The Variety of Integral Ecologies - Sean Kelly, Adam Robbert & Sam Mickey - Integral Post-Metaphysical Spirituality2024-03-29T16:02:32Zhttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/the-variety-of-integral-ecologies-sean-kelly-adam-robbert-sam?commentId=5301756%3AComment%3A54041&feed=yes&xn_auth=noIf interested one can also re…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2014-03-29:5301756:Comment:551052014-03-29T14:53:53.270ZEdward theurj Bergehttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/theurj
<p>If interested one can also read the IPS thread on "<a href="http://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/complexity-and-postmodernism" target="_self">pomo and complexity</a>." Morin is featured throughout but particularly on pp. 1, <a href="http://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/complexity-and-postmodernism?id=5301756%3ATopic%3A40014&page=5#comments" target="_self">5</a>,…</p>
<p>If interested one can also read the IPS thread on "<a href="http://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/complexity-and-postmodernism" target="_self">pomo and complexity</a>." Morin is featured throughout but particularly on pp. 1, <a href="http://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/complexity-and-postmodernism?id=5301756%3ATopic%3A40014&page=5#comments" target="_self">5</a>, <a href="http://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/complexity-and-postmodernism?id=5301756%3ATopic%3A40014&page=6#comments" target="_self">6</a>, <a href="http://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/complexity-and-postmodernism?id=5301756%3ATopic%3A40014&page=7#comments" target="_self">7</a>, <a href="http://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/complexity-and-postmodernism?id=5301756%3ATopic%3A40014&page=8#comments" target="_self">8</a>.</p> Strangely, I also found Homel…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2014-03-29:5301756:Comment:551042014-03-29T05:49:44.030ZNeelesh Marikhttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/NeeleshMarik
<p>Strangely, I also found Homeland Earth tough going, and gave up (hopefully temporarily) after reading the first few chapters. I find it more engaging to read Morin's essays (translated). Must give HE another shot!</p>
<p>Strangely, I also found Homeland Earth tough going, and gave up (hopefully temporarily) after reading the first few chapters. I find it more engaging to read Morin's essays (translated). Must give HE another shot!</p> Thank you for the nudge, Davi…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2014-03-29:5301756:Comment:554012014-03-29T04:49:42.657ZBalderhttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/BruceAlderman
<p>Thank you for the nudge, David. The book is sitting unfinished on my shelf downstairs. I will pick it up and read the last chapter at least.</p>
<p>Thank you for the nudge, David. The book is sitting unfinished on my shelf downstairs. I will pick it up and read the last chapter at least.</p> I just want to jump in here a…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2014-03-29:5301756:Comment:552022014-03-29T03:43:06.691ZDavidM58http://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/DavidM58
<p>I just want to jump in here and say I agree that there seems to be a fairly strong tendency in the integral community to "over-value holarchy and fetishize development" (great discussion about that at <a href="http://beamsandstruts.com/bits-a-pieces/item/988-do-cultures-develop?-an-integral-question" target="_blank">Beams & Struts here</a>). Wilber talks about both the dignity and the disaster of modernity, which I found to be very helpful, but it usually feels like he underplays the…</p>
<p>I just want to jump in here and say I agree that there seems to be a fairly strong tendency in the integral community to "over-value holarchy and fetishize development" (great discussion about that at <a href="http://beamsandstruts.com/bits-a-pieces/item/988-do-cultures-develop?-an-integral-question" target="_blank">Beams & Struts here</a>). Wilber talks about both the dignity and the disaster of modernity, which I found to be very helpful, but it usually feels like he underplays the disaster and overplays the dignity.</p>
<p>And so, when I read Morin, it felt like a breath of fresh air. Everyone who reads A Brief History of Everything should read Homeland Earth along side it. The AQAL map is a good tool, but Complex Thought reminds us to stay humble and realize we haven't got it all figured out.</p>
<p>Wilber criticized Morin in Integral Spirituality for his systems approach, but I find this to be a strength, not a weakness. I find systems and complexity science to be a great starting point for then jumping off and correlating to the interior domains. Which Morin does; as Montouri points out in his Resource Paper on Morin for ITC 2013, Morin does not use Complexity Science in a reductionist way.</p>
<p>Balder, if you didn't finish reading Homeland Earth, I encourage you to consider at least jumping ahead and reading the last chapter.</p>
<p><em>"We must relearn our terrestrial finiteness and renounce the false infinite of technical omnipotence, of mental omnipotence, of our yearning for omnipotence, so that we may bow to the true infinite that is unnamable and unconceivable. Our technical powers, thought, and consciousness must henceforth be devoted to fitting up, improving, and understanding, not to mastering.</em><br/> <br/></p>
