8 Responses to “Integral Wiki”

1. james says:

   December 10, 2006 at 3:13 am

   was planning on adding a wiki here, fortunately someone is already up in the air with one..All i can say is ,\”brothers in arms\”. Adding their link to our blogroll. Noticed also from the wiki pages behind the scenes that Daniel Gustav Anderson is working on this project,(Not sure if he set the wiki up?) and he has an interesting personal blog on integral and critical theory. He seems to be approaching integral studies from reading foucault and others, and is equally disenamoured by the fuzz of spiral dynamics and its unsophisticated/oversimplified use of colors in describing culture/evolution/etc (my words, not daniel\\\’s).
2. Edward Berge says:

   December 10, 2006 at 2:53 pm

   Thanks for the lead to Anderson. Here’s a man after my own pomo heart by applying pomo to an integral critical theory. I’ve added a link to his blog on our blogroll and you’ll be hearing a lot more from me on this author.
3. alan kazlev says:

   December 10, 2006 at 3:54 pm

   James says:

   Noticed also from the wiki pages behind the scenes that Daniel Gustav Anderson is working on this project,(Not sure if he set the wiki up?)

   No it’s the guy who set up Integral Visioning
4. Tusar N. Mohapatra says:

   December 11, 2006 at 12:07 am

   [ The bald racism of Sri Aurobindo? A response to Toward a Critical Integral Theory by Daniel Gustav Anderson
   by Rich on Sun 10 Dec 2006 07:59 PM PST | Permanent Link
   The following link goes to the peer reviewed journal The Integral Review: http://integral-review.org/current_issue/index.asp. ]

   http://www.sciy.org/blog/_archives/2006/12/10/2564144.html
5. James Burke says:

   December 11, 2006 at 7:22 am

   hey alan,
   thanks for the heads up.
   So who set up that wiki?
   j
6. Edward Berge says:

   December 11, 2006 at 10:01 am

   Thanks Tusar for the link. Carlson makes some excellent points in rebuttal to Anderson. ARINA and Integral Review are opening up a new dialog section dealing with its articles so please suggest to them that this article be included as well as Carlson’s rebuttal. (You out there and listening Sara?) I for one would love to participate in that one.
7. alan kazlev says:

   December 11, 2006 at 9:11 pm

   Hi James

   I think it was Michel Dubois from Integral Visioning. But I’m not sure. I wasn’t directly involved in setting up the project, although I mentioned I thought it was a really good idea when it was discussed on the Integral Visioning site, and said i would be involvedin adding material. It was set up some time last year I think; I haven’t been involved in it for a while because I’ve been so busy with other stuff, but feel it’s worth contributing too.
8. alan kazlev says:

   December 11, 2006 at 10:01 pm

   Tusar Says:

   [ The bald racism of Sri Aurobindo? A response to Toward a Critical Integral Theory by Daniel Gustav Anderson The Integral Review: http://integral-review.org/current_issue/index.asp. ]

   http://www.sciy.org/blog/_archives/2006/12/10/2564144.html

   Tusar, interesting link. I greatly enjoyed reading Richard Carlson’s rebuttal. It shows how once again representatives of the modern integral movement misunderstands Sri Aurobindo, although he’s the one who got the ball rolling in the first place. It’s interesting that Rich says that the concept of “Integral Theory” is a modern, American invention of Wilber’s. As Rich points out

   The term “integral theory” is a recent phenomenon which stems largely from the works of Ken Wilber and those who have taken up the spirit of his writing as an academic discipline.”

   I fully agree with this assessment. However I do still consider myself both an Aurobindonian and a (non-Wilberian) Integral Theorist, so I don’t find the two incompatible.

   For me Integral Theory (a la Wilber, Anderson, and for that matter also my ideas on ontology etc) is the outer, mental “exoteric” form and framework, that has to be transcended in the “esoteric” (inverted commas because these are my own eccentric adaptations of these terms) practice of Integral Spirituality which incorporates the Presence of authentically enlightened beings in a harmonious manner (e.g. Sri Ramana and Sri Aurobindo), and culminates of course in the practice of Integral Yoga (i.e. Purna – full or complete – yoga) and the supramental transformation. At least that’s my take on all this, but everyone has to find their own path. Edward for example points to Derrida and Nagarjuna, and his comments are just as valid and authentic as mine. Marko (in previous posts on this forum) has mentioned A. H. Almaas. Again, same. An Integral Theory and an Integral Spirituality has to embrace, reconcile, and integrate all perspectives, otherwise it degenerates into literalism and limited ideologies. Referring to an experience she had, the Mother says (in The Agenda)

   “This morning while I was on the balcony, I had an interesting experience: the experience of man’s effort, in all its forms and through all the ages, to approach the Divine. And I seemed to be growing wider and wider so that all the forms and all the ways of approaching the Divine attempted by man would be contained in the present Work.

   It was represented by a kind of image in which I was as vast as the Universe, and each way of approaching the Divine was like a tiny image containing the characteristic form of this approach. And my impression was this: Why do people always limit, limit themselves? Narrow, narrow, narrow! They understand only when it is narrow.

   Take all! Take all within you. And then you will begin to understand – you will begin. ”

   – From Mother’s Agenda – June 6, 1958

   Take all…Take all within you. And then you will begin to understand. To me, this is the inner, “esoteric”, essence of what the Integral movement is about.

   The outer, “exoteric” essence is the reconciling of all these different, limited, narrow, explanations, not just of the Divine, but also any explanations or worldviews or theories. Whilst the inner, “esoteric” aspect is represented, for example, by my own experience (which is only one small case study) of the non-contradiction of the teaching and message and revelation of Sri Ramana and Sri Aurobindo. Not as theory or a mental formulation, but as experience and spiritual practice. And this is the exergesis I give to The Mother’s words and experience here. Whether or not I am misinterpreting or reinterpreting them, whether her experience was actually about something totally different to what I’m saying (perhaps it was!) is for others to decide.

   Edward said:
   ARINA and Integral Review are opening up a new dialog section dealing with its articles so please suggest to them that this article be included as well as Carlson’s rebuttal. (You out there and listening Sara?) I for one would love to participate in that one.

   Sounds great! Could someone forward Rich’s review/critique on to ARINA? I agree it would really get the debate going!