I hope that this is not in violation of protocol or form in bringing below Balder's amazingly fine analysis from another level forum over to comment on here, in case anyone wants to comment. I know that it would be hard for me to say anything that goes deeper into his invited dialogue, but I do want to say that in following most of it, I so like it and feel educated by it. I particularly liked his tentatively offered suggestions to Integral Institute and theorizing. It's hard for me to pull one of those bullet points out as more important than others, but I liked the more lay-languaged admonition of #9 down that seems to speak to daily tendencies here on IN, my own not excluded.:

What is the relationship of Integral Theory to the interreligious strategy of inclusivism?  Consider the following passage:

"In his discussion of inclusivism, Halbfass points to the discursive tendency of traditional sectarian Indian thought to develop doxographies in which ‘others' are neutralized through inclusion and subordination.  In this, he divides the strategy of inclusivism into two major types, based on images developed within the Indic tradition. The two images are: (1) that of the ocean into which rivers merge, discharging their waters and losing their names, but remaining preserved in essence and substance; (2) that of the elephant's footstep, which includes through exceeding the footsteps of other animals, covering larger terrain than any of them individually and erasing or obliterating them in the process. Halbfass characterizes these strategies as hierarchism and perspectivism respectively, and sees examples of the first in Advaita Vedanta and the second in Jaina doxographies" (Banerji, 06)

As Integral Theory is increasingly institutionalized, and as it enters ever more actively into dialogue with other systems of thought, I believe it is imperative that advocates of this approach reflect on its relation to the various discursive strategies that have been adopted by prominent religious traditions in ancient and more recent times.  Given the emphasis in Integral Theory on hierarchical inclusiveness and perspectivism, I think it is especially important that we consider how the Integral approach resembles and yet may also differ from historical inclusivist strategies.

The term inclusivism is typically used in relation to other attitudes that have historically informed interreligious relationships:  exclusivism, which is the belief that only one revelation or tradition is true or has authentic soteriological power and all other ways are false; and pluralism, which has multiple definitions, but which for our immediate purposes may be defined as the belief that all major religions reveal spiritual truths but no single religion can claim to be in possession of the final, absolute truth.  Inclusivism occupies a position in between these two extremes, assigning ultimate truth status to a particular vision while acknowledging that other paths may variously participate in, reflect, or supplement the truth of this superior way.

Within the Christian tradition, inclusivism takes the form of various Christological "fulfillment" doctrines, where the possibility for salvation is granted to non-Christians (contra the exclusivist position), but only in and through the extra-ecclesial, redemptive work of Christ.  In other words, the ultimate religious fulfillment of non-Christians is allowed as a possibility, as opposed to inevitable damnation, but this salvation or realization is ultimately a Christian one.  While other, non-Christian religions are granted a relative value and "truthfulness," their value and truthfulness are recognized only inasmuch as they can be said to approximate or reflect the ultimate truth(s) of the Christian vision. 

Within the Indian context, inclusivism shows up under several different guises.   As the passage above indicates, Halbfass recognizes two forms of inclusivism:  the hierarchic strategy of Advaita Vedanta (or Vajrayana), which includes alternative traditions and schools of thought by incorporating them into a hierarchy of perspectives of which it is the pinnacle; and the perspectivist strategy of Jainism, which, with its notion of anekantavada or non-one-sidedness, includes multiple religious perspectives as true but necessarily partial reflections on the whole.  (This Jain doctrine is considered inclusivist rather than pluralist because it denies the possibility of salvation to anyone who fails to accept its truth.)  The Buddha also arguably voiced an inclusivist perspective when he acknowledged, in the Digha Nikaya, that other religions could possibly lead to liberation if they contained the Noble Eight-fold Path.

Postmodern pluralists within Christian, interfaith dialogue, and Indological contexts have criticized this approach as imperialist, triumphalist, and a product of pre-postmodern rationalism.  It is a hegemonic strategy, the criticism goes, which wipes out difference in the name of an overarching truth.  As the metaphors in the passage above illustrate, it is seen as an approach which denies and essentially erases alterity - swallowing and wiping out the tracks of the "other."

To what extent does this critique apply to Wilber's Integral vision?  In an essay I wrote a year ago for the Zaadz Integrative Spirituality Symposium, I described Jainism's anekantavada doctrine as a precursor to Integral Theory's integral perspectivism.  And Wilber has acknowledged parallels between his model and the stage models of Vajrayana and Advaita Vedanta.  So Integral Theory incorporates both the horizontal and vertical inclusivist strategies highlighted in Halbfass' critique.  If the Integral approach is thus best characterized as a form of inclusivism, and inclusivism historically is a pre-postmodern, pre-pluralist strategy, must we then conclude that it is an approach that has failed to adequately digest the lessons of postmodernity?  Is it necessarily hegemonic and corrosive of difference?

In theory, I do not believe it is.  I believe it acknowledges and incorporates important postmodern insights which can help mitigate tendencies towards narrow, ideologically driven forms of inclusivism.  I will say more about this below.  In practice, however, I believe some of these lessons have yet to be digested - particularly in forums like this one, where, for instance, well-meaning Integralites may use the "transcend and include" mantra as a defensive, self-insulating polemical strategy.

