Jump to content

Talk:Integral (Ken Wilber)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

I

Integral theory flows into everything, but my understanding of its genesis and basis is an attempt to overcome the drawbacks introduced by the advent of rationalism. Rationalism, through Descartes' dualism, split mind (and by implication, spirit) from body. This freed science from religious control and enabled vast advances in understanding of our physical world. But in doing so it subordinated, then ignored, then denied the existence of an ineffable realm. Scientism makes the error of thinking that its method is universally applicable, even in the face of mathematical proofs of the Incompleteness theorem and the Uncertainty principle which show that it, too, has its limits. Integral theory begins by acknowledging and validating mystical experience, rather than denying its reality. These experiences have occurred to humans in all cultures in all eras, and are accepted as valuable and not pathological. Integral theory claims that both science 'and mysticism (or spirituality) are necessary for complete understanding of humans and the universe.

Since there is not a large group working on this article at present, I will insert a statement expressing the foregoing thought and look for a response. --Blainster 20:58, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

II

The article states, Aurobindo Ghose is considered the founder of Integral Theory. I would suggest that in this field, founder status is properly understood with respect to a particular terminology or to a particular model, but not to the overall concept. There is a tradition of integral thought stretching back many centuries, including early Christian mystics such as Pseudo-Dionysius and on back to the Eastern traditions of the Buddha and Lao Tzu. --Blainster 21:26, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I modified it. Go ahead and edit it if you can come up with a better description of Aurobindo's status. I probably won't be editing tonight. --goethean ॐ 22:41, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to put a POV sign up on this page. At the moment the opening paragraphs sound something like a mission statement for an Integral Theory advocate. Ill watch this page and start doing some research myself. --George Dickeson (sorry, can't log in on this machine.)

Either change it or come up with a more substantive complaint. --goethean ॐ 05:21, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I modified the wording a bit, it should be ok now M Alan Kazlev 9 July 2005 06:18 (UTC)

Theory

A theory will typically attempt to explain or unify a set of observations, I would like to see this article include that worded in a more concise manner. For example, in what way does integral theory explain patterns of human behavior or existence. Does it describe a particular phenomenon, and how. L Hamm

Each integral theorist has a somewhat different approach. The common theme is that, instead of pitting the findings of scientists versus the findings of religious people or mystics, integral theorists propose that both of these groups represent legitimate human endeavors. They then work out an overarching vision in which both are fairly represented rather than relegating one to the other. --goethean ॐ 16:05, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
Is there a concensus, in your findings, within the community of integral theorists as to how to resolve paradoxes that may arise. For example, if a particular mystical paths' findings seem to contradict the findings of falsifiable science (as opposed to scientism), or vice versa? L Hamm
There is. This may sound strange, but in my opinion, Aurobindo's approach to resolving this problem (written circa 1915) actually anticipated developmental psychology. Aurobindo saw human psychology in terms of successive levels of consciousness: the emotional level, the rational level, and mystical levels. He finds science to be the product of the rational level. Normative, exoteric, dogmatic religious traditions are thought to be earlier/lower/deeper than the rational level, while truly mystical realizations are thought to be higher or later than the rational. Dogmatic religion is thought to be a distorted or impoverished reflection of great mystical realizations, which are all thought to agree on a unified transcendental (if ineffable) vision, a la Ramakrishna. The insights of the previous levels are included as well as transcended in each later level. The cancellation of earlier stages results in pathologies like scientism.
Ken Wilber has (in my opinion) largely acquiesed to Aurobindo's psychological model, while updating it and adding to it the research that 20th century science and social science has accumulated. Wilber goes so far as to claim that this Russian doll model of existence can be arrived at in a deductive fashion — being develops from matter to life to mind to soul to all-encompassing, nondual spirit.
Other integral theorists have agreed with this model to a greater or lesser extent, but I believe that they all use evolution, development or growth to resolve apparent contradictions between legitimate human endeavors. This is not relativism because all human endeavors are not necessaily equally legitimately or true, or intersubjectively valid. --goethean ॐ 17:39, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
My question is more to ask how different integral theorists have developed a system what human endeavors are legitimate. It would not be contradictory to posit epigenesis as a process to determine this? The way I have seen it expressed, and this colors my interpretation, is largely in the presentation of a unilinear view of cultural development, and personal development, and seems to advocate the views of orthogenesis. Correct me if this is a misapprehension. L Hamm
It is often presented as unilinear development, but Wilber would call that a distortion of his theory. Wilber, with his quadrants, levels, lines, states, and types (see: AQAL), has a more multivalent view. He calls his latest work "post-metaphysical" — it's an attempt to overcome this type of critique. He also uses something like Rupert Sheldrake's morphic resonance theory, which talks about the "habits of nature", to argue that the forms of future levels of development are not yet fully determined. The jury is still out on his success. --goethean ॐ 18:56, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
I'm attempting to clarify the difficulty in my own mind - in attempting to create a framework to integrate knowledge from all spheres of human experience do integral theorists accept the explanations of those who had an experience and integrate the larger system of knowledge in which that developed. And, if so, how is it determined that, for example, if the understanding of the Cofán is different from that postulated by Spiral Dynamics which do we accept as that which is legitimately true?L Hamm
The cofan appear to be a tribe of South American indiginous people. Spiral Dynamics, instead of calling their views "true" or "false", would emphasize that their beliefs are appropriate to their environment, but inappropriate for someone who inhabits, say, a 20th century industrialized nation. Furthermore, because a healthy rational viewpoint would include the tribal view as appropriate to certain contexts (say, a sports team), the rational viewpoint is more inclusive and a later stage of development (that's the unilinear part). Wilber's view is a little less unilinear. --goethean ॐ 20:08, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Returning though to my initial query - how does one weigh the evidence of different broad sciences? It seems that integral theory has yet to address its own biases, in particular, its favoring of certain Buddhist traditions, as Thomas Kuhn has pointed out: it is impossible to separate the theory from the paradigmatic framework in which it is developed. For example, there appears to be little interest in learning the wisdom developed in tribal systems because they have already been written-off as pre-rational, even though even 'narrow science' admits to their rationality. If integral theory can develop a process of assessing different claims to truth at different levels, then it can also evaluate its own inherent biases and correct for them. L Hamm 17:26, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Wilber has a method for overcoming incommensurability that I'd like to describe without insisting that all accept it. The more levels (or structures or perspectives) that a structure can include, the "higher" (or "later") that level is. The idea is that scientific rationality (for example) includes tribalism, but tribalism can't include rationality. Wilber sees this as a "deductive" method of evaluating perpectives.
Also, there are many competing tribal perspectives. There are several competing myths. But there is (according to the theory) only a single scientific rational worldview, in which all are invited to take part. This is another argument for rationality being a "higher" (or "later") mode of being or structure of consciousness.
But if your life conditions are such that tribalism is more appropriate to your situation, then tribalism is more appropriate to you than rationality. For example, if you are part of a clan, alone in the jungle without technology, it's possible that tribalism is a more appropriate mode for you than rationality. I'm going off on my own here...Wilber hasn't commented on this aspect. But my point is that, according to integral theory, rationality is not superior to tribalism, it is merely more appropriate to living in an advanced industrialized nation.
This description may sound far-out, but Wilber's spectrum of consciousness is actually quite mainstream. It's taken from an amalgam of Max Weber, Habermas, Piaget, Maslow, etc. While I understand that Wilber's particular hierarchy is unacceptable to some, I think that he has created something that is closer to a theory than a pseudoscience. --goethean ॐ 17:57, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Complete Bullshit?

