Talk:Integral (Ken Wilber)/Archive 3

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

Proposal for Integral Portal

Not to lose the forest for the trees, we're discussing the optimal organization for an Integral Portal page, right? So I would propose a sidebar like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Joeperez69/Template that would replace the Integral Thought template now in use. The new sidebar would list no theorists, historical or contemporary thinkers. There are simply too many in too many specialized fields and disputes about who is worthy enough would be highly subjective. Instead, it would list (1) Related themes, (2) Academic fields and Discourses, (3) Related religious movements, (4) Organizations, and (5) Publications. Not all of these topics now exist in Wikipedia, but could easily be developed. For example, a short topic on "Integral Christianity" with discussion of the thought of Jim Marion, Wayne Teasdale, Dustin DiPerna, Br. Steindl-Rast, Roland Stanich, et al is long overdue, and I would be happy to contribute to the writing of such. Individual theorists such as Wilber, Kegan, and Beck could be included on a sidebar under the Integral Studies page of the Academic fields and Discourses page. Of all the names for the portal page I've seen, "Integral (movement)" is the one that seems to me the most neutral and least biased towards the philosophical/theoretical side. Therefore, I would recommend a rename of the current article to that, replace the current template with something like the Integral Portal template, and split much of the current topic off into a new topic, "Integral Studies", which could include a sidebar that listed theorists much like Goethean has done. I am friendly to the idea of listing theorists by their affiliation with CIIS, Integral Institute, etc., as Goethean has suggested, but that's just one possibility and other possibilities should also be discussed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joeperez69 (talk • contribs) 18:15, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

One or many integral movements?

Both Goethean's and Joe's templates are useful in different ways. As I see it there is certainly a broad evolutionary spirituality initiative, with certain recurring common themes (which are also shared by Steiner, Aurobindo, Sorokin, Teilhard, Whitehead, Gebser, the New Age, Wilber, Berry & Swimme, Peter Russell, etc etc). Goethean's template nicely includes a number of important thinkers and themes, but additional ones such as Russell could certainly be added. Significantly, the word "integral" was independently chosen by a number (although not all) of these individuals, and perhaps the Russian Sophiologists (Vladimir Solovyov, Sergei Bulgakov) and Cosmists can also be included here; these having either parallels with or influences on, Aurobindo & Teilhard, respectively. Solovyo's term sobornost translates into English literally as "integral".

Having an aquaintance with both the Aurobindo and Wilber traditions, I stand by my assertion that - apart from the general themes (also found in the New Age movement as a whole) of spiritual evolution and synthesis of different approaches, there is no common or unifying spiritual practice (Integral Yoga is a gnostic/devotional this-worldly yogic practice that stands very much on its own, and in which nonduality is only one among many themes, and not the final one; the Integral Institute and associated spirituality being an intellectual and Buddhist, Holistic New Age, and AQAL inspired approach that have nonduality and absolute transcendence as their final goal). I would also add there is also no common psychological theory, as the term Integral psychology is used in a mutually exclusive manner by Aurobindo, Chaudhuri, and Wilber. So whether there should be three different pages here, with Integral psychology as a disambiguation page, is certainly an option.

Joe's template very usefully portrays the Wilberian position, except that Integral Yoga, CIIS, Esalen, etc should only be in the context of related schools/whatever, and Integral psychology should be Integral psychology (Wilber). I would also mention important or relevant individuals such as Wilber, Beck, Esbjorn-Hargens, Zimmerman, Steve McIntosh, etc. In this instance it would be better to revert to the original Wilberian term Integral theory, and give the template and, if it warrants one, portal, the same name. So I am all for resurrecting the Integral theory page, as mentioned previously, with a modified version of Joe's template. That way, if Integral Yoga is one page, presenting the Aurobindonian position, then Integral theory can be another, presenting the Wilberian position. Cultural Creatives can be another again. The various pages can and should be linked by "See also". But i am totally and absolutely against the Wilberian appropriation of the term Integral. Not only have Aurobindonians been using the term before Wilber was even born, (as have others) but, to cite a modern academic, Jenny Gidley gives a good illustration of a cross-disciplinary Integral studies approach, that shows that Integral (whatever, philosophy, worldview, studies) should not be limited to just one perspective or the views of just one writer.

I have to also disagree with Joe's statement that the Aurobindonians/Aurobindo Ashram/etc is a subset of Hinduism. It is true that Sri Aurobindo (as an Indian nationalist) used Hindu cultural tropes and jargon to define his philosophy, but he also rejected religion, in favour of universal spirituality. He also included a number of Western themes, such as evolution and progress, which are totally unrelated to the cyclic and transcendentalist Indic worldview. Also, his co-worker (not disciple) Mirra Alfassa (The Mother) used Kabbalistic and Occult tropes and ideas (via Max Theon), a number of which were then adopted by Sri Aurobindo. So you could equally say that Integral Yoga & the Aurobindo Ashram is a subset of Hermetic and Kabbalistic occultism. Auroville which the Mother founded is intended to be a universal city. The idea that Integral Yoga is "Hindu" may be the result of the Ashram being in India, most of the disciples being Hindu, and Hindu nationalists appropriating Sri Aurobiondo, a universalist, for their own cause.

So, the best way out of the conundrum may be, as Joe suggests, to have a number of distinct pages. These might be as follows

etc etc. Integral movement could then either become a disambiguation page, or else redirect to Integral theory. Certainly Aurobindo, Gebser etc should be mentioned on the Integral Theory page as influences or outliers or whatever, it's pretty well acknowledged and agreed that all Integralists (sensu Wilber) credit them.

Also I would suggest Integral psychology and Integral education be broken into the two totally unrelated definitions of Aurobindonian and Wilberian (i know some people don't like these terms, i'm only using them in the context of Hegelian, Jungian, etc), with Integral psychology there is a third definition, Chaudhurian.

