Translated Excerpts from a French Integral Theorist

Edgar Morin, French sociologist/philosopher

I often found that the best way to understand a complex idea is to understand how it's different from other similar ideas. Understanding what something is NOT is an essential part of understanding what it is: it clearly delineates the boundary. It's an aspect of Integral Theory that was immediately appealing to me, it emphasizes differentiating between things that are seemingly identical, looking deeper than the surface of things.

It's a quality I discovered recently in the French philosopher Edgar Morin, and it made me want to offer you a few translated excerpts in this post. Morin is a contemporary integral thinker that Sean Esbjörn-Hargens compared to Wilber and Roy Baskhar (unpublished source). Sean suggests that while Wilber's work focuses primarily on psychology and spirituality (Upper-Left quadrant), and Bashar's on the intersubjective realm (Lower-Left), Morin's "Complex Thinking" finds coherence in systems of systems (Lower-Right).

Here are some chosen excerpts¹ that integralists might find, if not familiar, at least relevant to how they think about Integral Theory. Enjoy! (all emphasis below are mine)

No, it's not "in" a quadrant

I'd like to debunk a simple mistake that some early enthusiasts of Integral Theory tend to make: the idea that we can sort actual things in the quadrants. It's not what Integral Theory says, even if Wilber himself can often make this linguistic shortcut.

The mistake is to consider the quadrants as reified categories within which one can sort things:

• ideas are in the Upper-Left quadrant (UL), 
• my body goes into the Upper-Right (UR), 
• our culture in the Lower-Left (LL), and 
• our political system is Lower-Right stuff (LR). 

This simplification is useful at first to explain the quadrants, but really it's more complex. For Integral Theory, quadrants are dimensions of holons, and every holon has four - except for groups, which have only two. So it doesn't mean anything to say that an entire object "is in one quadrant." Saying that is a reification of our own perspective on that object. It is reducing the object to only one of its dimensions, and reifying this dimension as if it was a thing in itself.

Integral Scholars: Let's Bring Scholarship To The Web

A few days ago I discovered an article in the New York Times about "Open Science" that strongly resonated with me. It covers a topic that I have been chewing on for some time: the potential for scholars and specialists of all sorts to leverage the power of the Internet to revolutionize the way knowledge is created, accessed and legitimized. Then a question came with it: why isn't the integral community more active on the open web⁽¹⁾?

Corey DeVos from Integral Life says to Integral Chicks that before Integral Naked (2006), the Integral community had trouble finding itself and interacting with each other, whereas today the problem has changed: dialogue happens mostly within the community and we need more dialogue with the exterior. We can find Integral content online—mostly "pop integral" I would say—but in many ways the Integral discourse is de facto closed due to obstacles like monthly fees and premium memberships. Technically it's on the web, but not openly so. As to the scholarly discourse⁽²⁾ in particular, it seems almost absent⁽³⁾. And this is the discourse I'm interested in for this post.

This situation is not specific to the integral discourse. It illustrates a deeper current in the academic world and there are reasons for it. Such a closed system makes sense given the (outdated) technological structure it was designed for, and the conventional business model deriving from it. But it carries serious drawbacks too. Think compartmentalization of disciplines, lack of innovation, or the ivory tower effect dissociating the scholar from the "real world". For the integral movement, which prides itself  for being leading edge, trans-disciplinary by nature, and open to meeting people "where they are", it is a disappointing state of affairs.

I would love to see that change, and I think it's becoming more and more possible. The technology supporting a more open scholarly discourse is developing and science is likely heading in that direction anyway. Jason Priem has an interesting blog about the growing scholarly use of social media and a manifesto for new scholarship metrics—both of which shed some light on this trend. I would really like to see the Integral community a bit more open to—if not invested in—this evolution. Would it not only be consistent with its overall purpose?

Why We Need More Spiritual Discrimination

Borrowed and adapted from Campus Ministry

Today, I could have benefited from a so-called "Integral Awakening Skype Session" to foster my "transformational process"... But I chose not to, just like I choose not to attend to the plethora of spiritual events available in the Bay Area, and here is why.

You would think that the Bay Area is the best place to nurture your spiritual side given the vivid subculture and the diversity of practices available. And yet I find myself rather closed to the spiritual market here, as if too much exposure to it had made me dull. Is it a personal disposition? Maybe, after all I grew up in a quite secular environment. But really, the red flag to me is the lack of discernment by spiritual teachers about spirituality itself.

Spirituality is an intimate relationship with reality, it requires observing and experiencing this relationship directly, exploring the territory by yourself before relying on maps others have drawn before you. So it produces an interesting paradox when you live in a culture imbued with spiritual concepts. You are called to encounter them in discussions and readings, and even though you're talking about existential and ultimate concerns, you end up sometimes using them more or less casually.

