What do you think?
Rate this book
A Post-Truth World: Politics, Polarization, and a Vision for Transcending the Chaos
A piercing examination of our current social and political situation through the lens of Integral Theory—by the framework’s founder, cutting-edge philosopher Ken Wilber.
One of the greatest challenges of our time is the overwhelmingly divisive socio-political climate. Not only in America but also internationally, it seems that almost every issue raises incredibly vocal oppositional views. Not least of all, the persistence of former President Trump and his supporters to disseminate falsehoods through vast networks of disinformation are testaments to these deepening rifts. With so much hostility, antagonism, cynicism, and discord, how can we mend the ruptures in our society?
Acclaimed philosopher Ken Wilber examines these events through the lens of Integral Theory to show what led to these fractures, both in America and around the world—as well as what is needed for humanity to move forward. In his provocative analysis, he explains that the election of Donald Trump was an evolutionary self-correction that had been decades in the making. And he explores how the arising of support for an antagonistic authoritarian represents a backlash against the failure of those at the leading edge of consciousness (postmodernism and pluralism) to acknowledge the challenges that persist amidst our imagined to date, society has been not proven to be equal, and liberty and justice have not been consistent for all. But a new Integral force is emerging that can move beyond the narcissism, nihilism, and cynicism to offer genuine leadership and move us all toward greater wholeness.
One of the greatest challenges of our time is the overwhelmingly divisive socio-political climate. Not only in America but also internationally, it seems that almost every issue raises incredibly vocal oppositional views. Not least of all, the persistence of former President Trump and his supporters to disseminate falsehoods through vast networks of disinformation are testaments to these deepening rifts. With so much hostility, antagonism, cynicism, and discord, how can we mend the ruptures in our society?
Acclaimed philosopher Ken Wilber examines these events through the lens of Integral Theory to show what led to these fractures, both in America and around the world—as well as what is needed for humanity to move forward. In his provocative analysis, he explains that the election of Donald Trump was an evolutionary self-correction that had been decades in the making. And he explores how the arising of support for an antagonistic authoritarian represents a backlash against the failure of those at the leading edge of consciousness (postmodernism and pluralism) to acknowledge the challenges that persist amidst our imagined to date, society has been not proven to be equal, and liberty and justice have not been consistent for all. But a new Integral force is emerging that can move beyond the narcissism, nihilism, and cynicism to offer genuine leadership and move us all toward greater wholeness.
184 pages, Paperback
Published July 2, 2024
49 people are currently reading
1903 people want to read
About the author
Ken Wilber
225 books1,242 followersKenneth Earl Wilber II is an American philosopher and writer on transpersonal psychology and his own integral theory, a systematic philosophy which suggests the synthesis of all human knowledge and experience.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews
August 10, 2024
Ok ok.
I’ll admit it.
This is a pretty great book.
And…
I like Ken Wilber.
Even though he consistently aligns with loathsome people like: Adi Da, Genpo Roshi, Andrew Cohen and now…
Douglas Murray (whom I haven’t read, but already don’t like).
Admitting that I like Ken Wilber is a fearful thing (for me).
I like D&D too.
Although that is a much less shameful admission nowadays.
But admitting that you like Ken Wilber is (close to, but not quite as) fraught as writing a positive review of a Jordan Peterson book (which I did - see my review of Maps of Meaning). And/or a positive review of a Judith Buttler book (which I also did - see my reviewed of Gender Trouble and Who’s Afraid of Gender). Anyone who has done either of those things may know first hand, how much awful trolling that can make you the target of (I got flack from both sides).
But…
Whatever…
Here goes…
I actually love A LOT of Wilbers writing.
And I have for a LONG TIME.
I started reading Ken Wilber in 2001 beginning with his crucial Theory of Everything (ToE).
This was directly in the wake of 9/11. And the integral theory posited in ToE became the blueprint from which I understood the WTC attacks, and the (utterly surreal) effects it had on US and global politics and world view in the years to follow.
By 9/11 2001, I had been a serious meditation practitioner (beginning in and around 1989) for a little over a decade, culminating in a residence in India from 1993-1994 where in I did serious, extended silent retreat practices in a traditional Hindu context.
