CategoryPhilosophy

Here’s the Grossly Oversimplified Version, FWIW

(Photo: grandfailure via BigStock.com)

I have opinions. You have opinions. We all have opinions.

And some of us have opinions about opinions.

Some of our philosophical opinions therefore become philosophical opinions about other philosophical opinions. (We also have spiritual realizations about other spiritual realizations at a full spectrum of consciousness, but that’s a topic for another day.)

Not all of us are aware of these distinctions, but some of us who are aware of them describe ourselves as “Integralists”. I am writing this newsletter for everyone, but especially for the Integralists, whether or not they recognize themselves in this fashion today.

Integralists are people who have opinions about opinions and philosophies about philosophies. In other words, we are capable of “going meta” when we think, and therefore we encounter cognitive capacities and intellectual features that other people do not so often reach.

When this happens over a long period of time, we become rangers of the further reaches of mind. Our intelligence gets up-leveled in several interesting ways. For example, we may see patterns that connect some of our opinions in the past to some of our opinions in the present, seen in comparison to similar patterns in others, and thereby give us insight into “development”.

By “development”, I mean the process of growth or evolution from one stage/wave of being to another along one or more modes/lines of intelligence (e.g., increasing in cognitive development from preoperational to concrete operational in the mode of cognition, or rising from conventional to postconventional in the mode of moral development).

Integralists have opinions about opinions, but not in the crude sense that we judge other people’s opinions. Rather, we are capable of mentally “stepping back” from our own opinions and those of others and taking a view that synthesizes a new opinion based only partly on what has come before. Put somewhat more precisely, we grow our cognitive line by expanding the dynamism with which we take perspectives on perspectives, and thus experience increasingly subtle states of consciousness.

You may think that everybody does that, and you would have a good point. Many people can objectively see their own points-of-view and those of others at least occasionally. But arguably not everyone does it as reliably, rigorously, and creatively as the well-practiced Integralist.

The Integral Superpower

Basically, thinking “meta” (and “meta” about “meta”) is the Integralist’s superpower.

If you think that’s overblown, perhaps you haven’t been reading many amazing Integralists working today (Ken Wilber, Steve McIntosh, Sean Esbjörn-Hargens, Jeff Salzman, Diane Musho Hamilton, Sally Kempton, Joran Oppelt, Robert Kegan, Terri O’Fallon, Zak Stein, Corey DeVos, John Dupuy, Layman Pascal, and many more) or the stunning philosophers in the Integral philosophical heritage (Clare Graves, Jean Gebser, Tielhard de Chardin, Sri Aurobindo, G.W.F. Hegel, Plotinus, Nagarjuna, Yang Hsiüng, and others).

Although thinking “integrally” really is a sort of superpower, Integralists aren’t born that way. We evolve into it. Everyone’s path is unique, but not entirely unique. Everyone’s path starts from many diverse influences, but it eventually coheres around shared threads. Sometimes the path is blocked by difficult personal or cultural traumas, and skillful maneuvers are necessary for healing and navigating around.

The rough outline of an Integralist’s path can be told with several different storylines. Some say they arrived as an Integralist only at the later stages of satisfying a hierarchy of needs (Maslow) from physiological to safety to belongingness to self-esteem to self-actualization to self-transcendence. Others say they arrived as an Integralist only in the later stages of understanding a series of progressive worldviews (Gebser) from the archaic to magic to mythical to rational to integral. And some say they only found their “Integral religion” in the last stage of a faith-based sojourn (Fowler) from intuitive-reflective to mythic-literal to synthetic-conventional to individuative-reflective.

Look upon any major line of development, be it moral, cognitive, aesthetic, values, ego-maturity, self-identity, or spiritual. When you read the descriptions of the upper levels of any of these modes, you can begin to see patterns that seem to connect them. When you do this (and writings related to Integral Practice can help to prepare you for this work), you may start to see that they are apparently pointing to overlapping endpoints, a sort of cloud of knowing and unknowing or a vast Spirit or Emptiness which pervades and stands in ethical relationship to all things in all worlds.

(When I first saw this for myself, MIND BLOWN.)

The Blessing and Curse of Integralism

The superpower of meta-cognition is a blessing and a curse.

The blessing is that you can see a sort of organic and evolving unity underlying a lot of things. You may even get glimpses of the mystical connections between all things and all beliefs in all persons and all cultures throughout all of history. With such awesome potential calling to you, YOU, the Integralist, might be able to exercise nearly Solomonic judgment and obtain well-balanced knowledge in all manner of things.

The curse is that seeing isn’t enough. You can possess all manner of meta-frameworks and developmental scholarship, but never achieve wisdom. Some people are even hobbled by the attempt, like the god Icarus with waxen wings who flew too close to the sun. I call this a curse because somehow it seems worse to me to get lost in the wilderness while holding a pretty detailed and accurate map, as opposed to getting lost without having one at all.

The proper way to approach the task of becoming an Integralist is to take things one step at a time. Start with a few books, and then stop for a while. Do inner work that’s balanced in many different simultaneous aspects (e.g., weight training, T’ai Chi, psychotherapy, Vipassana, journaling, and “Big Mind”-style voice dialog). Use your integrally-informed bodymind to build a healthier physique, stronger relationships, more satisfying sexuality, more appropriate careers, and rid yourself of addictions. Don’t become obsessed with mental maps or go chasing “peak experiences” to the point of losing ground in any area of your life. Make new friends who consider themselves Integralists, even if your best option is social media.

Almost every Integralist I know is passionately devoted to making themselves and the world “the best they can be” and realizing their unique self-awareness and enlightenment in service to the world. And they’re still deeply humble people who know they will be working out their “kinks” and “flaws” until the day they die. Isn’t that awesome?

Once you’ve been practicing as a novice Integralist for a few years and joined some discussion and practice groups, you’re well on the way to discovering your own inner Integral superhero. I think you might learn that what you’ve been striving for all along is not development, but wholeness-in-partiality.

Wholeness-in-partiality can be found at any stage of development, and is as full as Wholeness ever is, to anyone at all.  The partiality changes in development, like a bitty acorn shooting up to a massive oak tree, but once you find the Whole at any moment in the process you can let go of the endless striving to be more and to do more.

That’s why I differ a bit with some other Integralists who talk mostly about “evolution” (getting more complex) and “growing up” (maturing). Yes, that’s important. But we are also “involving” (getting simpler) and “deepening” (getting more well-grounded in nature and our embodiment), and attending to the subtle relationship between evolution and involution.

Integralism is a Thing.

Maybe you’ve never heard of Integralism before, but I assure you that I’m not joking. It’s real, by this or another name, and you can find thousands of smart and interesting people attempting to work out our lives with an “integrally-informed” or “metamodern” or “evolutionary” philosophy. Just don’t call Integralism a religion or assume that we all love New Age spirituality.

