Integral Ideology

I'm with Bruce (Kunkel, of Santa Rosa Integral Salon) on becoming aware of how we define and confine ourselves by our perspectives, and how we have to open to newer perspectives beyond them. And perhaps even to open into, as Gebser calls it, the aperspectival. I'd say to do so we even have to examine what I'd call our integral belief system.

In that light I offer this link to an essay by Rich called ”Integral Ideology” at the Science, Culture & Integral Yoga blog. Rich has participated in a couple of the dialogues over at Integral Review and one of his perspectives might be labled Aurobindian, but he is much more than just that.

Do we recognize ourselves in any of his analasynthesis?

Re: Integral Ideology

for now iam being opportunistic and taking this passage from rich's essay, tho i would like to come back to it as a whole :–) as it connects with what iam saying about unevolved terminology re the consciousness paradigm in the lattice thread. he says

i also refer to wilbur as neo-conservative in that his fetishing of maps, levels, quadrants, numbers essentially reduces the complexity of  consciousness to a simple cartesian grid. such reduction of living realities into reified mental categories is also a tactic neo-conservatives employ to reduce complex social or geopolitical realities to simplified political doctrine

at the empirical/rational level there is progressive complexity in extensive mapping. ironically the more elusive consciousness is treated with reductionism. this imbalance is a conservative agenda, as, obviously one would overlap the other. surprising, even to the partial extent iam familiar with wilburs work, he is always making a plea for the contemplatives. and his well intentioned inclusivity could be seen as neo-conservative. to name it an intentional tactic is a little harsh.
but champion of tony blair on the run up to the war ?? schwarzkopf and powell, spiral masters ?? tut-tut :)

b wishes

Re: Integral Ideology

Edward,
Thanks for this thread. Circumstances keep me out of my studio this morning so it gave me a little chance to play.

Rich's essay seems less of a discourse on the shadowy, ideological aspects of Integral, and more of a political polemic.  Orwell wrote that “politics…is a mass of lies, evasions, folly, hatred and schizophrenia.” And I write that life's too short to be drinking that brand of cheap beer so I will pass on making any comments in its direction. (A not-so-cleverly concealed comment in its own right.)

What I found interesting was this in your post: ”we have to open to newer perspectives beyond them. And perhaps even to open into, as Gebser calls it, the aperspectival.”

1. It does not take much of a deconstructive glance at the word “aperspectival” to realize that it too is a perspective if for no other reason than Gebser imbued it with some meaning. Unfortunately it still means something to be aperspectival. But if one wants to indulge the good life a little the aperspectival is a fine stage from which to start that developmental process…afterall one has to walk before one can run. Personally, I cannot see how anyone can make an intelligent choice to assume an Integral perspective until they can comfortably, indefinatly dwell in that place where Integral is just another something where (as Bassanio said in The Merchent of Venice) “…every something being blent together turns to a wild of nothing, save of joy.”

2. I followed “aperspectival” through some google links and came across essays by a Taoist phenomenologist named Eiichi Shimomissé who wrote that Lao Tsu and Chuang Tsu were both well ahead of Gebser's promised new consciousness by writing of the aperspectival back before and during the Era of the Warring States.  Here Shimomissé translates a number of chapters from the Tao Te Ching in a manner highlighting Lao Tsu's consciousness. (I am assuming he did the translation for I have not read any other in exactly that vein.) What I found intriguing in this translation was that it made clear that one can do the choosing (as appropriate the situation  I am sure) between the perspective of the nameless “        ” on one hand and the 10,000 Things on the other…a fairly decent metaphor of the sage who comes and goes, appears and disappears at will. From serenity (where nothing is burdened with illusions of intrinsic meaning or redemptive promise) a sage can watch Integral, like all other things, rise and fall, and choose to use it if it seems the right tool. Or not. Either way it is insulated from temptations toward ideology.

Re: Integral Ideology

Hi, Edward,

I may be deceiving myself – our shadows are notoriously hard to spot – but I did not see myself in any of his descriptions.  Not that I'm totally innocent of the types of things he is critiquing; just that I didn't recognize any of his “constellations of symptoms” strongly enough in myself to accept any of the labels he devised. 

I am marginally familiar with Zizek's Marxist critique of the New Age movement via Daniel Gustav Anderson's writings, and accept that some of it could apply just as easily to the Integral movement. 

I will look over his essay again to see if there is a “theme” in the Integral movement that I think really merits examining here.  I'd be interested in your response / resonance with his essay as well.

Best wishes,

B.

Re: Integral Ideology

Hi all,

To be honest, my own opinion is that this kind of thing is only marginally useful, to the extent that necessary links between someone's politics and their “philosophy” can be rather tenuous. For example, is there really a causal link between Heidegger's thought and Nazism? In my opinion, this question has never been resolved satisfactorily. Another example: Habermas has referred to the postmodern thinkers as essentially reactionary and conservative, and yet in America (cf. Wilber's categorization) they are considered essentially “green” and emancipatory in their thinking, and are usually lumped in with the “New Left” thinkers, like the Frankfurters.

What I do think is useful is this kind of tack:

…Wilber submits all traditions, theories, practices, to the categorical constraints of his “transcendental signified”: the AQALS model. Wilber's method of colonializing cultural alterity is by its very nature hegemonic, and even predatory. He does this with a number of Eastern thinkers and mystics. To instance this practice, he collapses the entirety of the great Indian sage Sri Aurobindo's work into a single quadrant in his logocentric model.

Hacker and Halbfass have referred to this strategy as “inclusivism,” and I think a critical account of its nature and function is essential in  this day and age.

Re: Integral Ideology

There are a number of things in the essay I'd like to commnet on but my time and energy are limited for the next while. I'm crazy busy at work trying to get ready for a vacation in a few days, and then while away I won't have much computer access. So when I return and catch up I hope to say more.

Re: Integral Ideology

Just as an addendum, I certainly do not want to diminish the importance of questioning the particular political positions and decisions that various thinkers take or make, I simply wanted to underline my own opinion that it is just as easy for them to come back with the retort that their “system” remains unaffected by such criticisms. My own feeling is that time can be better spent finding “organic” and systemic problems implied by a scholar or philosopher's thought. 

Re: Integral Ideology

Hi Kela.

On Tuesday I read the entirety of the article Edward linked to. Just now I read your post and the passage you quoted from the article, and this prompted me to go back to the article to see the context of the passage you quote. So here's the passage you quote with some material that comes before and after it (and all this is at the very end of the article):

…Wilber's work like many other theorists who purport to integrate Eastern philosophical theories into their work, often do so by a form of intellectual imperialism. One could refer to recent subaltern theory which takes issue with the attempts of Euro-centric scholarship to appropriate the voice of the subaltern through imposing interpretations which speak to their own concerns and which in so doing silence the indigenous peoples right to speak for themselves.

To deny the voice of the “other” by forcing the socially constructed signifiers of a euro-centric language regime upon other cultural traditions is to do them violence. For example, Wilber submits all traditions, theories, practices, to the categorical constraints of his “transcendental signified”; the AQALS model. Wilber's method of colonializing cultural alterity is by its very nature hegemonic, and even predatory. He does this with a number of Eastern thinkers and mystics. To instance this practice, he collapses the entirety of the great Indian sage Sri Aurobindo’s work into a single quadrant in his logocentric model. In doing this he fails to acknowledge that Sri Aurobindo was also an important cultural figure in India who has written extensively on socio-political matters – a fact he never engages in his work - nor does he appear to realize that his major works are back grounded not only by Western concerns but primarily by Indic Darshan Discourses. Wilber almost never highlights Sri Aurobindo’s meditations on the Vedas, the Upanishads and the Gita which certainly backgrounds his writing and provides important keys to its interpretation.

An integral theory which valorizes its own epistemology by denying other traditions, theories, practices [sic] their own voice, or by [sic] simply mis-characterizing them segregates rather than integrates. Any theory which asserts itself ideologically by cannibalizing other traditions and appropriating the voice of alterity as a function of its integral model while discarding the ten thousand nuances, subtleties, traces of culture which are essential to indigenous identity, fails at the level of integration itself. Such theoretical practices are not integral but imperialist, such discourses do not achieve cultural hybridity but rather cultural hegemony. Such an integral theory is colonialist at its worst and patronizing at its best.

You say that you think that a critical account of the nature and function of “inclusivism” is essential today. To get a better sense of what how the term “inclusivism” is used and how it may apply here, I did a quick Google.

One writer paraphrases Hacker, writing that inclusivism is “telling the other, 'What you mean when you say x is what we mean when we say y, and y is a better way to understand it'” (from Buddhist Inclusivism: Attitudes Towards Religious Others by Kiblinger).

Based on that quote alone I can see how Ken Wilber can be said to practice the strategy of inclusivism. Whether Wilber intended it or not, I know from experience that he's influenced some of his readers to think that merely saying or implying that their views or perspectives or ideas “transcend and include” those of an other can be substituted for demonstrating a real understanding of that other. (I've heard some Wilberians do this in relation to Jungian psychology, for example. “Wilber's theory transcends and includes Jung.” Not too long ago I did a search here at Gaia – perhaps when it was called Zaadz – for something related to Arnold Mindell's Process Work and the search came up with a post by an apparent Wilber fan who declared that Process Work was “green.” There's no room for discussion when that happens, because the “other” is in effect forced to accept the terms of the Wilberian, in this case the Spiral Dyanmics integral model with its color-coded jargon, etc. And the Wilberian goes on his or her merry way believing that he or she has indeed “transcended and included” whatever it is that he or she has relegated to a lower rung on the integral “holarchical” developmental ladder.)