Before looking more closely at Integral Theory, I want to pause for a moment to look at pluralism as an alternative to inclusivism.  In The Infinite Ladder, Dustin Di Perna identifies inclusivism as a rational-level (Orange) strategy and pluralism as a pluralist-level (Green) perspective.  Religious pluralism, emerging in the Western context out of the intersubjectivist critique of rationalist epistemology and ontology, thus serves as an important corrective to the earlier strategies of mythic exclusivism and rationalist inclusivism.  However, while it represents an advancement in a number of ways, it is nevertheless a problematic position to maintain.  Gavin D'Costa, for instance, argues that a pure pluralist position cannot be coherently articulated and employed because it ultimately rests on the same logical structure as exclusivism. According to D'Costa,

[T]here is no such thing as pluralism because all pluralists are committed to holding some form of truth criteria and by virtue of this, anything that falls foul of such criteria is excluded from counting as truth (in doctrine and in practice).  Thus, pluralism operates within the same logical structure of exclusivism and in this respect pluralism can never really affirm the genuine autonomous value of religious pluralism for, like exclusivism [and inclusivism], it can only do so by tradition specific criteria for truth (D'Costa, 1996, as cited in Trapnell, 1998)

D'Costa thus calls the position of pluralism itself into question.  In seeking to establish a pluralist model of religious equality, we apparently cannot avoid making appeals to non-universal, tradition-specific truth claims, and thus implicitly endorsing a quasi-inclusivist (if not actually exclusivist) perspective of our own.  We find ourselves, in other words, in the midst of a performative contradiction.  But if religious pluralism cannot be established as a coherent, un-self-contradictory position in itself, it nevertheless imparts valuable insights into intersubjectivity, the constructedness and relative incommensurability of cultural and religious worldspaces, and the value of alterity that I believe must be retained in any post-pluralist model.

Integral Theory, in its latest incarnation, aims to do this.  While it certainly incorporates both horizontal and vertical inclusivist strategies to support its overall integrative vision, it simultaneously recognizes these strategies as creative, intersubjectively grounded enactments, not pre-given realities.  With pluralism, while we acknowledge that we cannot avoid imposing our own perspective-dependent presuppositions on others, we may nevertheless recognize the creative potential that such a gesture makes available, as we consciously "hold space" for alterity, for the integrity and sanctity of otherness, and therefore we may elect to value the stance of pluralism as the best of the limited options available to us (e.g., exclusivism or inclusivism).  With the Integral perspective, I believe a similar opportunity is available, but one which corrects - or has the potential to correct - for the pendulum swing of pluralism towards the extreme of otherness (which has sometimes unwittingly contributed to even further social fragmentation and segregation) and invites a more balanced recognition and honoring of sameness and difference, sameness-in-difference, and (with its emphasis on types, levels, and so on), difference-in-sameness.

Admittedly, the language of Integral has tended more in the direction of inclusivism, understandably raising concerns in postmodern circles that Integral represents another hegemonic meta-narrative.  Some of the earlier phases of Wilber's work may indeed be deserving of this charge.  But I believe Wilber's most recent work reflects a keen awareness of the challenges and gifts of the postmodern turn, and also attempts to address some of the shortcomings of that turn.

For us to make good on the promise that I believe Integral presents, I have a number of suggestions, some of which I comfortably endorse, others of which I tentatively offer for consideration:

• To mitigate the tendency towards insular, ideologically driven inclusivism, which I believe is a potential problem for any integrative model, I believe one of the first steps is simply to call attention to and bring greater awareness to these dynamics, to call attention to the potential for elephantine footprints to effectively erase the tracks of (e.g., silence) those whom we would embrace.

• Related to this, allowing the recognition of these dynamics to impregnate our communicative practices, to inspire us towards non-attachment to views and a willingness to suspend our positions in the moment of encounter with an other.

• As may be apparent by the tone and content of this blog, I am suggesting - along with Gary Hampson and others - that Integralites may do well not to hurry too quickly past postmodernism, leaving it in the dust of history; rather they should return to take fuller advantage of the insights and tools won by this fairly recent development in human thought. I believe Wilber himself is recognizing the importance of this move, judging by his emphasis on intersubjectivity and constructivism in Integral Spirituality.

• While AQAL is often discussed and, unfortunately, treated as a static map, I believe Integral Methodological Pluralism invites us to see it in more dynamic, enactive terms, as a sort of integrative operator. This serves to undercut adherence to the myth of the given, which has informed a number of historical inclusivist approaches. As I wrote in a recent blog, when we argue that something is real or true, we are making a claim about how a given conperception (a construct-perception) will behave across a wide range of circumstances. We are saying that we can count on it to behave in certain ways and be subject to certain kinds of confirmation within a given set of operational parameters. Within an Integral enactive paradigm, these parameters include the condition of the speaker.

• It may be worthwhile, in the context of the concerns of this blog as well as the concerns of nondual spirituality, to take a closer look at our presuppositions about knowledge - what is its nature, how is it generated or realized? What is involved in map-based, instrumental or technological knowledge?