I totally believe that these various currents of evolutionary spirituality are converging, and will continue to do so, as the global internet and increased interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary studies and nonsectarian and universalist spirituality recognise the various themes and connections between them. Quite possibly even five years from now the situation will be quite different to how it is at present, and it will then be possible to describe and have verifiable references for a single Integral spirituality and movement, and we can then have a single portal that includes Aurobindo, Wilber, etc etc. But as far as Wikipedia goes, we can only report the situation as it stands at the present time, and as it can be verified by third party sources. M Alan Kazlev (talk) 02:42, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I should add that the above is just my take on things, I suppose everyone defines Integral differently, which in a sense is rather cool; I can't stand systems that enforce uniformity :-) M Alan Kazlev (talk) 02:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm off for the holiday for the next several days and may have more to say when I return. Alan, I don't think my recommendations were offering "the Wilberian position" in the least; just my attempt at a good "Wikipedian position". The "Integral portal" page that I described is not the same as an "Integral theory (Wilber)" page that you have countered with. It is an honest attempt to give every figure who has a claim to the "integral" label a place at a portal that is scalable so that it can eventually accomodate expansions that may be warranted in the future. Honestly, it feels that the conclusion of your proposal is that every theorist who is at all friendly to Wilber or uses any aspect of his theoretical model is pegged as "Wilberian" and shoehorned into an "Integral (Wilberian)" category of some sort while you want to segregate out every theorist who has had major intellectual disagreements with this one figure into a variety of separate sections, each of which you seem to take as equally important to some very abstract concept of integral as the so-called Wilberian school, and none of which are to be preferred in Wikipedia's taxonomy. This seems rather disrespectful and dismissive of some really interesting thinkers who have a claim to the "integral" space. To cite only one prominent example: Is Robert Kegan, the tenured professor at the Harvard School of Education and one of the leading developmental psychologists of our age to be tagged "Wilberian" because he says some nice things about some of his books or sits on the board of a professional organization with him? Is an entire institution such as the California Institute of Integral Studies to be denied discussion in an "Integral theory (Wilberian)" category and only listed in a "related schools" link as you suggest, because some of the professors who teach there don't subscribe to every tenet of this one thinker's philosophy? Is that a fair characterization of your views, or am I misunderstanding you?
It seems to me that if your proposal were accepted, then every time a new integral thinker was added into Wikipedia, the first thing some taxonomist would have to decide is: Is this new thinker pro-Wilber or anti-Wilber? That does not seem like the right approach to me, and far exaggerates this one individual's role in the movement. Consider the page I mentioned earlier on "Integral Christianity" that I want to create. It would focus on the thought of Jim Marion, Wayne Teasdale, Dustin DiPerna, Br. Steindl-Rast, Roland Stanich, Fr. Thomas Keating, et al and describe the historical influences of Tielhard de Chardin and Christian mystics among others. If there were no integral portal page, where would this page "live"? True, several of these thinkers if not all would list Wilber as one of their influences. So now they are Wilberians instead of Christians who utilize a theological methodololgy that they call "integral"? It's insulting.
Since you are okay with something like the template I proposed if it is tagged "Integral theory (Wilberian)", what exactly is your objection to calling it "Integral (movement)" with generous cross-references to all sects of thought? If you are concerned that the "Integral (movement)" page would go beyond the facts on the ground and independent resources by claiming that there is a uniform definition of integral or a single integral spiritual practice, then why not object to any proposed content for a portal page that was unwarranted or inaccurate rather than suggesting that there can be no portal page for integral unless it is cleaved into pro-Wilber and anti-Wilber camps?
You said, "But i am totally and absolutely against the Wilberian appropriation of the term Integral." In response, it is worth calling to mind a point I alluded to much earlier in this discussion: thinkers, writers, and spiritual teachers who use some of Wilber's ideas never call themselves "Wilberian". Generally, most people who use "Wilberian" usually have an axe to grind. Isn't your issue not really about "Wilberians" who "appropriate" the term "Integral", but about the fact that the vast majority of writers today who call themselves "Integral" draw upon Wilber as a significant influence, and you feel the term's older connection to Aurobindo is fading away (at least in the US), though still acknowledged? Since Wikipedia is supposed to be unbiased, I prefer to use an approach that respects every thinker's claim to the "integral" school and yet makes no claim that there is totality of agreement amongst them. Thanks for listening, Alan. I know you have strong passions around this. I realize that an Integral portal page like the one that I have proposed will probably contain ideas that are 80% or even 90% or more thinkers who you might label Wilberian (those same folks I would call "integral" thinkers who happen to have Wilber as one of many influences)... just because that's where so much of the action is right now both on the academic front and the new spiritual movement fronts, and I realize you have strong disagreements with Wilber's philosophy. I just feel those passions could be better spent pouring carefully over the actual content of an Integral portal page and fighting for its accuracy and unbiased commitment to objectivity rather than fighting its creation.
And to everyone... I look forward to hearing other voices chime into the discussion. Happy New Year. Joeperez69 (talk) 07:01, 31 December 2009 (UTC) Joe Perez
Hi Joe
Have a really great holiday! I look forward to any future comments you might have. Just because we disagree on a number of points doesn't mean I don't greatly appreciate, value, and learn from what you say.
By the way, many Aurobindonians don't like the word Aurobindonian either! Teilhardian seems to be a common enough adjective; i've seen Gebserian too. Anyway I only use these terms to identify specific intellectual and/or spiritual traditions traditions, which are named after the primary author. But what term would you suggest instead of Wilberian? Unfortunately Integral/Integralist doesn't work because neither Aurobindo, Gebser, Sorokin, Solovyo, Steiner, etc etc define Integral in terms of four quadrants, post-metaphysics, and pre-trans levels with Buddhist nonduality as the ultimate stage (okay Steiner does have pre-trans). Wilber's thought is very specific in its intellectual details, which is both his strength and (i believe in my opinionated manner  :-) his weakness, but this imho shouldn't be allowed to dominate the definition of Integral philosophy/movement/whatever.
This isn't to criticise Wilber or those influenced by his vast body of work, and my sincere apologies if I inadvertently come across as insulting, as I have the greatest respect for you. All I am trying to do (obviously not very efficiently) is point out that "integral" is much bigger than not just Wilber himself (everyone agrees on that), but also than AQAL & Integral Theory and Wilber-influenced philosophy.
Actually, whether or not the article uses the adjective Wilberian should depend not on your or my preferences but on third party references. If none can be found in this context, obviously the term shouldn't be used on Wikipedia.
I agree with you that Integral Christianity is a useful and appropriate topic, providing it really is a general integralist development of Christianity. The question is, is this influenced by Wilber's ideas but not by those of Integral thinkers not connected with Wilber? You mention Teilhard, who others as well as myself consider an Integral thinker, so sure you are right, in that case it cannot be reduced to simply Wilber's philosophy alone. But then there is also the Integral Christianity of Vladimir Solovyov, which I expect would be totally distinct.
re the misunderstanding (although i did highlight with wikilinks), when I wrote "Integral theory (Wilber)", I meant the page would be called Integral theory, and that this would refer to the "Wilberian" (as i use the term, to distinguish Wilber's Integral philosophy from those of other Integral thinkers) position, that is, quadrants, levels, perspectives, nonduality, etc, as opposed to Integral Yoga, say, which is still "integral" but totally distinct.
The reason I thought your template, despite its many good points, was unduly biased to Wilber's philosophy is that you list (under related themes) terms like Post-metaphysics, Post-postmodernism, and Pre/trans fallacy, which, as mentioned, are meaningless to all integral thinkers or spiritualities other than those based on or inspired by Wilber's own work. It would be like me creating a template called Integral and loading it with Aurobindonian/Integral Yoga terminology, or, say, Anthroposphical (Steiner) themes. If the template is to include Integralism as such, it should have themes common to the majority of Integral philosophies and spiritualities. e.g. some options might be
  • Spiritual evolution
  • Universalism (not sure if this is the right term, but anyway)
  • Consciousness
etc etc
(btw I really like some of your listing perennialism and transdisciplinary for example)
I certainly don't feel that the term's older connection with Sri Aurobindo is fading away. In fact i have noticed just the opposite, a revival, so it is now being used more prominently; e.g. the 3 volumes of the Collected Works called Letters on Yoga has been re-issued in a new and more accessible one volume edition by Lotus Press as Integral Yoga. Similarly i have seen a number of new aurobindonian volumes appearing with the word Integral in the title. Also I commend and am greatful to Wilber for helping to popularise Sri Aurobindo (even if I and other aurobindonians take issue with his understanding of his writings).
Re taxonomy, I am like you uncomfortable with pigeonholing, and only suggest it as one possible option. But there certainly are also forums like Kosmos journal, Integral Review and Conscious Evolution journal, and of course the CIIS established by Chaudhuri, all of which represent Integral philosophy but cannot be pigeonholed as Wilberian or "non-Wilberian" (the latter being a rather meaningless term to me, like "non-Hegelian" or "non-Jungian").
To reply to your perhaps rhetorical question, do I consider Robert Kegan a Wilberian? Well, it would more be a case that Kegan and Wilber have influenced each other. Obviously this is why I dislike too inflexible an application of taxonomy!
Also, like Joe I would love to hear what others have to say on these matters M Alan Kazlev (talk) 12:18, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
I do have a few responses. You asked: "But what term would you suggest instead of Wilberian? Unfortunately Integral/Integralist doesn't work because neither Aurobindo, Gebser, Sorokin, Solovyo, Steiner, etc etc define Integral in terms of four quadrants, post-metaphysics, and pre-trans levels with Buddhist nonduality as the ultimate stage..." I suggest using the term that those writers, theorists, spiritual teachers, consultants, artists, etc. use: "integral". That they use some of Wilber's ideas but not others is irrelevant. Wilber is an influential theorist with ideas many find useful, not a guru with disciples. If a thinker calls herself "integral" on account of her philosophical, cultural, or spiritual beliefs or practices, then she is part of the "integral movement" and should not be shunted by some Wikipedian taxonomist into an ideologically-driven dualism of Wilberian or non-Wilberian.
