I’m finding this blog useful. I used to write a diary and I have several volumes of hand written stuff; experiences, thoughts, the formative thoughts of Temenos, etc. I think as I write. There’s something about forming words that forces my mind to work. I do have flashes of ideas in moments of relaxed pondering, but not as coherent as those ideas that arise as I write. I’ve often re-read things I have written and wondered where I got that from. It’s like a switch going on.
As I’ve mentioned before I’m interested in integral policy. The I-I and SDi have one primary aim, self-promotion. I’ve noticed how often Don Beck will write on a particular issue only to find his solution is SD itself. Hire us and we’ll help you. I-I has a similar focus. Use Wilber’s integral model and the solution will appear before you. But both SDi and I-I require the exchange of money – it’ a commercial concern. Beck runs a consultancy and so the solution always turns out to be about hiring him or attending an expensive seminar. I-I is better at distributing free info, more generous in that sense, but it still has a self-serving agenda. It seeks converts.
What it has not yet done is explain how the integral approach will solve actual problems. The integral approach is no magic wand. Let’s take the Israel/Palestine problem as case in point. Over the decades various parties have proposed different solutions. The problem has always been that not all interested parties have agreed to the solution. If integral theory were to propose some sort of grandiose meta-solution I’m afraid they would just be in the same boat. The fact is that an Hamas militant or an ultra-orthodox Jewish settler is not going to accept integral theory as any kind of authority. Didn’t you know that integral theory has to accept that either the Koran or the Torah is the word of God and that He is the meta-authority?
The first step in using integral theory as a solution to any problem is to get the interested parties to accept that it is the meta-authority.
The next problem will be that an integral analysis will have to tell some people they are wrong. Now if those people disagree and happen to have guns, how is the theory going to resolve this conflict without getting killed? You can do all the AQAL analysis you like, you still have to have the power to enforce the solution.
There is a limit to co-operative approaches. They can go a long way in resolving disputes and integral theory can offer a larger tool box. But you can only compromise on beliefs, you can’t compromise the truth. If one party is factually wrong they have to come to accept they are wrong. For example, you can’t compromise with Creationists. They are completely wrong. You can’t allow a compromise because fact compromised by falsity becomes a different kind of falsity. Teaching evolution and Creationism creates the false impression both are equally valid, which is false.
Similarly, in the Israel/Palestine conflict there is a right and wrong, fact and fiction and integral theory may not be able to resolve the central question: either Israel has a right to exist or it does not. Some times you have to take sides. Integral theory does not mean you get to sit on the fence.