Why Isn't Integral More Popular?

Written by 

Nearly every Integral Institute seminar involves the same joke. Ken Wilber or another teacher mentions the anecdote, usually during the first day. “ ...and then your friends start to run the other way when you approach them with a stack of books.” hahaha. Everyone laughs because they can relate. We all know that people’s eyes glaze over when the jargon gets laid on thick. But have you ever stopped to wonder why? 

light bulb in a human hand - but lit up!Victor Hugo once remarked: “You can resist an invading army; you cannot resist an idea whose time has come.” Many of Integral theory’s supporters (including myself) believe it’s an idea whose time has come. We believe humanity is evolving, albeit slowly, and in fits and starts, toward a more integrating, inclusionary, and loving approach to one another, other species, and the planet.
 

Among the reasons we as a community embrace integral philosophy, and hope to see it spread, is because it has the potential to change the world. 'Potential' being the key word. Sadly, If the ideas are not embraced and adopted by a significant portion of the population the impact of integral philosophy on humanity’s rise or fall may not register in the history books. The exponential or viral spread of integral ideas would provide ample evidence that consciousness is evolving. We are evolving, right?

 

With its sophisticated analytical tools and perspective taking, why hasn’t integral theory made more than a dent in our current dystopia? Why isn’t integral popular? This question hit my brain like lead bricks after seeing a 2 min video from the smartest bald man of our generation: Seth Godin of course.

 

                                                            

PressPausePlay - Animated Content from Stuart Langfield on Vimeo.

Seth Godin illustrates the spread of memes beautifully. Meme is a term coined by Richard Dawkins that suggests that ideas replicate and spread analogous to genes. “Ideas that Spread Win.” What he doesn’t say is that the best ideas don’t always spread. It’s not a given that integral approaches will win out over fragmented partial ones. If we look at history it is easy to make the case that forward progress sometimes gets arrested and society regresses. So how do we spread the Integral Idea?

 

If Seth Godin can have 5 million people download a book on marketing, which is really only interesting to people who are into new technology and new entrepreneurism, then why is a field like integral languishing?

 

Unleashing the Integral Idea Virus.

 

Integral theory applies to the most elemental of human needs. It helps us understand a complex world and make meaning in our individual lives while grappling with that complexity. Yet, it sometimes seems that the same 25,000 people spread across the globe are participating in the integral conversation since I-I started 10 years ago. I don’t mean to down play the efforts of Ken Wilber in four picturesI-I and Integral Life.

 

For those who don’t know, Integral institute is the non-profit organization started by Ken Wilber about 10 years ago, while Integral Life is the for-profit company that carries that mission forward. I spent half a decade contributing directly to this mission as a full time employee, so I’m not disparaging the effort. The Integral movement has made some important strides, and I don’t want to minimize them, but the most important step of all -- reaching the everyday person -- has yet to happen.

 

A highly successful start up can grow 100% per year! A business that grows this fast is obviously an idea or product people are buzzing about. Is there a way to tap into our viral digital culture with an integral idea? If so, we haven’t found it yet. Let’s just say that if the integral movement had investors they wouldn’t be happy with our conversion rates.

 

The integral vision needs a big upgrade in its approach to fulfilling its mission. In some sense the very strength of the movement is what holds us back. Does over analysis interfere with action? Does our intense interest in spirituality prevent us from seeing the needs in the world?

 

lighthouse shiningPerhaps the theory buffs will say that one must be at an integral level to grok all the sophisticated perspective taking. Therefore most people are stuck in first tier and can’t perceive this integrating function of consciousness. This leaves them fundamentally at war with other first tier value memes, and stuck in a world of separateness and competition. A second tier individual would be able to see another person’s point of view and can increase their circle of care for all people. This is known as worldcentric consciousness.