By 9/11 2001, I had also graduated from the San Francisco Art Institute (SAFI), and as such, had been THROUGHLY indoctrinated in postmodern theory and a pluralistic world view.
Additionally, I had been exposed to Francis Crick’s early work on the neurobiological origin of consciousness, and had become increasingly interested in neuroscience and evolutionary biology (particularly evolutionary psychology).
Wilbers ToE was absolutely CRITICAL for enabling my to integrate all of these (seemingly disparate) world views, cultural orientations and theoretical perspectives.
The effect was SO powerful, that I became very convinced, and (as previously mentioned) integral theory became the foundation of my philosophical operating system from that moment onwards.
Beginning in around 2004, I became disillusioned with the largely mythic/magic world view of my Hindu meditation teachers and practices, and I began meditating in a Buddhist Vhipassana orientation, under the tutelage of Shinzen Young (a science informed, very progressive meditation teacher).
Although integral theory dovetailed very well with Shinzen’s approach. Shinzen was unaware of Wilber’s work. It was not hard to translate between Wilber and Shinzen. But that translational work was Largely up to myself and another REALLY GOOD friend who introduced me to both Wilber and Shinzen, and was as such also aware of both. Other than that it was pretty much like being alone in the wilderness when it came to Wilber’s work. If any serious (non integral affiliated) thinkers know about him. They were being silent about it.
And the silence remains defining to this day.
In 2009 I began graduate training in at a Buddhist university outside Los Angeles, in psychology to become a therapist. I imported integral theory into that world. But I was basically alone in my efforts. Wilber was unknown in academia. And it became increasingly clear. That if I wanted to actually communicate with anyone in my field. I could (maybe) utilize integral theory as a foundation. But not explicitly. At least not without the burden of educating others in integral theory.
A seriously exhausting process. That pretty much (nearly entirely) fails to pay out. The point of all of this is. If you’re interested in integral theory. Prepare to be either (a) lonely, and/or (b) keeping company with some very kooky people. As Ken Wilber and his Integral crew tend to be odd ball “cult follower” types.
I personally stay (WAY) away from anything like that.
YUCK. None for me thanks.
That is a VERY LONG way of saying.
Wilber has LOTS of awesome to offer.
But…
And…
There is a lot about him and his work, and the (questionable) people he has surrounded himself with, that is…
Well…
Not so cute.
This is part of the reason I am graded about sharing my integral interests. I prefer not to be cast in that new age (creepy/cult) light.
As such.
Wilbers work is largely a guilty/private pleasure.
I stopped reading Wilber in around 2009.
But recently.
I have been intentionally reading texts from various spiritual/religious traditions. And this has ultimately led me back to Wilber. And I’m kind of catching up on the last decade and a half of his writings. This time with MUCH more of a critical stance. And MUCH less thirst for the KOOLAID.
This book was written in 2016 in the wake of TRUMPS first (and I personally dearly hope last) term. And I have to say. It’s ACTUALLY some of the best, most clear headed thinking and writing I have heard on TRUMP, and the CULTURE WAR.
The BIG problem is.
If you’re not already familiar with Wilber.
There will be a LOT of head scratching confusion to work through. And (a little to a lot) of subtle to whack as fuck nonsense to parse through.
I do not recommend this book as an introduction to Wilber and integral theory. I’m biased. But I still think ToE is the place to start with Wilber.
It’s short.
Read it first.
Then swing back on this book.
And be ready for the world (at least this current chapter) to suddenly make a bunch more sense.
I find Wilber to be more valuable as a descriptive, than as a prescriptive framework.
And.
I’m certainly not alone in this observation.
So don’t expect to find a lot of useful advice on what to do about our current predicament.
But again, Wilber’s integral framework is very clarifying (if you know how to use it). And clarity is VERY HELPFUL.
If anything. It’s UNDERRATED.
I ABSOLUTELY WILL NOT use this review as an opportunity to educate or critique integral theory.
No thanks (🙂↔️).
I’ll leave that up to yall.
But I will definitely recommend this book (and other Ken Wilber books starting with ToE).
However.
Consider yourself WARNED.