And please don’t confuse our Integralism with Roman Catholic conservativism or 19th- and 20th-century fascist movements.

The Integralists also known as Evolutionaries have schools in California, deep roots in Colorado, meetups in New York City, and international conferences in Budapest and Bogotá. We wear labels like Metamodernist or don’t even bother labeling ourselves, and that’s great. (Integralists tend to view labels of self-identity pretty lightly, like apparel to don or toss off according to the situation.)

Minor distinctions are important to some people. Some of us hate to use “Integralism”, the noun, and insist on only using the adjective, “Integral”. Personally, I prefer to think of “Integralism” as a “philosophy of life” and “Integral” as a norm or quality within that worldview.

In this modern world, it’s a minor miracle that you can “step back from” the culture wars, the religious wars, the political wars, and the academic wars. You can also “up-level” the cultural intelligence you bring to almost any topic, all without too many years of study and effort. But study everything hard and learn all you need, it does take time and patience.

Congratulations, if you think you might want to become an Integralist (and if you’re thinking “meta” about that view), then you’re on the right path for doing so.

I’m glad you found me. Don’t think of me as a teacher or guide to YOUR path, I’m just a person working on MY path, and I don’t know what is right for you. Also, let me add for the record: I speak only for myself, not for any other individuals or groups. Not every Integralist agrees with me about everything, certainly not.

This newsletter, like my spiritual autobiography from more than 15 years ago, is about my journey of being an Integralist.

I will be back, hope to see you again.

or: Are the Flaws in the Integral Worldview Bugs or Features?

Perhaps there’s a simple technological solution that could really improve the testy culture between Ken Wilber and his critics, and between all seekers after truth in the Integral world, if they would only borrow a method from the software development world.

But first, why is this idea important? Read ahead a few paragraphs if you’re already familiar with the situation involving critics in the Integral community. Every philosophy or theological perspective has its critics, some from within a tradition or school of thought and some from without. Integral has attracted many dozens of critics opposed to Integral theory and its aims, most of whom are amateur scholars who coalesce on a site called (a bit ironically, I think) Integral World.

At first, Ken Wilber (the leading Integral theorist) engaged with the site’s better criticisms, but eventually the tone soured and there was a falling out between him and his organization and Frank Visser, the Editor of Integral World. When Wilber started his own blog at kenwilber.com, there was even a spirited blog rant (part of a series of posts on playing with and healing the shadow) that got under the skin of Frank and other critics so deeply that Frank is still complaining about it more than a decade later.

Wilber hasn’t engaged with critics much since then for a variety of reasons (though he has contributed several new books and engaged in a wide variety of constructive projects), and the critics have proffered the narrative that Wilber refuses to engage them because his system has been destroyed by the devastating nature of their blog commentary.

This feud leaks into all sorts of acrimonious interactions in the Integral scene and I suspect it keeps many people who are interested in learning more about Integral Theory from pursuing their studies further. Because the critics who gather at Integral World believe (truly or falsely) that they are not being heard and their concerns haven’t been addressed in the past and still aren’t being addressed, over time they get louder and meaner and more desperate for recognition.

If Integral Theory is a sort of “superhuman operating system”, then it needs a bug tracking database.

Back when I used to work at Microsoft, they called their primary tool RAID (get it, like the brand of pesticide?). Everyone enters problems into the database and then they are triaged by program managers and acted upon by the original person who logged it. Duplicate bugs are identified and removed. And ultimately the most serious issues get escalated higher and higher up the food chain. But they are all commented on. They are all given attention. Even the ones that are dismissed are shown the respect of a careful process.

What’s more, not every “Ken Wilber is a selfish asshole” comment is considered a legitimate bug to be tracked. There are standards and protocols for entering bugs into the system. You have to document its reproducibility. You have to show that it has a serious impact on the product’s usability. You even have to rank its priority level. The very process of trying to document a bug for inclusion in the database requires one to engage with the product, its specifications and design intent, and to investigate all related prior bugs to see if a similar one has been entered and determine how it was acted upon.

Sometimes something that looks like a bug from one perspective is really a product feature when more perspectives are taken into consideration. That case of mistaken identity usually gets resolved satisfactorily by the person who enters the bug into the system once they have been educated about why the feature exists in the first place.

Sometimes something that looks like a bug really is a bug, but it can’t be solved without breaking the system, at least not until the system goes through a major new product release. Then it can be entered into a list of potential new features to add when the system is redesigned. Nobody is really happy about this sort of resolution, but at least the issue is being tracked and might get fixed down the road.

Altogether, regardless of what happens with the bug, the very process of entering bugs into the system transforms a disgruntled source of potential mischief and anarchy into a constructive, contributing member of a cohesive team working together on a common purpose. Is there a reason why this coudn’t work that I don’t see? It seems like a perfectly sound idea to me. If this idea gets support, count me in as someone willing to help execute it.

Why Ken Wilber’s Most Ferocious Critic Isn’t Happy

This article was originally posted on December 3, 2014, but not much has changed regarding Frank Visser’s criticisms of Integral philosophy. He’s still disappointed and beating a neo-Darwinist drum.

I read Frank Visser’s “Reaching Out to the World” with appreciation and, at times, exasperation, particularly the conclusion in which he instructs the reader as to the “proper” way of approaching Integral philosophy. Here are my initial reactions, for what they’re worth.Reading Visser’s essay, which he calls a new chapter of his decade-old book Ken Wilber: Thought as Passion, helps me to know Wilber better and see the Integral community and its detractors more clearly. That is a huge gift.

I wish Frank nothing but good tidings for the future of his projects, especially Integral World.For those who don’t know who he is, Visser is an intellectual biographer of Wilber’s who over time became one of his greatest detractors. After all these years, Frank admits that he is “disappointed”, actually a kind of “triple disappointment.”

He regrets (1) that Wilber’s understanding of science was not “that deep”, that (2) Wilber did not respond to online critics who contributed to his website (which was formerly called The World of Ken Wilber, BTW), and that (3) the Integral community didn’t seem to mind.All three of these disappointments color Frank’s new chapter, which is really sort of an old chapter for those of us who have been paying at least a little attention over the past decade. Let’s take a look at each of them.

