God – what a nightmare. Damn computers. I’ve just bought a Macbook and I’ve spent the whole weekend copying files, the worst was trying to connect to my cable account. Yesterday the network was overloaded and I couldn’t even get through to tech support….frustrating, frustrating. This is the trouble with complicated new technology. It isn’t simple. Which gets me finally to some sort of integral point. Those who can understand complexity tend to create unnecessary complexity. There is a case for simplicity. I know my parents are completely dumbfounded by the recent revolution in info technology. There are many sub-sections of society that have been marginalized by technology. I’m lucky, I can (just) afford to buy a Macbook and upgrade my level of connectedness, but damn, it’s frustrating.
I wanted to add to Michel’s comments on openintegral – from an integral political persepective (what I’m interested in at the moment, mainly, is sex, religion and politics – the three ‘polite’ conversation stoppers). A question – what type of political organization/method would a group of actualized individuals ceate? Two terms come to mind: deep democracy and post-democracy.
There should be no assumption that actualized people will agree. There is still likely to be an active plurality of aims, ambitions and views. Therefore a key operating principle is tolerance and co-operation….and, flexibility. Actually flexibility is key. Co-operate where necessary, tolerate on other occasions, be open to different structures designed to achieve different ends, be ready to adapt…and what about conflict? Again, there are different types of conflict requiring different management strategies. Notice I didn’t say ‘conflict resolution’ – not all conflict can or ought to be resolved, but it can be managed. Sometimes conflict is necessary – it can be a useful tool to stimulate evolutionary change.
So I welcome this iniative. I know it started as a reaction to Wilber’s recent dummy spit – and to an ungoing conflict/debate over the internal politics of I-I. But again, what would a group of actualized individuals do when faced with such a situation? I’d suggest they’d just get on with things and co-create a new integral space. We don’t need to hang on Wilber’s coat-tails. We’s all grown-ups now.
It’s a wet, winter’s day down here in Melbourne. I’m listening to Bruce Cockburn’s ‘Salt, Sun and Time’. I’ve just started reading ‘The Historian” by Elizabeth Kostova. Last night I watched Munich on DVD. In future entries I’ll put down some thoughts on integral art, literature, etc. For all the talk of integral theory there’s still a tendancy to stay stuck in certain paradigms, particularly the academic/pseudo-academic ‘theory’ paradigm. That’s fine btw, but we can expand our comfort zones and engage with different modes of expressing integral consciousness.
To that end I’d have to say how disappointed I’ve been in Wilber’s opinions on this. He’s promoted certain artists and musicians as being integral, but I would argue that they are not fully integral. Take the work of Alex Gray, yes, he represents subtle states, bodies with chakras, nadi, etc – but it’s medium is still modernist, ‘representational’ art. I would regard the conceptual art of Yoko Ono to be far more integral. The same goes for the music of Stuart Davis. He may sing about integral things but his style is still rather unremarkable folk-rock, with a punk edge. This is not to criticize Stuart, just to point out that integral is far more than a ‘topic’, it’s an approach.
The true integral art form is yet to mature, there are signs of it emerging. I will suggest that it is collaborative, multi-media, multi-cultural, multi-perspectival creative mash. this is found musically in some forms of hip-hop and world fusion – and over time I’ll suggest some artists (thinking immediately of an Australian group called The Herd – a hip-hop collective). Some festivals are heading this way – a main stage with multiple side stages devoted to sub-categories, including experimental and the just plain weird.
In so many ways I-I under Wilber is still rather conservative. He was lusting after Gen-X when Gen-Y was the new wave – forget Gen-Y (Gen-X are parents and are the new boomers). It’s now Gen-i – those teched up 14 pluses wifi’d and networked into i-pods, the latest mobiles, etc.
Enough for now….
Ray
