Integral Epistemology

Ken Wilber Cognitive, Integrative Metatheory, Perspectives, The Ken Show 6 Comments

Metaphysics is generally taken to be the branch of philosophy that deals with issues of ontology (what is being or reality?) and epistemology (how do we know it?). The term was first prominently used by Aristotle’s students for a book they called Metaphysics simply because it was written after his book on Physics. That’s as good a reason as any, I suppose.

If metaphysics began with Aristotle, it ended with Kant. Or, at any rate, took a turn that has defined the way sophisticated philosophers think about reality ever since. Kant’s critical philosophy replaced ontological objects with structures of the subject. In essence, this means that we do not perceive empirical objects in a completely realistic, pregiven fashion; but rather, structures of the knowing subject impart various characteristics to the known object that then appear to belong to the object—but really don’t; they are, rather, co-creations of the knowing subject. Various a priori categories of the knowing subject help to fashion or construct reality as we know it. Reality is not a perception, but a conception; at least in part. Ontology per se just does not exist. Metaphysics is then a broad name for the type of thinking that can’t figure this out. Or, metaphysics is thinking that falls prey to the myth of the given.

What this means for spirituality in general is that metaphysics needs to be jettisoned, or at the very least, completely rethought. All of the traditional categories of metaphysics—including God, immortality, the soul, mind, body, and knowing—simply cannot stand up to the scrutiny of critical thinking, not in their fundamental, pre-critical, ontological forms. In the modern and postmodern world, they are simply obsolete notions that are as embarrassing to religion as, say, phlogiston, St. Vitus’s dance, and phrenology are to medicine.”Ken Wilber, Integral Spirituality

Part 1: What Is Epistemology?

How do we know stuff? Like all of the great philosophical quandaries, it’s a fundamentally straightforward question that can lead us into an endlessly branching series of chicken-and-egg meditations on the nature of existence (ontology) versus the nature of knowledge (epistemology). And it’s a topic that is immediately relevant to today’s world, to our understanding of current events, and to our various strategies and processes of sense-making.

This is particularly true here in the social media age. It’s always been the case that we’ve had multiple conflicting epistemologies, but until recently we’ve generally lived in a far more curated media space. We’ve relied upon informational referees who would enforce certain epistemologies over others (for better and/or for worse). But civilization itself is now operating on fully postmodern media platforms with no built-in curation or enfoldment mechanisms at all, where everyone with a smart phone can either contribute to, or corrupt, our sense of shared reality.

We are now curators of our own informational terrains. Our online media habits quickly become epistemic silos, reinforced with every click by the hidden algorithms of Google, Facebook, Youtube, etc. This has resulted in the total epistemic breakdown we are now in the midst of, giving rise to everything from Flat Earthers to delusional QAnon conspiracies — all products of broken epistemologies. Ironically, it may be the phrase “do your research” that brings about the death of knowledge.

This is why this discussion about epistemology is so important. These aren’t just stodgy schools of philosophy to be discussed in lecture halls — all of us are walking around with our own personal epistemologies we use to make sense of the world, whether consciously examined or not. And these personal epistemologies are at least partially informed by these major schools of thinking — often inherited in their general forms, but inconsistently and idiosyncratically assembled — as well as any number of pre-rational forms of sense-making. The hope here is that by better understanding and applying all of these different epistemological lenses we can achieve a far more comprehensive and integral view, while bringing more awareness to our own epistemological assumptions, biases, and blind spots.

At its core, our clash of civilizations is a clash of truth-claims — a clash of epistemologies — made all the worse by our current epistemological crisis and collapse. Aperspectival madness, as we like to say.

In this fascinating episode of The Ken Show, we take a look at a dozen of the most popular schools of epistemological thought — idealism, pragmatism, empiricism, constructivism, etc. — noting their respective contributions and limitations, and how they can all be pulled together into a more Integral epistemology that can help us take the next step out of the aperspectival madness we are all currently immersed in.

Become a supporting member to watch the full conversation

Every member of Integral Life gets access to the perspectives library (15+ years of content) and a constantly evolving Integral Life Practice platform. Learn how to apply Integrative metatheory both to the most complex global issues and your everyday life & transform yourself in order to thrive in a rapidly-evolving world of the 21st century!

