In an article about the lyricist Neil Peart from the band Rush http://www.egodeath.com/rushrand.htm, the central theme seems to be contained in this quote:

"Rand's concern is to affirm the ego. Wilber's concern and the rational mystic's concern is to affirm the ego, and transcend the ego, and preserve the ego while ceasing to identify with it and be limited to its worldview."

Unfortunately, I cannot agree with this comparison and contrast.  As Wilber forcefully points out, when we speak about affirming, transcending, "killing," preserving, identifying with, etc. “the ego," the first thing we must determine is what we mean by the term "ego."  He points out that there are more than five common/conventional uses for the term, and that's most arguments about “the ego” have to do with these different uses rather than inherent concepts.

In this sense in which Rand uses the term "ego," she means the "Self" of the individual, the point of consciousness that directs awareness and "thinks."  As she puts it "The spirit, however, is his self.  That entity that is his consciousness." This is virtually identical with the “Atman” self of Wilber.  The purpose of “ego transcendence” is to achieve Atman consciousness.  Rand calls this process “rationality.”

In fact, most all of Rand's philosophy is about transcending and including the "ego," in Wilber’s use of the term.  In the most common and consistent use of the word "ego" in Wilber’s work, the "ego" )or “ego state” is that sense of self that is created when we identify "who we are" with any particular aspect of our experience or a value.  Rand's entire philosophy is built on the conception that life is the source of values, and that the Self of the individual (their volitional consciousness) is the source and standard of human values.  It is not any particular value that is of ultimate importance, but how any particular value relates to that Self.

As Wilber would be the first point out, at each level of development, there is a distinct "ego sense" that must be transcended and included in the process of development.  In this sense, Rand's is not at all antithetical to Wilber’s view of transcending and including the ego. 

Rand might say (to translate it into more Wilberian language).  “To the degree any individual has identified their Self exclusively with one particular value (or set of values) or one particular aspect of their experience, they have "dropped context" of their nature as a human consciousness.  They are therefore acting irrationally.  In order to act maximally rational, one must keep the context that all particular values are of value to their "Self" and are without value otherwise.  When someone keeps this context, all of their "lesser ego" states, which create irrational emotions, are considered invalid sources of data, and not forms of truly "rational" cognition.  Instead, the rational individual has "transcended" all of these lesser ego states and considers all values in the context of their Self in relation to all of the particular values in their life."

For example, according to Wilber (and most “ego transcending “ traditions), a classic "ego state" that people learn to "transcend" is their identification of their “self” with their social status/reputation.  In other words, Peter Keating growing up.  Or, another classic "ego state" to overcome might be one's identification of self with one’s power over other people.  In other words Gail Wynand growing up.  Or, more subtly, one common "ego state" to transcend is identification with particular philosophical line of thought.  In other words, “the wet nurse/non absolute” in Rearden's mills recognizing that his postmodern philosophy, and the identity he had built around it, was not "who he was."  Rather, he "was" the person who would risk his life to save Rearden's mills 

Rand addressed this issue in significant detail in

 Roark's speech to Wynand on the nature of "the ego."  As he put it in summary, "In what to action of their life has ever been a 'Self.'"  Rand is not concerned with a "affirming the ego," in the small "identifying with any particular existent" sense, but with affirming the ego as "Self." 

The challenge with Neil Peart of Rush is not that he transcended Rand's philosophy, but that he never quite understood it, and left behind the straw man he had missed understood it to be.

Although Branden does not have a great reputation on this forum, in his book "honoring the self," he addresses this issue (and Wilber specifically) in some detail and with particular force.

Mark Michael Lewis