You also see not only individuals but certain ideas as intrinsically Wilberian or non-Wilberian and want to shuffle all the former into a discrete category separate from the rest. But I see no reason why such concepts as "pre/trans fallacy" or "post-metaphysics" could not be included as "integral themes" simply because some integral thinkers don't use them or disagree with them. The very fact that a thinker *disagrees* with, say, the "pre/trans fallacy" and forms a school of thought partly as a reaction against that idea is evidence that that theme is part of the "integral movement". Thinkers outside of the movement aren't concerned with such themes, ignore them, or dismiss them as silly. Wilber is far from the only thinker who uses these themes or models, and many themes are similar. Many integral thinkers have criticisms of the "Supermental" or "perennial philosophy" themes as well but that doesn't make these any less themes of some in the movement broadly called integral.
That some books refer to a "Wilberian" school could certainly be referenced as a salient fact somewhere in the Wikipedia article, if properly documented. That some conservatives refer to feminists as "feminazis" or "feministas" could also be properly documented in Wikipedia, but that doesn't make the term "feminazi" or "feminista" suitable categories for taxonomy. Your notion that the entire taxonomy of Wikipedia's integral categories must be divided into Wilberian and non-Wilberian thinkers strikes me as impractical and biased, though I realize your goal too is a flexible and inclusive taxonomy so I am hopeful that agreement will emerge. Joeperez69 (talk) 18:15, 31 December 2009 (UTC) Joe Perez
That some books refer to a "Wilberian" school could certainly be referenced as a salient fact somewhere in the Wikipedia article, if properly documented. That some conservatives refer to feminists as "feminazis" or "feministas" could also be properly documented in Wikipedia, but that doesn't make the term "feminazi" or "feminista" suitable categories for taxonomy.
It is difficult to understand how this is a remotely suitable analogy for describing the dynamics at play. — goethean ॐ 18:35, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
What isn't absolutely clear? These are all "terms of derision". "Hegelian" was once a term of derision as well. Ideologists often take a term such as "liberal" and attempt to make it into a "term of derision" by putting down their opponents with it. Their use is ideologically motivated and unsuitable for Wikipedian taxonomy, particularly in an area as sensitive as a spiritual or religious movement.Joeperez69 (talk) 18:43, 31 December 2009 (UTC) Joe Perez
Remember, Goethean, that the history of Christian denominationalism is a long history of sects being dismissed and attacked by their opponents who have attached disparaging names for them based on a charismatic founder or figure. Today, terms such as Lutheran or Calvinist are uncontroversial, but even these are often not favored by their adherents, who consider themselves Christian. What's happening today in Christian theology is that there is a growing use of an integral hermeneutic by individuals who count Wilber, a non-Christian, as one of many different influences. It is common for Christian theologians to be influenced by philosophers outside of Christianity, e.g., Karl Rahner, the Roman Catholic theologian, drew on Heidegger, Kant, and others as well as Aquinas and the usual Christian thinkers. But the notion of calling him a Heideggerian is unthinkable today, and labeling him such was a ploy by ideologically driven parties to attack him. Latin American theologians who cited even once Karl Marx or Marxist influenced thinkers were labeled Marxist, marginalized as not truly Christian, defrocked, and even imprisoned. At this point in history, as integral Christian theology is emerging, the notion that based on the opinion of a few editors with no expertise in Christian theology this entire school of theological method should be classified as Wilberian or relegated to a subcategory of "Integral (theory) Wilberian" simply because they use some of his ideas is unacceptable bias. And yet that is what would happen if there is no "Integral portal" page except one tainted with the stated or unstated limitation that all subcategories are somehow "Wilberian theory". As I said before, I know of no thinker who counts Wilber as an influence who calls himself a Wilberian. The term is most often used disparagingly by critics who are motivated to exaggerate the differences between integral thinkers and to paint the movement as deeply divided into discrete and contentious camps when the reality is much more fluid. It has no role in the taxonomy of an encyclopedia at this juncture, though perhaps things will look different in 10 or 20 years. Joeperez69 (talk) 19:04, 31 December 2009 (UTC) Joe Perez
The term is most often used disparagingly by critics who are motivated to exaggerate the differences between integral thinkers and to paint the movement as deeply divided into discrete and contentious camps when the reality is much more fluid.
The term is used because Wilber appropriated a term established by Aurobindo, Gebser, and CIIS and used it to describe his own approach (in the process attempting to distinguish his theory from transpersonal theory). We use it because we want to be clear about whose theory we are talking about. The term is no more aggressive than "Aurobindonian" or "Gebserian". Your comments strike me as paranoid. — goethean ॐ 21:23, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
As I said before, I know of no thinker who counts Wilber as an influence who calls himself a Wilberian.
Here's one. — goethean ॐ 21:42, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure that a 2009 book with no reviews available from Amazon.com, published by a self-described alternative publisher, counts as a notable independent source. It is telling that you found no better examples. But let me qualify my point somewhat. I don't doubt that there may be some Ken Wilber enthusiasts who would proudly identify themselves as Wilberian. If they are authors, they might even describe themselves as such. If they are writing in a very casual way about integral philosophy, they might throw out the term in a common sense way to mean "related to Wilber's thought". I googled the phrase "I am a Wilberian" and found exactly 1 hit, a post by a blogger and Wilber fan I'd never heard of. I don't know of any such individuals myself, but I grant that there could be some. But let's focus on the question of whether Wilberian is a suitable term for an encyclopedia to use to describe part of the integral movement, and if it makes sense to segregate all thinkers identified as "Wilberian" into a distinct category page separate from an "Integral (movement)" sort of page. I'll have more to say on that below... 24.35.121.35 (talk) 01:48, 1 January 2010 (UTC) Joe Perez
Joe I respect where you are coming from, and even have some sympathy for your position, but certainly in some respects you've misinterpreted me. When you say "If a thinker calls herself "integral" on account of her philosophical, cultural, or spiritual beliefs or practices, then she is part of the "integral movement" and should not be shunted by some Wikipedian taxonomist into an ideologically-driven dualism of Wilberian or non-Wilberian" you haven't noticed that I had already written "non-Wilberian...being a rather meaningless term to me, like "non-Hegelian" or "non-Jungian"." So we both agree on that any simplistic dichotomy is misleading. Besides, from my own perspective, Wilber, as a very recent author on this subject, is not so significant as to warrant such a major demarcation of Integral thinkers into himself on the one hand, and all others( who differ among themselves just as much as they differ from him), on the other.
My intention, with terms like Wilberian, Aurobindonian, Teilhardian, etc here is only to distinguish specific interpretations. Wilber himself acknowledges he doesn't own the word "integral". Nor for that matter do Steiner, Aurobindo, Sorokin, Gebser, Ray, etc. To cite a notable reference: Esbjorn-Hargens and Zimmerman in their book Integral Ecology emphasise they are following a specific Wilber-central approach, and invite alternative visions and contributions to Integral Ecology.
If Wilberian is such an offensive term - and the reference Goethean provides surely refutes that allegation - should one then also avoid using Teilhardian, Aurobindonian, and Gebserian? Imagine trying to discuss Buddhism and not being allowed to say "Yogachara" or "Madhyamika" or "Theravada"? And that one was only allowed to say "Buddhism". Or with depth psychology, if you were only allowed to say "psychology" and couldn't say "Freudian" or "Jungian". In any scholarly discourse it is necessary to distinguish specific philosophies, teachings, and interpretations. For my own pov, i proudly refer to myself as Aurobindonian, although there are some students of Sri Aurobindo and the Mother who dislike the term. However, a google book search establishes Aurobindonian as a notable and valid term. Were I a student of Wilber, I would equally proudly call myself a "Wilberian". Were I a follower of Jung, I would call myself a "Jungian".
As I noted earlier, Goethean's reference does not refute my point, which is not that Wilberian is always offensive, only that it is typically used as a term of derision by an anti-Wilber camp. I sense that they are usually motivated by the usual sorts of motives for this sort of linguistic turn, just as once the Catholics disparaged the movement associated with Luther as Lutherans rather than Christians: they want to imply basically that certain thinkers are followers of a charismatic thinker, that they all think alike, that they are separate from a more authentic tradition, that their thought has ossified into a stereotype, etc. Honestly, I think this is a fairly common phenomenon that reoccurs with all sorts of philosophical and religious movements, and I am puzzled that you feel a need to deny that this is your motive for insisting on the term's use and wanting Wikipedia to sanction your particular view by reifying it into its taxology. Since this point is pretty obvious to me but obtuse to others, perhaps I have not quite made the case in sufficient detail to persuade. Consider the evidence: (1) Integral thinkers themselves generally do not call themselves Wilberian, (2) Wilber himself characterizes his philosophical methodology as AQAL, and many thinkers who employ AQAL refer to it by this name, (3) usually thinkers use some aspect of Wilber's thought combined with the thought of many other sources, seldom use every feature of AQAL, and often disagree about key points. On what basis do you insist that people who call their thought integral actually be considered Wilberian? How much of Wilber's thought must one agree with to be so classified, and who decides? When you acknowledge that a thinker such as Robert Kegan has "mutually influenced" Wilber and yet is part of the integral school of thought, would you propose to create a new Integral portal for such hard-to-classify thinkers, and segregate every thinker that displays too much affinity to Wilber or his model into a separate category, either explicitly called "Integral theory (Wilberian)" or "Integral theory" (but with the Wilberian association implicit, with a wikipedia editor such as yourself presumably determining whether every new thinker is sufficiently anti-Wilber to be listed in the main category)? I competely understand that Wilberian is useful to you personally. Your statement, "Were I a student of Wilber, I would equally proudly call myself a 'Wilberian'." is telling. You use "student" here in the sense of an acolyte or disciple of a religious thinker claiming some sort of absolute authority. In fact, most students of Wilber are simply students of philosophy or psychological theory or whatever. If they like his point-of-view, they subscribe to an integral point-of-view or movement, broadly defined, and find his books among the many that are useful. Perhaps at some point in the future there will be many individuals, like the Jungian psycholgists of today, who call themselves "Jungian". But this hasn't happened yet. I think the evidence is clear that you want Wikipedia to appropriate a controverisial term that is most frequently used as a term of derision for a hard-to-define part of the integral movement that you intend to marginalize. 24.35.121.35 (talk) 01:48, 1 January 2010 (UTC) Joe Perez
Also, the analogy with feminazi doesn't hold, because "nazi" in that context is a deliberate slander, intended to insult, and not a reference to a particular school or interpretation M Alan Kazlev (talk) 22:56, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Respectfully, I disagree. The example of feminazi is intentionally a little exaggerated just to drive the point home, but I have no doubt that most usage of the term Wilberian is by a handful of writers who intend to deride and annoy certain thinkers by associating them with a figure the same writers usually ridicule in the very same breath. This is nothing distinct to the integral movement. It is something quite common. Do you really deny it? ... And now I'm really off for the new year's holiday. 24.35.121.35 (talk) 01:48, 1 January 2010 (UTC) Joe Perez