The First Disappointment

I guess Visser’s critique of Wilber’s take on neo-Darwinism is almost supposed to be self-evidently true, a knock down by a giant of a 98-pound weakling in a grotesquely mismatched prize fight. But it doesn’t really convince. These two paragraphs are the crux of Visser’s argument, beginning with a Wilber quote:

In Integral Spirituality (2006) he [Ken Wilber] states:

That drive—Eros by any other name—seems a perfectly realistic conclusion, given the facts of evolution as we understand them. Let’s just say there is plenty of room for a Kosmos of Eros.[33]

This can be considered the core of Wilber’s philosophy—more central than holons, heaps, or artifacts; quadrants, levels, lines, states and all that jazz—not only the process of biological evolution, but the cosmos as a whole, is governed by a mysterious spiritual Force. Apparently, for Wilber, there is no other way to explain nature’s complexities. He is inspired in this respect by A.N. Whitehead’s process philosophy, which postulates an immanent divine force in evolution.[34]

While I have defended similar notions in the past, and have even criticized Wilber for misrepresenting the esoteric view of evolution[35] which postulates a divine upward drive towards complexity, after years of studying the field of biological evolution I would no longer hold that view. On the contrary, I discovered that science has offered many plausible explanations for the existence of cosmological and biological complexity. This makes the postulation of a spiritual Eros in the Kosmos rather premature. So instead of challenging Wilber from the perennialist position, which I did in my earlier writings, over the years I have challenged him on Integral World from the naturalistic position of science.[36] Let’s really get post-metaphysical. Let’s get physical![37] Though Wilber may be strong in the fields of mind and culture, his coverage of the domains of life and matter leaves much to be desired. This casts grave doubts on Wilber’s claim for a Theory of Everything.

How about that! If you hadn’t been paying attention, when Wilber opposed metaphysics Visser was for it, but later apparently Ken sort of came around and acknowledged that his work had one metaphysical premise, and just then Visser coincidentally turns around and becomes anti-metaphysical. Well, okay, fine. They’re both permitted to evolve, aren’t they?

I would ask you to notice two things about the Wilber quote chosen by Visser. First, that Wilber describes Eros as a “perfectly realistic conclusion”. Second, Wilber says that “there is plenty of room” for Eros in his philosophy. Wilber nowhere invokes Spirit as an “explanation” for the universe.

Visser, to counter Wilber’s posture, is driven to the extreme position of saying that he wants to get rid of Eros entirely — any notion of an evolutionary end-point however dimly perceived and understood, any notion of creative intelligence anywhere, perhaps even a divine spark of some kind — because it is no longer needed after one has fully absorbed the fact that “science has offered many plausible explanations”.

It’s not difficult to see the flaw in Visser’s hand and Wilber’s trump card. Basically he neglects the way that the particular constraints given to scientific research — e.g., its insistence that only that which is perceivable by the senses or their extension by instruments is real — mean that science doesn’t really attempt to address metaphysical or spiritual truths at all. Wilber is not denying science its particular perspective on reality, only complementing it with methodologies of interiority which have within themselves the potential, it is claimed, to reveal Spirit.

Wilber does not begin his inquiry by “postulating Spirit”, he concludes his inquiry with an acknowledgement of a door for Spirit. Spirit is invoked as a realization, not an explanation. Ken makes room for both spirit and science. Visser, the former perennialist, meanwhile takes a position that seems indistinguishable from scientism (“Let’s get physical!”). One of these two philosophers allows science and spirit to co-exist and mutually inform one another through divergent methodologies and the other thinker insists only on room for one and defiantly jumps on the other’s back. Is it any wonder that some of us out here in the gallery see only one “Integralist” in the room?

The Second Disappointment

Frank Visser’s second great disappointment is Ken Wilber’s supposed failure to address his online critics. Firstly, it might help Frank’s case a bit if he were to acknowledge his self-interest in the topic. What, is Wilber’s limited engagement with his website — the largest collection of critical articles on him — hurtful and bad for business? I think a basic fact-finding on the matter would reveal that Wilber has written many hundreds of footnotes and other writings responding to critics, and adjusted his thought in five major iterations based largely on his attempts to honor and transcend legitimate criticisms.

It’s hard for me to think of another major public intellectual who has been more willing to change. Ken’s just sorta, well, picky about who he engages with. You can imagine why if you’ve read some of the attacks on Integral World (unfortunately not atypical is Joe Corbett’s diatribe calling Ken Wilber a “big selfish asshole”). When it comes to policing incivility in public discourse around Integral philosophy, I suspect that Visser doesn’t have the moral high ground he thinks he has.

The notorious Wyatt Earp affair in 2006 didn’t win over Frank or other critics who pleaded to Ken for a response, any response, despite the fact that it was indeed a response. It just wasn’t the reply Frank or other critics wanted to hear. In an over-the-top missive in the classic genre of “blog rant”, Ken made some really powerful, stinging points that needed to be said. They were the teal/turquoise elephants in the room.

And then Ken decided the most skillful reply was to take a breather and let his students get their hands dirty if they chose to do so while he focused on building the Integral enterprise. Arguably, it was his best option. That’s what I thought at the time. It did have a dynamic way of getting some of the Integral community’s shadows out of the closet for sure, Ken’s included. The whole affair helped open my eyes to the real world challenges of embodying the Integral worldview in one’s being.

The Third Disappointment

Visser’s third disappointment is with the Integral community itself because they “ignore” the “intellectual problems” that he finds so troublesome and, well, disappointing. Apparently he wishes everyone would study neo-Darwinism like he has, because if only they would, they would see that Wilber’s isn’t a Theory of Everything at all. Personally I always thought there was a good chunk of well-intended humor in the title of Wilber’s book A Theory of Everything, but I digress.

Of course, I have no problem with folks who are interested in academic debates to read some good biology books and form opinions about what they read. If they’ve genuinely got an Integral consciousness they will be a little more fluent in the Upper Right quadrant, and if they don’t got it, they will no doubt absolutize the Upper Right quadrant and find some better use of their time than chasing Integral rainbows (I mean, interiors).

For Visser there is nothing “historical” or “groundbreaking” in the Integral project, and anyone with notions to the contrary is suffering from delusions which are no doubt manifesting with the shadow of “inflation”. He concludes:

The proper approach to Wilber’s integral philosophy is therefore differential: some parts of it are strong, some are weak and some are just plain wrong. Above all, let’s de-glamorize, de-hype, de-mystify, de-idealize the integral project.[54] Only in such a climate can we sort out what’s valuable and what isn’t. The current strongly commercialized and even evangelical (“spread the message to as many people as possible!”) integral culture makes this sober reflection virtually impossible and even suspect.[55]

And here is where I most strongly disagree with him, even if (yikes!) it would at first glance put me on the ghastly side of glamor, hype, mystification, and idealization of the lower-case integral project. It’s true that I have seen some of that inflation of ego and purpose, and idealization, in myself and others. And I think it’s fine to point it out when it can be harmful to our work. Certainly it isn’t necessary to remind the world that Integral is going to save the world because that might just make the world want to NOT be saved out of spite. Frank is doing a service here, to an extent, and so are all the folks who would join with him in this critique. To an extent.