Wilber can be kooky/cringey.
And life as a Wilber reader can be lonesome.
4/5 STARS ⭐️
I’ll admit it.
This is a pretty great book.
And…
I like Ken Wilber.
Even though he consistently aligns with loathsome people like: Adi Da, Genpo Roshi, Andrew Cohen and now…
Douglas Murray (whom I haven’t read, but already don’t like).
Admitting that I like Ken Wilber is a fearful thing (for me).
I like D&D too.
Although that is a much less shameful admission nowadays.
But admitting that you like Ken Wilber is (close to, but not quite as) fraught as writing a positive review of a Jordan Peterson book (which I did - see my review of Maps of Meaning). And/or a positive review of a Judith Buttler book (which I also did - see my reviewed of Gender Trouble and Who’s Afraid of Gender). Anyone who has done either of those things may know first hand, how much awful trolling that can make you the target of (I got flack from both sides).
But…
Whatever…
Here goes…
I actually love A LOT of Wilbers writing.
And I have for a LONG TIME.
I started reading Ken Wilber in 2001 beginning with his crucial Theory of Everything (ToE).
This was directly in the wake of 9/11. And the integral theory posited in ToE became the blueprint from which I understood the WTC attacks, and the (utterly surreal) effects it had on US and global politics and world view in the years to follow.
By 9/11 2001, I had been a serious meditation practitioner (beginning in and around 1989) for a little over a decade, culminating in a residence in India from 1993-1994 where in I did serious, extended silent retreat practices in a traditional Hindu context.
By 9/11 2001, I had also graduated from the San Francisco Art Institute (SAFI), and as such, had been THROUGHLY indoctrinated in postmodern theory and a pluralistic world view.
Additionally, I had been exposed to Francis Crick’s early work on the neurobiological origin of consciousness, and had become increasingly interested in neuroscience and evolutionary biology (particularly evolutionary psychology).
Wilbers ToE was absolutely CRITICAL for enabling my to integrate all of these (seemingly disparate) world views, cultural orientations and theoretical perspectives.
The effect was SO powerful, that I became very convinced, and (as previously mentioned) integral theory became the foundation of my philosophical operating system from that moment onwards.
Beginning in around 2004, I became disillusioned with the largely mythic/magic world view of my Hindu meditation teachers and practices, and I began meditating in a Buddhist Vhipassana orientation, under the tutelage of Shinzen Young (a science informed, very progressive meditation teacher).
Although integral theory dovetailed very well with Shinzen’s approach. Shinzen was unaware of Wilber’s work. It was not hard to translate between Wilber and Shinzen. But that translational work was Largely up to myself and another REALLY GOOD friend who introduced me to both Wilber and Shinzen, and was as such also aware of both. Other than that it was pretty much like being alone in the wilderness when it came to Wilber’s work. If any serious (non integral affiliated) thinkers know about him. They were being silent about it.
And the silence remains defining to this day.
In 2009 I began graduate training in at a Buddhist university outside Los Angeles, in psychology to become a therapist. I imported integral theory into that world. But I was basically alone in my efforts. Wilber was unknown in academia. And it became increasingly clear. That if I wanted to actually communicate with anyone in my field. I could (maybe) utilize integral theory as a foundation. But not explicitly. At least not without the burden of educating others in integral theory.
A seriously exhausting process. That pretty much (nearly entirely) fails to pay out. The point of all of this is. If you’re interested in integral theory. Prepare to be either (a) lonely, and/or (b) keeping company with some very kooky people. As Ken Wilber and his Integral crew tend to be odd ball “cult follower” types.
I personally stay (WAY) away from anything like that.
YUCK. None for me thanks.
That is a VERY LONG way of saying.
Wilber has LOTS of awesome to offer.
But…
And…
There is a lot about him and his work, and the (questionable) people he has surrounded himself with, that is…
Well…
Not so cute.
This is part of the reason I am graded about sharing my integral interests. I prefer not to be cast in that new age (creepy/cult) light.
As such.
Wilbers work is largely a guilty/private pleasure.
I stopped reading Wilber in around 2009.
But recently.