Get Full Access For $1 (30 days)*
Or get an annual subscription ($99, 40% off)
* Trial price for the first 30 days, then $15/month. Cancel or switch plans in 2 minutes at any time.
Part 2: Empiricism

Empiricism is a view in the theory of knowledge which focuses on the role of experience, especially experience based on perceptual observations by the senses, in the generation of knowledge. Certain forms exempt disciplines such as mathematics and logic from these requirements.

There are many variants of empiricism, including British empiricism, logical empiricism, phenomenalism, and some versions of common sense philosophy. Most forms of empiricism give epistemologically privileged status to sensory impressions or sense data, although this plays out very differently in different cases.

Some of the most famous historical empiricists include John Locke, David Hume, George Berkeley, Francis Bacon, John Stuart Mill, Rudolf Carnap, and Bertrand Russell.
Become a member to watch

Part 3: Rationalism

Rationalism is the epistemological view that reason is the chief source of knowledge and the main determinant of what constitutes knowledge. More broadly, it can also refer to any view which appeals to reason as a source of knowledge or justification. Rationalism is one of the two classical views in epistemology, the other being empiricism. Rationalists claim that the mind, through the use of reason, can directly grasp certain truths in various domains, including logic, mathematics, ethics, and metaphysics. Rationalist views can range from modest views in mathematics and logic (such as that of Gottlob Frege) to ambitious metaphysical systems (such as that of Baruch Spinoza).

Some of the most famous rationalists include Plato, René Descartes, Baruch Spinoza, and Gottfried Leibniz.
Become a member to watch

Part 4: Skepticism

Skepticism is a position that questions the possibility of human knowledge, either in particular domains or on a general level. Skepticism does not refer to any one specific school of philosophy, but is rather a thread that runs through many epistemological debates. Ancient Greek skepticism began during the Hellenistic period in philosophy, which featured both Pyrrhonism (notably defended by Pyrrho and Sextus Empiricus) and Academic skepticism (notably defended by Arcesilaus and Carneades). Among ancient Indian philosophers, skepticism was notably defended by the Ajñana school and in the Buddhist Madhyamika tradition. In modern philosophy, René Descartes’ famous inquiry into mind and body began as an exercise in skepticism, in which he started by trying to doubt all purported cases of knowledge in order to search for something that was known with absolute certainty.

Become a member to watch
Part 5: Pragmatism

Pragmatism is an empiricist epistemology formulated by Charles Sanders Peirce, William James, and John Dewey, which understands truth as that which is practically applicable in the world. Pragmatists often treat “truth” as the final outcome of ideal scientific inquiry, meaning that something cannot be true unless it is potentially observable. Peirce formulates the maxim: ‘Consider what effects, that might conceivably have practical bearings, we conceive the object of our conception to have. Then, our conception of these effects is the whole of our conception of the object.’ This suggests that we are to analyse ideas and objects in the world for their practical value. This is in contrast to any correspondence theory of truth that holds that what is true is what corresponds to an external reality. William James suggests that through a pragmatist epistemology, theories “become instruments, not answers to enigmas in which we can rest.”

Contemporary versions of pragmatism have been most notably developed by Richard Rorty and Hilary Putnam. Rorty proposed that values were historically contingent and dependent upon their utility within a given historical period, Contemporary philosophers working in pragmatism are called neopragmatists, and also include Nicholas Rescher, Robert Brandom, Susan Haack, and Cornel West.
Become a member to watch

Part 6: Naturalized/Evolutionary Epistemology

In certain respects an intellectual descendant of pragmatism, naturalized epistemology considers the evolutionary role of knowledge for agents living and evolving in the world. It de-emphasizes the questions around justification and truth, and instead asks, empirically, how reliable beliefs are formed and the role that evolution played in the development of such processes. It suggests a more empirical approach to the subject as a whole, leaving behind philosophical definitions and consistency arguments, and instead using psychological methods to study and understand how “knowledge” is actually formed and is used in the natural world. As such, it does not attempt to answer the analytic questions of traditional epistemology, but rather replace them with new empirical ones.