But it’s also sort of like pushing a baby to the ground when she is just learning to walk. It’s stupid and mean. Those of us riding the second-tier or integral or evolutionary wave, we are like babies. We are the future. And we are trying to walk for Pete’s sake.

We Wilberians (if I must use the term) see Ken Wilber as perhaps the most important thinker who sees what is all around us and is helping to move us forward. Integralists of all affinities, Wilberian or otherwise (a nod to Don Beck and Spiral Dynamics), are all pushing the envelope forward. This is difficult work, and we get very little support from traditionalists, modernists, and postmodernists. On some days it feels like they’re pushing us down every chance they get. We have a long ways to go before we can rest, and we need to believe in ourselves and our fellows.

“Properly Integral”

We need wise, humble critics, not aversion to criticism. But just as importantly, we need to inhabit the Integral worldspace and turn our criticism outside ourselves to the world beyond. A proper sense of our role in history is in order, for a due sense of great responsibility along with humility, so we don’t under-tote the goods we have to sell. And make no mistake, ideas need to be communicated and promoted and the best ideas don’t always win. One looks about at the paucity of Integral ideas in the intellectual marketplace and really has to be incredulous at the notion that Integral has been over-marketed!

Integral ideas need a healthy ecosystem in which they can flourish and impact the broader culture. That’s where the Integral movement comes in, the healthy development of which ought to be a goal of every integralist, not the brunt of condescending attacks on egoic “inflation”. Like poets, we are underappreciated visionaries.

There’s room in Integral circles for people who agree with Frank and want the discussion of Integral to be robust in academic domains. But Integral is more than the philosophy of science or interdisciplinary meta-theory. And I hope to God the critics of “inflation” don’t succeed in discouraging Integral’s uptake in the culture by means of attacks on “commercialization” and “evangelization”. (Speaking of commercialization, it’s ironic to note that it’s Visser’s website that has Google ads peddling $299 SEO Services and Amazon affiliate links giving him a dime off the sale of every one of Ken Wilber’s book sold there, whereas Integral Life at least seems to market only its own products.)

If Integral ideas spread, as I hope they do, it will because many of us ignore Frank’s recommendation of the “proper approach to Wilber’s philosophy” and instead allow ourselves to be remade more wise, more whole, more fully human … and share our beautiful Self/selves abundantly with the rest of the world for the sake of love, with the goal of truth. Visser’s disappointments are sad for him, yes, but they don’t have to be our own.

In a small way, I hope to promote a healthy Integral ecosystem in the blogosphere through my blogging. My intention is to add a mostly outward-facing beacon into the territory of spiritual and philosophical and cultural commentary weblogs.

Lots of People Are Already Swimming in an Integral Sea. Are You One of Them?

When spirituality is based on an “Integral” spirit, it opens the door wide for expanding human potential for rich inner development, cultural progress, artistic creativity, and spiritual renewal. In fact, you might have an “Integral” spiritual sensibility or tendency without even knowing it. Here are the Top 10 signs to look for that will tell you if your temperament and worldview might already be on the way to becoming “Integral”:

10. You don’t find yourself easily offended by slights to your ego, subculture, or group identification; therefore “political correctness” has little appeal to you.

At the same time, you intuitively tend to avoid causing others unnecessary pain through your words or deeds. You don’t try to silence or shout down those who disagree with you. Compassion towards the disadvantaged and marginalized is your priority, not remaining comfortable in your preconceptions about being right. But everyone is marginalized about something! Everyone suffers in some ways and is privileged in other ways.

You understand that freedom of expression is an important value for universities to teach, but colleges ought also be cauldrons of pushing the envelope forward in terms of what is possible for social justice; accordingly, these interests must be balanced through both/and solutions, not either/or thinking.

You realize that there are more ways to work for justice than complaining that people are being insensitive. You also realize that there are many levels of justice that look different depending on your particular perch in life, and ultimately all human efforts at justice will fall short of our ideals.

9. You have come to a compassionate stance with regard to religious fundamentalists and traditionalist zealots because you recognize that their own stage of evolution may be less than your own.

You know that everyone has a part of the truth. You know that many of the worst problems in the world are caused by people who think they have the full truth when they only have a part.

You believe sacred texts such as the Bible are a source of wisdom, even if they contain many teachings which aren’t useful today.

You pick your battles for justice carefully and strategically, not by reacting out of anger or fear.

Belief in spiritual evolution means you run the risk of looking like an elitist to others, but you have to just shrug it off. You don’t pick your beliefs because they are convenient or fit in with the expectations of your social group, but because they seem to best represent the True, Good, and Beautiful. Because fundamentalists and ideological conservatives are trying their best to do the same, you can identify with a part of their own station of life.

Fundamentalists have myths that they take as literal, absolute truths, and you know that this is a path that you’ve outgrown. At the same time, you’ve noticed that hardcore atheists also have a fundamentalist orientation of their own!

Wherever you look, whether it’s in New Age spirituality books or the coffee social of your twelve-step social or the biased headlines on Huffington Post or The Drudge Report you see people spout beliefs about reality naively as if they were merely “a given”. But you realize that reality is constructed of many complex, interlocking systems and paradigms without which we cannot see things clearly.

8. You don’t think spirituality and religion are antithetical.

Whether or not you have found a spiritual community, you know that being fully human is not strictly an individual affair. Everything people know about spirituality comes from religious experience, passed down from generation to generation through lineages dedicated to following practices of spiritual development. Although spirituality can be extracted from religion like chicken broth from the carcass of a chicken, it isn’t necessarily going to be as tasty or nourishing (but you’re definitely less likely to choke!)

You know no person is an island. You may even admire the strong bonds of commitment and devotion shown by the religiously orthodox or traditional, and you long for deeper relations with people in your community and — through virtual communities and/or travel — around the world. When someone asks if you believe in God, before you say yes or no, part of you wonders what they mean by “God” and questions whether you are both talking about the same thing. Perhaps as Integral philosophers say there are various “levels of God”, and you could be talking about the same reality but using different words that fit into adjacent worldviews.

Perhaps once you were allergic to religion, but now you find yourself with a more ambivalent feeling. There are some religious communities you could consider joining, or at least spiritual organization dedicated to common practices for holistic well-being. When you hear religious friends calling “none of the above” people narcissists or fluffy, or you hear spiritual friends calling religious people “nuts” and “fundamentalists”, you cringe at the either/or thinking. You are called to see a larger picture that can bring both things together.

7. You don’t look for “explanations” of religion but seek comprehensive approaches that include individual and collective dimensions of spiritual experience in subjective and objective perspectives.

