuity (p.43). Notice how the "motor" on page 6 produces this effect, with continuity during horizontal reciprocation and discontinuity during vertical leaps (or collapses). "Self-transcendence is simply a system's capacity to reach beyond the given and introduce some measure of novelty [in other words, superiority?], a capacity without which, it is quite certain, evolution would never, and could never, have even gotten started" (my italics, p.44).

Notice also that the more all-encompassing entity (forgive me for not using Wilber's term "holon" here, but I find it distracting) can "limit the indeterminacy" (organize the freedom) of subordinate entities. I can see no other interpretation of this relationship than the natural right of a consciousness to dominate the next lower level of evolution, at least if the relationship is to be healthy and not pathological. Questioning the appropriateness of influences from the higher level would be irrational ("Rationality is the only structure that will tolerate structures other than itself," p.202), because those influences would be of a deeper and "otherworldly" perception of reality. Problems inherent in a specific transcendence could no longer be solved by the continuous dialectic in translations but could only be "dissolved" by the failure of the new entity.

Wilber directly addresses the issue of pathologies internal to the process of a specific entity. He goes to great lengths to explain how holarchies can avoid pathological conditions. How his overall treatment of this issue actually supports contemporary social conditions he himself acknowledges theoretically as pathological will be discussed below.

Discussion

The Negative Reading

To summarize my progress: founded on the ontological and epistemological bases expounded by Wilber, I produced a comprehensive and integrated ontological model of Wilber's structure. Then, I addressed the question of transcendence within the model. I have tried to show how the nature of the mind and Wilber's cosmos are identical. This identity rests on idealistic foundations that Wilber believes are inadequately articulated in contemporary society (note his apology for Idealism, p.506). Transcendence, for Wilber, is not "real" but "ideal."

I see Wilber as primarily an integrator. As I mentioned early in this analysis, Wilber's intention is to organize "already-agreed-upon-knowledge" into a "broad orienting map" (p. ix) of the universe. Such an endeavor does not represent "transcendence," in his own terms, of creating a novel whole. Or does it? In many ways Wilber's model does little more than support contemporary views of reality that many agree suffer from "bifurcation." That Wilber acknowledges this bifurcation does not resolve it in our culture, yet his normative treatment of balanced ascending and descending values does provide a rationale for potential resolution.

One aspect of the model that causes the most grief, for those who were expecting more, is his insistence on the appropriateness of the idea of hierarchy. I agree with those who believe that this idea, and specifically the way Wilber relates it to domination, is in no way a break with the past, and in some ways further serves to legitimate a structure that Wilber himself recognizes as pathological. The idea of transcendence, as given by Wilber, legitimates the absolute right to power and domination if it serves a purpose beyond the sensibilities of lower hierarchical levels. Current ideas about what transcendence of the modern view, or the new paradigm, must be will insist that the new view must incorporate a much less mechanical perception of organic control. Wilber's failed attempt to provide this perspective simply verifies that the new paradigm is still immanent, not manifest. However, I believe that Wilber's strong description does further popular understanding of the pathological character of our current emphasis on competition and centralized power structures. He also shows that this emphasis is related to popular ideas about transcendence and "progress." Western, world, and human, culture still sees physical domination as the means to the highest of human aspirations, and physical distinctions as evidence of transcendentally greater worth.

Wilber shows us that a new view may be emerging, but he still rationalizes the old view that elicits increasingly material criticism: "how can we continue to believe that the rich are somehow different, higher, intrinsically better than we?" (Pitts, 1996). The answer is, we believe the rich and powerful are better because they control the conditions of existence in the hierarchy for the rest of us. Wilber does not offer any radical alternative to this view for our consideration. On the contrary, I do not doubt that Wilber believes himself and his cohorts to be among an elite in our society. For him to believe otherwise would be to reject the values of a society that has placed him in a position of wealth and power. What will it mean, if it is indeed possible, to transcend this view of social and individual superiority? Wilber hints at the role of spirituality, and argues for a balance between interior and exterior perspectives, yet his own behavior contradicts the importance of spirit over materiality and any efficacy of a balance between ego and other.

The journal ReVision has recently carried a series of critical theses on Wilber (who happens to be one of the journal's founders). In one submission, an advocate for "indigenous mind," Jürgen Kremer, states that

Theories of evolution, whether in the fields of biology, consciousness, or culture, fundamentally have a monocausal structure, where things unfold from some point of origin basically in a linear fashion (however complex and multidimensional the descriptions of this causal line may be) toward some future or utopian stage that represents the unfoldment of inherent tendencies, particularly of human beings and their cultures. (Kremer, 1996, p.43, my italics). Evolutionary thinking in general has always been problematic because of its (at least implicit) notion of progress toward some better, more complete, or more actualized way of being. (Kremer, p.45)

For Kremer, evolutionary thinking is a problem because it is inevitably imperialistic and therefore inimical to indigenous interests. When Wilber describes an immanent future as the consolidation of everything that is into increasingly inclusive wholes, it seems reasonable for the indigenous mind to feel threatened, especially if the indigenous mind is required to assume some new and supposedly exalted consciousness in the process. This is "You will be assimilated!" mentality.

Last I want to mention the issue of an emergent idealism, predicted to "be a necessary component in any sort of truly comprehensive worldview" (Wilber, p.506). I see myself as a struggling philosophic idealist in a world of either naive or increasingly anxious realists. Realists have no problem with Wilber's work because they can blow it off as a bunch of hooey. What the world really needs (according to me) is an idealistic epistemology that realists cannot ignore. Without already having the foundations for a model such as Wilber's, one literally has no basis for interest in, no solid place to construct, the rest of the model. He says, "The details of the Idealist system are explored in volume 3 [of the projected trilogy]" (p.506), but I believe this system is a prerequisite to the ontology. How else are we to judge the merits of his propositions? I also believe it is in describing this system that Wilber will be facing the greatest risks in acceptance of his ideas.