Naturalized epistemology was first proposed in “Epistemology Naturalized”, a seminal paper by W.V.O. Quine. A less radical view has been defended by Hilary Kornblith in Knowledge and its Place in Nature, in which he seeks to turn epistemology towards empirical investigation without completely abandoning traditional epistemic concepts.
Become a member to watch

Part 7: Feminist Epistemology

Feminist epistemology (with its subsets: feminist empiricism, postmodernism, and standpoint epistemology) applies feminist theory to epistemological questions. It began to emerge as a distinct subfield in the 20th century. Prominent feminist epistemologists include Miranda Fricker (who developed the concept of epistemic injustice), Donna Haraway (who first proposed the concept of situated knowledge), Sandra Harding, and Elizabeth Anderson. Harding proposes that feminist epistemology can be broken into three distinct categories: Feminist empiricism, standpoint epistemology, and postmodern epistemology.

Feminist epistemology has also played a significant role in the development of many debates in social epistemology.
Become a member to watch

Part 8: Relativism & Constructivism

Epistemic relativism is the view that what is true, rational, or justified for one person need not be true, rational, or justified for another person. Epistemic relativists therefore assert that while there are relative facts about truth, rationality, justification, and so on, there is no perspective-independent fact of the matter. Note that this is distinct from epistemic contextualism, which holds that the meaning of epistemic terms vary across contexts (e.g. “I know” might mean something different in everyday contexts and skeptical contexts). In contrast, epistemic relativism holds that the relevant facts vary, not just linguistic meaning. Relativism about truth may also be a form of ontological relativism, insofar as relativists about truth hold that facts about what exists vary based on perspective.

Constructivism is a view in philosophy according to which all “knowledge is a compilation of human-made constructions, not the neutral discovery of an objective truth”. Whereas objectivism is concerned with the “object of our knowledge”, constructivism emphasizes “how we construct knowledge”. Constructivism proposes new definitions for knowledge and truth, which emphasize intersubjectivity rather than objectivity, and viability rather than truth. The constructivist point of view is in many ways comparable to certain forms of pragmatism.
Become a member to watch

Part 9: Idealism

Idealism is a broad term referring to both an ontological view about the world being in some sense mind-dependent and a corresponding epistemological view that everything we know can be reduced to mental phenomena. First and foremost, “idealism” is a metaphysical doctrine. As an epistemological doctrine, idealism shares a great deal with both empiricism and rationalism. Some of the most famous empiricists have been classified as idealists (particularly Berkeley), and yet the subjectivism inherent to idealism also resembles that of Descartes in many respects. Many idealists believe that knowledge is primarily (at least in some areas) acquired by a priori processes, or that it is innate—for example, in the form of concepts not derived from experience. The relevant theoretical concepts may purportedly be part of the structure of the human mind (as in Kant’s theory of transcendental idealism), or they may be said to exist independently of the mind (as in Plato’s theory of Forms).

Some of the most famous forms of idealism include transcendental idealism (developed by Immanuel Kant), subjective idealism (developed by George Berkeley), and absolute idealism (developed by Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel and Friedrich Schelling).
Become a member to watch

Part 10: Bayesian epistemology

Bayesian epistemology is a formal approach to various topics in epistemology that has its roots in Thomas Bayes’ work in the field of probability theory. One advantage of its formal method in contrast to traditional epistemology is that its concepts and theorems can be defined with a high degree of precision. It is based on the idea that beliefs can be interpreted as subjective probabilities. As such, they are subject to the laws of probability theory, which act as the norms of rationality. These norms can be divided into static constraints, governing the rationality of beliefs at any moment, and dynamic constraints, governing how rational agents should change their beliefs upon receiving new evidence. The most characteristic Bayesian expression of these principles is found in the form of Dutch books, which illustrate irrationality in agents through a series of bets that lead to a loss for the agent no matter which of the probabilistic events occurs. Bayesians have applied these fundamental principles to various epistemological topics but Bayesianism does not cover all topics of traditional epistemology.
Become a member to watch

Part 11: Indian Pramana

Indian schools of philosophy, such as the Hindu Nyaya and Carvaka schools, and the Jain and Buddhist philosophical schools, developed an epistemological tradition independently of the Western philosophical tradition called “pramana”. Pramana can be translated as “instrument of knowledge” and refers to various means or sources of knowledge that Indian philosophers held to be reliable. Each school of Indian philosophy had their own theories about which pramanas were valid means to knowledge and which were unreliable (and why). A Vedic text, Taittirīya Āraṇyaka (c. 9th–6th centuries BCE), lists “four means of attaining correct knowledge”: smṛti (“tradition” or “scripture”), pratyakṣa (“perception”), aitihya (“communication by one who is expert”, or “tradition”), and anumāna (“reasoning” or “inference”).