 

Integral Philosophy promotes the idea that 2nd tier has greater depth and therefore less span. More consciousness, with fewer people evolving to that level. Greater depth and less span is the nature of the kosmos. One must accept that not everyone will understand the need for taking the view of others, especially if those people are not in our close circle of family and friends, or don’t have the same religion, race, or class status one does. We could also use developmental language to explain this: If people can’t meet basic survival needs--1 billion people can’t--or have the conditions to evolve to world-centric, then how could they birth the impulse to evolve high enough to get it and to understand integral. (This paragraph has the most unexplained jargon in this article. If you are new to integral and just got confused, then this reinforces my thesis)

 

This always feels like a stock answer to me. It sounds like a good explanation that supports the idea that there are only a small number of people at an integral level. But I don’t buy it. In my city of Boulder, most people at least know Ken Wilber’s name and many have studied his books. Exposure isn’t the only issue. I’ve concluded that Integral philosophy is a bit like a magnet. For some people they feel drawn deeply, while others feel repelled. Why? I don’t think we can assume the "Jargon" with a cancel sign through itfirst tier/second tier distinction is the only or even primary reason. What if it is mainly the technical psychology terms are a main cause that prevents people from finding the onramp to the integral highway?

 

I’m not satisfied with stock answers anymore. Why isn’t integral popular? More skillful means and translations are needed. And we need to drop any self-reinforcing arguments that prevent the creation of those means. In short we need to take personal responsibility for formulating integral philosophy in a way that exemplifies simplicity beyond complexity.

 

Coming from a religious bible thumping family, I know well recursive thinking. One passage in Revelation directly tells the reader that the book must be interpreted literally, and not altered. This gives the impression that the work is divinely inspired cover to cover, and all the material needed to ignore reality and stick to a rigid interpretation is there. It is self-reinforcing.

 

For people who no longer buy into a dogmatic religious approach, scientific rationalism seems like a good place to hang our hat. I am generalizing here, but most people who see the world this way tend to think that if you can’t measure something then it doesn’t exist. Which is also a self-reinforcing belief. Even though these scientifically minded individuals have in some sense rejected belief for evidence there is still an underlying assumption that could unravel their position if it were examined and approached with a deeper questioning.

 

There are certain people who for one reason or another find both the dogmatic approach to life, and the rational data based path confining. A reasonable conclusion is that truth is relative. The aboriginals in Australia have a different view of truth than we in the West do. Some people even view gender differently than the heterosexual majority. Since we all have a different view of truth there must be different truths and nothing external to us, like God, could ever dictate a morality that works for us all. Once again: self-validating belief structures that hold water as arguments until a critical shift happens.

 

the thinker, done with LegosThis is the shift from an aperspectival view to a centauric one…. Um, er. What now? Do you see what happened there? I switched from talking about perspectives in plain language to psychological terms coined by some researcher whose name I forget. And I’m left wondering, is it better to go and research the name of that psychologist on the web so I can validate my point with academic proficiency or can I keep writing in a translation of integral? Let’s forget this paragraph happened and start again.

 

That shift can occur for a person at any point in adulthood, but it usually involves the ability to see all of these different ways of living in the world as something outside of oneself. If feels a bit like this: I can see myself in that, and that, and this other thing, but none of them encapsulate me.

 

Maybe someone has an uncle who is a pastor, a business man for a father, and a teacher who encourages them to find their own path in life. These three mentors provides a window into a different way of viewing the world. Each of them have an approach to life that benefits and informs the growing person’s thoughts and experience. Suddenly the thought comes: If I had all three of these men in a room, they would surely disagree with each other, but to me they all seem right!

 

This is the shift to an integral awareness and could also come about by examining how these three points of view show up in the culture wars within modern society. Once we can see these three differing perspectives, the longing to integrate them starts to tug on us. This project can take a while, and if you find yourself in this place I invite you to give yourself a wide berth and keep coming back to curiosity. I often ask myself: Is there another truth that can inform this conversation?

 

As we downshift toward the end of this article I want to point out that the openness of curiosity and questioning is the fuel for an evolutionary impulse. The spacious awareness of curiosity is quite different in quality and tone than the stance of the next paragraphs which point back to the purpose of this article. There is no point, or purpose in the curiosity that leads us on. Frankly, it’s just interesting and fun. Back to business!

 

An Integral zeitgeist begs us to be more than a spiritual club for smart people. It compels us to impact our culture and the systems that support it. If we are to make significant headway in this mission we must jettison the confines of simply integrating all the available perspectives and embrace a perspective that allows us to simplify the integral message without watering it down.

 

A great way to think about this is simplicity on the other side of complexity and its exemplified by the late Steve Jobs. By keeping the complexity behind sleekly designed closed doors, Apple has managed to get its technology in the hands of millions, while making millions for its stockholders. Steve Jobs was as great an integral leader as there ever was, but I bet he never taught people about the quadrants. He was too busy making things that changed our lives.