What you mean when you say x is what we mean when we say y, and y is a better way to understand it.

Re: Integral Ideology

Hi, Edward,

I'm not sure if you've noticed, but your thread has generated a bit of discussion over on the God Pod, if you're interested.

Best wishes,

B.

Re: Integral Ideology

Hi Jim,

The Indian context for “inclusivism” is actually quite broad, and covers a number of different but related contexts. It takes inter-traditional forms as well as intra-traditional. Intra-traditionally, it includes the Buddhist idea of skillful means (upaya-kaushalya) and the Vedantic notion of “differences in qualification” (adhikarana-bheda) both of which refer to the idea that specific teachings are to be assigned to specific students in accordance with their needs and abilities; the idea that certain teachings are merely propaedeutic (avatarana), which we find in both Mahayana and Advaita; the related Mahayana hermeneutic device of distinguishing literal teachings and “metaphoric” teachings (nitartha/neyartha); and the Advaita notion of “harmonization” (samanvaya), in which contradictory teachings are made consistent by reinterpreting them. All of these make use of a hermeneutic prodecure that primarily serves the theological/exegetical end of systematizing incongruent scriptural teachings found within a tradition, but it can also serve the polemical end of subordintating sister schools within a tradition. For example, in Madhyamika, the Yogachara scriptures are merely “metaphorically” true, while the Prajnaparamita scriptures are literally true; and vice versa for the Yogachara. This is actually the original context out of which arose the concept of the two truths.

Later, certain traditions start to say of other traditions that their conceptions of reality/God, etc. are “incomplete” (cf. the Jain anekantavada) or inadequate expressions of their own teachings. This is what Hacker means by “what you mean when you say x is what we mean when we say y, and y is a better way to understand it.” This idea actually has an ancient basis, as for example when the Chandogya Upanishad says that he who knows the true and absolute Being (sat), knows all teachings; or when the Buddha uses certain brahmanic concepts of the self in some of his discourses; or when the Gita says that all concepts of God are really expressions of Krishna. Later, Shankara also makes use of this idea when he says that all traditions ultimately seek the Self of advaita, but that they don't realize it (Brahma Sutra 1.3.33). Bhavaviveka may have revitalized the classical usage when he said that the Vedanta concept of brahman is an attempt at expressing the Buddhist shunyata, but due to the continuing influence of ignorance among the brahmanic sages, they don't quite get it right, and so they reify emptiness. The underpinning idea here is recognizable – that of priveleged access: “you don't get it 'cuase yer not realized yet.” The inter-traditional context is clearly polemical, and one might certainly question whether such an inherently polemical approach has place in a fair, evenhanded, scholarly account of tradition.

Vis a vis the given link, it is perhaps ironic that among Wilber's influences can be found not only the (European) Hegelian concept of Aufhebung (“transcend and include”), but Aurobindo's own “integralism,” his “synthesis of yoga.” There is also no question that Wilber's modelling relies heavily on Da's own schemas, such the “seven stages,” to which Da attempts to reduce the entire Indian tradition. In a note at the end of Eye of Spirit, Wilber refers to “the gross path or the yogis,” “subtle path of the sants,” “causal path of the sages,” and “non-dual path of the siddhas,” an ascending hierarchy of “paths” that clearly not only draws on Da's models but reveals their allegiance to Tantrism. Da himself draws upon the synthesis of Tantrism accomplished by the great Kashmiri Shaiva, Abhinavagupta, in particular Abhinava's idea of the four upayas (bhakti/yoga/jnana/”an-upaya”). Da was also influenced by the rhetoric and schematizing of Neo-Vedantins like Vivekananada and Yogananda, whom he wished to emulate.

The inclusivism of the Neo-Vedantins is basically an extention of the inclusivism of the Advaita doxographers who follow the 15th century, such as Madhava, author of the Sarva-darshana-samgraha, “Compendium of All Teachings.” These doxographers present the Indian tradition in terms of a hierarchy of schools: materialists at the bottom, followed by the heterodox Buddhists and Jains, then the logicians Nyaya-Vaishesika, followed by the Samkhya and Yoga, followed by the dualist and qualified non-dualist schools, and capped off with, no less than, the teaching of Advaita Vedanta. Standard textbooks of Indian philosophy still use this format. What the Neo-Vedantins do is universalize this tendency so as to include all the world traditions. Hence Radhakrishnan can say: “All true religion is Vedanta.” And we find Suzuki saying the same thing about Zen, and Idries Shah about Sufism. Indeed, perennialism is the locus classicus of the inclusivist tendency. It masquarades as a kind of pluralism. But in the end it is usually about the dominance of some agenda – Advaita Vedanta, Tantra, whatever.

Another irony is that it is precisely this Hegelian tendency toward totalitizing, this need for  “das Absolute,” that the post-moderns like Bataille, Derrida and Foucault, following the events of '69, were fleeing from. Generally, it is a tendency that attempts to reduce the “you” to the “I,” to the Absolute Subject; a tendency in which the all-consuming European Eye sees everything as grist for its own consumption, for its own self-understanding. And now, ironically, the postmoderns have been reduced to a simple formula – the greenies – and thrown in a drawer like a trinket  or novelty: “you now live at level 5 in the Integral Highrise” And that is because this is basically how Ken reads: he does not encounter the authors he reads, he does not engage them, grapple with them and allow them to transform his thought and being. He uses them toward his own end: he reads an author until he finds something useful, abstracts the bit he needs, and then ignores the bits that don't “fit.” It is no wonder, then, that reading is basically an exercise in “translation” for Ken. That is the only way he knows.

Re: Integral Ideology

Kela,

Perhaps you missed it, but I started a new thread on this topic, since this discussion was a tangent on Edward's thread and also because I think this topic is interesting enough to merit its own thread.

Here it is:

Integral and Inclusivism

I encourage you to copy your recent post over there.

Best wishes,

Balder

Re: Integral Ideology

Hi Kela.

You write:

There is also no question that Wilber's modelling relies heavily on Da's own schemas, such the “seven stages,” to which Da attempts to reduce the entire Indian tradition. In a note at the end of Eye of Spirit, Wilber refers to “the gross path or the yogis,” “subtle path of the sants,” “causal path of the sages,” and “non-dual path of the siddhas,” an ascending hierarchy of “paths that clearly not only draws on Da's models but reveals the allegiance to Tantrism. Da himself draws upon the synthesis of Tantrism accomplished by the great Kashmiri Shaiva, Abhinavagupta, in particular Abhinava's idea of the four upayas (bhakti/yoga/jnana/”an-upaya”). Da was also influenced by the rhetoric and schematizing of Neo-Vedantins like Vivekananada and Yogananda, whom he wished to emulate.

All true. Wilber's references to “the gross path of the yogis,” etc., are clearly influenced by Da's essay “The Great Path of Return vs. the Radical Path of Understanding” in Da's 1977 book The Paradox of Instruction: An Introduction to the Esoteric Spiritual Teaching of Bubba Free John. The essay in question is a revised version of an essay that Da wrote in 1975. In it, he speaks of “the three manifest dimensions” of “gross, subtle, and causal” as the limited goals of “yogis, saints, and sages” respectively. He speaks of “The yogis of the gross path,” “Saints, or yogis on the subtle path,” etc., and he divides each “dimension” into “three divisions, including a lower, a middle, and a higher plane of manifestation or realization.” Wilber has often referred to “the low subtle” and “the high subtle,” etc.

As I've noted elsewhere, in 1984 Wilber wrote that “”Master Da is the single strongest influence on my work at this time, and has been for the past several years, and will continue to be so…” (Laughing Man Magazine, Volume 5, Number 1, 1984, page 2). Several ranking teachers within Integral Institute are former devotees of Da.

Da's influence on Wilber can be seen in Wilber's idea of “the Atman Project,” in his developmental stage model, in his understanding of the relationship of nonduality to gross, subtle, and causal, in his use of terms and phrases such as “the self-contraction” and “shout from the heart,” and so on.

Re: Integral Ideology

hi all,

the necessary links between someones philosophy and someones politics can be tenuous . kela, here the links seem to be straight forward enough. kw says on the war in iraq, shambala.com

there are second tier reasons not to go to war. but there are also second tier reasons to go to war. green doesnt have a choice - it wont go. second tier has a choice, so weigh the evidence carefully. second tier might indeed recommend war , it might not . you can check and see if you are *merely* green by asking under what conditions you would recommend war. if you cant think of any, ahem, welcome to green.
and in an interview to tami simon of sounds true;
tami - if you could arrange the world situation what would you do ? what is your utopian vision of how to handle war?
kw - given the actual world situation as it is now, blairs general position seems to be the best that can pragmatically be offered ( thats the conclusion, for the lead up the link is in rich's essay)

well, is the issue whether blairs general position is the best or not? ( and ken is not in blairs shoes, theres no need to take a stance on a hypothetical basis , unless he thinks the same) i think the point here is ken is conditioned by the state, which makes him perennially ethnocentric. would he take a position against the state if necessary? why condone a state mechanism that turns sentient types into a military grid, arguiably in worse states of bondage than the victims it kills. and then pits itself against another or numerous other states, all based on the same values. am i missing something here?
in another instance of pandering to the establishment, in a guru pandit dialogue he says;
*there are three topics i've written very little on , psychic phenomena, reincarnation and god in second person. because as soon as you open your mouth and say anything about any of those , nobody takes you seriously in the influential academic world*
question- is he sure himself about these issues - or is it more important to pease the academic world than enlighten his listner. i can empathise here though, wouldnt want to talk to too many dumbasses about stuff :)

Re: Integral Ideology

Hi Valli.