I have no doubt that most usage of the term Wilberian is by a handful of writers who intend to deride and annoy. But Michael Zimmerman uses Wilberian (albeit in inverted commas), for that matter so do you. Here is a totally neutral example which refutes your claim that Wilberian is used as a term of derision or ridicule.

I am puzzled that you feel a need to deny that this is your motive for insisting on the term's use and wanting Wikipedia to sanction your particular view by reifying it into its taxology.. I have to assume that such an allegation is just simple misunderstanding and crossed wires in our dialogue, and not paranoia on your part. If I want to criticise Wilber there is always Frank Visser's website, or my own. Why should I fart around, when i can just say things up front any time I want to? (and have!)

But look I can understand and appreciate what you are saying, I did notice from the google book search that a lot of usages of the term are negative, unlike is the case with Aurobindonian (coined by a disciple of Sri Aurobindo) or Jungian. So even though that is not my intention, I understand your feelings, and am happy to use an alternative term, if one can be provided. And indeed, very fortunately for this pointless argument, in which you and I seem so frustratingly at cross purposes, neither seemingly able to get the message clearly across to the other, you have provided one, when you say:

(1) Integral thinkers themselves generally do not call themselves Wilberian, (2) Wilber himself characterizes his philosophical methodology as AQAL, and many thinkers who employ AQAL refer to it by this name,

Joe if you had only written that at the start of this discussion, oceans of ink, or of electrons, would be saved from being spilt!

