Crossing the Threshold

While studying at Naropa University I use to come across references to critiques of Deep Ecology and Eco-Spirituality by Integral thinker Ken Wilber. Curious as to what he had to say on this subject, I researched his critique for a paper that I wrote for my final class. The paper is presented below.

Abstract

Few can deny the increasing environmental problems facing the planet and the communities that live on it. Over the last three decades philosophies such as Deep Ecology have arisen looking to present the environmental crises within a spiritual framework. There has also been an increased interest in Earth-based faith traditions.

Philosopher Ken Wilber has been a loud voice in criticism of these approaches. This paper will examine what he has to say about philosophies which are apparently helping people at this time, and some believe are playing a part in solving the problems facing us.

Introduction

“By perceiving ourselves as part of the river, we take responsibility  for the river as a whole” (Havel, date unknown, p. v).

When I read this quote recently I found myself looking at it in a different way to how I might have done a year ago, or maybe even as recently as last month. A year ago I would have approached Havel’s words with my understanding of deep ecology, examined in more detail below, probably influenced by my Buddhist background. Now though, having started to look into the work and thoughts of Ken Wilber I wonder if my reading of Havel’s words is correct, and indeed how Havel was thinking when he wrote them.

Over the years of my interest in the deep ecology movement and eco-spirituality, I had come across one or two articles making reference to Ken Wilber’s critique of eco-spirituality. Not knowing who he was and comfortable with my engagement with deep ecology/eco-spirituality, I chose not read these articles. However, now more aware of Wilber’s standing within the philosophy world, I feel that his thoughts need to be heard by those drawn to eco-spirituality, and concerned about the environmental problems effecting the planet.

It is with this in mind that I have chosen to research Wilber’s critique for this paper. First I would like to present a background to deep ecology, especially looking at its spiritual implications, before moving onto looking at Wilber’s critique. In the later part of the paper I shall use a term coined by Michael Zimmerman (2001), spiritually-orientated deep ecologists, and abbreviate it as he does to SDEs.

Deep ecology

In 1973 a paper entitled, “The Shallow and Deep, Long-Range Ecology Movement: A Summary” (Naess, 1995, p.3) was published. Its author was Arne Naess, formerly Professor of Philosophy at Oslo University in Norway. The publication of this paper is taken as the birth of what has come to be known as the Deep Ecology movement. The ecological view spoken about in the paper is deep as opposed to shallow in reference to the depth of questions that we ask about the world and how we interact with it. Naess spoke of nature having an intrinsic value over and above the use humankind might want to make of it, and this permits beings to fulfil their own evolutionary process. This contrasts with the shallow ecology movement which sees the environment as something that can exploited by humans and the measures to protect the environment are approached with this utilitarian view in mind.

Deep ecology challenges us to ask deeper questions about how we are living and the effect of our actions on the world. This deeper questioning causes one to examine how you perceive the world, looking more deeply at your relationship with it, which in turn puts you in touch with your spiritual connection to the world in which we live.

This spiritual aspect of deep ecology has been one its defining contributions, for many offering a spiritual aspect to their lives where more conventional forms have failed to meet their needs. Many who come to deep ecology do so through a personal experience that they have had in nature, the peak experiences of transpersonal psychology. Such experiences result in the individual losing their sense of being an individual, separate self and they experience a sense of merging with a larger whole, that of the world around them.

Deep ecology speaks of the ecological self, experienced through widening our identification with the world around us. The wider our identification, the greater our sense of ecological self. Referring back to Havel’s quote at the start of this paper, he is asking us to extend our identification to the river. This does not mean that we become the river, or even loose our sense of who we are. Rather we feel and become aware of the state of the river, as a felt experience of what the river, in its widest sense of the water and the beings in it, are going through. In much the same way that we feel for what a member of our family is going through, even though we may not be with them. Through this process of identification deep ecologists might speak of seeing themselves as part of a greater web-of-life, a small thread in the larger cosmos.