I remember when Wilber said that there are “second tier reasons to go to war.” Easy to say from an armchair, by a man who brags about staying in college during the Vietnam war so he could continue to avoid being drafted. And I remember when Wilber criticized antiwar protests as being “green” and “not integral” on the basis that “integral” antiwar protests would protest both the war and Sadaam Hussein. It seemed that he did not realize that the US media machine was already “protesting” Sadaam Hussein while going along with the Bush administrations march to war, and if no one took to the streets in protest – protest being a way to garner media attention – the antiwar voice would not be heard.

- Jim

Re: Integral Ideology

in another instance of pandering to the establishment, in a guru pandit dialogue he says;
*there are three topics i've written very little on , psychic phenomena, reincarnation and god in second person. because as soon as you open your mouth and say anything about any of those , nobody takes you seriously in the influential academic world*
question- is he sure himself about these issues - or is it more important to pease the academic world than enlighten his listner.

I'm glad you quoted that.  It gets at a central issue of mine.  I'm very interested in these more alternative subjects and I see no reason why they can't be discussed rationally.  My perspective is who cares what academics think.  I'd rather see integral attempt to influence academia than allow itself to be limited by academia.  Integral should stand on the edge of academia and be the voice for that which is normally left out of academic discourse.  Integral would lose its core spiritual vision if it pandered too much to the establishment.

Marmalade

Re: Integral Ideology

Yeah, Marmalade, I totally agree. I said somewhere before that Integral is a way of life, a stage in the evolution of consciousness, a worldview. To regard it as an academic (i.e. intellectual) matter or, even worse, a THEORY, is to do it a great disservice and IMO grossly misrepresent it (even if KW is doing that) and decrease its chances to affect the world.

I feel the matter much more strongly than I can put into words…. But sc**w the academic establishment and being taken seriously by them, would be part of my words !!!!

Blessings, OM Bastet

Re: Integral Ideology

hi all

jim, i think its ok, even if you are in an armchair, and never protested, and evaded the draft - i admit too, as a liberal i have inconsistencies to deal with that are unwelcome :)
my point is a mind that identifies with any state or divisive entity is a violent mind, and no matter what goes on, on the outside, nothing will change. to negate violence is an inner movement and is of significance in an integral context, to overlook this ( while pointing to lines and levels and charts - couldnt help that ) is an assault on intelligence . its prerational, not even allowing the scope of rationality to operate . is that fair?

marmalade, yeah, what you say makes sense . to address these alternative issues will extend the scope of rationality. push the envelope. to practice a language that does not reduce consciousness is work in progress (which is the issue i have) . I-I does not provide that. what it is now is a jump of point. probably why discussions keep spinning of KW integralism.

Re: Integral Ideology

A few comments in response to Carlson's concluding remarks in his essay…

…Wilber's work like many other theorists who purport to integrate Eastern philosophical theories into their work, often do so by a form of intellectual imperialism. One could refer to recent subaltern theory which takes issue with the attempts of Euro-centric scholarship to appropriate the voice of the subaltern through imposing interpretations which speak to their own concerns and which in so doing silence the indigenous peoples right to speak for themselves.

Is Carlson implying that Europeans should just keep silent when it comes to the views of indigenous peoples?  What if said European has been studying and practicing a “subaltern” tradition for half of his life, often under the guidance of “indigenous” teachers? 

To deny the voice of the “other” by forcing the socially constructed signifiers of a euro-centric language regime upon other cultural traditions is to do them violence. For example, Wilber submits all traditions, theories, practices, to the categorical constraints of his “transcendental signified”; the AQALS model. Wilber's method of colonializing cultural alterity is by its very nature hegemonic, and even predatory. He does this with a number of Eastern thinkers and mystics. To instance this practice, he collapses the entirety of the great Indian sage Sri Aurobindo's work into a single quadrant in his logocentric model. In doing this he fails to acknowledge that Sri Aurobindo was also an important cultural figure in India who has written extensively on socio-political matters - a fact he never engages in his work - nor does he appear to realize that his major works are back grounded not only by Western concerns but primarily by Indic Darshan Discourses. Wilber almost never highlights Sri Aurobindo's meditations on the Vedas, the Upanishads and the Gita which certainly backgrounds his writing and provides important keys to its interpretation.

Surely Carlson is aware of Aurobindo's own “appropriation” of Western theological ideas into his “Indo-centric” model?  Beatrice Bruteau, a Christian Aurobindian scholar, has noted, for instance, that Aurobindo's representation of Western theological views within his model is less than adequate in a number of instances.  Why attack Wilber while simultaneously defending another scholar who arguably has taken a very similar “tack” in his own efforts to create an integral spiritual model?

Beyond this, while it is true that Wilber highlights Aurobindo's spiritual writings rather than his cultural or political ones, this does not, in itself, render Wilber's Integral model inherently oppressive or faulty.  It might be an oversight on Wilber's part, but it doesn't undermine the validity of the model he has created.

An integral theory which valorizes its own epistemology by denying other traditions, theories, practices [sic] their own voice, or by [sic] simply mis-characterizing them segregates rather than integrates. Any theory which asserts itself ideologically by cannibalizing other traditions and appropriating the voice of alterity as a function of its integral model while discarding the ten thousand nuances, subtleties, traces of culture which are essential to indigenous identity, fails at the level of integration itself. Such theoretical practices are not integral but imperialist, such discourses do not achieve cultural hybridity but rather cultural hegemony. Such an integral theory is colonialist at its worst and patronizing at its best.

If we mistake orienting generalizations for authoritative pronouncements on “what matters” or “what is essential” in any given tradition, then yes, this can be segregating or patronizing.  I am interested in exploring the relation of Integral to strategies such as inclusivism, for instance, but I will save that for another thread.  As a general response here, I do not see Wilber as attempting to silence the voice of alterity but to create a model in which multiple voices are represented.  If Carlson believes Integral projects are inherently misguided, that's one thing; but if he is simply interested in castigating Wilber while defending Aurobindo, I don't think he can consistently do so, since Aurobindo also “speaks for” non-Indian traditions and attempts to represent them within his overall Indo-centric model.

Re: Integral Ideology

Balder,

Your response makes sense to me.  It isn't a problem specifically of Wilber's theorizing.  This is a challenge any theory faces that attempts to integrate other worldviews.

“I do not see Wilber as attempting to silence the voice of alterity but to create a model in which multiple voices are represented.”

I don't either. 

Not directly related to Wilber, I was wondering…
…how can integral not only avoid silencing the voice of alterity but also invite and encourage alterity?

Blessings,
Marmalade

Re: Integral Ideology

Yes, I agree, Marmalade – that is an important question and is something I'm very interested in exploring.  I'm writing something now which includes a few thoughts on this issue, which I should be posting soon.  (I am squeezing in a few sentences at a time in between day job and school preparation duties…)  I invite your feedback once I post it…

Best wishes,

B.

Re: Integral Ideology

Marmalade and Balder,

I was going to stay out of this thread which I thought originally began as the politics of one slightly ethnocentric voice commenting on the ethnocentrisity of another one. I am sure that the details of what each has written can be debated for months to come and no clear, functional resolution will result. The point, for me, like for the both of you is what can be learned from the fact the argument exists in the first place. One question in this line is whether the myths in the givens of Gebser, Graves and Beck legitimately give Integral theorists license to be ethnocentric.

With that aside though, what really caught my attention in the latter posts of this thread was Maramlade's comment which summarizes Balder's position: “Your response makes sense to me.  It isn't a problem specifically of Wilber's theorizing.”  I don't believe that position will hold up in the long run because it is a problem that is specific to Wilber's method of theorizing, a method which colors and underlies every specific conclusion he draws.

Perhaps I am talking apples and oranges, but what I know of theorizing comes from being witness to or intimately involved in the development of litigation theories. Any complex litigation, that of the sort that remain at the lower court level for 10 or 15 years, requires a developed theoretical plan of attack and proof. It starts out with a hypothesis of the client's situation and why the client should prevail in the contention. And then propositions are added on how to make a judge or a jury agree with the hypothesis. Each one of the propositions, whether it involves the law side or the fact side is tested  and contested and reexamined and re-prioritized from every point of view the litigation theorist can think of.  Every argument possible against each proposition is leveled against it because the client's life, liberty or property, not to mention the reputation and future of the lawyer,  hangs in the balance. The stakes are not trivial. The lawyers who prevail are thinking at least half of the time, if not more, from outside of, and contrary to, the propositions and theory of their own case. And if, for whatever reason, they can't devote that time to this kind of pre-trial self-destruction, they hire others to do it for them and report back early and often.

