In My Integral Estimation

I think when people will understand Holy truth the...

2011-12-12T10:01:48.616-05:00

I think when people will understand Holy truth then they will be able to fell Holy Love. www.holytruthfortheworld.co.cc

Probably, though it's beyond me currently. I&#...

2011-02-27T23:33:02.601-05:00

Probably, though it's beyond me currently. I'm not quite as immersed in Wilberian theory as I used to be. I've always felt intuitively that the holonic dimensions are a neat extrapolation of the basic monad central to all nondual philosophy, but beyond that I've never applied the same rigorous scrutiny or reason that DGA has. Nor do I feel particularly qualified to do so for that matter. As far as a general map of consciousness and creation though, I find Wilber’s overall AQAL model useful for restoring a sense of (w)holism to the fragmented post-modern psyche (mine included).

2011-02-27T23:26:26.057-05:00

This comment has been removed by the author.

Is there a stance from which one can agree with DG...

2011-02-27T10:32:57.450-05:00

Is there a stance from which one can agree with DGA about the weaknesses of Wilberian theory and still maintain that there is value in Wilber's work? I have the intuition that there is, though I can't quite put my finger on what that might be.

Ouch!

2011-02-24T23:26:22.255-05:00

Ouch!

what do you think about this theory about the spir...

2010-11-15T06:34:18.680-05:00

what do you think about this theory about the spirit and the soul?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=einHlgvi5D8

IS VERY GOOD..............................

It's based on one of his books, titled Facets ...

2010-02-02T21:28:13.238-05:00

It's based on one of his books, titled Facets of Unity.

The central triangle of the enneagram consists of points 3, 6, and 9, whose Holy Ideas are Holy Law/Holy Hope, Holy Faith, and Holy Love. Faith, hope, and charity, the three theological virtues, are one expression of this triad.

I like this so much I'm going to post it on my...

2010-02-02T11:01:20.979-05:00

I like this so much I'm going to post it on my wall. Is this a summary of a particular work by Almas?

Can you explain:
"faith, hope, and charity, the central triangle of the eneagram"?

http://integralpraxis.blogspot.com

2009-07-28T22:37:10.791-04:00

http://integralpraxis.blogspot.com

Thoughts: In response to "it seems that any...

2009-07-28T15:25:50.381-04:00

Thoughts: In response to "it seems that any perspective we attempt to take on can only be taken on partially" As one person, we each will always be able to only take on a partial perspective, yes? Therefore, could it be said that communicating and understanding (granted, that too is only partially possible) others is a fundamental requirement in order to obtain a greater understanding? Granted, yes, me, one person, even left in a box, will form a perspective based on your list and yes, some if it I could change, some of it I couldn't, BUT, regardless, wouldn't enacting other perspectives be a requirement? Actually, are people even physically capable of not forming them? Even if one factors in that our perspectives are limited by existing in a context 'constrained by whichever parts of our perspective we can't willfully change' there is also the concept that change itself is constant. The parts we cannot change, will change on their own, or at the very least, our understanding of them will, therefore we are forced to take on a new perspective, yes? Just a thought. :)

I think understanding our limitations is important...

2009-07-28T08:28:53.371-04:00

I think understanding our limitations is important, but I think a fair number cannot be overcome.

In short, the argument is that our physical form (arms, legs, symmetrical body, ability to see certain colors, etc.) has an impact on the way we do abstract thinking. As we grow and interact with the world in new ways, we learn to associate certain physical experiences with certain abstract concepts. For example, "more is up" makes intuitive sense, because we all learned as children that when you pour more liquid in a glass, the surface goes up. The list of similar metaphorical associations is nearly endless. As a result, the way we think abstractly is largely based on our physical form, which we can't really change.

So, while there are probably an infinite/indefinite/arbitrary number of ways we can think about things, there are a similar number of ways we can't think about things. I can't think about things the same way a fish would, for example, since I don't have a fish body and therefore don't have the same physical experiences, metaphorical associations, or conceptual structures. Thus, I can't recontextualize things the way a fish might.

As a result, while the permutations of human thought are many, they tend to have some underlying similarities. In terms of concepts, there are certain structures that get used over and over again, including identity, boundaries, qualities, opposites/polarity, kinds/categories, spectra, contexts, and perspectives.

