One of the topics that I think should be central on this blog, is the referencing of integral thinkers and schools, and stimulating dialogue between them.
So I will start by proposing a few candidates that explicitely attempt at a subjective-objective approach to reality.
Today’s candidate is well-known, Giddens, but I have seen him mentioned as integral.
However, according to Natalie Pang’s description of Structuration Theory, that would definitely be the case. I suggest you read the entry.
Here just a quick citation to show the gist of the argument:
“The study of technologies typically involves two broad traditions of assumptions: social reality as subjective or objective (Orlikowoski and Robey, 1991). This opposition in theory is reflected in the assumption of social systems (of which information technologies are part) as the result of ‘meaningful human behaviour’, representing social realities as subjective; while the other focuses on the organisational aspects of social systems, independent of and constraining human actions, representing social realities as being objective (Bhaskar, c.f. Orlikowoski and Robey, 1991).
Research assuming the subjectivity of social systems focuses on subjective human experiences, interpretation of them, and elements of human behaviour modifying the world. The contrasting view of objectivism focuses on the properties of institutional elements shaping social systems, providing explanations for their influences on human actions and relationships.
This seemingly dichotomous view of social systems is seen by Giddens as problematic. Giddens (1979), who asserted that the grounds of mutual exclusiveness between subjectivism and objectivism is flawed, developed the theory of structuration to accommodate the two traditions. Structuration theory views the subjectivity and objectivity of social realities as equally important. According to structuration theory, cultural context is generated and regenerated through the interplay of action and structure. It recognises that ‘man actively shapes the world he lives in at the same time as it shapes him’ (Giddens, 1986).
(picture courtesy of Wikipedia)
I\’d suggest that Giddens contribution has much more to do with the individual-collective issue than the subjective-objective. Anthony Giddens is a seminal figure in organisation theory because his ideas dealt with, what\’s called the agency-structure problem – essentailly the issue of causality in social domains. Is the social world (structure) the result of the activity of individual agencts or the result of the impact/influence of structural power over agents? His most important contribution is in showing how micro and macro processes are co-creative. Structuration theory focuses on the reciprocal interaction of human agents and organisational structures. Structuration is a process that links the micro world of human agency and the macro world of social structures such that organisational life can be investigated as a continual process of structuring and dynamic activity. Hence, for integral theory, his theory has most relevance to the linking of individual and collective events and subjects/objects. This whole area is begging for much deeper analysis by integral theorists. Luhman is another theorist that is highly relevant to this topic.
Reading through the Integral Thinkers, I came across four little words, which, as I had sadly established, stayed without any reaction, like the most important points generally do. The words were uttered by Matthew and sounded: How about Integral Pragmatism?
As I heartily agree, let us be integral and pragmatic, starting with some definitions, which are open for a rational debate.
“Integralism” is not a movement, not a theory and not a fashion. “Integralism” is a misnomer without substance. Movements, ism-s, collective organisations are there for the uniformisation of thoughts and behaviours, for the prevention of individual thinking and the promotion of dependence and of belonging; for the replacement of rational thinking with irrational believes.
The word “integral” is an adjective referring, in this context, to a general, fundamental worldview and a related way of integrated – as against differentiated, fractional, specialised – thinking. It involves the summa Being and Becoming integrated from alpha to omega.
The process needs a subject: an integral thinker; an object(ive): the research of the integral reality, or, more precisely expressed, reality in its integrality; and a verb defining the action and methodology: the intellectual processing and integrating the largest spectrum of knowledge – processed and understood sensational and intuitional input – as only possible.
Pragmatism, in this context and very simply expressed means that one should be reason-seeking, system-seeking, technology-seeking and rational, and that if one wants to produce a baby, one doesn’t try to do it by masturbating.
Sensation, intellect and intuition are the three basic complementary components forming the contents of consciousness.
Sensation covers the physical or somatic, the plasmic, the vital and the emotional content of consciousness. Sensory consciousness helps us to discover and know our physical universe at the three-dimensional level of existence, but is a hindrance in our efforts to know about what lays outside of it, and to know what is within ourselves. By considering the material of the sensory perception to be the only reflection of Reality, and limiting himself thus to sensory consciousness, to bodily awareness – to sensory and emotional reality – man has built a merely conceptual and totally abstract universe for himself.
Intuition, the spiritual and monadic content of consciousness, is the highest achievement of the mind. It is an expanded state reaching out of the consciousness time-zone of the physical dimension into superior levels of being through concentrated, inward turned reflective thinking: meditation. The transcendental experience, going beyond the sense-perception and concept, accessible to intuition, is an experience of a higher dimension. The higher the awareness, the clearer is the understanding of one’s universality and the unity in diversity nature of the All. It is a mystical state, a higher apprehension of Reality; “a flight of the alone to the Alone” – as defined by Plotinus citing the closing lines of the Ennead. It is a contact with the spiritual heights in order to bring them to expression through creative activity, and to enrich the properties of the lower dimensions. The spectrum of the intuitive perception includes from the super-sensory perception of by the physical sensors not perceptible phenomena, to immediate apprehension, inspiration, insight and creative enlightenment, all forming the contents of spiritual reality.
