Latest stories

Foundations of an Integral Spirituality

F

Encountering All-That-Is in Emptiness

(Photo: Eldar Nurkovic via BigStock.com)

Spirituality is how we relate to all things. It is how we find an Alpha and Omega in all things, being and becoming within a field of uncertainty and expectation. It is how we arrive at a good point-of-view that is useful for living our complex lives, address pain and suffering, and wrestle with the mystery of death.

Most people are confused about these things, sad to say. They go through life focused on making ends meet, thinking fantastically about how everything works, believing in unevidenced stories that have been handed down to them, losing themselves in pursuits of money and status, or absorbing themselves in “spiritualized” political struggles.

All these confusions contain fragments of a spirituality more whole and complete. Within the struggle to survive, there is an encounter with the Root; within magical performances, there Is an encounter with Nature and the birth of the Magus; within storytelling, there is an encounter with the Logos; within the striving for personal excellence, there is an encounter with the God-Person or Divinity; within politics conflated with absolute ideals, there is an encounter with Gaia and the Liberator.

So, thinking about the different common types of spirituality may take us to simpler principles or archetypes that capture their essence. I have just been talking about Root, Nature, Magus, Logos, God-Person, Divinity, Gaia, Liberator; these are just a few of the many names useful for gathering fragments of the Whole into cohesion.

Religions can help us to gather fragments together, each one stressing a unique set of fragments that separately give us specific, irreducibly unique approaches to the Whole. Irreligiousness can also gather fragments together, e.g., by using science to forge a worldview characterized by empirical evidence and rational analysis.

An Integral Approach to Spirit

When we are talking about Integral spirituality, there are many forms to consider. Some Integralists prioritize one religious tradition over others, e.g., articulating an Integral Buddhism or an Integral Christianity. Other Integralists eschew religion for raw training in the lineages of realized and enlightened gurus. Still others call themselves atheists or pantheists, seeking fulfillment of their human longings in nature and secular pursuits.

Perhaps most Integralists walk a translineage or interspiritual path (like Wayne Teasdale’s) to some degree, borrowing ideas and practices that come from two or more of the above approaches. This is my own preference, personally. As I’ve related in my spiritual memoir, I was baptized and raised Roman Catholic but have since expanded my vision over the years. I remain connected to my roots while developing my faith with insights from Islam and Kabbalah, and other insights from indigenous cultures and the East.

How is it that many thousands of Integralists take such divergent approaches to religion and spirituality while still having enough in common to think of themselves as part of the Integral community?

I say that they have usually accepted certain primal distinctions, elemental principles, or orienting generalizations that give them a relatively sure map through the maze of different philosophical or religious heritages. When you understand that there are common developmental pathways (e.g., those spotted by James Fowler’s stages of faith or the color-coded value memes of Spiral Dynamics or the colorized altitudes of Ken Wilber), you gain a sort of common language for walking your path. You also may cease to identify with merely “traditional values” (blue/amber), “modern liberal faith” (orange), or “postmodern progressive spirituality” (green).  You want a useful way to integrate the warring religious systems to find peace within your own past stages of development and present struggles.

Here’s the essence of it, from my perspective. The Integral approach to Spirit is to learn to speak a “common language” so that you have the freedom to choose to relate to various spiritual heritages stemming from magical, mythic, modern, and postmodern origins without losing yourself in their traps and deficits. You can correct for the problems within your religious inheritance (and yes, there are always issues). Basically, you OUTGROW what you need to leave behind (e.g., shame, ethnocentrism, and materialism) and DEEPEN what you need more of (e.g., moral education, community, and mysticism).  

On Emptiness in Integral Thought

If the essence of Integral spirituality is the use of a lingua franca for conceiving and speaking of how we relate to all things, what is the vocabulary and grammar of this language, and how is this language learned?

Often Integral thinkers speak of reality in terms of one or two primordial distinctions: e.g., emptiness and form, Spirit, God and Creation, Ascent and Descent, All-That-Is, Eros and Agape, infinite and finite, fullness and freedom, or Tao. At other times, we speak of three or four important distinctions. These original distinctions are sometimes the building blocks for making more complex distinctions later; for example, the Spiral Dynamics value memes are influenced by the distinction between agency (yang) and communion (yin).

