My initial impression is that yes its new-agey and has that spiritualism-but-in-with-capitalism feel to it, but it has some amazingly salient points which, while I am frustrated to think they mean anything to me, theoretically could be useful to any number of high school or college students if they were willing to consider them rationally (as I was unable to heretofor).

Here is a passage that makes sense to me, and seems almost like a form of learning, even if I feel I ought to have known this for a very long time or even intuitively:

What is the very nature of a mental act, a symbolic occassion, a linguistic understanding, as it discloses itself intuitively or immediately to the mind’s eye? According to phenomenology, if one directly inquires into a mental act-an image, a symbol, a word, as one actually uses it-one will find that it intrinsically possesses intentionality or meaning; it has a native form or structure; and it is semiotic or symbolic. For, unlike the objects of sensibilia-rocks, photons, trees, and so on, which do not themselves possess meaning (in the sense that they do not symbolically represent or point to something other than themselves)-the objects of intelligibilia intrinsically possess meaning, value, or intentionality (i.e. a mental symbol or act carries the power to represent or point ot some other object or act). And the way you discover such meaning is via mental inquiry or interpretation, not sensory impact…Hamlet is not composed of electrons, molecules, wood, or zinc; it is composed of units of meaning...which disclose themselves not as sensibilia but as intelligibilia…Likewise phenomenology discloses that intelligibilia are…intrinsically intersubjective.

The Collected Works of Ken Wilbur, Volume 3: Eye to Eye, The Problem of Proof pp. 196-197

I have heard in various communities such as the Amazon.com book reviews and integralnaked.com (a Wilbur site) that some of his texts are very introductory which strikes me as condescending (and to sensitive people some of his books may seem as such), yet some of the content, even if it is slightly underneath the surface, or even if the implications are more about perspective than knowledge in some cases, is compelling in part because I have attempted philosophy of one kind or another without achieving anywhere near his level of notoriety.

Although much of Wilbur’s introductory work is not about metaphysics, it is frustrating to realize that it implicates a unity of prior metaphysics.

Certainly one of the best books I have read. I’m sure the nuances are mostly subconscious to me, but the fabulism-of which it is a classic example-is an inspiration of how myth can survive this milieu.

Although I have my doubts about the intentions of using women or a city as a metaphor, few books apparently have gotten so far using a strictly metaphorical framework, and for this reason it seems like pure gold.

The creative ingenuity is astonishing; particularly as an artist the landscapes, follies, and constructions are beyond wonder.

If I had a ticket to leave the planet for someplace better, this might be something I would take with me.