What is this stuff? I've got one-and-a-half gradute degrees in philosophy and I've never seen anywhere a ghost of a reference to Wilber, "Integral Philosophy," or any of the other jargon on this page. (That is, outside of the New Age/Religion section in airport bookstores.) Spiral Dynamics? Spectrum of Consciousness?

It appears that this page and most of the linked material surrounding it compiled by a very small number of very devoted enthusiasts. (Goethean formeost among them.) It's such ignorant nonsense that the mind boggles--it actually begins with the stupid old saw that Goedel's incompleteness theorem shows the "limits of science." (I will be accused of narrow-mindedness, dogmatim, etc., but not by anyone whose judgment should be listened to.)

Does anyone intelligent actually read enough of this stuff to be able to put together some organized criticism of it? The tone of praise and awed deference that pervades this is nauseating. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 136.142.21.75 (talk • contribs) .

Yeah, this article is one of the side effects of the nature of wikipedia. Crackpot theories make claims to fame. KSchutte 06:07, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Then what should be considered non-crackpot? Only those things that conform to the naturalist/physicalist paradigm? It is not the purpose of Wikipedia to pander solely to either materialistic-reductionistic scientism or to non-reductionistic povs, but to report things without bias, allowing all perspectives their respective say, without denigrating or insulting explanations or subjects that may differ from one's own preferred understanding of reality. If you can find scholarly critiques of Integral theory, then by all means add them to the page, so that both sides of the subject can be considered M Alan Kazlev 00:45, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
A quick scan of the psychological literature showed me one critique -- de Quincey, C. (2000). The promise of integralism: A critical appreciation of Ken Wilber's integral psychology. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 7(11-12). I can also say that my literature search revealed that there are few if any peer reviewed experimental studies to validate the claims of integral theory, though I'm sure the response to this criticism will be that I'm applying science to a non-scientific concept (as if science were anything other than inductive reasoning based on replicated events). In any event, even a reader opposed to science should be skeptical upon noticing *where* integral theory is cited in the scientific literature, which appears to be a relatively small cluster of journals that are on the outskirts of mainstream psychology. More scientifically oriented readers should already be skeptical of the whole thing, but should especially be wary when most of the papers only deal with case studies and, most disturbing, the concept doesn't appear in any major journals of experimental psychology. Add to that the fact that Wilber doesn't have expertise in psychology and I'm afraid integral theory may just be one of those roads clinicians sometimes go down without any scientific evidence to back them up. I imagine most mainstream experimental psychologists would look at this theory and shake their heads, especially as it seems, at least according to this entry, to claim it's beyond verification. Ah, philosophy. How we do so love its incursions into real sciences. ;)
That having been said, while Wikipedia does indeed report on, how shall we say, "less than mainstream" ideas, NPOV demands that they be noted as such. It's important to make a note that integral theory does not seem to be making headway into mainstream psychological theory (sorry, guys, but it's cognitive psychology and behaviorism, both of which are verifiable and testable, that rule the roost). With over 500 articles in PsycINFO, it clearly is making an impact -- though not outside of a small group of clinicians who seem to favor it. That says to me, at least, that it's a fringe theory in psychology, at least. However, no claim is made in this article that integral theory is actually a component of psychology, and as a philosophy, it does seem to have considerably more pull. As long as this article restricts its claims to philosophical ones and doesn't try to claim integral theory is a mainstream theory in psychology, I think it can only be fairly refuted by philosophers or articles in its cluster of journals, which gets back to my first point -- that I can only find one critique of it in that literature. ;) That says to me that it's not well known, it's well supported, or no one is deigning to touch it, lest its supporters leap at that as a demonstration of some sort of "controversy."
I, as a working experimental psychologist in cognitive psychology, am extremely skeptical of integral theory, but I'm trying to hold my bias and comment only on the merits of the article in its field. To sum up, I think that in its current state, the article may be NPOV because it doesn't speak to *any* even potential criticisms of integral theory at all, when clearly it must have some weaknesses. However, as long as it doesn't stray out of its bounded realm of philosophy, it's probably not fair to attack it using psychology. --FreelanceWizard 11:49, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Some npov reporting on the impact that Integral Theory has and hasn't made would be welcomed. I don't have easy access to the databases that you seem to. — goethean ॐ 15:50, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm using PsycINFO for my lookups. If I get a chance, I'll run through a few searches and possibly read the de Quincey article and see what comes up. :) --FreelanceWizard 00:12, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
integral theory does not seem to be making headway into mainstream psychological theory
Don Beck (of Spiral Dynamics Integral) is presenting a symposium on Large-Scale Psychology: The Design and Transformation of Whole Societies at the annual conference of the American Psychological Association in August 2009. Slark (talk) 23:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
incidentally, conference papers are not considered a reliable source at wikipedia. Nor is this a place to advertise them. DGG (talk) 03:35, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Integralism is a "theory" "map" "story" whatever Wilber tries to use of a "synthesis" of all of science and religion thoughts, but integralism is flawed from the beginning because you can take a hodgepodge of research, whip it up to some fancy design AQAL and say wow, look I see where all the puzzle pieces match, I know the "secret of the universe." Stephen Hawkins is closer and more objectively scientific to finding the "secret of the universe" and how everything fits together, than Wilber who is clear a religious apologist trying to make sense of how science fit into his religious views. 16:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)ForrestLane42

WTF

Let me start by saying that I am a physicist and not a philospher. I have no idea what Integral theory is. But I certainly hope it is not contingent upon the information written in this article.

Let me begin with this quote.

Integral theory can be seen as an attempt to overcome the drawbacks of rationalism, and introduce instead a more universal and holistic perspective.

Now immediately I am thinking "Rationalism had drawbacks?" Because that would be news to me. And if this is an encyclopedia, then it should be directed towards people like me that don't already know what they are looking up.

Rationalism, through Descartes' dualism, split mind (and by implication, spirit) from body. This freed science from religious control and enabled vast advances in our understanding of the physical world. But in doing so it subordinated, then ignored, then denied the existence of an ineffable realm.

Now the article is specifically talking about one ancient philosophers rationalism and that Integral theory is overcoming Descartes dualism (and not rationalism) or perhaps the article means to say that the rational denial of the supernatural is a drawback of rationalism? Is the statement a misleading strawman or is the statement pro-supernatural POV. Either way, it needs to be fixed.

This next quote really got me steamed.

According to scientism, scientific explanations are universally applicable, even in the face of mathematical proofs of the incompleteness theorem and the uncertainty principle which show that it, too, has its limits.

As a physicist I can say with certainty that this author has no understanding of the uncertainty principle or quantum mechanics. The uncertainty principle does not limit our knowledge of the world because there are no local variables. Position and momentum are not absolute truths in quantum mechanics as they are in classical mechanics. It is the state that is absolute in quantum mechanics and states are global, not local. Certain classical variables are indefinite (because of wave properties), but states are absolute. Old, classical, absolute truth becomes uncertain in quantum mechanics, but there is another absolute truth to take it's place, the quantum state.