 

The second example of integral translation is a video by Mathias Weitbrecht.

 

                                                          

The Way Things Are - The Anatomy of Reality from IntegralInformationArchitecture on Vimeo.

Mathias is a senior student of Thomas Hubl who encourages students in his 3 year training program to complete a project that gives back to the world in a tangible and skillful way. This video attempts to explain integral philosophy in a succinct way and I believe it accomplishes that mission. The 2007 book by Ken Wilber, Integral Vision, also attempts to condense integral to a few key concepts that are easier to understand. These are a good start, but I’m wondering if we can offer the great big philosophy bookworld a map that doesn’t have the jargon that can alienate a significant portion of the population.

 

As a community, we have to look at current trends with soberness. The culture at large doesn’t read 800 page books about the evolutionary impulse. In most cases they won’t even read a blog post or email fully unless the writer has taken the time to consider the reader’s perspective and tell them what's in it for them to keep reading. This is known among the blogging community as writing Sticky. Marketers are the masters at this, and conscious communities are cluing in. Stay tuned.

 

I’ll leave you with a challenge to talk about integral to the people around you without the technical terms and without name dropping. See if you can find an integral question to ask the cashier that won’t freak her out. Or better yet, I dare someone to re-write Ken’s Integral Vision with zero jargon or technical terms. I’ll Race Ya.

 

 

 

 

Jason Digges is a video producer, writer, and small business consultant thinking and growing in Boulder, CO. His online magazine practicalART, uses edutainment to explore creativity, online business, and integral translation. Find him on twitter or facebook.

 

Related items

Join the Discussion

Commenting Policy

Beams and Struts employs commenting guidelines that we expect all readers to bear in mind when commenting at the site. Please take a moment to read them before posting - Beams and Struts Commenting Policy

48 comments

  • Comment Link Jeremy Johnson Thursday, 08 December 2011 15:58 posted by Jeremy Johnson

    @Gilles, that's probably the most succinct assessment I've seen. Thank you.

  • Comment Link Jason Gregory Hansen Saturday, 10 December 2011 00:50 posted by Jason Gregory Hansen

    In the tradition of not reading 800 page books about the evolutionary impulse -- I skipped all of the other reader's comments so hopefully I'm not only rabbiting what others have said.

    I found this post well worth reading and will read it again. I definitely think we need to consider this. Sometimes I think, in regards to jargon and the integral academic flavouring that Integral is still a bit too hot off the oven for people to start consuming. I'm definitely in agreement with what you've written and felt an article like this was due. I find the language-games often give people an out for not taking responsibility of their own outlooks (not always but often.)

    If you think about the world as it is and you think about the kinds of people who happily live their lives below a level of development that is the centre-of-gravity of their social systems (I'm trying not to do the jargon thing) -- then, you notice their lives are otherwise enriched unbeknownst to the workings of how their society works.

    I think the best idea is to lay something deeper down for people so they needn't worry about the 'how.' In regard to the whole 1st Tier/2nd Tier -- you have to be at integral to understand integral -- I sometimes have trouble with this as a cul de sac. I guess, it's self-evidently true but if you consider the amount of university kids who might have a formalistic capacity learning post-formal ideas and being able to spit them back out in exams and do exceedingly well -- then I wonder if something similar might actually be a benefit here -- an intellectualised understanding is better than no understanding if criticisms are going to be chucked out anyway.

    Want to say more but I'm really just talking out my ass as I clean my room. Appreciate, this article.

    Chur,

    Jase

  • Comment Link Bonnitta Roy Tuesday, 13 December 2011 12:18 posted by Bonnitta Roy