Deep ecological thought has been informed by eastern spiritual traditions where variations on the practice and philosophy of identification exist in their teachings. For those adopting a deep ecology view, the world and its inhabitants become a sacred place. Deep ecologists might adopt an ecocentric or biocentric view where the human is not seen to have primacy. There is a move away from anthropocentrism, human-centred attitudes to nature where human needs have primacy. It is not unusual to find deep ecologists laying the blame for such attitudes at the door of Christianity and Western philosophy. In rewriting their relationship to the world, and maybe in rebellion against the perceived cause, deep ecologists quite often turn to Earth-based faith traditions (e.g. Paganism, Wicca) in which to place their world view and to find a spiritual practice.

At this time of global warming, environmental problems, and materialistic views, the turn to deep ecology and Earth-based spiritual traditions can be understood as people search for deeper meaning and ways of re-visioning the world around them, as well as looking for a philosophy which can be a source of hope for a better future. However philosopher Ken Wilber questions whether the very world view that the deep ecologists and Earth-based spiritualists adopt is not exactly the same as that adopted by those holding a reductionist and materialistic world view? One of the contentions of Wilber is that the world that SDEs perceive as being an interconnected whole, is no different from the world view held by modernity today. A view which Wilber terms as “flatland” (Wilber, 2000).

Ken Wilber

In his book, “A Brief History of Everything” (Wilber, 2000), Ken Wilber introduces his idea of Ascending and Descending spirituality. The Ascending view looks to transcend this world, finding salvation in a place other than of this planet. The Ascending path is quite often puritanical, denying the Earth, the flesh, body and senses, looking to rise above all of these. For those on an Ascending path, the path of Descent is seen as a fall from grace.

On the other hand a Descending path embraces this Earth, the body and senses. Spirit is wrapped up in this world and all experiences of such are immanent. A Descender has no interest in the Ascendant path, possibly seeing such a way as wholly bad.

Of these two views, the path of the Descender has become dominant in our time. All that is is real and nothing else exists. The world becomes one of exteriority and the interior is squashed out with no place to breath.

For Wilber it is only through a union of these paths, the Ascending and Descending, that there will be peace. “If we…do not contribute to this union, then it is very possible that not only will we destroy the only Earth we have, we will forfeit the only Heaven we might otherwise embrace” (Wilber, 2000, p. 11). I include this quote because at times the tone that Wilber uses to express his views can feel quite abrasive, and for his controversial views this might turn people away before they have heard what he has to say. However, through the words that I have read of his and listening to questions put to him, I believe that what he has to say comes from a place of deep concern. He recognizes, or at least believes in the potential the human has within, sees the harm that we have done to the planet and to ourselves through war, greed and the like, and is presenting a philosophy which he believes can help. Wilber himself maintains that, “his cutting remarks are motivated by his concern that some SDEs inadvertently impede environmentalism” (Zimmerman, 2001).

The Kosmos and evolution

In his work Wilber speaks of the Kosmos. This is made up of four levels, the physiosphere (the material), the biosphere (ecosystems and the organisms that make them up), noosphere (mind and interiority of individuals) and the theosphere (the Divine) (Wilber, 2000; Zimmerman, 2004). As evolution takes place, starting at the physiosphere and moving up through the levels, a move from one level to the next results in the previous level being transcended but included in the evolution to the new level. This is enabled to take place through the existence of holons which will be explained in more detail below.

Holons and holoarchy
Holons are wholes within themselves, but are also part of larger wholes. An example would be our liver, a whole organ itself, but also part of a larger whole called the human body. It can be seen that the liver is also made up of holons, cells, blood vessels, blood, etc which together make up the liver. As Wilber points out, this process produces two lines of development which he refers to as depth and span (Wilber, 2000, p. 30). As one moves through levels of holonic development, the depth increases, i.e. from atom to molecule to cell to organ. However, as one moves up through the levels of holons the span decreases in terms of the number of holons that you find at each successive level. There are more atoms than molecules, more molecules than organs.