In the Indian traditions, the most widely discussed pramanas are: Pratyakṣa (perception), Anumāṇa (inference), Upamāṇa (comparison and analogy), Arthāpatti (postulation, derivation from circumstances), Anupalabdi (non-perception, negative/cognitive proof) and Śabda (word, testimony of past or present reliable experts). While the Nyaya school (beginning with the Nyāya Sūtras of Gotama, between 6th-century BCE and 2nd-century CE) were a proponent of realism and supported four pramanas (perception, inference, comparison/analogy and testimony), the Buddhist epistemologists (Dignaga and Dharmakirti) generally accepted only perception and inference. The Carvaka school of materialists only accepted the pramana of perception, and hence were among the first empiricists in the Indian traditions. Another school, the Ajñana, included notable proponents of philosophical skepticism.

The theory of knowledge of the Buddha in the early Buddhist texts has been interpreted as a form of pragmatism as well as a form of correspondence theory. Likewise, the Buddhist philosopher Dharmakirti has been interpreted both as holding a form of pragmatism or correspondence theory for his view that what is true is what has effective power (arthakriya). The Buddhist Madhyamika school’s theory of emptiness (shunyata) meanwhile has been interpreted as a form of philosophical skepticism.

The main contribution to epistemology by the Jains has been their theory of “many sided-ness” or “multi-perspectivism” (Anekantavada), which says that since the world is multifaceted, any single viewpoint is limited (naya – a partial standpoint). This has been interpreted as a kind of pluralism or perspectivism. According to Jain epistemology, none of the pramanas gives absolute or perfect knowledge since they are each limited points of view.
Become a member to watch

Part 12: How Do We Categorize Integral Theory?

Considering all these different conflicting schools, how do we “categorize” integral epistemology using these classic terms? Is it a form of idealism? Emergentism? Monism? Dualism? Pluralism? Or does it break these categories altogether?
Become a member to watch

We hope you enjoyed this episode of The Ken Show! Let us know what you think in the comments below, and also be sure to let us know if you have any questions for future episodes!

Written and produced by Corey deVos
Music by Stuart Davis
[/column]


 

More Integral Theory Resources

Being vs. Knowing: Ending the Debate Between Epistemology and Ontology

Ken Wilber

Ken Wilber offers a thorough examination of the classic philosophical conflicts between ontology and epistemology, while suggesting a way to seamlessly integrate the two and end this philosophical debate once and for all.



Integral Semiotics: The Language of Liberation

Ken Wilber

How do we derive meaning from the words we use? An integral approach fundamentally changes how we understand the nature of language, communication, and shared meaning. Integral Semiotics offers a comprehensive map or framework of most of the known worldspaces available to humans. Since most of these worldspaces do not possess simple location or material form, they are likely to be denied reality by most realist, empirical, or behavioral schools—where in fact they are home of the vast majority of those things most humans hold valuable. Integral Semiotics is thus a matter, not just of linguistics, but of emancipation.



The Three Principles of Integral Thinking

Ken Wilber

Ken offers an in-depth summary of the three integrative principles, nonexclusion, enfoldment, and enactment, which he uncovered while putting together his Integral Methodological Pluralism framework — a robust meta-paradigmatic scaffolding that seeks to honor, include, and integrate multiple paradigms and methodologies and practices across all domains of human knowing.



Kosmic Address: Everything In Its Right Place

Ken Wilber

Ken Wilber explores the notion of Kosmic Address — a universal “indexing system” that uses the integral framework to situate and constellate all known phenomena (physical, mental, and spiritual), as well our capacity to discern that phenomena. This allows us to not only better understand the nature of each component part, but also how that part relates to every other part and fits into the whole, revealing the hidden architecture of knowledge itself.



