Most of the readers of this blog will be famliar with Integral World, the site maintained by Frank Visser that is the only home for serious critique of Ken Wilber’s version of integral theory. Until recently, the site has been explicitely Wilber-centric and Frank was reportedly reluctant to widen the scope to other integral traditions.
But in his latest editorial reflecting on the spin-offs of the Wilber rant, Frank Visser has made the momentous decision of opening up his site to the totality of integral traditions. This is therefore an open invitation to send your essays to Frank.
Here’s the quote:
“Starting today, Integral World will proceed with a different focus: a wider definition of integral, including and transcending Ken Wilber. As a start, read part one of Alan Kazlev’s series: “Towards a larger definition of the integral. Part One: Historical and Comparative use of Integral”“.
Let’s remember that integral philosophy is wider then Ken Wilber’s version of it – a fact he readily acknowledges – and that other versions of it can and should be explored. But also, I would like to add, that a critical analysis of Wilber’s theoretical proposals outside of the in-group context of the integral organizations, would be very timely. So not only “integrally informed”, but “sceptically informed” as well.”
To get a sense of the depth and span of integral thought, see the wikipedia entry at the following: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_thought
And if anyone here knows of further integral thinkers that should be added to that page, please do so! (anyone can contribute to Wikipedia, you don’t have top be a registered member)
I am skeptical about the skeptical analysis.
Its not really about ‘Integral’ is it? I mean thats just a lable to put on the ‘worldview’/'perspective’ one has when operating from a leading/bleeding edge level of ‘development’ – you know, TierII, turqoiuse, transrational, etc etc.
focus on the word integral, previous uses etc, would seem to miss the point, but hey thats said before actually reading the post.
and how does one deal with skeptical critiques that are centered somewhere below tierII, turqoiuse, integral, etc? I mean the skeptic won’t know they are missing the entire point because they can’t even see the territority, right?
Should be intresting for awhile at least
Ok, I went ahead and read the Alan Kazlev article. It was a a bit of a let down. It has some intresting points and I learned about Aurobindo someone I had always thought I should check out, but a good deal of it was a vehicle for ‘wilber-bashing’ – a term and tactic we seem to be starting to see more often.
I’ve never ever particapted in integral discussion, but I went ahead and asked Frank to posted a response/reaction to Allan K’s post.
Im going to copy it here, but Mr Moderator – if its inappropriate, to long, duplicative – I’ll understand. If Frank does post it Ill simply out a link here.
(Since my name is also Allan – I use the term ‘the author’ in the following – meaning no disrespect to either Allan )
The authors posting has several mixed agendas, though it avoids for the most part getting to muddled and overlapping. Throughout there is this unfortunate need to ‘wilber-bash’ which does muddle and take away from the work.
One aspect of the posting is focused on the emerging (or emergent) use/meaning of the word ‘Integral’, current problems and some paths forward. Summarizing that aspect as best I can follows:
—The Problem with Integral:
The word Integral has been become too directly associated with the work of KW, resulting in a co-opting’ of the word and the use by other honorable/valued people/groups/being lost, left out, or misunderstood.
(There is in fact an ‘Integral-Aurobindo’, an ‘Integral-Gebser’, an ‘Integral-Wilber,’ an ‘Integral-Chaudhuri’, etc, etc. There are also views/people/groups that are break-away, off-shoots, in opposition to, Integral-Wilber that also use the term Integral.)
Everyone, even KW, agrees that Integral should be, bigger then just KW
—Proposals:
- Start pre-pending the word Wilberian before Integral when referring to KW derivatives
(ex Wilberian Integral Theory, Wilberian Integral Movement)
- Start using ‘Integral Theory’ in the definition of the California Institute of Integral Studies (CIIS)
- Start using ‘Integral Movement’ to include anyone that uses the word Integral in a philosophical, social, psychological, spiritual or related context
In regards to point 2 (CIIS) why? Seems like ‘different station same song’ – the only rational is they are ‘better’ people and I guess deserve it?
There does seem to be an occasional attempt of ‘the my guru is more true then yours’ with references to Aurobindo’s use of the word Integral. While not collected together the author presents the following as aspects of a ‘true’ integral understanding:
A true integral understanding:
1 goes beyond Intellectualism, modernity and post-modernity
2 enters into the heart and soul of things,
3 incorporates the physical, emotional, mental, spiritual, and divine being
4 should not be vague – or by corollary- it should be clear, explicit, detailed
But now we start diverging from the issue of the use of the word Integral and start looking at the Wilberian Integral Theory.
