What does it feel like to be Integral, and what are we doing?

Warning: Jargon.

Originally, this was a reply to a question on Open Source Integral, "What does it feel like to be Integral?" It deals with the question, as well as with what Integral is and what it's doing, also touching upon Ken Wilber's role in "integral." It's slightly modified.

To answer the question directly, integral probably feels different a little bit to everybody going through it, though I'd suspect there are quite a few similarities. There's an openness to experience, much less resistance (and so anxiety) to life and what's around, but the only real way I can say it is that I feel much more like myself: less like I have to act, and so much more willingly an actor, because it's fun. Maybe in short it's just that: simply more myself. I believe that's probably true for most, though what you've got to grow into and what blocks you need to remove are certainly different for everyone. A large part of the transition into integral for me has been allowing myself to open up to my emotions (though I would not say that's true for everyone,) and so life has become fuller; again, I feel like I'm more me more of the time now, and noticeably, joyfully so. Along with that there's the openness mentioned: all this richness and open emotion flows in and out. I'm much more aware and accepting of it, and much lest graspy or resistant to it-- that is, this fullness is equally a wonderful emptiness--there's an embracing and simultaneous awareness of what the mind would consider exclusionary opposites, for example, a grounded solidity in the midst of hundred-cycle-per-second change. When I do get anxious over something, or feel a tension in my body (1,000 times a day) I'm aware of it very quickly, and can note where it's coming from internally/externally, largely releasing it. There's also, for me, a marked sense of autonomy that comes from the release of anxiety about personal agency, along with a greater comfort in actually relinquishing any control over to the second by second rhythms of the world.

Other than that, I have to lightly disagree with a slightly dismissive tone in this thread [at OSI] in regards to Wilber. I do not worship Ken Wilber, though perhaps I used to, when I was jealous of him for the first couple of years after I'd read him for the first time. (Haven't we all been?) I'd love to have come up with AQAL, but actually coming into an integral level of being, rather than merely intellectualizing it, that's just not there anymore. I'm myself, and so better at that than KW could ever be, and joyous about it, because we're the same thing, and what's in store for me is just who I am. How could anyone else do it? Still, I feel much of the conversation here is bashing on or devaluing Wilber without a real appreciation. I certainly don't think that you have to understand Wilber to be integral (or even have ever heard of him) but you have to at least wrestle with him until you can definitively say where he goes awry. Some of the comments expressing a common sentiment against certain aspects of Wilber's variety of integral I think Wilber would whole-heartedly agree with, because he makes them explicit himself. They're not missing from his theory, they're in it.

In any case, I sympathize with the orignal poster, who mentions that a large awkwardness with the theory is the clunkiness and large amount of jargon. The language problem reminds me of my students here in China. In order to become comfortable speaking English they've got to learn a whole deal of commands and other 'class-functional' words just so we're using as little Chinese as possible (like, "what does that word mean,") that are usually more complex than their English level. There's so much to learn before you even get to really using it for yourself, and so i would suggest that the third-personness of the original poster's previous integral experience was because he hadn't gotten to the point where he'd internalized it, and that the yearning to do so from a personal standpoint likely shows that he's growing much more wholly into an integral awareness/living. It was third-person because 'not-you,' not because of any weakness in the theory (of course third-person,) but because he was still acclimating to the a gigantic instruction manual, so to speak. Anyone at an integral level of consciousness ought to recognize much of KW's work without having to talk and debate so much about it. I did much the same thing as he did, but never quite despaired about it. Now I see it as my intellectual understanding (where I could arrange and understand all that outside of me) helped to pull me up into an overall integral level of consciousness, beyond my simple verbal/rational mind.

In addition, there are quite a few areas where the main stream of Integral theory needs some retuning, in the very least as far as presentation is concerned. For example, the word "evolution." Evolution means reorganization of self in order to adapt to a changing environment, and so technically, yes, the higher up the spiral you go, the more evolved you are. Human evolution is taking place not only at the physical level, but at the mental level, and faster. Of course, for "8s," who are supposed to be tuned into how their actions are taken at each level, this word can't possibly be the right one. Talk about someone as being more evolved and you turn off most of the "lower tier," not just the greens. It's elitist in the worst way. This, of course, is only an apparent elitism-- the word as it's used within the integral culture is not a judgment of overall worth, but fitness, but try telling that to someone you're calling "less evolved." Is there a solution to this? I usually say people "with" a level 8 consciousness rather than "who have," but still. "Higher/lower," or "later/earlier," you're still going to run into the problem. In the trajectory of the universe, you see a clear trend towards systems of greater complexity which become better and better able to replicate and then improve themselves over time, from the primordial soup to humans, and then within the human mind. So how to say this without offending? This is what we're doing now, trying to figure out a way to pass this knowledge down the spiral in the best and most helpful way possible to facilitate further growth. But I also find that many integralists have a far less than humble attitude, and watching them speak about "higher levels" and this and that, one gets the sense that they are making overall value judgments, and are PROUD of it, which I think would be a mistake, something that may turn off quite a number of people who would otherwise be helped greatly. There's a technical term for the professors in college who lord their superiority of knowledge over their students rather than give them a patient, friendly hand: assholes.