So, I am happy to use AQAL philosophy or AQAL theory, even if these are rather ungainly labels. I just don't want to see "integral" as a synonym for AQAL. As long as it is understand that AQAL is one among a number of approached to or interpretation of Integral philosophy/worldview/"movement", and not synonymous with Integral per se, I have absolutely no objection to using it, in place of "Wilberian". We can even make it a policy, in working on this and related pages, not to use the word "Wilberian" at all.

Hopefully, with this compromise, 75% of our disagreement is resolved, and we can work constructively on these topics.

Have a great holiday! M Alan Kazlev (talk) 07:02, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Alan, I'm not sure what you think is compromised ... could you clarify? The core issue we are discussing relates to the template/contents of an Integral portal page that actually reflects the integral movement as it exists. AQAL is one author's (Ken Wilber's) name for his particular developmental model. It is already described in the wikipedia's Ken Wilber article and nobody has suggested that a separate page be added for it. The issue is whether thinkers who call themselves integral and are generally understood and acknowledged as "integral thinkers", doing work that is called "Integral Studies", can simply be identified in the Integral portal page as such, no matter what their particular sect or affinity, (which is all that I have suggested), or whether such thinkers need to be divided a priori into pro-Ken Wilber and anti-Ken Wilber camps, or "Integral (AQAL)" and "Integral", as it seems you may now be proposing. Obviously term AQAL (or even Wilberian for that matter) can be used inoccuously to describe Wilber's own writings. Even I did so once, as you say. But how does a wikipedia editor decide that a work that calls itself integral (not AQAL) is unsuitable for an integral portal page but only an AQAL portal? I still do not see an answer for whether you would allow Robert Kegan into the integral portal or whether you would insist that he be listed under AQAL only, and I could ask the same question about dozens of writers who cite Wilber as one of many influences. Without a principled and objective answer, I think you are asking wikipedia editors to step into a totally untenable position. I'm open to hearing one if it is offered, though I am skeptical that one is possible. As I wrote earlier:
...usually thinkers use some aspect of Wilber's thought combined with the thought of many other sources, seldom use every feature of AQAL, and often disagree about key points. On what basis do you insist that people who call their thought integral actually be considered Wilberian? How much of Wilber's thought must one agree with to be so classified, and who decides? When you acknowledge that a thinker such as Robert Kegan has "mutually influenced" Wilber and yet is part of the integral school of thought, would you propose to create a new Integral portal for such hard-to-classify thinkers, and segregate every thinker that displays too much affinity to Wilber or his model into a separate category, either explicitly called "Integral theory (Wilberian)" or "Integral theory" (but with the Wilberian association implicit, with a wikipedia editor such as yourself presumably determining whether every new thinker is sufficiently anti-Wilber to be listed in the main category)?
I have not proposed that AQAL be used as a synonym for integral at all, only that any thinker who describes their work as integral and is generally acknowledged as such by independent sources be listed or linked at the integral portal in an appropriate fashion. Since, perhaps, some 90% of thinkers describing themselves as integral today are influenced to one degree or another by Wilber, the consequence of using the term integral in a neutral, objective way as I have proposed may very well be that many themes and ideas treated at the integral portal will be connected to AQAL in some fashion. Again, I will say that in my opinion the right place for your concern about AQAL being inappropriately used as a synonym for integral is in reviewing the content of the pages rather than in denying the usefulness of an integral portal at all. Joeperez69 (talk) 04:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC) Joe Perez
Hi Joe. I suggested AQAL as an alternative to "Wilberian", because as you mentioned the latter term can have negative nuances or associations. I would rather use a name that everyone is happy with, and AQAL nicely refers not just to Wilber's own philosphy but to the approach of others influenced or inspired by his ideas.
Regarding the tendency to conflate AQAL with Integral, I would cite Matt Rentschler, AQAL Glossary, p.15.
"When capitalized, “Integral” is synonymous with AQAL. In this usage, “Integral Art,” “Integral Ecology,” or “Integral Business” mean “AQAL Art,” “AQAL Ecology,” “AQAL Business,” etc."
Obviously, an AQAL interpretation of Integral psychology is very different to an Aurobindonian/Integral Yoga or a Chadhurian interpretation of Integral Psychology, although all of them can equally be called "integral", and are all mentioned on the Integral Psychology page.
Actually it doesn't matter which of us is correct here, because Wikipedia isn't about personal interpretations, but rather presents an encyclopedia point of view. And as everyone agrees, there is no one single interpretation of Integral, and hopefully these cluster of pages will indicate that. Indeed, because of this multiplicity of perspectives I sometimes wonder whether the word Integral can even be meaningfully used in this context, as distinct from say, "universalism" or "evolutionary spirituality", but you and others feel it can, and more importantly there are also references that can be cited, I am happy to agree that we can speak of an emerging integral worldview.
Re Robert Kegan, I certainly have no problem with him being listed on this page, or the Integral psychology page, or both, indeed, he should be, as long as references are provided to prevent critics attacking the page.
I am sure if we had to discuss these things in person we would find ourselves in much more agreement then appears here. Really I find myself liking and agreeing with a lot of what you say, and it just that a few very minor things seem to have become unnecessary sticking points in this low bandwidth text only communication medium.
So perhaps we can just go ahead with the Integral portal, and see what develops from there.
Has it been agreed whether to rename the current page "Integral (movement)" with parentheses, or leave it as "Integral movement". I myself still prefer "Integral (philosophy)" or "Integral (worldview)". Perhaps the best thing is to defer renaming/moving the present page for a week or so, until others have chipped in with their interpretations.
Thinking about your template, although you say you don't want people named, I think it is important to name major writers, otherwise it appears to float in the air with no historical context or authors, which gives the whole thing a rather airy fairy new agey feel. But as the template is already becoming quite large, it would be an idea to have it as a horizontal template, like the ones on the bottom of, say, the Sri Aurobindo page. I suppose I should set up my own template, combining yours and Goethean's, then we can discuss which is best  :-) At the moment I'm busy, but i'll try to get it done in the next few days. M Alan Kazlev (talk) 06:03, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Quickly... Alan, looking forward to seeing your proposed template and welcoming the continued discussion in the days ahead. My main concerns at this point are (a) having a scalable structure that can accomodate future developments in both academic disciplines and spiritual/religious movements, and (b) ensuring that any categories applied to a thinker or idea are organic to the material, not imposed subjectively. Joeperez69 (talk) 18:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC) Joe Perez
Completely agree on both points  :-) M Alan Kazlev (talk) 03:42, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

New templates for discussion

Guys, I've set up two new templates.

The first one, basically combining the list of names in the current "Integral movement" page with Joe's themes and topics, although I've also added additional categories. However I have't divided the names into particular movements or traditions. Instead I have one category for major thinkers, another for secondary ones. I'm not happy about this because everything is mixed together in a single amorphous group.

