Talk:Integral (Ken Wilber)/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

how to proceed

This needs rewriting by someone who is not a follower of any strand of this movement, but has the patience to read the material, knows enough to place it in context, and recognizes the need to source statements of opinion. In my personal view, a view i have expressed in similar circumstances on a range of topics. I think the people above would do best to try their now experienced Wikipedia skills on some unrelated topics. Myself, I came here to get neutral coverage of a topic where I had real world involvement; I had a good deal of argument, and did accomplish something--mainly by attracting the attention of others. I have left the subject to them for two years now and am the happier for it, & the articles have not been harmed because it is not myself who is writing them. (It is perhaps not irrelevant that my principal opponent is no longer concerning themselves about the topic on Wikipedia either, or I might not have left it so easily.) DGG ( talk ) 04:27, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

DGG, I have devoted several hours already working through this material for the rewrite and anticipate spending many more over the next week, so I hope you're not dropping in just to tell anyone here to buzz off. The article's main issue, which shouldn't get lost in the back-and-forth is that there is very little citation, and much work needs to be done to track down sources or re-source material sentence by sentence. I'm happy to have all the help I can from you or anyone else, but since the topics have had similar problems since 2007 -- more than two years, I believe -- not merely since August 2009 as the tags now say, I think it's best to continue moving forward with getting the corrections needed that are overdue, and not wait for the completely disinterested generalist to step in. Joeperez69 (talk) 05:47, 9 January 2010 (UTC) Joe Perez

I've stayed out of what appeared to be detailed discussions between three supporters if Integral thinking in the hope that some agreement would emerge. I think (but I could well have this wrong) that we have agreed that Integral (movement) or whatever is interpreted as WIlber et al with a hat note or similar to other material. That will involve some rewriting. Now that doesn't have to be done by someone outside of the movement per se. However I do think it would make sense to summarise how you think the article should be re-written here and get other opinions before putting any detailed effort in. --Snowded ^TALK 07:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Already ahead of you. My proposal for the re-write is still in very early stages and so I am hesitant to enter into detailed discussions at this time, though within about a week I believe that the basic approach and material will be in place. Nevertheless, I'm posting all my work at my user page, so anyone who wishes to see my proposal is welcome to contribute and give feedback.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Joeperez69/Integral_studies for the basic overview. Note that I have followed Alan Kazlev's final proposal which is that the page should not attempt to provide an overview of some nebulously defined and understood "integral movement", but should instead focus on the Wilber movement, which is fairly well documented by peer-reviewed academic journals as well as independent sources that I will be adding as I find them. Note that in doing this revisioning of the page so that it focused on the Wilber movement, it soon became clear that the most general umbrella term in use by the movement is "Integral Studies", and in the past several years the movement has broken ties with its roots in the New Age movement and transpersonal psychology, and has made substantial inroads in academia. Robert Kegan, the most preeminent developmental psycholgoist working today and a tenured professor at Harvard's School of Education, will be the keynote speaker at next year's Integral Theory Conference. In light of the substantial developments in this field since the articles were originally written 2 or more years ago, I felt it best to begin with a fresh slate and have subsequently began to merge the new content with the existing material, to the extent that any old material was appropriately sourced (sadly most of it wasn't, and therefore has not been retained). My work on this endeavor is about 30% complete at this time, so take a look & give feedback if you like, correct me if I'm really off base on any area, but bear in mind that within a week or two I will have a solid proposal for replacing the current article with a new one entitled "Integral Studies". Thank you. Joeperez69 (talk) 10:11, 9 January 2010 (UTC) Joe Perez

Now I have egg on my face. I intended to edit my draft of a new template of "Integral thinkers" on my user page, but instead (yikes!) edited the actual template on the article itself. So you can see my proposed changes while it's online, however I can totally understand if editors choose to revert to the old template since my changes were never discussed. Fortunately, all my changes were fairly non-controversial and keeping completely in line with Wikipedia's neutral POV guidelines. I simply updated the references to the "Integral thinkers" to bring their groupings based on whether the thinker is (a) an academic, or (b) an independent scholar, or (c) a writer or artist applying the Integral Theory. Since the editors on the talk page had previously approved this basic organizational structure earlier as it pertains to the article itself, it is possible that this list will be viewed as non-controversial. But let's talk about it. Thanks, Joeperez69 (talk) 10:11, 9 January 2010 (UTC) Joe Perez

One immediate comment on the above referenced redraft is that in the main its references are not third party to the field. Now that is OK in saying what it is, but not when it comes to claims as to academic status etc. I'll have another look tomorrow as I have other tasks today, but that is immediate feedback. --Snowded ^TALK 11:41, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look. I felt it was important to immediately acknowledge in the first paragraph of the article that the field has not been widely recognized in academia, and quantified that (< 200 theses & dissertations) to the extent that I can. There's also an entire section at the end in "Reception" just focused on the controversy over its status as an academic discipline. I will add more 3rd party sources soon. Anyways, read away when you get the chance. I have much more to do. 75.151.102.50 (talk) 19:39, 9 January 2010 (UTC) Joe Perez