And I also question the authors understanding of Goedel's work. Sense when has it been proven that all of science has an incomplete axiomization. Hell if science turns out to be absolutely based upon geometry, division albegras, ... then it probably will be will be complete. There are plenty axiom systems that are complete. And even if it were incomplete, does that even matter?

If there are any limits to "scientism", whatever the hell that is, then the author certainly hasn't presented them. This statement is wrong, and even if corrected it should be written without using the word scientism as scientism is a word with no coherent or even agreed upon meaning. Using the word scientism smells of strawman to me.

Perhaps what should be in this place is some critique or begging of reductionism, positivism, denial of the supernatural... But I don't know what needs to be in it's place, because I don't know what Integral theory is. And if these things aren't fixed, then I think it would be very sad for me to have to just remove it all because there would be almost no article left.

Also watch for POV. Statements need to be placed in the correct context. Perhaps what is needed are statements like "proponents of integral theory view the denial of the supernatural as a disadvantage because..." One cannot simply state that it is a disadvantage, there is no proof or consensus of such a thing. Remember that this is an encyclopedia.

And good luck! (CHF 08:42, 11 December 2005 (UTC))

One cannot simply state that it is a disadvantage, there is no proof or consensus of such a thing.
Nobody stated that it is a disadvantage. The article says that proponents view it as a disadvantage. It is reporting on the opinions of proponents. — goethean ॐ 15:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
As a physicist I can say with certainty that this author has no understanding of the uncertainty principle or quantum mechanics.
As a layperson, how can I trust the truth of such a sweeping dismissal even if it is made by a physicist? Scientists come graded according to ability and integrity, from first to fifth, say. They, also, are human after all, suffering from prejudices, blind spots, and other imperfections the intellect is prone to. Does Integral Theory help me to make better sense of realty, as I see it, or not? That is the proof that matters in the end.
Are there any limits to scien(ce/tism)? Sure; its competence is restricted to the material, tangible, measurable, quantifiable segment of human experience. Janosabel (talk) 14:47, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The Real Triumph of Integral Theories

I am new to this discussion and new to Wikipedia in general, so please excuse my newbie status and my late arrival to this conversation. I do think it's an important conversation to have, though, so on with it.

It's difficult to talk about an Integral Philosophy the way you might speak about Existentialism or Transcendentalism or Structuralism, because an Integral Theory or Philosophy is really more of a synthesis than a novelty. Furthermore, the Integral Model is still evolving, so any discussion of it will be a bit amorphous as new developments enter the picture.

I disagree with the characterization in the article of Integral Philosophy as "reaction against rationalism and materialism." My understanding is that it is simply a move beyond rationalism and materialism. If Modern Integral Theory started with Aurobindo (and some may argue it started with William James, James Mark Baldwin, and others), then he lays it out like this: "The process of evolution has been the development from and in inconsistent Matter of a subconscient and then a conscious Life, of conscious mind first in animal life and then fully in conscious and thinking man, the highest present achievement of evolutionary Nature. The achievement of mental being is at present her highest and tends to be regarded as her final work; but it is possible to conceive a still further step of the evolution: Nature may have in view beyond the imperfect mind of man a consciousness that passes out of the mind's ignorance and possesses truth as its inherent right and nature." (from Sri Aurobindo's The Integral Yoga, pg. 44) This highlights two things that to me characterize the Integral Theories: 1) They are an exploration of what might lie beyond the current state of evolution, an exploration of the outer reaches of consciousness, and 2) They are a synthesis that attempt in the age subsequent to an awareness of our own evolution, to in the words of Ken Wilber, "embrace the enduring insights of premodern, modern, and postmodern sources." (from Integral Psychology, pg. 5)

To the idea that this is a "crackpot theory making a claim to fame," I simply don't get it. Just read anything by any of the thinkers referenced on the Integral Theory article page and I think you'll find a number of very respected theorists not making any "claim to fame" as much as they are doing what any of us are doing, which is to ask hard questions and try to come up with some answers.

I honestly find the lack of humility here disheartening. To the post by "CHF" I must say that assuming rationalism has no drawbacks is hubris. Any Integral Theory must admit that rationalism has led to a great deal of wonderful progress (including the differentiation of the Big Three), but when was the last time rational thought helped you deal with your wife while she was on day one of her period. My point is that the real triumph of Integral Theory is to point out that rationalism and scientific inquiry are very sophisticated ways to solve certain problems and answer certain questions, but that they are inadequate when it comes to calming a person's fears about death or solving the problem of personal fulfillment.

In closing, I do not know if this has helped anything, but my suggestion is that any definition of Integral Theory or Philosophy must include what Ken Wilber calls the Big Three; and what Socrates called the Good, the True, and the Beautiful; what are essentially Kant's three critiques, Popper's three worlds, and Habermas' three validity claims. Surely you learned about those guys while getting your one-and-a-half graduate degrees, "unsigned contributor." The idea is that there are three ways of describing the world: 1) an internal individual "I" perspective (the Beautiful, Judgment, the Subjective, and truthfulness to Socrates, Kant, Popper, and Hebermas, respectively), 2) an internal collective "we" perspective (the Good, Practical Reason, the Inter-Subjective, and justness), and 3) an external "it/its" perspective (the True, Pure Reason, Nature, and objective truth).

If anything, Integral Theory is a refutation of gross reductionism, warning anyone who will listen that to reduce life to one or another of these three perspectives is to do the complexity of existence a great disservice. Madyogi 01:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, User:Madyogi. You should add your Aurobindo quotation and reflections thereon to the article. — goethean ॐ 18:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
"The Big Three" is merely Wilber's term for a perennial subject of Western philosophy. It's not a concern of all integral thinkers. Gebser and Aurobindo, for example, don't frame their thought in this way. So I think that discussion of it is inappropriate to this article. — goethean ॐ 20:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Madyogi, in reference to your last paragraph, while I am not the unsigned writer, but Habermas, Popper, and Kant are known philosophers, Wilber is someone who is pseudo-philosopher big difference ForrestLane42 19:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC)ForrestLane42

Requested move

Integral theory (philosophy) → Integral thought – More neutral terms. Not all proponents of this school of thought are theorists or philosophers. Additionally, the article title is making implicit claims about the subject matter, namely that it is philosophy and that it is a theory. The proposed new title will lessen these concerns. I would also like to change the Integral theory template to read "Integral thought". — goethean ॐ 19:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

Support. I have more than one sentence I could say on why, but I'll just say I think it's a good idea to not call things in philosophy "theories." FreelanceWizard 17:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Support. I believe this will allow a greater exploration of different fields of study within integral thought, and make it easier for more scientists to work with the system.L Hamm 20:29, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Support moving the current page to "Integral thought", and also having new content under "Integral theory" (current url). See discussion section for more M Alan Kazlev 22:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Support, It probably should have originally been something like "Integral hypotheses" anyway, the plural form indicating the variety of forms of expression appropriate to the topic, and hypothesis being less well "integrated" than theory. --Blainster 02:26, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