Religion isn’t merely a subject of interest to biologists, psychologists, anthropologists, social historians, or theologians. It’s not merely an objective thing that you can toss aside. You see it as much more complex: there are the institutions and organizations that collectively transmit historical teachings and lineages of practice; there are communities and cultures that put the teachings into practice through ethical and moral behavior, community service, activism, philanthropy, and so on; there are individual beliefs and behaviors that are the result of religious adherence or spiritual work; and then there’s the whole realm of “inner work”, the spirituality that aligns an individual to stages of maturation in the self and mind, plus many different states of consciousness.

Of course, you believe scientific study of religion in comparative perspective is a valuable angle to take… but you see how it only asks specific questions and doesn’t address any questions other than the ones that it’s asking about. Therefore, it is silent on many of the important dimensions of spirituality and religion that you recognize to exist.

You don’t think science and spirituality are opposed. You don’t want to stay “stuck in your head” all the time; however, at the same time, you want your spirituality to be intellectually solid, not anti-intellectual.

6. You are non-judgmental when appropriate and exercise mature capacities for judgment when appropriate.

Once upon a time, you never judged anyone for anything because you wanted others to like you or because you sought to avoid being judged by others. Perhaps your ego was so sensitive that even the slightest criticism could send you into a tailspin of self-doubt. Back then, you gravitated to spiritual groups where there was no “cross-talk” so nobody could say anything that might be at all shame-inducing or moralistic, and you sought out therapists or counselors who would just listen to you and give you the acceptance you thought you needed.

But now, you realize that you can’t avoid judgement regarding values, ranking of opinions, ascertaining the merit of relative truths, calling foul when you see something amiss, and so on. You realize that judgment is a skill that can be honed and sharpened so that it can be more conscious, useful, and wise. So now you’re getting bored hanging around people with whom you can never say what’s really on your mind.

At the same time, you have come to recognize a piece of your own shadow in everything you judge. Sometimes you find yourself judging others for some truth about yourself that you would rather not look at. It’s not easy to face up to, but you do so courageously and seek to grow from self-awareness.

You don’t think spiritual people have to be nice all the time. You know that anger — even rudeness — can have a healthy place in the spiritual life. You are skeptical when you hear of spiritual people blaming sick people for causing their own illnesses. You want to be free of shame, but still take responsibility for mistakes and shortcomings without blaming every problem on other individuals or classes of people.

5. You reject beliefs that insist on classifying people rigidly into victims and perpetrators.

You know that morality is very often an ambiguous and complex affair with aspects in self, nature, culture, and society at many different levels of understanding. Naturally, when you hear people wielding a rigid ideology that divides the world into two categories, one of which is good and the other of which is evil, you just know it is far too simplistic.

So, when an act of violence or violation is alleged to have occurred, you know that it’s important not to rush to judgment. Instead, you seek to gather a combination of subjective experiences and objective facts that together illuminate what happened and allow you to offer a mature discernment.

Ultimately, Spirit knows no absolute distinctions between “good” and “evil” or “victim” and “perpetrator”; every person has light and dark within themselves, and sometimes “victims” are wolves in sheep’s clothing and sometimes “perpetrators” are acting for a higher purpose you didn’t even know was possible.

You understand that many –isms such as classism, sexism, racism, and so forth, are wrong and need to be addressed; at the same time, you know that these terms are abstractions that obscure as well as reveal truths about a complex world. They are socio-cultural conventions which emerged in the context of a world evolving in greater degrees of Spirit and reflect the concerns of earlier stages in religious and cultural development. You believe strongly in human liberation, but think the ways that most people think of liberation are too limiting.

4. You reject overly simplistic answers to complex questions.

You further realize that our beliefs about ultimate reality should not seek to diminish, sentimentalize, or rationalize the mysterious and awe-inspiring nature of life. Likewise you try to avoid supposedly certain answers for understanding the mystery of death. Whether you believe in heaven and hell, reincarnation, or are agnostic about the afterlife, you know that human life is purposeful and our actions make a difference in this world.

You understand that denial of death is the hallmark of an ego that doesn’t understand its true nature, its higher Self. Perhaps you understand “Self” as your own Higher Power. Perhaps it is a statement about what is really real (i.e., your metaphysics). Or perhaps it is “post-metaphysical”, meaning that it a statement that could be true if enacted within a framework of constructed meaning-making.

Looking back on your life so far, you see many different ways you’ve believed — in the magical spirituality of early childhood, in the rational rebelliousness of your adolescence, in the pluralistic relativism of your college days, and now it’s something different from all of those. It’s inclusive. It’s holistic (or tries to be). It cares deeply about saving the world for future generations, but it is aware of the ways that revolutionary ideals can easily go astray and cause harm. In short, you’re wiser now than you have been in earlier days, but you might be lacking a label to put on your way of being in the world.

3. You are concerned about ecology, justice, and development not only in your community, but for all people around the world.

You are concerned to alleviate the suffering and contribute to the holistic development of all sentient beings. You may have evolved beyond thinking only about people in your community or ethnic group or nation.

You may have discovered a “world-centric worldview”, one which realizes that in the 21st century it isn’t good enough to only think locally but also to think globally. You are deeply concerned by environmental concerns and protecting the natural world for future generations, but you know that technology isn’t the root of all evils; it can sometimes be the solution.

Thinking locally deepens your vision. Thinking globally expands your vision. And thinking in terms of holistic development — growth in consciousness and cultural evolution as well as wealth and ecological sustainability — means that you are bringing depth (vertical) and expansion (horizontal) dimensions together.

Now, you listen to other people talk and you sometimes wonder how it is that they only see one part of the picture and decry the other parts as foul, whereas you are coming to see how all the parts fit together, almost as if they were different parts of the same organism. (And perhaps, you think, they are!)

2. You realize the importance of having maps of human nature and evolutionary potential that are capable of integrating vastly different ideas and methods.

In the past, when you were uncertain and didn’t know where to turn, you looked to the counsel of a trusted adult. You had teachers or parents or coaches you guided you until you were ready to get by on your own. And of course, you had books and school to teach you the guide-posts for living. But these were not enough!

You had to develop an independent streak that questioned everything and everyone. You didn’t want to just receive established wisdom, you demanded to know why it was true and look at the evidence for yourself. In this manner, you began to think for yourself and felt the wisdom of Plotinus to Hamlet: “To thine one self be true!”

Eventually, your independent streak discovered something remarkable about reality: it was far too diverse and complex for any one person to figure out everything for themselves! You were discovering that other people who also had independent streaks had been studying the hidden mysteries, esoteric wisdom, hidden connections, systemic processes, meta-systemic interrelationships, paradigmatic models, and cross-paradigmatic interoperations for some time! These were marvelous thinkers whose ways of thinking were different than anything you had previously encountered. They were thinking at a “higher level” and pulling your mind along with them. The more you studied their maps of human nature and potential, the more you began to sift through all the parts within yourself that were fragmented in order to come closer to a greater whole.

