Open Integral

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.

Ken popularized this expression from Habermas in his criticism of postmodernism. Ken illustrates this with the pluralist contention that there are no universal truths, which itself is making a universal truth claim. If nothing is universally true then neither is that statement. But the assumption inherent in the performative contradiction is that there is no context outside of linear logic where that statement might be true. And it is here where we come to Ken’s notions of the increasingly complex and dialectical nature of developmental views.

Current research has indicated that the either/or logic of formal operations is indeed superceded by the both/and (vision) logic of postformal operations. Hence the pluralist statement is one that can handle this “apparent’ paradox in a higher integration, whereas from the formal point of view it is a flat out contradiction. So why then did Ken use this fallacious argument from the lower, formal level when it came to pluralism’s relativistic claims? And note that now that Ken has gone postmetaphyical in IS one doesn’t hear this charge anymore, especially since Ken himself now engages in the relativistic claim that there is no “given.”

Note that Nagarjuna himself was accused of the performative contradiction. Here are some excerpts from his entry in the internet encyclopedia of philosophy about this charge against him and his response: 

The Logicians, upon becoming aware very early of Nagarjuna’s thought, brought against his position of emptiness (sunyata) a sharp criticism. Certainly no claim, they insisted, should compel us to give it assent unless it can be known to be true. Now Nagarjuna has told us that emptiness is the lack of a fixed, essential nature which all things exhibit. But if all things are empty of a fixed nature, then that would include, would it not, Nagarjuna’s own claim that all things are empty? For one to say that all things lack a fixed nature would be also to say that no assertion, no thesis like Nagarjuna’s that all things are empty, could claim hold on a fixed reference. And if such a basic and all-encompassing thesis must admit of having itself neither a fixed meaning nor reference, then why should we believe it? Does not rather the thesis “all things lack a fixed essence, and are thus empty,” since it is a universal quantifier and so covers all things including theses, refute itself?

The statement “all things are empty” is actually, Nagarjuna says, not a formal philosophical thesis in the first place! According to the Nyaya rules of viable logical argument, the first step in proving an assertion true is the declared statement of the putative fact as a thesis in the argument (pratijna). Now in order for something to qualify as a formal philosophical thesis, a statement must be a fact about a particular object or state of knowable affairs in the world, and it is a matter of doctrine for Nyaya that all particular objects or states of affairs are classifiable into their categories of substances, qualities, and activities. Nagarjuna however does not buy into this set of ontological categories in the first place, and so the Logician is being disingenuous in trying to covertly pull him into the ontological game with this charge that the idea of emptiness is metaphysically unintelligible. The Brahminical Logician is insisting that no person can engage in a philosophical discussion without buying, at least minimally, into a theory of essences and issues surrounding how to categorize essences. It is exactly this very point, Nagarjuna demurs, that is eminently debatable! But since the Logician will not pay Nagarjuna the courtesy of discussion on Nagarjuna’s terms, the Buddhist replies to them on their terms: “If my statement (about emptiness) were a philosophical thesis, then it would indeed be flawed; but I assert no thesis, and so the flaw is not mine.”

And of course I’ve provided before how altitude is defined in the model of hierarchical complexity, where one doesn’t need such spiritual interpretations. Note how these researchers have defined what could legitimately be termed turquoise and indigo. And also note that the MHC applies to all lines, including the so-called “spiritual.” I’ll stick with this for my take on altitude, thank you.

From http://www.jefallbright.net/node/2662:

Few individuals perform at stages above formal operations. More complex behaviors characterize multiple system models (Kallio, 1995; Kallio & Helkaman, 1991). Some adults are said to develop alternative to, and perspectives on, formal operations. They use formal operations within a “higher” system of operations and transcend the limitations of formal operations. In any case, these are all ways in which these theories argue and present converging evidence that adults are using forms of reasoning that are move complex than formal operations. 

At the systematic stage (11), the new concepts are referred to as 3rd order abstractions. These coordinate elements of abstract systems. Words like bureaucratic, capitalist, functional, and structural are common. The systematic stage concept, structure, for example, can be employed to ask whether the structure of camp helps instill the qualities we want in future citizens. The logical structure of this stage coordinates multiple aspects of two or more abstractions, as in: “relationships are built on trust and though we can’t always keep them, making promises is one way we build trust, so it’s generally better to make promises than not to make them.” Here, the importance of trust to relationships, building trust, and the possibility that promises can be broken, are all taken into account while formulating the conclusion that promises are desirable. 

