Ken Wilber and the New World Order
October 5th, 2009
Ken Wilber is a writer probably best described as being situated at the intellectual end of the new age field – a self-proclaimed “pandit” and “defender of the dharma” – although not rigorous enough in his argumentation to be considered a serious philosopher. Over the course of several decades he has developed a big-picture “theory of everything” that attempts to integrate all existing fields of human knowledge into a grand unified system.
To put it simply, Wilber’s thesis is that humanity is following a path of evolution upwards through a series of “structures of consciousness”, beginning with primitive mental states, then progressing through more complex psychological structures, before eventually venturing into the “transpersonal”, the higher states of consciousness previously experienced only by sages and mystics. Each of these stages of internal awareness, according to Wilber, correlates with the type of social organisation that the individual lives within. Wilber argues that as a society evolves through various stages, the consciousness of its members evolves with it, giving us a schema of development as follows:
type of social organisation – structure of consciousness
hunter-gatherer – archaic
tribal – magic
early nation-state – mythic
nation-state – rational
world government – aperspectival
? – integral
? – psychic
? – subtle
? – causal
? – non-dual
While it is not my intention here to critique this model, it is immediately obvious that one problem with it is that Wilber has never attempted to describe the types of social organisation that correlate with each of the transpersonal stages. Indeed, it would appear that after the emergence of a world government, no further development is possible.
However, a more serious issue, in my opinion, is that Wilber takes it as given that collective development proceeds through the progressive centralisation of power. Yet to me this is far from obvious. In a series of essays available in the Reading Room of Integral World (http://www.integralworld.net/readingroom.html#JO) I argue that healthy social development actually proceeds through the progressive decentralisation of power, although I should say that my current thinking is that a middle way between centralisation and decenentralistion is the desired course. In my papers I have attempted to show that when we base our schema of development on such a premise, we end up with a model that is more coherent than is Wilber’s, and which avoids many of the problems inherent in his approach.
More seriously, to anyone who accepts the existence of a global conspiracy – the agenda to impose an authoritarian one-world government on the planet – Wilber’s model could be seen as dangerously rationalising such a state of affairs. Indeed, an implication of Wilber’s schema is that the emergence of a world government would positively further our collective evolution. Wilber could therefore be quite unintentionally leading his readers into the “new world order” that is the goal of the global conspiracy.
It should therefore come as no suprise to savvy readers that individuals such as Bill Clinton and Al Gore have lauded Wilber’s work (http://www.kenwilber.com/blog/show/543). According to David Icke, Clinton and Gore are both front-men for the global conspiracy, and have been promoting the new world order agenda since they were in office.
Wilber clearly believes that his work is at the forefront of human evolution and has recently started an institute to promote his views in academia (http://integralinstitute.org/), yet as the hundreds of critical essays available at Integral World demonstrate, his work is not as watertight as he would like us to believe.
While there is much to be said for any big picture model of reality that includes a spiritual dimension, I believe that in the age of the global conspiracy we need to be very wary of any paradigm that views a world government as representing a positive evolutionary advance.
Source: Spirit and the NWO
No related posts.

October 5th, 2009 at 11:22 am
I spent 20 – 25 years studying Ken Wilber, reading his books as soon as they came out. He can be criticized for much these days, but much of his early thinking can be highly acclaimed – especially that which led to his 4-quadrant model of knowing and being.
Glad to see his name here; hope there is more debate with him. In his defence, I think he envisions a new world order based on a higher level of consciousness. The trouble with the current NWO is that it is being enacted by a bunch of low-minded playground bullies trying to steal everybody’s marbles. There does have to be at least some sort of Global coordination in the future. We’ll see.
October 5th, 2009 at 8:05 pm
Though I personally have not arrived yet, I believe in the higher, transpersonal states of consciousness that can be attained through meditation and unconditional love. It does seem that countries of the world will mutually need to agree to destroy all nuclear weapons, reduce populations and prevent environmental degradation. The current developing New World Order is controlled by an elitist financial oligarchy. I want no part of that. True world peace results when many individuals achieve inner peace. I think as more and more people become enlightened, we easily could see more decentralization and far less government. Theoretically, there could be a democratic world government that provides individual liberty, but it would have to be built from the bottom-up, not from the top-down. I would like to see Ron Paul, a Libertarian, as President, with Ralph Nader and Dennis Kucinich in his Cabinet. Roger Copple
October 5th, 2009 at 8:13 pm
Gotta agree, Birfurc. It would seem that a “logical” AND “tranformative” development would not include greater centralization, as locals are given greater autonomy to determine the rules that best work for themselves, and this cadre of NWO thugs is antithetical to that sort of personal freedom. I do believe that what is envisioned is a sort of neo-feudalism, so this development is, in fact, not a development at all, but a regression. I also agree that “global” governance is not NECESSARILY a bad thing, although I do think that this current group who is pushing the agenda is exactly as you describe, and not to be trusted with such power. Meanwhile, “global” government may not be a good idea at all, as long as we’re all still stuck on this one planet. If anyone doesn’t like the rules, there is NO opportunity to do things differently. Something to consider…