Today, let’s start by briefly learning one of the most important words in Integral thought: Emptiness. There will be time to talk more about other key terms of Integral-speak later.

Integralists who come from a Buddhist heritage (and just about everyone else, too) import the important principle of Emptiness into the Integral lexicon. Ken Wilber writes in A Brief History of Everything:

Q: Emptiness has two meanings?

KW: Yes, which can be very confusing. On the one hand, as we just saw, it is a discrete, identifiable state of awareness—namely, unmanifest absorption or cessation (nirvikalpa samadi, ayn, jnana samadhi, nirodh, classical nirvana). This is the causal state, a discrete state.

The second meaning is that Emptiness is not merely a particular state among others, but rather the reality of suchness or condition of all states. Not a particular state apart from other states, but the reality or condition of all states, high or low, sacred or profane, ordinary or extraordinary.

If I read this passage as merely a set of fancy words on a page, the words remain ghosts. So long as I remain in an ordinary state of consciousness, I find myself as a separate being characterized mainly by bodily sensations, feelings, and thought processes, and many perceptions of sight and sound. But the practice of meditation – perhaps not enough to generate samadhi, but just enough to create cessation of these thoughts and sensations – allows me to encounter emptiness as an action of unfolding a new causal awareness.

You can examine your own experiences with meditation to relate to what I’ve just spoken from my own experience. This is true of many key terms of Integral spirituality: they can be immediately encountered as empirical qualities already present in your awareness if you look for them in the right way. Stillness illuminates, silence sets you on an isle of sense, and muteness negates mutability. In a manner of speaking, Integral-speak is not a foreign tongue but a new way of speaking about things you didn’t realize you already knew.

Back to looking at Emptiness. When I stop meditating and return, say, to writing a book, I am ever so slightly changed. Silence is now not merely an empty sound but an unchanging aspect of my being or identity, and it is not merely my-self but a quality of all things.

Listening to the lingering silence, the world seems different – as Simon and Garfunkel famously sang, I can hear:

And in the naked light I saw
Ten thousand people, maybe more
People talking without speaking
People hearing without listening
People writing songs that voices never share
And no one dared
Disturb the sound of silence

Listening to silence is not inert; it has enormous power to dare and transform. When you have been meditating consistently for a period you may find your ordinary awareness changed. You can think of that change as a slide into what Wilber calls “the reality of suchness or condition of all states”.

This is important. Too many people today have been taught to only look at meditation as a secular relaxation technique. It is that, and more. Integralists know meditation as an injunction which (properly informed by philosophy) is a gateway to an encounter with fundamental realities and truths about yourself, and really, the nature of being human.

Emptiness is a primordial concept in Integral thought, not exactly part of the duality of nothingness and being, but useful for characterizing the quality of All-That-Is or God (conceived panentheistically, which we’ll talk about another day). Not empty of content, but empty of distinctions.

This is not to say that Emptiness and God are the same thing; this is to say that Emptiness and God each point to overlapping aspects of the same, most primordial reality. Both Emptiness and God (or Spirit) provide the basis for valuable perspectives on reality, and therefore they are both essential foundations for Integral spirituality. They help to define how we relate to all things because they point to their suchness.

What is Integral Philosophy?

W

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.

A Review of Joran Slane Oppelt’s Integral Church

A

Joran Slane Oppelt’s Integral Church: A Handbook for New Spiritual Communities is one of the most important books regarding spirituality yet written in the 21st-century. Co-authored with other members of an emergent spiritual community, it is one of the first books to suggest a new coherent social structure for harnessing the power of spiritual evolution.

And timely, too! The old religious traditions are showing their inflexibility in the face of new insights from mystics and other spiritual higher achievers. Even relatively open churches like the Unitarian Universalists have closed their eyes to spiritual development beyond postmodern pluralism. But the integral or evolutionary or metamodern spiritual movements are aiming to meet the needs of our world at this time.

I pray that Integral Church is widely read and that anyone inspired by its vision of evolutionary community ought to receive a calling to integral ministry in our time. There are other handbooks for interfaith ministry that are useful as well, but Oppelt’s book contains unique information that should interest all integrally-informed leaders in emergent religious communities.

As I’m sure Oppelt would be sure to acknowledge, the book has its limitations. Some shortcomings are inevitable in a pioneering work of this kind, limited as it is to the author’s particular tastes and predispositions. Joran is foremost a boots-on-the-ground minister and community organizer, not a scholar of ecclesiology (the discipline of Christian theology devoted to Church).