If you do a google for "integral theory" wilber -wikipedia you get 23,300 hits, and Google Scholar (excellent resource!) 96 hits, including to a number of books and papers. Therefore "Integral theory" is notable and should be included in Wikipedia. "Integral theory" in this context would be Wilberian and Wilberian inspired only (follow some of the links from the above search for examples). However, "Integral thought" (which pertains to the current page and template under discussion) is broader and can include others, including those who use the term "integral" in a generic (as opposed to a specifically Wilberian) way. M Alan Kazlev 22:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

How would you describe Aurobindo's thought? — goethean ॐ 22:47, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
That's an interesting one! Although his followers like Indra Sen and Haridas Chaudhuri (and maybe R. S. Misra (author of Integral Advaita, but I havent read the book so I'm not sure), certainly used the term and could surely be considered Integral thinkers, Sri Aurobindo and The Mother used "integral" only to refer to the practical spiritual transformation (i.e. integral yoga, "integral transformation"). Sri Aurobindo could still be considered an "integral thinker" in the way that Edward Haskell and Teilhard de Chardin are, i.e. each of them proposed (in different ways and to different degrees) an evolutionary synthesis of human knowledge. To my knowledge, Indra Sen was the first to use "integral" in the context we are taking about (in the 1940s - I'm not sure when Gebser first mentioned the word). But really the simularities between the teachings of Wilber and Aurobindo are not as great as they are sometimes implied. I just use "integral" myself as a sort of generic term for the "widest common denominator" to include both Wilber and S.A. (and any similar worldviews, including my own) - i.e. a synthesis that transcends one-sided opposites and proposes an evolutionary cosmology in which current rational-cognitive humanity is not the final stage M Alan Kazlev 02:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
62,000 for {"integral theory" -wilber -wikipedia} [1]. Some of those hits are totally off-topic however. Some deal with mathematics, some with female anatomy (!), and others are about wilber's theory but don't mention him by name. — goethean ॐ 22:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
wow - yes that's why I typed in "Wilber", to screen out all the non-applicable stuff M Alan Kazlev 02:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
I going to go ahead and make the move. Then I will create a stub about Wilberian and post-Wilberian Integral theory. — goethean ॐ 15:24, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Although I fully recognize the rationale behind splitting off "Integral Theory" from "Integral Thought", I'm a little uncomfortable with the use of "Integral Theory" as SOLELY the intellectual child of Wilber. First, it must be recognized that the whole "Integral" movement is still in the very early stages of its development, so we should expect there to be an ongoing dialogue and productive disagreement over the use of the term for some time to come. Also, I would like to suggest that this separation of "Integral thought" and "Integral Theory" is rather arbitrary. There are a number of definitions of "theory", most of which are applicable to both Wilber's specific project and the larger Integral project in general. Finally, and I believe most compellingly, is a concern that is both practical and aesthetic. Simply put, "Integral Theory" is a term that seems able to contain the larger movement that is taking place (and of which Wilber is certainly one of the main thinkers) in a way that no other term (i.e. "Transpersonal" or "Participatory") seems able to do. It seems to me that limiting "Integral Theory" to Wilber and his direct followers precludes, or at least works against, the possibility of a larger movement that attempts to go beyond the limitations of Postmodernism. By privileging Wilber, we are excluding, for instance, the entire faculty of the Philosophy, Cosmology, and Consciousness program at the California Institute of Integral Studies, including Richard Tarnas (who I think is incredibly important), Jorge Ferrer, Stanislav Grof, and Robert McDermott who are certainly prominent co-contributors in the larger Integral project. In fact, it seems to me that this exclusion, whether intentional or not, is, to some extent, political considering the rather heated debates that Wilber has had with several members of the PCC faculty. Additionally, we can perhaps recognize that doing a google search to see who "owns" a term, so to speak, is problematic to say the least if we consider that Wilber himself has created about 8 websites which use/appropriate the word "Integral". Again, I would like to stress that this "Integral" thought or theory or whatever we might come to call it, is still in the early process of being formulated and that this relatively young movement has a much better chance, as I'm sure Wilber himself would recognize, of having the enormous socio-intellectual impact that it is clearly capable of if it is allowed to "work itself out" dialogically, that is, in dialogue, rather than monologically, as the metaphorical progeny of one (arguably patriarchal) figure. Having said all this, I would like to stress Wilber's great importance, though I would hope, considering the radically dialogical nature of his ideas, that he would recognize the need for a genuinely dialogical movement which, in turn, would require a genuinely dialogical name.Murgy 2:43, May 16 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Murgy. I am open to your suggestions. Let me assure you that any political agenda here is purely accidental. Do you object to these figures (Tarnas, McDermott, Ferrer) being placed under the rubrick of "Integral thought" rather than "Integral theory"? (I'm not sure if Grof characterizes his thought as 'integral'; that's the acid test I've been using.) — goethean ॐ 19:44, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi Goethean. I appreciate your openness to discussion. I simply feel that "Integral thought" and "Integral theory" should be synonymous. The truth is that our work here on Wikipedia is strangely unprecedented. In a significant way, we have both the genuine ability and responsibility to define what Integral Theory is. It's not like we're discussing whether Hegel should be considered a part of the Romantic movement. We are dealing here with a movement that is forming before our eyes, in large part through the media of the internet and, particularly, sites like Wikipedia and Google. If you type "integral theory" into Google, this Wikipedia page comes up first so we are, in a very real way, defining what Integral Theory is and is not for the larger public. I don't have an answer about whether Grof considers himself "integral" though I do know that Richard Tarnas, a close colleague of Grof's, is open to the term, if I am interpreting him correctly. I just don't want a term as great as "Integral theory" (since "integration" seems to be a perfect response to "deconstruction") for defining the current movement that seems to betaking shape, to be relegated in the collective consciousness to the ideas of one thinker. Does that make sense?Murgy 7:35, May 16 2006 (UTC)
You are putting your finger on part of the problem. Technically, this page should not define or create anything that doesn't already exist in the literature. If you can provide us with a verifiable reliable source on the matter, that would, according to Wikipedia policy, trump any of our arguments. This page was originally titled Integral theory (philosophy) to clearly distinguish it from the concept of an integral in mathematics. In March (as you can see above) I proposed to change the name to Integral thought, because some would say that this isnt academic philosophy, and others might say that it's not a theory. Mr. Kazlev proposed the split between integral thought and integral theory. Kazlev is a follower of Aurobindo, and percieves certain distinct differences between the beliefs of the followers of Aurobindo and Wilberian integral theory (as opposed to the integral theory of other Aurobindonians like Michael Murphy (author), for example). So we concieved of Integral thought as an umbrella term for all of the involved thinkers, and Integral theory for the discourse that follows in the wake of Ken Wilber's work. In my opinion, the particular terms are less important than whether the two groups actually reflect what's out there. I maintain that this grouping is accurate. I would like to hear Mr. Kazlev's perspective on this. — goethean ॐ 15:36, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi everyone. Yes, I too am worried that we may inadvertently be saying things not in the published (whether print or online) literature, and as Murgy points out when one types in integral thought or theory, the wikipedia page comes up because of its high google rating. The problem is that the whole integral movement (or movements?) is (are?) still so new that there are few precedents. So even if we only writing ABOUT it, as we are doing, we are also inadvertendly defining it. Therefore it is very important, as Goethean says, to locate reliable sources, and reference them.