I have been intentionally reading texts from various spiritual/religious traditions. And this has ultimately led me back to Wilber. And I’m kind of catching up on the last decade and a half of his writings. This time with MUCH more of a critical stance. And MUCH less thirst for the KOOLAID.
This book was written in 2016 in the wake of TRUMPS first (and I personally dearly hope last) term. And I have to say. It’s ACTUALLY some of the best, most clear headed thinking and writing I have heard on TRUMP, and the CULTURE WAR.
The BIG problem is.
If you’re not already familiar with Wilber.
There will be a LOT of head scratching confusion to work through. And (a little to a lot) of subtle to whack as fuck nonsense to parse through.
I do not recommend this book as an introduction to Wilber and integral theory. I’m biased. But I still think ToE is the place to start with Wilber.
It’s short.
Read it first.
Then swing back on this book.
And be ready for the world (at least this current chapter) to suddenly make a bunch more sense.
I find Wilber to be more valuable as a descriptive, than as a prescriptive framework.
And.
I’m certainly not alone in this observation.
So don’t expect to find a lot of useful advice on what to do about our current predicament.
But again, Wilber’s integral framework is very clarifying (if you know how to use it). And clarity is VERY HELPFUL.
If anything. It’s UNDERRATED.
I ABSOLUTELY WILL NOT use this review as an opportunity to educate or critique integral theory.
No thanks (🙂↔️).
I’ll leave that up to yall.
But I will definitely recommend this book (and other Ken Wilber books starting with ToE).
However.
Consider yourself WARNED.
Wilber can be kooky/cringey.
And life as a Wilber reader can be lonesome.
4/5 STARS ⭐️
September 25, 2025
Some good insights, but 190 pages felt like 1900. This could have been whittled down to a solid blog post. The golden nuggets can be summarized as follows:
* The lefty social justice movement (labeled as "green") has much to offer society, but it shoots itself in the foot by (1) imposing extremist versions of its beliefs upon everyone else, and (2) sneering at those who disagree. Thereby it alienates the other segments of society and places a bull's-eye on its own back.
* At first glance, Trump's election might seem puzzling, but in fact it's the natural outcome of how the lefty movement has conducted itself. It's not that Trump was great at uniting disparate elements of society. Rather, it's that the lefty movement had already earned the animosity of all these disparate elements, and Trump knew how to capitalize off that.
* Two possible pathways out of our current mess: (1) The lefty movement eats humble pie, stops being self-righteous, and strives to embrace other segments of society with compassion and a genuine desire to understand... OR: (2) A new contingent emerges among the top-10% most enlightened members of society, who will take the lead in building a more evolved, inclusive movement that integrates the concerns of all sides.
This is a truly interesting and promising set of claims. I just wish Wilber had actually fleshed it out with care and depth, rather than simply repeating the same claims over and over, chapter after chapter (while compulsively spamming the reader with long-winded parenthetical asides).
Reading this book felt like being stuck in class with a brainy professor who knows a lot and has great ideas and loves to talk, but can't be bothered to organize his thoughts and communicate them effectively.
Some questions I would ask Wilber:
* You keep referring to "green" and "orange" and "amber" etc. as if these were actual political parties, or demographic groups, or entities. But they aren't. In the context of an election that actually happened, these designations are too abstract to be meaningful. Who do you mean? Can you map these onto actual entities that exist, using examples?
* You keep saying that "green" needs to "heal itself" and realize that it needs to lead the other segments with compassion rather than judgment. But what does this even mean? And how does this make sense within the developmental spiral framework - since every first-tier stage, by definition, thinks it's the best and the others are wrong?
* The lefty social justice movement (labeled as "green") has much to offer society, but it shoots itself in the foot by (1) imposing extremist versions of its beliefs upon everyone else, and (2) sneering at those who disagree. Thereby it alienates the other segments of society and places a bull's-eye on its own back.
* At first glance, Trump's election might seem puzzling, but in fact it's the natural outcome of how the lefty movement has conducted itself. It's not that Trump was great at uniting disparate elements of society. Rather, it's that the lefty movement had already earned the animosity of all these disparate elements, and Trump knew how to capitalize off that.