1. You aren’t afraid to see your own divinity married to your own humanity, inside and out, in self, nature, culture, and social perspectives.

You know what “divinity” means even if you can’t fully put it into words. Divinity is the Source and Spirit and their ultimate unity, the Alpha and Omega and their ultimate reconciliation, the Creator and Creation and Redemeer, the Dao. You know what “divinity” means, and you are sure that it includes you — in your uniqueness and in everything you are — but it also is something greater than you, or at least the “you” that you have taken yourself to be.

Once you were a “seeker”, but now you see that That for which you sought is “always already” present, and was never gone. Paradoxically, it is always That Which Is Arising, so you find yourself drawn deeper into mysteries and stories and hidden aspects of reality and evolutionary emergents. Even though you have the answers you once sought, life continues to be interesting. In fact, you’ve never felt yourself more creative and alive.

Now you’re finding ways to celebrate erotic energy as well as spiritual energy because they are ultimately one. This means that you give sex a unique role for encountering beauty, expressing blissful play, exercising ethical behavior, and for giving and receiving love. You aren’t afraid to talk about subtle energies or core principles of reality: perhaps yin and yang and yung or masculine and feminine and transgender (or two-spirit). You know that our gender and sexual roles are biologically, culturally, and sociologically conditioned; at the same time you recognize that there are meaningful cross-cultural patterns and universals that we can benefit from understanding.

You may worry about arrogance sometimes, but you don’t think pride is the worst sin. You know that having self-esteem is important and that it is only genuine when it is based on recognition of your intrinsic worth, gorgeous uniqueness, and inner divinity. You know it’s safe to “come out of the closet” about both your shadows and your light, and doing so is central to your spiritual journey.  You strive to overcome all limited conceptions of who you are into a fully authentic sense that accepts everything that arises in an integral embrace as not distinct from your own highest Self.

Now score yourself. Did you get at least 5 out of 10?

Congratulations, if this story about spirituality rings more true than false to you, then you’re on your way to discovering an Integral Spirituality for yourself!

Three Ways of Looking at Appreciation and Criticism

(Photo Credit: fizkes/BigStock.com)

Here are three ways of looking at appreciation including my latest understanding of appreciation as “the unifying force of mature integral interiority”. The first comes from the late, great Dick Bolles and the others are both mine, at different points in my writing career.

Dick Bolles: “There’s a Meanness Abroad in the Land”

Richard Nelson Bolles (March 19, 1927 – March 31, 2017) was an Episcopal clergyman and the author of the best-selling job-hunting book, What Color is Your Parachute?

From the John Hunters’ Bible (“There’s A Meanness Abroad in the Land”)

This is a criticism of critics. Just a tiny bit of irony, in that!

I was reading Newsweek today, and found a review of war films, written by Caryn James. She is a well-known movie critic. I don’t want to pick on her, she’s probably a very nice woman, but she does serve up food for thought about all critics. She was reviewing the new series about World War II, by Steven Spielberg and Tom Hanks. And she had nothing good to say about it. She also had little good to say about The Hurt Locker, the film which just cleaned up at the Oscars. She said that Kathryn Bigelow’s dazzling filmmaking “doesn’t pause to let you realize that suspense and bravery are everything here.” I thought the film was about nothing else but. I went to watch it twice, because I was so entranced with her examination of the virtues and defects of such bravery. (“War is a drug.”)

In many of the reviews I read daily, on a whole range of subjects besides filmmaking, I am so struck with the underlying view the critics seem to have about intelligence. Review after review bespeaks the idea of “look how intelligent I am, I can see – more than most – everything that’s wrong with this.” (Whatever the this may be.) I was raised with a very different view of intelligence: it valued “look how intelligent I am, I can see – more than most – all the things there are to appreciate, about this.”

In our day, and perhaps in other days as well, it is a far rarer soul who makes appreciation the defining motif of his or her life, than those who make criticism their defining goal. Criticism is easy; it takes no brains to say what’s wrong with something. Appreciation however, is difficult; you sometimes have to fight to see things to appreciate, digging for example beneath ugly surface impressions, to see some shining beauty underneath. That’s why prejudice flourishes. It takes brains to see what there is to appreciate in every man and woman who was ever born. Which should be the goal of every intelligent man or woman. Civilization never decays or vanishes because of a lack of criticism in a society; it decays or vanishes because of a lack of appreciation in that society. As a direct consequence of this, that society tends to preserve the commonplace, while it casually throws away treasures. And criticism causes more meanness to be abroad, in the land.

Every critic begins with assumptions, usually unexamined, that they use to justify their hammering the thing they are examining. For example, Caryn James’ assumption here, in reviewing historical war films like The Hurt Locker, is that such films must have “a cultural resonance today,” and feel “relevant.” She has no patience with “outdated ideas” that were dear, she says in the past, like “justice is on our side,” or “warfare was about turf,” or “platitudes about heroism.” She criticizes The Hurt Locker for “ignoring the urgent question of whether the war should be fought at all.” In other words, if she had been making that film, she would have been sure it dealt with that question. Fortunately, no such obligation was laid upon Kathryn Bigelow. She was free to make her own film, not Caryn James’es.

In critics’ articles or blogs, there’s always just a little bit of “Ah, if I were king….(or queen) this is what I would have done.” The one notable exception to this is Roger Ebert, whom I read devotedly, just because he looks for things to appreciate in films that other critics dismiss out of hand.

Now, about history: just because the past was different from the present, with different values and assumptions, doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be depicted. Our history is what defines people, and nations. Show me only a man’s present circumstances, and I may be bewildered by his actions. But tell me that man’s history and I will understand him much more completely, and find much to appreciate in him. Our past is important, and so are nations’ pasts. We didn’t just come into this world fully-hatched, and fully-born. We came into a context, a family, a community, a country, with traditions and values that were important to them, then; and therefore important to us now. In a word, show us our past, and make us really feel our history vividly, and then we will find much more to appreciate about the present. That is what the producers of The Pacific have done, and that is what Kathryn’s The Hurt Locker has done, magnificently.

There’s no way around it: we need more “appreciators” in our society: men and women who, from the beginning, set out to make their lives all about appreciating others, even if it requires some hard thinking. And who think it takes more brains to appreciate than it does to criticize. We need more men and women to make appreciation the goal of their whole career. These are men and women to admire.

As the great composer of beautiful music, Jean Sibelius, famously said, “No one ever erected a statue to a critic.”

Must we choose between being systematic and original in our thought and deeds?