Re the two distinct pages, and limiting the term "Integral Theory" to the Wilberian camp, why I suggested it is because and as far as I know (and maybe I am mistaken) this title is only used in the Wilberian Integral Movement (the Integral Movement sensu stricto); e.g. the Wilber-Beck synthesis, or Wilber's theory of consciousness. Hence Wilber's book A Theory of Everything (great title!) presents the AQAL-spiral dynamics thesis. The word theory itself implies a predictive structure, a rigorous intellectual formulation.

Used in this context Wilberian (or Wilber-Beck) Integral theory can be seen as a subset of a larger category of "Integral thought". But Aurobindo's spiritual teachings can not in any way be considered a subset of "Integral theory", most of all because they do not constitute a "theory", neither are they intellectual, although they use the intellect.

In contrast to this, Integral psychology is used across the board; it certainly doesnt belong to Wilber alone (and the Wikipedia page reflects that). So Integral Psychology and Integral theory are two overlapping circles, where they overlap is Wilberian Integral psychology, but there are other forms of Integral psychology, both Aurobindonian and Chaudhurian, and perhaps other interpretations as well. Note that a Google Scholar Integral psychology without Wilber still returns 25 hits; without Wilber or Aurobindo it still returns 17. Strangely, Wilber's Integral Psychology book is still listed on the search result page, which mean sthat these sort of searches may not be reliable.

Does anyone know if the words "Integral Theory" are also used by Chaudhuri, Murphy, and others? If so, then obviously the wikipage should reflect that. Also, if it is used in a non-Wilberian integral context, on a website or blog or in an academic or a popular journal or book, that should also be mentioned.

Regarding the difference between Wilberian and Aurobindonian thought; at least from my readings of both, and from what I have seen of the respective forums, Integral Yoga and the Wilberian Integral movement are almost totally unrelated. I'm currently writing a long paper which (among many other things) addresses this matter, and the problems of defining "Integral" in a way that can include (at different levels) both Wilber and Aurobindo. Anyway, regarding these two, as I see it we have:

You generally won't find Ken Wilber, AQAL, SDi, etc discussed on Auroconf (some people there may indeed have read Wilber, others not, some may like him, others not). At least one Aurobindo scholar, Rod Hemsell, argues that KW completely misunderstands S.A. (and I support this contention). On the other hand there are others like Michael Murphy (as Goethean pointed out), and Joseph Vrinte are very positive about Wilber.

But between and away from these two poles, things become more vague. For example, the various contributions on the Reading Room, including that by critics such as Jeff Mayerhoff, Jorge Ferrer and others, are neither Wilberian nor Aurobindonian. Haridas Chaudhuri developed his own philosophy and his own distinct Integral Yoga out of the Aurobindonian tradition. Michael Murphy certainly seems to have his own distinct position as well, even though he has likewise been inspired by S.A. And where does a New Age community like Mirapuri (inspired by the Mother) fit in? Or an ex-Wilberian such as peer-to-peer social theorist Michel Bauwens (now a staunch critic of the Wilber camp), since his thesis seems to be a whole new broad movement in itself, totally unrelated to Wilber or Aurobindo, although he has been influenced by the participatory spirituality of Jorge Ferrer and by John Herron.

And we havent even begun to take into account the writings and influence of Gebser! (Wilber is not the only one to be influenced by him, William Irwin Thompson is too, so it isnt correct to make Gebser an Integral theorist in the Wilberian mould)

So organisations like the CIIS, Esalen, the Human Potential Movement, etc; can be called Integral, and it can be argued that they are part of the broad integral movement (the Integral Movement sensu lato) or maybe it should be movements, plural, likewise the journal Integral Review. But they are neither purely Aurobindonian like the Integral Yoga community, or purely Wilberian like the Integral University, Integral Institute etc. So there is no disputing that Integral is a very broad umbrella term. But Integral theory definitely seems to be used to refer to the Wilber-Beck position.

Out of curiosity, I consulted Google scholar; this being a more reliable resource here than the standard Google search, which as Murgy points out is not very reliable, being biased towards Wilber, because of his websites monopolising the word "integral".

As for Integral Thought:

Integral Philosophy:

Taking into account some of these would be mirror sites, it still seems to be the case that the term "Integral theory" is pretty much associated with Wilber. "Integral philosophy" with both, and with "Integral thought" we seem to have a neologism, because it is almost never used. Perhaps the page Integral thought should be renamed Integral philosophy? hmmm...but that also would present a problem, because "philosophy" is a more limited word than "thought". I don't know what to do re this; I'll leave it to you guys to decide. But i am uncomfortable having a category on wikipedia that is almost totally absent on google scholar.