• IMP and the AQAL enactive paradigm take wholeness for granted, but this wholeness is an "active absence": while dynamic multiplicity may "testify" to this wholeness, as the Bonpos say, it will never show up or present itself as an object for our inspection. This means that the contents of Integral Theory or the AQAL model should not be mistaken as the whole; rather, to shamelessly and cannibalistically appropriate one of Grof's terms, they encourage a holotropic orientation - an orientation which recognizes the "movement towards wholeness" as valuable but which does not presume to represent it as a single, given totality, since no such totality has ever been set up or established.

• This move encourages us to value alterity in and with the movement towards wholeness, since, as Henri Bortoft points out, the whole is found, not in opposition to or through the addition of parts, but ever uniquely in and through them.

• The frequently heard claim that Integral or AQAL is "without content" or a neutral operating system strikes me as problematic. I do not think this is a defensible position. Such claims can (and sometimes, in my experience, do) contribute to a tendency to treat the AQAL model as somehow given or inevitable, and this in my view can feed into the use ideologically driven inclusivist strategies, particularly in forums such as this one.

• Because Integral communities, to date, tend to be rather insulated - and Integral Naked discussions tend to move in relatively narrow, self-congratulatory circles - I think the maturity of the community will be served by increased efforts to interact with others outside of this movement. More encounters with intractable, inassimilable equals will be good medicine.

• While Integral has charted a powerful and compelling course beyond pluralism, I believe it is naïve to imagine that the way forward for humanity has a single horizon. The potential for multiple integral horizons, in fact, is implied by the current Integral Postmetaphysical paradigm, but in my dealings with the Integral community I have not found this to be seriously considered.

There are likely other suggestions and comments I will want to add, and some I may want to remove, so I am giving fair warning now that the list above may change!

Special thanks to Kela and Jim.  Our conversation on the IPS pod was the inspiration for this blog.

---

Ambo Suno

Hi, Ambo,

I am not sure if moving the post from one level forum to another is against Multiplex protocol either, but I'm thankful that you did so!  I had a hard time deciding where to post this yesterday, finally choosing the Integral Spiritual Center board just because it gets less traffic and I wanted to contribute something there.

Thank you also for your comments on my post; I'm glad you got something out of it.  I actually feel there are still a number of things that have been left unsaid, so I'm tentatively thinking about a "part 2."

Just for the sake of clarity, I want to add that this was originally posted on my blog at Gaia.com, so when I referred to "forums like this," I was referring to Gaia; and when I described the conversations on Integral Naked, I was referring mostly to the audio/video offerings, not to the Multiplex forums.  But I do think my comments are more broadly applicable -- at least, they reflect my observations of the types of interactions and conversations that take place on most of the Integral forums in which I've participated, and the recommendations I am making at the end of the post are as much for myself as anyone else.

I look forward to discussing these questions and suggestions further with anyone who is interested.

Best wishes,

Balder

---

May the boundless knowledge that time presents and space allows illuminate the native perspectives of your original face.

Balder:

Can I try an "in other words approach?" In blue ink?

To mitigate the tendency towards insular, ideologically driven inclusivism, which I believe is a potential problem for any integrative model, I believe one of the first steps is simply to call attention to and bring greater awareness to these dynamics, to call attention to the potential for elephantine footprints to effectively erase the tracks of (e.g., silence) those whom we would embrace.

The concern here is with what seems like big politico-spiritual-ideological alliances between Integral and other heavyweight groups? That is to say, by aligning with certain packs of elephants, other quieter groups will be silent and will maintain their distance?

The tendency toward politicization of the Integral vision and its marketing leads to a dialectic that drives many away?

Related to this, allowing the recognition of these dynamics to impregnate our communicative practices, to inspire us towards non-attachment to views and a willingness to suspend our positions in the moment of encounter with an other.

The concern here is with being more mutually-explorative in our dialogues, rather than "always having the answers?"

As may be apparent by the tone and content of this blog, I am suggesting - along with Gary Hampson and others - that Integralites may do well not to hurry too quickly past postmodernism, leaving it in the dust of history; rather they should return to take fuller advantage of the insights and tools won by this fairly recent development in human thought. I believe Wilber himself is recognizing the importance of this move, judging by his emphasis on intersubjectivity and constructivism in Integral Spirituality.

The concern here is that Integralites intellectually know the lessons of post-modernism, or at least intellectually have a sense of what it means, but in our speech and conduct we certainly show no signs of "knowing" those lessons in a profound way?

While AQAL is often discussed and, unfortunately, treated as a static map, I believe Integral Methodological Pluralism invites us to see it in more dynamic, enactive terms, as a sort of integrative operator. This serves to undercut adherence to the myth of the given, which has informed a number of historical inclusivist approaches. As I wrote in a recent blog, when we argue that something is real or true, we are making a claim about how a given conperception (a construct-perception) will behave across a wide range of circumstances. We are saying that we can count on it to behave in certain ways and be subject to certain kinds of confirmation within a given set of operational parameters. Within an Integral enactive paradigm, these parameters include the condition of the speaker.