As a result, it sidesteps many difficult issues and questions regarding the ways in which the structure, symbols, and practice of Integral community enact the transcendent. For example, Catholics and other Christians wanting to know how sacraments function and relate to Christology and Ecclesiology will not find discussions of that depth within the pages of this book.

Given the complexity and severity of the challenges faced by all species in an interconnected globe, the time is short for our civilization to evolve or perish. Don’t let the book’s limitations dissuade you from readingIntegral Church. Along withCohering the Integral We Spaceby multiple authors, it is truly a worthwhile pioneering effort at creating communities of faith and dialogue that can be a part of an emergent Global-Mind.

In the future, I want to write again about the Integral Church model for ecclesiology and propose some possible areas for mutually enriching dialogue to Joran. Meanwhile, I am working to wrestle with some of these issues atan organization of my own inception. Perhaps our organizations will partner or align in the future, but until then, I wish them the best in fulfilling their mission and pushing the envelope forward.

The Beatitudes of Kalen (Poem)

T

Excerpt From His Sermon in the Hills of Lazica

Blessed is the peasant: for theirs is the penchant and zeal to repent, bringing purity.

Blessed are the poor: for theirs is the hope for and opening to more without requiring money.

Blessed are the purposeful: for theirs is the peace of virtue’s and vulnerability’s teachings.

Blessed is poverty: for it is the possibility of virtue’s and vulnerability’s teachings.

Blessed is paucity: for it is the positivity of the siddha.

Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall make aches into putty, turning small blessings into kingly endings through curbing.

Blessed is the partial: for it knows purity through showing the heart.

Blessed are the pure in heart: for they know perfection of humanity.

In reply to a question from the crowd, Kalen said, “All this is known plainly by listening gently to the words already on your own lips.”

Pressed further, he added, “Some insight comes from listening with educated innocence, and some comes from understanding a word’s placement in The Kalendar. The secret meanings require study of the Daarma.”

The 30 Tenets of All Holons (A Poem)

T

Originally Published as “Does Involution Have a Telos?”, a Guest Blog on KenWilber.com

The state of Integral philosophy concerned me in the mid-2000s. Although I was not a professional academic philosopher, I sought to explore its incongruities and incompleteness and contribute to the ongoing development of these fields. At the same time, I wanted to create the scaffolding for a more holistic and future-looking Christianity.

These two tasks met for the first time in my prose poem “The 30 Tenets of All Holons” (formerly “Trinity”), a deceptively simple ten lines written in 2007. I added ten lines of prose poetry to twenty lines of philosophy, specifically Ken Wilber’s “The Twenty Tenets of Holons” from Sex, Ecology, Spirituality.

Wilber’s 20 tenets were never intended as poetry, but as a summation of his research in a wide range of evolutionary theory. He had identified the major underlying patterns of the “spirit of evolution” and presented these in a concise formula. Ken was gracious enough to publish the poem on his blog in 2007 under the headline “Does Involution Have a Telos?”

“The 30 Tenets of All Holons”

(first 20 tenets by Ken Wilber; additions in brackets and last 10 tenets by Joe Perez)

  1. Reality as a whole is not composed of things or processes, but of holons. (wholes that are part of other wholes)

  2. Holons display four fundamental capacities: self-preservation, self-adaptation, self-transcendence, and self-dissolution.

  • self-preservation (agency)

  • self-adaptation (communion)

  • self-transcendence (Eros)

  • self-dissolution (Agape)

  1. Holons emerge.

  2. Holons emerge holarchically.

  3. Each emergent holon transcends but includes its predecessor(s).

  4. The lower sets the possibilities of the higher; the higher sets the probabilities of the lower.

  5. The number of levels which a hierarchy comprises determines whether it is ‘shallow’ or ‘deep’; and the number of holons on any given level we shall call its ‘span’.

  6. Each successive level of evolution produces greater depth and less span.

  7. Addition 1: the greater the depth of a holon, the greater its degree of conciousness [in the sense of: the degree of fulfillment of the telos of Kosmos, but see also tenet 29].