I also agree with Murgy that a concept (a very important one imho) that is currently emerging in the collective consciousness and noosphere shouldn't be relegated to the teachings of just one person, no matter how talented or prolific. M Alan Kazlev 02:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Alan, Thanks for responding so eloquently to my concerns. I find your arguments pretty convincing, though I would ask that we hold open the possibility that the meaning of "Integral Theory" might evolve as the movement(s) grow(s). I'd love to see all of these thinkers that we've mentioned who seem, despite their many differences, to be moving in a similar direction (specifically, the overcoming of Postmodern alienation and the recognition of the validity of multiple ways of knowing), to come under one name (Integral...whatever). It seems to me that, only by getting together and working towards these common goals will we be able to achieve the enormity of what we, as Integral thinkers, are trying to accomplish. As I see it, what is being almost universally called for within the Integral movement(s) is a wholly new conception of humanity's place in the cosmos, a dialectical synthesis of the premodern, the modern, and the postmodern, constituted in a reevaluation of our deepest epistemological and ontological beliefs. I don't think I'm alone in believing that this is the most important task that humanity presently faces and, though I understand the complexities of the situation, I think it's vitally important for us to be as inclusive as possible and to engage in the type of dialogue that we are engaing in here on Wikipedia, even to the point of questioning how this powerful resource can be used in a way that is both productive and responsible. Murgy 03:01, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi Murgy
Well, here is the problem; a lot of what you said, while it certainly defines people like Wilber and Ferrer, doesn't define someone like Aurobindo! e.g. the whole idea of a synthesis of premodern, modern, and postmodern is itself based on the idea of the evolution of secular Western thought through these three stages, and then, as Wilber propses, a further stage based on the systnethsis of all three. But S.A. doesnt fit into either of those four categories. I do certainly agree with you that the Integral movement(s) is a very positive and encouraging thing. Whether they are all converging, well, I don't know. In my essay I am trying to construct a larger framework, in which Gebser, Wilber, Ferrer, Bauwens, AND Aurobindo and the Mother can all be included. And I certainly share you feelings for both the need for an epistemological and ontological revision of the Western worldview (and hence, the global worldview, because of the way all other cutures (except Islam) are being progressively Westernised) as well as the responsibility that Wikipedia be used wisely and well.
I myself don't see a single Integral Theory emerging, but rather many different streams of thought (Wilberian, Chaudhurian, Aurobindo-inspired, Grofian, etc etc), but I think what we are talking about here is that this occurs within a single larger and all-embracing unifying Integral paradigm, and that people - thinkers, visionaries, meditaters, etc - representing all these different approaches and integral theories get along in an ecumenical way and a spirit of commonality, and excahnge ideas and inspirations. And yes I can see it happening. But there is still a huge amount of factionalism that is preventing this atm. For example: Wilber refuses to dialogue with his critics. His critics therefore criticise him even more. Some Aurobindonians consider that Wilber is too "mental". Wilber considers Aurobindo is too "metaphysical". Wilberites say that Michel Bauwen's P2P is too "green" (in SDi concepts), Bauwens points out cultic elements in the Wilber camp. Wilber says that Ferrer is Green (it seems a common Wilberite term of abuse!), Ferrer says that Wilber is too empiricist and cartesian. For me, i can see the truth in every pov, but I still have my favourite points of reference!
As for wikipedia, well, it all comes down to the fact that at present the Wilberians still have the monoply on "integral theory". I am absolutely sure you are right that in the coming years and decades this will no longer be the case, as the integral movement grows and matures, and more visionaries join the fun, integral theory will no longer be synonymnous with just Wilber. But unfortunately Wikipedia is not an oracle; we can only write about what is happening now, and do our best to convey all points of view honestly and without bias.
One thing we can do now is include more lesser known Integral thinkers, artists, etc; that is something that can redress the current imbalance. Goethean and I have both written pages on less well known Integral writers, philosophers, psychologists, etc, so if you know of any, you can add them to the list! And if there are any who also use the term "integral theory" to describe their own ideas, well, definitely do a write up on them (even a short one - i often just do stubs)! Also any other ideas relating to this subject :-) M Alan Kazlev 10:44, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
This is great. I'm learning so much. it occurs to me that there might be a way to channel the complexity of these concerns into the actual defintion pages, a task which, itself, seems paradigmatically Integral. For instance, the Integral Thought and Theory pages could explicitly address some of the issues you brought up, Alan, including: the factionalism that seems to contradict the larger impulse towards Integration (as in Wilber's infamous combativeness); the possibility of recognizing the underlying commonality, or at least the dialectically productive opposition, in the "mental" ideas of Wilber, the "metaphysical" ideas of Aurobindo, and the ideas of Grof, Tarnas, Ferrer, etc., etc.; the idea that Wikipedia might, in some sense, actually BE oracular, or at least have the capacity to be oracular in a limited sense that still operates within the limits of the system within which we are working. In fact, this seems to bear a striking resemblance to Richard Tarnas' idea (which Ferrer elaborates in relation to Transpersonal Theory) of participatory, cocreative enactment, the idea that meaning is neither "out there" in the "objective" world to be discovered, the paradigmatically Modern worldview, nor that meaning is simply constructed or projected onto an inherently meaningless world by the "subjective" human mind, the paradigmatically Postmodern worldview. Rather, Tarnas argues, via Hegel and others, that meaning is enacted through the participation of the human mind in the larger meaning of the cosmos. Thus, as in the dialectical movement that Hegel describes, the mind draws forth a meaning that exists "in potentia" in the cosmos, but which must go through the process of articulation by means of human consciousness, the acorn becoming the oak, the embryo becoming the adult. This movement seems to be, at least, analogical to what we are doing here on Wikipedia (though I think, more than analogy, it represents a deeper, archetypal structrue of meaning in the cosmos), that is, constructing the information that's available "out there" in a way that attempts to mirror, as closely as possible, our intellectual, moral, and aesthetic desires and intuitions "in here." The problem, of course, is how to take these very abstract theorizations and put them into concrete practice. Any ideas? Murgy 2:49, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
hi Murgy
when i said Wikipedia is not an oracle, i wasn't being poetic! :-) I was referring to wikipedia policy - see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. As wikipedia editors/contributors we don't have the freedom we would have on our own websites. Perhaps whole new ways of organising knowledge are required. However, wikipedia certainly makes the participoation side of things fun (and very addictive!)
I really enjoyed your explanation of Tarnas's philosophy - perhaps you could add that to his page? (remember to include references!)
re faction-fighting in the integral movement; yes, someone should definitely add material on that to these pages! But it would have to be accompanied by citations of and refernces to articles, books, websites, and so on, so it is properly academic! M Alan Kazlev 07:34, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


Hi Alan, I wasn’t suggesting that you were being poetic in your use of the word “oracle.” Neither was I trying to be poetic. Rather, I was attempting to be as rigorously specific as possible about the limits of the system within which we are working. I am not suggesting that we transgress the Wikipedia guidelines. I am only pointing out the not terribly shocking idea that we should be careful of accepting normative modes of discourse too uncritically. To put it plainly, it seems clear that the guidelines leave plenty of room to move, room within which we can subtly construct the “facts” to our own advantage, whether consciously or not. This is not a revelation. It is, in actuality, THE paradigmatically Poststructuralist critique which, as I’m sure you know, is the lingua franca of current academic discourse.
Try looking at it this way. I think we can probably agree that Wikipedia is, in some crucial sense, a language (as in Derrida’s “there is nothing outside the text”). That is, it is a communicative medium constituted in a system of signs with all the attendant constraints and ambiguitites. Now, if we have learned anything from Poststructuralists like Derrida and Foucault, it is that language is never innocent, is always embedded in discourses of power and desire. I merely ask that we be conscious of the modes of discourse that we are participating in and, most importantly, of how we modulate those discourses to serve our individual needs, the collective needs of the movement(s), and the needs of the larger power structure that Wikipedia constitutes. I wouldn’t be so adamant about this if I didn’t think these issues are of primary concern to Integral thought in general. In fact, I feel that fully incorporating the insights of Poststructuralism with the insights of the "Perennial Philosophy" is what separates Integral thought from a Modern, structuralist worldview. What I'm saying, essentially, is that the separation of Integral theory from Integral thought is clearly a creative act, not merely based on “the facts”, so we need to be aware of the liberties that we are taking in defining these terms. Now, how to deal with this insight in relation to Wikipedia is not a simple issue at all, but I think our work here would benefit from taking the Poststructuralist critique, which (according to most “Integral” thinkers) Integration is meant to be integrating, into account. What I would ideally like to see is a dialogue from a wider variety of thinkers within the larger Integral movement(s). Any thoughts? Murgy 12:01, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi Murgy
As always, I find your comments both interesting and insightful. Really, I know next to nothing about postmodernism; I'm an esotericist first and formost. But I understand what you are saying. And when pointed out the separation of Integral theory from Integral thought is clearly a creative act, not merely based on “the facts” that really made me think about these things! I hadn't previously given that side of things much thought, apart from the fact (which i arrived at independently of postmodernism) that - with a project like Wikipedia - there is no such thing as an "objective" or "neutral" pov, because everyone brings their own biases and subjective interpretations to the table, and the best that wikipedia can do is present a good overall review of all these different povs on each topic. This has been my idea of how wikipedia works, it is intersubjective, not objective, not related to a "reality" "out there". And the trouble is, if you only have a handful of people, the coverage is less representative, more simply the views of those concerned.
Also when you say What I would ideally like to see is a dialogue from a wider variety of thinkers within the larger Integral movement(s) I agree totally. But the problem here is finding anyone to participate. So far it looks like it is just us. So if you have any practical suggestions on how to organise or reorganise these pages, I am happy to hear them. At least even if it is just you, me, and Goethean, at least we can get the ball rolling! M Alan Kazlev 03:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


SPAM Attack

It's extremely annoying that you guys are trying to use Wikipedia as free advertising for your goofy little cult. This article and the gaggle of pointless SPAM articles associated with it should all be completely deleted. Wje 13:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Wje, spam articles? Is that having articles about every little nuance about integralism? ForrestLane42 16:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)ForrestLane42

Suggested Additions

With the separation of Integral Thought from Integral Theory, is there room here for additions?

