Please Log in to Vote.

2 out of 2 members found this useful.

Join the Conversation on "Is There One Integral Movement or Many?" on Wikipedia

Posted December 31st, 2009 by Joe Perez in Announcements

Help define the issues and contribute your insights in a discussion on how the Integral movement is defined on Wikipedia. You don't have to be an existing Wikipedia editor to chime in, and a variety of perspectives are needed at a critical point in the reorganization of the Integral main/portal topic and set the organization for many future topics to come.

Please Log in to Vote.

1 out of 1 members found this useful.

Certainly not one

Posted December 31st, 2009 by Dust Mapper

There are likely millions of people who are currently involved in integrating wisdom from multiple perspectives in a structured manner who don't label themselves Integral or haven't even heard of Integral Theory. Probably the vast majority of people we might classify as Integralists in the world are this way.  However, I don't see them as forming or having unified movements, per-se.

One thing's clear - there isn't simply 'one' Integral movement, led by Wilber, framed by AQAL. The very notion that this is so is a self-aggrandizing delusion many in us have fallen into and find comfort in. Even if it feels like it, it's essential that all of us take steps to frame our own understanding of Integral in a way that transcends (and includes) (jeez, how cliche), AQAL and Wilber, and frame the work within these gated compounds as merely a tiny subset of what it means to be Integral. Otherwise, this particular Integral movement IMO is doomed to irrelevancy.

* NOTE: As for Wikipedia contribution itself, I admit I'm lost...there's just a lot of information on the page and I don't have the capacity to really dig in right now. Well, I hope my little comment above serves it's purpose in expressing a valuable POV nonetheless.

@dustmapper (check me on Twitter)