  8. Destroy any type of holon, and you will destroy all of the holons above it and none of the holons below it.

  9. Holarchies coevolve.

  10. The micro is in relational exchange with the macro at all levels of its depth.

  11. Evolution has directionality.

  12. Evolution has increasing complexity.

  13. Evolution has increasing differentiation/integration.

  14. Evolution has increasing organization/structuration.

  15. Evolution has increasing relative autonomy.

  16. Evolution has increasing telos [Omega].

  17. Addition 2: every holon issues an IOU to the Kosmos [God The Father].

  18. Addition 3: all IOUs are redeemed in Emptiness [Emptiness = God The Son].

  19. Addition 4: involution has directionality.

  20. Addition 5: involution has increasing simplicity.

  21. Addition 6: involution has increasing sensitivity/texture.

  22. Addition 7: involution has increasing relative communion.

  23. Addition 8: involution has increasing telos [Alpha].

  24. Addition 9: all holons receive a receipt for the IOU from the Kosmos and Kronos [Holy Spirit].

  25. Addition 10: all holons arise in the occasion of acknowledging receipt for the IOU.

  26. Addition 11: destroy any type of holon and it adds to the increasing telos of Kosmos and Kronos [Holy Spirit].

  27. Addition 12: the greater the span of a holon, the greater its degree of conciousness. [that is, the degree to which it fulfills the telos of Kronos]

  28. Addition 13: the unity of Kronos and Kosmos is greater than the sum of its parts. [God the Father + God the Son + Holy Spirit]

Is Integral Spirituality Too Complex?

I

or: The Integral Tradition Searches for a “Second Simplicity”

At Integralists, Paul writes:

If spirituality requires a Masters degree to understand it’s probably not true. People are complex so ethics, neuroscience and psychology are complex. But spirituality implies universal human accessibility. Buddhism is spiritual. Its basic tenants are accessible to both genius and moron without need for books or scriptures. The complex matrix virtual reality multi-level video game spirituality described in Wilber’s recent book isn’t spirituality, it’s intellectual masturbation. In my opinion. I enjoyed reading it because I enjoy intellectual masturbation. I enjoyed and learned a few things and gave it a few stars in my review. But I certainly did [not] feel more “spiritual” after reading it. Did anybody?

I respond:

It may surprise you to hear this, but I largely agree with what you said, although I do have a different spin on it. And I’m probably one of the persons you may be talking about who’s fascinated by 30-dimensional Rubik’s cubes (but they’re not in the naval, they’re in one of the 729 petals of the Manipura chakra). Maybe there’s even a side of Wilber who would chat for an hour making hundreds of delicate philosophical distinctions and then, during or afterwards, also appreciate the emptiness of all those distinctions and appreciate the simplicity of a child’s smile.

Basically, I think spirituality which is only simple or only complex, to the exclusion of the other, is terrible. It’s a real problem, and probably looking at the world as a whole the bigger problem right now isn’t that people are taking too sophisticated an approach to their spirituality but just the opposite (so simple they’re actually being willfully ignorant, actually dumb-dumbs). A spiritual tradition needs to be able to be teachable to a young child AND have an appeal to the most erudite scholars.

Yes, as you say, Buddhism today can be expressed in a simple form, but there are also much more complex versions of it; without both, the Tradition would be incomplete. Christian doctrine can be expressed in the 920-page Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church or the 180-word pamphlet of a Protestant evangelical street preacher, but you sorta need both to figure out what Christians are trying to pass along.

So I get why reading a complex book of Integral philosophy can be kinda off-putting, but think of it from Wilber’s standpoint (or how I imagine it). He’s one person. He has talents no one else does and knowledge no one else has synthesized. He has a gift to give the world and part of it is being “that guy” who can be the erudite scholar. If we choose to see his work as a touchstone or pillar in a Tradition, then there’s no reason to confuse Wilber’s contribution to that Tradition with the whole of it. If we read Wilber’s 816-page book, The Religion of Tomorrow, we are doing the ‘mind’ part of our Integral Life Practice which feasts on richness and nuance and intellectual agility, not the ‘body’ part that wants nourishment and power or the ‘soul’ part that longs for comfort and homecomings or the ‘spirit’ part that wants to rest in profound simplicity.

