Reforming Integral Theory

I 've wanted to respond earlier to your post, but it was busy at work this week, so please excuse me for being late.

I think you've brought up some interesting thoughts, and although I agree with you that this is really high ground where the air gets thin, nonetheless it needs to be adressed. Thank you for your courage and Initiative.

Basically I hear you say that the phrase "Everyone is right" is only true when seen through a specific lense, in this case the Buddhist/Vedantic one that KW seems to prefer. Already in Christian terms, the above phrase gets you in trouble, because it collides with some fundamental axioms of the christian tradition; these axioms being e.g. the Claim "You shall come to the Kingdom only through me". I'm sorry I'm rephrasing here somewhat loosely, but I hope you get the point.

I also agree with you that applying the Spiral Dynamic Colors to the traditions is only of limited use. As you say, the traditions should be looked at from a historical viewpoint, as a whole so to speak, and in that light I think that it is possible for practitioners of any tradition to reach every structure-stage that's available for us at this moment in time. That means 1.) that the "Jesus is the only Way" Claim cannot be reduced to Amber, but can also be true for the higher structures, ad 2.) in the long run, we get something like a "draw" situation, like a 'Remis' in chess terms, because (still in the long run ad infinitum) every tradition will reach the highest altitude and we cannot decide which one is higher or better than any other.

O.K. this is obviously not a well-polished philosophical discourse argument. Actually my TV is on right now, and I'm watching the news where the german politicians yell at each other in a desperate attempt to win some more important votes. However, what I was trying to say is that by looking at the traditions, Structures are not the point. Instead, I think it is interesting to look at the differences between them as Type differences. What could this mean?

I repeat once more that this is really difficult ground, and everything I say here is just a clumsy attempt to say something about the unspeakable. Here we reach transrational ground, which means that it's a good idea to use our rationality to check if what we say really makes sense, but ultimately it won't make sense, just because it's beyond the rational. yada yada yada

Let's take a diamond for example. We can look at it from different angles, and everytime we turn it around and watch its beautiful blinking and sparkling in the sun, we think we found the most beautiful perspective ever. Until we turn it around again. etc

Or let's take a valley that's surrounded by Mountains. From each Mountain you have a breathtaking view down into the valley, but it would look slightly different from each Mountain Top. Let's imagine on each Mountain Top there stands an Enlightened Holy Man and describes his followers (who cannot see down into the valley) what he sees. The point is here that they are all looking at the same thing (?), from a different angle. You could never tell which one is 'higher' or 'better' or 'more true' or whatever. Am  I still making sense.

Okay. But of course it's way more complicated than that. Because there are rankings and hierarchies, as Greg points out: Every tradition ranks the others from its point of view. Comparing these hierachies would be really really interesting, but this knowledge is not easily accessible, as it seems. And of course it also depends on the moment in time (which is called history) where some traditions might have developed their full glory while others are not so visible yet. And no one can tell how many facets of the diamond we should look for. Which Religion did really reach the mountain top and which one didn't? There might even be a 'Wild Card' Perspective, or an atheist one. And what about the 'Circle of Holy Men'? Is it really a Circle? Was Nietzsche right with his 'Eternal Return'? Aaahhh I love asking questions... ^_^

Be well,

C.

--

>Five Star General of the Seven Armies, Archon of Atlantis<

Hi Greg,

I've been following your posts and find them interesting and informative (as well as Cameron's and other's on the subject). I'm wondering about a couple of things.

For one thing, I'm not sure if it could be said of Wilber's recent work that his ideas of spirituality are based on a Buddhist/Vedanta template. I'm not sure it ever was really based on a Buddhist/Vedanta template--Ken spent some time with mystical Christianity himself--but I think it could be said that in the pre-Wilber V era (until Integral Spirituality) it did have a bit of a bias toward the state training of Buddhism and Vedanta.

You may have written about it here and I may have missed it, so please forgive me if you have, but are you very familiar with the idea of the three faces of Spirit written about in Integral Spirituality? The first face of Spirit, for those who aren't familiar with it, is basically the traditional enlightenment of Buddhism, Vedanta, mystical Christianity (horizontal state training); the second face of Spirit involves God as Other, which Buddhism and Vedanta touch on a little but which has gotten its greatest expression through Christianity, Sufism, Kabbalah. And then the third face of Spirit is God as process, which has probably gotten as good an expression with Christian charity work as in any other tradition.