But what would integral be without Wilber? Along with the above idea of a bottom-to-top development certainly anything that could legitimately be called integral has to deal with the four quadrants, that is, that every 'thing' that exists has four aspects, which are epiphenomenal, and yet separable. Why? I have spent years tracking this down, and the shortest answer is that reality is contradictory, that is, since the mind cannot grasp reality in thought, what is real will always seem to be contradictory, because the mind can't follow both logical conclusions. Too quickly because it's a different discussion and because you all likely know what I mean anyway: zero, one, and infinity are all actually three different conceptual ways of looking at the same thing, which is existence, consciousness. Try to think about one absolutely without the others: it doesn't work. A world of oneness without second would be a void with no differentiation, but even here the concepts collapse: that void would be infinite, that is, the void (0) of oneness (1) would still be infinite. Similarly, everything has an inside and an outside reality that are different and yet entirely the same, a plurality and individuality that are separable and inseparable. Ask "yes, but where's the last (ultimate) oneness," or "where's the lowest denominator," and you're thinking, and you'll never quite get it like that. The lack of any possible logical end in itself points to the truth in this. Without zero, no one, without inside, no out, without plurals, no singulars.

Similarly, I see a great difficulty in any integralism without the concession that reality is non-dual. It seems the very foundation of integral thought and life. The looseness and freedom and wonderful bursting emptiness of integral life comes with the experiential knowledge that the categories are only artificial approximations, and that every line drawn is only another way of illuminating the great unity, of which you are both a part and the whole.

So where are these complaints coming from, really?
What is Integral? What are we doing here?

Integral Theory (and the Integral Life) I think, is directed towards health, wholeness. That's the endgame, right? Integral Theory is a sort of map, a map of our species and our thought, but ultimately it only has use as a tool for our growth, as individuals and as a kind. That is, it is the first attempt at what the conveyor belt to a realized culture that Wilber sometimes talks about might look like. I feel as if many people here are critical of Wilber merely because it's the first time the whole map has been put together, and so, for lack of detail, their home isn't on it.

But there's rejection here where there could be shivering excitement. There's plenty of inference here about integral life beyond or outside Wilber, but I haven't really seen any thing concrete mentioned. We want to know what you're doing! If there's something missing, go live it! We're on the frontier, yeah? We're on the frontier of manifested consciousness as far as we can tell, so be pioneers! Wilber's model seems sparse only if you aren't filling in the gaps with your own engaged life. Of course there's so much to be done without him: he's only one person! His ILP box set perhaps seems like a poor representation of the possibilities of the integral life, but it's not meant to be definitive, it's meant to be suggestive, and that's made explicit. You have to engage with your own life to find the best ways to exercise and challenge yourself in every facet. How? Well, here's one example, the box set, (which I don't and haven't used) play around with it. (play)

The integral wave of consciousness is in its first stage as a mass phenomenon (not just isolated individuals), which means that you and I are determining what it is and means concretely and not just in the abstract, right now, but also means that 1- a lot of people are just coming into it from green and 2- b/c of this we're only starting in a large way to paint integral over structures which come from much earlier forms of consciousness. Hell, even the level-five worldview is still just opening over much of the world. Every person/culture that goes through it leaves their paw print. I feel like Wilber is being criticized for both not making the map more lush and interesting when he can only illuminate the views from his integral life and provide a larger framework, and also for laying the groundwork too thoroughly, as if telling you that when you're in college you'll have a great time, take a number of classes, be there for most likely between three and five years, meet plenty of interesting people, grow greatly personally and intellectually, etc. etc. preempts anything fun you'll actually do. We're all growing into greater recognitions of what reality is. That growth will be one-hundred percent personal, though the recognition is eternal. We may not have named this world, but it's ours for the making.

