Outside Integral?

I'm combining two threads that seem to be connected. Again, I'm fairly new to the conversation, so I apologize if these questions have been gone over before. (Also, bear with me; this was the result of a copy and paste. ;) )

Lol asked about my concerns about the notion of “progress up the spiral,” to which I answered, that, in the grand scheme of things, the enthusiastic press of seekers surging up a metaphorical spiral, flanked by a series of sheepdogs attempting to herd the rest of humanity along as well, is really going to matter much. Life is life; despite our best efforts, the universe remains seemingly unperturbed.

In the short run … well, it just seems another instance of history repeating itself, and yet another iteration of the usual signposts toward salvation. Here my concern is the more minor wondering at, again, what and who is necessarily left out of the Integral project (saying, again, that's it's all-inclusive and denies no one and embraces all truths reveals, to me, a gaping blind spot), and who and what might get inadvertently marched over and stepped upon in this clamor toward enlightenment.


Because here's the thing – and this is from another post: 

I'm skeptical about the notions of pathology and hierarchy. I'd like to propose that these are inherently value-laden terms and that a) either all hierarchies are pathological or b) it's impossible to determine whether or not a hierarchy is pathological, in which case it's impossible to ethically maintain or endorse any particular one.

This isn't a green speaking! There's a difference between the green claim that “all perspectives are equal,” and my assertion that it's impossible to know which or whether one perspective is better or worse. I'm not arguing for a flatland reductionism; I'm investigating a richer, if less certain, universe.

Because I find the use of the word 'hierarchy' inappropriate when it comes to development. Attempting to describe biological and psychological development using a linear, hierarchical model is limiting; development, in general, is emergent, multidimensional, and in on-going flux, not to mention cyclical. There are too many back-and-forth interdependencies to use the term hierarchy (mw: a series in which each element is graded or ranked).

And so, I question whether there is such a thing as a non-pathological hierarchy, and, if not, what this means for the project of Integral as a whole.

(Again, to clarify: my claim is not a performative contradiction; I'm not saying that all perspectives are equal. I'm saying that we can't KNOW whether one perspective is better than another. To my mind, reality - and spirituality - is paradoxical, subversive, and generally self-correcting, and the world is more readily described by feedback loops and openings and interdependent flows than it is hierarchical structures and states, which is, I suppose, why I'm less gung-ho about Integral than I once was.)

But I'll be quiet now; I'd much rather see what you have to say.


(And Lol? If you'd like to repaste that review here, I'd very much appreciate it!)

Re: Outside Integral?

siona

clearly blastocysts become embryos become infants become toddlers become children become teenagers become adults, yes?

clearly in healthy childhood cognitive development we go from sensorimotor to preoperational to concrete operational to formal operational, yes?

now does it not follow that these two hierarchies (or holarchies) describe a process of increasing depth and complexity that allows for more and more accurate representations of and interactions with the inner and outer world?

also that if the developmental hierarchy unfolds healthily it will result in a stabilization at higher levels that allows, oh not only the ability to crawl across the room or recognize daddy's face, but also the ability to dance and do agebra?

therefore that the pathological hierarchy in developmental terms would be one in which something goes awry and one is, say, crippled by polio, or autistic, or unable to think in abstract terms or stop believing in santa?

now of course there are multiple contingencies and cyclings - none of this is impinged upon by the well chronicled recognition of broad stages of developmental unfolding.

i think the examples i gave before of pathological hierarchy or chains of authority were good.

holarchies exist in alll 4 quads, yes?

so in the lower quads you have thiings like democracy vs. dictatorship etc….

pathology implies lack of health, opression of capacities, lack of adaptability, lack of natural evolution toward greater complexity and depth and more accurate representation of more sophisticated and nuanced truths. basically stunting of the potential for growth.

the following argument makes no sense to me. before it does,  you may have to significantly expand this thought experiment:

I'm skeptical about the notions of pathology and hierarchy. I'd like to propose that these are inherently value-laden terms and that a) either all hierarchies are pathological or b) it's impossible to determine whether or not a hierarchy is pathological, in which case it's impossible to ethically maintain or endorse any particular one.

a) what is wrong with something being value laden? (and btw this is a form of performative contradiction because non value laden is better than value laden, right? )

b) how does anything you have said so far (or may yet come up with) substantiate your either/or statement?

c) what on earth do you mean about it being “impossible to determine?”

is the governmental hierarchy in sweden healthier than that in north korea? how can we determine this?

is the hierarchy of training for graduate students in art history at UCLA  healthier than that of ramtha's school of enlightenment?

is the hierarchy of knowledge in real quantum physcis course healthier than that which is represented in what the bleep?

how we determine the answers to these questions is by asking - what is the particular hierarchy's healthy purpose? how might this purpose be subverted, misunderstoood, misapplied, turned against itself, result in the opposite, block deepening understanding and growth in that particular field etc….

please siona, say more to avoid sounding (while protesting too much)  like an extreme postmodern relativist vague greenie! :O) :OP

Re: Outside Integral?

Julian, I’m wondering if I fall under your extreme postmodern relativist vague greenie label.  I have a feeling I do… and with respect between you and me I can see how that is part of my psyche, but if that is the case then that would make a part of your psyche an extreme modern academic orangie!…  with respect to me of course.

Where I might be regressing in green value you’re regressing in orange value. 

I’m not saying your last sentence was directed at me in the least or anyone in particular.  I’m just asking you to be open and honest as to whether you see me in that sort of greenie context or not.  If you don’t then the above doesn’t apply anymore…

Re: Outside Integral?

i have no idea seth - weigh in on the actual conversation and i'll be sure to let you know…. :O)

Re: Outside Integral?

Julian, was that not weighing in on the conversation?  Or was it just not weighing in on the conversation to your standards?

Re: Outside Integral?

Thanks, Julian. I'll keep trying. ;)

Again, I don't understand development to be hierarchical; attempting to do so misuses the term. It's possible to say something is “more developed,” but this description doesn't involve a “grading or ranking.” Grading and ranking invokes [arbitrary] absolutes and I'm not convinced at all that development occurs in such a fashion. Besides, if you think about it, just as clearly, teenagers become adults become middle-aged become elderly …  if the developmental process unfolds healthily it'll result in death, no?  ;) Again, development is cyclical.

I'm being a little flip, I know, but according to your definition (“lack of health [this is tautological], opression of capacities, lack of adaptability, lack of natural evolution toward greater complexity and depth and more accurate representation of more sophisticated and nuanced truths. basically stunting of the potential for growth”), aging is a pathology.

So while I do agree with you that although it's possible to bracket certain events / entities and judge their development within these contexts, it doesn't follow that we can extend the brackets.

I know, I know. GREEN! You're thinking. But I'd suggest that these Wilberian / SD labels are getting in your way of understanding what I'm really getting at. If you don't feel like dropping them - if you feel they're valuable - by all means we can still use the language!  But I'd invite a more open conversation.

I need to clarify something else, too. I don't think anything is wrong with value-ladeness – as long as we're aware of our assumptions. The trouble comes when we assume a value is given. Here, we're assuming growth is better. We're assuming development is something good. I'd say this is true some of the time, but definitely not in all; it's always possible to think of situations in which overdevelopment is dangerous or harmful. (I realize I'm being vague with my terms, but cancer, muscle-bound athletes, financial sectors, BGH-fed cows and suburbs are general examples; unfettered growth can be destructive.) And so how do we determine when an “unfolding” - or growth process - tips from 'healthy development' to pathology?

Put it this way. Let's assume that we find a pathological holon – “a holon that has usurped their position in the overall system by abusing their power of upward or downward causation.” KW sees the “cure” as “arresting” these holons so that they can be reintegrated. But the holon that decides to do the “arresting” itself abuses that power of causation, no? (And no, I'm obviously not going to be amenable to the “well, the first holon started it” argument. ;) Because what's seen as 'usurping' by a higher holon might have, from the first holon's perspective, been a leap for emancipation.) 

But I'm going to leave off here for a bit, because I want to reply to Lol; I think that response might shed a little light on this post

Re: Outside Integral?

I'm jumping in here without having read the whole thread, so someone may have already addressed this, but … .

Siona: Here, we're assuming growth is better. We're assuming development is something good. I'd say this is true some of the time, but definitely not in all; it's always possible to think of situations in which overdevelopment is dangerous or harmful. (I realize I'm being vague with my terms, but cancer, muscle-bound athletes, financial sectors, BGH-fed cows and suburbs are general examples; unfettered growth can be destructive.) And so how do we determine when an “unfolding” - or growth process - tips from 'healthy development' to pathology?

You're talking horizontal growth, while Julian I think is talking vertical growth. Defining terms is crucial.

Re: Outside Integral?

Julian: “clearly blastocysts become embryos become infants become toddlers become children become teenagers become adults, yes?”

(wanted to post this comment prior to reading the whole post by Julian, so as not to “corrupt my initial response, which also tends to favor the influence feedback loops rather than strict heirarchies)

All of the above quoted heirarchical series also become worm food.  Is that a sudden degradation from top of the heirarchy straight down to somewhere below the bottom of that heirarchy?  Where does that fit?  (And this is a legitimage question seeking clarification, rather than a rhetorical one)

Keith

Re: Outside Integral?

To Julian's initial response to Siona - A quick take, which I may have to backtrack on - but you seem to be confusing development with heirarchy. 

Certainly, there is “increasing complexity” of systems  - but that doesn't line with development in a human being - apples and oranges being the key thought there.

It's actually more “green” to apply a faux developmental model, and claim similarity,  to two wildly different processes, than to see them, in their actuality, as wildly different processes.

Basically, the generalizing of hierarchy as detailed in many different processes, doesn't hold up when applied to certain human developmental processes, except on an extreme low level baseline.

In this case - the development of the human adult, does not seem to be well served, by applying a synthesizing hierarchical model.

Re: Outside Integral?

Hey Siona, glad you've started this thread and am happy to copy that post here …. and maybe I could give a little context for my earlier *existential funk*.

I'd been reading Appendix 2 of Integral Spirituality, all the stuff about metaphysical baggage and horizontal & vertical enlightenment …. I won't deny that dearly held views of mine were taking a bit of a pounding …. however I did feel that KW's argument wasn't / isn't as airtight as it appears, but was a bit punch-drunk and couldn't get any clarity around it …. so I was frustrated and a bit down, and in that frame of mind thinking about what I believed in and why.

A bit later I was doing some sitting practice that involves using the mind … visualisation, invocation etc. …. but my mind was still very much occupied with the earlier stuff and I couldn't get my heart into it. And that's the crux of it, because all this talk of stages of development , and attaining enlightenment and how full it is (or isn't) is missing one quite vital point …. from the Buddhist point of view enlightenment isn't possible without developing a pure altruistic intention to its own fullness along the way …. and the real reason for aspiring towards enlightenment is so that one can benefit suffering sentient beings in limitless rather than limited ways …. so, being so much in my head had made it more about me, my cherished views, and had disconnected me from my heart and the only intention that really matters (imho).

Here's the post from the other thread.

*               *               *               *               *               *               *               *               *

Hey Siona, I'm finding this conversation useful and intriguing in equal measure and suspect it could well merit its own thread.

Could you say more about  ” … what and who is necessarily left out of the Integral project ” and how you see that happening? …. I'm not doubting you, I feel uneasy myself sometimes, but because I'm still strugling to see let alone hold the W5 “bigger picture” I think I need help distinguishing what my concerns actually are before I can get clear on how valid they might be.

I'm in a bit of an existential funk today and am struggling to articulate anything …. but fortunately I came across this review of Integral Spirituality on Amazon that articulates very well some of my own concerns (and maybe some of yours too). I've italicised the part that really resonated for me.

Problems with Ken Wilber, December 27, 2006
I have read just about all of Wilber's material and find him extremely insightful, needless to say. But I continue to have certain major reservations. First, is “enlightenment” the goal of all religous/spiritual paths? Wilber talks only or almost exclusively of the “contemplative/medative traditions”.The implication being that “spirituality” only occurs primarily between the alone and the Alone or is primarily an “intellective”(cognitive)spirituality. When he discusses the Judeo/Christian tradition he points to the contemplative traditions within them (Father Keating, e.g.) but never addresses the essence of the tradition itself. Surely Kabbalah and the mystical/monastic tradition in Christianity are not the heart and soul of these traditions although they might fall within the broad scope of their historical manifestations. I would like to imagine a conversation, e.g. of Ken Wilber with Marin Buber, Emmanuel Levinas,along with a liberation theologian like Sebastian Kappen S.J. and a poltical theologican as Johann Baptist Metz. I don't believe these religious teachers would primarily approach the Judeo/Christian tradition as a contemplative tradition. Rather was not Jesus a prophet in very much the style of the Hebrew prophets? And was the practice of Jesus and the Prophets not primarily monastic meditation but an immersion in the sufferings of the people of their day? Was not service the primary praxis? This does not deny the need for prayer or contemplation but it does not isolate this practice either as the quintessential praxis of the Hebrew or Jesus's way of life. When Wilber discusses the “Spirit in 2nd Person” he points to only the “alone with the Alone” version. This is not the Judeo/Christian approach. Rather it is through service to our brothers and sisters in the world that we encounter the great Mystery, the great Thou. The ego purification comes about not primarily in one's solitude but rather in one's ego being rubbed raw in the existential immersion in the pain of the world.The dark night of the soul comes about in the midst of the world as it did for Jesus and the prophets. As Abraham Heschel once wrote: “The more deeply immersed I become in thinking of the prophets, the more powerfully it became clear to me what the lives of the prophets sought to convery: that morally speaking there is no limit to the concern one must feel for the suffering of human beings.” It would seem to me that if we look at Jesus's parable of the Good Samaritan as pointing to the very essence of his way, could we not say that we could have all the highest states, all the highest stage persectives, and the deepest of awareness and yet walk right by the man in the ditch fully AQAL-ed (so to speak). In Wilber's scheme maybe we could say that the Judeo/Christian tradition prioritizes the moral/ethical line as well as emphasing the exterior doing of a way along with the interior growth of the inner person? Wilber once made the comment that a spiritual path could arise in any one of the four quadrants. And yet he exclusively focuses on quadrant one. Could we not say that the Judeo/Christian spirituality arises in quadrants 3 and 4 (compassion -3; and justice-4?)I would be very interested in a Wilberian's response to these queries.

Re: Outside Integral?

(( A minor tangential response to the Amazon.com review Lol posted above: I see a lot of people who presume that contemplative Christianity, and other contemplative traditions, are all about “being alone,” remaining still in the silence, praying by one's self, going to the mountaintop, achieving certain states of consciousness, etc. This is not true, from what I have seen. Contemplation and meditation should not be divorced from service to others and from being immersed in the sufferings of the day – “contemplation” and “action” are not two separate and opposed pursuits, but rather two aspects of the same movement, like resting and working, breathing in and exhaling. Both are necessary, in a similar way that sleep and refreshment are necessary to our waking hours. The Jesus who is revealed in the Gospels had a very active, prophetic and healing ministry, but is also described as taking time to be alone, to be away from the crowds, to commune with “the Father.” Jesus also advised “going into one's private room” and praying to God “In secret” during his Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 6:6 …..  I could go on and on about this but I'll stop here!

Anyway, this feels like such a tangent that  I'm placing my entire post in double parentheses. Gotta have my penance!   :-)   ))

Re: Outside Integral?

Thank you, Lol. I'm feeling a bit muzzy-headed myself at the moment, but I'll do my best. So bear with me.

Frankly, I don't really think we're are “evolving toward” anything. Or, rather, I don't think it matters whether or not we are, because I believe that assuming or claiming that we (should) have some - or ANY -  in where this evolution (outside, at least, our own little personal spheres) is going is, by definition, a holonically “pathological” assertion.

Before I go on, I'll also admit (in the interest of showing all my cards ;) ) to have really, desperately been on a seeker's path at one point. I wanted answers and enlightenment and awareness and realization. I wanted insight. I wanted to be awakened, to grow, to find fulfillment. Now I no longer really care about this pursuit. What's the point? My deeper personal interest is making sure that I stay in touch enough with myself so that I can fully be with others and, hopefully, encourage them to be more fully themselves, to more deeply connect to who they are, and to be who they are in this present moment, as they stand in relation to both themselves and the world at large right now. I don't have any desire to “develop” them or me; I'd rather encourage our mutual expression – independently or collaboratively. (It's this sort of authentic and enjoyable play that I find much more important, in both the short and the long run, than struggling toward some promised endpoint of nondual awareness.)

And for me, this expression comes not from prescription and guidance, but through opening and - to drag in an overly 'green' term - holding space. To my mind, the role of more evolved entities is best exemplified by their ability to provide a container for the unfolding and emergence of others.

Anyway. This reminds me, wholly, of your (Lol's) point … about how Integral, with it's intellectual bandying about levels and lines and stages and states with an eye toward development and growth and prescriptive systems, somehow manages to leave out the spiritual core. Again, this might be a rather trite and obvious point, but I find that spirit comes in opening and questioning, and in creating a space for others to feel safe doing the same, and in that ongoing effort to truly, fully, step into shared experience.

To that end, the more emphatically Integral claims to include everything, the more danger there is in shutting down authentic inquiries. For me, a truly Integral approach would be one built the notions of opening and investigation – with an eye (or heart) toward acknowledging and holding the suffering and experiences of all earthy beings – and not hierarchy and maps.

Ai. I'm not sure that was helpful. Again, my head is not in a good place at the moment. But perhaps if someone else feels like adding to this thread … ?

Feel free to sling some green mud my way, too; I can take it. ;) I know my objections sound very egalitarian and relativistic and anti-hierarchical, but this really is not what I'm endorsing. What I'm trying to get at, more, is the inherent paradox involved in anything beyond an assiduous personal (or holonic) responsibility. I have no problem with some “second tier” governance, but for me, this would not be about imposing structure and mandating a path, but creating containers so that emergence can occur. 

Re: Outside Integral?

My deeper personal interest is making sure that I stay in touch enough with myself so that I can fully be with others and, hopefully, encourage them to be more fully themselves, to more deeply connect to who they are, and to be who they are in this present moment, as they stand in relation to both themselves and the world at large right now. I don't have any desire to “develop” them or me; I'd rather encourage our mutual expression – independently or collaboratively. (It's this sort of authentic and enjoyable play that I find much more important, in both the short and the long run, than struggling toward some promised endpoint of nondual awareness.)

you indirectly assert that being in touch with yourself and supporting others in doing the same is more evolved than not doing so - or than being so totally caught up in seeking some endpoint state that you miss the point….

you find play, authenticity and holding space for yourself and others to be more valuable and more evolved than having an imposing development/growth agenda. you think it is more effective, fun and HEALTHY.

i agree with all of this.

yup i happen to agree with your VALUES, but let's not pretend that what you are saying is value free or that it doesnt itself imply a holarchy, ok?

you are talking about a grounded, integrated, humanistic, process oriented, emergent, experiential curiosity that is at the high end of any evolutionary/developmental model…

how on earth is the notion that it is “going somewhere” pathological? siona you will have to make much stronger arguments if you want these strong statements to ring true.

everything is going somehwere, you are merely pointing out the incredible complexity of that process and owning a position from which you see process as being more valuable than focusing on outcome. you also (wether you admit it or not) see this position as being more evolved - as evidenced by your dismissal/impatience with the ideas you are strongly rejecting - with as yet not particularly well stated arguments.

enlighten me, please.

Re: Outside Integral?

Oh, Julian! I'm not arguing! I don't want to convince anyone of my position; I'm not entirely sure what my position is, in case that's not already obvious. I just want to explore – I'm in it for the game. You point out my blind spots (which you're stellar at!); I point out yours. So far it seems to be working okay. ;)

As an aside, I didn't mean for my little story to be universalized . I don't think being in touch with myself or supporting others is “more evolved” than not doing so. I was just clarifying my personal position – I thought it would be helpful for you to know where I was coming from. Because, again, I'm can't be remotely sure that my stance is “healthy” or desirable. It's just where I happen to be right now.

You asked, how is the notion that evolution is “going somewhere” pathological? I'm not sure how I can make it more clear. A pathological holon is, according to Wilber, one that is abusing its power of upward or downward causation. Adopting an ideology of growth and attempting to direct that anywhere outside one's own holonic domain amounts to usurping that holon's position in system, no? How is that NOT pathological? Further, I don't think any pretensions of what's “healthy” and “natural” are going to change this. (In fact, part of what I find troubling about Wilber's Integral is how it adopts natural terms like health and pathology in such a way that disguises a great deal of moral presumption. I don't know … I'd just like for these assumptions to be made more explicit. For a system that's supposedly clear about the irreducible differences between the Good, the True, and the Beautiful, there's an odd amount of conflation going on.)

Again, what's healthy and normal now may not be healthy and normal in the future, correct? This can be read in all manner of different ways, but I don't mean it in the “getting stuck” way; I mean it more in the sense that the traits and behaviors that serve an organism in one environment and in one context may not serve them in another. What's healthy in one situation may be drastically harmful in another. Evolution merely describes a process, not a direction. (And yes, there are entirely lines that evolved to become more simple forms.)

“everything is going somehwere, you are merely pointing out the incredible complexity of that process and owning a position from which you see process as being more valuable than focusing on outcome. you also (wether you admit it or not) see this position as being more evolved - as evidenced by your dismissal/impatience with the ideas you are strongly rejecting - with as yet not particularly well stated arguments.”

I'm not saying it's more evolved, nor am I rejecting other possibilities … I'm only saying I don't know, and I'm trying to explain why. ;)

Re: Outside Integral?

Oh Siona! I wish you were arguing!

Do you have a point you are willing to elaborate upon? I would love to hear it.

Obviously you make choices based on some value judgments of your own, no?

Admit one thing (instead of being so lazily relativistic) - you have a line somewhere between healthy and pathological, yes?

How would you define that line and why?

Your suspicions around moral presumption, stages of growth, hierarchy and distinctions between health and pathology so far sound a little knee-jerk. Tell me more….

Re: Outside Integral?

Ai. My point is that Integral is necessarily blinkered in its assumptions, and that I have yet to be persuaded that hierarchies are not inherently pathological (that is, dominating.) Furthermore, if spirituality is evolutionary, than it should proceed, as biological evolution has done, along all manner of nuanced trajectories and different paths, and should look different depending on where it arises; we might be able to say what one evolutionary branch looks like, but we can't extrapolate to all cases. I'm not sure that the totalizing view of Integral allow for this (or these) option(s).

And line? My line depends on the context, and on particulars, not generalities, and it's less a line than a set of fuzzy probabilities and case-by-case bases. I'm a very lazy girl. ;) Or a ballsy one. It's not easy not-knowing.

But I'm meandering here, I think, and so again, I'll be still for a bit and see whether this has sparked anything for anyone else.

Re: Outside Integral?

Siona:
What I'm trying to get at, more, is the inherent paradox involved in anything beyond an assiduous personal (or holonic) responsibility.

Yes, I think I see what you mean I feel an urge towards this myself.

Siona:
Again, I don't understand development to be hierarchical; attempting to do so misuses the term. It's possible to say something is “more developed,” but this description doesn't involve a “grading or ranking.” Grading and ranking invokes [arbitrary] absolutes and I'm not convinced at all that development occurs in such a fashion.

Do you honestly think heirarchies are inherently bad?

Isn't it also possible to grade and rank without arbitrary absolutes,invoked or otherwise?

I certainly know that hierarchies can be used to oppress.  But for me, the Integral use of heirarchies is more like a sublime filing system.

hierarchical
adjective
classified according to various criteria into successive levels or layers.

I benefit from it immensely because to paraphrase KW, it helps form holarchies - the “nested” nature of holons, where one holon can be considered as part of another-
Heapism wasn't working for me, so I really appreciate this system.

“I am often asked, why even attempt an integration of the various worldviews? Isn't it enough to simply celebrate the rich diversity of various views, and not try to integrate them? Well, recognising diversity is certainly a noble endeavour, and I heartily support that pluralism. But if we remain merely at the stage of celebrating diversity, we are ultimately promoting fragmentation, alienation, separation. You go your way, I go my way, we both fly apart - which is often what has happened under the reign of the pluralistic relativists, who have left us a post-modern Tower of Babel on too many fronts. It is not enough to recognise the many ways in which we are all different; we need to go further and start recognising the many ways that we are also similar. Otherwise we simply contribute to heapism, not wholism. Building on the rich diversity offered by pluralistic relativism, we need to take the next step and weave those many strands into a beautiful web of unifying connections, an interwoven tapestry of mutual intermeshing. We need, in short, to move from pluralistic relativism to universal integralism - we need to keep trying to find the One-in-the-Many that is the form of the Kosmos itself.”

Ken Wilber - Collected Works - Introduction to Volume 8

I really appreciate being able to lurk around here.

You guys rock my world.

Ps Happy Birthday Ken!

Re: Outside Integral?

Hm.

I'd like to make some distinctions. I think there's a difference between the “hierarchies” of biological unfolding, the obvious contextual hierarchies involved when it comes to determining, say, whether one particular book is better than another, and the social hierarchies of and within human societies.

It's this last one that concerns me; the first examples I'm not particularly worried about, in part because they don't affect terribly the lives of individuals. It seems to me that Wilber has used the “natural hierarchies” as justification for the existence of cultural hierarchies, and it's this that gives me pause.

I do think all social hierarchy runs the risk of oppression. Hierarchy must be based on grading and ranking, absolute or otherwise. I know this is a trite and obvious point, but who determines that grading and ranking, if not the group at - or near - the top of the hierarchy? And what has bestowed that group with the power to control those below it? In a hierarchical system, those at the top determine what is seen as legitimate. I don't have any problem with hierarchy per se, but I do wonder at the blase comfort with which Integral posits these (social) hierarchical structures as inevitable.