The second one, which I definitely prefer, includes Joe's list of themes with Goethean's specific currents of Integral thought. It also allows expanding the template by adding more traditions or movements if need be. This template balances the individual emphases of the particular groups with the common Integral themes.

You will notice that there is some duplication in this template, e.g. Esalen, Lindisfarne, Integral theory etc are mentioned twice. This is because of the different approaches in Goethean's and Joe's templates. Probably the duplication should be removed, but I've left it as is for the time being, pending further discussion M Alan Kazlev (talk) 23:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

(You'll have to show me how to make templates collapsible!) There's a lot of red links there. Is somebody going to commit to writing the corresponding articles in the near future? I'm not sure how useful a navigational template is when it points to articles which don't yet — and may never — exist. — goethean ॐ 23:20, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the work, Alan. My first impression is that the Integral portal may require two templates: one, a sidebar as there is currently, with a list of integral thinkers; two, a horizontal template quite a bit like my original suggestion (and Alan's Integral2). Perhaps the first can be called "Integral thinkers" and the second can have a title like Integral2, with "Integral (movement)" leading followed by some sub-headings. My sense for the "Integral thinkers" template is that dividing individuals into categories like "CIIS, Esalen, Integral theory", etc., is too inorganic. For example, I understand that Esalen is an important institution in the human potential movement, but it does not define itself as an integral institution per se (on its web site), and I've never heard of discussion of a generalized "Esalen school" of integral thought. I have similar reservations about groupings other than Esalen as well, as well as concerns that the thinkers listed under Lindisfarne (the apparently defunct association with a last web page update in 1996) have notability issues as pertains to the integral movement as such. How relevant can a defunct association be? If there is going to be a list of integral theorists on the portal page (which as I've said, I don't feel is necessary), then I think the most organic list would be an alphabetical listing of thinkers who have made major contributions in defining the broader Integral movement(s) rather than only one field of inquiry. This isn't an exhaustive list of my feedback on the templates, but perhaps we can discuss these points first.
As for goethean's observation about red links, I agree this is a real concern. Remember that this topic grew out of a thought exercise to grapple with the overall direction of the page and assist in defining it. In other words, once we have a better sense of the overall structure of this collection of articles, then we can better define and focus the rewrite for the main page. I think it would be good for there to be stubs for many of the articles, perhaps using content that is currently already written for the "themes" section of the "Integral movement" page combined with some new writing. (I can commit to drafting some new stubs within the next few weeks on a handful of topics that I feel are most in need. I could benefit from having someone explain how to create multiple user pages, as I have found Wikipedia's help pages most unhelpful.) Joeperez69 (talk) 01:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC) Joe Perez
I have similar reservations about groupings other than Esalen as well, as well as concerns that the thinkers listed under Lindisfarne (the apparently defunct association with a last web page update in 1996) have notability issues as pertains to the integral movement as such. How relevant can a defunct association be?
In the 70s and 80s, Lindisfarne attracted considerably more attention than Wilber's organizations have so far. Wikipedia records historically significant organizations as well as currently notable ones. — goethean ॐ

Yes the redlinks would need stubs at least.

Joe when you write the new pages, remember to put in plenty of 3rd party references as per Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Cite sources. I've had problems with deletionists in the past, they target any pages that do not conform to the mainstream (modernity/postmodernity) worldview of most editors. But as long as we cite reputable sources there's nothing they can do. (If i'd've known this at the start quite likely a number of deleted pages may've been saved)

More details on the Cite Sources page (I can sympathise with you - Wikipedia has a pretty step learning curve!) but you don't need to read all that. Basically all you need to do is the reference between ref tags <ref>like this</ref> in the text. You also need to add 

==References==
{{reflist}}


after the main text. Then each reference will automatically become a footnote when the page is displayed.

Goethean with the collapsible templates I just copied the relevant code from several templates at the bottom of the Sri Aurobindo page. At the end you add {{collapsible option}}. Anyway if you look at the templates I made, or the ones on the Sri Aurobindo page you can see how it's done (really i don't know how any of this stuff works; i just copy the templates!)

Re whether Lindisfarne and other such groups should be included in this template. Well, if you look at The Metaphysics template lists under Metaphysicians both those who were around before the term was coined (Aristotle for example never used the word) and some who to me don't seem like metaphysicians (Hume, Ryle, etc). So an individual or group could be part of a general philosophical or spiritual tradition, but not be specifically mentioned as such. Lindisfarne and those involved in it had and have the same concerns as those who are referred to as Integralists today (associated with the Integral Institute etc), but the word was not in wide circulation then (except within the specific context of Aurobindo, Sorokin, Gebser, etc). There is also the geneological connection which can be cited from appropriated references - William Irvin Thompson has been influenced by Sri Aurobindno and Gebser for example. M Alan Kazlev (talk) 23:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Are there credible independent sources that discuss the relationship between Lindisfarne and integral movement or thought? How do those sources characterize the relationship: as an historical influence? as part of the same? as a predecessor? as a related school? If yes, by all means include them. If not, I don't think it's kosher to list them, per wikipedia standards. I think the example of the metaphysics category isn't quite on, because you can turn to any encyclopedia or general history of philosophy and see all those thinkers included and generally regarded as "doing the same thing". Wikipedia is not in the position of blazing trails by defining the connections between distinct intellectual movements; it can report what is already well documented in the independent literature. (Regarding Goethean's point about historical schools, well this is moot if Lindisfarne is not really classified as integral, but if it's includable, then I would say: omit them if it's decided that this is a list of "contemporary thinkers", or include them in a "historical thinkers" category.) I have other concerns about other categories on the template as well such as Participatory theory. This is a camp that is already well represented on wikipedia, and has a separate identity from the integral movement. If there are independent sources that document this body of theory as included in the integral movement or a subfield of integral thought, then fine, but otherwise I would say no, based on wikipedia's standards. I don't recall reading any history or treatment of integral thought that includes these. I don't see any issue with listing them as "related", because they obviously are transpersonal and share some common intellectual affinities. I have the same concern with Sobornost. Do you have independent sources that list them as part of the movement/body of thought? If yes, then I would list them under spiritual movements as it seems to be closely related to Eastern Christianity. If not, then I believe wikipedia standard is for them to be listed as a "related" field, if at all. I would not list "Integral Transformative Practice" as a separate spiritual movement, as I would regard it as a spiritual technique, not a movement or religion or belief. It is connected with "Integral Life Practice" or "ILP". I think both ITP and ILP, and similar, could be discussed in a stub called "Integral spirituality" or "Integral practices" or "Integral spiritual practices". Finally (for now), I would prefer to list Integral Yoga under spiritual movements. I am not persuaded by your earlier argument that Aurobindo and his followers are not really part of the Hindu tradition. Wikipedia pegs him/his school in the Hindu category. I realize that Aurobindo speaks of a universal spirituality, but it is grounded in Hindu traditions, no? In a sense, all integral spiritual movements are interspiritual and interfaith--that is true of integral Christianity and integral Judaism (which is closely related to, but not identical to Jewish Renewal), I believe, and the new age movement for sure. I'm not sure what principled reason would be invoked to list the integral Hindu tradition differently from the other religious movements. Possibly one might argue that Aurobindo's school deserves special consideration because of his historical contribution of first using "integral", but since Aurobindo is already featured prominently as a historical integral thinker is this really necessary? Joeperez69 (talk) 00:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC) Joe Perez
I have noticed a trend with your template and Goethean's. It seems to me that you both seem very much wanting to include some figures and intellectual currents that are not generally regarded as part of the integral movement or integral schools of thought. I may be wrong, and you may be able to provide independently verifiable and credible sources indicating that these items are indeed regarded as integral. If so, I will humbly withdraw this complaint. I know even in my template I listed a Jewish movement that on second thought is actually a related movement, not an actual movement that describes itself as "integral Judaism" and could be independently verified as such. There is an "integral Judaism", but it is distinct and only related (and overlapping) with Jewish Renewal. So I'm guilty of this tendency on at least this one occasion and withdraw any part of my earlier template that inappropriately listed related groups as part of intgral. However, when I hear you beginning to defend the principle that the article should include as part of the movement developments that do not use the integral name in any way, simply because they treat similar themes, then I advocate extreme caution. I think wikipedia is clear that independent sources must verify that they are, indeed, part of the integral movement. They cannot be colonized for integral, so to speak. Joeperez69 (talk) 00:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC) Joe Perez.