The material of both the sensation and the intuition enters through diverse mental channels onto the apperception plane and thus into consciousness, suffering, through preconceived ideas, various distortions on the way. As none of the entries can be accepted as absolute knowledge on relative face-value, all must be analysed, processed, understood and assimilated through logical argument – discursive reasoning. All outside information should be considered as proposal to be developed through logic into a sound, by the individual currently incontestable dynamic fact, to be tested, strengthened, sustained, modified or rejected at subsequent occasions. Intellect, mind in its reasoning aspect, is the mental tool for the logical inter-connection of new entries and related, processed and understood – but dynamic and never dogmatic – memory-material, that produces in the process a new subjective, intellectual reality of reflective consciousness. Evidently, the sensory perceptive material of the physical universe can only serve as a base for factual knowledge related to the physical plane, while intuitive material, coming from higher planes, is the base of all creative endeavour and all-involving wisdom. “Knowledge – so Heraclitus – consist in comprehending the all-pervading harmony as embodied in the manifold of perception.” Manifold refers here to both sensory and intuitive – super-sensory – perception material as comprehended through logical mental processes. The simultaneous apperception of the intuitive material and the logic behind it – the concurrent reception of an information and its understanding – is illumination.
While faith is a dynamic state of open mind in ignorance, in movement towards knowledge, founded on trust towards the fount, reason is the foundation of certainty in knowledge. All ultimate knowledge is rational – and so is the Infinite I.
In my definition, spirituality is the rational, understanding recognition of the existence of a primordial, differentiated eternal mind – spiritual foundation – underlying all temporal material manifestation, and the thinking and acting according to the such constructed psycho-physical reality. My support of this reality is expressed in my essay Natural Order – Universal Relativity, to be found on the website of Integral World, and it is open for debate on the same website. My personal experiences, starting up and reinforcing my work in this direction, include OBE, Past Life Therapy, hypnotherapy and psychic healing practiced (but not charged for) in extraordinary cases, and researches carried out on these fields as member of various academic research groups as a side-line of special interest, while being the chief project engineer of various hydroelectric schemes in Brazil. Thus my personal reality – knowledge-system and not belief-system – contains the reincarnation-chain of an eternal spirit into temporal bodies with the purpose to express himself on the physical plane by enhancing that plane (and not by desiring to get back to where the wheeling systems darken through the aspiration for the Supreme), and, by doing that, evolving himself. The positive, as also the negative effects of his carnate existence and work are tinting his Karma, his personal heaven and hell, which he carries with himself as wings or as lead-weights. Accordingly, there are no innocent births, nor unjustly suffered lives: the Universe is just, and each is the maker of his own destiny. This worldview’s strongest confirmation is that it coincides with the widest spectrum of observations and with logic.
The difference between spirituality and religion is that spirituality is a knowledge-system with spiritual foundation in search for further knowledge, while religion is a by social groups collectively accepted belief-system of emotional – fear, support, belonging – foundation ossified into as many dogmas, ready-made belief-packages, as there are religions, all prohibiting expansion or change. Being emotionally grounded belief-systems, they are rationally inaccessible. Consequently, the content of each can form part of a simple dialogue, conversation, chat, but, like any emotionally grounded or influenced statement, can never form part of any discussion, of any debate; it cannot be presented as a thesis, nor as an antithesis.
My point also includes that while the proponent of an idea, a hypothesis, might quote any source coinciding with his proposition to circumscribe it more, to introduce more clarity into the discussion, but he may not “support his scheme by appealing to the literature” only, or letting his thesis be “fully supported by appeal to previous thinkers”. The onus of rational proof must rest on the understanding of the actual proponent, on his own words, on his own arguments; arguments which can be directly challenged and directly retorted.
Even of less practical value is the debate how the written ideas of a third person should be interpreted, instead of taking the proposition, without taking into account where it has originated and why, and discussing it in its own merit.
There is just as little value in referring to “science” as the final authority in any question.
“The “world of science” and the “world of religion” are at clash on the question whether the dogmas of the one or the dogmas of the other should be brainwashed into the young through the teaching establishments, especially through the American and some other western schools, and thus into the public consciousness and subconsciousness of the present generation, perpetuated hence also for the future ones. And the scientific and religious fundamentalists join hands in their fight against natural spirituality originated in expanded consciousness and rational thinking: active perception, active intelligence and active ethics.”