* Two possible pathways out of our current mess: (1) The lefty movement eats humble pie, stops being self-righteous, and strives to embrace other segments of society with compassion and a genuine desire to understand... OR: (2) A new contingent emerges among the top-10% most enlightened members of society, who will take the lead in building a more evolved, inclusive movement that integrates the concerns of all sides.
This is a truly interesting and promising set of claims. I just wish Wilber had actually fleshed it out with care and depth, rather than simply repeating the same claims over and over, chapter after chapter (while compulsively spamming the reader with long-winded parenthetical asides).
Reading this book felt like being stuck in class with a brainy professor who knows a lot and has great ideas and loves to talk, but can't be bothered to organize his thoughts and communicate them effectively.
Some questions I would ask Wilber:
* You keep referring to "green" and "orange" and "amber" etc. as if these were actual political parties, or demographic groups, or entities. But they aren't. In the context of an election that actually happened, these designations are too abstract to be meaningful. Who do you mean? Can you map these onto actual entities that exist, using examples?
* You keep saying that "green" needs to "heal itself" and realize that it needs to lead the other segments with compassion rather than judgment. But what does this even mean? And how does this make sense within the developmental spiral framework - since every first-tier stage, by definition, thinks it's the best and the others are wrong?
September 27, 2024
If you are feeling like all of the available explanations of the culture war in America fail to explain why Trump won in 2016, why DEI is failing despite beautiful intentions, and why the Democratic party preaches tolerance, yet sees a significant portion of the country as being intolerably 'deplorable', then this book is for you.
Wilber brings a much needed developmental lens to the state of American culture, politics and far beyond.
Wilber brings a much needed developmental lens to the state of American culture, politics and far beyond.
Read
April 21, 2025A Post-Truth World 100% shifted the way I view the current divisiveness in the American political landscape. Wilber uses an evolutionary lens to explain the differences in views between Americans, particularly in the aftermath of Trump's election to office. It definitely made me reflect on my perspective of those with different views. I'm willing to admit that my longtime opinion has been one of outright dislike towards those who think differently. Wilber says that in order for there to be a path forward, there has to be understanding and acceptance from green (or current individuals who have "liberal" opinions). I see why he says that – but it’s hard to find any compassion for people who outright wish harm on groups of people (transgender, Black, queer, etc.). I'm really glad that I read this. I think that everyone should read this, especially if you're at all open to attempting to understand the reason why America looks the way that it does politically. While this might not be the only explanation (or even necessarily the "right" one), it definitely allowed me to see things through a different lens.
December 26, 2024
Even more prescient than when it was first published in 2017 after the first Trump victory. Honestly, Wilbur annoys the crap out of me *and* he makes a ton of sense especially in terms of how we got here, so he’s worth wrestling with.
December 28, 2024
Such wordy, sloppy thinking... the tone reminded me of Asimov's "cheerful self-appreciation."
By page 20, Wilber presented as a Hegelian who had not addressed (much less resolved) the philosophical and practical challenges that Marx raised when young. By page 91, Wilber references Hegel positively. In general, Wilber has some interesting and perhaps useful (but not particularly original) things to say at the psychological and interpersonal levels. In my read, he goes back and forth between not actually making a case for the claims he makes on the one hand and stating things that seem to indicate that he has spent too much time in academia (for all his criticisms of same) and isn’t able to accurately assess reality off-campus.
For example, on P71, he presents Hilary Clinton as an avatar of green/post-modern/egalitarian values where her actual impact in the world (outside of the “deplorables” quote which Wilber gets right imo) was to facilitate military coups, expand the prison industrial complex, and torpedo health care reform.
In general, when he addresses the spirit of the 1960s upheaval he paints that as solely a question of counter-cultural hippies and identity politics gurus and ignores anti-colonial revolutions as well as various strands of Marxism or even trade union militancy. (see p22). He engages Marxism only as a cult (and there are certainly people claim to be Marxists who make that easy enough) and never as a system of thought (see p 126)
On p42 and 115-116, he repeats AI intellectuals faith in the coming of a universal basic income because it is a good idea with no acknowledgment of the class structures that make those who own AI and industry materially opposed to such things. If the author read up on the actual history of how the 8-hour day or the weekend came to be it should be enough to cure him of these errors except that he seems incredibly committed to maintaining them.