Ask Ken a Question

FULL SPECTRUM MINDFULNESS

Full Spectrum Mindfulness is a groundbreaking new web course that combines Western approaches to Growing Up with Eastern methods of Waking Up, taught by one of the world’s greatest living philosophers of the mind, Ken Wilber.

Full Spectrum Mindfulness combines hard-hitting mindfulness practice with leading-edge discoveries in neuroscience and developmental psychology, giving you what you need to dramatically deepen your awareness and skill by awakening the eight major levels of evolution alive in you right now.

Learn how Full Spectrum Mindfulness can help you grow up  

Previous Episodes of The Ken Show

Integral Epistemology
Cognitive Integrative Metatheory Perspectives The Ken Show

Integral Epistemology

How do we know stuff? Like all of the great philosophical quandaries, it’s a fundamentally straightforward question that can lead us into an endlessly branching series of chicken-and-egg meditations on the nature of existence (ontology) versus the nature of knowledge (epistemology). In this fascinating episode of The Ken Show, we take a look at a dozen of the most popular schools of epistemological thought — idealism, pragmatism, empiricism, constructivism, etc. — noting their respective contributions and limitations, and how they can all be pulled together into a more Integral epistemology.
Awaken the Eye of Spirit
Cognitive Integrative Metatheory Perspectives Spiritual Spirituality The Ken Show Video

Awaken the Eye of Spirit

All of us possess three primary modes of perception that we use to disclose reality – the "Eye of Flesh", the "Eye of Mind", and the "Eye of Spirit". Watch as Ken and Corey explore these ideas and the many ways we perceive and interpret spiritual realities.
Integrating Shadow
Cognitive Defenses Emotional Integral Basics Integrative Metatheory Intrapersonal Perspectives Psychology The Ken Show Video

Integrating Shadow

Ken and Corey offer a stunning overview of the psychological shadow. Ken describes several different kinds of shadow, how shadow can show up differently in all four quadrants, and the relationship between shadow, violence, and social transformation.
Coronavirus and a Course in Anti-Fragility
Cognitive Health & Wellness Perspectives The Ken Show Video World Affairs Worldviews

Coronavirus and a Course in Anti-Fragility

Ken and Corey respond to the COVID-19 pandemic by suggesting a far more comprehensive approach to health and healing. Watch as we take a tour through all four quadrants of healthy living — a much-needed guide to integral anti-fragility in the 21st century.
The Four Quadrants: A Guided Tour
Cognitive Integrative Metatheory Perspectives The Ken Show Video

The Four Quadrants: A Guided Tour

Ken and Corey take a in-depth tour through one of Ken’s most well-known contributions to integral philosophy: the Four Quadrants. Watch as Ken shares his personal story about the origins of the Four Quadrant model — the day everything came together — as he weaves 3rd-person theoretical descriptions of the model with his own 1st-person experience and creative process.
Big Time: Integral Historiography and You
Cognitive History Integrative Metatheory Perspectives The Ken Show Video

Big Time: Integral Historiography and You

Ken unpacks his own approach to integral historiography, helping us to better understand our own place in history — and history's place in us.
Integral Social Justice
Cognitive Ethical Gender Moral Perspectives Politics The Ken Show Values Video World Affairs Worldviews

Integral Social Justice

In this stunning 3 hour discussion, Ken Wilber offers his own views around healthy and unhealthy forms of social justice, praising the healthy and legitimate efforts to enact social justice over the generations while noting how much of today’s broken discourse around social justice is helping to perpetuate multiple forms of injustice.
Wicked Problems: Gun Violence
Cognitive Ethical Perspectives Politics The Ken Show Values Video World Affairs Worldviews

Wicked Problems: Gun Violence

In this exclusive 8-hour series, Ken and Corey take an in-depth look at America’s ongoing struggle with gun violence, using the four quadrants to track many of the most critical and commonly-blamed factors, conditions, and causes that seem to be contributing to this terribly wicked problem.
Kosmos: An Integral Voyage
Cognitive Existential Futurism Perspectives Science & Technology Space-time Spirituality The Ken Show Video Worldviews