One of the main reasons Integral philosophy is so much more difficult to digest than, say, Eckhart Tolle’s The Power of Now, is that Wilber attends to the ‘subtle’ realm and how it expresses itself in concepts and constructs that play out at all lower levels of the holarchy of existence, and less subtle thinkers merely spiritually by-pass all that. Is bypassing a good thing? If 95 out of 100 spiritual teachers and gurus are all bypassing something that’s essential for sustaining life on this world and the well-being of every world, shouldn’t we applaud a thinker for being more comprehensive?

The Integral Tradition ought to be broad enough to include Wilber’s marvelous complexity as well as the moderate complexity of, say, the high-school level world religions course taught at Exeter Academy which includes Integral theory on Self… and simpler expressions still, like the songs and prayers and other educational tools for children described by Joran Oppelt in his book Integral Church.

Has the Integral Tradition done enough to evolve a “second simplicity” or “simplexity” as some call it? Not nearly enough. That’s a huge and vital part of the cutting edge of our work these days, for some of us. And while very, very few of us are in a position to write 20 books of Integral theory like Wilber has, this is a task that everyone is called to participate in. Let’s try to do our best.

The Integral Operating System Needs a Bug Tracking Database

T

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.

Properly Integral: A Response to Frank Visser’s Three Disappointments

P

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.

On Different Styles of Integral Communication

O

Dropping into Another World with Words

Question in an Integral public forum:

How is an integrally intelligent being supposed to interact with lower spectrum cultures without becoming persecuted, and yet still communicating integral knowledge?

My response:

I like what’s already been said, especially Layman’s comment and Tom’s response which read: “We need to better articulate what it means to drop into their world view to fully convey understanding and to provide affirmation before we can expect them to be open to the possibilities. Often this takes a great deal of patience and timing.”

Firstly, let’s skip over the intellectual hornet’s nest that is roused by the phrase “lower spectrum cultures”. Another time.

I would add to Layman’s and Tom’s response that we need to embrace a methodological pluralism regarding even “integral” communication styles. Partly, I suspect, this is about differences between orangish-teal, greenish-teal, turquoise, and indigo integralists, etc., taking on different orientations. And of course it’s also about personality types, personal quirks, shadow issues, and so on.

For some of us, we will seek to model through example our inclusiveness and ability to think with nuance and balance and act with integrity, all the while refraining from explicitly discussing the “operating system” working in the background that helps to facilitate our way of communicating.

Others will take an approach with greater visibility and willingness to present the Integral worldview to a world, whether it’s ready for it or not, trusting that Spirit will sort it all out. They are the writers penning memoirs and novels and poetry and philosophy and other books for a public audience. They are the artists making integral art and music. They are the business people running Integral businesses and political activists running Integrally-informed think tanks. They are everyone who is willing to work a label of “integralist” or “evolutionary” or “metamodernist”, ever so lightly or boldly as befits their taste and sensibility.

Sometimes these approaches are at odds with each other, and not necessarily any “more integral” or “less integral” as a result.

I think the day is coming where “integral knowledge” will be embedded in works of art and literature and in public figures or organizations so prominent and influential that it’s going to change the game. Then we won’t get the blank stares anymore. But we’ll have a whole other set of challenges.

Personally I’ve worn a number of different communication hats at different points, and I can confidently suggest that it’s worth experimenting to find an approach that works for you. And don’t forget to listen and learn from every other person regardless of their station of life — they often have much to teach us as well.

I’ll close by quoting someone who’s said something similar as part of an elaborate theory of Integral Communication that’s worth taking a look at. T. Collins Logan wrote:

In a more general sense, integral communication celebrates the diversity of existence at the same time. It excites and absorbs the profound creative force of every heart, mind, body, soul, spirit, will and community. It invokes a neutral field of exchange where all concepts, emotions and experiences are relevant, but where no single meme or worldview dominates. This requires that we suspend our judgments and beliefs in the moment of listening; that we allow each contribution to exist by itself, without being prejudiced by its source, the language used, or even the perceived intent behind the language. To maintain a truly neutral disposition in our communication allows us to both receive and transmit on many frequencies at once. As a result, to communicate integrally is to accept, love and celebrate what is – in all its complexity, diversity and apparent contradiction – so that what could be is a natural synthesis of the greatest potential in all of us.

Although Logan’s definition won’t work for every Integralist at every station — there’s the rub with methodological pluralism — it’s a great start. The truth is, everyone deserves to be listened to fully and completely by someone, but not necessarily by us, in every context (not all perspectives are equal, and our time and attention are precious). Communication is just one aspect of our relationships and missions in life, and we have to weigh the opportunity costs of being a good communicator with being good at many other things.