The concern here is that when we hear discussion of IMP matters and AQAL, the overriding sense one gets is that the speaker is regarding IMP/AQAL as carved in stone truth and especially we get the impression that the speaker is not alive with or informed by the integral operator in the act of speaking. You are calling for more performance that demonstrates the the very operator that is being talked about?

It may be worthwhile, in the context of the concerns of this blog as well as the concerns of nondual spirituality, to take a closer look at our presuppositions about knowledge - what is its nature, how is it generated or realized? What is involved in map-based, instrumental or technological knowledge?

The concern here is that we haven't given sufficient attention to what we think we know and how we know it? We are quite sophisticated except when it comes to being aware of just how many assumptions we make when we "pontificate" about what we know? In essence, if we truly "understood" post-modern truths, we would not be talking the way we do?

IMP and the AQAL enactive paradigm take wholeness for granted, but this wholeness is an "active absence": while dynamic multiplicity may "testify" to this wholeness, as the Bonpos say, it will never show up or present itself as an object for our inspection. This means that the contents of Integral Theory or the AQAL model should not be mistaken as the whole; rather, to shamelessly and cannibalistically appropriate one of Grof's terms, they encourage a holotropic orientation - an orientation which recognizes the "movement towards wholeness" as valuable but which does not presume to represent it as a single, given totality, since no such totality has ever been set up or established.

The concern here is that we consistently come across as if we believe we are "putting forth" a "thing" that is whole and can be seen as whole by others?

This move encourages us to value alterity in and with the movement towards wholeness, since, as Henri Bortoft points out, the whole is found, not in opposition to or through the addition of parts, but ever uniquely in and through them.

"Alterity" being the capacity to exchange perspectives with others, right? The concern is that we may not be advancing a movement toward wholeness at all when we engage in debate or intellectual exercises that add or subtract pieces?

The frequently heard claim that Integral or AQAL is "without content" or a neutral operating system strikes me as problematic. I do not think this is a defensible position. Such claims can (and sometimes, in my experience, do) contribute to a tendency to treat the AQAL model as somehow given or inevitable, and this in my view can feed into the use ideologically driven inclusivist strategies, particularly in forums such as this one.

The concern is that we posit the Integral model as the very Kosmos and this sets up a bad situation where those who can gain valuable insights do not make the attempt because they have been driven away already by their instinctive disagreement with this model of the world? I am wondering if we are mixing levels up here though. We can say an computer's operating system is without content, inasmuch as it simply allows software to run on top of it. But we can also say the OS is full of content in its own right. Linux would certainly not agree that Windows is the only way to run a computer, right? And we are driving away 10,000 Linuxes by our arrogrant position that Integral is content-free?

Because Integral communities, to date, tend to be rather insulated - and Integral Naked discussions tend to move in relatively narrow, self-congratulatory circles - I think the maturity of the community will be served by increased efforts to interact with others outside of this movement. More encounters with intractable, inassimilable equals will be good medicine.

Your concern is that we are all engaged in mutual-self-congratulation sessions? We need to get out into the world and "show the plan?"

While Integral has charted a powerful and compelling course beyond pluralism, I believe it is naïve to imagine that the way forward for humanity has a single horizon. The potential for multiple integral horizons, in fact, is implied by the current Integral Postmetaphysical paradigm, but in my dealings with the Integral community I have not found this to be seriously considered.

Your concern is that we have found the truth and are now satisfied with it? We are ignoring other integral horizons? Let me ask: where do we find 5 other horizons that bring together the Kosmos in a credible and useful way?

Where are these other horizons that account for and make sense of all of the things Integral does? Where do we start?

May I add another concern - should we be concerned at all by the notion that we know the way forward for humanity? Of is there a place for positing that we do know the way forward for humanity?

Thanks for some great reminders, at least if I understand them correctly. Am hoping you will correct or add to anything I have summarized as your concerns.

 

Schalk,

Thank you for your comments.  I really appreciate how you think and how you communicate.  Your "in other words approach" was helpful and clarifying for me. 

I wrote:  To mitigate the tendency towards insular, ideologically driven inclusivism, which I believe is a potential problem for any integrative model, I believe one of the first steps is simply to call attention to and bring greater awareness to these dynamics, to call attention to the potential for elephantine footprints to effectively erase the tracks of (e.g., silence) those whom we would embrace.

You responded:  The concern here is with what seems like big politico-spiritual-ideological alliances between Integral and other heavyweight groups? That is to say, by aligning with certain packs of elephants, other quieter groups will be silent and will maintain their distance?

The tendency toward politicization of the Integral vision and its marketing leads to a dialectic that drives many away?

I recognize this as a real possibility, but this is not what I was thinking of when I talked about needing to be mindful of the potential dynamics of inclusivism.  I was referring more to taking "big overview" perspectives, in which we "make a place" for everyone:  Because we often achieve this by adopting a certain level of distance and abstraction, we may fail to appreciate where the person or view thus "included" also offers the gifts (and challenges) of "difference" to whatever perspective we may currently hold.  This is the UL concern.  The LL and LR, cultural and political, concerns are that, in actually telling other people or groups, "You're included in our vision; this is how," we may also unwittingly engage in more literal forms of "silencing."

