Ken Wilber's Spectrum Model
Leon Schlamm, Society For Indian Philosophy And Religion
Journal of Indian Philosophy and Religion 2004 DOI: 10.5840/jipr200495 (opens in new tab)
Study at a glance
AI-extracted from the abstract| Characteristics | Theoretical or philosophical paper Peer reviewed |
|---|---|
| Key points | Argues that Ken Wilber's spectrum model of mystical traditions privileges Cool, Structured traditions while distorting Hot and Unstructured soteriological paths, and that Wilber's claim that his model is supported by all major mystical traditions is therefore problematic. Drawing on Andrew Rawlinson's taxonomy of four authentic routes to spiritual emancipation, the author contends that Wilber's model, itself Cool and Structured, cannot adequately handle alternative paths. |
Abstract
Abstract I identify two problematic strands of Ken Wilber's transpersonal theory. First, I question Wilber's claim that his spectrum model is supported by the materials of all the world's major mystical traditions. I argue that his integral, hierarchical perspective privileges some traditions but distorts others. Drawing heavily upon Andrew Rawlinson's recent, taxonomic study of mystical traditions, which identifies four authentic routes to spiritual emancipation (Cool Structured, Cool Unstructred, Hot Structured and Hot Unstructured), I argue that while Wilber's model, itself Cool (the source of spiritual liberation lies within oneself) and Structured (developmental, hierarchical), provides a valuable cartography of transpersonal structures and states of consciousness, it cannot adequately handle the materials of the alternative, soteriological paths of Hot traditions (emphasising the numinous, and as other than oneself) and of Unstructured traditions (affirming that there can be no gradual, or progressi...