I know of no lawyer, not even the noted grandstanders, who would take the Integral case before the court of public scrutiny in the manner in which Wilber works, unless they thought the contest just a game and the stakes to be trivial.  From their perspective, Wilber was in so far over his head from the first dive that he will never surface with a case that has any chance for credibility. It is just too much for one man to handle competently.

If we look at the specific instance that generated this thread, we can start with the fact that Franz Fanon published Wretched of the Earth in 1961 and it laid the foundation for the style of Subaltern Studies that came into world notice following the introduction  of post-structuralist theories and methods into debates on the world's post-colonial situation. Despite the fact that Fanon's work was large before the academic community by at least 1968, and was available to Wilber as a perspective on the psychological development inside former colonized countries, I doubt if it was ever considered as a factor that might have impinged on his theory building. I doubt if he ever stepped out of his own box to see how post-colonial theory might weaken it. I would think that anyone who took their area of expertise seriously and assumed the stakes to be other than trivial would have done so.

Everyone here is no doubt familiar with Richard Feynman's speech/essay on Cargo Cult Science. Here's a little excerpt on what he says about the nature of theorizing:

“Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them. You must do the best you can – if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong – to explain it. If you make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it. There is also a more subtle problem. When you have put a lot of ideas together to make an elaborate theory, you want to make sure, when explaining what it fits, that those things it fits are not just the things that gave you the idea for the theory; but that the finished theory makes something else come out right, in addition.

“In summary, the idea is to give all of the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgment in one particular direction or another.”

A little further along he says:

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself – and you are the easiest person to fool. So you have to be very careful about that. After you've not fooled yourself, it's easy not to fool other scientists. You just have to be honest in a conventional way after that.

“I would like to add something that's not essential to the science, but something I kind of believe, which is that you should not fool the layman when you're talking as a scientist. I am not trying to tell you what to do about cheating on your wife, or fooling your girlfriend, or something like that, when you're not trying to be a scientist, but just trying to be an ordinary human being. We'll leave those problems up to you and your rabbi. I'm talking about a specific, extra type of integrity that is not lying, but bending over backwards to show how you're maybe wrong, that you ought to have when acting as a scientist. And this is our responsibility as scientists, certainly to other scientists, and I think to laymen.”

Re: Integral Ideology

Nickeson,

“Your response makes sense to me.  It isn't a problem specifically of Wilber's theorizing.”  I don't believe that position will hold up in the long run because it is a problem that is specific to Wilber's method of theorizing, a method which colors and underlies every specific conclusion he draws.

All that I meant by it not being specific to Wilber is that its not particularly limited to his theory alone.  I meant that it is a general problem related to any attempt at theorizing.  It just comes with the territory.

Wilber was in so far over his head from the first dive that he will never surface with a case that has any chance for credibility. It is just too much for one man to handle competently.

As for the territory, maybe Wilber should've been more tentative in his venturing forth.  I'm sure that in a sense he was bound to fail.  But maybe its like shooting at the moon… even if you only get part way there, its still impressive.  Wilber has served a purpose whether or not he succeeds.

I liked all of the Feynman quotes.  Its good advice for theorizing.

Blessings,
Marmalade

Re: Integral Ideology

Marmalade,

But maybe its like shooting at the moon… even if you only get part way there, its still impressive.  Wilber has served a purpose whether or not he succeeds.

I'm a little too grounded for that. If one is not cognitive enough to figure the odds for and against hitting the moon and thus knowing the resources and skills required, then one is not cognitive enough from the very beginning to succeed. Cognitively challenged attempts that are doomed from the start are not impressive. But, you're are correct, they do serve a purpose–as bad examples.

As about 90% of all philosophers who followed Hegel have demonstrated, Hegel was a bad example of what good philosophy should be. I think it was Kierkegaard who commented that Hegel could be forgiven if he had said at the end of his work, “This has all just been a thought experiment.” But since he didn't, Kierkegaard regarded him as a fool.

S.

Re: Integral Ideology

Nickeson,

“If one is not cognitive enough to figure the odds for and against hitting the moon and thus knowing the resources and skills required, then one is not cognitive enough from the very beginning to succeed.”

I understand your point, but many great things have been accomplished by what naysayers said was impossible or improbable.  The innovative spirit of the human species is a non-rational impulse.  I'm sure by probabilistic measures of success, all of humanity should've failed long ago.  We are a lucky species if nothing else. 

Personally, I'm all for wild speculation and innovation.  I don't think anything is doomed from the start.  Even only a small percentage of success is impressive to me… but maybe I have low standards.  :)

No philosopher is 100% good or bad as an example to be followed.  Obviously, Hegel had something positive about his thinking.  It really doesn't matter what Hegel thought of his own philosophy.  What matters is how it influenced later philosophers.  If everyone was worried about ending up as a bad example, there would be a lot less good examples.

Blessings,
Marmalade

Re: Integral Ideology

Rich responded to Balder's above comments when I sent them to him via email. He is working on expanding the essay but said I could post his emailed reply in the meantime, following. I also invited him to join the discussion here for a more immediate conversation.

Rich:

1) The poster's first comment I think is a mis-reading, I don't think I ever said that Westerners should keep silent on the views of indigenous folk, however they need to be respectful of the entire context in which the tradition speaks. There is a whole field of study “sub-altern studies” that speaks to the grave misunderstandings which have resulted from Westerners or their even non-Western scholars speaking for the sub-altern.

2) The remaining comments I believe he is mistakenly believing that I am exalting Sri Aurobindo at the expense of Wilber. Although for many reasons I do see Aurobindo and Wilber as incommeasurable figures, in fact I do cite some of the Integral Yoga followers under a Fundamentalist critique. I have engaged much too often with Hindu fundamentalist appropriating Sri Aurobindo's text to their own ends. Additionally although I do believe Sri Aurbindo would have nothing to do with Hindu Nationalism of today, he was in fact complicit -and I have agreement on this from some of his biographers- in facilitating the growth of a religion around his integral yoga even if he asserted it was not a religion.

I think if the poster would read some of my other post such as “Good Bye to All That” and its relevant “Abstract”. located at: ttp://www.sciy.org/blog/_archives/2008/5/3/3673389.html
(and posted below) in which I make distinctions between *synthesis* and *hybridity* in Sri Aurobindo, the former being his Indic *synthesis* of Yoga, the latter being his *grafting* on to Integral Yoga of such Western concepts as progressive evolution. In fact, I am skeptical of Sri Aurobindo's whole evolution of consciousness scheme because in fact IMO he is doing just that, grafting a modernist model of evolution and progress popular in his day onto his integral yoga. In other words although I do think there are other realities Sri Aurobindo sees (aka.darshan), the evolution of consciousness however, is not one of them, it is IMO a well argued discursive construct. But none of this changes my opinion about Wilber's socio-political missteps. In fact the evidence against him does not serve him well. The more in depth academic paper that I am now drafting from the blog post on Integral Ideology discounts the possibility of Integral Theory applying to anything other than subjective experience. I think the prohibitions against Integral Theory addressing socio-political problems are formidable and the first question which needs to be ask is can Integral Theory ever overcome its implicit socio-political blind spots.

3) Here are the relevant sections of my abstract of synthesis and hybridity:

“The alterity I refer to here is the gaze of Sri Aurobindo, whose radically expansive epistemology contextualizes this inquiry streaming along gradient toward two attractors; synthesis and hybridity. Here, synthesis refers to the practice of integral yoga which derives from a synthesis of karma, bhakti and jnana yogas, while hybridity refers to the orientation of the spiritual practices of India (yoga) within the progressive evolution heralded by Modernist European scholars at the beginning of the 20th century. While a synthesis is an atemporal fusing of sheaths or horizons of being (koshas) a hybridity is a fissionable production of history.

In my use of synthesis or integral, I refer to a psychological process akin to what Whitehead refers to a ” pre-hension”. It is very difficult to describe this phenomena with words but one may come close by referring to it as an intuitive grasp of the pre-existent unity of seemingly discontinuous elements comprising a whole which is always greater than the sum of its parts. Although the parts of such a whole may subsequently be revealed analytically as individual events or structures, they are implicitly continuous with the horizon of the whole, and do not act independently of it.

A whole formed from a hybridity by contrast is a grafting of differing elements together in which the parts may be mutable but their autonomy remains discernible. Wholes instancing such hybrids can be found in societies, linguistic communities, ethnicities. Bakhtin provides a good definition of hybritity: “It is a mixture of two social languages within the limits of a single utterance, an encounter, within the arena of an utterance, between two different linguistic consciousnesses, separated from one another by an epoch, by social differentiation, or by some other factor”. (Bakhtin 358)

Re: Integral Ideology

Thanks for acting as mediary, Edward.  It appears I may have misread his intent, to a degree at least.  His take on Wilber still strikes me as rather extreme and excessively hostile, but I will hold that opinion tentatively until I have time to read more of his writings.

Best wishes,

B.

Re: Integral Ideology

Rich's 4/16/08 reply entry in the link to the original essay above. I'm beginning to wonder if Rich isn't Gregory in disguise?

