Open Integral

Michel Bauwens:

I’m leaving the definition of integral for later. But here is what I mean by open.

In my own ‘pet’ peer to peer theory, I see 3 paradigms emerging. The first, the free and open paradigm refers to the fact that the raw material for free cultural exchange must be freely available, not protected from free use by copyright. The second paradigm of participation seeks the broadest possible participation of all, on a peer to peer basis, in cultural creation. Finally, the Commons-related paradigm seeks to protect common creation from private appropriation, which in turn generates new open and free material. The circle of the circulation of the common is hereby ready for a new cycle.

So the open in integral is in part a reaction against those traditions that call themselves integral, but are not open to a free exchange of ideas about them, that do not accept criticism. Second, the participatory aspect is also absent in traditions that seek the creation of a cognitive and spiritual elite that codifies critical speech as inferior to their own, thereby precluding participation; finally, it refers to attempts to use the integral in a privatising way, by trademarking certain parts of it, and using the integral paradigm to build a commercial fortress. For the moment, I believe that the Integral Institute for example, exhibits these three criteria and therefore cannot qualify as ‘open integral’.

In a more general sense, open integral means recognizing that integral is not one particular movement, but a broad cultural reality of all those who are able to use multiple perspectives, that are subjective-objective in their approach to reality. In this sense, there are many integral traditions, many integral authors, but at present, there seem to be little communication between them. Do the followers of Bhaskar talk about Morin, know about Gebser? Do Wilberians know about Edgar Morin? The answer is pretty obvious: they don’t. We need a forum where these different traditions can interconnect, and in my opinion, this is the main priority of Open Integral as a new platform for dialogue between all these different integral and integrative traditions.

Note that this second interpretation of open, balances out the first one. The first one excludes, creates boundaries, protects a open definition of integralism from appropriation; but the second seek a dialogue amongst the different schools. This second interpretation allows us to discuss the insights of all traditions, even though the openness in the first sense, might be problematic for some.

What does “Open Integral” mean? Specifically, what does it mean to use “open” as in “open source” as a verb, noun, adjective, and all within the context of “integral?”

Many will have something to contribute to this. I look forward to hearing from them!

This is the public blog of openIntegral, a community exploring all things integral, both wide and deep. I leave definitions deliberately vague in this first post as i expect there to be debate on what integral thought really is. Other tools on their way soon, plus perhaps a change to this blog template.

(pic from a trip to buy some herbs from the Noordermarkt in Amsterdam)