The Coming Integral Religion

Hi, Joe,

I'm not sure if you ever came across these discussions, but several years ago, first on Integral Naked, and then later on the Multiplex, I started conversations on a related question:  "The Integral Church of AQAL: A New Religion?"  I searched for these discussions today, only to learn, to my disappointment, that both the Integral Naked and Multiplex forums have been decommissioned.  So, a lot of nice content has been lost.  But through Google's cache, I was at least able to recover one of the opening posts:

AQAL provides a way of looking at (and potentially invigorating) various traditions individually, and also of relating them to one another.  But with the emergence of preferred ILP practices (including new perspective-based exercises); specialized jargon; novel variations on traditional concepts; a hierarchy of teachers, initiates, and neophytes; a group of organizations dedicated to communicating the Integral vision to society; and so on, the transformation of Integral into a religion in its own right -- a redemptive path in itself, rather than just a way to map other redemptive paths and knowledge disciplines -- appears to be a distinct possibility.

What do you think of this?  Do you see signs of it?  What concerns and issues does it raise?  Is it necessarily a negative development, or might it also be positive?

Best wishes,

B.

There were interesting responses in those discussions on multiple sides of this question -- some arguing Integral should always remain a universal meta-view and should never be associated with any "church" or become a religion in its own right, while others indicated they already resonated with it as a genuine path of spiritual transformation (rather than just a map of other paths).

On my side, when I first posted that question, I had reservations about the apparent "religionizing of Integral" (though it did appear to me to be underway already).  One concern was that the theory would get co-opted by people with a vision of it that I did not share, perhaps forcing me to make a break with it (or the "official" version of it); another was that Integral, in itself, doesn't have a substantial enough "body" on which to build, since so much of it is borrowed and rests on summaries of, and orienting generalizations about, other philosophies, practices, disciplines, etc.  Can a "parasite" become a "host" (to use an unflattering metaphor!)?  Another concern had to do with the types of teachers who were typically "endorsed" by Wilber and the official "Integral body" -- a number of whom are rather controversial and not compelling or attractive to me, personally.  I didn't (and don't) really want those individuals to rise to positions of central spiritual authority within the Integral movement.  (Currently, there are a number of teachers operating under the Integral umbrella that I do like and whom I respect quite a lot, so my concerns about "who" is getting endorsed certainly don't involve all "Integral teachers" across the board).

As you have noted in my recent paper, however, I have been more actively recommending the development of a distinct "Integral spirituality" -- having accepted that it was happening already, and wanting there to be a clearer differentiation between Integral meta-theory and "Integral" as a system of belief committed to a particular metaphysics, soteriological vision, spiritual praxis, etc.  Some of the concerns I voiced in my earlier discussions still remain, and there are others as well -- such as whether Integral thought is really mature enough yet to serve as such a foundation, and if a rush now to forming an Integral Religion is premature (even if likely inevitable) -- but I'm open to exploring these questions with others, and trust the development of something profound and new is indeed possible, in time.

Best wishes,

Bruce