Rich:

What I understand you are saying here about “rational metaphysical systems” concerns their slippage into “transcendental signifieds” or closed systems, which only allow reference to themselves (or to their own intent) to establish universal validity. The construction of transcendental signifieds is an attempt to establish a metaphysical entity which stands outside the web of language, which constitutes our being in the world. All to often such metaphysical systems -due to their system of self-validation- become authoritarian enterprises which suppress interpretations other than those established by their own priestly hierarchy.

Although some of these systems may even pay lip service to the linguistic turn of philosophy they still mange to slide on the slippages of marks, signs, words into the binary traps of language, and implode under their own systems of signification. (see 4/16 SCIY article on Wilber's misunderstanding of Derrida and Postmodernism)

This of course plays off Saussure's idea that meaning only can be discerned by referring to still other meanings or more specifically, that the meaning of any sign can only be understood by its differences from all other signs; to which Derrida would add the temporal dimension of deferral.

Because systems of meaning are rooted in systems of differences, signifiers have meaning only in relationship to signifieds, which themselves are signifiers for yet other signifieds. The single signifier or word (das einzige wort) in itself will never come to presence because it must always differ and defer to still other signifiers/signfieds along the infinite curvature of space/time to locate its meaning.

For the word difference itself, a dictionary will supply a list of synonyms, such as dissimilar, distinct, unusual, disagreement etc, or by contrasting to its antonyms such as wholeness, totality, completeness. The organization of conventional cognition emerges in relationships of co-dependent signifiers/signifieds. Of course the resemblance to styles of Buddhist cognition are evident,in which phenomena are understood to codependently arise. (pratitya samutpada) In contrast, closed metaphysical systems are usually intent on reducing phenomena to the singular (or even quadratic) themes contained within their own self-referential structures.

In my deconstructive reading what I think you are referring to as spiritual metaphysical systems -which always point beyond themselves- is that they are “sous rature” or always under erasure. What Derrida can be credited for by employing this subtle tai chi move is avoiding the problem of totalizing systems, by skillfully directing their presencing centers to their unseen margins.

Since all systems of signification are always subject to the play of language, the codependent arising of phenomena or meaning does not presences itself through its totalization in any single “it” or in single “system” but, the presencing of any “it” or “system” is always related to a lurking absence; a previous, or an as of yet to be articulated signifier which must be referred to in order for meaning to constellate. All concepts, essences and/or traces of signified reality upon articulation are necessarily erased to allow their self-renewal in yet other concepts, essences, realities, to which they refer. To place the trace of the signifier under erasure is to resist the totalizing singularity of meanings which are the language of ideology.

From my perspective what you refer to as “spiritual metaphysical systems” - which I might call open systems - through an implicit realization of their own signifying limits, of the non-separability of the one and the many, allow us to exit before meanings are totalized and we fall victim to the entropy of closed systems. In providing us with a tacit recognition that they are always under erasure, they also free up a horizon for an existential encounter with the world which avoids reducing phenomena to the mere self-referential signs of any particular metaphysical system.

At times on SCIY we have riffed of this notion of “sous rature” and Rod Hemsell has done some creative musings implying that in our own system of integral yoga, with its demonstrated tendencies toward religiosity, the notion of the Avatar must be placed under erasure. I agree.

The erasure of the trace is an act of deconstruction but as Gayatri Spivak -one of the most erudite of all Derrida's translators- reminds us deconstruction is not only a “textual event” or a destructive act, but a creative one. “Deconstruction is not simply the practice of breaking things down. As she puts it, “[It] is not the exposure of error. It is constantly and persistently looking into how truths are produced.”

Gayatri's “fascination is with human relations: encounters with otherness, intimacies created in the midst of differences, the responsibility implicit in every act of communication. She works to articulate a relation to others that is always singular, never preceded by socially produced categories. The ideal relation to the Other, Spivak says, is “an embrace, an act of love.”
see link: www.artandculture.com/cgi-bin/WebObjects/ACLive.woa/wa/artist?id=1068

From my own perspective, in the act of erasing the trace one also honors it by allowing it to lead one towards the increasing complexity (infinity) of meanings that it signifies. If one has a fascination with divine/human relations, the metaphysical systems which will emerge will have their own series of signification; forms, symbols, signs, images, photos, objects of veneration, when these lose their complex associations with an inner life they are often reduced to idols.

The erasure of the trace in divine/human system, strikes me as the erasure of that which is projected, objectified, reified, or transcendentally signified. Deconstruction in this instance, “as an embrace”, “as an act of love”, may leads us back towards the complexity (infinity) of psychic associations in the human heart. The heart is after all the location where Sri Aurobindo tells us our true guru is to be found.

Re: Integral Ideology

Thanks for posting this, Edward.  I agree – there is a Desilet-esque flavor to it!

I think both “Rich” and Ned, the person to whom he is responding, are making an important point.  A point which is not lost on Wilber's Integral, but which admittedly is not emphasized clearly or powerfully enough.  I appreciate TSK because it stands exactly in this responsive, orienting, finger-pointing way as a dynamic integrative vision, not a fixed integrated totality.  It doesn't attempt to lay out a “map” in order to achieve this.

This is a strength – but also, from another perspective, a weakness.  It isn't “wrong” to map; there is a place for that, and it also is useful in its own ways.  So, I appreciate Aurobindo's aphorisms in this regard.  I'll post the relevant passage from Ned's post:

74. Practical knowledge is a different thing; that is real and serviceable, but it is never complete. Therefore to systematise and codify it is necessary but fatal.

75. Systematise we must, but even in making and holding the system, we should always keep firm hold on this truth that all systems are in their nature transitory and incomplete.

(Someone ought to e-mail these to Wilber and Co. ;-) )

Of course, the Aurobindians are always ready to take a dig at Wilber.  Mad that he's co-opted their word, perhaps.  From what I have read of Wilber, I don't believe he thinks he is laying out a permanent, immutable, complete map of reality as it is; his post-metaphysical stance would explicitly undercut any such move, and anyway, he says in a number of places that, while he is striving to be as comprehensive as possible, he believes other, better models will come along to replace it.

Back to Rich's post:  I appreciate the following comment –

The erasure of the trace in divine/human system, strikes me as the erasure of that which is projected, objectified, reified, or transcendentally signified. Deconstruction in this instance, “as an embrace”, “as an act of love”, may leads us back towards the complexity (infinity) of psychic associations in the human heart.

But I believe it stops short of the suchness that stands at a right angle to the infinite play of signification (which, indeed, must be under erasure).

Best wishes,

Balder

Re: Integral Ideology

But is not “suchness” itself also under erasure? For if not, are we not holding on to a “transcendental,” whether signfied or not?

Re: Integral Ideology

Suchness does not point to anything in particular.

What do you think of this essay?  Do you think, as I do, that Loy demonstrates in Dogen and Hui-Neng a step beyond the still remarkable moves made by Derrida?

Re: Integral Ideology

I haven't read this essay but I've read Loy on Derrida before and disagreed with him. And it seems that this essay has a similar conclusion in that, as you say, Dogen (or Buddhism, for that matter, at least as you [and others] have interpreted it) takes the “extra” step into “unconditioned being.” That's where we've always disagreed, that the latter is not some type of metaphysical or transcendental “something in particular.” It doesn't appear our disagreement on the matter is about to change anytime soon. But it does relate to Rich's critique of Wilber's model, in that W still retains a transcendental (un)signified in this “unconditioned” side of the two truths.

Re: Integral Ideology

It's up to you, of course, but I think this essay is worth a read – he treats Derrida more sympathetically than he does in some of his other essays.

Re: Integral Ideology

I read Loy's essay and his conclusion sums it up well:
 

Their projects are religious, and Derrida's is not, because this other aspect of language – which works to deconstruct the duḥkha of our lives – is also lacking in Derrida. Derrida in effect deconstructs the subject-object opposition by disseminating it, because he does not believe that it can be recuperated or regathered, for we have no access to any nonduality prior to that duality.

I'd have to agree with Loy that Derrida does not, like Dogen et al, find a nonduality “prior” to duality but rather within duality. And it seems this is why Loy and Buddhist apologists generally think Derrida misses that extra step, because D doesn't provide an overtly “religious” means to salvation or the end of suffering. But again, D's liberation is within suffering, not an end to it. Such notions of “prior” and “end” have implicit connotations of a transcendental. This is why Loy & Company cannot abide D fully because they are attached to this hidden transcendental. And it is very cleverly and subtly hidden too. (Or perhaps unconscious?)

Re: Integral Ideology

I would say that, for Derrida, he has not fully digested the paradox of his own position or recognized the shadow of acausality which is shot right through his universal deferral/differance. 

But we've had this discussion before … :-)

Re: Integral Ideology

Is Carlson implying that Europeans should just keep silent when it comes to the views of indigenous peoples?

Good point, Balder. There seems to be a “performative contradiction” at work here.

Surely Carlson is aware of Aurobindo's own “appropriation” of Western theological ideas into his “Indo-centric” model?

Yes, and this also implies a kind of “reverse orientalism” at work in Aurobindo's writings.

…while it is true that Wilber highlights Aurobindo's spiritual writings rather than his cultural or political ones, this does not, in itself, render Wilber's Integral model inherently oppressive or faulty. 

