Writing for AQAL Journal

Back in 2005, the Integral Institute inaugurated The Journal of Integral Theory and Practice (the "Journal"), which claimed to be a peer-reviewed academic-style journal. I was somewhat skeptical at first because I suspected that submissions would be required to conform to strict Wilberian orthodoxy, and that the "peers" who did the reviewing would be limited to Integral Institute insiders. However, when I attended the Integral Theory in Action conference at John F. Kennedy University in August, I found that the integral academic milieu was developing a healthy independence. Moreover, I could see that Sean Esbjörn-Hargens was working closely with the Journal to ensure its integrity and academic credibility.

Then, shortly after the conference, Australian integral theorist Mark Edwards sent me a paper he had written (which was soon to be published in the Journal) which critiqued “Appendix B” of my book, Integral Consciousness. Appendix B, entitled: “Consideration of Wilber’s Four-Quadrant Model of Evolution,” expressed my concerns about the AQAL model’s integration of human artifacts into the timeline of evolutionary development. Appendix B thus offered a critique of the quadrant model, which I hoped would spark a scholarly debate about the issues raised.

After reading Edward's critique of my critique of Wilber's model, I inquired with the Journal to see if they were interested in publishing my response to Edwards. They said they were indeed interested and (if I could move fast) they could squeeze it into the same issue in which Edwards's paper was due to appear. When I asked about the "peer-review" process, Esbjörn-Hargens explained that "JITP publishes dissenting voices. The only thing you have to tend to in this context is that you present integral theory's view on these matters correctly. As long as the theory/AQAL is represented accurately then you can go to town critiquing all you want."

So based on these assurances, I wrote the article "Problemitizing Interobjectivity: A Response to Edwards." After turning in the first draft, I received constructive feedback from Esbjörn-Hargens and doctoral student Zachary Stein, who served as the peer reviewers. Then once I had revised the paper to incorporate their comments, it was sent to Ken Wilber, who apparently reads (and vets) every paper published by the Journal. As a last hurdle prior to acceptance for publication, I was asked to join a conference call with Wilber and the other editors to discuss my paper. Given that Wilber has not always taken criticism very well, I didn't know what to expect on this phone call, having not spoken to him directly since 2003. However, I was pleasantly surprised by our conversation. While not agreeing outright with all my critiques, Ken acknowledged that I had some valid points and that the theoretical problems of interobjectivity and artifacts are "what smart people should be thinking about." The call ended on a positive note and I was not required to revise any of my critiques. I did, however, add an endnote that reflected some of the nuances of our discussion.

Pointing out the shortcomings of Ken Wilber's quadrant model is obviously not the main thrust of my work. But I was glad to make a contribution to the academic world of integral scholarship. So if you subscribe to the Journal, look for the forthcoming "Edwards and McIntosh debate," which will be published at the end of the year. Once the Journal issue is out for a while, perhaps I can get permission to reproduce it here on my website.

Overall, I'm very glad to see that integral philosophy is slowly gaining academic legitimacy. However, we still have a long way to go before this new philosophy of evolution is appropriately recognized by the more elite circles of academia. And ultimately, no matter how much scholarship we accumulate, it may be folly to expect that the cautious and conventional professionals who guard the gates of mainstream academic legitimacy will ever be willing to validate our transcendence of their way of thinking.