Can we understand how Integral fits within TSK?

Hi, Bruce,

Seems like you’re making great efforts trying to explain things to your Integral friends. I have an idea, maybe crazy, but this wouldn’t be the first time.

What if you do it the other way around? Rather than prove that TSK is Integral, you might learn more about Integral AND TSK by clearly understanding how Integral fits within TSK. Is TSK really a forum for spiritual disciplines to progress?  Maybe it is broad enough!

Presume for starters that nothing is outside the field communiqué and Being of time, Time, space, Space, and knowledge Knowledge.

Now, have someone give you an example of something you think is outside the TSK vision. If he/she provides a sufficiently complete description of whatever it is, presuming he/she looks closely enough to do this, I bet it can be located within the levels and scope of the vision.

Steve

Re: Can we understand how Integral fits within TSK?

Hi, Steve,

I actually believe it goes both ways.  I do think TSK has great scope of vision, and in some of my writings, I've tried to show how different dynamics described within the Integral model can be understood as the interplay of time-space-knowledge (or other elements described within TSK).  I've also tried to point out that TSK “cuts through” certain things that appear to be taken for granted, as givens, within the Integral model.  I agree with you that more can be done in this area.  I'm taking the approach I am now in response to certain criticisms of TSK that have been leveled, and because I am specifically addressing students of Integral Theory.  But the opposite approach could be taken as well.  If I actually write a book one day – I'm thinking of writing “The Time-Space-Knowledge Vision: An Integral Study Guide” – then I would certainly make more of an effort to present more of a balanced “appreciative approach.”  (I believe I haven't gone deep enough in my own study of TSK to tackle a book yet, but maybe in the future.)

If you are familiar enough with Integral Theory to comment on how it can be understood within the context of the TSK Vision, I'd love to hear your thoughts.

Best wishes,

Bruce

Re: Can we understand how Integral fits within TSK?

To speak more strongly from a TSK perspective:

* If you read my post to Ralph carefully, you'll see that I actually said Integral can add granularity of detail to TSK (for anyone who is interested in such granularity), which is a way of saying that Integral Theory can supplement TSK (rather than TSK supplementing Integral Theory).

* Although I didn't say this in my last post, I have been saying it in my ongoing discussion with Integral practitioners:  Wilber is, in some ways, reinventing the wheel with his call for a postmetaphysical, integral spirituality, since I think TSK has been doing some of these things for 30 years already.

Re: Can we understand how Integral fits within TSK?

Is Wilber reinventing the wheel?

TSK gas no explicit criteria for postmetaphysical maps. it cannot describe the specific limitations and possiblities of certain approaches as SDi, as the work of Deepak Chopra, Sheldrake, Laszlo, Varela, Byron Katie, WTB, Murphy et al.

This is what KW does in INTEGRAL SPIRITUALITY.

And what does current TSK say about technology?

The Kelly/Wilber dialogue is about it.

TSK has its own beauty

I guess its not possible right now to mix diverse models and concepts. Maybe in 10 or 20 years we can see clearer.

Until then I am happy that KW and others innovate and devleop the postmetaphysical turn….

Best,

Albert

Re: Can we understand how Integral fits within TSK?

Hi, Albert,

Yes, I think of TSK and Integral Theory as visions which can complement and inform each other in interesting and useful ways, rather as alternative attempts to do the same thing.  While we can say that both are oriented towards integrative perspectives, Integral attempts this through a comprehensive mapping; while TSK aims more at an open-ended mode of inquiry that tends towards lived integration of experience.  This differentiation doesn't do full justice to either, and doesn't fully describe what either is involves, but I do see this as a helpful “orienting generalization.”  :-) 

Best wishes,

Balder