I think it's important to stress that I do not regard this as the inevitable result of Integralism or an Integral life well embodied; rather, I am just calling attention to it as a possibility, particularly if we lack mindfulness of certain of these dynamics.

I wrote:  Related to this, allowing the recognition of these dynamics to impregnate our communicative practices, to inspire us towards non-attachment to views and a willingness to suspend our positions in the moment of encounter with an other.

You responded:  The concern here is with being more mutually-explorative in our dialogues, rather than "always having the answers?"

Essentially, yes.  Having a big map which accounts for everything and sorts everything out, or appears to, can limit as well as enhance communication.  I'm just pointing to a type of self-assured, ideological "closing down" or "self-insulation" that can arise when we have invested ourselves in The Map and the security of the Answers it provides.  More specifically, I'm referring to something along the lines of Panikkar's diatopical hermeneutics and the imparative method, which I discussed in a previous blog entry.

I wrote:  As may be apparent by the tone and content of this blog, I am suggesting - along with Gary Hampson and others - that Integralites may do well not to hurry too quickly past postmodernism, leaving it in the dust of history; rather they should return to take fuller advantage of the insights and tools won by this fairly recent development in human thought. I believe Wilber himself is recognizing the importance of this move, judging by his emphasis on intersubjectivity and constructivism in Integral Spirituality.

You responded:  The concern here is that Integralites intellectually know the lessons of post-modernism, or at least intellectually have a sense of what it means, but in our speech and conduct we certainly show no signs of "knowing" those lessons in a profound way?

Yes, but perhaps not in such an extreme way.  I'm not suggesting that Integralites show no signs of knowing the lessons of postmodernism in a profound way, but I am saying -- as I've been facing them more myself, finding where I haven't fully digested these lessons -- I have also been able to spot similar signs in others on these forums with whom I've interacted.  The overall stigmatization of Green may encourage people who resonate with Integral on some level to attempt to sort of leap-frog over it, without really having engaged with it or digested it in a deep way.  I have noticed, for instance, that in some conversations on forums I've participated in, self-identified Integralites (Yellow-false-positives?) may actually be fairly quickly out-gunned by those who employ postmodern arguments, and they end up appearing out of their depth and becoming rather ideologically defensive. 

I wrote:  While AQAL is often discussed and, unfortunately, treated as a static map, I believe Integral Methodological Pluralism invites us to see it in more dynamic, enactive terms, as a sort of integrative operator. This serves to undercut adherence to the myth of the given, which has informed a number of historical inclusivist approaches. As I wrote in a recent blog, when we argue that something is real or true, we are making a claim about how a given conperception (a construct-perception) will behave across a wide range of circumstances. We are saying that we can count on it to behave in certain ways and be subject to certain kinds of confirmation within a given set of operational parameters. Within an Integral enactive paradigm, these parameters include the condition of the speaker.

You responded:  The concern here is that when we hear discussion of IMP matters and AQAL, the overriding sense one gets is that the speaker is regarding IMP/AQAL as carved in stone truth and especially we get the impression that the speaker is not alive with or informed by the integral operator in the act of speaking. You are calling for more performance that demonstrates the the very operator that is being talked about?

Yes, essentially.

I wrote:  It may be worthwhile, in the context of the concerns of this blog as well as the concerns of nondual spirituality, to take a closer look at our presuppositions about knowledge - what is its nature, how is it generated or realized? What is involved in map-based, instrumental or technological knowledge?

You responded:  The concern here is that we haven't given sufficient attention to what we think we know and how we know it? We are quite sophisticated except when it comes to being aware of just how many assumptions we make when we "pontificate" about what we know? In essence, if we truly "understood" post-modern truths, we would not be talking the way we do?

In this example, I was not intending to imply your last point, though you are probably right.  I was simply calling attention to the fact that map-based, instrumental knowledge carries its own underlying presuppositions -- its own strengths and limitations -- and saying it is useful to be reminded of these things.  My mention of nondual spirituality in this context is an oblique reference to the Time-Space-Knowledge analysis of model-based knowing and the presuppositions upon which that mode of cognition is founded.  Model-based knowing plays from the "score," to a large extent; with the dawning of vision logic, I believe a more jazz-like or raga-like knowing comes increasingly to the fore.

I wrote:  IMP and the AQAL enactive paradigm take wholeness for granted, but this wholeness is an "active absence": while dynamic multiplicity may "testify" to this wholeness, as the Bonpos say, it will never show up or present itself as an object for our inspection. This means that the contents of Integral Theory or the AQAL model should not be mistaken as the whole; rather, to shamelessly and cannibalistically appropriate one of Grof's terms, they encourage a holotropic orientation - an orientation which recognizes the "movement towards wholeness" as valuable but which does not presume to represent it as a single, given totality, since no such totality has ever been set up or established.

You responded:  The concern here is that we consistently come across as if we believe we are "putting forth" a "thing" that is whole and can be seen as whole by others?

The way you've framed this makes my comment seem more like an "accusation" than I intended it to be.  There is, of course, a wide variation within the Integral community with regard to how people relate to the AQAL map and to "the whole."  But, yes, I do think it's important that we recognize that "the whole" is not going to be captured in this way.