On P54 he gives Obama advice on how he should have run the empire which he seems to not be opposed to maintaining. Elsewhere he complains that many of the anti-Vietnam war protesters were not sufficiently developmentally advanced to earn his admiration. He frequently mentions business (see 117) incorporating new paradigms as if capitalism is sustainable and not a barrier to the values he (sometimes) suggests he agrees with.
You think he’d do better with assessing faith traditions but in practice the author is just as committed to plugging them into his developmental boxes regardless of actual text or history (e.g., he identifies all “great” religions as ethnocentric and unable to care for people not in their in-group ignoring that as far back as Hebrew scriptures the command to love the stranger/immigrant as oneself was central and connected to a directive to be empathic based on one’s own experience of being “strangers” in the land of Egypt – never mind the Hebrew prophets).
P82 He makes the arguably accurate criticism that the “greens” don’t have a workable strategy to advance but then he doesn’t have a particularly strong argument on that point either. (His clearest articulation of his priorities can be found on p109: “It takes more than just pointing at exteriors and emotionally pronouncing them all one. It takes the interior growth, evolution, and development of each and every person.”)
On P99 (and intermittently throughout) he says some true things about the ways the left eats its young and the ways the elitist scorn of some segments of the left are self-defeating. But others have said it much better including Adrienne Marie Brown (also look out for the soon to be published book by Vanessa Priya Daniel, Unrig the Game) or Michael Lerner as far back as the Kerry/Bush election. Of course, one could also look at Rosa Luxemburg or Amilcar Cabral among others who were actually embedded in mass struggles for writings on how to overcome these tensions. Wilber doesn’t seem to credit people’s capacity for growth exactly in the midst of social struggle as opposed to as recipient of empathic mentoring. I do find some of his statements useful in orienting interpersonal attitudes organizers should have: “The leading-edge cannot lead if it despises those whom it is supposed to lead.” P113 (also see 111 or p147: “The only real choices that we have lie within, in our capacity to form and mold our own philosophy and worldview.”)). He seems to fault those that try to engage in actual struggle for attempting to change the world directly when for Wilber it seems that the point is to understand the world (in a very particular way) and then that understanding will become contagious and change the world as if by osmosis.
By page 20, Wilber presented as a Hegelian who had not addressed (much less resolved) the philosophical and practical challenges that Marx raised when young. By page 91, Wilber references Hegel positively. In general, Wilber has some interesting and perhaps useful (but not particularly original) things to say at the psychological and interpersonal levels. In my read, he goes back and forth between not actually making a case for the claims he makes on the one hand and stating things that seem to indicate that he has spent too much time in academia (for all his criticisms of same) and isn’t able to accurately assess reality off-campus.
For example, on P71, he presents Hilary Clinton as an avatar of green/post-modern/egalitarian values where her actual impact in the world (outside of the “deplorables” quote which Wilber gets right imo) was to facilitate military coups, expand the prison industrial complex, and torpedo health care reform.
In general, when he addresses the spirit of the 1960s upheaval he paints that as solely a question of counter-cultural hippies and identity politics gurus and ignores anti-colonial revolutions as well as various strands of Marxism or even trade union militancy. (see p22). He engages Marxism only as a cult (and there are certainly people claim to be Marxists who make that easy enough) and never as a system of thought (see p 126)
On p42 and 115-116, he repeats AI intellectuals faith in the coming of a universal basic income because it is a good idea with no acknowledgment of the class structures that make those who own AI and industry materially opposed to such things. If the author read up on the actual history of how the 8-hour day or the weekend came to be it should be enough to cure him of these errors except that he seems incredibly committed to maintaining them.
On P54 he gives Obama advice on how he should have run the empire which he seems to not be opposed to maintaining. Elsewhere he complains that many of the anti-Vietnam war protesters were not sufficiently developmentally advanced to earn his admiration. He frequently mentions business (see 117) incorporating new paradigms as if capitalism is sustainable and not a barrier to the values he (sometimes) suggests he agrees with.
