Integral Ecology reading & discussion group

[Edward theurj Berge]

See the 5/31/11 post at Archive Fire for details.

[Edward theurj Berge]

The first post is up at Knowledge Ecology blog. His review of the Intro and Chapter One confirms a strict kennilingus orientation in the material. Not surprising but also not all that interesting, to me. A good thing about this first review is that the blogger is not completely convinced and has several questions, some following:

First, Integral Ecology is positing both a multiple epistemological and ontological system, and yet, despite this nod to ontology, are we really talking about anything more than “multiple perspectives?” Second, if we accept that interiority is a fundamental feature of the cosmos, operating at different levels, how do we approach the relationship between internal and external dimensions of a given entity? The AQAL approach seems to imply a consistent, geometric symmetry between inner and outer, or individual and collective, in what sense is this accurately descriptive of the terrain it is trying to map? Third, integral theorists are generally critical of those who are themselves critical of hierarchical or developmental schemes. Without rejecting the hierarchical nature of many natural phenomena, how do we critically think the notion of “levels” in the AQAL model with specific regard to how these distinctions manifest in intercultural environments and other contested areas of dialogue, where difference is a significant feature of the encounter?

As yet there are no comments to this opening.

[Balder]

Thanks for posting this, Ed.  It brings to mind the old Zaadz/Gaia blog-a-thons I used to participate in -- something I'd like to do again. 

 

I didn't find much in the first contribution that sparked a substantive response, one way or the other.  Concerning whether Esbjorn-Hargens and Zimmerman are only giving a nod to ontology while really focusing primarily on perspectives, I think he'd probably need to look at Sean's later work to answer this (since, to my knowledge, Sean regards his work on "ontological pluralism" to be a recent innovation in Integral Theory.)

 

While I know Sean and talk to him from time to time, I was unaware that he is actually in the midst of writing so many books (6 at once!).  Check out this page from his website, Enact Integral.

[Edward theurj Berge]

I like the logo of intertwining circles on his site, reminiscent of my notion of how holons share space with numerous other (and sometimes "larger") holons, never being completely subsumed into any ONE holon of everything (aka assholon).

[Balder]

Yes, similar to the image I used to use in the older design of IPS:

 

[Edward theurj Berge]

I appreciated this from a comment to the first post, by Adrian:

"I have to admit to some disappointment at how closely (slavishly?) Z and E-H follow Wilber in invoking the 'pre/trans fallacy' to criticize Romantics, 'extreme postmodernists,' et al. They rarely mention names or provide examples, and mainly only cite Wilber himself on these topics."

[Edward theurj Berge]

Blogger Adam replied to the above comment:

"I am afraid that one of the consistent problems we are going to have going through this book is the frequent use of straw figures, particularly when it comes to Romanticism and Postmodernism.... There are of course reasons for critiquing Romanticism and Postmodernism (an even more opaque term), but Wilber and other integral theorists seem to carry a little extra baggage when it comes to these two topics in particular."

[Edward theurj Berge]

I commented to the thread as follows, referencing our (not so) little forum:

As to the boogeyman postmodernism in the eyes of the those who espouse kennilingus,* see this thread** at Integral Postmetaphysical Spirituality on constructive and deconstructive postmodernism. An excerpt follows, quoting Gary Hampson (see thread for citation):

“Wilber uses the term deconstructive postmodernism and strongly associates it with AQAL’s Green vMeme—described by Wilber as the green meme, level, stage or wave, alongside the similarly strong associations of pluralism and relativism…. In this vignette, constructive is the hero, one associated with bright, hopeful promise; whilst deconstructive is the villain, associated with nihilism, rancidity and vulgarity….constructive postmodernism is the next holarchical level after deconstructive postmodernism” (129).

“Notions of construction and deconstruction as necessary adversaries can appropriately be seen to stem from an either/or mindset. Thinking dialectically, their relationship can fruitfully be rather understood as complexly interpenetrating. Deconstructive and reconstructive postmodernisms share one genealogy which itself has a dialectical underpinning” (151).

* http://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/a-note-on-neol...
** http://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/constructive-and