I wrote:  This move encourages us to value alterity in and with the movement towards wholeness, since, as Henri Bortoft points out, the whole is found, not in opposition to or through the addition of parts, but ever uniquely in and through them.

You responded:  "Alterity" being the capacity to exchange perspectives with others, right? The concern is that we may not be advancing a movement toward wholeness at all when we engage in debate or intellectual exercises that add or subtract pieces?

No, in this case, I think debate and intellectual exercises are perfectly legitimate.  I'm just trying to suggest a view in which alterity can be honored within a view that is also integrative, that moves towards wholeness without believing it is necessary to erase difference in the process.

I wrote:  The frequently heard claim that Integral or AQAL is "without content" or a neutral operating system strikes me as problematic. I do not think this is a defensible position. Such claims can (and sometimes, in my experience, do) contribute to a tendency to treat the AQAL model as somehow given or inevitable, and this in my view can feed into the use ideologically driven inclusivist strategies, particularly in forums such as this one.

You responded:  The concern is that we posit the Integral model as the very Kosmos and this sets up a bad situation where those who can gain valuable insights do not make the attempt because they have been driven away already by their instinctive disagreement with this model of the world? I am wondering if we are mixing levels up here though. We can say an computer's operating system is without content, inasmuch as it simply allows software to run on top of it. But we can also say the OS is full of content in its own right. Linux would certainly not agree that Windows is the only way to run a computer, right? And we are driving away 10,000 Linuxes by our arrogrant position that Integral is content-free?

To the degree that we consider Integral and AQAL to be content-free, we take them as inevitable, as givens, not the enactments that they actually are.  Windows and Linux may both be downloaded, and we may debate and evaluate their effectiveness, but neither is a content-free given. Underlying the models or platforms are a whole range of presuppositions and aims related to their design -- all of which, in my view, qualifies as "content."

I wrote:  Because Integral communities, to date, tend to be rather insulated - and Integral Naked discussions tend to move in relatively narrow, self-congratulatory circles - I think the maturity of the community will be served by increased efforts to interact with others outside of this movement. More encounters with intractable, unassimilable equals will be good medicine.

You responded:  Your concern is that we are all engaged in mutual-self-congratulation sessions? We need to get out into the world and "show the plan?"

As I mentioned to Ambo, when I referred to the self-congratulatory circle of conversations on Integral Naked, I was referring generally to the audio/video content, not to these forums.  But I think it is valuable to interact with equals who hold very different perspectives.

I wrote:  While Integral has charted a powerful and compelling course beyond pluralism, I believe it is naïve to imagine that the way forward for humanity has a single horizon. The potential for multiple integral horizons, in fact, is implied by the current Integral Postmetaphysical paradigm, but in my dealings with the Integral community I have not found this to be seriously considered.

You responded:  Your concern is that we have found the truth and are now satisfied with it? We are ignoring other integral horizons? Let me ask: where do we find 5 other horizons that bring together the Kosmos in a credible and useful way?

Where are these other horizons that account for and make sense of all of the things Integral does? Where do we start?

I do not think there are many out there, though a few attempts have been made.  In Europe, there is Transdisciplinarity, for example.  I have talked about the TSK vision in relation to Integral here.  Almaas has fashioned a fairly comprehensive, integrative vision of the Kosmos.  And Aurobindo's Integral Yoga represents another integrative vision.  But even if we decide that Wilber's Integral is currently the best -- and I certainly think it is one of the best; I'm here, after all, rather than on an Aurobindo forum -- I still feel it is important to recognize that the Integral altitude can accommodate multiple visions of the Kosmos.  It may not yet, given its relatively recent emergence; but like other altitudes, it very likely will, in time.

You wrote:  May I add another concern - should we be concerned at all by the notion that we know the way forward for humanity? Or is there a place for positing that we do know the way forward for humanity?

While it is certainly a challenging issue, I think there is a place for positing a way forward for humanity.  I tried to suggest that in my original post, when I wrote the following:  "With pluralism, while we acknowledge that we cannot avoid imposing our own perspective-dependent presuppositions on others, we may nevertheless recognize the creative potential that such a gesture makes available, as we consciously "hold space" for alterity, for the integrity and sanctity of otherness, and therefore we may elect to value the stance of pluralism as the best of the limited options available to us (e.g., exclusivism or inclusivism).  With the Integral perspective, I believe a similar opportunity is available, but one which corrects - or has the potential to correct - for the pendulum swing of pluralism towards the extreme of otherness (which has sometimes unwittingly contributed to even further social fragmentation and segregation) and invites a more balanced recognition and honoring of sameness and difference, sameness-in-difference, and (with its emphasis on types, levels, and so on), difference-in-sameness."

Best wishes,

Balder

---

May the boundless knowledge that time presents and space allows illuminate the native perspectives of your original face.

Hi, Balder - yes, it made sense that you posted this in the other forum and maybe infuse some interest and make possible some "higher level' conversation. I'm glad that you didn't mind me bringing it, here, and I appreciate that Schalk chose to engage with you here.