You think he’d do better with assessing faith traditions but in practice the author is just as committed to plugging them into his developmental boxes regardless of actual text or history (e.g., he identifies all “great” religions as ethnocentric and unable to care for people not in their in-group ignoring that as far back as Hebrew scriptures the command to love the stranger/immigrant as oneself was central and connected to a directive to be empathic based on one’s own experience of being “strangers” in the land of Egypt – never mind the Hebrew prophets).
P82 He makes the arguably accurate criticism that the “greens” don’t have a workable strategy to advance but then he doesn’t have a particularly strong argument on that point either. (His clearest articulation of his priorities can be found on p109: “It takes more than just pointing at exteriors and emotionally pronouncing them all one. It takes the interior growth, evolution, and development of each and every person.”)
On P99 (and intermittently throughout) he says some true things about the ways the left eats its young and the ways the elitist scorn of some segments of the left are self-defeating. But others have said it much better including Adrienne Marie Brown (also look out for the soon to be published book by Vanessa Priya Daniel, Unrig the Game) or Michael Lerner as far back as the Kerry/Bush election. Of course, one could also look at Rosa Luxemburg or Amilcar Cabral among others who were actually embedded in mass struggles for writings on how to overcome these tensions. Wilber doesn’t seem to credit people’s capacity for growth exactly in the midst of social struggle as opposed to as recipient of empathic mentoring. I do find some of his statements useful in orienting interpersonal attitudes organizers should have: “The leading-edge cannot lead if it despises those whom it is supposed to lead.” P113 (also see 111 or p147: “The only real choices that we have lie within, in our capacity to form and mold our own philosophy and worldview.”)). He seems to fault those that try to engage in actual struggle for attempting to change the world directly when for Wilber it seems that the point is to understand the world (in a very particular way) and then that understanding will become contagious and change the world as if by osmosis.
February 22, 2025
If you're having troubles with the 2025 USA election, read this book
I'm one of the millions of Americans who have been deeply troubled by the potus results and the subsequent actions taking place so massively and rapidly as to be disorienting and troubling which is what led me to purchase this book and read and listen to it in 2-3 days. I'm much calmer and at peace now and I think it will last. If it doesn't I pull my book and audio back out and read again. I think it was helpful that I'm familiar with Wilbur's integral approach. ?The terminology can be daunting but worth the effort.
I'm one of the millions of Americans who have been deeply troubled by the potus results and the subsequent actions taking place so massively and rapidly as to be disorienting and troubling which is what led me to purchase this book and read and listen to it in 2-3 days. I'm much calmer and at peace now and I think it will last. If it doesn't I pull my book and audio back out and read again. I think it was helpful that I'm familiar with Wilbur's integral approach. ?The terminology can be daunting but worth the effort.
January 27, 2025
A lot of new concepts to absorb, but with some help from Perplexity I managed to navigate most of it, likely at a superficial level. But as most of the key concepts presented failed to pass the “sniff” test, probs won’t bother to dig deeper. Though I was tempted to read the first 100 pages of ToE a before moving on.
But 3 stars for not being awful, and introducing me to some new theories.
But 3 stars for not being awful, and introducing me to some new theories.
October 6, 2025
Interesting concepts which fit current political discourse and provide a reasonable explanation for polarisation. The philosophy provides a broad approach to take corrective action and left me wanting more. Felt frustrated by the amount of repetition in the book and lack of meaty substance to what the answer (Integral Theory) actually is!
December 13, 2024
This book is the best interpretation of our current political situation in the United States as we transition our Presidency. It is heavy and having an elemental understanding of integral theory is highly recommended. Nevertheless, Ken nails it.
April 20, 2025
If one is willing to abstract the many terms Ken Wilber invented, this book has a really profound message for everyone who considers him/herself above the "uneducated" who dared to elect Trump: Show true compassion, otherwise your loss of leadership will be permanent.
November 20, 2025
very arogant book anticipating that the whole world depends on cultural wars in the US. Historical asuumptions are incorect and incomplete. Very shallow philosophy full of incorect generalisations.
P.S. why people write so many pages having so little to say?
P.S. why people write so many pages having so little to say?
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews