Gaia: The Integral Pod - Embodiment - What does integral really look like?

Re: What does integral really look like?

http://serengeti.gaia.com — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 15:42:43 GMT

Hi Tely, yes, any later stage might be seen as but an extension of its previous, revealing more subtle (ie, yellow) patterns implicit in that earlier (ie, green) stage. In this illustration, "yellow" would be seen to appear or be fixed in the person in question only when sufficient irritations not fitting the green pattern appear to be thus linked, as between themselves and incorporating their less subtle green components, in their yellow ordering.

As to how networking societies might be integral, I think my post is a bit of a non-sequitur borne of not reading the entire thread before I posted. Those societies, as described, do sound a bit green to me.

: )

Re: What does integral really look like?

http://tely.gaia.com — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 02:18:16 GMT

This is a great explanation, Hermes – thank you! You’re saying that the “integral” part comes from the patterns-of-patterns-of-patterns. In other words, taking the horizontal expanse and creating a framework in which to hold all of it in some meaningful, related way. That said, do you think networking societies that are decentralized, collaborative, and horizontally complex are necessarily integral? What makes these networks integral?

Re: What does integral really look like?

http://serengeti.gaia.com — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 17:51:20 GMT

Hi Tely, I think too-much separating horizontal from vertical leads to problems. To wit, IMO, a new vertical stage appears only at some minimum measure of horizontal expansion. In other words, only where the horizontal stage in question shows a certain (probably repeating) problem can a new vertical stage, solving that problem, emerge. One can think by analogy to developments in physics, whereby only mastery on the Newtonian level precipitated the proper "irritations" (the unsolved problems) that led, in one instance, to relativity, in another to quantum mechanics.

So, too, I think with individual development, such that horizontal expansion is closely related---perhaps so close as to be---vertical development. One might even say a purely horizontal way of viewing development is more easily visualized: with expansion comes or is revealed ever subtler, more broad-ranging patterns. In this regard, think of a pattern of similar sized, small squares (or whatever) of paint on a football field. Zoom in close to view only a very small area of the field. At that close distance, a certain gross pattern is evident. As one pulls the camera back to view from an ever greater distance, patterns of patterns first reveal themselves, then patterns of patterns of patterns. Call this latter (p-of-p-of-p) "integral," which in this analogy is but the fuller horizontal expression of the original (red or blue, etc) up-close pattern, implied by it, contained within it.

See Wolfram's A New Kind of Science.

So, expand horizontally! Could be the essential basis for so-called vertical expansion.

Re: What does integral really look like?

http://DouglasRWallack.gaia.com — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 18:06:25 GMT

Shaman Sun,

Big Thanks...Fantastic discussion!

This 'frame' of the 'network' works well for neuron complexity and integration as well. It is not simply a matter of greater numbers of nodes in the network but perhaps the process of integration or greater 'whole-ing' brings in the so called 'vertical' dimension which simultaneously allows a wider embrace in the 'horizontal'.

Some might say, 'a development which is envelopment'.

Anyway, got me pondering in a delightful way.

Cheers,
Doug

Re: What does integral really look like?

http://shamansun.gaia.com — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 20:46:25 GMT

hey Tely,

i agree... but this isn't just horizontal expansiveness, it's also vertical development. forms of awareness increase, organization/complexity increases... sort of like being thrown a thousand different bits of information, and instead of just wading through them all, we start to get the bigger picture, and thus the roots of a vertical map of development. organizing patterns out of the chaos, or learning to flow with different perceptions is itself a higher form, or a mastery of perspective. this also relates to what masters wrote about an intimacy with everything.

Re: What does integral really look like?

http://tely.gaia.com — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 05:21:53 GMT

I could be wrong here, but I don't think horizontal expansiveness, no matter how expansive it is, is in itself enough to be considered "integral."

Re: What does integral really look like?

http://shamansun.gaia.com — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 17:46:41 GMT

Hey Cartosys,

Yes! That's just it! This is an example of how the net enables these ideas to come into fruition... The next step, building up, restructuring, seeing the bigger picture and using the internet to express it, organize it and create it with others.

Re: What does integral really look like?

http://czg3000.gaia.com — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 15:16:44 GMT

Hi Tely!

Well you could take right here right now -- ie the Integral Pod at Gaia. There are few places in the world you can physically go and carry on a conversation such as this. There are even very few social networks online that would attract the people that would enable the exchange of these kinds of ideas. This pod is the "stuff" that's further enables integral levels because integral people come and forge / challenge / create / co-create / and perhaps facilitate these second tier ideas. It doesn't happen without the web!

Re: What does integral really look like?

http://shamansun.gaia.com — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 05:59:14 GMT

hey tely,

i can see how it appears to be more green... but it's not just the abundance of information, but how we begin to organize that information. in other words, from just accepting it's relativity/multiplicity-- which is a green trait, to actually begin organizing it with bigger ideas in mind.