First, in the above definition of a true integral understanding the clear implication is that Wilber works, AQAL, none of it goes beyond ‘intellectual.’
It appears the critique is that the Wilberian Integral Models are primarily UR, and have no interiors, no UL? Not arguing the assertion, just trying to clarify/understand it.
The author looks for a Wilberian definition of Integral the author looks at a KW quote (below):
“Like all truly great integral thinkers – from Aurobindo to Gebser to Whitehead to Baldwin to Habermas – he (Abraham Maslow) was a developmentalist.”
The idea being that since they are al ‘integral’ thinkers, if we can find a common ‘thread’ in their thinking we will have deduced a definition of Integral. However, the author asserts that Aurobindo, Gebser, Whitehead, Baldwin, Habermas, and Maslow in fact have nothing so common in their thinking. Since the author can not ‘see’ any common thread he concludes KW just throws the term Integral around aimlessly – an opportunity for ‘wilber-bashing’
Personally I always thought KW mean that these folks were working from a Tier-II, or integrally informed level – at least in the cognitive line – this would be the ‘thread’ – their level/stage of development. From this reference point I read KW’s quote as implying that a perspective common at the Tier-II ‘stage’ is seeing a developmental, perhaps evolutionary, aspect of life, humanity, etc. Which may or may not be true, however the author doesn’t address.
Perhaps it should be fair to point out that the author does make these kind of disclaimers:
(these are summaries and paraphrased but I feel accurate and true to what is being said)
I am not, and do not claim to be, any sort of authority on Ken Wilber, I am not very well read in Wilber’s works, nor interested in understanding or reading these works (to long, to repetitive, etc) and lastly;
I do not respect Wilber as an intellectual equal
“so it may be that many of my comments here are totally in error. If so, I welcome feedback and corrections.â€Â
“But I will critique anyway†– OK he didn’t say that, but that’s the implicit statement being made.
Also there is the: (paraphrased)
“I am familiar enough with Wilber, and deeply aware of Aurobindo’s work, to compare and contrast the two”
Which results in how Wilber doesn’t ‘get it’ and seems to confirm the surface level understanding of AQAL the author claims he has. In this section it is painfully obvious he basically wants to show how Aurobindo is better/truer/superior to Wilber. But I also get a bit confused here. First, isn’t a comparison of Aurobinian Integral with Wilberian Integral Theory sorta like comparing apples and oranges?
I don’t understand these things all that well, but it seems like the scope of Wilberian Integral Theory – meaning AQAL, stages, states, lines, types, quadrants, – might, or should be able to encompass Aurobindo’s Integral Yoga/Worldview. It also seems like they do not have the same ‘design center’, try to solve the same ‘problem set.’ Is this what the author means when he says ‘the two are different in style, approach, and content’? Or when he says Aurobindo ‘is not interested in presenting an intellectual “theory of everythingâ€Â’ , which is exactly what AQAL is about, isn’t it?
Ok, so very different people, very different agendas, very different uses of the word Integral, I get all that. So why continue to compare/contrast the two? If the point is Wilber doesn’t understand Aurobindo, ok! Wilber may well misunderstand Aurobindo, he may have well mapped Aurobindo onto the ‘framework’ inappropriately, I can grant that and would have to dig in deeper to even comment. But what basis is that to compare apples and oranges?
As example:
“Aurobindo refers to only four generic stages (matter, life, mind, and Supermind which is the Absolute), whilst Wilber has about twenty distinct subdivisions (albeit within similar general divisions) through which consciousness has to evolve. “
Heh? From what I’ve seen the AQAL based model/map of samsara doesn’t ‘have’ 20, 4, or any specific number of subdivisions. It’s a framework in which other models can ‘sit’ – with their 4, 20, 3, 50 subdivisions. Sure when using the framework, or describing its general aspects, one might choose some of the more common descriptions – 4 subdivision, say or 20 depending on the conversation. But ‘AQAL has 20 subdivisions’ – is a phrase that I don’t get? It could be me, it could be confusing the map with the territory?
Closing on one last point, where the author repeatedly asserts Wilber is stuck at intellect, and empirical methodologies, the eye of body or the eye of mind, and denies Wilber’s views/insights into the eye of spirit – well its not at all my personal experience with his body of work, teachings, or to be more accurate his integrated synthesis of many teachings. It would I guess be the natural conclusion of someone that was only observing Wilber at an intellectual level.
Thanks for your site! the time and effort it must take to provide the space are appreciated.
Allan Hardy