<p><em>"We must learn to 'be there' (dasein), on the planet - to be, to live, to share, to communicate and commune with one another. Self-enclosed cultures always knew and taught that wisdom. From now on, we must learn to be, to live, to share, to communicate and commune as human beings of planet Earth. We must transcend, without excluding, our local cultural identities, and awaken to our being as citizens of the Earth."</em></p>
<p>- Edgar Morin, Homeland Earth (p. 145)</p> It is definitely a recurring…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2014-02-02:5301756:Comment:538802014-02-02T23:53:07.161ZLayman Pascalhttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/LaymanPascal
<p>It is definitely a recurring theme. And just as definitely there is an essential role to be played by those who "stop short" of subsuming. Yet -- as Gurdjieff might say -- it is precisely where the developing octave pauses or deviates that it requires the introduction of an additional "shock" in order to complete its transition to the next harmonic level.</p>
<p>One of the main problems, as you say, is entirely practical. Not only would it be unlikely that one's proposal will be an adequate…</p>
<p>It is definitely a recurring theme. And just as definitely there is an essential role to be played by those who "stop short" of subsuming. Yet -- as Gurdjieff might say -- it is precisely where the developing octave pauses or deviates that it requires the introduction of an additional "shock" in order to complete its transition to the next harmonic level.</p>
<p>One of the main problems, as you say, is entirely practical. Not only would it be unlikely that one's proposal will be an adequate uber-model... but it also sounds exhausting to try to attempt an uber-model. This is only one of many pragmatic reasons to push the general AQAL model as far as it can go in terms of assimilating its complementary variants.</p>
<p>Hinduism, idealized, IS a great example. It simultaneously offers a pluralistic and absorbent system AND a well-structured imperialistic ethos organized around the Trimurti, the chakras, etc. But we need to affirm and work on both sides of this in order to ensure that we are advancing into coherent, useful, post-pluralist territory. All the great and thriving civilizations in history were notorious absorbers -- but their energy was galvanized only when some artistry and some voluntary embrace were mobilized to create the <em>semblance</em> of a universal system.</p>
<p>In experimenting and feeling around for the pathway which optimizes both divergence and convergence we should be asking ourselves some questions about "meta-integral" approaches. We should how much of this is pragmatic? How much reflects our particular contribution versus our reluctance? How much is strategic and how much is simply a limited supply of energy? Do we need meta-integral space in order to convince people, or to convince ourselves, that we are not being duped into a entropic box? Or are we wasting time and slowing the process by not simply assuming that "integral" means "meta-integral"?</p>
<p>And we are doing all these things and more. So we can ask: When and why and how are we doing each of them?<br/> <br/>Sean's diagrams are great and useful.</p>
<p></p>
<p>In "Key Unit Theories" I think he loses something significant in falling back on three nodes rather than four (a la AQAL). Even Wilber is notoriously vulnerable to "big three" simplifications which minimize and often miscommunicate the wisdom of ideological critique, computer programming, habit, protocols, syntax, etc.</p>
<p></p>
<p>His "Metadisciplinary Framework" diagram is just swell. How to put that kind of an approach to work when, say, examining a paper like the integral ecology/s article upon which this thread is based? We have to make sure that the D level is diverse enough (which means placing a high premium on outliers and iconoclasts who take a charged position relative to other theorists). Looking at C and B we have to situate them properly to make sure that maximum diversity of insights is secured in a way that also permits maximum convergence into A. All of that together is the appropriate mode of engagement to any particular paper, proposal or discipline...</p>
<p></p>
<blockquote cite="http://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/the-variety-of-integral-ecologies-sean-kelly-adam-robbert-sam?page=3&commentId=5301756%3AComment%3A53879&x=1#5301756Comment53879"><div><div class="xg_user_generated"><p></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote> I recall your half taking iss…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2014-02-02:5301756:Comment:538792014-02-02T23:11:19.643ZBalderhttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/BruceAlderman
<p>I recall your half taking issue with my similar holding of a diversity of integrative approaches in Sophia Speaks -- for although I pointed the way towards coordinated interface and circulation and possible integration of these multiple approaches with my concept of onto-choreography and my table of the Six Views, I stopped short of offering a final integration of said approaches. I imagine, basing this on my own sense of things in writing my paper, that part of the "stopping short" of…</p>