Ken's spoken about the second face of Spirit in conversations with Andrew Cohen in EnlightenNext magazine, including here. The discussion in the current issue of the magazine is actually about this subject in particular; it is titled "The Second Face of God." I have read it and found it to be one of the strongest expressions Wilber has made on the subject yet. He says in the first page I linked that spirit in second person is one of the subjects he hasn't spoken about much because, in his words, "as soon as you open your mouth about . . . [it], nobody takes you seriously in the academic world." I think this to a large extent must account for the apparent bias toward Buddhism and Vedanta, which once again seems to have diminished in his recent work.

I think we also see the second face of God represented better as he now envisions third-tier stages. It used to be that the Buddhist/Vedanta/mystical-Christianity states (which, of course, have also been explored in Sufism, Kabbalah, Taoism) were placed on top of the spiral--now those states have been put off to the side to an extent, demoted in a sense (as the horizontal axis in the Wilber-Combs Lattice rather than the vertical). The current third-tier stages still include those states but realized in a different way than most Buddhist and Vedanta teachers have realized them; most of them simply took a right turn toward the deeper states part way up the Wilber-Combs Lattice. But the third-tier stages now are modeled to a large extent on Aurobindo's highest stages, and Aurobindo was very, very strong in the second face of Spirit; there is as strong a devotional aspect in his work as I think there is in any other, and he integrates that with the traditional state development, as Wilber does.

I can see how you can get dissatisfied with the time Wilber has given to the second face of Spirit and perhaps frustrated, as I occasionally have been, that he feels he can't speak about it much because of his interest in appealing to the academic world, but it seems to me it is represented well in the model, though it isn't always explicit.

It seems to me, though I don't identify as a Christian, that the current model can be quite compatible with Christianity. The whole thing will take on different language and a different tack for each tradition, of course. In Integral Spirituality he corresponds his third-tier stages with Aurobindo's "Intuitive Mind," "Overmind," etc., and an integral Christianity would likely come up with different names and emphasize different things. Also we should keep in mind that these structures are "still being laid down," as he says, but if it still doesn't seem to fit or be compatible with your vision of Christianity, how would you like to see the stages within your tradition unfold? What would your model of Christianity look like?

Best,

David

Hi Greg,

Perhaps you can achieve what you want without reforming the theory but rather using the map.

Using Integral Theory on it's map of the territory, like a template, you may put more 'meat on the bones' of information about the Christian tradition on it's own line of development. Once placed you can use the levels/stages/colors along your Christian tradition's line to develop your interpretation about each stage of development in the Christian tradition.

This gives you an opportunity to express information "according to your view" as it is known in the tradition that you feel needs more information. You can participate in a dialogue that will help bring more information about Christianity as you develop a dialogue with others on your interpretations.

Blessings, Susan

While Ken Wilber’s language is Buddhist/Vendantic, the stages/levels he maps out and the order he has placed them are a result of comparing numerous developmental models. According to Wilber, these stages are nested and therefore one moves from a more limited scope to a broader scope while. The stages move from egocentric to “kosmocentic”, from pre-modern to post-postmodern, etc. This does assume that humanity is culturally moving from a more limited scope to a broader scope. That itself could be debated. How would the Christian tradition’s ‘evolution’ differ?

If this is based on the writings/experiences of the mystics, I must admit this is a point at which I may have a problem with Wilber’s model. If the mystical states are just that – states—than why do they correlate with his stages? What I like about the Wilber-Combs lattice is that you have stages and states interacting rather than one set of stages interacting with another set of stages. I mention this having read your reference to going “beyond nondual”. Is it really possible to speak of these mystical states in a hierarchical fashion?  But I think David may be right about Wilber's change in his approach toward the states and stages.

I am in agreement with David in reading Wilber a bit differently than you seem to. I have always seen room for speaking of God in the second-person as well as the first and third within Wilber’s writing, including the nondual perspective. Non-dualism in Jewish mysticism never looses the second-person view of God. The oneness with God that some Christian mystics speak of seems to be nondualistic, but simply articulated differently.

You mentioned that Christianity doesn’t point to “no-self or non-dual”, but doesn’t your practice of zazen lead to moments in which you reach a non-dual state?  Or are you simply saying that the Christian tradition leads you to states higher than that?  I personally can’t see how you can get more inclusive than seeing God as the Creator, Creation and the Act of Creating. In fact, my own understanding of the Trinity lent to my nondualist perspective (something we should discuss on a different thread?). But just because I can’t see how doesn’t mean I’m not curious as to how you do.

