Integralists vs. Integralites

We could, if we were feeling reckless, distinguish between two types of cognition: decorated & undecorated. 

Decoration means that we have articulations that adequately describe the shapes and behaviours of our consciousness.  This is what Integral Theory is.  This is one of the deep and lasting contributions which the Wilbersaurus has made to civilization.  He has defined, employed, and described many of the structures and movements of the highest level of human thinking (the level prior to the transcendence of thinking).  To borrow these decorations is to be an Integralist.  And an Integralist may have a place to hang them... or not.

Undecorated cognition means that we are using the structures and "moves" which characterize the highest echelons of human thinking.  We can see the pieces of the Integral Worldspace.  We do those things out of which Integralism is generated.  But we may not be able to say it.  We may have no good word for it.  Heck, we may have some terrible, vague, misleading words for it.  An Integralite knows what he or she is talking about... but can't necessarily talk about it in a comprehensive, cogent, coherent or broadly useful manner. 

Why divide Integral into these two classifications when, obviously, everyone has a mixture of both?

Well, here's something it helps us to understand:

Integral equivalency on non-cognitive lines.

Once we grok the idea that there can be a very basic, non-verbalized, not-thought-out "level" of consciousness whose particular shapes, unique gestures of organizing data, specific relationship to its preceding levels, etc. -- we can then apply this to other lines.  We can get over the simplified Integralism which expects to find a certain verbal confession at the root of "Teal"ish emergence.  We can look for Integralites along the emotional spectrum, along the aesthetic spectrum, etc.

THE EXAMPLE OF THE SAND-CASTLE MAKER

Somewhere out there is a mute sculptor of sandcastles.  He has a strong sense of self-awareness but he doesn't think about it much.  All he cares about sandcastles.  In his life so far he has worked through a half-dozen or so profound shifts in the depth & context of his approach to sandcastling.  Now he feels a great sense of pleasurable and hopeful spaciousness when he works.  His castles always try to show something of the organic evolution of their own forms.  Occasionally this means showing the stages leading up to the current sculpture but, more often, it involves making very obvious demonstrations of how the form of the castle goes beyond itself while remaining itself. 

This sculptor feels very deeply that a good sandcastle is always a mixture of the right sand, the right mood, the right spectators, the right "conversation" with the sandcastle makers of the past, the right weather and light.  All these things are always implicitly and simultaneously engaging him. 

It gives him a great instinctively pleasure to find ways in which two different, seemingly opposed options for sandcastle making can actually be combined into a single more complex structure.

And people find his castles to be either marvelous or, sometimes, odd in a way they can't quite grasp.  Sometimes those who think they don't like these creations come back in a few years... and finally "get it". 

Asked about the world or values in general -- this sculptor might not get an Integral grade.

If you examine his work for Integral content -- you will have a hard time deciding.

But if you look for evidence of the basic "moves" which, in another setting, would allow knowledge to be integral-ized by a human mind, you may well discover these in plenty.

Thanks, I've been...

Layman Pascal