<p>I recall your half taking issue with my similar holding of a diversity of integrative approaches in Sophia Speaks -- for although I pointed the way towards coordinated interface and circulation and possible integration of these multiple approaches with my concept of onto-choreography and my table of the Six Views, I stopped short of offering a final integration of said approaches. I imagine, basing this on my own sense of things in writing my paper, that part of the "stopping short" of positing "an" integral ecology that subsumes all others may stem just from the practical recognition that it is highly unlikely that one's model will ever be the be-all and end-all of models -- it will not do everything equally well, or cover everything equally well, or serve to displace all other competitors, even while it actively attempts to confirm its validity in the manners you suggest (showing how other views are already included, or by actively absorbing them) -- and therefore it is wise to presuppose irreducible diversity (excesses which escape the inclusivistic drive) and to concentrate instead (or at least concurrently) on the development of functional means of interface, engagement, skillful combat, mutually affirming co-ordination, etc, with these other approaches. Because a system which functions by affirming itself through showing how other views are already present within it, or by actively absorbing those views that are not, does this in ways that are inescapably unique: and thus in the act of integration and unification, it contributes more diversity into the world. (Hinduism often employs these inclusivist strategies, at once becoming more inclusive, encompassing, and universal, and more distinct, variegated, and singular. It absorbs the Christ and various Gospel principles into itself, after its own unique fashion, but without actually absorbing Christianity itself, or escaping the need to find ways to live alongside, negotiate, and cooperate with Christians).<br/><br/>So, I guess you could say I'm half taking issue with your half taking issue. But on the other hand, I affirm and want to reinforce your call not to be shy or half-assed in our attempts to build beautiful cathedrals of vision and practice (whether in the fields of ecology, religion, or elsewhere). We should not let the realization that our vision will not likely (and should not be expected to) displace all others discourage us from striving to make our vision as full and rich and integrated as possible. <br/><br/>Sean's meta-Integral approach attempts this, I think -- or at least begins to point in this direction, i.e. the functional integration of the admittedly plural field of integrative theories. Here are some graphics from his recent ITC presentation:<br/><br/></p>
<p><a target="_self" href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/2505376562?profile=original"><img width="721" class="align-full" src="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/2505376562?profile=RESIZE_1024x1024" width="721"/></a><a target="_self" href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/2505387365?profile=original"><img width="721" class="align-full" src="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/2505387365?profile=RESIZE_1024x1024" width="721"/></a><a target="_self" href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/2505387514?profile=original"><img width="721" class="align-full" src="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/2505387514?profile=RESIZE_1024x1024" width="721"/></a></p> I am, I guess, half taking is…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2014-02-02:5301756:Comment:541142014-02-02T20:35:02.134ZLayman Pascalhttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/LaymanPascal
<p>I am, I guess, half taking issue with the concluding three sentences of that ethically laudable and conceptually progressive concluding paragraph of the first essay in this article. </p>
<blockquote><p>No one approach to integral ecology is sufficient for this task. A diversity of integral ecologies is called for. The contributions to this volume are committed to the development of such integral ecological diversity.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>My immediate -- and who knows why! -- response is to…</p>
<p>I am, I guess, half taking issue with the concluding three sentences of that ethically laudable and conceptually progressive concluding paragraph of the first essay in this article. </p>
<blockquote><p>No one approach to integral ecology is sufficient for this task. A diversity of integral ecologies is called for. The contributions to this volume are committed to the development of such integral ecological diversity.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>My immediate -- and who knows why! -- response is to suffer this as a curiously partial or preliminary position. And no doubt that is precisely what the authors intended. My rebukes are no doubt likely to be taken as praise. Nonetheless I will suggest that we are held back to some unknown degree by the feeling that we must cautiously hold the diversity of integral ecology in a diverse manner.</p>
<p>An integral ecology does not make any sense unless it incorporates and exceeds a pluralistic ecology (both in terms of the plurality of ecological networks & the plurality of perspectives upon ecology). But our goal must be to stabilize, integrate and functionally (not ontologically!) unify multiplistic ecology into a coherent force that has the following two real powers:</p>
<p>1. It can be deployed and profitably embraced at different developmental levels and different domains of experience.</p>
<p>2. It receives its competitors, rivals and cautionary alternatives as proofs of its validity. Either in terms of demonstrating that they are already included or by absorbing and including them.</p>