    One of the reasons I see (and this expands a bit on Giles' comment) is that Integral Theory is a meta-theory, which means that it contextualizes other theories. And one of the consequences of meta-theory is that it "exits is own domain" -- so for example, Sean Hargens and Michael Zimmerman wrote a comprehensive book Integral Ecology which conextualizes hundreds of approaches across domains, worldviews, altitudes, quadrants and quadrivia ... but it doesn't actually do any ecology. Or imagine a council on education, getting together to discuss different educational approaches -- at the end of the day, no student has been taught anything. To make integral meta-theory useful, you have to return to the playing field. Inside that playing field, it is really really hard to identify what advantage one has gained, *really* through integral meta-theory. There seems to be a disconnect. Furthermore, if relying on meta-theorizing creates action-paralysis, then you have a real problem, stuck in trying to parse the situation, rather than living into one's inquiry. But here's the interesting thing. In the early 1800's, very few people took up reading Kant, and set out to map his philosophy onto their daily lives. However, almost all of us today in the great white western world (GW3) operate under the principles that Kant set forth -- principles that were previously unknown. In this respect, philosophers, like other artists, are seers who articulate the latent view that is emerging, below the threshold of ordinary consciousness. So if this is also true of integral, then the fact that it has been codified by a generation of theorists, means that it is already well underway in transforming our consciousness(es). For most of us, below our ordinary threshold, the view from integral is functional (we are operating from that view) but we have not yet made an object out of it. Wilber comes along and names that "thing" -- and a generation of people immediately recognize it as already true -- that is why it is *psycho-active* ... because what was latent in us already, have been given a super-highway to race forward! But here is the crux of my comment. For those who have made integral theory their "object" -- this means that in effect they are functionally operating from an even deeper(higher) *view* -- and so what it interesting to me, is to try to tease out what this view is, instead of trying to reify the tenets of integral theory.... and then to continue to live there, at the edge, where the latent new perspectival elements are emerging from an aperspectival view. Its the edge of where being(in-becoming) crystallizes into knowing.

  • Comment Link Philip Corkill Thursday, 15 December 2011 15:16 posted by Philip Corkill

    Bonnitta, I'm virtually touching your feet (and glad this means you can't actually kick me in the head;-)

  • Comment Link Bonnitta Roy Thursday, 15 December 2011 16:49 posted by Bonnitta Roy

    Phillip! that tickles!

  • Comment Link Paul P Friday, 16 December 2011 08:24 posted by Paul P

    Nice article!

    I have been pondering this for a while too and I think Giles’ 2 cents are worth more than that.

    Sean E-Hargens told me a couple years ago that he felt Integral Coaching was the best application he had come across for Integral theory. I think this speaks to the super-highway for development that Bonitta mentions.

    What I wonder is what would other good real world applications of Integral Theory even look like? Is the growth of “interdisciplinary” work in the academic world evidence of “integral” theory playing out, even without being called “integral”?

    Here’s a thought from left field: there is a mathematical theorem known as Godel’s theorem which basically says that any formal system cannot be both consistent and complete. That is to say if you aim for consistency, then you miss some of the truths; and conversely if you aim for completeness then you lose consistency of the theorems.

    Godel’s was the nightmare theorem for Whitehead and Russell’s Principia Mathematica.

    Anyway, perhaps the scientific/academic enterprise aims for consistency and thus is incomplete, missing some of the truths (ie. some things are known to be true but not proveable scientifically).

    Whereas, perhaps Integral theory, especially a la Wilber, aims for completeness (ie. “Theory of Everything”) and thus loses its consistency. When you paint with a brush as wide as Wilber’s trying to fit partial truths/views together, some of the details may get lost and not add up…

  • Comment Link Seth Sunday, 18 December 2011 02:14 posted by Seth

    Digges, wanted to comment to the thread here. For those of you interested in real world application of Integral Theory, check out these two examples.
    In business, Stagen Consulting... I think Brett actually commented on this thread. Lovely use of the maps with executives in mid size business with an operational component as well.
    In church... UNITY of Omaha.. they are the rubber meets the road laboratory for applied integral in a church.
    Tony Robbins is successfully using integral concepts with major cross sections of the globe, as I mention in this recent blog post, http://sethbraun.com/2011/12/seth-at-tony-robbins-date-with-destiny/
    Love seeing this conversation.

  • Comment Link Gerard Bruitzman Monday, 19 December 2011 03:07 posted by Gerard Bruitzman

    The question is not about Integral Theory and Practice becoming popular; it is about Integral Theory and Practice being authentic.

    In his book Integral Sustainable Design, Mark DeKay discusses the 16 prospects of integral sustainable design, which arises from crossing 4 levels of complexity (traditional, modern, postmodern, and integral) with the four quadrants (experiences, cultures, behaviours and systems).

    A problem with this neat concept of 16 prospects and similar integral models like Sean Esbjorn-Hargens and Michael Zimmerman's 12 niches is the simplistic assumption that traditional ideas and practices are less complex than modern, postmodern and integral ideas and practices.

