Mark Edwards' Ph.D. dissertation

[Edward theurj Berge]

which is sort of a "book," can be found at this link: "An integral metatheory for organisational transformation." In Chapter 8.4 he details the inadequacies of the AQAL model. On p. 224 he lists lenses that are missing, including system dynamics, social mediation, postmodern decentering and evolutionary process. It sounds like a partial table of contents for my critiques over the years. In my modesty I'm almost embarrassed (not) to note that I'm given an honorable mention in his Acknowledgments.

[Edward theurj Berge]

And while I'm mentioning Mark check out his latest blog entry on climate change. I like this excerpt, questions I've repeatedly raised in several posts on the forum:

"Should metatheorising try to include all views even when those views may be endangering human sustainability? Is the task [of] integration endangering the responsibility to advocate particualr visions? And what does that mean for the goals and methods of doing metatheory? Are our ideals of being 'integral' rendering us impotent to present a particular way forward? Is the maxim of 'true but partial' reducing integral visions to 'balanced and irrelevant?' "

[Balder]

Thanks for posting this, Edward (and congrats on the honorary mention). I've been reading the AQAL critique section and he makes some excellent points -- bringing, as he often has, a greater degree of academic rigor to AQAL metatheory than is usually found in Wilber's popular works.

[James Barrow]

Hi Edward

Thanks for this excellent quote from Mark Edwards. He is asking some deeply relevant questions which the integral community need to address far more directly in my opinion.

Bruce, I think you have previously indicated that in one sense you view the discussions on sites such as this one, and perhaps even the general tendency within the current "Integral" scene towards theorising rather than say activism, as a necessary early stage of "incubation" in the development of culturally important ideas. While I agree that this incubation is a necessary and fruitful process, do you also think it is possible for us to be simultaneously more active or specific in "advocating particular visions"?

My basic sense is that we theorise and don't do anything with those theories, except organise conferences to share more theories! If we are still incubating the ideas then I guess maybe we are not yet clear enough on what particular visions or actions to advocate?

James

[Douglas R Wallack]

Thanks for the link, Ed and congrates for your contribution efforts. As a newbie in the academic world, I appreciate the rigor being brought to Integral Theory by folks like Mark. This really enriches my current course texts for "Organizational Behavior and Group Dynamics"... couldn't come at a better time.
Cheers,

[Edward theurj Berge]

Also check out this extended review of Mark's new book, Organisational Transformation for Sustainability: An Integral Metatheory. New York: Routledge, 2010.

[Balder]

Hi, James, yes, I have said something like that in the past -- and I still do see value in "incubation" and in exploratory critique, refinement of vision, etc, particularly at this point of Integral's "development." But I think Edwards' call to descend from the relative non-committal safety "meta-theory" and advocate for particular visions is important and timely, and I agree more of that needs to be done. I try to bring my "integral" understanding into how I teach my classes, for instance; and I have also been looking into how I might become more active in religious (dialogical, leadership, ministerial) circles in the world. But I'm interested in other possibilities, too. Maybe this would be a good topic for a thread in the Engagement section of the forum (to which, ahem, I notice I rarely contribute...)

[Edward theurj Berge]

Sometimes the link isn't working, so I found a pdf of the Ph.D. thesis attached.