You quote KW: “If we remain merely at the stage of celebrating diversity, we are ultimately promoting fragmentation, alienation, separation… . we need to take the next step and weave those many strands into a beautiful web of unifying connections, an interwoven tapestry of mutual intermeshing.”

What? Since when do “we need” to do anything? Doesn't the man trust the universe to take care of itself? ;)

I think I've written before at the hubris involved in assuming we can understand this web. Yes, we can say that the world (people, systems, societies, etc) is interconnected, interdependent, interrelated, but actually (cognitively) understanding these connections would require the expanses of time and space that are utterly unavailable to us right now. Again, we can barely comprehend the ways in which the workings of the global capitalist systems intervenes on our identities and affects the rest of the world. I see Integral as heavily colored by Wilber's situation in this contemporary landscape. The fact that he / we are culturally bound in no way delegitimizes his articulation of what's come before (though it's something to be mindful of), but it, I feel, does call into question any consideration about the rightness of future paths.

And that's what I'm curious about, and interested in … the questioning. Because in the long run, I have total faith the the cycles will take care of themselves; hierarchies are overthrown, revolutions occur, and - yes - I understand that all this is built into Integral. But Integral itself cannot be removed from this process, and, again, endorsing a hierarchical model - especially with oneself at the top - seems to me to be asking for revolution. ;)

Re: Outside Integral?

Sonia: “Furthermore, if spirituality is evolutionary, than it should proceed, as biological evolution has done, along all manner of nuanced trajectories and different paths, and should look different depending on where it arises; we might be able to say what one evolutionary branch looks like, but we can't extrapolate to all cases.”

I love this!  I think this is somewhat evidence that spirituality is not evolutionary at all.  My reasoning is that there seems to be enough consensus that there is One Spirit (unless that is a myth, seriously considered).  If there can be multiple outcomes of spiritual evolution by various paths, than, I would say, it is not evolution in a heirarchical developmental sense, but just a play of consciousness going everywhere from nowhere.  Further, I think this begins to make some sense of a sneaking suspicion I have that all of apparent evolution is just part of the same game, everywhere from nowhere.  Talk about a win-win.  Start with nothing and get everything! Non-zero sums abound!  (ahem).

Keith

Re: Outside Integral?

Julian, is it necessary to draw lines or to make objective sense of everything?

I can agree with Sonia somewhat, while recognizing somehow (and who knows if it is even a choice or not…it's just what I happen to “see”) that there appear to be distinctions to be made, I am just not sure what is the value of making them.  My experience, more and more, is just that this is unfolding as it is, just because.  I feel less and less in control, but at the same time I feel more and more at ease as I accept that, and I am not even sure what it is in me that is doing the accepting.  I know this sounds totally flaky, but that's just where I am.  And I do not feel paralyzed by it, and somehow unable to act in ways that are apparently appropriate (or wholly inappropriate, alas).  I still go on about my life, doing all the things I have been for years.  I just do them.  That's all.  I make fewer distinctions about doing them.  They get done nonetheless.  In fact, it seems to feel easier and more enjoyable doing them when I am not valueing them over what I might else be doing.

Sonia, do you get where I'm coming from with this?

Keith

Re: Outside Integral?

Keith.

Yes! Exactly! I think that's what I was trying to get at earlier on, with my floundering words about opening space in order to allow for the unfolding of what IS, and the sort of delight and sorrow and satisfaction that I got from providing such a container. It captures that paradox, I think, of restraint and freedom, and, too, of trust. I don't know. For me much of what it comes down to is trust - both in myself and the world at large. I'm not sure whether this is close to what you mean to put forth, but it's what came up for me.

Re: Outside Integral?

Sonia: “As an aside, I didn't mean for my little story to be universalized . I don't think being in touch with myself or supporting others is “more evolved” than not doing so. I was just clarifying my personal position – I thought it would be helpful for you to know where I was coming from. Because, again, I'm can't be remotely sure that my stance is “healthy” or desirable. It's just where I happen to be right now.”

I like asides.  This points to what I also find hard to define/defend about my own perspective/position.  It seems that some effort on the path, which was and still is to a degree, aimed at development, has me in a place where that is not as desperately seeking but just going along for the ride more and more.  I suppose it's a preference, but it's more of just what I am than what I prefer.  It's where I am, now.

That gets me wondering, what does presence have to do with heirarchies?

(what does this question have to do with the topic of this thread?  I suppose I'll have to think about that, but right now, and not that I seem to be able to choose differently I don't feel like it right now;-)  And my aside…I sometimes like to ask questions and not try to answer them.  The opening of the question itself suits me.)

Keith

Re: Outside Integral?

I like to ask questions and not answer them, too. I'm pathologically inquisitive that way. Or indecisive. ;)

But I loved your question. What does presence have to do with hierarchy? My sense would be that radical presence dissolves hierarchy, but I'm unsure of how to articulate this. Part of it is because it seems to me that total presence involves, firstly, a letting go of the need to compare (which eliminates a sort of definitional hierarchy) and, secondly, a letting go of the need to control (which allows for the ease of flow and flux that's generally impeded by a rigidly hierarchical system).  I'm sure there's more than this, though; it seems a wonderfully provocative question. Thank you.

Re: Outside Integral?

Sonia: “You asked, how is the notion that evolution is “going somewhere” pathological? I'm not sure how I can make it more clear. A pathological holon is, according to Wilber, one that is abusing its power of upward or downward causation. Adopting an ideology of growth and attempting to direct that anywhere outside one's own holonic domain amounts to usurping that holon's position in system, no? How is that NOT pathological?”

I wonder if the following is pathological:

I can't live for another second without killing something (abusing microbial life over which I have downward power of causation…then again, those little buggers can kill me too!).  In that case, merely being is pathological, no? 

It seems to me that this all-over-the-place holonic creation/destruction game appears to be developmental/evolutionary to a holon that has upward momentum.  Those that also have sentient awareness can feel good about it.  On the other hand, those who are sinking deeper and know about it feel like shit.  And, one day, in a billion or so years, the Sun will make this globe toast.  Another universe may form (as a member of a probable multi-verse), and this game that appears developmental will resume elsewhere…until it stops and starts all over again.  I can't get around this all-over-the-place big picture, in spite of the obvious trends we see when focusing elsewhere.

Keith

Re: Outside Integral?

But death isn't inherently pathological, is it? Death is just part of the cycle. This is why, I think, I keep trying to point to context; death is no more necessarily pathological than suffering or decline or senescence pain or life or bliss. I think you touched on something important with that second paragraph; those within the downward cycle (be it the latter half of development or within a holon that's descending) will have a different view. And of course there's the probability that we all have both within us …

Re: Outside Integral?

Julian:  “everything is going somehwere”

…until it ends up back where it started.

Keith

(Not intending to selectively comment on your posts, Julian.  I am tending to by sympathetic to Sonia and Lol, so I don't feel there is much to go after there.  Maybe as I get into this thread more I'll find something that tempts me!)

Re: Outside Integral?

Well, Integral by definition encompasses the whole ball game, though the map is not complete yet.   I think what is less clear  in Wilberian theory is how states of 'dissonance'  and 'down' move into states of 'resonance' and 'opening up'…..  there  is a continual birthing process in which none of us can see the whole picture.  So what looks very bad may be very good and vice versa and vice versa again.  Being closed down, abused, abusive and paralysed in fear is not a positive or joyful state and yet in the compost barrel of life this negative state can become its opposite, sometimes in a flash…just like I can change my mind……anything polarized to its extreme state may start to conjure the conditions of its release into the opposite..(I say 'may' because there are very dark places and I have peered down some black holes and I don't know, indeed, if we are going to make it out of our present trend….I really don't know)  Still, we have heroic examples from the history of the universe where, clever as can be, and at the end of the rope, pa-ding–the waste products of one process become the substrate for the next….falling and catching, falling and catching….dancing…spiralling through space…   I know that there are benefits to meditation and moving along the x axis of the states.  At the same time,  the trauma and the grind of day to day living give us the conditions that we need and that are also essential to position us to choose to become centered and present in our own lives.  And if those conditions are so horrible and they are for many people that they are overwhelming individual survivabililty,  then  they are creating a disruption on a larger front that must be addressed, ie) terrorism, poverty, world ecosystem degradation. 

I think how the 'birthing process' works is most worthy of consideration.  Even though, for instance, a method where Andrew Cohen becomes the sole midwife of the universe seems ridiculously suspect to me,  I do believe that looking carefully at evolutionary enlightenment is important…How does it happen? What does it look like? How do we fully engage in our shadow work, in an integral life practice?