Kosmos: An Integral Voyage

Ken Wilber and Corey deVos ponder the evolutionary mysteries of the universe, speculating on how abundant life might be in the kosmos, why we haven’t met any of our galactic neighbors yet, and what might happen if a UFO landed on the White House lawn. It’s a fun conversation — and one that takes its subject matter more seriously than you might expect. Whether you are a true believer of UFO phenomena or an iron-clad skeptic, you don’t want to miss this fascinating and far-reaching exploration.
The Varieties of Integral Spiritual Experience
Cognitive Existential Integrative Metatheory Intrapersonal Perspectives Spiritual Spirituality The Ken Show Video

The Varieties of Integral Spiritual Experience

Watch as Ken and Corey explore the path of Waking Up — a guided tour through temporary states of consciousness that include everything from emotional states to chemically-induced states to the direct, immediate experience of timeless reality, revealing an infinitely renewable source of energy, resilience, and creative inspiration that rests at the very center of you.
The Many Ways We Grow
Aesthetic Cognitive Defenses Emotional Ethical Existential Gender Integral Basics Integrative Metatheory Interpersonal Intrapersonal Kinesthetic Moral Musical Needs Perspectives Psychology Psychosexual Self-Identity Space-time Spiritual The Ken Show Values Video Volitional Worldviews

The Many Ways We Grow

Human development is uneven, which means that we are better at some things than we are at others. Some skills come more naturally to us, and others are more difficult to acquire. Watch as Ken and Corey explore each of these developmental capacities in detail, offering a powerful summary of human potentials, talents, and intelligences — a comprehensive map of the territory of “you” that will help guide your own ongoing growth and development.
Growing Up: A Guided Tour
Aesthetic Cognitive Integrative Metatheory Intrapersonal Perspectives The Ken Show Values Video Worldviews

Growing Up: A Guided Tour

In this episode of The Ken Show we explore one of the most central elements of integral metatheory: growing up through multiple stages of developmental maturity. Watch as Ken and Corey offer a guided tour through each of the major stages on the Path of Growing Up — an exploration of your own greatest, deepest potentials — and offer some simple practices to help you actualize those potentials.
On the Front Line of the Culture War — Give Me Some Real Examples, Not Just Theories!
Cognitive Ethical Perspectives Politics The Ken Show Values Video Worldviews

On the Front Line of the Culture War — Give Me Some Real Examples, Not Just Theories!

Watch as Ken and Corey offer their views on some of the most controversial policy debates of our time, each of which has become a battle line in our constantly escalating culture wars.
The Baby and the Bathwater: Saving Liberalism
Cognitive Ethical Perspectives Politics The Ken Show Values Video World Affairs Worldviews

The Baby and the Bathwater: Saving Liberalism

In this episode of The Ken Show we explore five themes near and dear to the liberal heart — tolerance, nonviolence, power, privilege, and gender — celebrating the healthy aspects of each that we want to include in a more integral embrace, while weeding out the unhealthy regressive narratives that most of these have devolved into.
Beyond the Nation-State: Globalism, Plutocracy, and the Integral World Federation
Cognitive Ethical Perspectives Politics The Ken Show Video Worldviews

Beyond the Nation-State: Globalism, Plutocracy, and the Integral World Federation

Ken and Corey explore how today’s transnational challenges and realities may be hastening humanity’s eventual growth toward increasingly inclusive and global forms of governance, what government might look like at the level of the global holon, and how we might actually be able to get there from here.
The Major and Minor Scales of Integral Politics
Cognitive Ethical Perspectives Politics The Ken Show Values Video Worldviews

The Major and Minor Scales of Integral Politics

Ken Wilber and Corey deVos take an in-depth look at the “major and minor scales” of integral politics — an inventory of the most critical elements, polarities, and patterns of self-organization that are at play within all of the major political systems across the world, from the rise of civilization to today.
Is Free Will an Illusion?
Art & Creativity Cognitive Existential Integrative Metatheory Perspectives Psychology Spiritual The Ken Show Video Volitional

Is Free Will an Illusion?