Hi Joe. re connection with Lindisfarne etc i'll leave it to Goethean to provide refs and arguments. re Sorbonost there are intriguing parallels with Sri Aurobindo, as also between Eastern Orthodox and Sri Aurobindo in general, but you are right, there are no verifiable references (or maybe there are but i don't know if them). So i've removed the links there. Thanks for pointing it out (Goethean also mentioned it to me in an email).

ITP was developed by Murphy and Leonard; ILP is as i understand based on/ derived from it. So i agree they can be discussed in the same page. I also agree it is not a movement, but a nonsectarian technique/teaching,

I'm afraid I have to disagree with you re Integral Yoga. Integral Yoga is the ancestor of ITP (Murphy spent a year or so at the Aurobindo ashram); both emphasise the integral spiritual development and transformation of the entire being. Just because Wikipedia categorises Integral Yoga and Sri Aurobindo under Hindu religion that doesn't mean they are. I would need to find the references, but Sri Aurobindo specifically rejects any association with religion. Sure you could say he incorporates Indian ("Hindu") culture, such as the Vedas (technically pre-Hindu, i.e. Vedic), but he also incorporates Western modernity (evolutionary progress, a concept alien to all Indian thought), as well as the Judao-Christian idea of transformation and perfection of this world rather than eternal transcendence. It's like saying because Wilber is American he must automatically be included under Christianity! The inability of Wikipedia to discriminate culture from religion in the case of Sri Aurobindo (and no doubt many others) is the result of its anglocentric (westocentric, whatever the word would be) bias that assumes any form of universalism, spirituality or integralism coming from India must automatically be a form of "Hinduism". I am not good with references, so i would have to ask a friend to provide me with quotes showing that Sri Aurobindo totally rejected Hindu (and all other) forms of religionism. Anyway, this misunderstanding is not helped by the fact that some Hindus are devotees (in the literalist religious = Spiral Dynamics "blue meme" stage) of Sri Aurobindo & the Mother. But it's just stages, people are at different stages. What is important is that refernces are provided to justify the statements on these pages.

Ironically Wilber's own philosophical and spiritual position is far more Indic (Hindu-Buddhist) then Aurobindo's, as he has incorpporated most of the Vedanto-Buddhist tenants and assumptions with very little reinterpration.

Therefore I want to keep Integral Yoga as a seperate tradition from Integral theory, the worldview is very different; Integral Yoga is esoteric and aims to permanently transform and perfect this world, it is not fussed with subdivisions of quadrants, stages, etc. Integral Theory emphasises quadrants, stages, and perspectives, it has its ultimate aim (with exceptions like Steve McIntosh and a few others, I don't know where you stand here) as the progressive development of spiritual stages culminating in nonduality/Enlightenment which may bring about social reform, but leaves the world and the cosmic condition ontologically unchanged.

So at the very least we have several distinct major traditions: Integral Yoga, Esalen, CIIS, and AQAL/Integral Theory (the latter stemming from but not limited to the work of Wilber and the Integral Institute). Steiner also established an entire tradition, Anthroposophy, and Steiner's evolutionary cosmology is very similar to Wilber II, but I am wary of including it on this template, because they generally don't use terms like Integral. But as Steiner, like Teilhard, has been mentioned in this context, and does have many points of parallel with others mentioned here, he should at least be included among the historical figures.

Re only including those who use the word Integral. By this definition, we have to include Frithjof Schuon but cannot include Teilhard de Chardin. M Alan Kazlev (talk) 01:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