…  As my sister Jocelyn wrote: “strangely born we birth eachother, strangely torn we teach eachother, and what we know of one another is the only thing to know.”   We are birthing each other……I am sure about this….and to really understand this, means that although I have to speak my truth, I speak it from the deepest humility, and with respect….I don't know what another person needs to do……even if I am pretty sure….I do not know…….and like someone wrote: If you meet someone who really does knows, laugh….and with this unknowing, I must proceed brailing along with my best approximation of the truth, living my way into answers….and always prepared to let go of the outcome, living blindly, travelling at the speed of light.

Re: Outside Integral?

siona, pick a line any line.

draw a simple line in the sand between healthy and pathological - it won't hurt…it's a good good thing :O)

how about there being pathology present in a child who never learns to walk because of cerebral palsy, but not in the child who crawls, walks and runs free of this affliction?

how about: charles manson suffers from a complete lack of empathy for others and a murderous narcissistic psychosis that bishop desmond tutu exemplifies a kind of opposite of - a la preconventional and postconventional morality?

how there is pathology present in the PTSD paranoia of the war veteran which is not manifest in the person with a healthy vigilance who locks their door at night and goes to sleep?

or the incest survivor who finds herself looking down on her body from the ceiling during sex and believes she has a guardian angel who holds her when she gets scared but sometimes screams at her for creating bad situations?

how about augusto pinochet enacting a level of govenrmental pathology in which thousands were abducted tortured and killed, while the government of sweden debates wether  or not it is horribly gender oppressive to not pass a law that makes it mandatory for the father to take at least 50% of the fully paid time-off to raise the baby in the first year instead of allowing the couple to split the paid leave anyway they want to….

here's a fun one: - famous “psychic” sylvia browne claimed on the montel williams show to know that shawn brownbeck was dead and had been abducted and killed by a hispanic looking man with dreadlocks. the parents were devastated but tried to accept that this must be true, based on browne's reputation. when they asked for more information she allegedly offered cunsult with them for her regular phone session fee of $700 for 20 minutes…

recently shawn was found alive and his pale-faced anglo-haired kidnapper was taken into custody….. what is the pathology that brown is enacting? what is the pathology that collectively prompts people to accept these sorts of claims?

famous skeptic james randi has offered $1000,000 to anyone who can prove paranormal powers of any kind under basic controlled scientific parameters - it has still never been claimed - and he has been doing this all over the world with the most famous psychics and mentalists for many decades…..yet still the pull to the prerational is so strong.

Re: Outside Integral?

oops that's shawn hornbeck..

Re: Outside Integral?

Oh, I have no problem with picking lines. It's universalizing them that I find problematic. Just because something is a line in one situation doesn't mean it can necessarily be applied in another, no? Drawing lines in the sand is fine; they're erasable, flexible, changeable. Universalizing pathology - which, again, is contextual - is not. Pathology is based on norms, and what we consider healthy today we may well be horrified by in the future. Have you ever heard of the term “draepetomania”? This was a diagnosis that was once applied to “people with an uncontrollable desire to escape slavery.” And it certainly wasn't the group at the top that decided to rewrite that textbook … ;)

I'm not saying lines don't or can't exist. Again, I'm merely pointing out that it's impossible to remove them some kind (social) context. (Reality might not be contextual, but our impossible-to-escape apprehension of it is.)

But can I go, quickly, to your final point?
 
You seem to keep coming back to this notion of prerational pathology. I'll take up the positive framework of Integral again and venture that the reason this apparent pathology is occurring is due to a parallel pathology of the rational – an attempt to control and exert power over domains above and below it, thus disallowing the flourishing of a healthier base. (See my point above - that cree picked up on - about the necessary paradox involved in attempting to control things outside one's personal / holonic responsibility.) What if it's the over-privileging  of reason that has contributed to the fact that myth and mythology are struggling in the world? I don't think I need to point out the general lamentation from indigenous societies about how these perspectives are no longer honored. And where they're no longer recognized or appreciated in a positive sense, doesn't it follow that they'll start manifesting as shadowy negatives?

Perhaps this is a different topic. ;) But if you want to talk about the pathology of prerational myth, I'd suggest that the “cure” is not to root out and vilify a necessary part of ourselves, but to create a healthy space so that this structure / process might be explored and developed and honored. Pushing for more reason will only create a greater reaction (what we resist persists … )

Re: Outside Integral?

siona simple questions:

is there any pathology you think will never be seen as healthy?

do you think all acknowledging of pathology has an inherent potential for oppression?

which begs the question: do you think oppression is pathological?

Re: Outside Integral?

There's no such thing as a simple question. ;)

1. I don't know.

2. Acknowledging? What's the difference between acknowledging and labeling? I'd say that the very language you're using reveals a danger of oppression. So yes.

3. And as to your final question … Oppression is the negative experience of people targeted by the cruel use of power in a social group. I personally think cruelty is wrong, but I wouldn't say that this means that oppression is pathological; pathology implies abnormality and looking at the cycle of human history we've seen oppression occur time and time and time again – it seems, unfortunately, to be a relatively 'normal' and 'natural' human process.

Re: Outside Integral?

Jane.

There's much I want to say to this (your first sentence, again, I question; if I were to adopt Integral, I'd want to build in open-endedness and a self-critiquing understanding that “the whole ball game” can never be totally grasped), but I just wanted to write, quickly, that I loved what you wrote about the birthing process. I'd love to see more attention paid to this … to me there's something compelling about the metaphor. It indicates a marriage of opening and intense, near-unbearable pain, which together allow for something new - and something uncontrollable, something radically it's own - to come forth.

So yes, yes, and yes; we are birthing each other, but saying this amount to the deepest imaginable respect, no? It's taking full responsibility for the life of the other, but also understanding, fully, that they are utterly, wholly, themselves, and demonstrating the restraint - and respect - in opening to allow for that.

Thank you, and for your sister's words, too.

Re: Outside Integral?

The Two Truth's Doctrine

Hey All you Guys ~

Wow, such fantastic contributions from everyone!
I am so grateful toyou all for sharing so much great stuff here.


I am so dang short on time today and would rather spend the precious little time I do have online reading rather than writing!

However, I would like to insert something that I posted on Klare's blog recently because it feels to me like perhaps The Two Truth's Doctrine may provide some clarity? (Klare's words are italicized.)


“The universe is beautiful and sacred just as we are ultimately and I believe this is the absolute truth of the universe and all sentient beings.”

As a Buddhist you are no doubt familiar with The Two Truths Doctrine, which points two different types of truth, Relative truths, which are applicable to the relative world, and Absolute truths, which are beyond duality and relativity. 

I've been thinking about the Two Truths Doctrine lately and how we get into trouble when we confuse the them. 


Trying to describe Absolute truths in relative terms is sort of futile really, isn't it?
And yet look at all the trouble it causes.

Science and rational thought, for all it's shortcomings, at least stays to a degree, there are  big exceptions - in it's own domain - the relative.  And I think that's very important.

Religious traditions of all kinds, (again w exceptions) attempt to lay claims to Absolute truths.

Wars are being fought over the upholding of the different interpretations of Absolute truths. AND, sometimes, as is evident by the current US administration, ahem, you only need to allude to and pay lip service to Absolute truths in order to further an agenda.

And, at the same time - some 'Spiritual' types attempting to privilege the Absolute in everything use it as an excuse to avoid addressing (or often even admitting) relative truths.

Both are real.

Ultimately and Absolutely, only non-dual awareness, “the simple feeling of being,” exists. And it exists in all of us right now and always.

AND

In the relative world of meatballs (Thanks Sonia for the term!) there are relative truths to contend with.  Objective truths.  Subjective truths. All the trappings of duality.

As you said, ”Within that framework, I also have to remind myself of compassion for myself as well as others so that all beings would be able to see and be aware of the world just as it is without any filters and fabrications.”

Yes.
It feels more honest to me, like our chances of becoming fully human increase, when we make room for it all.

Honestly, these days, I'm starting to see that I'm not close to understanding anything until it becomes a big ol' incorrigable paradox!
Do you ever feel that way?


Julian,
Have you written anywhere about how the Two Truth's Doctrine, or the confusion between relative and absolute contribute to pre/trans problems?

Thanks again everyone!
xo
cori

Re: Outside Integral?