Since "goethean" is a major contributor, I wonder that there is no reference to "the last Renaissance man"! I would also associate Emerson with this as a precursor, and I'm surprised that there is no reference to Rudolf Steiner except the title of McDermott's book. I've searched Steiner's complete work online and all references to Integral* are mathematical, and "eingebaut" isn't applied to his own work; but his "anthroposophical" approach is exactly about integrating all aspects of human experience and existence, so lack of any reference seems an omission.

I guess I'm thinking, in draft, along the lines of:


In the modern evolution of integral thought the "Renaissance man" JW von Goethe did not characterize his total approach but was a natural scientist, artist (poet and playwright), and spiritual esotericist. He explored phenomena such as the moral impact of color, while also challenging Newton's physical theory of light.

Ralph Waldo Emerson, an ordained minister for whom Goethe was the most important of many influences (according to the recent biography, Emerson: The Mind On Fire), also followed science closely and attempted, at the end of his career, to outline a "natural history of intellect" on the scientific model.

Rudolf Steiner, a scientifically trained educator and philosopher and "spiritual researcher" who took Goethe as the starting point for his "anthroposophy," integrated scientific, artistic and spiritual dimensions throughout his work.


Is this helpful to the topic? --jb 16:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Recent Changes

I removed "intellectual" because it was being used as a way to make Wilber sound like he was scholar of some sort and also philosopher since you can see that on his own biography this issue has been already addressed. ForrestLane42 16:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)ForrestLane42

I removed problem of definition and origin because they were stubs and could be collapsed into the introduction. ForrestLane42 16:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)ForrestLane42

Template Integral Thought

goethean, please remove Grof and deChaurdian - bad spelling I know from the template, they are not integralists. For one thing Grof is a transpersonalist. The other gentleman is not alive to defend himself. ForrestLane42 19:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC)ForrestLane42

Grof is (with Maslow) the co-founder of transpersonal psychology, but his ideas have also been important in Integral thought. He is also on the faculty of the CIIS. Teilhard shows many parallels with Sri Aurobindo; indeed it is hard to find another thinker whose evolutionary cosmology is so similar. The parallels have already been commented on by Zaehner, Sethna, Beatrice Beateau, and others. So if Sri Aurobindo is included under Integral Thought, Teilhard should be too. For that matter, so should Steiner, as someone here has pointed out. The early Wilber (Wilber-II) is very similar to Steiner in certain respects regarding the map of developmental stages. Only Steiner approaches it from a csosmological and esotericist poerspective, Wilber from a psychological (see The Atman Project). The fact that neither Teilhard nor Steiner used the term "Integral" is irrelevant. Just as Plotinus never used the term "neo-platonist and would probably have been offended by it, but he is universally referred to now as the founder of Neoplatonism M Alan Kazlev 23:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I have to heartily disagree there can be similarities between Teilhard and Auriobindo, that does mean, Teilhard can be coopt into being an integralist, you can make a case that current integral theorists have found the similarities, it does not mean he himself was an integralist. Aurindino is more of a historical predecessor to Wilber than Teilhard. Plotinus might be a Neo-platonist according to modern understanding of the unraveling of greek philosophy, but to coopt Teilhard is to be a historical revisionist. Saying William James could be a integralist would be false, he can be a grandfather to transpersonalism, but not to integralism. Sorry to disagree in that I usually agree with what you say. ForrestLane42 02:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)ForrestLane42

Neither Sri Aurobindo nor any of his followers ever used the term "integralist". As far as I know, used in this context it's a Wilberian neologism. If you want a historical predecessor of Wilber, I would noominate Blavatsky. Both integrated East and West, both co-opted and appropriated a pre-existent term ("Theosophy" and "Integral"), both taught a developmental-evolutionary psycho-cosmology, both popularised the idea of higher levels of consciousness beyond the current rational-mental state, both were charismatic guru-like figures in the eyes of their followers.
However if we are speaking of a broader generic tendency of "integral thought", defined by certain common themes such as a holistic, evolutionary worldview that incorporates multiple perspectives and sees human evolution moving towards a collective transpersonal/spiritual/divine state, then certainly Blavatsky and Steiner must be included as well as Aurobindo, Gebser, and Wilber. I do concede your point that Grof and James don't belong here, since to my limited knowledge that isn't what they taught (not that I'm an authority on either, so for all I know I may be wrong). M Alan Kazlev 03:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

New Age syncretism needs a pruning mechanism

Hey put that on pause for a sec. Apart from having 3 in common, how are Kant's three critiques, Popper's three worlds, and Habermas' three validity claims related? I don’t believe they have anything to do with each other. This is precisely the kind of sloppy new-wave thinking that is endlessly building systems, with lots of number references, none of which has much correspondence to reality. What I notice in the HUGE amount of name-dropping and jargon in these debates is the relative paucity of information of the key concepts at stake. Get to the point, will you please? Is anyone here capable of talking coherently on a topic without invoking every blessed name of every philosopher or charlatan as “expert witnesses” Thru this enormous thicket , this is what I can descry. “Integral Thought” is a typical new-age, Eastern-influenced form of syncretism. It proposes nothing less than that it is some sort of meta-narrative which explains everything, and I mean everything. All the universe is here, from the beginning to the end, front and back. If Descartes split mind from body, integralism will put him back together, and include soul and emotion and what-have-you as well. Everything that has ever been and all that is to be is subsumed under its rubric. Animal, vegetable and mineral are here, plus anything else you might want. Individual human psychology is here, but so to is family, social and national psychology. All human history is here, plus everything that will ever happen. It is the original “multi-disciplinary” act, there is just no aspect of human thought, behaviour, no art nor skill which are not “explained” by this “concept”.

So reading the material here, why do I get such a feeling of opaqueness. Why is it that one turgid paragraph of densely planted abstract nouns seems to lead to another, with yet more generalizations, more invocations of “deep thinkers”, a sudden allusion to some philosophical tendency which is just as suddenly dropped in order to make passing reference to yet another bauble. And what do we have at the end of this variant of Lucky’s Speech from Waiting from Godot? The simple notion that the Universe has a purpose which was ordained from the beginning by God, and that biological and cultural evolution are driving us towards this goal. In other words a teleological view of universal design, which holds that Matter and Life, especially Human Life have a divine and transcendent purpose. If that is what you mean by “integral thought / theory / philosophy / theology / speculative cosmology” then why not start there, and give us a break from these endless displays of obscurantism.