These lines are from my book Science, Religion, Education and a lot of Bull, I had the urge to write in 2006, after coming across, especially in evolutionary biology and cosmology, such an amount of conjured up “deus ex machina”-s hidden within clever semantic tricks within their theories, turning them thus into materialistic dogmas, that have convincingly proven that scientific paradigm-sharers, materialistic dogmatists and atheistic sectarians can be as doggedly doctrinaire as can the most bigoted onhangers of any religious cult. The book isn’t available yet, but three essays out of it are in circulation, should anybody be interested to debate the above statement: COnventional Wisdom of the DUmiNant Group.doc ; PROFESSOR DAWKINS’ GODS AND INTELLIGENT REPLICATORS.doc and REFLECTIONS ON THE NEO-DARWINIAN THEORY OF EVOLUTION.doc
The way for the developing spirituality and the search for further knowledge should be a new, fresh undertaking, and should not be founded on the old religions – oriental or occidental – anchored in old emotions, following the same patterns of devotional procedures. I had a look at the website of Integral Spirituality, and found a man reaching up to the sky in adoration. The picture expressed the old dualism: “I here, You there.” Or as I read in these postings: “One offers up everything to the Supreme”, or “surrender, offering of the self to the Divine”. The self cannot be surrendered or offered to that which it is intrinsically a fraction of. The very thought expresses dualism. And why, by what logic, would a Summa Universe, that exhibits in every one of its manifestations evolution through differentiation and growing physical and psychical complexity, await from each of its fractions “an act of individual free will powerful enough to will its disappearance or utter transformation into the universal Integer”?
As I am writing these lines and watch the letters and words appear on the screen, produced by the co-ordinated action of my fingers hitting the keys, putting down my ideas that I want to convey, I muse upon the thought, how this could be realized if one of them would – instead of serving its actual purpose – decide to meditate on my greatness; another bend itself in prayer thanking me for its daily energy-supply; the third offering itself to me; and two engage themselves in a bloody battle over my identity and the right way to adore and fear me; all striving to be saved and delivered – whatever they imagine they have to be saved and delivered from – to reach their ultimate end and return into me.
But the I am writing, the movement of my fingers and their product are of one and the same unity of expressing my ideas; a unity that presupposes harmony. To maintain this harmony, all that those fingers – fractions of me – have to know is that I am, that their I am is my I am, and listen to the sound of my thoughts and act accordingly the best they can and there where they are. It is not them but I in them who is acting, although without them I cannot act.
In a very recent comment on Ray’s essay on Christianity on Integral World, I have made a few points on spirituality, some of which I will include here.
Doctrines, dogmas, creeds, canons, belief-systems – whatever name you give to any article of faith without rational foundation – can be built only on lies; otherwise they wouldn’t have to have set guidelines. Even if they are comforting, convenient and pleasant lies, self-deluding lies, they are there with the purpose of herding people, and not for their spiritual liberation. And what a new world would mostly need is spiritual liberation; liberated spirits and not emotionally dependent onhangers and followers of a pepped up alternative of the old superstitions.
The “sense of community” is – in my integral spirituality – the “sense of ecological community”; the understanding that without that symbiotic association no human would survive longer than he can hold his breath. Because the next breath of air comes not from the human community, but from the ecological one.
Spirituality is not another belief-system. Spirituality is not knee-bent image-supplication or cross-legged navel-watching. It contains no worship. Spirituality is not humble, spirituality is proud. It is conscious of its fundamental being, of its freedom to think independently and be independent, and of his responsibility to use this freedom.
Spirituality should never become a movement, but a conspiration, a breathing and walking together, sharing the manifestation of the spirituality of each other, but never its deepest foundation, because the authority over the content of the spirituality of each one should rest within each free individual. Spirituality is not an alternative religious creed for the herd-people. While religion might be a place to escape to because of “profound dissatisfaction with life”, or to “hide from our existential terror”, or because of the “fear of death”, of being “terrified of being annihilated into absolute Nothingness” – for whoever suffers from these pathologies – ; spirituality is far above these emotional states; spirituality is a knowledge-wonder-quest travelling companion of free individuals.
An integral personality, one who absorbed this in his own being, does not belong, he does not lean onto others for strength and support. The belonging, the dependent leaning onto each other for mutual support has only emotional motivations and emotional values. It is the “lateral”, emotional interdependence of through their own limitations inhibited non-entities; as against the “vertical”, holistic, rational, cooperative, organismic interaction of free and constructively constituting individual elements.
An individual who is free is free from particular attachments. This does not mean that he has severed all his relations; on the contrary: he has extended them from particular having to universal being. He is a nomad who may carry his tent with him, but never his home, for his home is not only wherever he happens to be, but everywhere else in time and space. Analogously, he is related to everything that is natural. His loyalty is not to a city, a country, or to his biological kind; nor to a society, corporation, profession or association, but, through his work and contemplation, to the Universe, that, in a differentiated immediacy, is himself.