Because my work brought me to the point where I saw a need to move some content in the Ken Wilber article to a separate page of Integral Theory (and thus avoid duplicating material unnecessarily), I continued this discussion here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ken_Wilber but once the issue of how the impact on the Ken Wilber article has been addressed will be resuming discussion here. Looking forward to seeing discussion by other editors. 75.151.102.50 (talk) 20:16, 10 January 2010 (UTC) Joe Perez

Just a quick note to say that developing my proposal for changes to the Ken Wilber and Integral movement articles isn't going to happen overnight. Since I'm a new editor at the wiki, I want to take the time to read up on the nuances of editing Wikipedia articles and review cases of editing controversies and arbitration decisions in philosophical/spiritual movements and such before proceeding. I will have some noncontroversial fixes to one or both of these articles in the near term, but the major work that I see needing to be done will take quite a bit longer. In the meantime, I would be curious to hear any other editors' opinions about using the two articles on Rudolf Steiner and Anthroposophy as a model for how the articles on Ken Wilber and Integral Theory could be divided. Also, look at the template (with "Part of a series on Anthroposopy") as a model of how the entire group of articles related to integral could be presented. I find these two articles (to which Hgilbert contributed, BTW) very well written and cited and would be pleased if at the end of my contribution to this cluster of articles on integral in the next few months the end result were something like these articles. For links, see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolf_Steiner

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthroposophy

Sri Aurobindo and Hinduism

In earlier discussion the topic of Sri Aurobindo and "Integral Hinduism" came up. Anti-Matters Vol 2, No 2 (April 2008) has an article called "Sri Aurobindo and Hinduism", by Aurobindo scholar and historian Peter Heehs, which answers most questions about Sri Aurobindo and Hinduism, and shows that Sri Aurobindo only considered himself a "Hindu" for twelve years early on, prior to his main spiritual work M Alan Kazlev (talk) 01:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I have been unable to find more than a couple minor sources on "Integral Hinduism" that reference Ken Wilber, so have concluded there is insufficient information for even a stub at this point. Would you agree that from the perspective of an Integral Theory article, Sri Aurobindo is best referenced only as an historical influence? Joeperez69 (talk) 02:18, 15 January 2010 (UTC) Joe Perez

sounds good M Alan Kazlev (talk) 03:12, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposal #3: Delete section on Paul Ray's use of term

See earlier discussion for rationale. Propose to delete "Integral as an emerging cultural or developmental stage" from the (renamed) Integral Theory, and add link to "Cultural creatives" on disambiguation page for "integral". Joeperez69 (talk) 02:18, 15 January 2010 (UTC) Joe Perez

I agree. Also he can be mentioned in List of Integral thinkers (Aurobindo/Integral Yoga) as discussed on the other page, assuming we go ahead with that option M Alan Kazlev (talk) 03:12, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the paragraph, moved some of its contents to "Cultural Creatives" article, and updated disambiguation page. Joeperez69 (talk) 18:39, 16 January 2010 (UTC) Joe Perez

Proposal #1: Rename article to "Integral Theory" and replace current opening section with the following re-write

See User:Joeperez69/Proposed_new_opening_text_for_Integral_Theory_article

Rationale: After a lengthy discussion (see above), I concur with Alan Kazlev's suggestion that the current title is inappropriate, mainly because the very existence of an "Integral movement" is not notably documented in secondary sources and, where it is, it is contentious. The solution is to focus the article specifically on the body of thought that is identifiable: that school around Ken Wilber's theories which he calls Integral Theory. At the same time, the disambiguation page for the word "integral" should list at least two distinct entries: one for the Integral Theory article and another for the page on Integral Yoga, the distinct Aurobindian spiritual tradition. By focusing the article to cover only the definable "Wilberian movement", I identified what seem to me the best sources that define the nature of the thought and give a taste of its reception. I have read the relevant Wikipedia guidelines on sourcing and believe I have selected sound secondary sources, wherever possible relying on academic journals (four of which, if one includes Integral World, that are devoted primarily to integral issues, plus relevant citations from journals outside the integral circles). I believe I have kept the claims neutral in POV and factual, so I look forward to a discussion. This is the first proposal of several that I forsee which will correct the article's current problems with confusion, citation, and POV. Joeperez69 (talk) 01:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC) Joe Perez

So far there is no controversy. Any further discussion? Comment on talk page for User:Joeperez69/Proposed_new_opening_text_for_Integral_Theory_article Joeperez69