But that world will be colored within this framework, at least as long as it takes to start to flesh the higher levels out, when we can see where the holes are. The truth, I feel, is that if we are to succeed in getting through the problems the world is facing today, we're doing it through Wilber's influence or we're not doing it at all.

So what are we doing? We've lived in a valley all our human life, sending explorers up and over the mountains occasionally, but not caring as a species (or needing, or able) to go see it. Wilber was not the first out there, but he was the first to come back and explain to a large group of us just what was to be gained outside of our valley and how to do it, and how some of the major explorers did it before us. In any case, we're the first sizable chunk of the population to have camped in the gigantic and fertile plain on the other side. So what do we do? Not a rhetorical question. Let's get some answers.

For me, at this point, I am trying to explicate to my understanding what integral is and means, both within the community, and to the rest of the world. I believe that we are in a transition period in the movement, between when the news really got out with Wilber and when there will be a core and sizable group of people at an integral level, and that it's crucial to get to the next stage: having a fair number of people with influence, or power, or authority, operating and creating at an integral level of consciousness before too long. Much of what I do on this blog is aimed at using real life examples to illuminate integral theory and promote, flesh out, and examine integral thinking. I am also doing the internal work necessary: rounding off my weaknesses and fears, augmenting my natural talents, meditating, etc. etc.

One thing I think very important is to have the language debate. Is there a way to discuss this in depth in terms more intuitive, or is there a point at which you just simply have to explain the theory (I've gotten this down to about a five minute spiel that works pretty well) outright? Unfortunately many people here, rejecting the language, reject the theory, it seems.

How do we keep this alive? Keep it going? I think it will have it's own natural momentum, whether here on the web or somewhere else, or (most likely) with no real centralized base, but spread all over the place. But the most important thing is that you bring your energy to it, of course. You don't have to write ten pages, but keep up with others, offer pointers or criticisms, and take it out to the world. Engage.

One more minor point off another comment: I agree that some of Beck's (and Wilber's) takes on the spiral are off-putting and need adjustment, but "second-tier" is certainly not bogus. There is a huge gap (I call it usually the existential gap) between the realization that the world is without inherent meaning (green 6) and that that's a good thing (Yellow/Teal 7.) Second tier consciousness, while characterized by many things, is rooted in the knowledge that we are both the subject and the object, and I don't think this is something that, on a tactile (and so effective) level, anyone on a six and lower can quite get. It is a leap.

Thinking Integral (Response to Shaman Sun)

I just read this piece the other day on a blog called Shaman Sun.

It's basically evaluating the totemic role Ken Wilber and AQAL play within "Integral Theory." Wilber's work has been criticized for several different things, some of them raised in this article, including, mostly, 1- it is too complicated, 2- it is too simplistic, and 3- it confuses the map with the territory, that is, it pretends itself to be life, and not merely representative of it.

I will try to defend his approach, as I see each of these arguments as perhaps not groundless, but at least misguided.

For number one, I have to admit I find it frustrating trying to explain all of the jargon involved in integral theory, but have been able to work out a five-minute version. Much of what I'm trying to do is explain this way of looking at reality simply, trying to get people to grasp some of it. Of course, to really get into it, some of the terminology is unavoidable; that is, it's there for a reason: it's certainly possible to explain, say, the difference between someone with a pre-conventional and post-conventional level of consciousness, and even why they may be confused by someone with a conventional level of consciousness, all without using spiral dynamic nomenclature, but to do the roundabout over and over again in every article or post or conversation is a real pain in the ass. I also suspect that any academic theory has much the same problem, which is what makes professors often such boring people outside of the classroom. Just kidding.

It is difficult to get to the meat and bones of an academic theory because the complexity is fairly high. However, just as with any theoretical "step-up," say, from pre-calculus to calculus, where there are a necessary group of skills/ terminologies to be mastered at the lower level in order to manipulate them at the higher one, once the terms are familiar, and what they stand for internalized as experiential knowledge, they are no longer so daunting. Certainly I am not the only Integral Student to see levels and lines and stages and states everywhere I look every day. BUT NOT LITERALLY (complaint number three.) I actually do think that for the complexity of our world, Wilber's model presents a remarkably simple, and yet accurate theory. Which brings us to-----