LGBT Pride, Not A Sin in 2018

L

How to Build an Authentic Pride Based on a Spiritual Foundation

How do you reconcile diverse points of view about LGBT Pride found in psychology, religion, and spirituality? What about differences in point-of-view between traditional, modern, postmodern, and metamodern (a.k.a. Integral) philosophies? The following two reflections on Pride come from distinct periods in my own development: the first one, published back in 2007; the second, written today.

Is Gay Pride a Sin? (An Excerpt from 2007’s Soulfully Gay)

Antigay zealots once placed a billboard in downtown Toronto that they intended for marchers in a Gay Pride parade. The billboard was a Bible quote: “This was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, Pride.”

The idea that pride is the worst of all sins is a common notion. Saint Augustine called pride “the beginning of all sin.” Today, the religious right sees the depravity of gays not only in our sexual behavior but also in our “prideful” failure to acknowledge our own sinfulness.

They call us egotists, narcissists and hedonists. However, our response to the religious right does not have to be as categorical and knee-jerk as their attacks. Gays need not reject religion altogether just because a group uses its theology as a weapon against us. Instead, we can take an open-minded look at pride to glean wisdom that we can claim for our own.

Judeo-Christianity is hardly the only tradition to condemn pride. Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Jainism, and other wisdom traditions also have teachings that condemn egotism and arrogance. The Greeks understood pride as hubris, the exaggerated self-confidence of being foolish enough to ignore the gods.

Unfortunately, the spiritual wisdom about pride is frequently distorted by religion. Religions may go beyond condemning arrogance to actually teaching that human nature is corrupt, wicked, vile, wretched, and fundamentally sinful. In recent decades, gay men, lesbians, bisexuals, and the transgendered have suffered some of their greatest humiliations at the hands of religion.

Traditional religion relentlessly condemns pride but seldom condemns low self-esteem with the same conviction. Authentic spirituality teaches that both arrogant pride and low self-esteem are equally important distortions of self-worth.

In Christian ways of thinking, arrogant pride is tantamount to playing God; effectively one is pretending to be one’s own savior. By the same token, Christians can think of low self-esteem as a failure to honor one’s dignity as a creation of God by effectively playing God and damning oneself.

Christianity’s remedy for the dual sins of pride and low self-esteem is right relation with God. In other words, it’s not thinking so highly of oneself that you don’t see your own need for salvation. But it’s also not thinking too lowly of oneself, because your sense of esteem comes from recognizing your sacred worth as a child of God.

In Taking a Chance on God, John J. McNeil discusses the sin of low self-esteem: “In my 20 years as a pastoral counselor and psychotherapist to lesbians and gays, I have found that the chief threat to the psychological and spiritual health of most gay people, especially those who come from a strong Christian background, is guilt with its companions shame and low self-esteem, which can in turn develop into self-hate.”

McNeil points to therapy, coming out of the closet, and developing a healthy spirituality as the three most important steps for gays to take in healing low self-esteem.

Pride isn’t a sin when it’s an expression of healthy self-esteem. Celebrating gay pride is an essential affirmation of our human dignity, whether that takes the form of marching in a parade or being more honest with our friends and family about who we are.

Pride can surely elevate the gay spirit, but what about the gay soul? Feeding the spirit requires that we envision our ideals, put our philosophy of life into action, and have a strong sense that we are a woman or man with dignity and integrity. Positive self-esteem is vital for these endeavors. In contrast, soulfulness does not care about what’s healthy or unhealthy, or whether an experience is joyful or melancholy.

Soulfulness insists on being true to what’s real without pretense or apology. Being soulfully gay means not using false pride as a shield over our pain, shame, and guilt. Authenticity demands that we allow a place for all our feelings, especially the uncomfortable ones that we’d rather cover over with denial, secrecy, and rigid thinking.

For everything in life there is a time under the sun, says the book of Ecclesiastes. There are times for celebrating gay pride and times for acknowledging our doubts and lack of wholeness. For every man and woman marching gleefully in the parade, there are others who aren’t yet ready to celebrate, at least not until they’ve done their soul work.