I have moved the new content to the opening section and simplified the tag so it notes that the article has multiple issues, but doesn't list each and every one. Joeperez69 (talk) 19:29, 18 January 2010 (UTC) Joe Perez

Proposal #2: Add new page "List of Integral thinkers"

See User:Joeperez69/List_of_integral_thinkers

Rationale: The section on "Contemporary integral thinkers" is already long and difficult to read, and as I've said previously, this section could easily be expanded by dozens of notable figures. For readability's sake, it should be moved to a separate page and the section where it is now replaced by a few sentences that introduce the sub-page and refer readers there for more information. Joeperez69 (talk) 20:27, 14 January 2010 (UTC) Joe Perez

I like the direction here, and the fact that we are focusing specifically on the Wilber movement, with other integralists acknowledged via disambiguation pages, and also they can be referenced in the "See Also" pages. Anyway I've made a few comments on the talk pages of both of these pages M Alan Kazlev (talk) 01:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Alas, the devil is in the details. Alan has proposed the removal of quite a number of individuals and has a different view of how the categories should be ordered on the page. There's significant discussion happening on the talk page, so contributions of all editors are welcome and needed. Joeperez69 (talk) 05:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC) Joe Perez

Any further discussion? Comment on talk page for User:Joeperez69/List_of_integral_thinkers Joeperez69 (talk) 18:42, 16 January 2010 (UTC) Joe Perez

I have added the link to the list as a subpage. Since there was still some contention over the order of the categories, I have defered to Alan K's recommendation on ordering for the time being. Joeperez69 (talk) 19:39, 18 January 2010 (UTC) Joe Perez

Page retitled

I have moved the page to "Integral Theory" per the above discussion. It's my first page move, so I'm still reading up on what else might need to be done to be fixed (e.g., double redirects) & how to do it. Help is requested. Joeperez69 (talk) 19:53, 18 January 2010 (UTC) Joe Perez

I have also added a short section called "Methodologies" which is intended as a stub for future expansion. The lack of any discussion of AQAL methdology in an article called Integral Theory needed something immediatley and really couldn't wait, in my opinion. Joeperez69 (talk) 00:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC) Joe Perez

Since I am asking for feedback on the changes, I have gone ahead and replaced the current section on "Reception" with the first draft of my new section on "Reception". This is early stuff but since it's quite a bit more comprehensive than the little content that was there before and since the older content was no longer particularly germaine I thought I'd go ahead and move it over to the live site. Joeperez69 (talk) 00:07, 19 January 2010 (UTC) Joe Perez

First off I wanted to say how encouraged I am by the depth and breadth of both this discussion of integral concepts and the desire for clarity of this Wikipedia entry. I have one suggestion for consideration as a general guideline for this article. I agree that Ken Wilber should be featured as a pivotal contributor to contemporary discussion of integral theory, as well as the inspiration for many of its permutations. However, the leading sentence and paragraphs in this latest revision are a bit misleading in this regard. Integral theory, as it is addressed by Grof within the context of transpersonal psychology (the cited reference for the lead sentence), is indeed specific to Wilber. However, integral theory is much broader than this and probably should be treated as such in any comprehensive description. For instance, László's integral theory is a completely independent hypothesis about the Akashic Field. Aurobindo's integral yoga predates Wilber and is equally divergent in its specific details. My own writing on integral practice -- and that of others such as Mike Murphy and George Leonard -- are likewise different from Ken Wilber's ideas, and not at all reliant upon his theory. That all of these disparate thinkers have converged upon concepts that echo, parallel or overlap Wilber's thinking in some way does not mean that they were derived from Wilber's thinking, or that Wilber's thinking encompasses them. The way the article is currently structured, this is a conclusion that readers might assume. Thank you again for all of your thoughtful work on this.TCollinsLogan (talk) 16:35, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I think this is a totally valid point, and the general issue has been much discussed in the past two months. The resolution decided recently is that this article is to focus on Wilber's Integral Theory and the movement associated with it, and other uses of the term "Integral Theory" or "Integral" would be available for separate entries, cross-referenced on this page, and added to the disambiguation page for "integral". I would be delighted to see the addition of a separate article on Laszlo's Integral Theory. At this time, there is Wilber's Integral Theory and Aurobindo's Integral Yoga. Does this resolution make sense to you? Joeperez69 (talk) 18:01, 28 January 2010 (UTC) Joe Perez