Number two- it's too simplistic. "With all the complexity in the world, all the randomness and messiness and infinite variety, how could a model ever get it right?" I actually think what Wilber's theory does so brilliantly is make room for all of the mess. It doesn't include it all, that would truly be too complex, but it makes room for it. It took me until the release of "Integral Ecology" to see a practical example of what Wilber talks about when he says that so much more research is needed, and that the AQAL framework can be applied to different areas of research, the operative word being "framework." AQAL itself may not be so messy, but it's just the outline. Integral Ecology (which, disclosure, I have only read a summary of and listened to an hour-long talk about between one of the authors and Wilber) takes that framework and then tries to see the messy study of ecology through it (there are over two hundred different "ecologies.") If it succeeds, it does what any good framework does: takes all that messiness and gives you a method of relating all the different pieces together in a (post?) logical way.

As for complaint number three, "but this isn't the world!" (closely related to the above) it seems to come from a relativistic standpoint used to making this objection against any system of thought. I am, however, still brought to near-confusion when I hear it, since Wilber says so clearly and directly that this map, and any map, is just a map, and enjoins the interested to personal practice beyond intellectualizing and philosophizing. It seems to me to be a keystone of the theory: enter into your own life to see, as it must be experienced. Along with the above, that's where the messiness comes in. Nobody is a level five. No society is at some particular level. It's all fluid. Another connected keystone is that reality is non-dual, and so, just as with the messiness above, it must be remembered that a) all of this applies to you and can be realized directly and b) all of the lines are, if not arbitrary, somewhat artificial. It is, in other-words, built-in to the theory.

Why has this been missed? Perhaps because explicating the framework itself has been Wilber's intention, and that this labor is so large that little room is left to mention the above, though it is slipped in quite often. If it takes five thousand words for a discussion that's the bulk of the chapter, and then there's one twenty word sentence in the chapter saying, "oh yeah, don't forget, this is only a map, you've got to observe how it actually fuctions in real life."

As for Manuel DeLanda, I must conceed ignorance of his work. It sounds interesting and it's certainly integral, but what do we mean by that word? AQAL is comprehensive. It is an integral theory in that it tries to tie everything together. But, there is another way to use the word "integral," and that is, "at the first stage of second-tier thought (Yellow/Teal in Spiral Dynamics SDi.)" DeLanda seems to be a lower-right quadrant (that is, based on the external nature/behavior of groups of people (or whatever holon you're looking at)) theory coming from the stage seven (integral) level of human consciousness. It is in this a way a huge improvement over previous views assuming the coherancy/individuality of holons, but is not integral in the broadest sense.

I do agree that the postmodernists come as a reaction against, a call that the Emperor's got no clothes, something important and necessary before you actually consider what the Emperor looks like naked, and that they had less to offer in this respect.

And no, Wilber doesn't exactly detail the relationships between every thing, other than to say that "it's all actually the same thing," but this is the key insight. Without this, there'd be no question of detailing, investigating, and discovering all of the details, because there'd be no one looking, and nowhere to hang them. Certainly Shamansun's call at the end for "a more dynamic theory of social science [to] emerge in the 21st century, one that is more analogous to the messiness [of] biological evolution," is to be heeded. But the theories that emerge, and continue to emerge, will be within the general framework established by Wilber, at least until it's fleshed out enough for us all to see what's there, and what's missing.

Trust in Play.

I seem to be on an education/creativity kick recently. Here's another TED talk about creativity and productivity, quick on the heels of this one, itself following this post about schooling vs. education.



The most interesting thing of this all, I think, is near the end, when he says that an environment of trust is necessary for play, which I can't agree with more. I would link this idea to the fact that as one becomes more and more centered and identified with their consciousness, their attitude often becomes much more playful. Ken Wilber has used the analogy of a dream. When one is in a dream, one's attitude towards the surroundings is often anything but trusting, quite the opposite. When one becomes lucid in a dream (an experience I think most people have had at least a few times) one is given the freedom to play. You know it's a dream, so there's the trust that nothing can go wrong, and it becomes seriously fun. When one realizes enlightenment or has a satori, the world is seen for what it is, and life is free to be fun.

This also speaks to why children with supportive parents can grow up to be emotionally successful people. They trust their parents (and with good reason) and so are able to experiment and play around with who they are and what they can do so that when they are adults it is easier to face any sort of circumstance.

What's the shift when large groups of people across the planet start to experience the universe as being fundamentally benign? We're beginning to see, in fits and starts.

Trust in play. Trust in Creation.