Joe's idea that Aurobindo is not a figure in the integral movement are at least as much original research as my idea that esalen and lindisfarne are part of the movement. I doubt that any sources (reliable or not) can be cited for such a thesis. — goethean ॐ 14:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Goethean, no. What I said is that Aurobindo and his school are an integral spiritual movement, and should be listed with the rest of the spiritual movements: integral Christianity, integral Judaism, integral Buddhism, etc, and would not list Integral Yoga as a top-line theme with such items as "spiritual evolution". Joeperez69 (talk) 03:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC) Joe Perez
Alan, I'm going to leave aside several side notes of yours on which we don't see eye to eye, as well as the point that if you are serious about Aurobindo not really being Hindu, then there is a major problem with the wikipedia category and the editors at Hinduism should be alerted to remove him there (but that is not my concern at the present). So okay, perhaps Integral Yoga could be listed top-of-line as a major theme for an Integral template, but then we might need another stub added for an integral Hinduism under integral spiritual movements (if there is such a thing as integral Hinduism). You don't feel it should be listed in the same category as ILP/ITP. Fine. Can we list both as sub-pages under an Integral practices heading? Joeperez69 (talk) 03:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC) Joe Perez
Alan, you wrote "So at the very least we have several distinct major traditions: Integral Yoga, Esalen, CIIS, and AQAL/Integral Theory" Well, show me the independent verifiable sources that indicate that Esalen and CIIS are distinct integral traditions or schools of thought, then we can agree. These are not schools of philosophy or spiritual movements of any kind that I am aware. As I have previously stated, the project of listing thinkers by inorganically created "schools of thought" such as CIIS based on no independent resources isn't going to fly. Joeperez69 (talk) 03:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC) Joe Perez
What are the next steps? I would like to see a revised template if one is forthcoming. Otherwise I can update my previous template with the developments since it was originally proposed, but I'd like to avoid doing something duplicative. Joeperez69 (talk) 03:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC) Joe Perez
Now that you have vetoed our ideas, do you have any independent , reliable sources to back up the claims implicit in your proposed template? — goethean ॐ 04:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Let's not personalize this. It's wikipedia who insists on having independent, verifiable sources. Can you ask something specific? What item are you looking at? Thanks 75.151.102.50 (talk) 05:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC) Joe Perez
Sure, updating it sounds fine. If you need help with making a horizontal collapsible template let me know! M Alan Kazlev (talk) 08:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
It's wikipedia who insists on having independent, verifiable sources.
Not for navigational templates, it doesn't. — goethean ॐ 16:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Respectfully, I don't think it's too much to ask that if wikipedia claims that an independent school of thought or methodology or community exists, that it's too much to ask for verifiable support if this claim is challenged. Joeperez69 (talk) 17:23, 7 January 2010 (UTC) Joe Perez
Whether you do or do not think it is too much, it is not a Wikipedia policy. — goethean ॐ 17:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia requires the use of independently verifiable sources and take a neutral point of view. Are you arguing that somehow navigation bars that link topics to sub-topics are excluded from these two requirements (say, that an article must be neutral but its navigation bar may be biased or based on original research)? It sounds like you're sore because I asked for evidence that a navigation bar claiming, say, that CIIS is a unique school of thought in the integral movement (and not an integral organization as is now claimed). If you feel I am misinterpreting wikipedia policy, I urge you to contact more experienced editors and review this discussion. I am a new editor, so it is always possible that I have misunderstood something. Joeperez69 (talk) 18:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC) Joe Perez
Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates is the Wikipedia guideline (not a policy) on navigation templates. — goethean ॐ 18:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I've read the whole thing and its sub-pages and there are several notes that categories, lists, and templates should comply with neutral POV. The section most relevant to this discussion is this noted disadvantage of the templates: "Often inadvertently push a POV and suggest that one aspect of a topic is more important than others, being used to advertise obscure topics in prominent places, or asserting project proprietorship. Templates can go to Wikipedia:Templates for discussion if they appear to push POV. Trying to remedy this by adding more templates might lead to the disadvantage described in the previous point." Do you see that when you and Alan feel strongly that certain intellectual currents that do not use the word "integral" to describe themselves really belong and should be prominently featured in the integral template, I have asked for independent sources that these are really part of integral in order to help enforce a neutral POV? If you disagree, let's move the conversation to the "Templates for discussion" page and invite other editors to participate. 173.10.65.90 (talk) 21:01, 7 January 2010 (UTC) Joe Perez
Can you ask something specific? What item are you looking at?
Every item on your template implicitly makes a claim that the item is related to a category of articles. You have rejected out-of-hand each of my ideas for a template, and each of Alan's ideas for a template. Your rationale is sourcing (verifiable, neutral, reliable, third-party, etc). It seems only fair that your proposed navigational template will have some pretty good sourcing before it is accepted. — goethean ॐ 16:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
No specific example of a questionable proposal? Okay. I think the existence of "integral Christianity" and any other specific new items I have suggested are well-grounded, and the references should all be noted in the supporting documentation. If I'm wrong, I hope to hear about it. As for time frame, I will have some new sub-pages about this time next week & welcome feedback. I think the existence of "integral Christianity" and any other items I have suggested are well-grounded, and the references should all be noted in the supporting documentation. If I err, I hope to hear about it before the page goes live. In the meantime, it's probably a good thing to let the conversation gel for a while & see if insight comes from other editors in addition to this small group.Joeperez69 (talk) 17:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC) Joe Perez

I'm withdrawing from this discussion

Hi Joe. I hope you don't mind - actually you will most likely be relieved I'm sure ;-) - but I've decided to withdraw from this whole discussion/argument, as well as from further major contributions to this page and the associated template. The reason being (a) we do not seem to be able to reach much consensus and (b) I want to work on other things.

The one consensus that we do all agree on is the reliance on reliable 3rd party references, and that should be our only guideline here. So although i'm withdrawing from the page, if i see something a long that line i'll chip in with a comment or edit, but that's about all. If you want to scrap the idea of CIIS, Lindisfarne, Esalen etc as specific groupings sure, go for it. Goethean may know of some 3rd party reference, but i am not good with references.

But if we are being consistent, you cannot use the phrase "Integral Hinduism". Until you mentioned it, i had never heard of such a term. A cursory google search links it to the Integral Instuitute and associated individuals, the term does not appear in this context, as a simple google search will reveal. There is also a mention of Integral Hinduism as "totally casteless Hinduism", i'll leave it to you to decide whether that qualifies as Integral in the context described here. If you want to refer to Sri Aurobindo's philosophy as Integral Vedanta or Integral Advaita that's different as those are already established terms. although neither was used by Sri Aurobindo himself (and quite likely he would not have approved of them). So if you still want to classify Sri Aurobindo and Integral Yoga under "Integral Hinduism" you have to provide 3rd party references; if you cannot, then by our agreement to only use reliable references, the page should not mention "Integral Hinduism".

I asked a friend to supply some quotes to show that Aurobindo did not consider himself a "Hindu". It is true that he did identify with the cultural and political side of things early on, perhaps that is where the association comes from. It seems to be the case that the editors on Wikipedia who lumped Sri Aurobindo under "Hinduism" are either (a) not sufficiently familiar with his teachings, which really require a lifetime of study and practice, and/or (b) use Hinduism in a cultural as well as a religious sense. Actually the latter reason seems to be the best explanation.

My feeling atm is to avoid the confusion and just rename this page Integral theory, and link it to Ken Wilber. The idea of an Integral movement as distinct from the AQAL / Ken Wilber / Integral theory movement seems to me (from my present perspective) to be highly problematic. I would be very surprised indeed if you can find 3rd party references to justify such a name. Since Wikipedia very correctly does not allow original research, we can't use Integral movement. An alternative title would be Integral community, although this comes across as very non-notable, so i think Integral theory would be better.

Anyway, i am genuinely interested in and looking forward to seeing what you do with the page and template, and whether you can find references not in some way affiliated with or influenced by Wilber and/or the Integral Institute. So I'll leave it with you! Good luck my friend! M Alan Kazlev (talk) 08:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions so far, and I for one will welcome them in the future. Joeperez69 (talk) 17:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC) Joe Perez
Don't rewrite history. You specifically rejected everything that he proposed. — goethean ॐ 17:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
I am sorry for the negative tone I sense has emerged in the discussion, Goethean, and I assure you that my aim is to work cooperatively with every editor here. I have welcomed Alan's active participation and agreed with some of his ideas. For example, I now think there is significant merit to his suggestion of using "Integral theory" as the category name, and since no consensus has emerged on an alternative I still regard the options open and Alan's ideas to be in the mix. But yes, I admit that I have been frustrated by what I see as efforts to engineer this category in ways that are not supported by independent verifiable sources, and I have resisted these specific editorial decisions. As of this writing, wikipedia has seven tags impugning the quality, verifiability, copy quality, use of weasel words, and other issues with this topic, and some of these tags have been around for several months. These issues will not be resolved overnight, but if the article is going to meet or exceed wiki's quality standards then it will take the efforts of multiple contributors and it's important that we each of us agree to use accepted wikipedia standards and policies. I welcome the continued ideas and contributions of many, and hope to hear other voices comment soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joeperez69 (talk • contribs) 17:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Integral_(Ken_Wilber)/Archive_3&oldid=1017525088"