When blue's polar, dichotomous, either/or thinking proves insufficient, there are two primary approaches to providing additional flexibility.
First, you can blur the boundaries between pairs of opposites, creating a gradual trade-off between the two. This results in a spectrum, usually conceptualized as a line between two points. From here, it's a short leap to spectra that extend infinitely away from a single end-point, or infinitely in both directions without any end-points.
Second, you can keep sharp boundaries, but extend the number choices beyond two. This results in clearly defined categories, usually conceptualized as containers that particular things go "in." From here, it's a short leap to categories of categories and so on, which are thought of as nested containers.
These two extensions of blue thinking are orange's primary conceptual tools.
Wilber's AQAL model makes heavy use of categories and spectra -- every major element of the theory is structured in one of these two ways. Quadrants, levels, states, and most types use the category structure, while masculine/feminine, transcendence/immanence, and lines of development use the spectrum structure.
This is somewhat surprising, when you consider the relatively scarce inclusion of green perspectival and contextual elements. The primary examples are the lower quadrants, which in a fashion consider the context of the individuals in the upper quadrants. Still, the perspectival and contextual observations are placed into quadrant categories, subordinating them to the orange conceptual structure of the quadrants.
Does integral theory really represent a step forward from green thought? I'm starting to question. While it is certainly non-materialist, and therefore solves some of the problems of "flatland" rationality, I don't see much that convinces me that it "transcends and includes" post-modern green. The more I recognize the same structures I see in materialist science popping up in integral theory, the more integral theory looks like a very comprehensive incarnation of the orange meme, stretching up to green for a few bits here and there.
Topics
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Certainly the artifacts of integral theory are Orange - charts, graphs, etc. And Wilber admits as much. Do you think your conclusion might be slightly premature?
ReplyDeletePerhaps. One possible counter-argument would be that while the artifacts are orange, the values are second tier.
ReplyDeleteWhat makes this counter-argument problematic is that the values of integral theory follow fairly directly from the structures. Only if you use the spectrum structure does it make sense to value more complexity, more depth, more evolution, more development, more perspectives, more awareness, more integration. More seems to be orange's singular obsession, and I see it expressed throughout integral theory. (Meyerhoff saw it too.)
And the methodology chosen to embody this value system is based on the same structures. Honor all perspectives (green) by organizing them in a formal structure (orange.) Bring together all the partial truths (spectrum) and classify them based on their originating perspective (categories) in order to form a more truthful perspective (spectrum.) Develop your consciousness and your thinking (spectrum) because...well, just because.
Of course, since there is no reason (beyond the use of conceptual spectra) that more is necessarily better, one has to find a way to justify "more" as an intrinsic value. That seems to be where mysticism comes in -- if mystical experience "empirically proves" that the universe has directionality, that "Spirit exists," and that Spirit "naturally" manifests in increasingly complex ways, then it's only reasonable that we shouldn't swim against the tide of "more."
Thinking of "more" as the essence of the Kosmos "justifies" the theory, the values, and the methodology -- especially if you're intent on using orange conceptual structures, and you're casting about for a way to maintain their truth and correctness in the face of post-modern thought.
Thinking of "more" as the essence of the Kosmos "justifies" the theory
ReplyDeleteWouldn't that fall afoul of the myth of the given? It seems that within the genre, Wilber's later work is unique in that it is aware of this issue, but I agree that the community in general hasn't really understood it. Zachary Stein has pointed this out.
My guess is that the community is partly under the influence of Wilber's early work and not grasping the moves he's lately made away from it, but more significantly, they want to rescue the misguided utopianism of previous eras.
"More seems to be orange's singular obsession"
I'm not sure I agree with that. Obviously, Green's contradiction is that it secretly holds itself up as more compassionate/inclusive/etc., and the dogmatism of every meme boils down to claiming to be more something than all the others. I might be wrong about this, but my impression is that the agentic memes (or ways of embodying a meme) tend to value growth to complexity, while the communal memes embrace lower stages. Others have said that Wilber is too masculine, for example.
"Bring together all the partial truths (spectrum) and classify them based on their originating perspective (categories) in order to form a more truthful perspective (spectrum.)"
Let me try this line of argument to see what you think: Unlike other similar artifacts, AQAL doesn't provide any guidance about how to operationalize it. A truly Orange model would be something like a machine: you plug in the inputs, turn the crank and you get an objective, "true" answer or result. One example that comes to mind is the notion of a sales funnel. Arguably, one could interpret SD in this way as "let's climb the stages and achieve enlightenment/utopia", but integral theory provides very little concrete guidance as to how to do this because structuring perspectives in a spectrum (or spiral) is descriptive, but it doesn't help you operationalize it in any way. The model doesn't say, "Here's the order of importance that you should include different perspectives to get the best one."
(Continued in the next comment...)
A concrete counter-example of this is the way Wilber treats "integral art": there is no "integral art", only integrally-informed artists, which is effectively a distinction without a difference. At the Integral conference, a panel of psychotherapists were asked what makes integral psychotherapy different from other types, and they had no answer, other than a similar construct of "integrally-informed" psychotherapist. This notion of "integrally-informed" is employed to cover for the fact that there is no way of judging "more complex" from "less complex".
ReplyDeleteWhat is really fascinating about this supposedly AQAL conference was how at least three-quarters of the sessions were about the UL quadrant. This extreme privileging is, to me, an example of how little actual influence Wilber has. The primary concern was how the academic culture is dominated by objective, quantitative, behaviorist paradigms, and open mockery and hostility to this was common, not just a failure to include that perspective.
I think this speaks to what I've alluded to above: Wilber is very rarely read on his own terms, but instead, mainly used to reinforce people's existing set of (utopian, subjectivist, New Age) beliefs and concerns. In some ways, perhaps this is the opposite of what you are saying here: He's not often read as a demand that the reader be more integral, more inclusive of other perspectives, more complex thinking, etc. I think nearly all of his critics hold him responsible for the wrong thing, they think that he has too much influence, but I think just the opposite, his main problem is that he avoids having any real influence. Because of this, my interaction with the integral community has mostly been "How could you possibly think that what you're saying is supported by AQAL theory?"
I think that, out of a desire for influence and popularity, Wilber flatters people that they are already "integral (or integrally informed)" more than he privileges higher complexity and demands it from readers. I cringe listening to him on Integral Naked interviewing band members, shamelessly flattering the interviewee and us, the fans, for having such amazing integral taste. Or pretending to agree with every other person who wants to insert a 3rd dimension into the quadrant model. This fact is not often noticed by critics, but I think its actually far more important than any "Mean Green Meme" constructs, or really, any of his actual theory.
Anyway, just some ideas. Let me know what you think, I appreciate the insight!