Re: What does integral really look like?

http://tely.gaia.com — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 05:15:05 GMT

I'm having a hard time understanding how having more "stuff" (e.g., information) available to network with is really integral. It doesn't seem to me that being aware of and having access to "more" necessarily means truly including/embodying or being intimate with all that moreness, nor finding ways to relate all of it in a bigger picture way. The picture you're describing sounds to me more like the worldview at the green level of development in spiral dynamics, which is certainly more inclusive than previous levels, but I don't know if in itself, it's enough to be called "integral."

I may be totally missing the boat on this one in not seeing how this is integral, or maybe I'm intuiting something that I can't adequately put into words about the not-necessarily-integralness of what you're describing. I'm wondering if anyone else cares to weigh in on this or offer some insight?

Re: What does integral really look like?

http://aqalicious.gaia.com — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 04:42:32 GMT

shaman sun: that link you sent me on [Robert Augustus Masters] is awesome! he describes a very critical point about over mapping, and thus over conceptualizing our view of the world...masters also wrote that integral meant an “intimacy” with everything. i think this is true, and the conceptual framework doesn't necessarily have to taste, smell or even resemble AQAL, spiral dynamics or anything like that. the very structure of thinking is more flowing..

~

Hey, if you liked that, there's plenty more stuff by Robert Augustus Masters in the Robert's Writings board - check it out. :)

cheers,
Arthur

Re: What does integral really look like?

http://shamansun.gaia.com — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 04:38:18 GMT

Hey Tely!

I think the network societies are setting the foundation for vertical development. or as augustus masters said, to be truly integral is to be intimate with everyone and everything--- network societies allow that to be. since networks are more about your relationship with many different areas, it requires you to be more open, and eventually helps you see the bigger, complex picture. it helps you step out of your perspective, dissolve your boundaries, and open up to others. in other words, it helps you truly be intimate with everyone, everything.

another strong characteristic in "2nd tier" is the flex-flow spiral dynamics describes. this is also a strong trait of network societies--- how can people adapt to multiple perspectives, and even deeper ones? things like this really convince me that integral, or intimacy, is first seeing organic patterns emerge out of the chaos. in our case, seeing the bigger picture in the information age....

Re: What does integral really look like?

http://tely.gaia.com — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 03:13:30 GMT

Hi, shaman sun! I understand how networking societies are decentralized, collaborative, and horizontally complex, but I don't understand how this fits into integral, or how (or if) it is integral.

Re: What does integral really look like?

http://czg3000.gaia.com — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 20:13:07 GMT

I definitely follow your line of thought S.S. I remember the section Life Conditions for Yellow in Spiral Dynamics described "web 2.0" fairly accurately. I think we are seeing a flourishing of second tier thinking going on in these open social spaces. I proposed some ideas about moving forward on this in a blog post here.

And as a follow-up project to those ideas I've began work on called The Kosmic Address Book, which is my brainstorm to categorize web content in the style of Digg and Reddit--except using integral parameters to sort said content AQAL style. The end idea is to have a database of data from which one could search by Quadrant, Level, Line, State, Type, or any combination thereof--perhaps even plotted nicely along a four quandrant chart complete with levels; or along the Wilber-Combs lattice whichever is preferred! But I'm getting way ahead of myself... If interested, i'll post the link to the prototype site.

-B

Re: What does integral really look like?

http://shamansun.gaia.com — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 17:00:30 GMT

hey adastra,

i've heard of his book and may pick it up sometime...

that link you sent me on Augusts Masters is awesome! he describes a very critical point about over mapping, and thus over conceptualizing our view of the world. to me, that means 'integral' becomes less authentic and more abstract. i've been focusing lately on school, my thesis and sociology. but after diving into it for so long, i began to realize it applied to what i've read in wilber's books, especially after watching TED talks and seeing some of the growing trends on leading edge ideas and technology. there's a general pattern emerging, and people are picking up on it. if anything, isn't that the seeds of integral?

masters also wrote that integral meant an "intimacy" with everything. i think this is true, and the conceptual framework doesn't necessarily have to taste, smell or even resemble AQAL, spiral dynamics or anything like that. the very structure of thinking is more flowing..

Re: What does integral really look like?

http://shamansun.gaia.com — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 16:35:28 GMT

hey Tely,

sorry, i'll clarify! by network, i mean collaborative, decentralized organizations. consider open source projects, like Linux, flickr, or even wikipedia. as a larger example, consider the internet itself as a massive network of interwoven ideas, with no "central" or heirarchical structure, flex flowing or "hyper linking" between sites. what becomes most important is the relationship between points.

the internet has helped this type of organization spill out into the real world, for example meetup.com.

clay shirky brings up some examples in his video (link in prior post). it's about collaborative structures vs. institutional. he describes this dichotomy as the following: how do we organize services and information? until recently, we have created an institutional setting, or a professional class to handle information in various ways (from computer programming to colleges). but a recent development, thanks largely to the internet, has been the ability to collaborate. or, as clay shirky says, "instead of bringing the people to the problem, you bring the problem to the people."

