Ken Wilber is wrong about Plotinus

I've got a love-hate thing going with Ken Wilber, a prolific writer and creative thinker who relentlessly preaches the marvels of an Integral approach to understanding reality.

Sometimes I like what Wilber says (see here and here). Sometimes I don't (see here and here).

His misunderstanding of Plotinus, a Neoplatonist Greek philosopher, is especially irritating to me. I wrote a book about Plotinus, "Return to the One." I spent several years reading just about every book in English that describes and analyzes Plotinus' teachings.

So when I saw how Ken Wilber mangled Plotinus in an attempt to demonstrate that Plotinus' outlook is on the same page as Wilber's nondual perspective, I was filled with righteous philosophical indignation.

Which made me eager to write an expose of "What Wilber Gets Wrong About Plotinus."

Frank Visser asked me if he could post this piece on his Integral World web site. Naturally I said sure. (It also is included in a recently published book of Wilberian essays, "Spheres of Awareness.")

I re-read my piece yesterday. It's pretty damn good, if I say so myself (and why shouldn't I?). I was impressed with how much I knew about Plotinus and Wilber when I wrote it, since my ponderings since have drifted in other directions.

Ken Wilber gets nailed to a non-scholarly wall by his failure to go beyond a superficial reading of Plotinus. This is typical Wilber behavior.

In an effort to cram all of human knowledge into his Integral framework, a lot of distortions have to be made so that everything fits together into, well, a Theory of Everything.

Wilber is notoriously touchy about criticism. This helps explain why his writings haven't gotten much attention in academia, where "just trust me" doesn't fly with skeptical scholars.

Instead, Ken Wilber mostly preaches to the choir of his faithful followers through the EnlightenNext magazine and countless seminars, workshops, and such. I've got no problem with this. Wilber has some interesting things to say.

But his sayings shouldn't distort facts. Plotinus is one of Wilber's key Western philosophical mainstays who offers some balance to the generally Eastern/Buddhist thrust of the Integral viewpoint.

However, I demonstrate that Plotinus is a monist, not a non-dualist.

If you read those Wikipedia articles, it's hard to tell the difference between monism and non-dualism. My essay, though, shows that Wilber's description of non-dualism is markedly different from Plotinus' One.
Download Wilber and Plotinus article2

As I say at the end of it, obviously I don't know what ultimate reality is like. Nobody does, Ken Wilber included. All we can do is look at evidence and come to the best conclusions we can.

I've got a strong scientific bent. It seems to me that understanding the observable universe is the best first step (and maybe the last step) toward grasping unseen mysteries.

In Carl Sagan's "The Varieties of Scientific Experience" he writes:

Contrast this [anthropomorphic view] with a quite different version of God, one proposed by Baruch Spinoza and by Albert Einstein. And this second kind of god they called God in a very straightforward way. Einstein was constantly interpreting the world in terms of what God would or wouldn't do.

But by God they meant something not very different from the sum total of the physical laws of the universe; that is, gravitation plus quantum mechanics plus grand unified field theories plus a few other things equaled God.

And by that all they meant was that here were a set of exquisitely powerful physical principles that seemed to explain a great deal that was otherwise inexplicable about the universe.

Laws of nature, as I have said earlier, that apply not just locally, not just in Glasgow, but far beyond: Edinburgh, Moscow, Peking, Mars, Alpha Centauri, the center of the Milky Way, and out by the most distant quasars known.

That the same laws of physics apply everywhere is quite remarkable. Certainly that represents a power greater than any of us. It represents an unexpected regularity to the universe. It need not have been. It could have been that every province of the cosmos had its own laws of nature.

So it's reasonable to look upon the laws of nature as "God." Many of these laws can be formulated in mathematical terms. And most mathematicians are Platonists of one variety or another -- as is Plotinus.

Here's how I put it in my essay:

Shimon Malin, a physicist, has written about the relationship between science and Plotinus's teachings in his book, "Nature Loves to Hide: Quantum Physics and the Nature of Reality, a Western Perspective." Malin says:

For Plotinus, the sensible world is a mere reflection of the noumenal; for science, the sensible is the real thing, the only reality there is. The world of science is the world as given by the senses. Oddly, however, the Nous [Intellect] is not entirely absent from it. The Nous did lose its life, but not its presence. The idea that the sensible world is sustained and directed by an invisible substratum is the fundamental premise of science. This invisible substratum is called “the laws of nature.”

...So if I had to place a bet on which conception is closer to the truth, Wilber's non-duality or Plotinus's hierarchy of being (soul, spirit, and source—the One), I'd put my philosophical money on Plotinus. For the existence of the well-structured and seemingly unchanging laws of nature argues against Wilber's holonic, shape-shifting belief that the One is the Many.

There seem to be levels of being in the cosmos, some more real, permanent, and substantial than others. At the least, there are (1) laws of nature and (2) what is governed by those laws. Plotinus goes further and says that those laws are transmitted by soul from a transcendental Intellect that gets its power and wisdom from a even higher reality—the One.

As Wilber says, Plotinus's vision is coherent and compelling. I only wish that Wilber had presented that vision more accurately in "Sex, Ecology, Spirituality." Plotinus deserves better.

Comments

[John]

It seems to me the laws of nature as they spontaneously occur, fall short of being all they're capable of being. Absent man, what nature seems to lack is an intellect capable of understanding her laws, which is capable of providing specialized conditions, that do not spontaneously in nature, to bring out the latent potential inherent within those laws.