I have found this phenomenon of inclusion to be very interesting and at times bringing on a huh?-pause of what it actually in it's details means, looks like, images. As with many concepts in Integral and elsewhere we can become quite facile with bringing together and manipulating the pieces and can carry on quite seemingly far-reaching discussions, which to me especially sometimes can seem to be built on fluff. (whoops) At the center of AQAL theory is the posited possibly natural and man-orchestrated phenomenon and dynamic of "transcend and include"; or also of course include and transcend and include and transcend; and maybe elaborating more, include and include and include and include, and stutter lightly towards a transcension-reminiscent impulse and include, etc.

Since transcend and include is so basic to Integral Theory and so often spoken of almost as a given, I'm glad that you have brought it up along with some of the historical considerations around it. I like the two ancient, then contemporary and local nature-based metaphors that have tried to describe and to evoke this issue - the tributary river-to-the-sea and the successive foot imprinting that covers and seems to disappear what came before. Occasionally over the last three incarnations of IN when I have wanted to dangle the question as possible enticement for engaging the question of inclusion, I have asked in a cooking metaphor. Obviously, I was being a little cryptic and wasn't asking as fully or deeply as these discussions that you have referenced from the past. But it has seemed very pertinent to the possibility of rich transcendence what it means to "include" something, what it looks like before and after, and what is the actual process of transformation from stipulated as excluded or independent to being included in the categories of explicit awareness. So in my backyard way I have tried to get this a little more by asking whether inclusion is more like chunk-style stew, a blend, or puree. Or as Ken and others looking at a certain aspect of integrated, included material, ask, what is the degree of granularity.

I'm just mentioning this to join the party of questioning about inclusion. An example of what inclusion might look like mentally (which could be the LUQ experience and interior understanding, and the subsequent attempts at RUQ description of phenomena), in the form of more or less digested (to add another metaphor) experience entering memory, seems interesting to me. Are we put together mentally more as distant continents, dense archipelagos, or primordial broth? OK, enough already - prematurely, I'm stretching. This all interests me, and to pull out just one of your bullet points that relates:

• It may be worthwhile, in the context of the concerns of this blog as well as the concerns of nondual spirituality, to take a closer look at our presuppositions about knowledge - what is its nature, how is it generated or realized? What is involved in map-based, instrumental or technological knowledge?

I followed your link to your essay from Julian's symposium. As an aside, when it was going on, there was so much fertile material everywhere that I wasn't able to get into yours as much as I was just now. I particularly like your discussion of groundedness, grounding, ground. Your clear explanation of trying to find fixed or dependable perspective and orientation within a dynamic kosmic-sized kosmos was reinforcing for me and in how I might reference that issue to others in the future. I may end up being a little more refined in how I explain. I think this point alone can also mitigate against our own desire to speak more certainly than we might, as alluded to in several of your bullet points. ambo

---

Ambo Suno

Balder, I think I want to elaborate a little on why I think it's important to consider in more detail what inclusion within an individual means, especially given the way we might take into ourselves the phrase "transcend and include" or include and transcend. Though Ken's books often point to the complexities and uncertainties of principles, such as this one, that sometimes become catch-phrases, I do think it's a common error for us integralites to think that it's as simple as that - include and transcend.

For example, say I have made a previously subjective experience an objective experience (i.e. I can now talk about it.) Over a surprisingly short amount of time I'm able to do that with a lot of life funneling through my grand bandwidth cognitive channels (if only it were so simple as channels and that mine were actually high capacity), now I have accumulated a lot of objectified material -  viola, "included" [hear batch processing sounds in the background] presto, chango - "transcended". I can now talk about many things, like pain and suffering, apartheid, sexual freedom, I know how to talk about choosing and excluding certain electoral candidates, the pressing need to distribute food around the planet better, I can listen with more restraint as I listen to what still sound like idiocies (if I listen carefully to my mind I must confess there might be a little residue of unprocessed charge around a few issues), I can meditate my upsets into rich creamy peanut butter, I have learned to be a little cautious as I explain life to others because in my relatively meteoric rise into wisdom I might be a little susceptible to being romanced by my own words, breadth and depth of knowledge and that might indicate a trap of sorts, and I know how to cook a better soft-boiled egg.

And as ones who are so rapidly transcendent, it's easy to be manifesting those foibles mentioned in your bullet points. (I happen to have my own personal favorites for myself, many of which aren't in the list.)

Please excuse me if my attitude here is driven by some emotional charge, contains irony and sarcasm (hopefully slightly facetious and playful) and hence tone of heavy criticism or condescension (by the way, how does one actually manage to condescend from such a low altitude to so many who may hang out in higher terrain - oh, well, moving right along).

But difficulties may arise because "cognition" (which seems so directly connected to our mouths and fingers) is so priviledged, because there is still some confusion around the meanings of cognition, knowing, and other mental/kosmic activities, because cognition can have Fred Astaire-like dizzyingly fast footwork, and because it is actually not, except heuristically diagramed, an independent "line" as distinct from other lines like the socio-bio-emotional-aesthetic-etc line (especially emotional). It's very easy to deceive ourselves that we are firmly grounded in our knowing.

