This question was asked by someone on one of the major integral salon mailing lists recently, and it got me thinking.
The defining feature of the things we commonly refer to as religions is a metaphysical viewpoint structured around symbology and backed up with mythology. This distinguishes them from both metaphysical cults based on magical thinking, and metaphysical philosophies based on rational thinking.
From that point of view, I'd have to say no -- Wilber's integral is not a religion. While it does constitute a metaphysical viewpoint, it doesn't concern itself much with myths and stories that explain the way the world "is" and how it works, or with symbols and iconography.
On the other hand though, some elements (particularly those surrounding meditative states) seem to reflect the general structure of blue or concrete operational thinking. This doesn't surprise me much, because the majority of the contemplative traditions were developed in pre-orange societies. No matter who your teacher is or where you learn, meditation is likely to be explained in largely blue terms. This seems to have diffused into Wilber's metaphysics in several places.
On the whole, I'd label Wilber's particular brand of integral theory as a philosophy with a smattering of semi-religious elements. As Wilber's theory evolves, it's amazing to me how persistent those semi-religious elements are, even in the face of his attempt to incorporate postmodern critiques and go "post-metaphysical."
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)

Religion? No. Cult? Yes.
ReplyDeleteThe difference between blue at the religious and cult level is simply whose rules and system the followers observe, think about and discus - always expanding on the the "leaders" ideas. It may look like free-thought (eg: green/yellow) but it's not really.
Religion: it's a non-human manifestation. God's rules as stated in the bible, etc.
Cult: it's a human. David Koresh, Ken Wilbur, Anthony Robbins, etc - their "teachings"
It's all still blue blue blue.
"Cult", by the way doesn't need to have negative connotations. People who think Anthony Robbins is the best thing in the world are unlikely to do any harm to themselves or others, aside from pissing off people who don't want to be passionately told how to live their lives better.
:)