I also don’t understand your need for one tradition to put the others in a hierarchy. Like you said, one’s own tradition will always be on top and it will usually descend according to that tradition’s similarity or relationship to the others. I am guessing that after Catholicism would be Protestantism and then, maybe Eastern Orthodoxy?  That sounds more like picking a fight than being integral. “My religion is higher than yours” doesn’t lend itself to productive dialogue. It would seem that such would only lead to a pissing match. I’m not saying one doesn’t have such views or that we deny them. I just don’t see the value of charting them or reminding someone that I have such views. I definitely can’t see any way of using the AQAL model to do so.

I may be misunderstanding this element of your solution. Would a tradition arrange its hierarchy of the other traditions depending on the stage of the tradition? Likely. While this may be the case, it may not be something charted but it would be interesting to see how a Tradition interacts with other traditions at different levels. Then again isn’t that what the present Integral model does? At the pre-modern, it’s us vs. them. At the modern level, there are various degrees of tolerance. At the post-modern level, the hierarchy is based upon on the degree to which the other traditions have hierarchies since all is equal from that point of view. The thing about the integral model is that it doesn’t say all is equal, only that each perspective has some thing(s) right. Traditions, themselves, are not compared; but rather there various manifestations are compared according to how much modern, post-modern or post-postmodern thought has influenced the tradition. Like you mentioned, every tradition has its stages. Wilber simply thinks he’s found that each of the traditions move along the same stage progression that cultures have developed along (which also coincide with cognitive development, according to his research).

As I re-read this part of your solution, I’m thinking the above still isn’t what you’re getting at. Are you saying that how Wilber allocated his stages were biased according to his Buddhist/Vadantic perspective? If so, every tradition would need its own “bull’s-eye” configuration with its different set of stages. This doesn’t reform the AQAL but rather says it simply doesn’t work, that there are no similar stages.

I do agree that you could set up different line for each Tradition. They would go into the Lower Left quadrant of course. The real question here is that all the lines still go through the same stages. It sounds like you would disagree on the stage progression of the Christian, particularly Catholic, tradition. So are you saying the AQAL model needs to be reformed?  You would come across the same problem that Wilber had to wrestle with – are there stages that every spiritual/religious tradition goes through and do they do so in the same order? If your answer is “No.”, then I can’t see the AQAL model being of any value to you. Does that mean you couldn’t be “integral”? Well, I think it makes it more difficult if you can’t find some common element amongst the traditions. That’s what makes the AQAL model so appealing and practical. How does one integrate various points of view without some sort of unifying element? I think this would be worth exploring.

I’m surprised that you mentioned Huston Smith as a good place to start simply because Wilber himself at least claims to draw from Huston to some degree. Maybe you beg to differ?

You said: The deeper one enters into his/her 3rd tier Tradition the more they understand and appreciate the other Traditions, and the more clearly they spot the differences in Traditions all the way down the scale.

Do you find anything similar in the Traditions’ progressions toward the third tier? It would seem that if each Tradition can reach a similar viewpoint at third tier, there must be something in common on the way there…

I look forward to your response to these questions. You've really got me thinking.

Everybody on this thread seems to believe that each tradition should treat the others with tolerance and openness, and work together for a better world. This is an illusion, folks.

I quote from Pope Benedict's book 'Jesus of Nazareth':

>>”And this shall be the true mission of the Religions: to work together for the coming of the kingdom. […] They can all stay inside their respective tradition, each living their own identity, but they would have to operate towards a world in which Peace, Justice, and Respect for the creation are determinants.”<<

So far so good. He goes on:

>>”At a closer look, all this [tolerant talk] reveals itself as utopist chitchat with no real content whatsoever. […] God disappeared, only man is acting. The respect for the religious tradition is only pretended. Essentially they are seen as a bunch of habits that should be left to man although they do not count at all. The creed, the religion are finalised towards political aims. Only the setting of the world counts. Religion counts insofar, as it can be of help in that matter. The closeness of this postchristian vision of Belief and Religion to the third temptation of Christ is disturbing.”<<

The Quote is slightly out of Context, but it works good enough.

the third temptation: -> The Devil offers Jesus the Throne of the World Dominator. He answers: “Away with thee, Satan! You want my fall; because you don't have in mind what God wants, but what Man wants. (Mt. 16,22)

For further reading on Tolerance as an Ideology, I recommend this text by Slavoj Zizek who talks about its aftermath in the political sector.

--

>Five Star General of the Seven Armies, Archon of Atlantis<