Joe Perez’s Rising Up (2006)

Here’s a reader’s comment related to my post on defining integral:

Joe, I applaud your independent STEAM streak .. Orienting consciousness maps are a good thing… and – but 🙂 I think following any ‘leaders’ methodology to a ‘t’ restricts one’s own flow of creative juices…

Ah, that’s the rub, isn’t it? In a modern, American culture that places a high premium on having an “independent streak,” and being “leaders (not followers),” and above all not restricting the flow of “one’s own creative juices,” then how the hell do you become a truly systematic thinker? Are we so tied to narcissistic notions of creativity and independence that we are incapable of merging into a more encompassing and ego-shattering whole? Is “that sounds like group think” or “he’s just another Ken Wilber ditto-head” the worst insult we can hurl at something new? Must originality be limited to how we resist something greater than ourselves, and never describe how we surrender?

I think it is possible to be both integral and original, independent and systematic. One way is to latch on to the broad movement called integral and claim that your version of integral is the most correct version, or at least a better version, and point out how other versions leave something important out. If you’re right and persuasive, then perhaps your ideas will have an influence in shaping what counts as truly integral. And then you have demonstrated that you’re both an independent thinker and a systematic thinker. You haven’t erected a new system or demolished the old system; you’ve strengthened the value of the system by correcting its shortcomings.

I imagine that pretty much all good internal criticism of integral would have to look something like that. (By distinguishing between internal and external criticism, I am talking about criticism launched from within a second-tier stage versus criticism launched from a lower stage. An example of second-tier critique is: “This model of reality leaves something important out, obscures valuable distinctions, or fails to incorporate the ideal number of contexts to be truly useful.”) In contrast are criticisms such as “It doesn’t make central to its paradigm the act of listening to marginalized or oppressed minority voices,” or “There’s no rational proof for the supposedly trans-rational benefits of meditation,” which are perfectly valid concerns derived from a first-tier level of analysis. However, even if all first-tier criticisms are granted, a second-tier system remains standing.)

As useful as it is to think about criticism in helping one to develop a sense of distance, originality, and independence of thought, it’s not the only valid approach to life. That would be like saying that the only way to be a creative, integral thinker is to continually search for weaknesses and faults in the foundation of one’s own consciousness. I suspect that such a sentiment is more a holdover from first-tier rationalistic philosophy than truly a second-tier mode of being. Transcending rationalism means finding ways of being appropriately critical in the right time, for the right reasons, and to the right degree, without spending inordinate, unnatural amounts of one’s time and energy in the smashing idols and gods. In other words, as we ascend in stages of consciousness and incorporate more angles in our life-maps, we become more fully rational, not rationalists.

So I think the sentiment that “following any ‘leaders’ methodology to a ‘t’ restricts one’s own flow of creative juices” is a perfectly understandable and ordinary sort of view. And it may be right or it may be wrong, but it’s a recipe for narcissistic abandonment to the self. There’s nothing wrong with a little first-tier “I want what I want and damn anyone who says they’re a leader worth following, this is my life, I’m doing it my way” sort of thinking. I’ve got a healthy “red streak” myself, even as it doesn’t define me. The challenge with STEAM-powered living [a.k.a. AQAL or Integral], as I see it, is to think about the world in a comprehensive and systematic way that defines the proper place and relation of self, other, world, and the Divine, in the context of an evolving world… and to live from that vision as deeply and graciously as possible. If that isn’t being original in this culture and age, then what is?

Appreciation: The Unifying Force of Mature Integral Interiority

Joe Perez’s Experimental Reflections Inspired by the Integral Konstruct of Lingua-U (2018)

Mature Integral consciousness — in technical terms, I’m talking about early Turquoise, a station after the maturation of Second-Tier awareness past Green and Teal called §5.1 in Lingua-U — is the yin of 𝌪 Appreciation to the yang of 𝌒 Philia (Friendship) and the yung of 𝍅 Willing. Whereas Philia (at Formal-Mind) tethers the mind to an object external to itself in order to support or protect the self from frightening realities of “otherness” and “foes” and come to an inner freedom from the vicissitudes of life, Appreciation lifts up an object in order to gain insight in how to Usher it into a more comprehensive worldview and how to Understand it more fully as it is in its own uniqueness and dignity. Furthermore, when Philia and Appreciation are combined, they describe the powerful potentialities available in a community of friends, mutually uplifted in support and appreciation, their individual Wills subsumed into a world-centric Mission.

Furthermore, to fully Appreciate something is to befriend it in a way that enlarges you and it into a larger whole, grounded in a healthy worldview in which all stations of life are given a place of dignity and ordered in a manner that sustains a healthy Gaia (planetary soul). True and good Appreciation does not easily veer off into idolatry or possessiveness, though addiction is a temptation if the appreciation is incorporated too deeply. It is not a stance of taking a good for use or consumption or an idea or dogma for the purpose of making it exclusive and superior to all others. Appreciation requires situating the object into a relatively comprehensive worldview, one that can find a place for something where it can be most useful for the entire realm.

Appreciation is a 𝌮𝌁 Kingly function, psychologically speaking, in consideration of a universal Archetype gendered yin-yin-yin-yin-yung. Speaking intuitively, we may say that the King’s first yin sees its place in the whole order of things; the second yin sees its place relative to other objects in the realm; the third yin sees its place relative to the King himself; the fourth yin perceives what the object is not; and the yung grasps its usefulness. The inner King is able to offer his blessing to the object even when others cannot because he is powerful enough to situate the object, create movement through influence, or even quarantine a potentially harmful object (as a last resort).

If one doesn’t have a healthy and strong relationship to the inner King archetype, one may find it difficult go bless others or offer a full appreciation, mature and wise. Forgive me for the heresy of combining Jung and Wilber, but it is unavoidable! Growing in one’s relationship to the King Archetype is a good thing for development into mature Integral consciousness. (The inner Queen is also essential, though she “comes online” later in the maturity of Integral development when it becomes necessary to Qualify candidates for selection.)

Another way of looking at the role of Appreciation in the emergence of mature Integral consciousness is to note its stabilizing and conservative function in the individual and collective. A psyche in which all the sub-parts or micro-personalities or inner archetypes are appreciated and given a valuable place is a healthier, more integrated inner life. A society of appreciators is much more harmonious than a society of acrimonious critics or rebels. A culture based on the exchange of mutual self-esteem and appreciation is happier and a fuller expression of the Goodness of Existence.