I think my point addressed your concern about Laszlo, and the existence of a separate Aurobindo page on Integral Yoga addresses that issue, but let me make a suggestion. Googling the name you provided, I see you are probably the same individual using a practice called Integral Lifework. If that practice as such satisfied Wikipedia's notability requirements (see the articles on notability), then it could certainly be a candidate for an article called Integral Lifework, which could be referenced on the Integral Theory page, and a link would be added to Integral Lifework on the "integral" disambiguation page. There are simply too many different uses of "integral" by different writers and theorists to include them all in one umbrella article, a point on which I think there is some agreement. Meanwhile, IMO the current article's Background section is confusing, because it dwells extensively on Aurobindo and traces a lineage up to different currents. IMO with the article's new focus this section needs to be replaced by a background rewritten specifically for the movement that begins with Wilber, with only a passing reference to usages of "integral" that predated him. I would have no problem with providing a history of uses of the term "integral" in spiritual movements broadly somewhere on Wikipedia, but other editors here have expressed skepticism that there is anything meaningful to say about so general a concept & also my understanding is that Wikipedia frowns on articles that are intended primarily to define a word, since Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Other opinions are welcome.

What do others think of taking the content that is currently existing under Background, combining it with the article's previous sentences defining the use of the term "integral" broadly in spirituality, and relocating that content to a new article called "integral (spirituality)" which would be focused simply on tracing the history of that generic term in spiritual and religious movements from Aurobindo to the present day with all its diverse forms? I'm favorable to that. The difference being from the previous version of this article that there would be no claim that there exists a single "integral movement", only that different writers and groups have used the term "integral" to mean certain things over time. The "integral (spirituality)" article should then include the Integral Theory school as one notable usage of the term, but Integral Theory itself is not limited just to being general spiritual holism. Then, a new Background section would be written for THIS article focusing just on the Wilberian school... and I volunteer to chip in, as I've already begun research on just that focus. Joeperez69 (talk) 18:20, 28 January 2010 (UTC) Joe Perez

And that way either Integral (spirituality) becomes the main page in the "Integral Portal", or there can be several equal pages (Spirituality, Yoga, Theory, Psychology...). I'll leave it with you Joe which way to take it. And an Integral (spirituality) page avoids the problem of Aurobindo, Gebser etc presented as precursors to Wilber-inspired Integral Theory. So, yeah, go for it :-) M Alan Kazlev (talk) 02:46, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Well that's a promising start. Let's see what others think, too. Practically speaking, the easiest thing would probably be to create a new page called "Integral (spirituality)" and move over the appropriate content. Another option would be to rename this page to "Integral (spirituality)" and create a new page called "Integral Theory" with the rest of the content here now. The key is which page should the history of this talk page be associated with: integral (spirituality) or Integral Theory? Also to which page should most of the current backlinks on Wikipedia that point here right now be directed by default? I am inclined to say that the "Integral (spirituality)" page should keep this talk page's history and the "Integral Theory" page be new with a new history for it, even though (sigh) this would be a bit more work. Other opinions? Joeperez69 (talk) 05:01, 29 January 2010 (UTC) Joe Perez

I agree, the current background of the article and these discussion pages should redirect to Integral (spirituality). The rest of the page (but not the talk page) should go to Integral Theory (i.e. the content copied over to a new Integral Theory page). Yeah, it's a hassle, I know! M Alan Kazlev (talk) 01:25, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

The Integral (spirituality) article structure sounds like a reasonable solution, as does keeping the current backlinks and talk page history. Regarding "Integral Practice," I think it would make the most sense for this also to be organized under the Integral (spirituality) heading, rather than being part of an understandably Wilber-centric Integral Theory page. Of all of the different flavors of integral practice, only one that I know of conforms to the AQAL framework. However, all of them promote interior spiritual discipline, so it would make sense to include them under Integral (spirituality) That said, perhaps they could also be cross-referenced in some way under Integral Theory as they do rightfully belong to both. There are quite a few interdependencies among all of these topics, so it is difficult to know what heierarchy or emphasis should be applied. As for Integral Lifework meriting its own page, I will leave that for others to determine.TCollinsLogan (talk) 01:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Page now branched into Integral (spirituality) and Integral Theory

I moved the old Integral_Theory page to Integral_(spirituality), then copied over the contents of that page to the old page at Integral_Theory, replacing the page's redirect. This is a rather convoluted move, and I'm not sure that it has had all the intended effects; however, at a glance, it looks like it's working well enough. For reasons I don't understand, the Talk history of the page seems to have been copied over to both pages (which is fine, I guess). I'm not sure if additions to this talk page will appear only here or also on the Integral Theory talk page. Also, I think it would be a good idea for all of us to check the backlinks for BOTH pages and inspect the links, examine their context, and determine if the link is better directed to Integral_(spirituality) or Integral_Theory, and then change the link if necessary.Joeperez69 (talk) 17:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC) Joe Perez

I think this organization of integral pages works quite well. Thanks for your work on this Joe.TCollinsLogan (talk) 22:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)