I think it may be a problem insofar as each tradition, or here, yogic teaching, is potentially complete and self-transcending in itself and not to be so easily “slotted” into some “level,” the way Da organizes traditions. I think the root issue at work here is that fans of Aurobindo are (perhaps legitimately) upset with his being labeled a mere “vision logic” pundit.

Personally, I have never understood why Shankara is one of “Asia's great Realizers” while Plotinus is, like Aurobindo, merely some kind of  vision-logic “pundit.” At times, Ken seems to base such judgements on mere matters of style. Here, his understanding of tradition reveals itself to be inadequate. For one, he either forgets or (more likely) is ignorant of the fact that Plotinus never wrote the Enneads, and that the teachings were collected by his disciple Porphyry from lectures that were probably intended to be merely propaedeutic, ie., introductory. In this case, the idea that certain teachings may serve as “skillful means” is either ignored or omitted by Ken (a point that I think Jim has made elsewhere). As for Shankara, Ken quotes willy-nilly from works that are spurious attributions, as well as from the (Tantric inclined) writings of Ramana as if they were all representations of the same teaching. So who the term “Shankara” refers to is anyone's guess.

Re: Integral Ideology

Hi,  I'm so glad to have found this discussion, while if I sound to “nuts”, please just tell me.  I'm “disabled” due to “bipolar disorder”.  Maybe try this, ask someone who looks like a “seasoned” homeless person, “What is letting go like?”  And there in lies some wisdom.

Re: Integral Ideology

hi all

and it seems that this essay has a similar conclusion in that, as you say, dogen ( or buddhism for that matter, as you and others have interpreted it ) takes the extra step into unconditioned being. thats where we have always disagreed, that the latter is not some type of metaphysical or transcendental 'something in particular'

iam wondering if theres an implication by anyone that the unconditioned being has to be metaphysical? then it would be game over if the physical has to be conditioned always. i should think this refers to the metaphysical as well if it were to be essence always. any transcendental something in particular could still be unsignified . (here the intent of language is tending to erasure, in deferance to the territory :)

is it possible for parts of the physical realm to be unconditioned or is there a suggestion that the entire paradigm has to be unconditioned? if we allow for some intelligence in either realm then it would be mandatory that parts get unconditioned . it will be game over again if its all or nothing. it seems theres interdependance between the two truths, not just within the relative truth. obviously there cannot be a disconnect between the two sides. what if the unconditioned part were independant of the two sides , the two truths? – just thinking aloud.

being person - am not very clear. are you saying  as a being person you are not subject to the experience of origination, and you get to come and go . so where does your human carbon based life form come from? or are you saying you are not subject to origination as it happens so fast.
and why cannot the human carbon based life form be unconditioned ? in wonder or otherwise :)

b wishes

Re: Integral Ideology

Hi, and thanks for the questions.

Re: Integral Ideology

But is not “suchness” itself also under erasure? For if not, are we not holding on to a “transcendental,” whether signfied or not?

Suchness is not anything a subject (I/me/myself) can grasp.

Suchness is not a line drawn or a track laid down to be erased.

Suchness is not a point on a line caught in time between past and future.

Suchness is neither immanent nor transcendent.

Suchness is not a realm (place to be) where one abides.

Suchness is not a state of being.

Suchness is not to be found in any treatise (Madhyamaka et al).

When all interpreting, all meaning making, all erasing, all perspectives no matter how panoramic, all subject/object orientations cease…when the Mandala of your life is swept away…suchness is.


love

e

Re: Integral Ideology

I agree with you to some extent, while “suchness” entails a view of 'wondering” from the conditioned reality of the encumberments of a human carbon based life form.  Something to “explain”, of note, concerning such issues includes “attainments' that include “impermanence” which has been spoken about along the way in different places and by different people.

Re: Integral Ideology

Suchness is not a view (from over here) of wonder (over there).

When all identifying (as a human carbon based life form), being and becoming cease, suchness is. 

If that is ascertained, then coming back to relative reality, all is seen to dependently arise (and cease). There is nothing to integrate as there is nothing inside vs outside, high and low as well lose their import. Or we could say everything has always already been integrated. There is no greater reality vs a lesser reality. Complete clarity or simplicity may be good descriptors. You know, when tired eat…when hungry sleep.

love

e

Re: Integral Ideology

I really enjoyed your last post e!, while I have no idea what you talking about aside from what sounds like rationally understanding and giving meaning to nothing or to explain in brief, it sounds like “cliche” to me and nothing but. 

Re: Integral Ideology

Hey BP,

I'm sorta joking around a little because there doesn't seem to be anything to what your saying.

With regards to suchness I would say that is appropriate. It has to be approached like you are holding a very delicate living thing entangled in string.

Suchness or emptiness cannot be ascertained with a positivistic tack (I am not saying it is impossible but it would be very rare). By saying what it is not can help bring one out of the known or to the edge of the known. I came to suchness via meditation, it then took awhile to intellectually comprehend what had happened. Sorry I am failing you with my expression. I am not given to verbosity and so try and say more with less, to let the background of the screen have as much to say as my words and from what you wrote, it is coming off as cliché. Maybe I will look for a job as a fortune cookie writer.

love

e

Re: Integral Ideology

Well, maybe I'm the one who should be apologizing, because I was a little to verbosely expressive of my tendencies of perception and cognition.  I lean toward that “creative” end of things as my foray's into the benefits of meditation seem a little indirect where I didn't really end up “learning” of cultivating a beautiful mind classically, or something like that.

Re: Integral Ideology

Well, maybe I'm the one who should be apologizing, because I was a little to verbosely expressive of my tendencies of perception and cognition.  

I have no issues with your manner of expression. You are free to perceive, cognize and characterize as you see fit.

What's a little awkward is that based on the things you have been writing, or that I read, it sounded to me as if you needed a kick in the pants as I heard very little in what I've read that actually made contact with the human experience and it sounded like hot air, of something, of which I don't value very much because it didn't sound like you were acknowledging the “reality” of human life.

Value is always relative. I am merely looking at “reality” from another perspective and questioning it. Seeing what is outside of it, if that is even possible, looking at that aspect that cannot be wholly encompassed with an anthropomorphic lens. You are more than welcome to ask for clarity if something does not jibe with your understanding. I am happy to throw you a line from the hot air balloon.

It's not like it can be dismissed or something, human life that is, from the equation of totality.

First you enact a human perspective, and then you talk about totality, not vice versa. That human perspective already limits what you perceive, the totality that you conceive is always in fact not total, it can never be no matter how exalted the self image (e.g. super hero). Others that do not conform to your idea of totality are then excluded (e.g. those deemed full of hot air) and need to be kicked. Totality becomes Totalitarianism. Is that the reality of human life I need to acknowledge and contact? Isn't there more than enough of that on the evening news?


love

e

Re: Integral Ideology

Re: Integral Ideology

First you enact a human perspective, and then you talk about totality, not vice versa. 

What about both at the same time?

Re: Integral Ideology

I sorta agree with what you say while I “gain” information and “understandings” that people are unfamiliar with.  One consideration, in terms of things that have occurred in my consciousness, that I don't orient of my understanding on my own accord is that I did not initiate such understanding(s) in my consciousness, is that there is a Trilogy of Buddhism, Christianity and Islam, of which their respective Prophets were to introduce Teachings amongst human beings in relation to allowing “Resonistic” qualities within the Earth Environment which were too collectively bring about Peace on Earth.

Re: Integral Ideology

In a way, my “preachiness” about living responsibility and life on Earth having taken a direction where we aren't responsibly taking care of the Earth.  So, based on your mention above, it is only correct in that the circumstances don't exist that allow you to experience human life with notions of “Individuation” and responsibilities, notions that aren't “innate” as the Resonistic qualities that would allow human beings to live more rightly don't exist in a way necessary to allow them in human consciousness. Therefore, I understand the ReBirth of Jesus Christ is coming about and it is hoped that “things” are amended in due time.  

Did you know that we do not even know how fire works, the actual mechanism that causes and sustains fire? And yet we have been using fire for how long? You talk about individuation and responsibility as if you know the truth of what harmony is. What I am suggesting is that when all sense of knowing as individuation vs life ceases, life is seen to already always been 100% harmonized. This does not mean we don't look to solve our individual or collective problems, nor consult others for help, it means we recognize that thought (ours or NB's) cannot take in all of life and therefore any solution will always by definition be partial. Actions, no matter how well intentioned, always have side effects.

I know, out there, why believe in such a thing.  Well, I've been “talking” to and with N/nonphysical B/beings all day and generally do every day throughout much of each day. That's why I understand what I understand to be true.  No proofs otherwise.

How do you really know, beyond belief, what they are telling you is true? No belief or thought can encapsulate the truth no matter how divine the source. You have to take all thought from all sources with a grain of salt. Ask your NB's if that is true and reply back with what they said please. By their reply we will be able to ascertain their trustworthiness. Also see if they hesitate at all when asked. That also is a good tell.


love

e

Re: Integral Ideology

Thanks for your considerate questions.  One way I distinguish between “belief” and “understanding” is that “belief implies doubt”.  Sometimes I don't refer to what I'm expressing as a “belief” but as an “understanding” that I've gained based on B/beings I/interact with and have been for about 3 years now..  

