Kazlev disagrees with Ken's description

integralisms
Spending more time in the last couple of weeks with the so-called Wilber critics. Although critics really isn't the right word because many hold a great deal in common with Ken. Just wanted to put down some observations on different thinkers.I'm gonig to do a bit of categorization, which by nature is a limiting enterprise--no substitute for in-depth exploration of one's own. Also it's not a universal list. Also these are observations; this is not a defense of AQAL or whatever. Just exploring the interaction between the theories for now--and trying to stay away from the egoic-personality stuff on all sides. In subsequent posts, I'll go back highlighting one/two in particular.The two best sources for most (not all) of the thinkers covered: integralworld and openintegral. Otherwise, source is linked.In no particular order...

1. Metaphysicians: Frank Visser and Alan Kazlev.

When Frank stays away from pathetic posts about how Ken shouldn't use the word "simply" and sticks with the real thrust/passion of his writings, it invovles a neo-Perennialism. His main criticisms then are to do with Wilber-5, the so-called postmetaphysical writings. Or what Ken, within those writings, calls this naturalistic turn.

Alan Kazlev. Neo-Aurobindian. Kazlev disagrees with Ken's description of Sri Aurobindo. It generally revolves around a similar issue with Frank--the labeling of Aurobdino as meta-physical and Wilber-5 as post-metaphysical. posted by CJ Smith @ 9:04 AM