Sure, we can give the laws of nature credit for bringing an intelligent being about. But I'm not quite as sure we can ascribe the selection and initiative (volition) needed to bring out all the magnificence and potential within nature's laws, to the laws per se. The laws can't choose to act or not act, nor act here but not there, yet through man's intelligence and volition he can select where, if and when the laws operate.

If we cede that, "emanation from the One cannot terminate until everything that has possibly come into existence has done so," then it seems we're forced to conclude that termination could never be reached without, a) the laws, and b) an intelligence with the volition capable of bringing all the potentialities within those laws into existence.

Now, I can't attribute the generation of volition to the laws, nor the generation of the laws to volition. Likewise, I can't conclude volition is part of the laws, nor the laws are part of volition, so I'm left with either two wholes 'or' two parts of a whole. Unless of course 'integral' is another way of saying monistic duality, which I believe is popular among the totalitarian anarchists.

-John

[Blogger Brian]

John, I'm not sure what you mean what you say that humans "can select where, if and when the laws [of nature] operate." How is it possible to turn off and on the laws of nature? I'm not aware of any demonstrable evidence that this ever has been done.

For example, turning off gravity would have some marvelous effects. As would turning lead into gold, or whatever.

So I think we should be cautious about assuming that human intelligence and volition is something separate from the laws of nature. Is animal intelligence also distinct from these laws? And the whole issue of free will is decidedly unsettled. It isn't obvious that people have the ability to choose to do anything of their own volition.

That said, you raise some interesting questions. My big one about the laws of nature is, "where do they reside?" If the entire physical universe were to disappear completely, would the physical laws of nature still exist? Perhaps. Or they could be part and parcel of materiality, which is closer to Wilber's conception of holons and the Buddhist notion of "emptiness."

[John]

Hi Brian,

Sorry for the confusion. I didn't mean to imply that we have control of the laws, just some control over where, if and when they manifest. When I pass a magnet across a wire, I have control over the manifestation of the law electromagnetic induction insofar as I can choose to do it or not, along with where or when to do it.

That choice or volition is what I was referring to in regard to bringing out the potential inherent within the laws. And if we're working off the assumption that termination cannot be reached until potential is actualized, knowing what we know now, I can't see termination occurring without the intelligence and volition man brings to the equation.

I hope this isn't coming across as esoteric, because I don't see it as such. But if we're to take potential as a real factor of causation, the actualization of potential is certain once the requisite conditions are provided. The point I am hoping to make is that certain conditions can only be provided by an intellect with volition, and hence, certain potentials can only come into existence, or discharge if you will, through man's assistance.

As to:
"If the entire physical universe were to disappear completely, would the physical laws of nature still exist?"

Nearest I can follow the current arguments and theories, within the 'singularity' the laws as we know them do not apply: there's no particles; there's no space; and there's no time. The problem, as I see it with attributing the laws as part and parcel of materiality, is we're basically ceding the point to the nominalists. Not that there's anything wrong with their metaphysical position, because we really don't know, but nominalism is diametrically opposed to the form of realism put forth by Plotinus and in fact denies the existence of universals altogether. So I don't know how one could claim to adhere to Plotinus on the one hand, yet attribute the laws to matter or holons.

But I'm quickly getting out of my depth with the deeper philosophical issues and physics. However, if you're so inclined David Bohm posits the concept of 'quantum potentiality' and his book, "Wholeness and the Implicate Order," provides a framework to see the whole (The One) as true reality and the many particulars as relative relations.

-John

[Blogger Brian]

John, I understand you better now (that's the point of this whole blogging and commenting thing). Yes, Plotinus isn't compatible with the notion that the laws of nature are part and parcel of the physical world.

However, I have no idea if Plotinus is correct about this. I used to be more of a Platonist than I am now. Currently (and probably permanently) I'm into not being sure, unknowing.

I've read Bohm's book, and some others about his approach to quantum physics (didn't David Peat co-author a book with him?). It's an appealing approach. But again, who knows if it is true? The universe seems way beyond our ability to comprehend it. That's one thing I feel confident about.

[Jason]

Sorry to bring this back up, but your essay is very useful in something I'm writing.

I'd first of all like to thank you for it. Whether you happen to agree with Plotinus yourself or not, I think you outlined his views admirably.

Secondly, I've been unable to find any reply to you from Wilber. Did he ever address the points you raised? Or am I entitled to say he ignored you?

Thanks.

[Brian Hines]

Jason, I've never communicated with Ken Wilber. I have no idea if he ever has read my essay, so I can't say that he has ignored me. From what little I know about Wilber, I suspect that someone like me is beneath his attention, unworthy of responding to, since I lack his "integral vision."

I'm glad the essay was useful to you. I still find a lot to like in Plotinus. I've just lost much of my passion for organized philosophy of the Neoplatonist sort. Or any sort, really. Now I'm fine with mystery remaining mysterious. Not sure if this is good, bad, or indifferent. Which is a relief, really.

[Robert]

Brian,

Not to revive this topic, but I'm doing my own reading on Plotinus right now and in particular, I'm trying to get a sense of the actual meditative practices in which Plotinus engaged. What I've read so far is very nonspecific. Did platonists at the time engage in breath meditation? visualization? is any of it comparable to Buddhist practices?

Curious
Robert