In this episode of The Ken Show we explore one of the oldest and, in many ways, most profound and consequential philosophical questions in history: what is the nature of “free will”, and is it ultimately just an illusion?
How to Think Integrally
Cognitive Conversations Integrative Metatheory Perspectives The Ken Show Video

How to Think Integrally

Ken and Corey explore some of the major qualities of integral thinking at the “vision logic” or “construct aware” stages of development.
From Polarization to Integration
Cognitive Conversations Defenses Integral Live Perspectives Politics The Ken Show Values Video World Affairs Worldviews

From Polarization to Integration

Ken Wilber and Corey deVos explore some of the causal factors behind so many of the regressive tendencies in our culture and politics these days, from new social pressures coming from social media technologies like Facebook, to the historic evolutionary trends that have formed and informed our major schools of political thought in the first place.
Immigration, Postmodernism, and Feminism: An Integral Reckoning
Cognitive Conversations Ethical Gender Integral Live Perspectives Politics Sex & Gender The Ken Show Values Video World Affairs Worldviews

Immigration, Postmodernism, and Feminism: An Integral Reckoning

Ken Wilber responds to questions about immigration, the dangerous excesses of the political right, and the regressive tendencies we are seeing in the postmodern left. Ken and Corey then offer a fascinating exploration of feminism and the need for both men and women to better harmonize the public sphere of politics, career, and religion with the private sphere of family, hearth, and home.
Ken Wilber

About Ken Wilber

Ken Wilber is a preeminent scholar of the Integral stage of human development. He is an internationally acknowledged leader, founder of Integral Institute, and co-founder of Integral Life. Ken is the originator of arguably the first truly comprehensive or integrative world philosophy, aptly named “Integral Theory”.

Corey deVos

About Corey deVos

Corey W. deVos is Editor-in-Chief of Integral Life, as well as Managing Editor of KenWilber.com. He has worked for Integral Institute/Integal Life since Spring of 2003, and has been a student of integral theory and practice since 1996. Corey is also a professional woodworker, and many of his artworks can be found in his VisionLogix art gallery.

Notable Replies

  1. Something refreshingly new, for me, to have them all in one place. Good stuff.

  2. Sorry Cory, I think putting the ant-vaxxers with flat-earthers is an insult not an honest well-rounded articulated point of view. I assume those are your words and not Ken Wilber’s.

    It is quite scary when doctors and scientists do not agree on the science of treating Covid-19. The vaccinations have not gone through any rigorous side-by-side blind tests for safety, and yet there is insane political push toward getting everyone vaccinated, why? I find this quite unsettling.

    For a virus that according to WebMD, if it’s a trustworthy information source, says, “early estimates predict that the overall COVID-19 recovery rate is between 97% and 99.75%” this puts me squarely in the logical camp of anti-vaxxer (https://www.webmd.com/lung/covid-recovery-overview#1)

    I shared this video (https://new.awakeningchannel.com/this-is-not-a-vaccine-part-8-8/) with my doctor. After he watched it I asked what he advised, he said, “getting the vaccine is voluntary … educate yourself and make an informed decision that is right for you.”

    Facebook, YouTube and Google make it hard to even find information that violates the political narrative. I encourage others to do research to find their own path, both positions are valid and sound there should be no political pressure for or against in our free society.

    I am open to be educated but there is nothing I have read that has convinced me to give up my personal sovereignty to participate in an experimental science test. When someone as intelligent as you make the flat-earther argument it has me very worried about our future.

    I still love you Cory, but I found this out of sorts from your normal rational thinking and sound well-rounded arguments. ~ Peace

  3. Hey Executive, thanks for the feedback! Just to clarify, I believe there are rational reasons to be cautious with certain vaccines, and even more pre-rational reasons. When I say “anti-vaxxers” I am referring to the folks who reject all vaccines out of hand, who believe it’s a Luciferian plot to control us/microchip us/reduce population/etc.

    The main issue is that our informational terrains have almost entirely been hijacked by prerational thinking, paranoia, and cynicism, which ends up skewing our perception of what “doctors and scientists” do or don’t believe.

    As for why there is so much collective pressure to get the vaccine, I think it’s because vaccination is itself best seen as a collective injunction. One of the greatest errors we make is the belief that we have our own individual immune systems that are separate from everyone else’s. Vaccines are only moderately effective on an individual basis, but their benefits compound as more people get vaccinated. So i think that is where much of the pressure comes from — not to mention a year and a half of quarantine and over 550,000 lives lost to this pandemic.