Re: Integral Ideology

e said:

“Value is always relative. I am merely looking at ‘reality' from another perspective and questioning it. Seeing what is outside of it, if that is even possible, looking at that aspect that cannot be wholly encompassed with an anthropomorphic lens.

“First you enact a human perspective, and then you talk about totality, not vice versa. That human perspective already limits what you perceive, the totality that you conceive is always in fact not total, it can never be no matter how exalted the self image (e.g. super hero).”

So you are not looking outside of a perspective and/or experiencing directly some totality, as you admit in the second paragraph that it is not possible. Yet when you talk of suchness you say things like the following:

“When all identifying (as a human carbon based life form), being and becoming cease, suchness is.”

Or this:

“When all interpreting, all meaning making, all erasing, all perspectives no matter how panoramic, all subject/object orientations cease…when the Mandala of your life is swept away…suchness is.”

But those operations never cease, and to posit that they do is another form of that totalitarianism that you also recognize. You admit you can experience suchness through meditation, and that is the usual and customary response, that we can step outside of the system into the “whole” or suchness beyond concepts, language, etc. And this is W's usual response, the conceptual and the nonconceptual, the absolute and the relative. That there is an absolute beyond and outside of the relative. And therein lies the self-circling authentication and hegemonic totalitarianism that Rich talks about in the essay that began this thread.

Granted there is an integral aperspectival consciousness. But it is not as Gebser or Buddhism assume, a direct aware-ing of the whole. Wilber has it right, at least in this musings on the relative, that we become aware of the constructedness of perspectives, and that none of them are total. And yes, some of them are relatively better, depending on the context, but that context again is something we choose; there is no totality outside us or even inside us at some “core being.” But when we then choose our privileged perspective as being better than others all the time in all contexts then we leave aperspectialism and again enter into that hegemonic totalitarianism and circle back to Rich's critique.

I am reminded of kela's 7/9/08 comments in the “Integral & Inclusivism” thread:

“I also agree that, at least with respect to the question of ‘religious truth,' pluralism is not really a ‘go,' at least for theologians and for those who take ‘religious truth' seriously. It's the position of those who don't really care about such questions anymore. As such it might at least serve as a good methodological position for descriptive scholars.”

The quest for religious truth, including so-called direct spiritual truth through meditation, etc., is one I don't much care for anymore. And that includes integral methodological pluralisitic religion. I'll stick to a methodological pluralism but one that doesn't include (reduce) every other within its hegemonic, privileged access. But I disagree with kela that this might serve as some form of refuge for descriptive scholars only. Again I'll agree with W that it is an enacted paradigm, a practice, not just an armchair philosophy apart from practical and daily life considerations and actions. But unlike its godly or spiritual counterpart it's merely and entirely human(e). .

Re: Integral Ideology

“When all interpreting, all meaning making, all erasing, all perspectives no matter how panoramic, all subject/object orientations cease…when the Mandala of your life is swept away…suchness is.”

But those operations never cease, and to posit that they do is another form of that totalitarianism that you also recognize.

Ah but they do and they have. Totalitarianism is dependent on ontology, from action from a conceptualized center. Suchness lacks ontology.

You admit you can experience suchness through meditation,…

The path to the Grand Canyon is not the Grand Canyon. Suchness was intuited when all attempts at meditation ended and were relinquished. When I put all that was defining me in terms of the constellation of objects and their manipulation down, suchness was. I did not meditate my way into suchness. When I ceased (all dualistic activity), suchness was. Meditation was a way to burn off thought energy (intentionality). When the thinker (I am x)has no more fuel to carry on its existence, suchness is.

And therein lies the self-circling authentication and hegemonic totalitarianism that Rich talks about in the essay that began this thread.

It is only totalitarianism if the ontology is preserved. There was no I that could hold or keep or use suchness, etc. as there was no action from a conceptualized center. All that (ontology, cosmology, epistemology) flushed out of awareness. And there was no perspective that was enacted that took its place. Without a perspective enacted, no subject/object self/other orientation arose. All meaning lost its import. Without meaning (and meaninglessness) how can there be totalitarianism or nihilism or solipsism or eternalism or etc.? Suchness is freedom.


love

e

Re: Integral Ideology

I'll stick to a methodological pluralism but one that doesn't include (reduce) every other within its hegemonic, privileged access.

I dealt with the hegemony above. It is not a privileged access Edward. All have access all the time. Between in and out breaths. Between waking and dreaming, when the waking dream ends and the dreaming one has not yet begun and vice versa. As you pass thru a doorway and have not yet established “your presence” in a room. When the hum of the compressor of the refrigerator stops and there is silence. Between words on this page or between disparate thoughts and sensations. You merely have not re-cognized these non-happenings as such. This is one of the main outcomes formal meditation is after, to train awareness to acknowledge these non-happenings and to see that all beings are privileged (Buddhas) and have “access”. Practice off cushion is bringing that awareness to bare on the perspectives that cause ontology to arise concomitant with suffering. To see that every enactment is book ended by suchness. All perspectives self-resolve in suchness.


love

e

Re: Integral Ideology

But I disagree with kela that this might serve as some form of refuge for descriptive scholars only.

Yes, I thought about just this point after I wrote it – that, for example, one could, arguably, be said be a follower of some sort of “path” and at the same time be a pluralist, and that perhaps the argument from “performative contradiction” assumes a certain conception of truth, that it may be begging the question as to the nature of “truth.”

Interestingly, vis a vis the issue of relativism, the argument from “performative contradiction” is missing from the second edition of Hilary Putnam's essay on “relativism.” I wonder why. Did he no longer think it held water? I think Putnam is on the list of philosophers Ken mentions when he says, in Inegral Sp., “the relativists were absolutely slaughtered on this point…” or something to that effect.

Re: Integral Ideology

Indeed, I think, following Kegan's model, that we could say that while exclusivism represents the Institutional stage and pluralism the InterIndividual stage, inclusivism or “integralism” represents a transitional stage between the two where the individual is moving toward the more mature perspective of pluralism – that is, where the individual is beginning to appreciate the views of others and is attempting to integrate them into his perspective –  but is still unable to let go of the obstinate clinging to his own viewpoint (drshti) as the correct view. :-)

Re: Integral Ideology

My contention is that, while there is a pre-pluralist (transitional) inclusivist trend that shows up in Integral discourse, the Integral project represents an attempt (and has the potential to realize) a post-pluralist perspective…recognizing that pluralism has its own limitations and problems.

Re: Integral Ideology

From the more mature perspective of the InterIndividual this kind of move must appear as a kind of regression back to the Institutional, as an attempt to reinstate its superiority. :-)

Re: Integral Ideology

You wish, you big fat Greenie!

Re: Integral Ideology

Not sure if you'll recognize that remark as being uttered tongue-in-cheek, I'm adding a more serious response:

The interindividual phase is Kegan's highest level, it is true.  From that perspective, yes, the Integral project likely does appear as an attempt to reinstate the Institutional perspective (inclusivism).

However, to the degree that the interindividual stage aligns with pluralism (and that's not entirely clear, since Kegan sometimes calls his 5th stage “integral”), then I think there are clearly recognized limitations to the pluralist perspective that must be dealt with.  I agree that the flavor of “inclusivism” that has informed some of Integral discourse and theorizing is problematic and is, in fact, pre-pluralistic; but I don't believe the Integral project is defined by those trends.   The Integral project may not have been adequately or perfectly realized yet, but I do think it represents a legitimate attempt to deal with the problems that attend pluralism, rather than an attempt to invalidate that perspective altogether.

Re: Integral Ideology

Hi Bruce,

Yes, the smiley faces, here and in the related comment in the Transformation thread, indicate that I was having some fun as well.

One thing that I was getting at is that it is easy to see how this kind of back and forth between Greenies and Integralites can quickly devolve into a one-up-man peeing match –  “I'm more evolved/mature/developed/spiritually advanced than you are” – and also how it is fairly easy for the Greenie to give a retort by referring to the assumptions of his own perspective.

I also have something of a problem with how the “Integralites” dismiss the Greenies on the basis of this “performative contradiction.” It would seem that what's good for the goose is good for the gander. I.e., if we follow a model like Kegan's then both “Integralism” and “I'm-looking-down-my-nose-at-you” Pluralism constitute a kind of “Institutional” thinking if they imagine themselves as some kind of “position” that we are to identify with, become attached to, and defend. Part of what the so-called InterIndividual stage would appear to involve would be a kind of letting-go of all these “-isms,” of the need for dharma-combat, and “upholding the truth.”  At least as I understand it, it is what allows us, as we get older and perhaps a bit wiser, to “entertain a hypothesis,” as some teachers say – a kind of “plasticity” of mind as it were – and it is equally that which disturbs young students who demand that you “give them the goods,” the unambiguous, unequivocal Truth, and now! 

In any case, there may be such as thing as an “integral false positive.”

Re: Integral Ideology

And this of course relates to the discussion in the pre-trans thread in that what I see as Nagarjuna's “nondual” is in fact this stage development, this ability to see all perspectives and their relations without identifying with any of them. It really doesn't have anything to do with “higher” states at all, other than such states are earlier stages which have now become transparant to this aperspectivalism within perspectivalism.

