I started this inquiry at FB IPS. Is integral all about meta-theory? And does one have to be involved in meta-theory to be integral? Even more broadly, do we have to meta everything? So I'm curious about how one can be integral and not necessarily participate in meta-theory. It seems most discussion that claim integrality usually go through delineating AQAL, as if that is what defines it in toto.

I'm reminded of Gidley's work. She talks about the difference between research that identifies postformal operations (PFO) from examples of those that enact PFO. And that much of the research identifying PFO has itself “been framed and presented from a formal, mental-rational mode” (109). Plus those enacting PFO don’t “necessarilty conceptualize it as such” (104). And of course this now infamous Gidley quote:

"For Gebser, integral-aperspectival consciousness is not experienced through expanded consciousness, more systematic conceptualizations, or greater quantities of perspectives. In
his view, such approaches largely represent over-extended, rational characteristics. Rather, it involves an actual re-experiencing, re-embodying, and conscious re-integration of the living vitality of magic-interweaving, the imagination at the heart of mythic-feeling and the purposefulness of mental conceptual thinking, their presence raised to a higher resonance, in order for the integral transparency to shine through" (111).

So how do we DO that? And is a meta-theory necessary to do that?

I'm also reminded of this Ferrer essay on integral transformative practice, abstract below:

"Most psychospiritual practices in the modern West suffer from favoring growth of mind and heart over physical and instinctive aspects of human experience with many negative consequences. Michael Murphy and Ken Wilber have each made excellent contributions in offering prescriptions for “Integral Transformative Practice” (ITP) which includes various physical and psychospiritual disciplines. Their prescriptions, however, can easily perpetuate the mind-centered direction of growth characteristic of the modern West in that they inherently ask one's mind to pick and commit to already constructed practices. Needed is an approach that will permit all human dimensions to co-creatively participate in the unfolding of integral growth. As one possible solution, the author presents a program of ITP developed by Albareda and Romero in Spain. Their Holistic Integration is based in group retreats to practice “interactive embodied meditations,” which involve contemplative physical contact between practitioners that allows access to the creative potential of all human dimensions."

Views: 186

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Here's Ken rationalizing his polemic. It cuts both ways. Also see Wilber's chapter in The Essential Ken Wilber, "The value of polemics."

So, to add another question to the mix: Is kennilingus necessary to metatheory? Granted, it is one expression of it, but does it have to be included? Looking at Edwards' encyclopedic survey of metatheory, many of them never heard of it. (Also recall this post.)

That Wyatt Earp incident happened quite a while ago and he doesn't keep saying 'suck my dick' ad nauseum. Who knows how he really is interiorly, but I'm guessing it's pretty much in the past for him. I doubt he is fixated on it or on punishing those challengers. Your tit-for-tat name calling does seem repetitive. I wonder a tiny bit what that's about.

I think some fundamental human values and functions are important to progress to healthier societies. To name just two, respect and empathic capacity. Name calling is maybe inevitable when our not-so-intelligent emotions take off and our capricious powers of rationality and rationalizing become momentarily occluded and tweaked in there service. But to keep repeating the pattern is not "high" or very good functioning.

I find it strange and disconcerting when I hear you giving so much intellectual attention to more fair, just, kind and effective economic system, and progressive third parties, and other favorite themes of yours, but you seem to me rather disrespectful and perhaps vindictive in your actions and your apparent relative inability to question yourself in regard to this. All this talk of embodiment of more nuanced cognition, a la Lakoff etc, seems not to apply to this circumstance for you, to name one. Much of your efforts seem to me therefore in a blind spot or a bit dishonest or confused.

Edwyrd theurj Burj said:

Did you forget Ken's Wyatt Earp essay where he told those who disagree with him to "suck my dick?"  And that's not a problem for you? So yes, part of the word kennilingus is a play on those who virtually suck his dick by being parrots or blind acolytes. So Ken or his fans can't take his own medicine?

And no, I'm not at all impressed by those prudish standards of "growth." That is just one more variant of saying "you're not integral if you do this or that." Not buying it buddy. So can you not react to the word? And  I sort of like Smegwyrd... Reminds me of theurJISM.

Edwyrd, I'm vaguely and specifically not feeling good in this exchange with you. I think I'll ease out of it. It's a bit strange and make be a tiny bit amusing to me how resonant with the collective political 'dialogues' going on just now in the USA our own escalations are.

Also as I have been thinking/feeling/reacting and writing and then thinking/feeling/reacting more about our back and forths I get whiffs of my own inevitable performative, emotional, and cognitive contradictions with some of what I have said and with otherwise aspired toward. That's not new to me, but I don't want to or need to follow that trajectory very far with this.

Of course some of what you have said about me has some reality.

I also want to have a current history with you that is comfortable enough to be constructive, if not more. Sort of prioritize what seems most important at the moment.

So, Edwyrd, gooday and good health.

It's ok Ambo. I get that reaction a lot from kennilinguists. I appreciate you wanting to help me get over my 'problem,' but I'm just fine with it.

Yeah, right.

Reply to Discussion


What paths lie ahead for religion and spirituality in the 21st Century? How might the insights of modernity and post-modernity impact and inform humanity's ancient wisdom traditions? How are we to enact, together, new spiritual visions – independently, or within our respective traditions – that can respond adequately to the challenges of our times?

This group is for anyone interested in exploring these questions and tracing out the horizons of an integral post-metaphysical spirituality.

Notice to Visitors

At the moment, this site is at full membership capacity and we are not admitting new members.  We are still getting new membership applications, however, so I am considering upgrading to the next level, which will allow for more members to join.  In the meantime, all discussions are open for viewing and we hope you will read and enjoy the content here.

© 2017   Created by Balder.   Powered by

Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service