To move away from the concept of hierarchy, a problematic word that for some can denote “power over”, Wilber uses the word holoarchy to define this increased depth as one moves through the levels of holons. He explains that this natural hierarchy is actually, “an order of wholeness… The whole of one level becomes a part of the whole of the next” (Wilber, 2000, p. 24). This also introduces the aspect of holonic development where we see properties emerge as one moves up through the levels. These  emergent properties were not in existence at the previous levels, and result in successive holonic levels showing greater degrees of complexity. Wilber (2000) speaks of us living in a “universe of creative emergence” (p. 22). Here we see the process of transcending and inclusion. Moving through successive levels of a holoarchy, previous levels are transcended, but their parts are included in the new layer.

So returning to the make up of the Kosmos, the biosphere transcends and includes the physiosphere; the organisms and ecosystems are made up of the basic material of the universe, but have also transcended the physiosphere by having qualities that are not found in the physiosphere. Following on from that, the noosphere transcends and includes the biosphere; the interior aspect of ourselves includes but transcends the biosphere. There are qualities found in the noosphere that are not found in the biosphere.

It is on the basis of this holonic development that Wilber bases a controversial conclusion, controversial in the sense that it runs counter to the view held by many environmentalists. This conclusion is that although humankind depends on the biosphere for its existence, it is not a part of the biosphere. The human mind, while dependant upon physical and biological phenomena to exist, is not of itself material. If the noosphere was to be destroyed, the interior aspect of ourselves, humankind would cease to exist but the biosphere would still be here. Essentially the biosphere is of a lower level of development than the noosphere. Wilber refers to the view that the noosphere is a part of the biosphere as “reductionism” (Wilber, 2000, p. 30).

It is at this point that some critics of Wilber start accusing him of anthropocentrism. They claim that through essentially placing humankind at the top of the developmental pyramid, as we understand development so far, he is creating the same scenario that has led to wide spread disregard for the natural world and the environmental problems that we have now. From the anthropocentric perspective humankind is perceived as the best and all powerful; this view is then usurped for selfish ends.

However, Wilber argues that for there to be true reverence for nature one needs to acknowledge the “Great Holoarchy of Being” (Wilber, 2000), respecting the genuine differences that exist between each level (Zimmerman, 2001). Indeed, one could say that to ignore such a holonic developmental process is to reject the responsibility, and capabilities, that humankind has. To reject holonic development is to adopt the, “impulse to ‘return’ to an undifferentiated unity with nature” (Zimmerman, 2001). There is nothing wrong in being “above” in terms of development, it is how one uses the abilities that one has.

Flatland ontology
A second critique that Wilber makes of SDEs is that they have more in common with modernity, those whom they implicate in the environmental crises, than they might think. He refers to both holding a one-dimensional, “flatland” ontology, “that has no place for subjectivity, interiority, soul, or spirit” (Zimmerman, 2001). To explain this I shall return to holons.

Wilber speaks of holons having two domains, an interior and an exterior. Further these two domains have an individual and social aspect. These “four quadrants” as Wilber refers to them are what make up our reality and are shown in the diagram below (Wilber, 2000). These four quadrants are a part of Wilber’s Integral, AQAL “All Quadrants, All Levels”, model where levels refer to stages of development, of which various developmental models are used.

Key
The four concentric circles, starting from the inner most one, represent: 1. Body; 2. Mind; 3. Soul; 4. Spirit. Their size and position are purely illustrative and are not to be taken literally. They do however show how each successive layer transcends and includes the layer beneath it.