<p>Does "no one approach is sufficient" simply work to keep our options open? Or does it also relinquish our duty to build these approaches into AN approach which keeps their insights in play? I instinctively suspect that both are true. And therefore I worry (sic) that a pluralistic holding of integral ecologies is a stumbling block toward generating a dynamic integral holding of trans-pluralistic ecologies.</p>
<p></p> I like Morin a lot. I do feel…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2014-02-01:5301756:Comment:540512014-02-01T20:15:50.265ZLayman Pascalhttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/LaymanPascal
<p>I like Morin a lot. I do feel like he reaches a kind of stagnant point where he could go forward both in mood and structure but prefers to hang back in a critical Taoist mode as an ecological advocate who indulges himself in the ease of his own ability to alternate and balance conceptual opposites.</p>
<p>Like you I do not see (or Kelly-him) as being strongly anti-developmental. What I see is a subtle skewing. I see that sometimes HOLON is distinguished from WHOLE and sometimes it isn't...…</p>
<p>I like Morin a lot. I do feel like he reaches a kind of stagnant point where he could go forward both in mood and structure but prefers to hang back in a critical Taoist mode as an ecological advocate who indulges himself in the ease of his own ability to alternate and balance conceptual opposites.</p>
<p>Like you I do not see (or Kelly-him) as being strongly anti-developmental. What I see is a subtle skewing. I see that sometimes HOLON is distinguished from WHOLE and sometimes it isn't... and this is usually a segue into affirming the creative residue of pluralities and components that might get left out of potentially totalizing models. While that is clearly a valid concern I also feel a sort of eagerness to make this move. There is a kind of zeal for being a counter-balancer which necessitates the belief that people are likely to be overvaluers of holarchy and fetishizers of development. And this particular tone strikes me as limiting Morin's obvious integralism from becoming the sort of "general cathedral" I have hinted at. That means, as you say, that his primary use is as a vitalizing addition to a generic integralesque theory.</p>
<p>If he is singing a complementary song we need to first check it to see if something is there we have to include (or specify as already included). And then we have to position him to get the maximum impact from his song. How do we mention him in the program guide for tonight's performance such that when he comes on stage the audience checks the guide, nods approvingly and feels: "Yes, exactly."</p> Regarding your last post, you…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2014-02-01:5301756:Comment:541112014-02-01T20:07:07.336ZBalderhttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/BruceAlderman
<p>Regarding your last post, you maybe should check out Esbjorn-Hargens' <a href="http://www.kenwilber.com/blog/show/517" target="_blank">work on the various "ecological selves"</a> (which might find some complement in your Integral Tarot types). The blog I linked presents a little snapshot of some of these selves; as I recall, he actually expands them quite a bit in his dissertation, by bringing in other AQAL elements as well.</p>
<p>Regarding your last post, you maybe should check out Esbjorn-Hargens' <a href="http://www.kenwilber.com/blog/show/517" target="_blank">work on the various "ecological selves"</a> (which might find some complement in your Integral Tarot types). The blog I linked presents a little snapshot of some of these selves; as I recall, he actually expands them quite a bit in his dissertation, by bringing in other AQAL elements as well.</p> I actually find it rather dif…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2014-02-01:5301756:Comment:540502014-02-01T19:59:46.088ZBalderhttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/BruceAlderman
<p>I actually find it rather difficult to read Morin -- I find myself feeling bored after awhile. A lot of his arguments strike me as obvious or at least, at this point, overly predictable and familiar. (<em>Homeland Earth</em> is a short book but I couldn't finish it for this reason). I do not see him as confusing or conflating "whole" and "holon," nor as being strongly <em>anti</em>-developmental, but I get your point that there is a languaging issue which seems to lead, or can lead,…</p>
<p>I actually find it rather difficult to read Morin -- I find myself feeling bored after awhile. A lot of his arguments strike me as obvious or at least, at this point, overly predictable and familiar. (<em>Homeland Earth</em> is a short book but I couldn't finish it for this reason). I do not see him as confusing or conflating "whole" and "holon," nor as being strongly <em>anti</em>-developmental, but I get your point that there is a languaging issue which seems to lead, or can lead, towards a preferencing of heterarchy over holarchy. In this latter regard, I appreciate Morin's work primarily for the counter-balance it provides to much popular Integral discourse, which (in my opinion) may tend in the opposite direction to over-value holarchy and fetishize development (with often a somewhat simplistic framing of the patterns of transcendence and inclusion). I can appreciate Morin's work <em>more</em> as an Integralist-reading-Morin (where it serves as a sort of supportive accompaniment, a series of accents and flourishes, that enrich the primarily "Integral" melody I am enjoying) than I appreciate Morin's work by itself (since by itself it doesn't seem to have the scope or depth of Integral thought, though admittedly I am making this comment based on a rather limited reading of his work thus far).</p>