Talk:Integral Theory

Welcome

Integral Theory was created after several weeks of discussions on the talk page for the page that is now called Integral_(spirituality). Contributions are welcome.

Restoring Integral Politics page

I was going through the redirects, and it seems that a lot of them point to Integral Politics. It seems to me that the old page could be restored and added to the list of integralist pages, assuming sufficient third party refernces and footnotes could be added to show notability M Alan Kazlev (talk) 21:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I added a short stub for "Integral politics" Much more needs to be done. Joeperez69 (talk) 21:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC) Joe Perez

What is it?

After reading the information here, I am still wondering... What it is. Rolyatleahcim (formerly known as Zzzmidnight) (talk) 02:52, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm wondering too. Is this anything other than puff for someone's pet theory? William M. Connolley (talk) 18:03, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

In particular, "quadrant" and "level" appear to be key technical terms, and are not defined on this page. 121.73.5.66 (talk) 23:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. — goethean ॐ 02:46, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

While unsurprising in the pseudoscience community, to have an article about a "theory" and include no criticism, no critical thought, no reflection from any foundation other than "Integral Theory" makes this article useless. Like many other pseudo-sciences and religious/spiritual movements, there is a strong resistance to critical thought, reflected by the fact that neither this article, nor the Integral Institute's, nor Ken Wilber's has ANY section about criticisms of the theories presented. There was an effort to do so on Ken's article, but it was removed in much the same way the scientologists removed any balanced or critical reflection on their theories. This sort of behavior may be part of the culture of Integral Theory, but it it should not be part of the culture of Wikipedia, which does not exist as propaganda, but aims to represent the prevailing perspectives on these issues. Even if they are wrong, its inarguable that a large number of people view Integral Theory as quack science. There are plenty of criticisms out there. To list a few: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1746-8361.1987.tb00889.x/abstract http://www.kheper.net/topics/Wilber/Wilber_on_biological_evolution.html http://hinessight.blogs.com/church_of_the_churchless/2011/01/ken-wilbers-creationism-is-pseudo-science.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.122.149.161 (talk) 16:00, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

View Ken Wilber's response to criticisms about his understanding of evolution: http://www.kenwilber.com/blog/show/390 Additionally, there are many avenues for criticism of Integral Theory. At each Integral Theory conference there is a section dedicated to the presentation of papers that constructively criticize Integral Theory and awards for best paper in that section. Also, if you pick up a copy of Integral Theory in Action you'll find a paper by Bill Torbert (boston university) that directly challenges Integral Theory. I've yet to come across any other serious academic critiscisms of Integral Theory. If they exist, they should be added to the article. What also should be added is the fact that there are also a number of current professors at mainstream academic institutions such as University of Colorado Boulder (Michael Zimmerman), University of California Irvine (Roger Walsh), Cleveland State Unviersity (Elliot Ingersoll), University of Oslo, Le Moyne College, Columbia University Teachers College, Augusta State University, a doctoral candidate at Harvard Graduate School of Education (working with Kegan) etc. that accept and utilize Integral Theory in their teaching and research. And that's only scholars that have published research. Not to mention the fact that SUNY press publishes a peer-reviewed journal on Integral Theory and has also published 4 books so far (with 4 more on the way) in their Series in Integral Theory. I've also edited the overview of this article to make things more clear about what Integral Theory actually is and its current state in the world at large. 69.118.209.209 (talk) 12:48, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I removed the category 'pseudoscience' because there is no consensus. It could be mentioned in a critics section. --Pevos (talk) 15:11, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Also, why is the main meat of the actual theory of Integral Theory on Ken Wilber's page? Its home should be in this article. 69.118.209.209 (talk) 12:52, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I see an awful amount of material sourced to Integral Theory websites and authors. Isn't there any outside review of the field and its relative influence? --Enric Naval (talk) 00:47, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh, hey, the lead has a lot of self-serving fluff and then it says "However, there is ongoing discussion surrounding its standing in academia". But then the body says "Integral Theory is widely ignored at mainstream academic institutions". The lead is supposed to summarize what the body says. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:50, 11 January 2012 (UTC)