    Anyone who takes the trouble to read and comprehend the writings of the masters of traditional ideas and practices such as Plato, Plotinus, Thomas Aquinas, Nagarjuna, William Shakespeare, Ananda Coomaraswamy, Frithjof Schuon, Seyyed Hossein Nasr, Huston Smith, Brian Keeble, et al., however will come to see the levels of complex understanding in various lines of development operating within various traditional civilisations.

    Indeed, many of the aforementioned proponents of traditional civilisation condemn various modern and postmodern reductionisms that result in a decline into the reign of quantity or various flatlands where traditional attention to incarnating divine qualities of truth, goodness and beauty in human form is at best marginalised and more often completely forgotten. In fact, many traditionalists like Rene Guenon, Eric Gill, Black Elk, et al., condemned the modern environmental crisis decades before the birth of modern environmental campaigns in the 1960s.

    With the best of traditional civilisations not appreciated and embodied, one struggles to see evidence of integral authenticity in people.

    What is needed is not integral populism but integral authenticity in which the best of traditional, modern and postmodern ideas and practices are integrated in individuals and their communities.

    This is an elitism to which all are invited that puts the often prevailing egalitarianism into a deeper and wider context.

    Some food for thought.

  • Comment Link Bonnitta Roy Monday, 19 December 2011 11:18 posted by Bonnitta Roy

    Gerard,
    I would agree with you that the developmental bias in IT is monological and the inability to see how/that it is monological represents a huge flaw/blind spot in integral theory. However, this is not true if you do not equate integral theory with "developmental theory." unfortunately, I think the "branding" that Wilber has solidified that equation in people's mind. therefore, people like myself are loathe to be called "integral theorist" - I actually pulled out of writing a chapter for a Routeledge book, because it was heavily biasing "core wilberian thinking" -- and i was finding i was making very strong anti-wilber statements to distance myself from the rest of the book -- and then i realized the better course of action was merely to withdraw. good points.

  • Comment Link Gerard Bruitzman Tuesday, 20 December 2011 00:44 posted by Gerard Bruitzman

    Bonnita,

    Thank you for your response.

    One of the indicators of integrality is a well developed capacity for perspective-taking. In my view, an integralist is more able to take egocentric 1st-person, ethnocentric 2nd-person, worldcentric 3rd-person, planetcentric 4th-person, kosmocentric 5th-person, and divine nth-person perspectives into qualitative account and enlivening practice in an ongoing appreciation of and inquiry into the whole nature of divine experience and reality than people with more bounded 1st-, 2nd-, 3rd-, 4th-, and 5th-person views.

    I suggest that there are egocentric 1st-person, ethnocentric 2nd-person, worldcentric 3rd-person, planetcentric 4th-person, kosmocentric 5th-person, and divine nth-person readings of traditional, modern, postmodern and integral civilisations, providing plenty of scope for significant disagreements as seen today on CNN and Al Jazeera, and recorded in the annals of human history.

    I object to seeing traditional civilisations being treated as exclusive ethnocentricisms, modern civilisations being treated as objective worldcentricisms, postmodern civilisations being treated as intersubjective planetcentricisms, and integral civilisations being treated as developmental kosmocentricisms. All of these reductionisms lack truth, goodness and beauty in their affirmations of their views.

    In the words of Emily Dickinson, "tell the truth, but tell it slant."

    Perhaps Dogen Zenji said it best:

    "To study the Way is to study the self. To study the self is to forget the self. To forget the self is to be enlightened by all things of the universe. To be enlightened by all things of the universe is to cast off the body and mind of the self as well as those of others. Even the traces of enlightenment are wiped out, and life with traceless enlightenment goes on forever and ever."

    One last point I doubt that Wilber believes in his "core Wilberian thinking" as the right way to think. I believe he is playing lila as well as he can.

    Perhaps that is a good understanding of an integralist, playing lila, the divine game, as well as you can.

  • Comment Link Bonnitta Roy Tuesday, 20 December 2011 12:14 posted by Bonnitta Roy

    yup. you can be authentic and deeply flawed at the same time. its beautiful, really, once you get the hang of looking at that in a certain way. and cutting yourself the same break. thanks for pointing this out. bests,

  • Comment Link TJ Dawe Wednesday, 21 December 2011 20:38 posted by TJ Dawe

    Gerard, your comment reminded me of this passage from Guns, Germs and Steel:

    "For the last 33 years, while conducting biological exploration in New Guinea, I have been spending my field time there constantly in the company of New Guineans who still use wild plants and animals extensively. One day, when my companions of the Fore tribe and I were starving in the jungle because another tribe was blocking our return to our supply base, a Fore man returned to camp with a large rucksack full of mushrooms he had found, and started to roast them. Dinner at last! But then I had an unsettling thought: what if the mushrooms were poisonous?