Re: Integral Ideology

And this of course relates to the discussion in the pre-trans thread in that what I see as Nagarjuna's “nondual” is in fact this stage development, this ability to see all perspectives and their relations without identifying with any of them. It really doesn't have anything to do with “higher” states at all, other than such states are earlier stages which have now become transparant to this aperspectivalism within perspectivalism.

At Lightmind, I responded to the charge that Krishnamurtti was “green” with the response that what K. was drawing upon (when he talked of “choiceless awareness” and so on) was what the Indian tradition refers to as the avadhuta or mahasiddha “stage.” In my work on the Ashtavakra GIta, I did a kind of phenomenological thematic inventory of this “stage,” which really represents the fruition of the path. Many of the themes first appear in the Bhagavad Gita at the end of those chapters where Arjuna asks Krishna what the features of the sage are. Among the terms used are “tulyata” and “samana.” A typical passage will say that the sage looks upon a brahmin or outcaste as equal (tulya), a piece of gold or clump of dirt as the same (sama).  It is also interesting to note that it is presents a rather “flatland” non-hierarchical picture of reality.

Now, perhaps at first reading this looks like some sort of liberal “democratic” view – and Vivekananda and others have, following Schopenhauer, attempted to create a kind of pseudo “non-dual” ethics out of it – but it really has nothing to do with ethics; rather it is the expression of an extreme renunciatory stance, an experession of complete detachment and equinamity, and it appears alongside themes like “letting things be” and “neither accepting nor rejecting.”

Another related theme that emerges in the Madhyamika, and which appears later in Advaita, is that of a-vivada, where vivada refers to disputation and debate – what is also called jalpa or “wrangling” – and the “a-” particle is a negative. The early a-jnanikas – literarally “agnostics” – who were like the Indian analogs of the Pyrhonian skeptics, thought that disputation disrupted one's equinamity, and they advised against it. This “avivada,” or attitudinal stance of “non-conflict,” re-appears in what Gomez calls the “proto-Madhymaika” writings, iie the Suttanipata scriptures, which are some of the earliest Buddhist works. It appears then that there was some connection between these protomadhyamikas and the ajnanikas. The theme appears again, most conspicuously, in the Madhyamika works proper and some in Mahayana Sutras.

The theme also appears again in the Gaudapada Karikas. The text reads (not my translation but one from the net):

3: 17 The dualists, firmly clinging to their conclusions, contradict one another. The non-dualists find no conflict with them.

3: 18  Since Non-duality is Ultimate Reality, duality is said to be Its effect. The dualist sees duality in both the Absolute and the relative. Therefore the non-dualist position does not conflict with the dualist position.

Re: Integral Ideology

…LOL…

Re: Integral Ideology

Oops, darn!  I guess I was unconsciously trying on a character strategy maybe or something. Please, let me explain a little…  “BP interacts with many many B/beings every day and all the time, even when BP isn't paying attention while sleeping or talking to someone”… and I'm immersed in two worlds.  It's like I could wear a sign on my forehead that said, “God the Father of Heaven and Earth is working through me, among other B/beings”, in a way where its as if everything is as if it's no big deal.  “Really, I don't think I'd be here otherwise, nor would BP as well”.

Re: Integral Ideology

hey people

I dont want to disturb your interesting discussion,.

This is about the problems with wilberian philosophy mentioned before,

especially about the”monopolizing” part.

1.
First,  a little wilber defending:(


does anybody understand how it can be that Wilber in SES wrote more then hundred pages of concrete attacks against green, describing, analyzing and interpreting postmodern stances, and the postmodern theories react in THE WAY HE SAID THEY WOULD WITHOUT
REFLECTING THEM SELVES IN REGARD TO WHAT HE HAS WRITTEN ABOUT THEM.
(f.ex: writing that he is euro/logocentric)

This is oviously absurd and just fortifies the point that they are not able to understand his writings due to their lack of development   ;  )   (, yeah, Im pro-wilberian)

They dont even have manners(saying sth. while not answering and not expecting, just trying to talk over his head, and afterwards a few thousand people worldwide, all having attacked ONE person
, rant about that one person being SO BAD(and never answering or responding, hahaha.
(Now dont say : shado….)


2. Integral Imperialism

and why it is infact very good

When Kant wrote his critique, he fe-framed the world orange-style as to make blue-ish
mythological metaphysics meaningless, rationality became the new queen and the virus, the nation destroyed older and smaller and more varied wayws of living, centralisation of industry fortified the state, and these things tetra-meshed into the new orange world-order

Lets say: Kant
(who is just our story-character now, I am not saying the whole weight of the enlightenment is  on his shoulders)

Installed certain memes into society, which re-framed, centralised, synthesized and outpowered the old memes belonging to blue, giving a mastercode for the legtimation
of knowledge

The same was done by green, who in  the same time diskliked this process and says its bad.(always hiding from their main lie,  “I am more right then you saying we are all eqal”)

Now integral makes an object out of the(euro-american–) greens, which also means that  integral willfully sees and abandons these thought,



In fact, green did just the same.

They installed an all-reframing mastercode, forcing EVERYONE of those
non-greens they actually had to live with

to accept their values. In german the way from 68 to the green party was called “march through the institutions”, maybe its a part of the english language too.

And now its our turn.

Once again, now even more:

Synthesis, Imperialism and co.

You green thinkers out there dont know who you are dealing with.

You are saying your old garbage like its hot, well, its not, we swallowed it all, and
now learned from orange and green how to become a prevalent worldview

We are not crying victims full of unspoken desires for oceans of blood to come like the greenies, but completely aware of the good and bad sides, using them all.

We are reframing the language with intentionality.

Why do you think KW repeats the same shit over and over again, I mean, the exactly
same phrase.

Now, either he is stupid, what one would think if mostly thinking about their sown selfs and not caring about the political and social relations of all of this

Fitting:

3.


Reasons to got to war.

If you are the only one to not like the war, and the others like to, then the only thing you
can do to save afew people is to participate.

Do you REALLY THINK KEN OR ANYONE ELSE WANTS TO GO TO WAR, like
a republican wants to go to war?


And this is just the point. Boomeritis.


If you only think egocentrically, you will want to write your opinion, show what YOU are like.

You should be thinking about what some else(KW) thinks about what someone else(hottest theoreticians/sages) thinks about someone else(intelectuals/media) thinking about someone else(the world, the people), and this is a very simple version


Think like that, after having done your homework(fully informing yourself about all the others in this thinking process), ask your self intensly why you participate in discussions while not thinking about other people, and I think you will understand what this is all about.

Re: Integral Ideology

And now its our turn.
Once again, now even more:
Synthesis, Imperialism and co.
You green thinkers out there dont know who you are dealing with.

My goodness. So that's what it's all about, is it?
This is the “hidden agenda” of the I-I and Integralism?
This doesn't sound tourquise; it sounds like a regression to red.

Re: Integral Ideology

I understand that Richard Carlson has completed a revised and extended article based on the essay linked to in the initial post. It can be found in the reading room at Integral World. 

Re: Integral Ideology

My tone was not intended to be taken seriously

ANd your right about the red undertone, but if youve read the beginning you might capture why I chose a louder style

Look, capitalism and republicanism freed us(europeans) from the church, from aristocracy etc.

That was GOOD.

Integralites really do have the feeling you are not understanding them, why?

Read the first part of my last post in this thread.



Le'me try it another way and just attack this whole thread



The title is “integral idiology”.


I DONT KNOW THE AUTHOR, and I am not saying that this reflects his/her view, but, in most cases, people who talk about sth. being idiologic assume the possibilty of being non-idiologic.

This assumptions also includes a dichtomy involvong

ideologic vs non-ideologic, which is most often: objective, really real reality so to say.


That means its formal operational, monoperspectivism,  believing in the myth of the given, in short:  pretty much the same paradigm on which 19th century eurofascism was founded


The only way to avoid this is to understand that “ideology” is nothing but a rethoric trick, trying
 to claim Upper-right-Quadrant obectivity  for Lower-left issues, which is obviously absurd and totalitarian


In fact, if I live, i take action, to do so, i must decide out of one of  alot possibilities for some..”reasons”,

that means: i have a structuring and interpretation-process at the base of my mind, which are stable long enough for me to still accept the definition of the problem when I come to the solution
So i have values.

having values and being Ideologic are the same, it just depends, which meme you are.

Theres a counter-argument from the liberals: to be pragmatic is to be non-ideologic, but this argument goes back in to pre-Kantian times of science as it fully believes the myth of the given. So the argument is as ridicolous as the opinions of an christian shaman in a village.



All of this means:




Claiming sth to be ideologic is totalitarian and fascist




Cant be otherwise

ANd that means:

To be really moral when judging others, you need to say YES to the fact that you have values and what is today called an ideology.

only then will you have the moral capacity to really judge.

The rest is lying, eually to yourself and the others

especially of green, because orange cannot really see these points so it cant ly  to it self about it.




This is the base thought of what I previously wrote.

So.

These thoughts are quite obvious if you follow the Wilberian line of thinking.

to dismiss this, you first need to show that you know these thoughts exist, and to dismiss
this anyway without caring to LOOK if there is sth YOU DONT SEE YET is a act which I would judge morally(in a bad way, if you wanna know it)