In what ways are we limited in recontextualizing? ...

2009-07-19T19:24:10.442-04:00

In what ways are we limited in recontextualizing? Are you refering to a limitation by way of communication (words, sounds we can physcially make, etc.)? Is there a connection between how people are physically limited in observing or experiencing meaning and the ability to achieve a type of enlightment in understanding? More importanting, is overcoming, or at least understanding, this limitation important in order to grow and progress?

A concrete counter-example of this is the way Wilb...

2009-07-09T15:41:04.789-04:00

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".

What 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!

Thinking of "more" as the essence of...

2009-07-09T15:40:36.609-04:00
Thinking of "more" as the essence of the Kosmos "justifies" the theory

Wouldn'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...)

Perhaps. One possible counter-argument would be t...

2009-07-09T09:25:33.855-04:00
Perhaps. One possible counter-argument would be that while the artifacts are orange, the values are second tier.

What 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.

Certainly the artifacts of integral theory are Ora...

2009-07-08T16:22:21.827-04:00
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?

Agreed. GEB was amazing and mind-stretching in ado...

2009-06-13T13:11:21.934-04:00
Agreed. GEB was amazing and mind-stretching in adolescence, but is now a lovely but more understandable book (and I don't care for Hofstadter's conclusions so much). I think when the lens through which he interpreted the contents of his book becomes clear, the presentation loses some of its lustre.

For American politics, something along these lines...

2009-06-11T20:04:21.205-04:00
For American politics, something along these lines:

Think of one party as the figure and the other as the ground, and show that from this perspective the boundaries of one party define the shape of the other party. If you want to be thorough, switch perspectives and consider the other party as the figure and show that the same still holds. Since you can view it either way, depending on which side you identify with, either perspective can be true, depending on what your perspective takes to be the focus and and the context.

Alternately, consider either or both parties as having boundaries defined by the shape/edges of the overall cultural background.

Indeed. Hofstadter goes to the very limits of wha...

2009-06-11T19:55:03.769-04:00
Indeed. Hofstadter goes to the very limits of what orange can conceive of, and sometimes even a little farther. His obsession with Godel and the strangeness of logical systems that can refer to themselves leads to a rather bizarre theory of consciousness in his book 'I Am A Strange Loop.' It's non-reductionist, in a sense, but it still fails to really answer the problems that orange theories of consciousness always run into.

Having read more widely and developed my thinking farther than I had when I read GEB, I found it much less exciting and somewhat predictable or even stale. He does seem to start using contextuality in his thought, which is neat, but not substantially enough to keep me reading.

I wonder what his lecturer would have thought of P...

2009-06-11T19:48:06.119-04:00
I wonder what his lecturer would have thought of Paulo Freire. I see Freire as more of a green meme educational theorist, but they seem to have some points of intersection. I'm thinking particularly of their views on the lecturer-listener model. On the other hand, this lecturer of yours sounds farther toward the "networked world" view than the "diversity, pluralism, and liberation of the oppressed" view, so perhaps there are some substantial differences between him and Freire.

Ah... I'm imagining some "Either you have...

2009-06-11T14:16:41.968-04:00
Ah... I'm imagining some "Either you have American values or you don't". Imagining a simple manifestation for "green politics" is more difficult, likely because I haven't been bombarded with it as I have "blue politics" and that I'm just not as comfortable thinking using figure/ground. What do you think a "green" visual metaphor of politics would be like?

This reminds me of speaking about how reading GEB,...

2009-06-11T14:11:26.928-04:00
This reminds me of speaking about how reading GEB, SES, and Lakoff and Johnson might be best in that order--
What fascinated me about GEB was its exploration of exactly this type of "paradox", the both/and relationship of a myriad of things that arises in the context of self-referential systems. It was exactly that which made it mind-category stretching and fabulous at the time.

He was railing on the fact that it did not foster ...

2009-06-11T13:55:44.203-04:00
He was railing on the fact that it did not foster problem solving and synthesis skills in the students, creating industrial-era wage drones rather than innovators and creatives.

I'm pondering that one. What did he say was s...

2009-06-05T10:34:14.325-04:00
I'm pondering that one. What did he say was stinky about the lecturer-listener model?