I don't know you, but I find it difficult to keep giving a special meaning to a spiritual concept like "awakening" or "epiphany" when I read about it in promotional emails.

The Latest Developments of Integral Theory - Video of Nick's Presentation

I recently attended a talk by my friend Nick Hedlund-de Witt (video below) at the PCC forum (a student group at the California Institute of Integral Studies) in San Francisco.

UPDATE 01/07/12: The video permissions have changed and it is not publicly available anymore. I'll try to find out why.
UPDATE 01/09/12: It turns out the folks at the PCC Forum are waiting for Nick's authorization to re-publish it and he's on vacation at the moment. Stay put!
UPDATE 05/07/12: Well well... it seems that Nick doesn't want to keep that video up - shame on him. He said he might do another one, a better one. Hah! Be sure I will share it when it comes along.

I'm hungry for such presentations for two reasons:

1. First, Nick is an Integral scholar deeply immersed in Integral Theory (IT), in other words he knows his stuff, so whether we like or agree with what he says, we can trust him to tell us when he is describing IT and when he's building upon it.
2. Most importantly, he is distinguishing between the different phases of Integral Theory (IT) and presenting its latest development. Finally an in-depth presentation of IT and of its place in the overall philosophical discourse.

Nick's target audience are the philosophy students of CIIS, so even though he's trying to keep it simple, you got to like the topic! But if like me you've been looking for a middle ground between the Pop-Integral culture and academic articles, this video might be just what you need.

Oh did I mention it's 2 hours long? Here are some time cues:
You can skip Nick's presentation  ->  jump to 0:03:00.
'Internal' critiques of Integral Theory -> jump to 1:01:55.
'External' critiques of Integral Theory -> jump to 1:11:10.

Intro sur la Théorie Intégrale de Ken Wilber (en français !)

Ça faisait un petit moment que je pensais à faire une vidéo en français pour expliquer la théorie intégrale. Pour un ensemble de raisons pas très claires, elle est très peu connue en France contrairement à chez nos voisins Européens — Allemagne, Pays-Bas, Espagne, Italie. Même s'il y a des facteurs culturels rendant la France peu réceptive à ce genre d'approche, je me suis finalement lancé, et voilà la première vidéo d'une série sur la théorie intégrale "AQAL" en français !

Le potentiel de la théorie intégrale pour révolutionner notre vision du monde est insoupconné. C'est l'équivalent théorique de cet instrument dans Orange Mécanique qui force à garder les yeux ouverts : elle nous force à regarder la réalité telle qu'elle est, dans toute sa complexité, sa richesse et son mystère. On lui attribue, à raison,  un effet "psycho-actif" : pour celle ou celui qui l'a étudiée, il devient difficile de se retrancher dans les croyances étroites auquelles la société nous a habituée.

C'est aussi un moyen pour moi de finalement expliquer à mes proches et amis ce que je suis venu faire en Californie. J'ai choisi un format simple qui j'espère vous plaira. L'audience première de ces vidéos est intéressée par les sciences et la quête de la connaissance en générale. C'est l'étudiante, le chercheur, qui ont soif d'un modèle leur permettant de voir au delà des clotures de leur champ d'étude.

Is there an Integral community?

A few weeks ago I left my volunteer role at Bay Area Integral (BAI). As I was reflecting on this choice, it was clear that I had been on the fence for a while, if not from the beginning. I joined BAI but never wholeheartedly, and yet I staid for a year. So I wondered: how come?

I joined BAI to be more involved with the "Integral community", but I realized we all have different views of what these words mean. I think it's core to why we haven't seen a community develop around Integral Theory.

Integral theory has this particularity to be a meta-theory, a theory about theories. It doesn't have a real-life, concrete object of study. We are interested in Integral Theory (ITH), sure, but we're mostly interested in applying it to a specific field - e.g., "Integral Psychology", "Integral Ethics", "Integral Spirituality", etc.

In a nutshell, the problem is that Integral Theory (ITH) is not about a thing, it's about a perspective on things. Biologists are all into how the body works, Architects can contemplate buildings together, but unless your passion is Research itself, you're not likely to chat about ITH for hours on a Sunday potluck. And it makes sense. We are attracted to ITH because it's a new way of looking at our favorite thing. But ultimately, we're really interested in theorizing about our thing, more than ITH itself. Sharing an interest for an approach is not enough to create kinship.

Now, it's true, the Integral model is psychoactive - it brings your attention to the lens you're using to look at the world. That's one thing all Integral fans share: an interest in psycho-spirituality. No wonder it's the topic attracting the most people, it's inherent to the model itself.

Doesn't rallying around what's our most common denominator translate our need for community? ITH can talk about many other things than spirituality. And it will have to, if it wants to be taken seriously outside of the spiritual seekers of the Bay Area.