    I patiently explained to my Fore companions that I had read about some mushrooms being poisonous, that I had heard of even expert American mushroom collectors' dying because of the difficulty of distinguishing safe from dangerous mushrooms, and that although we were all hungry, it just wasn't worth the risk. At that point my companions got angry and told me to shut up and listen while they explained some things to me. After I had been quizzing them for years about names of hundreds of trees and birds, how could I insult them by assuming they didn't have names for different mushrooms? Only Americans could be so stupid as to confuse poisonous mushrooms with safe ones. They went on to lecture me about 29 types of edible mushroom species, each species' name in the Fore language, and where in the forest one should look for it. The one, the tanti, grew on trees, and it was delicious and perfectly edible.

    Whenever I have taken New Guineans with me to other parts of their island, they regularly talk about local plants and animals with other New Guineans whom they meet, and they gather potentially useful plants and bring them back to their home villages to try planting them. My experiences with New Guineans are paralleled by those of ethnobiologists studying traditional peoples elsewhere. However, all such peoples either practice at least some food production or are the partly acculturated last remnants of the world's former hunter-gatherer societies. Knowledge of wild species was presumably even more detailed before the rise of food production, when everyone on Earth still depended entirely on wild species for food. The first farmers were heirs to that knowledge, accumulated through tens of thousands of years of nature observation by biologically modern humans living in intimate dependence on the natural world.

  • Comment Link Gerard Bruitzman Thursday, 22 December 2011 00:23 posted by Gerard Bruitzman

    Thank you TJ Dawe for your example of the level of complexity of knowledge of food sources exhibited by tribes in New Guinea.

    However, I suggest there are at least two ways to understand "tradition". To use Huston Smith's terms, there are exoteric and esoteric traditions. The example you provide is a case of a time and place bound exoteric tradition, where certain forms of knowledge are passed along from generation to generation.

    Esoteric traditions are more interesting. In esoteric traditions all things are related to the Divine Presence or Timeless Now. From Benedictine monasticism in the West to Zen lineages in the East, the most precious value is being centred in Divine Presence.

    Exotericists however do not necessarily get along with esotericists. Thomas Keating, a master of Centering Prayer, in many texts describes how esoteric Christian contemplative schools have been treated not so well in recent centuries. Titus Burckhardt, a master of traditional esoteric art, provides many accounts of how the sacred presence has become decentred and needs to be recentred in traditional and modern civilisations.

    In general, within modernity and postmodernity divine centredness is not highly appreciated and is evidently not the most precious value of many people. Therefore, esoteric traditionalists have plenty of scope to criticise modern and postmodern collapses into various flatlands decentred from Divine Presence.

    My question is: is divine centredness the most precious value of people with integral sensibilities? If so, where does popularity fit into a scheme of things based on divine centredness? I suggest not very importantly.

  • Comment Link TJ Dawe Thursday, 05 January 2012 19:52 posted by TJ Dawe

    Gerard - I'd agree. Divine centredness deserves more focus to anyone purporting to have an Integral level of awareness. Many if not all Integral thinkers and writers recommend a regular spiritual practice, but how many of us engage in them, and commit ourselves to them? This is certainly a challenge for me.

    And I do believe if we can spread Integral ideas through more accessible language it can help more people explore the world through this lens, which is much friendlier to authentic spirituality in general than any of the dominant worldviews now. Not everyone will wind up meditating their way into a genuine mystical state, but has that ever been the dominant form of spirituality in any level of development? Not being an expert, I'd guess it's been the minority path in all of human civilization.