Within these four quadrants we see the evolution from body to mind to soul to Spirit. It should be added here that Wilber sees Spirit as that to which evolution tends to. At the time of the Big Bang, Spirit “emptied itself” (Zimmerman, 2001), and humankind is one aspect of Spirit returning to self-consciousness. Wilber sees Spirit as the “cosmic ‘lure’ or Eros that draws entities towards evermore complex and conscious modes of manifestation” (Zimmerman, 2001). Spirit is present in all manifestations of the evolutionary process and also plays a part in the emergence of new levels of evolution that give expression to Spirit. Zimmerman (2001) explains that “humankind plays a ‘leading role’” in this process, but it should be added not the only role, and within the Integral model will in time be superseded by more complex, integrative modes of being. Therefore Spirit is both immanent and transcendent (Quick, 2006).

As can be seen from the diagram above, these four stages of evolution have interior and exterior aspects as well as individual and collective. Within Wilber’s Integral model, true evolution means a balanced development of the four quadrants within the individual.

Referring back to holonic development, the interior or left-hand quadrants represent the depth aspect of evolutionary development spoken of earlier, “depths that require arduous development” (Wilber, 2000, p. 247). The right-hand quadrants represent the span of holonic development, surface development that can be “easily seen” (Wilber, 2000, p. 247). An example  of this might be an EEG scan of the brain of a person experiencing compassion (Wilber, 2000). The experience of compassion, upper-left quadrant, interior subjective experience, is seen as a series of lines on the machine, upper-right quadrant. The EEG machine might be able to show the brain waves of the person experiencing compassion, but it cannot measure the quality of that experience. 

So in modern time, with every interior aspect having its exterior correlate, tied in with the effects of industrialization and scientific objectivity, the right-hand quadrants have become the dominant, Descendant view. The world becomes a right-hand “flatland” and is illustrated by the diagram below (Wilber, 2000, p.250).

Through this world view, the objective world of industrialization “colonizes and dominates the interiors” (Wilber, 2000, p.251). The “Its” of the right-hand quadrant alone are real; nature is what holds all and includes Spirit. The only alternative, which some people adopt, is to deny Spirit’s existence at all. Wilber is saying that the SDEs are coming to the spiritual holding a view, the basis of which is the same as the industrialists and objective scientists. The Eco-Romantic movement, as he calls it, is a product of an industrial ontology, with the Eco-Romantics rejecting the industry but keeping the ontology (Wilber, 2000).

Wilber differentiates this flatland view from that held by peoples, whether existing now or in the past, who for example would see an erupting volcano as the volcano being mad at them. He refers to such an ontology as magical-foraging (Wilber, 2000). The world for these people is “animistically alive with egocentric and undifferentiated feelings” (Wilber, 2000, p.252). The nature that the Eco-Romantics experience is wholly differentiated. Wilber sees worship of Gaia as a product of industrialization which perpetuates the empirical-industrial paradigm (Wilber, 2000). It is the following of this modern Descended grid that is destroying Gaia as it completely ignores the interior aspect where, “mutual accord and intersubjective wisdom can actually be found” (Wilber, 2000, p. 253).

Regression
Wilber also criticizes the trend in some people to adopt neo-pagan religions as part of their process of moving to a more Earth caring way of life. He calls such a move a pre/trans-fallacy. “It is a fallacy to confuse a) surrendering personal-egoic consciousness by regressing to a more primitive, pre-conscious state with b) transcending of egoic consciousness by moving toward an authentically transpersonal state” (Zimmerman, 2001).

A regression to pre-modern states is an ignoring of the achievements of modernity. Presenting the four quadrant model as “The Big Three,” essentially a condensing of the right hand quadrants into one, we can place modernity’s achievements (Wilber, 2000). In doing so, Wilber is acknowledging what modernity has achieved, however due to the flatland ontology these achievements have not been brought together in an integral way.

Like the four quadrants, although there are correlates in each domain, modernity has failed to integrate The Big Three. As explained earlier, through the more accessible nature of the objective “It”, “It” gained dominance and the human-nature split arose. The Eco-Romantics contended that nature had lost contact with the web-of-life, but in doing so set up a confused quandary for themselves. They first maintained that this web-of-life is all embracing and that from which everything arises or manifests. Having said that they then claimed that culture had split from nature. So, Wilber (2000) says, they end up with two natures. One that embraces all, and the other from which modernity has split; this sounds like a contradiction.