The Positive Reading

No other author I have ever encountered presents as complete, consistent, and intuitively satisfactory a description and explanation of reality. Discussing the historical origins of the ideas is what makes this possible. These origins are not all Western, so Wilber's acquaintance with Eastern philosophy and thought is also critical to his description. This is especially true when idiosyncratic Western positions on reality (positivism) interfere with achieving a broader view. It takes courage to be committed to idealism today because the Establishment (naive realists primarily) perceives the idealistic position as intellectually inferior, and the Establishment probably takes holding such a position as evidence of inferior mental capacity, giving the Establishment the right, and responsibility, to treat the Idealist as an animal, or at least as an Alien.

Fortunately, the issue of spirituality is popular enough today to support the efforts of a few Idealists, at least those who are willing to play for the crowd. In a sense, Wilber's less than impressive academic credentials give him added authority in the spirituality genre, in an era when academic credentials are prima facie proof of Establishment programming. Common perceptions of science as "ideologically loaded" (Rothberg, p.3, for example) and the utter essentiality of values to all human ideas has resulted in the beginnings of a broad cultural search (Western primarily) for the origins of those values. A byproduct of the search has been an introspective and reflexive interest in the relative value of distinct systems of value. A byproduct of that interest in value systems has been increasing tolerance for intentionally constructed abstract universal systems (Skinner, 1985).

If we can agree that the purpose of human discourse is precisely to create such abstract universal systems (critics may no longer so severely question this as they did, say, thirty years ago), and the work of postmodern authors represents significant progress in this direction, then we should acknowledge Wilber's recent work as an important step toward that goal. The demonstrated freedom of expression and success in publishing these kinds of ideas without being hacked to pieces by positivists should serve as encouragement for others of the genre. Maybe these ideas can actually take root in the population at large.

The Technical Reading

These comments will address a single, but crucial, technical aspect of Wilber's model: the necessary expansion of all universal entities (holarchies) toward increased complexity of organizational structure (pp.67, 71). Complexity is the aspect of evolution that implies directionality and the possibility of self-transcendence and comprises differentiation and variety. Of all Wilber's tenets (propositions of universal ontology), Tenet Twelve has to be one of the most commonly accepted as relating evolution to progress in a way that satisfies human sensibilities. Wilber cites reference after reference, all proposing that evolution progresses inevitably from lower, less complex, organizational structures to higher, more complex, structures. I will confirm that this rationalization is also personally appealing to me.

However, a reference that Wilber could not have included in his survey and analysis presents a convincing argument that linking progress with complexity is, in the examples given at least, a misinterpretation of the data. I believe that if, in even one clear case, progress can be shown to proceed along another line, Wilber's model would be severely damaged. In this argument, paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould (codefiner of "punctuated equilibrium") states,

I do not challenge the statement that the most complex creature has tended to increase in elaboration through time, but I fervently deny that this limited little fact can provide an argument for general progress as a defining thrust of life's history. Such a grandiose claim represents a ludicrous case of the tail wagging the dog, or the invalid elevation of a small and epiphenomenal consequence into a major controlling cause. (Gould, 1996, p.169)

In Gould's view, humans are "accidents of an unpredictable process" (p.216) and not the result of a universe yearning toward complete consciousness. He believes such descriptions as the latter "validate traditional human arrogance" (p.19) and become so much a part of our thinking that we can no longer recognize their absurdity. We are then trapped in a specific rationalization and prevented from imagining other, more productive, "radical alternatives" (p.8).

The scenario of the "drunkard's walk" suggests one radical alternative in which random events are confined to one direction by an impenetrable obstacle in the other.

I think the idea of punctuated equilibrium (Figure 24) is conspicuously absent from Gould's argument, considering how important this idea has been to his past arguments. Let me illustrate: the picture here, showing increasing complexity of living organisms over time versus the size of their population, differs from Gould's in that Gould only specifies the far left wall (a single cell) as a limit of organizational development for the entire expansion. In these simplistic terms, the development of the triune brain (Wilber, p.193) is a random occurrence in the possibilities for increasing complexity beyond single-celled organisms. However, if Gould had applied his own principle of punctuated equilibrium to the results of this process, he should have noted that the triune brain was only possible because of a fully functional limbic system, which, we may say, it transcends in the same way that many-celled organisms transcend single-celled organisms. Gould recognizes the chaotic nature of events remote from a physically restricting "wall," but he also neglects work on "self-organizing criticality" (Bak & Chen, 1991) that recognizes order emerging from seemingly random distribution of events.

Transcendence, in Wilber's terms, produces a novel form that does not replace simpler forms but encompasses and incorporates them. In Wilber's terms, Gould would be saying that translation produced the human form, not transcendence. This is, to me, an inadequate description and explanation of the data. I believe the distinction between translation and transformation (transcendence) is as essential to a description of evolution as the distinction between normal and revolutionary is to Kuhn's science. The ability of Wilber's model to outperform a significant competitor in this way is the ultimate justification for using Wilber's model and not Gould's.

I hope the reader will note that Gould is trying to disparage the use of models such as Wilber's based on a purely realistic rationality. I believe we will see in the ensuing cultural debate that idealistic rationality will consistently produce more acceptable products. This is the nature of progress as Wilber has defined it, and the basis for the eventual transcendence he predicts.

Forward to: Chapter 8

Return to: Table of Contents

Please e-mail your impressions to: kengelhart@igc.org