So this is a quick reflection about the integral philosophy, mostly associated with but not limited to Ken Wilber. What is integral? To me, the most important aspect to this is what integral points out; release from our fixation of “things.”

One of the most important claims integral makes is that its own stage of consciousness is able to be “a-perspectival,” that just means the ability for a human being to find open space in himself or herself. You are not your thoughts, they are objects of your awareness. Finding that still, openness in you is like discovering the mirror-like pond reflecting the moon, as they say in Zen. What integral offers is a particular methodology that helps you discover that you are not your thoughts, so why be so fixated on one ultimate perspective or another? It liberates you from perspectives by showing you that part of you which is the source of perception. It is not something “other,” it is none other than yourself.

This is very beautiful. Not many people in our culture, or civilization easily reconcile this aspect, because it is easier to point our blame and our salvation towards some “other.” But that other is none other than we. Without this open space, we have become too fixated, destructive, inflexible. An ailment of our modern civilization. By coming to a greater awareness, becoming more conscious of our already-whole nature, we offer the world abundance of “being,” without needing to be some thing.

Yes, we laugh at the provincialism and naivete of the global warmists and ideological Darwinians, but there will always be temporocentric mediocrities who are "trapped into seeing in the science of the day its ultimate phase of development" (Jaki).

Which is a puzzling trap to be in for a person who supposedly believes in evolution, for if evolution is occurring, there is no reason to believe that our current scientific understanding is anything like what it will be in 100 or 1000 years. Not only does the content of science change, but so too do entire paradigms, i.e., the frameworks within which science perceives and contextualizes its facts.

In contrast, traditional metaphysics does not change. For example, no scientific finding will ever overturn the principle that the world is uniquely intelligible to man's intelligence. For if this principle were not true, the practice of science would be impossible. Likewise, it is only because truth and being converge that we may know the truth of being.

I realize that my own racket of psychology is not a science in the materialistic sense. But that's the whole point. It can never be a science in the way that physics or chemistry are, because the mind is not a material object, precisely.

What Is Integral Art? Part 2: The “I” of the Beholder
with Ken Wilber and Elle Nicolai

Why is art so important? As Ken discusses in this clip, art and creativity represent an intrinsic dimension of human consciousness itself, and developing our aesthetic sensibilities is just as crucial as our moral maturity or expanding our scientific knowledge of the world. As such, artists play a very special role in our lives as interpreters of this present moment, preservers of our shared past, and arbiters of tomorrow’s unfolding. Historically it has often been the artists who have pushed our cultural edge forward the most profoundly, simply because they have a certain freedom of experimentation that most people in other vocations simply do not have.  As the leading edge of the world’s development is now Integral, we can begin to look to artists whose consciousness is integrally informed to offer us glimpses of a more sane and inclusive future, and help unearth the radical potentials that await us there….

Ken Wilber, famous Integral philosopher, makes like a Playgirl:

Like lifting weights to get our bodies in shape, we need to train our mind and heart to grow their ability to love, forgive, offer empathy. We need regimens to grow Buddha-Jesus hearts. ~ Sakyong Mipham Rinpoche
Most spiritual traditions forget the body and focus on the mind [...]

I recently posted an article critiquing certain elements of Ken Wilber's Integral Theory, especially in regards to psychology and the self.

In the course of researching the next section I wanted to write, one book came up a few times, mostly because he was citing the same authors I have been somewhat randomly stumbling on myself. Wilber writes off Meyerhoff has sloppy criticism or some such nonsense (see the Wyatt Earp link below). I have been reading many of these authors and it's very often clear that Wilber either did not read them or chose to ignore them when they did not conform to his model. Which is to be expected - all theorists are interested in what supports their theory and shy away from that which might refute it.

So, if you are interested in a thorough critique of Wilber's Integral Theory (which Wilber has already rejected in his "Wyatt Earp" tantrum, 2006), check out the book below, published whole online at Integral World (2005). Somehow I never read this when it was first posted (but then I was looking more toward Buddhism by that point, so integral theory was fading in my interests).

This is a great foundation for a post-Wilberian integral model - and also be sure to look at the sources cited, many of whom are major names in their fields.

Today’s Quote:

“I find your lack of faith disturbing.”

– Darth Vader, Star Wars

Today’s Most Important Stories & Related Resources:

• Track today’s most important stories here: @sunfellow

I could be wrong, but it is my sense that Ken Wilber's integral theory is no longer evolving and has become institutionalized through the Integral Institute. That's too bad, in my opinion, because his version of integral theory, again in my opinion, has yet to become fully integral.

Let me qualify that a bit - I think integral theory is highly useful, but I feel that there are some blind spots due to it being the model of a single man. I think there are some areas we need to add to the AQAL model, things that have been excluded or ignored.

We should take a few steps backward before I offer a few thoughts on where integral theory should be moving in the future. Consider this part one of at least two parts. I'm not sure how coherent this is going to be, since I am going to make up as I go along, based on an intuition more than any logical argument.

[Please note as well that more than likely many of the contributors at Frank Visser's Integral World have probably already made some or all of these points, so please excuse my repetition.]

Obama’s First Year: The Good, the Bad, and the Partial
with Ken Wilber, Diane Musho Hamilton, Robb Smith, Aaliyah Haqq, and Bert Parlee

After last week’s State of the Union Address, you may have been reflecting upon the past year of Obama’s presidency and asking yourself a few questions:

• How did he do?
• Am I feeling inspired?
• Am I benefiting in any real way from Obama’s policies and his leadership?
• Could Obama really be our first truly integral president, transcending and including the best of Democratic and Republican values?

We’ve been asking ourselves the same questions, and thought we would take a moment to offer our own integral assessment of President Obama’s first national State of the Union Address. So we posed these questions (and a handful of others) to Ken and a few other smart and savvy minds, who were kind enough to share five uniquely enlightening perspectives on Obama’s first year—the good, the bad, and the partial….

I have, over the past few years, come across the work of Ken Wilber and I am amazed by it to say the least. In his work, he has uncovered understandings on just about all areas of society, what is driving it and moving it forward, along with the whys and hows.

I truly encourage anyone here who is interested in understanding the direction that our mass consciousness is taking to spend some time delving into the topics of spiral dynamics or the integral model that he has uncovered.

In his research you will find the same evidences that I have found for reasons why I believe that humanity as a whole is in actuality moving in the right direction, which is toward an integral consciousness, despite the seeming snail like pace in which these changes seem to be occurring.

That is not the topic at hand, though, so lets move on.

While doing a workout yesterday, the thought occurred to me that, in the system that I have put together for myself, it really is true that I am targeting much more than the physical body and its mechanisms.

The reason I brought up Ken Wilber is because, to be honest, that upon reading his book, “Integral Life Practice” recently, it occured to me that what I am doing is in large part an Integral Life Practice in itself.

And, the approach that Wilber puts forth is a multi-moduled or three bodied framework for fitness, emotional, mental, and spiritual health.