As I write here, I feel a coalescence of myself that may induce my conclusion that I know what the hell I'm talking about. An hour ago, I woke up a bit befuddled by vague dreams and the subsequent in between states that morphed to a low grade worry. I didn't feel quite right physically - don't as I write now. I will when I release this post, roll around the floor and if I don't let myself get too pushed by a task that I want done, will allow the floor movement to become a decent workout. I'll take a shower and feel better. But as I type now I am not a series of lines of development or an independently clear stream of cognition. There will be readers who find what's written unesthetic and perhaps those who differ in opinion - esthetics are not separate from the emotion, the cognition, the varying social realities of the forum and so on. As I question myself and others I also rhetorically question the forum - are we integrated and integral, are we in the soup together, or stew? As in ourselves, have we actually integrated apartheid, hunger, violence of war, dissonance with our significant others into our tissues and various lines, or can we mainly talk it. For myself, I know that the answers are usually seen in my somewhat exclusively self-serving choices and actions.

Is my integration a goulash with dumplings - dumplings and various chunks being my sub-personalities and with softening seeping borders slightly integrated islands of relatively sequestered experience. Does the rich broth that takes up the essences of the mix begin to hold, integrate, and represent the bits and pieces of life and the totality?

This is a limited metaphor. Are we as integrated as, for example, our forum-stated cognitions and attitudes convey? Oyvey, ambo

---

Ambo Suno

Hmmm. I think I am getting what ambosuno is getting at.

I am intimately familiar with the fairly huge shift that distinguishes "knowing" in the Chinese/Japanese sense of "hsin" or "mind/heart" cognition, and "knowing" in the Western tradition which means isolating mental concepts and trying to establish them as sustained and real things.

Whenever I return to America from abroad, Asia or Europe, or even Mexico!, I immediately get this sense that there is some form of insanity on the loose in America. It is like a mental virus that is just running rampant, no longer connected to a heart region that checks on and keeps in check the mouth and fingers that speak.

The first way I know it is when I see the thick, ugly, aesthetics that we tolerate. I am not a delicate flower, but when I see some of the absolutely insane aesthetic choices, I wonder, is this a really bad joke or are these people really doing their best and this is it???

I know America like I know my own hand. And America is a land devoted to competition. Competition produces good winners. Competition makes us get on the ball, stop whining, and do something. Competition makes us go the extra yard, to keep pushing when we want to slack off, and we know in our bones that if we don't get off our ass and do something, we might get run over. I like how America permits me to travel. If I want to take my nest egg and find a little village in Norway to live in, I will be free of this insanity. So, it's my choice. I can leave tomorrow. Or I can stay here and enjoy the competition and do my part to make it healthy and growth-forming.

I like how in America, you cannot really trust anyone. Honestly, I do not know who the frick these people are on the Integral Forum. I love listening to them, and I get enormous amounts of useful and inspiring material from them. But I can never assume I really know who they are. And they me. We have levels upon levels of bullshit alive and working in America everywhere. The old glorious American bolshoi artiste, always on the make, trying to win over others, trying to look good to ourselves in our own eyes, trying to package our public presentation in a way that conforms to how we like to think of ourselves. Ah, what a beautiful mess this land is.

Only in America can I say - I want to be Number One! And I will be! The cheese, the effrontery, the arrogance, the chutzpah - it's built into our Constitution! Anyone who lives in America and bemoans this is forgetting, there is a cute little cottage in Tuscany or Denmark with their name on it.

I almost never meet people who are not on the make or not trying to package themselves. To not do these things, the self line has to be firing with identification with the life element in all of humanity. When I see another, I can be aware immediately that we are both filled with the same spirit, and there is no real distinction between us in essence. What happens to other happens to me.

And then other calls me by my name and asks me to think about an event that happened or will happen, and I shift into "I am I and You are You" and off we go.

I love the women in my life. And they are the worst! The absolute worst. They work this game at levels of sophistication that men cannot even fathom. They can sniff the wind in a second and know who is sitting on the joint that makes the thing stand up. Men are such deluded creatures. Women are animals! Old school manipulators of the first order. And just so much more enjoyable to play the game with in many cases, than men who are such egotistical, deluded creatures. We preen and lie to ourselves and play cool and pretend it doesn't hurt and build up this vast, strained, dessicated, petrified monument of dignity.

I wish I had a school and I was the head instructor and I could teach kids anything I wanted. I would have them take tests on distinguishing odors from the spice rack, learning how to fly kites, studying hieroglyphics, building chairs, and on and on, never bored for a moment, each act integrating and forming new wholes of joy. Which one of these kids will do my taxes next year? That's the problem. We don't want whole persons. We want the dialectic ripping us apart and putting us together, and those who don't cut it, we want their carcass in the street as a reminder.

Wonderful posts, Ambo and Schalk.  I will be writing soon.

I also have received some great, thought-provoking responses on my blog, which I wanted to share here, if you're interested:

Jon's response

Jim's response

Best wishes,

Balder

---

May the boundless knowledge that time presents and space allows illuminate the native perspectives of your original face.