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.
hi michel,
great you gave the kick-off here.
i’ll be brief.
Since I like to think in opposites, let’s focus on what CLOSED INTEGRAL would mean (and means), and we know what we don’t want.
you summarized it pretty well.
frank
What does open integral mean? Why are we here? We will discover that together as we go along.
The adjective “open†indicates to me “open source.†Wikepedia: “The open source model can allow for the concurrent use of different agendas and approaches in production, in contrast with more centralized models of development.†So one aspect of what we’re doing is a collaborative experiment in peer production.
Dictionary.com defines “integral†this way: “adj. 1. Essential or necessary for completeness; constituent. 2. Possessing everything essential; entire. n. 3. A complete unit; a whole.†So it is an essential constituent and also a complete whole, or holon.
So let’s see how we individual holons interact in this social holonic experiment. Welcome and bon voyage!
Hey Frank,
I took your idea for “closed integral” and I created a blog posting based on that. Of course, my “Proposal for collaboration” could apply as “closed” example of almost group effort.
Just a few comments:
First it will be good to get away from any sort of reliance, other than the most minor, on the Wilberian paradigm. KW is much more a collector of the ideas of others (which he then misinterprets) then an original thinker, so it is better to go to his original references (e.g. holon derives from Jan Smuts and following him Arthur Koestler, the “big three” are from Habermas (and i think before him Max Weber), the right side of the AQAL quadrant is from Erich Jantsch, etc). And especially following his “Wyatt Earp” post he has shown unfortunate cultic tendencies; very “closed integral” indeed, to use Frank’s term!
Sri Aurobindo and the Mother, Stan Grof, Teilhard de Chardin, Rudolph Steiner, Erich Jantsch, Edward Haskell, William Irwin Thompson, and many others, including the philosophers Michel mentioned, are a few among many good reference points for an integral paradigm or meta-paradigm; which, of course, being integral, has to include all of them!
“Open Integral” is a very good meme: a bringing together of two powerful meta-paradigms. And I very much like Michels suggestion of a forum that can bring them all together! You know, this is what the Wilberian movement, Integral Institute, Cohen’s evolutionary enlightenment, etc should have been. And they had the potential to be (this attracted me to their web sites and ideas before i knew about the cultic side of it); imagine what they would have achieved! But somehow they missed the boat; well just as well for the larger integral movement! It means we can get things right where they went wrong!
Open to me means that the boundary between internal and external is fluid, dynamic, ambiguous and multidimensional.
One question: is the fact that we moderate comments consistent with our notion of “open.” Who is the decider of what is noise, and what is not? Do we need this level of protection from ourselves, from our critics, from the spammers? Can the ability to moderate comments be shared, open source style, as well?
While the Earpy business has freaked me with regard to Wilber, I do like KW’s definition of Integral in Boomeritis, which is …
Integral: the word means to integrate, to bring together, to join, to link, to embrace. Not in the sense of uniformity, and not in the sense of ironing out all the wonderful differences, colors, zigs and zags of a rainbow-hued humanity, but in the sense of unity-in-diversity, shared commonalities along with our wonderful differences: replacing rancor with mutual recognition, hostility with respect, inviting everybody into the tent of mutual understanding. Not that I have to agree with everything you say, but I should attempt at least to understand it, for the opposite of mutual understanding is, quite simply, war.
– Ken Wilber in Boomeritis, pg 15