    As for the COVID vaccine in general, I got vaccinated. This is because my own family life conditions require it. Having an immunosuppressed daughter, it is even more clear to me how important vaccines are to our collective health, and how important it is for us to more carefully consider the effects our actions (or non-actions) have on vulnerable people in our society. That vulnerability is overlooked, I think, when we reduce them to a survivability percentage point. Not to mention the fact that the survival rates do not also take into account the long term medical issues that many COVID survivors are left with.

    So I think this is where all the pressure is coming from. We in America live in a hyper-agentic, hyper-individualistic nation, where we are conditioned to think of our own rights and sovereignty first, and our collective duties and responsibilities in a distant second place. And for many in the “anti-vax” crowd (which, again, presumably does not include you), the word “freedom” really does mean “fuck you I won’t do what you tell me”. It’s pure red values dressed up in fancy orange views, which may be why we are seeing so much Amber shaming coming from the left (a go-to evolutionary response for containing malignant red), which certainly has its own ill effects upon our society. But it’s all part of the messy dance of “self-organization” on a species-wide scale.

    So, to summarize — there are rational reasons to doubt a particular vaccine, though some more than others. I have some of my own doubts when it comes to this COVID vaccine, which are likely different than yours. I don’t consider this an “anti-vax” stance. There are also tons and tons of pre-rational reasons coming from disinformation and propaganda that have caused many to reject vaccines altogether, and that view is held absolutely. These folks, I think, can be fairly compared to flat earthers.

    I hope this clarifies my position a bit better!

  4. Thank you for the clarification … we do agree! I am absolutely pro vaccinating. However on this one I am more afraid of the untested vaccine pushed through by Executive Orders of a President than Covid 19. I contracted Covid 19 and recovered without incident. A short story about my experience.

    ( https://tinyurl.com/ydmdx3kn ) This video on the Hydroxychloroquine and Zinc and Vitamin C and D as a treatment for Covid-19. I shared this doctor supported information with my own doctor and asked if I could take it. He said it’s not FDA approved for treating Covid. Why then is this doctor and many others using it successfully to treat Covid 19 and yet he did not agree? I told him I was disappointed that the science Doctors rely on has become political.

    He had me take Ivermectin … Then I read this on the FDA website, "Why Not to Use Ivermectin to Treat or Prevent COVID-19 ( https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/why-you-should-not-use-ivermectin-treat-or-prevent-covid-19) I shared this with my Doctor too, he told me the same thing as the other doctor said, that in his experience it’s worked and he advised me to continue taking it. I did and I have fully recovered.

    When doctors cannot reach consensus to agree on the science of medicine this is certainly a reason to worry. Doctors and medical professionals parrot politically correct narratives that fit their own world-view while undermining the credibility and confidence of their own expertise and in the validity of the science of medicine. Through my experience I am very skeptical of everything associated with this issue.

    ~ Peace

  5. Corey does like to bundle up his provocative cliches into very juicy bundles :-). The time-shifted Wilber quotes make for excellent rationalization and should play well to the some in the IL community. Integral Theory itself may not have changed all that much in the last decade, but the level of Integral thought (and consequently hijacking) in the world has definitely changes.

    Most of the people we hear today talking about science or statistics (rates, %, etc) have little if any formal background in science or statistics. It would be akin to me getting into a “debate” on why “everyone knows” that Andy Warhol is the “clearly superior” artist to say Rembrandt. I tap out real quickly on that conversation.

    I’ll tell a bit of humorous story. Two decades ago (or was just in 2018?) I purchased 8 heads of romaine to make salad for the family Thanksgiving gathering (we like salad). So day before Thanksgiving I see the CDC “e. coli” warning on romaine across every news outlet. So I go to the CDC website to find out the incredible number of people poisoned by the romaine and e. coli. I start digging around on the CDC site to find that this warning was issued against romaine when the # of cases would have comprised literally a round off error in the average monthly e. coli cases here in the US. But of course, I didn’t take romaine to the family dinner on the off .0005% chance I might get everyone sick. But then I ate a lot of romaine salads over the next week - LOL. Does this make me a Anti-Romainer, Q-e-coli’er or maybe simply a somewhat rational human being that’s not really interested in Amygdala Hijackings but also not wanting to scare my family?

Continue the discussion at community.integrallife.com

1 more reply

Participants