Wilber points out that the Eco-Romantics were confusing Nature with a capital N, which embraces everything, with nature that is being mis-treated by culture. Generously Wilber (2000) says that the best of the Eco-Romantics were trying to say that Nature is Spirit, reminding us that Spirit does transcend and include nature and culture. However, the Eco-Romantics are saying this from a Descended grid point of view which identifies Nature with nature. “They identified Spirit with sensory nature. They identified Spirit with the visible, sensible Right Hand world taken as a whole” (Wilber, 2000, p. 263).

The implications of this, Wilber points out, is that any experience of non-dual is interpreted as coming from nature. In doing so the trend then becomes to recommend moving back to nature not “forward to Nature… If nature or the biosphere is the only fundamental reality – if it is actually “spirit” – then, the Romantics announced, anything that moves away from nature must be killing spirit” (Wilber, 2000, p.264).

One question that arises from this is the spiritual experiences that people have in nature; people do have them, nature is looked on as a common place for peak experiences; that can’t be denied surely? Wilber agrees that you can have such experiences in nature, but nature is not where those feelings have come from. A sunset might move us to feel at one with nature, but the sunset is not where that experience has come from.

Wilber says that nature is the destination of that experience, the source is “transcendental Spirit, of which nature is a radiant expression” (Wilber, 2000, p. 267). With the relaxing of ego-grasping that the context of nature allows, you make yourself an open vessel for experiencing the transcendental. It is not the environment that provides the experience, but what you bring to the situation. If it was the place that provided the experience, the transcendent would be experienced whenever anyone was there. However, if your worldview is caught up in the Descended grid, it is from that perspective that you will interpret the experience. “You will mistake the effect for the cause” (Wilber, 2000, p. 267).

For Wilber the environmental crises is in essence a spiritual one. The main problems affecting the planet are due to a, “lack of mutual understanding and mutual agreement in the noosphere about how to proceed” (Wilber, 2000, p.285). However, to reach this understanding and agreement we have to embrace “interior growth and transcend” (Wilber, 2000, p.285), something which the Descended, flatland ontology dislikes.

Integral ecology

Within Wilber’s model, a more Integral approach to the environmental crises is needed in order to solve the problems that we are facing. Such a model would use an AQAL map to develop an Integral Ecology, which would look at many perspectives, including spiritual and scientific. The following quote from the Integral Naked web site illustrates what such an Integral map might look like.

An all-quadrant, all-level map—one that includes both complex ecological systems and interior levels of human development—shows that it's not enough to be able to see the problem, one must also be at a moral stage where one is motivated to act upon it. Moreover, any activist has to build social consensus between people with different cultural contexts, economic backgrounds, behavioral patterns, and levels of interior development. (Integral Naked, 2005)

As this illustration shows, in order to simply be able to see the problem, or to feel morally compelled to act, we need to be at a certain stage of spiritual development. It for this reason that Wilber refers to the environmental crises as a spiritual problem.

Conclusion

I do not find that Wilber’s Integral approach conflicts with my deep ecology beliefs. Rather they add to and inform that practice, in much the same way that other spiritual traditions can enrich one’s own spiritual practice. Wilber’s insights bring to my awareness that which I  take for granted and it is up to me to see if I fall into the traps that he suggests.

 The more that I read and understand of Wilber’s work, I see an effort to produce a methodology which can transform both heart and culture. The task Wilber has set himself is huge, “Everything” (Wilber, 2000) no less. However, given the obvious intellectual gifts that he has, I feel that for those who hold a concern for state of our planet would do well to give his words their attention. Buddha encouraged his students to test out his teachings for themselves. If they worked for you, take them with you, if not discard them. The truth then becomes yours, not the words of someone else. I will try this advice with the words of Ken Wilber.