Mary: “A minor tangential response to the Amazon.com review Lol posted above: I see a lot of people who presume that contemplative Christianity, and other contemplative traditions, are all about “being alone,” remaining still in the silence, praying by one's self, going to the mountaintop, achieving certain states of consciousness, etc. This is not true, from what I have seen. Contemplation and meditation should not be divorced from service to others and from being immersed in the sufferings of the day –“

I'm right with you there, Mary. There was a time not so long ago when the actual practice of putting the time in cultivating a meditation practice was seemingly being challenged …. people weren't being out there enough in the world 'doing good deeds', and Engaged Buddhism for one had its profile raised.
In / on the path I stumble along, the practice of sitting quietly, gently letting tensions relax in body, energy and mind and gazing open-eyed into space or the sky with a soft but unmoving gaze, *allowing* outer and inner spaces to unite, then within that (re)discovering ones 'secret space', the innate natural state of primordial awareness inseparable from everything that is arising, ‘just as it is’ ….. this practice is (also) called or referred to as contemplation. And I do need to put it on my ‘to do’ list :)

I’ve been searching for a post (but can’t find it) where, if my memory serves me well, someone was saying that meditation  (and I may be wrong but I seem to remember the context being of non-dual awareness) really belonged in, in the sense of being restricted to, the UL quadrant …. and I remember then thinking of the interdependence of everything, that it’s not just a mind having a subjective phenomenological experience, but there’s also a body sitting in my case in a room, on the floor, the floor itself raised a little off the moist earth, with chattering jays flying from tree to tree outside the window and a spider in the corner straining to reach a tiny fly that’s seemingly nonchalantly wandering over the glass surface, barely out of reach.

To whatever degree I manage to stabilise this contemplation I’ve hopefully been deepening into, the real practice is bringing that with me off the meditation cushion and into my everyday interactions with the world, people, different circumstances …. can I remain present to / in that natural state whilst interacting with the postman or my landlady or my son …. can I integrate all this interaction into the natural state? If I can, then this for me is profoundly integral, and every such interaction is sacred and in its own way ‘being in service’ …. It’s like being in service to life, and I genuinely believe this being somehow permeates everything, and the more we all practice this or similar the more we profoundly impact the world we live in. Small is beautiful.

Siona: “To that end, the more emphatically Integral claims to include everything, the more danger there is in shutting down authentic inquiries. For me, a truly Integral approach would be one built the notions of opening and investigation – with an eye (or heart) toward acknowledging and holding the suffering and experiences of all earthy beings – and not hierarchy and maps.”

“Again, what's healthy and normal now may not be healthy and normal in the future, correct? This can be read in all manner of different ways, but I don't mean it in the “getting stuck” way; I mean it more in the sense that the traits and behaviors that serve an organism in one environment and in one context may not serve them in another. What's healthy in one situation may be drastically harmful in another. Evolution merely describes a process, not a direction. (And yes, there are entirely lines that evolved to become more simple forms.)”

“My point is that Integral is necessarily blinkered in its assumptions, and that I have yet to be persuaded that hierarchies are not inherently pathological (that is, dominating.) Furthermore, if spirituality is evolutionary, than it should proceed, as biological evolution has done, along all manner of nuanced trajectories and different paths, and should look different depending on where it arises; we might be able to say what one evolutionary branch looks like, but we can't extrapolate to all cases. I'm not sure that the totalizing view of Integral allow for this (or these) option(s).”

I love what you’re exploring on this thread … and the approach you’re taking, which is both ballsy as well as open, sometimes kind of undefended … I think its not only valid in its own right but also needed on this forum, just as much as others’ approaches …. Jane, Balder, Julian to name but a few.

I think there can be a tedency to present the integral vision as a map with a prescribed route, ever onward and upward, and those unfortunate colours further down the spiral are the ones we’re all (or should be) desperately trying to move away from …. and we can repeat the “transcend and include” mantra but so often it doesn’t feel so very inclusive …. in any case, some things are just sooooooo prerational.

Maps are useful things, but not necessarily primarily for planning a route from A to B, they also allow us to appreciate the various topographical features … and those features can be interpreted or appreciated in different ways depending on the context.

I so valued what Transient had to say on the Pre/Trans thread (here, here, here, here and here in case you missed it, S.). I don’t think what he brought to the table was acknowledged properly or enough – I for one was left in a kind of stupefied open-mouthed admiration that rendered me incapable of saying very much at the time – and I do feel there are things he said in his (fourth of five) second post in response to Julian that still haven’t been addressed.

So I’d like to copy a few paragraphs to this thread, because I do think they’re rather relevant.

(Julian): i think beyond the catgories is a transcend and include affair. in other words one still has access to the category awareness after transcending it….it doesnt go anywhere and can still be used - in fact even more effectively.

(Transient): IMHO - “more effectively” is about seeing categories as partially arbitrary, secondary overlays artificially dividing a unified reality.  There are no prerational forms, rational forms or transrational forms in existence prior to our categorizations.  Our categorizations are artificial forms arising out of worldviews.  The whole pre/trans matrix is based on a specific Wilberian worldview.  The categories might or might not be useful in a given situation, but they are not accurate descriptions of a-priori reality.

Transrational cognition is transcognitive in a sense.  It is able to navigate through multiple worldviews and paradigms, including the AQAL paradigm and the Bleep paradigm, and the spirit-guide-new-age paradigm, and the reductive materialist paradigm, etc.  It may use many different paradigms to evaluate forms, ways and means within each  current context it finds itself in.  There might be great value in a shared interpretation of disembodied spirits in one context, and not in another, depending on what is being served in a given situation. 

Transrational spirituality is paradoxical to the rational mind, yet simple of flex and flow.  It moves out of and beyond rationality by moving into and through currents of feeling/thought, including what you might categorize as “prerational affect”.  The currents of thought/feeling are tightly interwoven, and what might be usefully categorized as prerational one moment might be be usefully apprehended as rational or transrational the next…or even more usefully, not evaluated in this way at all. 
It just keeps getting more contextually relative the further you go.

and

(Julian): can you differentiate what you are saying in your last couple paragraphs from a merely pluralistic green stance?

(Transient): I've already made a gesture in that direction with the somatic bits.  Now the multiple paradigm angle. 

A “merely pluralistic green stance” as I understand it, is about an absolute relativism.  What I'm talking about is a relative relativism.  ~:o)  You use the phrase “unconditional embrace” in your next question.  That about says it right there.  It's interesting that you would read that into my intent.  “Unconditional” is about as far from my meaning as you can get.

A transrational embodied cognition has the capacity to adopt multiple perspectives as we all know.  To me this means not just the Wilberian 1^st 2^nd 3^rd 4^th etc, but also the multiple paradigms referred to in his integral methodological pluralism.  Flex and flow means moving within the current context.  If the only context you ever find yourself in is Wilberian-integral, then you don't get much opportunity to practice.  If you only make use of the values of one paradigm, you get plenty of chances to dis other competing paradigms, and you're not demonstrating transrational cognition IMHO.  This doesn't mean unconditional acceptance of all paradigms, worldviews, values ect as equal, but rather context dependent.  See the difference?

Contexts within contexts within contexts within contexts, and all with relative values.

(Julian): how do you reconcile healthy critical thinking and the compassionate desire to identify and heal pathology with what you seem to be saying is the transrationasl abiliity to embrace the new age stuff uncondtionally?

(Transient): By practicing trust in the body's wisdom.

Healing pathology is not the business of the critical mind IMHO.  The disembodied critical mind can be useful at times for discerning practical modalities, and useful for evaluating results, but not so good at diagnosis and prescription.  Healing is inherently a mystery, and feeling-based.  I would say even love-based.  The disembodied critical mind is more often than not at odds with this approach.  All the more so when that function or capacity is being used as a dissociative device, and an identity.

Re: Outside Integral?

Lol? Thank you, deeply, for bringing Transient's words into this thread. I feel that same “stupified open-mouthed admiration”; I think there's much of value here.

Excuse me while I ramble a bit.

I went back and skimmed over the pre/trans dialogue. I loved Transient's additional point of KW doing the spiritual equivalent of handing WMDs to earlier meme groups. He observed that rational individuals are as capable at misguidedly defending “transrational insights” as belief-based individuals are of defending “rational” insights. I liked this parallel because (to me at least!) it's obvious that the structures, axioms, and claims of science / rationality can be picked up and pegged into mythological / prerational structures and, again, defended by those who think they need defending. But I digress.

I think what I would take away from all this is something, again, that Transient touched on, in response to Julian's concern that he was not being taken seriously.

Transient: “I meant that I am in it for the chess game, and that I am sympathetic and skeptical with your inquiry.  If you want to do a more realistic and effective inquiry, can I suggest that you start by inquiring about the wisdom of adopting positional debate as a form of dialog?  The dialog work of David Bohm might be of some use to you.”