instead of having a small, professional class, you give the job to everyone. this means that there will be an exponentially larger number of contributors and minds at work-- some who will participate very little, and others who will dedicate alot of their time. linux is the perfect example. anyone is able to contribute, freely, to the development of this operating system. shirky brings up the point of criticism here--most people only submit one program. the fact, though, that a person can submit one program that fixes a critical error in the operating system and then leave, is something that bulky, larger institutions can't do (microsoft). i think what i'm trying to get at here is that collaborative structures are more adaptable and diverse, because they don't have to plow through heirarchies and red tape. they are networks because of their structure-- decentralized, collaborative and open for contribution.

seeing this in the context of integral, and wilber's work, these sort of organization are slowly changing the way our businesses and projects are run on a societal level. do integral maps or theories have anything to say about this? the closest match i've been able to recognize is the description of 2nd tier, or "integral" in spiral dynamics. it's primary characteristic is "flex-flow": dynamic, fluid movement between perspectives. this is a description of a more decentralized view of the world, where perspectives are constantly flowing and we learn to move with them. when swimming or sailing, the water and wind are in constant motion. the person at sea has to learn to go with this fluid and ever changing sea. pertaining to integral, is the rise of this fluidic network society what integral is talking about? as culture and societies evolve, is the "network society" and "2nd tier" synonymous?

Re: What does integral really look like?

http://tely.gaia.com — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 03:47:31 GMT

Shaman sSun, you make some good points about integral, especially about its overemphasis on maps and vertical development. But I'm wondering what do you mean by "network"? The word means so many different things in different contexts, and I don't know how you're using it here, nor how you're applying it to integral.

Re: What does integral really look like?

http://aqalicious.gaia.com — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 19:32:57 GMT

Interesting post, I'm going to read it more carefully later and follow up some of your links. I'm a big fan of Clay Shirky and highly recommend his book HERE COMES EVERYBODY.

I'm a big fan of the work of Robert Augustus Masters, who represents a deeply embodied and practical integral methodology which is totally outside the "Wilber box" (or the "Wilber-Combs lattice," if you prefer). For anyone who's interested in that approach, check out:

spiral out,
Arthur

What does integral really look like?

http://shamansun.gaia.com — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 17:51:32 GMT

This is a thought that's been cooking for a while: how will integral naturally emerge, and will it look like the way Wilber has described it?

i might be wrong, but from reading wilber, i get the impression one of the main characteristics of integral is vertical thinking, developmental awareness. deeper levels of understanding. i do think this is an important characteristic, but what people seem to be witnessing is a deeper, complex way of thinking, yet seen as a horizontal complexity. it's still development, but not quite "linear" as it used to be.

or in other words, the heirarchy, the classical "beaurocratic" levels are breaking down for a networking society.

so we're seeing the rise of the "network" instead of the "institution." there are alot of thinkers along these lines, and to me this seems like where civilization is headed. i think this fits perfectly into integral, without needing to structure in levels just yet. it can fit into the maps, for sure, but common understanding of 'vertical' development is something that doesn't need to happen first. instead, we are re-thinking and seeing the relationship and organization in a totally new, complex structure.

we're seeing a breakdown of classical institutions, the information age has created collaborative efforts, open source organizations--- and the internet is the best place to see new structures of society emerging.

so, what does integral look like, without the language, without the theory? or in other words, what does it look like without the map?

networks, organic patterns, collaborations and decentralized organization.

i think Wilber, and many other integral theorists have correctly criticized "flatland," and postmodernism for simply accepting the break down of heirarchy, centralized ways of thinking as the end-all, be-all. the story doesn't stop there. but instead of immediately creating vertical maps, it seems that it is naturally happening by first seeing organic patterns in the chaos. people are structuring naturally, organizing and networking. this way, underlying themes begin to be seen... and yes, maybe eventually we will have a deeper vertical awareness. for the moment, the depth comes from understanding the space between perspectives, but we're in the midst of creating the map. relationship and flex-flow will become prominent-- and this is resonant with spiral dynamics, the 2nd tier "integral" value memes. if wilber, and many of the integral theorists are correct, we will see maps arise naturally, and the "integral" attitude arising naturally in many creative ways.

if you want to see where it's headed, i think some great thinkers who are not associated with the integral theorists, per say, are clay shirky, who has an excellent ted talk here: Institution vs Collaboration

another thinker is Manuel Castells-- a sociologist who is strongly for moving beyond postmodernism, and wrote a book called "The Rise of the Network Society," as well as "1000 Years of Non-Linear History."

do you know of any others? i'm not sure this is all coherent, but what i'm trying to get at is that we're seeing "integral" pop up organically, and sometimes the language of these theories can get in the way from seeing the seeds grow right under our feet.

(PS: i recently wrote a blog reflecting and speculating about this. check it out if you're interested.