Having followed, and participated in, the Integral movement for almost 3 years, it seems to me that there are two distinct primary streams, pertaining to the Integral movement as a spiritual path. These I have called the Wilberian (or anti-metaphysical) and the Metaphysical.
The Wilberian stream is based almost entirely on the writings of Ken Wilber (along with Don Beck, Allan Combs, Andrew Cohen, etc) , and associated criticism, developments etc. i.e. it includes both mainstream integral (orthodox wilberian) and post-wilberian. The majorirty of the Integral movement goes here. Note that although Sri Aurobindo was the first to use the word “integral” in a spiritual context, Wilber was the one who coined or popularised phrases like “Integral movement”, “Integral philosophy”, “Integral theory”, and “Integral (insert any noun here).” However Integral in this definition still only means Wilberian (AQAL, SDi, IMP, whatever). Wilberian integral denies most metaphysics (“post-metaphysics”) and claims to be intellectual superior and more complete than all previous philosopher, although as Edward has pointed out it retains certain residual metaphysical elements. My own critique of Wilberism is that (a) it is a religion, (b) it has too much abstract theory and as yet still only a little in the way of practice, (c) it misinterprets its original sources (Aurobindo, Gebser, etc) and (d) it is refuted by the hard sciences (see my critique of Wilber’s anti-darwinism for a case in point). The good points of Wilberism are (a) it offers a vision of a grand unified explanation, and (b) it encourages an ecumenical and tolerant and positive attitude towards all spiritual teachings (although this is inconsistent with its own claim to be the highest intellectual teaching; I had seen this same inconsistency in the Baha’i Faith many yeas ago)
The metaphysical stream is more diffuse, and still as yet less organised on the internet. It includes students of various thinkers such as Sri Aurobindo, A.H. Almaas, Theosophy, Sufism, etc who are also involved in (either sympathetically or as critics of) the integralist community. Unlike Wilberism there is no single worldview, but in general there is the rejection of a physicalist anti-metaphysical and post-metaphysical approach, and emphasising instead a very much larger worldview (ontology, cosmology, anthropology, etc) as revealed by various spiritual, esoteric, and occult teachings, and a transcendent (or transcendent-immanent) spiritual praxis and realisation beyond top-heavy theory.
Wilber’s argument is that his insights and modernity have rendered metaphysics obsolete. My argument is the exact inverse!
Previously the Integral Yoga movement (Sri Aurobindo and The Mother) remains insular and not part of the discourses and discussions of the Integral movement. However this seems now to be changing – for example, conferences, the SCIY blog, etc.
Other elements of the Integral movement that might be mentioned are Jean Gebser’s Psycho-Cultural mutations, P2P (Michel Bauwens), based on non-hierarchical networked culture and participatory spirituality (see also Heron, Tarnas, Ferrer, etc), Integral Art (Matthew Dallman) based on the revival of the humanities (an idea derived from Camille Paglia), and Erwin Laszlo’s Integral Science (Akashic field, although based on David Bohm this also has parallels with Sheldrake’s morphogenetic field). These do not seem to have discussed much or even at all on the public forums like Open Integral, Integral World, Zaadz or Integrative Spirituality. Integral Visioning however features the P2P newsletter.
Alan,
Part of the paradigm of Open Integral, to me, is to allow such other exploration. That is why I encourage you to participate with your ideas, even if they are seemingly at odds with what I promote, e.g., post v. metaphysics. I cannot help it though that others don’t take the challenge of participating and post their own or alternative “integral” ideas. It’s up to you folks out there to do so. We’ve (OI) solicited participators to sign up as main contributors and do so in the “about” page.
Edward said:
I cannot help it though that others don’t take the challenge of participating and post their own or alternative “integral†ideas.
Hi Edward. Yes, I am also very disappointed about this. And I am in complete accord with your paradigm of free exploration. So it doesn’t matter if they’re metaphysical or wilberian or pomo or anything esle. It’d just be good to have more ideas thrown in to the mix!
Okay, how many of you are aware of my own system Temenos? A kind of integralism from a Jungian pov? An outline of the Temenos system can be found at Visser’s site under The Temenos System.
I’m familiar with it Ray. If you are so inclined to start a thread on it feel free. I’d be willing to ask questions and make comments.
Hi Edward,
I’m just putting it out there because so few have read it that there is not a sufficient pool of people to engage in an informed discussion, or to understand the thread.
Do you have any questions?
My question is why not start a thread using Temenos related to a particular topic. Then I can ask specific questions and maybe we can get some other interest to participate?
Hi Alan,
I would propose the distinction between Integral philosophies and Integral teachings. I see that in the Integral community the two are not enough delineated while I think it helps to do so.
I found this little explanation of the difference between teachings and philosophies by a professor of the university of Virginia in an article on concsiousness: http://www.faculty.virginia.edu/consciousness/
“A metaphysical philosophy is a purely conceptual structure that is presumed to be a logically self-consistent description of some aspect of reality. It does not necessarily include techniques for experiencing this reality. A philosophy is different from what we shall call a teaching. The purpose of a teaching is to help a student to know a reality, no matter whether it is phenomenal or noumenal. Since the emphasis is on knowledge rather than on logic, a teaching may use whatever concepts and techniques work in bringing the student to the desired knowledge. A teaching often will have a philosophical basis, but there is no particular requirement to adhere rigidly to it.”
I see Wilber etc. create an integral philosophy, meaning their purpose is to describe in a logical self-consistent way as many aspects of reality as possible.
Aurobindo, Almaas etc. have integral teachings, meaning their purpose is to help their students know (by experience) as many aspects of reality as possible.
Now I am not saying that one is better then the other, I find both of them interesting although I am more interested in the second. But I do see a confusion in the Integral community between the two that would help the discussions if there was more clarity.
And also I see Integral philosophers use concepts from teachings (like for instance Advaita) that are not meant to be used in the philosophical way, but in the teaching way, that is only as pointers for students to find the knowledge themselves through jnana or gnosis. I think you can use these concepts for a philosophical system, but if you then afterwards refer back to the teaching you should not treat it like a philosophy but as a teaching.
Hi Marko
What you say rings very true
I especially resonate with these words
Integral philosophers use concepts from teachings (like for instance Advaita) that are not meant to be used in the philosophical way, but in the teaching way, that is only as pointers for students to find the knowledge themselves through jnana or gnosis.
This is where I myself differ from the whole Wilberian and Post Wilberian movement. All these discussions and abstracted mental ideason these various forums are just taking these teachings out of their original very pragmatic spiritual milieu, making them into something that to me at least is arid and dry and very mentally abstract.
Interesting to see how little response there has been to my Aurobindo post (only Tusar and yourself as yet). Perhaps this is because Sri Aurobindo can really only be appreciated as a teaching, he can’t be understood as an intellectual philosophy. Those who approach him as an intellectual philosophy – without the practical spiritual connection that sadhana provides – get it completely wrong. This was pointed out by Satprem somewhere in the Agenda, and also I mentioned this in my first essay on Integral Wiorld, regarding Wilber’s misunderstanding of Sri Aurobindo.
Obviously, for me what is interesting and useful is the Teaching, not the Philosophy!
I should say nevertheless that I totally support the discussions and so on on this and otehr such forums, and for that matter intellectual and philosophical discussionb in general. Just that for the most part it isn’t my thing!