The point of doing soul work is not to wallow in misery but to enter deeply and courageously into our pain. Soul work requires us to break down the falseness of our sense of gay pride so that we can eventually emerge from the other side into an authentic form of gay pride. But the soul’s first step down can be a rough and tumbling one: humility.

“LGBTQ Pride and Power, Integral Style” (2018)

Pride is an emotion with polarized meanings in psychology and religion. Psychologists speak of pride as a highly developed sense of self-esteem and mastery of the associated feelings with which it is associated. Traditional religionists often speak of pride as the “root of all evil” and more progressive religionists speak of pride as a distorted relationship with the divine. How do we address all of these different senses?

In Integral Spirituality as I see it, the truthful aspects of all of these meanings are interrelated and both healthy self-esteem and appropriate (not hubristic) self-regard are seen as essential aspects to a healthy spiritual life. For some people, it is easy to throw out the old fashioned view of pride as sick or ignorant or intolerant. For other people, it is easy to dismiss the more modern view of pride as fluffy, narcissistic, meaningless psychobabble, or emasculated spirituality. Like so many areas where life is confusing, the truth is in the middle, provided you take a higher and central view.

When I say that the truth about pride is central what I am trying to convey is that an Integral Spirituality does more than say “gay is okay” or “do what’s good for your self-esteem”, it gives you an Integral Map (that is, a post-metaphysical cosmology) in which the universal currents underlying your psychological and spiritual potential can be illustrated. And in this Map, there’s an appropriate place for pride as well as a way of seeing its potential dysfunctions that you can acknowledge from wherever you’re at, regardless of your gender or sexual identity and no matter what your religious preference.

So, I am speaking about taking a balanced view of pride as it fits in your own life seen from the perspective of an Integral Map. It’s central if you’re a religious traditionalist to emphasize the virtue of humility and the vice of hubris; and from this perspective you can say that good LGBT pride is the path of moderation in between extreme humility and extreme hubris.

It’s also central if you’re a psychologically-minded modernist atheist who emphasizes the healthful role of self-esteem in a well-functioning psyche and the unhealthful role of pathological narcissism; and from this perspective you can say that healthy LGBT pride contributes to wellness and good social skills.

It’s also central and higher between the mindset of a progressive postmodernist who emphasizes that LGBT pride is a form of taking back power from the marginalized by disrupting cultural memes that silence our voices … and the mindset of a conservative assimilationist who emphasizes that one should take pride in universal human attributes only, not divisive and non-integrated cultural differences.

The views of the conservative assimilationist and the progressive postmodernist cannot be reconciled on their own terms. One seems to think that all good things come from celebrating our differences and the other seems to think that that’s a recipe for social disintegration owing to a leveling of value hierarchies. This is important to recognize because some form of this argument lies at the root of many of the cultural conflicts still facing the LGBT community.

In order to reconcile the views of assimilationists with cultural separatists in society, one must begin by reconciling them within one’s own self. To do this, one needs to find all the truth and goodness and beauty in each of the opposing views. Take an intellectual curiosity in the views of your opponents on the other side of the culture war and really listen to them. Read the best and most thoughtful of their worldview’s subscribers, not merely the trolls in Reddit forums or CNN’s comment boxes.

And then own all the Truth, Goodness, and Beauty you can find in the views of the other side and don’t let it go. To do this, it helps if you imagine that these worldviews form a continuum from assimilationist (LGBT pride is divisive and unnecessary, just be human) to separatist (LGBT pride is all-important, disrupt and transgress) to integralist (both/and: celebrate both the diversity of the LGBT community and celebrate our universal humanity, all the good things we share in common with everyone).

  1. Enfold the integral dictum that some truths are more right than others. Exclude the sinful, unhealthy, or wrong aspects of the views about LGBT pride you need to reject.

  2. Enclude the truthful parts of the assimilationist and separatist viewpoints as part of a more cohesive whole truth about LGBT pride.

  3. Enact your expanded and more inclusive view of LGBT pride in everyday life, finding new degrees of wholeness and peace of mind and more tolerant and compassionate ways of relating to people from all different worldviews.

Befriend your inner traditionalist, modernist, and postmodernist alike and walk with them into a new way of being in the world that lets you be fully YOU. You may find yourself empowered into a more authentic sense of pride, one that is built on a more solid and unshakable foundation than ever before.

Happy LGBT Pride Month everyone!