  • Comment Link Giorgio Piacenza Friday, 27 January 2012 18:24 posted by Giorgio Piacenza

    At CORE people have simple needs. For them to recognize the importance of IT and to interiorize it there's they need to understand some of the ideas, values and sentiments which led to the cultural impasse that IT answers to. It's like an (linear) addition problem.
    In my case I learned from my grandpah's classic mythic modern XIX Century understanding of what Perú was like and where it was heading. I also learned from my dad's modern European, WWI experience with its humanist ideals. Then, in my adolescence I contacted the hippie and the human potential movement with Guru's from India coming to Perú. Then I connected with Theosophy, the Perennial Philosophy and with Koestler books...and Wilber appeared! ONE THING LED TO ANOTHER and I had the cultural wherewithall to recognize Integral Theory. Most people don't have the cultural background to connect the dots. Moreover, I see that the a great percentage of youths in the latest generations live their lives through immediate gratification and electronic symbolic representation means; thus their First Person attachments tend to be very "light" to say the least. Furthermore, even in today's 'Information (or rather 'Communication') Age' the culturtasl lessons from generations past are not being retransmitted. How are they going to connect the dots?

  • Comment Link Philip Corkill Friday, 27 January 2012 20:34 posted by Philip Corkill

    One of the main reasons I was attracted to integral in this life, was "can't we all just get along?". I was deeply unconsciously afraid of the things that happened in my house before I was able to understand that it wasn't going to cost me my life. This really cost me in life! Conflict, house shaking rage, potential separations, that sort of thing. I'm scared of that. I realise that integral is not about avoiding conflict - at least not for many of the integralites I know - but that is honestly what it appealed to in me. "everybody is right" means we can find a way to get along without all these threatening divisions, this terrifying rage.

    From my current inquiry it's interesting to ask in relation to this popularity of integral question, why is Jesus Christ so popular? Maybe the deeper reasons for both trends are related? Ever read this statement by JC?:

    “…I’m not here to demolish but to complete. I am going to put it all together, pull it all together in a vast panorama.”

    Sound pretty intergral to a newbe like me. But my attraction to Jesus Christ comes from a much deeper place than my initial attraction to integral. Now I want to know how conflict creates transformation. I'm no longer afraid of the rage in my family, don't think everyone is right or need them to be, and I don't want us to get along, unless we are actually providing something of deep value for one another. If we're not, it is better that we choose other families and drop all this tense and fruitless bullshit.

    So Jesus, IMHO, doesn't care for getting everyone agreeing or finding a partial truth in everyone's view and convincing me that this will be enough to resolve the wars, if we only know how to honour it, and map it to the right stage of development, and talk to it in its own language. And Jesus doesn't talk in the high intellectual language used by integral at all. He speaks the language a reader of a tabloid like the SUN (British) can understand. This is a high art. The Sun uses this language, of the common folk, to manipulate the public to a very comlex - and frankly completely criminal - capitalist political agenda.

    Jesus uses the same language to bring about the most complex of all structual unfoldings. Heaven on earth.

    He's talking in that language, not because he has a low IQ or hasn't reached second tier yet, but because it is the highest of languages in terms of the percentage of people who will get the massage. In my words: because of his outlandish genius for supra-integral communication. Beams and Struts in the language of the Sun (the Son of Man;-) would rock the world! Right now it operates with low language, in terms of how many people will get it. Though it is learning. Don't get me wrong friends, I love this language, personally. But an ordinary spiritual genius like my psychiatric nurse, won't like it or get it.

    To this day JC is popular. Either devotionally loved or devoutly hated, with little in between. That is true popularity! And it seems to come about by telling the whole truth in the language that most people understand, and judging things in terms of their whole truth. Not little parts, that contain little truths and trying to get them all to get along. No, Either you are serving the whole, and I am whole, or your not. period.

    “…rejecting me is the same as rejecting God, who sent me.”

    “This is war, and there is no neutral ground. If you’re not on my side, your the enemy; if you’re not helping, your making things worse.”

    Jesus could easily have chosen integral language or the language of the Finacial Times or The Guardian. But its as good as useless to his agenda. In terms of the fear of conflict that attracted me to integral, he is facing into it with great courage. If it leads to division hatred and death, so be it. It is wholey and true, creating heaven on earth, so who gives a fuck if it excludes people with no interest in Go(o)d!?

    I don't think integral has the guts to get into this kind of trouble. Has the guts to face the rage and division of the family. Or the guts to look intellectually common.

    Until integral grows that courage and decides to talk in more commonly understandable language, it won't be so popular. People can't really hate it and people can't really love it. Hmm... well, arart from you guys;-)

    "My prophets and witnesses have always gotten into this kind of trouble."

