Ken Wilber claims that it is the artist, and not the art, that defines "Integral Art."

 

 

Annie,

 

That is fine and well to permit the integralist plenty of play-room in the process of creativity. But if "Integral art" cannot ultimately be distinguished from the art forms of previous structures, we and the arts must ultimately dismiss the Integralist's activity as irrelevant "pretend-play."

So I would have to respectfully disagree with your perspective or position that "the best we can do is say from an integral persective the art was conceived with the integral in mind."  That is tantamount to saying that there is no arational-aperspectival-integral mode of expression in the arts; and that such an integrated and arational mode of expression can ultimately only be "inferred" via crawling into the mind of the artist subjectively in order to psychometrically assess his/or "Altitude" objectively (notice how the word, "her," was "spliced off" by the Universe, which "overruled me" and my intention to type "her," which was "cut out" in protest of KW's form of integral which is ultimately far too out-of-balance of male:female energies with too much emphasis on right- or reich-wing male energy due to its three-dimensionality and rational orientation).  If the I-Integralist is truly "integral" in his or her consciousness, it would be revealed in his or her work Itself.

--

 

--Ken Wilber, To See A World: Art and the I of the Beholder

Above it becomes very evident that as a consequence of his strictly spatial orientation, Wilber cannot differentiate the pluralistic green form of perspectivity, "multi-perspectival," from the integral form of perspectivity, "aperspectival" preferring instead to take Gebser's important insight on "the aperspectival world" by making "aperspectival" interchangeable with the multi-perspectival mental-rational green to thereby dismiss Gebser's insight on "aperspectival" as "aperspectival madness."

 

Nowhere in Gebser's writings does he endorse the mental-rational form of perspectivitiy, "perspective"--whether singular perspective of orange or multiple perspectives of pluralistic green. Examples of which can be found in abundance in existential philosophy, Dadaism, "Spiritism," occultism, paranormal investigations, to certain forms of Surrealism, and many other "isms": all of which are the relics of the postmodernism of his day and forms of multi-perspectival green.. In fact Gebser was highly critical of most if not all forms of "isms" created by postmodernism of his day (including the existentialism which Wilber erroneously associated with Gebser) for the fact that they attempted to transcend duality and "perspective" in space by merely re-immersing into irrational or pre-rational modes of expression and by supplementing perspectival orange thinking with more and more perspectival vanishing points in space for the sake of having multiple perspectives while remaining temporically-frozen in time. This resulted in the failure of most "isms" of postmodernism to ware the truth from an aperspectival perception of the whole and consequent inability to accept universal truths nor ability to break out of the dualistic mold or mode of thinking posed by perspectival thinking in space, such as existentialism's concerns over "being" vs. "non-being." Resulting in both "perspectival" orange and "multi-perspectival" green being spatially-bound and temporically-frozen in space and hence, perspectivally-fixed and dualistically-opposed to one or more fixed perspectival points in space--the only difference being that pluralistic green results in access to multiple triangular perspectival points in space as opposed to just a single perspectival point in space as in the case of rational orange. And the deeper and farther we extend our view into space, the narrower is the sector of our pyramid. This is true whether with respect to the singular rational perspective of orange or with respect to the multiple pyramidal viewpoints of pluralistic green. Simply having access to "more and more perspectives" in space does not resolve the problem of perspective but merely leads to this:

 

This is what "8 Ecological Selves or Perspectives" "looks like" as described in Integral Ecology. All of which are "perspectives" based on triangular or pyramidal vision with two bases forming the "eyes" at the base of a triangle and all of them ending in vanishing points in space. This is what a "wider contextual framework" based on 8 different ecological selves or perspectives "looks like." Notice also the numerous gaps in between each "perspective" despite the presence of multiple perspectives. It is essentially no different in form from the green form of multi-perspectivity which it rejects.




Here is 8 Ecological Selves or Perspectives projected outward into space 3-Dimensionally into the shape of an 8-pointed star. It is only a partial perception based on multiple vanishing points in space with many gaps in between which are inaccessible from the percipient's view, which is spatially-constricted in his or her perception to the area within the 8-pointed star.

 

A four-dimensional moving and transparent sphericity via the addition of the fourth dimension, time (aperspectivity) to three-dimensional space. This perception differs vastly from the multi-perspectival green of Integral Ecology or what Ken Wilber refers to as "aperspectival madness" due to his spatially-constricted worldview which lacks a sensorium for time and consequently cannot differentiate multiple perspectives of pluralistic green from integral-aperspectival.

"Aperspectival" is neither the negation of "perspective" nor of "multi-perspective" but is the supersession of them both in a higher dimension of Time although "perspective" still retains its validity as "provisional truth" within the spatial three-dimensional realm of space. As a consequence of the irruption of Time into consciousness and this new form of perception, which is an aperspectival and arational perception of the undivided whole, the compulsive compartmentalization, sectorialization, categorization, conceptualization, and systematization (or meta-systematization) of knowledge which currently defines the approach of I-Integral theory must be abandoned and must be replaced by diaphaneity, an arational mode of perception of the undivided whole. This arational and aperspectival perception of the whole necessarily must go beyond the limited perception of perspectival thinking created by the dualistic or preferential treatment toward the subject or object in space to access all of Time which alone can offer verity in truth. The irruption of Time into consciousness naturally results in the bending and curvature of closed three-dimensional space and results in the "opening up" of space, and the consequent dissolution of dualities and fixed perspectival points in space as perceived by the limited agenda of the perspectival or multi-perspectival ego-self as consciousness moves to "the Itself," a moving and spherical transparency and diaphaneity which is spiritual in nature.

 

More to come.