Help
Sign In
RSS Feed
|
What does integral really look like?shaman sun said Sep 29, 2008, 10:51 AM: |
||
|
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. |
|||
Permalink
Print
Email
|
Re: What does integral really look like?adastra said Sep 29, 2008, 12:32 PM: |
||
|
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. spiral out, Arthur |
|||
|
|
Re: What does integral really look like?shaman sun said Sep 30, 2008, 10:00 AM: |
||
|
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?adastra said Sep 30, 2008, 9:42 PM: |
||
|
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.. |
|||
|
Re: What does integral really look like?Tely said Sep 29, 2008, 8:47 PM: |
||
|
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?shaman sun said Sep 30, 2008, 9:35 AM: |
||
|
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?Cartosys said Sep 30, 2008, 1:13 PM: |
||
|
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. |
|||
|
|
Re: What does integral really look like?Tely said Sep 30, 2008, 8:13 PM: |
||
|
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?shaman sun said Sep 30, 2008, 9:38 PM: |
||
|
Hey Tely! |
|||
|
|
Re: What does integral really look like?Tely said Sep 30, 2008, 10:15 PM: |
||
|
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.” |
|||
|
|
Re: What does integral really look like?shaman sun said Sep 30, 2008, 10:59 PM: |
||
|
hey tely, |
|||
|
|
Re: What does integral really look like?Cartosys said Oct 1, 2008, 8:16 AM: |
||
|
Hi Tely! |
|||
|
|
Re: What does integral really look like?shaman sun said Oct 1, 2008, 10:46 AM: |
||
|
Hey Cartosys, |
|||
|
|
Re: What does integral really look like?Tely said Oct 1, 2008, 10:21 PM: |
||
|
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?shaman sun said Oct 2, 2008, 1:46 PM: |
||
|
hey Tely, |
|||
|
Re: What does integral really look like?Tom said Oct 7, 2008, 10:51 AM: |
||
|
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. |
|||
|
|
Re: What does integral really look like?Tely said Oct 7, 2008, 7:18 PM: |
||
|
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?Tom said Oct 10, 2008, 8:42 AM: |
||
|
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. |
|||
|
Re: What does integral really look like?dugaum said Oct 6, 2008, 11:06 AM: |
||
|
Shaman Sun, |
|||