In all this, there is always the notion that this “integral” syncretic, synergistic, Eastern way of Knowledge is superior to the infra-dig Western Cartesianism. After all, the West tries to split things apart, to look at small things separately, while the East has a much broader, “holistic” view. It is concerned with EVERYTHING, isn’t it? It aims to weave all aspects of creation into a seamless cloth. Unfortunately, in practice, this has meant the kind of system building that ensues from Plato and Aristotle. There are more levels of Heaven and creation, elaborate constructions of emanations and the like, which become more elaborate and arcane with time. This is presumably what the proponents of “integral thought” happily refer to in their frequent references to “new and developing thought” – it makes me shudder! In it you end up with encyclopedias of unreadable stodge of codified mysticism, thousands of volumes of it, with endless commentary and comparison between the proponents of one esoteric tendency as they split hairs in internecine debate with each other. And to what purpose?: to provide a universe of words that purports to explain everything, but in which virtually nothing is revealed, the occasional insight being drowned under seas of professional obscurantism.

And what did the West achieve under the Enlightenment that we are all asked to treat with such snobbery and contempt? Well, there are two robotic rovers on Mars today traversing it while being watched from Earth. We have wiped out smallpox. We have mapped the human genome. We are on the verge of creating life in a test tube. We fly over the oceans, or talk to each other from distant lands as if we were next door. We mend broken bones and heal the sick. Our infant mortality is almost zero. We live lives of unprecedented affluence. You see, you can begin humbly with the idea of trying to explain ONE thing, and using scientific method you can get somewhere, and the achievements of the West are the proof of the pudding. Or you can form esoteric enclaves and indulge in fantasizing and mumbo-jumbo in a hermetically sealed language, you can try to explain everything, and end of explaining nothing and fooling nobody of consequence.Myles325a 00:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Use of Wilberian

I would like to question the use of the term Wilberian on this page. I'll keep this query simple. If Wilberian is not a term used by any of the thinkers listed under its umbrella, should it be accepted uncritically by Wikipedia? I would note that I am unable to find a single use of a thinker listed under Wilberian which describes his or her own thought as Wilberian. (There are critics of Ken Wilbers, including M Kazlev, who seem to have invented Wilberian as a neologism and used this to denote any thinker sympathetic to the writings of Ken Wilber in one fashion or another. Please correct me if I'm wrong about the origins of Wilberian as a derisive term used only by critics of Ken Wilber's. As an aside, I cannot think of a single case in which an intellectual movement has been described using a term coined from the last name of a prominent thinker unless that term was invented by its critics. In some historical cases, where the controversies are no longer salient, such as with the Right-Hegelians and the Left-Hegelians, etc., use of a term such as Hegelian is forgiveable. However, in the case where a thinker is living and actively writing, it is awfully bad form to associate all the thinkers he influences with a specific personality.)

I would propose a simple revision of the article in which Wilberian is recast in one of two ways: (1) by simply denoting thinkers in the category of Other; or (2) by denoting thinkers who are members of Integral Institute with a descriptive label that indicates they are members of the same think tank. I'm sure there are other fine ways of handling this matter as well; however, I feel removing "Wilberian" is a good first step towards neutral POV and describing what thinkers in the field are actually calling their work as opposed to what some wiki editor believes is the most revealing category Joeprz 08:33, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Joe
I cannot think of a single case in which an intellectual movement has been described using a term coined from the last name of a prominent thinker unless that term was invented by its critics
Pythagorean, Platonism, Thomism, Cartesian, Darwinism, Jungian, Aurobindonian... (ok they're not all last names, but you get the idea)
I agree with you, the term Wilberian in reference to an intellectual movement is pretty new and mostly favoured by critics of Wilber, as a quick google web search will reveal. Although Google Book Search turned up about half a dozen instances of the word, none mention a "wilberian movement". There is still the vexed question of Wilberian viz a viz Integralism. But certainly I've no problem with removing "Wilberian" from this article; go for it. M Alan Kazlev 09:19, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Page needs a cleanup

This whole page needs a good revision. Knee-jerk deletionism is not the answer. I was astonished by some of the pages nominated for deletion. Richard Tarnas! Fireplace said: "Google searches turn up few independent, mainstream reliable sources". I got 386 for Tarnas on Google Book Search. Respected academic Passion of the Western Mind, etc. Satprem, 505 on Google Book Seach; well known biographer of Sri Aurobindo and the Mother. Involution (metaphysics), see my comments there, including Googl;e book search results with keywords. Ludicrous to reduce Involution to Integral Theory, although I'm sure Wilber (who tries to "own" previous spiritual teachings) would be overjoyed by that prospect.

I agree with you that some pages were stubby and needed merging, I have done this.

Sri Aurobindo's Integral Yoga movement has traditionally nothing to do with Wilber's Integral Theory or Integral Movement. It is true that there is a tendency now to integrate them, but that does not mean they are the same. Sri Aurobindo is very big in India, the Integral Yoga community has almost no contact at all with the Integral movement (Wilber & Beck) & vice versa. If thinsg are converging now it is part of a much larger cultural process and evolution.

I'm going to go over this page, so that only those figures who actually identify with the term "integral" are included. The rest will be transferred to other pages; e.g. Sri Aurobindo's students and disciples can go on the Aurobindo page. Others can go on otehr pages, or else those parts of the page can be deleted. Only verifiable material should remain on this page, which can be refernced by citations. M Alan Kazlev 23:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

it looks like there is still a good deal of cleanup to go. Perhaps others should help remove some of the unnecessary material. DGG (talk) 22:27, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I've removed a few names, but also added a few more, plus further citations. Imho the issue now isn't the need for clean up, but rather more citations and references to explain why these particular individuals should be included as "integral thinkers" M Alan Kazlev (talk) 23:34, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Linkfarm

All of the external links have been deleted. They appear to be all or almost all links to essays supporting various views of this movement, or various position papers or other essays. None of this is the least appropriate -- please don't add them back. Please justify any links that do get added according to the rules for WP:EL. DGG (talk) 04:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

To merge or not

I notice someone stuch a merge tag on the page , suggesting it be merged with Integral Theory. One reason this may not be appropriate is that it would exclude most names traditionally considered "integral". Neither Jean Gebser's nor Sri Aurobindo's philosophy could be considered "theory". But I'm not happy with "Integral thought" either, because it leaves out the essential practical element of Integral Yoga for example. M Alan Kazlev (talk) 23:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you're attaching a lot of metaphysical weight to the words "theory" and "thought". If there is a clear distinction between Integral thought and Integral theory, it should be spelled out explicitly in the leads. If not, they should be merged to avoid redundancy and confusion. Other options might be Integral beliefs or Integral movement or Integral philosophy. Fireplace (talk) 01:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Integral movement is a nice neutral term. M Alan Kazlev (talk) 07:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
sounds ok to me. any objection to merging the two under that name. We would change one or the other, and use a redirect. DGG (talk) 08:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
That's fine. As it says in the integral thought article: Integral thought (also called the integral paradigm, the integral movement, integral philosophy, the integral worldview, or the integral approach) — goethean ॐ 16:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Integral_(Ken_Wilber)/Archive_1&oldid=1017525073"