In researching this paper I have come across the inevitable critiques of Wilber’s critique. Reading them along side Wilber can help to give some perspective on Wilber’s arguments. Space does not permit me to bring these critiques to this discussion, though I can give a taste of their points of view here:

1. Two papers by Michael Zimmerman, “Ken Wilber's Critique of Ecological Spirituality” (Zimmerman, 2001) and “Humanity’s Relation to Gaia: Part of the Whole, or Member of the Community?” (Zimmerman, 2004) examine Wilber’s position as well as offering some critiques of it. Though on the whole Zimmerman is supportive of Wilber.

2. “A Critique of Ken Wilber’s Account of Deep Ecology & Nature Religions” (diZerega, 1996) – Gus diZerega is a traditional Wiccan elder as well as holding a PhD in political theory. His well argued critique of Wilber is based on academic rigour and his personal experience within nature based religions. diZerega argues “that Wilber’s criticisms attack a one sided caricature of these perspectives” (diZerega, date unknown). Following this paper a dialogue took place between diZerega and Wilber where they were able to reach some common ground. As a result of their dialogue, they issued a joint statement which can be read at the Integral World web site (diZerega, Frew, & Wilber, date unknown).

3. “How Rigid the Hierarchy?” (Drengson, 1996) – A short paper written as an introduction to diZerega’s paper mentioned above, with Drengson offering his views on Wilber’s thoughts.

4. “Transcending this Poor Earth – á la Ken Wilber” (Rowe, 2001) – Stan Rowe offers a critique of Wilber’s “A Brief History of Everything” (Wilber, 2000) from his background in ecology.

5. “ In Praise of Naess’s Pluralism” (Quick, 2006) – Tim Quick compares Arne Naess’s pluralistic philosophical methods with what he considers is Wilber’s monistic techniques, coming out in favor of Naess.

References:
diZerega, G. (1996). A critique of Ken Wilber’s account of deep ecology & nature religions. The Trumpeter 13(2). Retrieved January 6, 2003 from http://trumpeter.athabascau.ca/index.php/trumpet/article/view/268/401

diZerega, G. (date unknown). Ken Wilber’s critique of deep ecology and nature religion. Retrieved June 15, 2006 from http://dizerega.com/?page_id=6

diZerega, G., Frew, D., & Wilber, K. (date unknown). Neopaganism and the mystical tradition. Retrieved June 15, 2006 from http://www.integralworld.net/index.html?dizerega.html

Drengson, A. (1996). How rigid the hierarchy?. The Trumpeter 13(2). Retrieved June 18, 2006 from http://trumpeter.athabascau.ca/index.php/trumpet/article/view/266/397

Havel, V. (date unknown). In P. Forbes, A. Armbrecht Forbes, & H. Whybrow (Eds.), Our land, ourselves. San Francisco, California: The Trust for Public Land.

Integral Ecology and Sustainability (2005). Retrieved July 9, 2006 from http://in.integralinstitute.org/live/view_ecology.aspx (now seeming to be behind paid registration?)

Quick, T. (2006). In praise of Naess’s pluralism. The Trumpeter 22(1), 52-68. Retrieved June 13, 2006 from http://trumpeter.athabascau.ca/index.php/trumpet/article/view/32/26

Rowe, S. (2001). Transcending this poor earth – á la Ken Wilber. The Trumpeter 17(1). Retrieved June 18, 2006 from http://trumpeter.athabascau.ca/index.php/trumpet/article/view/138/161

Wilber, K. (2000). A brief history of everything. Boston: Shambhala.

Zimmerman, M.E. (2001). Ken Wilber's critique of ecological spirituality. Retrieved December 30, 2005 from http://www.integralworld.net/zimmerman3x.html

Zimmerman, M.E. (2004). Humanity’s relation to Gaia: part of the whole, or member of the community?. The Trumpeter 20(1), 4-20. Retrieved February 2, 2005 from http://trumpeter.athabascau.ca/index.php/trumpet/article/view/71/68