Perhaps we could use that as an invitation to continue? It seems a little as though we've already working with a similar the process here …

”Bohm Dialogue (often referred to simply as Dialogue by its proponents) is conducted in groups of 10 to 40 people, who sit in a single circle, for a few hours during regular meetings or for a few days in a workshop environment. Participants “suspend” their thoughts, motives, impulses and judgements – exploring and attempting to “think together” collectively. According to the proposal, Dialogue should not be confused with discussion, lecture, discourse or debate, which, says Bohm, all suggest working towards a goal rather than simply exploring. Meeting without an objective or agenda is done to create a “free space” for something new to happen.”

I'm mindful that this apparent inaction might be seen as lazy or blind to the “work that needs to be done in the world” so that the spiral can “be healthy.” Again, though, from where I sit, I'm far more interested in NOT continuing the perpetuation of control and abuse by demanding that others behave differently, or in a certain way, be it according to the trajectory of a hypothesized spiral or to my own precious (and necessarily changeable) worldview. I like, Lol, your final quotation, about how healing is the work of the heart, not the mind. I know I can only speak from experience, but I've found, overwhelmingly, that this is true.

“The buddha was once threatened with death by a bandit called Angulimal.

“Then be good enough to fulfill my dying wish,' said Buddha. 'First, cut off the branch of that tree.' One lash of the sword and it was done. 'What now?' asked the bandit.

'Put it back again,' said the Buddha.

The bandit laughed. 'You must be crazy to to think that anyone can do that.'

'On the contrary, it is you who are crazy to think that you are mighty because you can wound and destroy. That is the task of children. The powerful know how to create and heal.'”

Re: Outside Integral?

It's getting a bit too close to the winding-down, clearing-the-mind and preparing for that mysterious journey into the Land of Nod (on this side of the pond at least) to get into a lengthy response ….

Love the idea of Bohm Dialogue …. (so how do we structure that, then? :-p ) …. and I agree, it does seem we are already working with a similar process.

At the end you say:

But there seems something to this, no? Creating and healing, to my mind, is not something that can be done,
or that can be forced or prescribed, but that must be allowed. Does
anyone believe otherwise? I'm trying to tie in, again, the values of
opening and questioning and letting go with the idea of healing, given
that health and pathology seem to be recurring themes. Is this sparking
anything?

I agree …. in my work opening, as in helping create an open space … questioning, if & when appropriate or called for … letting go of knowing …. and simply receiving, allowing, being with, dancing with …. all are part of the joint practice between myself and client(s) …. but also define the container that makes it possible for their intelligent health … or maybe just intelligent health itself … to effect healing, the healing process.

What I'm certainly open to discovering … and I think this is already in process … is in what way the integral vision can create a container, or a structure, that facilitates a wider healing process.

Re: Outside Integral?

Siona:

Been following this whole thread, trying to figure out a response.   In defense of hierarchies / holoarchies: I like to think of the simple progression from egocentric to ethnocentric to worldcentric to kosmocentric.  Would you argue that you can't know whether it's better to be world or kosmocentric rather than ego or ethnocentric?

I would think it's easy to say world or kosmo is better.  For the simple reason that at those levels of development we extend more care and concern to greater numbers of our fellow beings.  So it would be better if more people got to those higher levels.  Which is where I-I and such come in.  Or how I see their role.  They're working to develop a set of practices that will get as many people as possible to as high a level of care and concern as possible.   The maps help with this. 

As for the idea of those at the top telling other folks how they should be… haven't most really great advancements in civilization, like say extending rights, ending the slave trade, etc, come about orginally because a fairly small group of people were determined to raise the bar of care and concern?  They neccessairly had to tell people to change their beliefs for those things to happen.  They had to say, the way people see (and do) things now is not good enough, we need to do better. 

As to whether creating and healing is something that can be done or simply has to happen, what would you say the Buddha is doing in the example you gave?  It seems that if the words are truly heard they will have the effect of changing how the person spoken to sees the world, will prehaps create healing.

Re: Outside Integral?

Hm. I wouldn't see that so much as a hierarchy as a deepening of compassion.

And yes, I do think there's a difference.

When it comes to those at the top telling others how they should be, how do you know it wasn't the “natural evolution of spirit”  (aside: I'm highly ambivalent / agnostic about what this means …) that brought others up to their level, not that small group “tell[ing] people to change their beliefs”?  I can't say I've ever told someone to change their belief and have it work. ;) How do you know these advancements weren't the result of more people being invited to wake up to their humanity?

Re: Outside Integral?

You said: “Hm. I wouldn't see that so much as a hierarchy as a deepening of compassion.”

But more compassion is better than less, no?  We can make that value judgement.  And we wouldn't be out of line to tell folks it is better to have more compassion, to perhaps even suggest exercises to develop it, to work on themselves until they felt more compassion.   

You said: “How do you know these advancements weren't the result of more people being invited to wake up to their humanity?”

Because those changes had to be fought for. 

Re: Outside Integral?

I not so sure I would say more compassion is necessarily better than less, it really depends on how functional the moral stream is when it intermingles with the rest of the streams. And there always intermingling.

It would however seem more likely to be a good thing rather than a bad thing, but that doesn’t qualify it as being a rule to put in stone. If it’s functional in the human system (all quadrants) then it would prove better for humans and other sentient beings.

I’m just assuming what goes where, but wouldn’t empathy be higher than compassion in the moral line? I don’t even know at this moment what goes in the moral line in AQAL terms. That will teach me for not being an ‘integral’ junkie…

It doesn’t matter, bottom line is, more doesn’t equal better. Whatever proves more functional on the other hand does mean better. The equation of what is better is constantly changing from one moment to the next.

Am I getting to relative? :)

Re: Outside Integral?

Yeah, functional is an important.

And I should have spoken more clearly.  When I said “more,” what i meant was compassion being extended to a wider swath of beings.  I didn't mean a greater quantity of compassion being felt when compassion is felt.

Don't know if that actually clears anything up.  But still…

Re: Outside Integral?

No it does help… I had a feeling for where you were coming from in the first place. I’m just trying to move the conversation along…

But the point too that I was making is that dysfunction can be functional when we’re taking the whole shebang into account. It all depends on the context of the current situation.

Re: Outside Integral?

Sonia: “How do you know these advancements weren't the result of more people being invited to wake up to their humanity?”

Umguy: “Because those changes had to be fought for.”

I don't see waking up and fighting as mutually exclusive.  Maybe enough people woke up to their humanity that the changes were inevitable, and fighting off the old structures was the means to the end.  Maybe people just began to look each other in the eyes and know, not cognitively, but in their hearts, that the time had come, and that empowered them to fight and win.

Keith

Re: Outside Integral?

Umguy: “As for the idea of those at the top telling other folks how they should be… haven't most really great advancements in civilization, like say extending rights, ending the slave trade, etc, come about orginally because a fairly small group of people were determined to raise the bar of care and concern?”

To quote/paraphrase David Hawkins (he's said it so many times and in slightly different ways, this will do):

“All happens of it's own accord, depending on karmic propensities and prevailing local conditions”

What that means to me, is, that we don't actually do anything, we just think we do.  An example might be that, in the case of civil rights in the USA, it was just time for it to happen.  There were enough people who were fed up with the status quo, of which, and by who knows what cause, some were natural as leaders, more were willing and able activists, and many, many more were ready to take the stand when the momentum built up enough to give them hope that it might actually succeed.  Why?  Cause and effect?  I can't help but to be totally mystified as to point out that or even those causes without having to go on ad infinitum.

Now, I am asking myself, in keeping with this thread's title, what does this have to do with integral and who or what is outside of it?  I can't see anything that's not fully integrated into the whole thing.  To follow the line started by Lol in his posting of Transients comments and some of the follow up, I also just feel it all to be integrated, and I don't feel like I have to do anything.  I just feel like it will be done (“Thy Will be done”???!!!), and I trust Thou in doing it, whether through me or you doesn't particularly matter to me.  Thankfully, I don't have to get all worried about whether I have to do it either, or whether anybody is included inside or outside.  I do what gets done.  So does everybody.  Nobody's excluded.

I also want to comment on that bit from a Transient quote, about unconditional acceptance being context dependent.  I think that is the best definition of unconditional love that I have ever seen.  It feels…..eewwwwww!:-)…like Transient is saying that loving unconditionally happens by accepting what is in the context that it arises.

Yay!  I am totally digging these discussions!

Keith

Re: Outside Integral?

Keith:

I get what you're saying.  And whether it happens through us or it is something we co-create, or whether it is completely up to us, I still believe it is a matter of evolution and development and that we can make relative judgements about the better-ness of various levels.  

Actually…. given that development can become pathological and we're arguing about whether hierarchies are good or pathalogical or what-have-you, do things always happen as they should or can they go terribly wrong?