At the metasystematic stage (12), the new concepts are referred to as 1st order principles. These coordinate formal systems. Words like autonomy, parallelism, heteronomy, and proportionality are common. The metasystematic stage concept of parallelism, for example, can be employed to compare the structures of the military and of camp as institutions. The logical structure of this stage identifies one aspect of a principle or an axiom that coordinates several systems, as in: “contracts and promises are articulations of a unique human quality, mutual trust, which coordinates human relations.” Here, contracts and promises are seen as the instantiation of a broader principle coordinating human interactions. 

At the paradigmatic stage (13), people create new fields out of multiple metasystems. The objects of paradigmatic acts are metasystems. When there are metasystems that are incomplete and adding to them would create inconsistences, quite often a new paradigm is developed. Usually, the paradigm develops out of a recognition of a poorly understood phenomenon. The actions in paradigmatic thought form new paradigms from supersystems (metasystems). 

Paradigmatic actions often affect fields of knowledge that appear unrelated to the original field of the thinkers. Individuals reasoning at the paradigmatic order have to see the relationship between very large and often disparate bodies of knowledge, and co-ordinate the metasystematic supersystems. Paradigmatic action requires a tremendous degree of decentration. One has to transcend tradition and recognize one’s actions as distinct and possible troubling to those in one’s environment. But at the same time one has to understand that the laws of nature operate both on oneself and one’s environment—a unity. This suggests that learning in one realm can be generalized to others. 

At the cross-paradigmatic, paradigms and coordinated. This is the fourth postformal stage. Cross-paradigmatic actions integrate paradigms into a new field or profoundly transform an old one. A field contains more than one paradigm and cannot be reduced to a single paradigm. One might ask whether all interdisciplinary studies are therefore cross-paradigmatic? Is psycho biology cross-paradigmatic? The answer to both questions is ‘no’. Such interdisciplinary studies might create new paradigms, such as psychophysics, but not new fields. 

This order has not been examined in much detail because there are very few people who can solve tasks of this complexity. It may also take a certain amount of time and perspective to realize that behavior or findings were cross-paradigmatic. All that can be done at this time is to identify and analyze historical examples.

Edward Berge Says:
April 3rd, 2007 at 8:18 am 

For example, let’s look at how some “integral” levels are described in the article “What is altitude?” From Holons magazine. Note that in the defintion of turquoise is the prerequisite of a “spiritual” orientation, and what comprises spiritual? I maintain its states of consciousness obtained via meditation and contemplation, or in I-I’s own words “manifested through any or all of the 3 Faces of God.” Indigo is of course undefined, other than who has it, like Ken and Andrew Cohen, at least according to Joe Perez. To get that attribution certainly requires a “spiritual” orientation. 

http://holons-news.com/altitudes.html 

Teal (worldcentric to kosmocentric—able to take a 4th/5th-person perspective): Teal Altitude marks the beginning of an integral worldview, where pluralism and relativism are transcended and included into a more systematic whole. The teal worldview honors the insights of the green worldview, but places it into a larger context that allows for healthy hierarchies, and healthy value distinctions. 

Perhaps most important, a teal worldview begins to see the process of development itself, acknowledging that each one of the previous stages (magenta through green) has an important role to play in the human experience. Teal consciousness sees that each of the previous stages reveals an important truth, and pulls them all together and integrates them without trying to change them to “be more like me,” and without resorting to cultural relativism (“all are equal”). 

Teal worldviews do more than just see all points of view (that’s a green worldview)—it can see and honor them, but also critically evaluate them. 

Turquoise (kosmocentric—able to take a 5th-person perspective): Turquoise is a mature integral view, one that sees not only healthy hierarchy but also the various quadrants of humans knowledge, expression, and inquiry (at the minimum: I, we, and it). While teal worldviews tend to be secular, turquoise is the first to begin to integrate Spirit as a living force in the world (manifested through any or all of the 3 Faces of God: “I”—the “No self” or “witness” of Buddhism; “we/thou”—the “great other” of Christianity, Judaism, Hindusm, Islam, etc.; or “it”—the “Web of Life” seen in Taoism, Pantheism, etc.). 

Indigo (continues and deepens kosmocentric—able to take 6th-person perspective and higher): Evolution and development continues growing, and we have no reason to believe it will stop with the stage that we are at now. We have indicated all of these higher possibilities with the next color in the rainbow after turquoise, which is indigo.