    Come on integral:

    “…Just say ‘yes’ and ‘no.’”

    If you want to be more popular, take a real interest in me, speak to me in our common language about what you want from me, and don't mind the sparks.

  • Comment Link Philip Corkill Saturday, 28 January 2012 13:31 posted by Philip Corkill

    ...Like this for example:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pa6BzVwbAGY&feature=player_embedded#!

  • Comment Link Rev. Alia "OM" Aurami Sunday, 02 December 2012 06:00 posted by Rev. Alia OM Aurami

    Hi Jason, thanks for your wonderful thoughts and for sparking this conversation. Just discovering it, a year later, and feeling moved to engage!

    I've had this conversation with so many different people so many different times, and I've enjoyed reading all the comments here. Have been expanded by each, and enjoyed all.

    I have a few ponderings to share, based on all my previous versions of this conversation. First, the role of jargon, which is an issue which comes up often. Jargon exists because new concepts are formed which means new words come into being or new use. New concepts being formed, which are new ways of seeing the world, new distinctions and new similarities-seen, which expands the scope and power of the consciousness of anyone who "gets" them and can use them.

    So jargon is good. It uniquely enables conversations about and using the new concepts, with those who understand them. This advances humanity's understanding, embodied in the few who know the meaning of the jargon terms/new concepts/new ways of seeing the world.

    However, it makes no sense whatsoever to use the terms with those who do not "get" their referents. (Subject to the caveat I make below, about intellectual-leading of embodied learning.) Why would one do that? That's when jargon is bad. It ends up being showing off, it can be a means of distancing, it's alienating, it's worse than useless.

    Those who understand the contexts in which jargon is useful and useless (like many of the good teachers in the world) are thereby "integral" in some way, and lots of people do understand this (writers of marketing copy, for example, haha) and a lot of folks in the "integral" sub-culture, DON'T understand this.

    The other point I'd like to say has been implied or stated above, but perhaps my 3GE (jargon term, haha) way of saying it will be helpful.

    "Integral THEORY" is a set of ideas. Integral as a worldview is not a set of ideas. As has been said, it is a way of living, of being, of acting, of relating. It appears to me that one of the best ways for me to help the world BE more integral, is for me to BE more "integral." I'd rather 1 person was inspired by my example of the perspective-taking I am showing in my living, than 10 people understood intellectually the concept of "perspective-taking" because I explained it to them in language.

    (And of course, ideally, both would happen in helping the world become more integral, because some folks work into being via intellectual understanding.)

    To your original purpose, Jason: The implication I got was that you wished to see the world become a better place, (let's leave the specifics out for now, and implications of ideas of better) and that if Integral Theory were more popularly understood, that would contribute to such a world.

    My view, articulated also by some above, is that the world is changing, dramatically, in the consciousness sphere, and the existence of Ken Wilber and all these other thinkers is IMO evidence and example of that, not a primary driver of it. Each "node" of influence on the world has its sphere of influence, but the change doesn't seem to be depending on any one of them.

    Thus, those of us who are attracted to this "node" of influence, and wish to see it used more widely and effectively, ponder your question together, and try to come up with some useful insights.

    But if "Integral Theory" never seems to spread as we think it might, then either it is spreading more subliminally or non-verbally than we are aware of, as some previous commenters have talked about, or its role in the world-changing is not so necessary as we believed. That last view kinda requires a deep breath, to accept as likely valid, but I find it comforting to take that deep breath.

    It's also been my VERY hard-won personal learning in life, that my passion for improving people's lives is not very well accomplished by any TELLING. Of course learning is important, but story-telling and living models are also crucially important. And as was said, development, if that's what we are after for people, is a matter of 'one thing leads to another' in life conditions making someone receptive to new ideas, new views, new ways.

    So TELLING people ideas, concepts, theory, is OK but of limited usefulness for my purpose. It might or might not be hard to empathize with how hard-won that insight has been for me, LOL!

    Thus, I don't get overly-exercised about how popular "Integral Theory" is.

    I've resonated with a lot of things others have said previously in this conversation, and am really glad to discover it. I think it will be very useful for those who read the whole conversation.

    And it ain't over til the fat lady sings, and I don't hear her yet. There is more to be said on this really fundamental topic. I'd be interested in how things have evolved in your ponderings on this topic since you wrote this blog entry, Jason!!

Login to post comments

Search Beams

Most Popular Discussions