Given what you argue is it possible we're still going to screw up, do something like ruin the planet and all die off?   Does this go back to relative  vs. absolute.  In absolute terms that would be fine, it's as it should be, thou will be done.  Relatively speaking it would really suck and would be better for all of us if we didn't let it happen.  

Anyway…

Re: Outside Integral?

Umguy: “Given what you argue is it possible we're still going to screw up, do something like ruin the planet and all die off?   Does this go back to relative  vs. absolute.  In absolute terms that would be fine, it's as it should be, thou will be done.  Relatively speaking it would really suck and would be better for all of us if we didn't let it happen. ”

Relatively speaking, we'd all be dead, so who is there to care about it then?  Who is there for it to be better for?  The problem, as I see it, is the fear that it will happen and fantasizing about the suffering it may cause.

I do get what your saying, and I don't act in a way that is contrary to the position of “saving the planet” or “changing the world.”  I just don't get hung up on considering that the human experience must go on forever.  It won't, and can't.  Some human civilization will be the last.  Whether it is this one or not….well, if you don't want it to be this one then isn't that an endorsement of letting someone else suffer, maybe far, far into the future, but then feeling relieved that it doesn't have to be you?  As for me, if the world is gonna end eventually, and it will, why should this generation, or the next or next, be spared the pain of it rather than just taking it maturely and accepting it as inevitable?  I don't want to suffer and die, but if somone has to, and that is the case (unless you think we can run off to some other planet as in Battlestar Galactica or something, talk about myth), then why not me, right here, right now?

“Right here, right now, there is no other place I want to be
Right here, right now, watching the world wake up from history”

Jesus Jones (chorus from the song “Right Here Right Now)

“I'm not frigtened of dying.  Why should I be frightened of dying?  Anytime will do.”

dubbed interview background track from “The Great Gig in the Sky”, Pink Floyd, “Dark Side of the Moon”

Keith

Re: Outside Integral?

Hm. I do find that things always happen as they should, but understanding this requires being in touch with a deeper allowance that, I feel, requires one to act in a certain way. Or requires is the wrong word; it's more like, within this sense of utter freedom and giving over to the inevitable nature of the unfolding, I feel as though my actions arise within that same harmonious symphony, and I could and would not possibly want to disrupt what is flowing forth. Yes, I'll act accordingly to live in a greener fashion, to be more peaceable, to stay healthy and love well. And in being, in allowing, I feel I AM “changing the world” or “saving the planet,” it's just not 'me' that is doing so.

I'm not sure whether that made sense … but I tried. ;)

Re: Outside Integral?

Keith: This is tangential, but Mushin has a beautiful post on his blog about the cause and effect issue that I certainly enjoyed reading.

He concludes with:

”So beings move in concert – sometimes cacaphonically, sometimes polyphonically and sometimes symphonically, to differentiate a few of the many ways of relating between entities, beings and the whole. And when one looks in the cause and effect-way one takes a slice out of this resounding story to, maybe, know what to do. But looking at it as if the kosmos (signifying ‘harmonious whole’) were a concert one rather asks, how to be, how to sound right now. In the cause & effect world there are laws. In the world of kosmic concert there are repeating melodies, rhythms and rhymes… which is why I’ve come to prefer that myth over the deterministic one.”

Re: Outside Integral?

 In this passing moment karma ripens
and all things come to be. 
I vow to choose what is:
If there is cost, I choose to pay.
If there is need, I choose to give.
If there is pain, I choose to feel.
If there is sorrow, I choose to grieve.
When burning - I choose heat.
When calm - I choose peace.
When starving - I choose hunger.
When happy - I choose joy.
Whom I encounter,  I choose to meet.
What I shoulder,  I choose to bear.
When it is my death,  I choose to die.
Where this takes me,  I choose to go.
Being with what is - I respond to what is.

This life is as real as a dream;
the one who knows it can not be found;
and, truth is not a thing - Therefore I vow
to choose THIS dharma entrance gate!
May all Buddhas and Wise Ones
help me live this vow.

Re: Outside Integral?

Siona:

A related response from me to your disdain for labels is here.

I must admit to finding your attempts to explain your difficulties with these aspects of integral theory to be confusing though probably not confused (except as noted below with regard to pathologies). 

I suspect that your aversion to hierarchy and evolution and labels is basically a type difference (a preference for a more communal rather than agentic mode of discourse) because you do seem to acknowledge the validity of hierarchies within certain contexts, but you prefer not to highlight any hierarchy at all.

I would invite you to consider that there is a middle ground or unity between agentic and communal types as ways of thinking about and discussing evolution. It is possible to affirm BOTH the reality and value of making hierarchical distinctions AND the reality that these distinctions are inherently suspect and that there is a sort of leveling equality among possible variations. Looking at hierarchies/altitude is seeing reality through the lense of Eros or evolution; seeing a holism and equality/depth among possibilities is seeing through the lense of Agape or involution. In my own writing, I believe that every altitude in evolution has a corresponding and “levelling” depth in involution.

So I make sense of your point – “I question whether there is such a thing as a non-pathological hierarchy, and, if not, what this means for the project of Integral as a whole.” as follows: first, strike the phrase “non-pathological” (see below); second, affirm exactly what you said as a perfectly valid perspective on evolution, as seen from (a) a communal type, and/or (b) the point-of-view of Agape, not Eros.

Finally, on your dismissal of pathologies… You also are skeptical at all pathologies, which strikes me as the only part of your post that is actually off base, rather than merely a different way of expressing integral. No look at human nature should omit the notion of pathology. Can you honestly say with a straight face that at a moral level of analysis, Charles Manson's behavior isn't pathological? Unless you say more about “there are no pathologies,” The only sense that I would agree with you is the sense of Absolute perspective on value; from that perspective, all behavior is equally healthy and pathological in all respects. Even holistic archetypal psychology contains an inherent notion of pathology without recognizing hierarchy (the pathology is usually expressed as “healthy” or “unhealthy” applications of mythic archetypes, or “golden shadow” v. “dark shadow.”) But no interesting theory except pathological green does away with concepts of pathology altogether. I respectfully disagree with your assessment that “this is not green speaking.” It sounds like possibly pathological green to me. ;-)

Re: Outside Integral?

Oh, totally true, Joe! And trust me, I'm well-aware that I'm using all this - and the Integral 'project' as a whole - to wrestle with my own shadow stuff. ;)  I know I have baggage around intellectual analysis and labeling and the like, which I've likely not fully forgiven myself for. You've all been fantastic at indulging me and so I'm hoping only that I can begin to return the favor.

(I just wanted to start with that … perhaps it should precede every post. ;) And I went and followed up to your post about labels … so feel free to have a read.)

Okay. Now to this one.

I can't really concur with the type difference, because, again, I know that at one point in my past I was rabidly hierarchical; if we want to use Integral or SDi, I'd say I was heavily Orange with an opportunistic, cognitive grasp of Yellow, and I spent an embarrassing period lambasting postmodernism / relativism / all-that-is-Green. It was a little humbling to begin the process of waking up and realizing that all the intellect in the world couldn't get me to that embodied apprehension of Yellow, and that a full integration of Green was necessary first. So that's a little where I'm coming from. (Or perhaps where I am still. I'm quite convinced when I get threatened I fall back on Green …)

I don't want to come across as being disdainful of labels! I think I'm trying to provide a semi-conscious counter-balance to a necessary over-valuation of rationality, the unexamined labeling of pathology, and the general adulation of independence and agency in the culture of global capitalism. This is all something I feel could stand to be questioned, and I'm sensitive to the fact that our language and categories and way of speaking do a great deal toward undermining any critique. So again . .  if I over-react, it's for this reason.

Anyway.

The notion of pathology is one that I'm still skittish around, and this is in part because - and you might laugh at this, given my earlier protestations about labelings - I think there ought to be distinctions made here. I have no problem with contextual pathology; I know that there are diseased bodies; I know that mental health is a serious concern. That's cool. It's fine for someone to say that they're sick, or for us to look at an organism and call it diseased. However, I'm aware that pathology implies normalcy; it implies a natural state of affairs. Something in me rebels at the presumption that any given social order is natural; to label one as such is an ideological gambit and so I think it's important to maintain the distinction between natural hierarchies (which I'll still confess to being skeptical about) and (in Wilber's words) the dominator hierarchies of social systems. Otherwise it becomes too easy to justify oppression and pathologize marginalized groups. Does that help explain my position? I'm sorry if it wasn't clear before.

So thank you, deeply, for your compassion and even-handed explanation, and I will take full responsibility for my reactionary sense of an abundance of agency in our contemporary society; I suppose, speaking personally, that I still feel more than a little bruised from my tangles with it, and it's made me more than a little sensitive around these issues.