Let me add that within the interiority of the Integral mind there is a three-station dynamic. In the yang or initiatory station, there is noticing “the given” (𝌪⚍). The object is grasped as it is in itself, not as we want it to be, and not as we would expect it to fit into reality based on our preconceived notions and theories. It must be seen in four modalities: its Pitifulness or compassion-inducing partiality, its Figurativeness or way of representing the Image of God, its Distinctiveness including its contribution to diversity, and its Symbolic role. In the yin or responsive station, there is a “giga-sizing” (𝌪⚏) of the object. It must be given an active function relative to every other object in the emerging Global-Mind — thus, maps of human nature, developmental stations, narratives of holonic tenets, and so on, are extremely important now.

Finally, at the yung or unifying station, there is the triple function of “appraisal” (𝌪𝌃) and “appreciation” (𝌪𝌃) and “approval” (𝌪𝌃). Appraisal is the yang-yang move: it looks unflinchingly at how the spaciousness of our own Mind meets resistance in the object. Appreciation is the yin-yin move: it brings the object into the Kitchen of our spirit (which is another way of talking about incorporating it into a mature, healthy, well-functioning ego). Finally, Approval is the yung-yang move. It allows the object to exist within the King’s realm in its own way, circumscribed by its nature and the whole scope of Existence’s requirements. Disapproval does not come easily for early mature Integral consciousness, so this stage of interiority will frequently find itself “collapsing” into earlier modes of reactivity (especially the “polarizing” of objects at Protective-Mind or the “foeing” of objects at Formal-Mind/Amber or the “disapproval/destruction” of objects at Diligent-Mind/Orange or the “shunning” of objects at Systemic-Mind/Green).

or: Is It Necessary to Still Use the Term “Integral”?

In a conversation at Integral Global, Tom Amarque of Lateral Conversations said:

think of it that way: Wilber’s true word is ‘integral’ — he dreamt it, like Einstein dreamt theory of relativity. It is powerful, and in the case of Wilber, we can assume that is more ‘true’ since any word uttered by any postmodernist … because he included it, so to speak. Maybe he dreamt that word because of his his year long studies and meditation, because he found something deeper within himself … something more profound or ‘authentic’ … that is the level I am talking about. And again: While I think there is a lot of usefulness in Wilber’s word … it is still his word. It has limitations. Adopting it without finding a ‘authentic’ voice or word is ‘problematic’ …

I stepped into the conversation to add the following remark:

Tom, Re: “Adopting it [integral] without finding a ‘authentic’ voice or word is ‘problematic’ ..”

A decade ago, it seemed several of Wilber’s green critics were simply watering down his philosophy and changing the name – like something with ‘new paradigm’ in the title. THAT’s not genius, it’s piracy. If something truly new comes along — like Critical Realism for instance — it needs a different name to help people to situate themselves properly.

While there’s certainly a lot to be admired when a spiritual genius invents something big and new, I see a problem with attaching originality to the failure to use perfectly acceptable and useful terms when they exist. Movements need powerful symbols such as the word ‘integral’ to latch on to, or they fail.

Tom Amarque replied:

Joe Perez, Yes, actually I was thinking of you. You certainly synthesized something ‘new’, because, I presume, you had an urge to – let me stay in this metaphysical context – utter a word which fitted your soul or cosmic address. I think that goes hand in hand with a deeper understanding of yourself; hence ‘authenticity’ and truth. And I still think you have to … at least to some degree … get rid of your ‘integral copy-self’ to do so ..

Hi Tom, you may be right about that last part. Who knows how my own evolution of the state of Integral Spirituality will unfold in the future. There are too many variables for me to predict 5 or 10 years ahead…

But let me briefly explain, right or wrong, the most important reason why I think it’s important for me and others to explicitly put themselves within the Integral Spirituality movement at this time (even if they use a somewhat different name): Individuals need to take responsibility to help build a healthy global culture that is BOTH centered at 4th-to-5th-person-perspectives AND genuinely open to higher level perspectives (in my Lingua-U model, from 6th–person’s X-Mind up to 9th-person-perspective, the Una-Mind). So people who today are waking up into systemic cognition, meta-systemic cognition, and cross-paradigmatic thinking can find the sort of community of resonance that allows them to develop the Global-Mind so desperately needed in the world today … AND preserve formative insights from (what Wilber and/or Aurobindo calls) para-mind, meta-mind, over-mind, and super-mind. In other words, if 5th-person-perspective is held up as “all there is”, hello, we’ve got a new sort of flatland: a flatland with a little hill.

So far as I know, there is no other game in town that offers the world what it needs other than Ken Wilber’s oeuvre in general and Integral Theory specifically. Not the Gebserian integralists, not the Cultural Creatives or Evolutionaries who aren’t themselves quite “integrated” yet, not the Spiral Dynamics theorists who don’t think there’s anything worth looking at after Turquoise, not the meta-modernists who have shucked Wilber and chucked the third-tier to boost their appeal among street-smart secularists, etc. Any one of these schools of thought could evolve in the future, but that’s how I see them today.

At this time, only the Wilberian tradition carries this full-spectrum Dharma, for lack of a better phrase. As everyone knows, a specific culture emerged has around Wilber’s philosophy that calls itself Integral. Personally, I think it’s a fine word, but I associate it with the 5th-person-perspective, and everything more complex meta-grammatically is what they call Super-Integral. That term is acceptable and useful enough as well.

So why chuck it? Good words are really hard to come by. Wilber’s certainly built a conveyor belt up to the 5th-person-perspective (and higher when you dig into his total oeuvre), and as a community I think we need to maintain what he’s built, correct its flaws, add to it, and so on. If people don’t “get” at least 5th-person-perspective thinking, they aren’t going to “get” a whole library of possible writings that could be coming in the decades to come by many talented people. We need Integral ideas, culture, and community; we’re all enriched by it, at its best.

The irony in my writing this, perhaps, is that Lingua-U doesn’t require AQAL or Integral Theory. As a sort of Kabbalah of the International Phonetic Alphabet, it reconceives AQAL-like “altitudes” as ArcheStations described by subtle energetic symbols linked to 39 vowels and consonants based on the Sacred Word traditions and ordinary speech of the world’s major languages. If Lingua-U turns out to be successful, it will be Indigo or Violet spiritual technology that could be used by any religious, cultural, or linguistic tradition to steer the course of evolution in Sacred Words or ordinary speech without requiring the adoption of any particular philosophical position.

But inventing Lingua-U would not have been possible without Integral Theory, and the connections between the two haven’t even begun to be explored. Plus, I have to add that we don’t really know what the shortcomings, dangers, and misuses of the new technology are. Nobody knows. With Integral Theory, there is a valuable conveyor belt from Turquoise to Indigo to Violet that will help the entire Integral community to make space for the “real magic” of Lingua-U (if it succeeds) or similar future technologies in their worldviews.

Still, it’s worth asking … if Lingua-U turns out to be successful, then when you’ve got “flying carpets” like Lingua-U, do you still need conveyor belts?