Joe has made the valid comment that my wiki write-up covers different Integral schools of thought, but there should also be a separate write-up on â€Integral as a movementâ€. i.e. what does Integral mean as a movement with an overall orienattion, praxis etc
I thought it would be a good idea to start a new thread to explore this theme.
Perhaps all the regular contributors here, and also occaisonal visitors to thsi forum, could post their comments on how they would define the Integral movement, not just in theory, but in practice as well.
Open Integral 
Ok, I define the Integral Movement as ideally:
o Intellectually and theoretically: incorporating all perspectives, all worldviews, all schools of thought and fields of knowledge, regardless of methodology (empirical, phenomenological, dialectical, esotericist, whatever) in a single self-consistent framework
o Pragmatically: the psychological and spiritual integration and transformation of the individual, the group, and ultimately society as a whole. This includes fields such as Lifestyle and Personal Development, Arts, Education, Business, Politics, Religion, etc
o Ethically and Morally: Right Action applied to all sentient beings and the cosmos as a whole (includes environmentalism and animal liberation, and ultimately pancosmocentrism)
o Spiritually: the non-contradiction of all authentic spiritual revelations (e.g. my comments re Sri Ramana and Sri Aurobindo), which also means bypassing ambigious teachers and abusive so-called gurus (see my thesis re the Intermediate Zone and narcisistic or imperfect gurus)
o Technologically and Futuristically: the non-contradiction of organic self and advanced technology, allowing posthuman stages of evolution at the physical level (Transhumanism; e.g. Ray Kurzweil)
o Ultimately: The complete Divine Integral Transformation of the body, personality, individuality, world, and ultimately cosmos (see the last two chapters of Sri Aurobindo’s The Life Divine)
And all of the above being not dualistically separate, but holistically integrated and part of a single harmonious whole.
I’ll try to respond later when I have the time, but my overall suggestion here is to use “movement” in the sense described by this listing at Dictionary.com: “12. a diffusely organized or heterogeneous group of people or organizations tending toward or favoring a generalized common goal: the antislavery movement; the realistic movement in art.” Thus, I would NOT expect to see a discussion of intellectual or theoretical differences among integralists in such an article, as the common understanding of “movement” is that there is “diffuse organization” and “heterogeneity”. Instead, I would probably organize such an article by spheres of activity organized around general common goals: Art, politics, business, ethics, education, and so forth. See my earlier post, http://until.joe-perez.com/2006/12/integralists-just-want-to-have-fun.html, for a bit more.
Hi Joe
I’ve absolutely no problem with two separate wiki pages as you suggest. In fact I think it’s a good idea
But what I’m asking here (sorry for not clarifying) is what is everyone’s conception of what the Integarl Movement should be. What doies it mean to them? If I say I follow an Integral and practice, what do I mean by that. If you say it, what do you mean by that? In short, the Integral movement imho is far too diverse at present to be even defined as “a diffusely organized or heterogeneous group of people or organizations tending toward or favoring a generalized common goal”. Is the goal the Wilberians aspire to the same as the goal the Aurobindonians aspire to? From my knowldge of both traditions I cannot say they do (but that’s just my opinion). That would seem to imply that either there is no common goal, or if there is we haven’t figured it out yet. That being so, what does it mean to call oneself “integral”? Does it mean anything at all? What I have written here is what it means to me to call myself Integral.
Anyway you make some thoughtful comments on your blog; I might post a comment there.
Alan: “imho is far too diverse at present to be even defined as “a diffusely organized or heterogeneous group of people or organizations tending toward or favoring a generalized common goalâ€.
Do you have any data or statistics to back that up? I don’t know of any that could be used to back that up. What leads you to believe that there is SO MUCH diversity within integral that it cannot even be described as “a heterogeneous group”! I mean, look at the differences among Christians, feminists, socialists, etc. and THEY have heterogeneous groups.
I really am surprised to hear you say this. What percent of integralists do you think are Wilberian/mainstream, metaphysical, humanists, scientific, etc. why not do a study of some sort, even if it involves something rather flawed such as counting book sales, membership lists, forum participations, and so forth? This would tend to skew the figures towards people who raise controversy because most discussion tends to center around conflict.
I would guess that Wilberian/mainstream is how the vast majority of currently active integralists in the USA today would see themselves/their work, and the schismatic groups comprise fewer than 10% of the total. Therefore, if my guess is correct, then to hold that integral has no movement because there exists a fringe of disagreement is flawed. But I could be way off base and would appreciate any data contradicting my guess.
Joe said Do you have any data or statistics to back that up?
Actually I have references yes; see below
I would guess that Wilberian/mainstream is how the vast majority of currently active integralists in the USA today would see themselves
Well, I am for one am not part of that mainstream. I am not even an anti-wilberian, any more than I’m an anti-Jungian. i.e. I agree with some things Jung says, and disagree with others. Ditto with Wilber.
The problem here, and it is a very serious problem in trying to define what Integral means, is that Wilber has appropriated the term “integral” all for himself.
As I often point out, Sri Aurobindo coined the term “Integral”. Here’s the reference: The Synthesis of Yoga, Sri Aurobindo Ashram Press. This book was first published in serial form in the journal Arya, from 1914 and 1921. It was revised several times in the 30s, 30s and 40s (see Biographical Notes to the Pondicherry edition). This is the earliest mention of “integral” in a spiritual context.
Gebser is another one who predates Wilber. I’m not sure when he started using the term, although it was after Sri Aurobindo did. His opus Ursprung und Gegenwart (The Ever-Present Origin), was published in various editions from 1949 to 1953.
Integral psychology was developed by Indra Sen (with a number of papers beginning in the early 1940s; following the orthod0ox Aurobindonian line) and Haridas Chauduri (in the 1970s, he gave his own interpretation), long before Wilber started using “Integral” to define his own worldview in Wilber-IV and now Wilber-V . See the first paragraphs of the wikipedia page “Integral psychology” for more details for a brief overview, and this paper:
Shirazi, Bahman (2001) “Integral psychology, metaphors and processes of personal integration”, Cornelissen, Matthijs (Ed.) ”Consciousness and Its Transformation”, Pondicherry: SAICE online at http://www.saccs.org.in/TEXTS/IP2/IP2-1.2-.htm for the history of Integral Psychology
Therefore, if my guess is correct, then to hold that integral has no movement because there exists a fringe of disagreement is flawed.
What you say would be correct if
(a) “Integral only = Wilberian theory and praxis”.
(b) “All non-Wilberian Integral theorists and practitioners are Wilber critics that constitute a fringe minority with little or nothing original to say, beyond disagreement with orthodox Wilberism”
Both these assumptions are incorrect. iJust because Wilberians represent the majority in America, that doesn’t mean that Integral = Ken. If you go to India you will find, in contrast, that Integral = Aurobindo. In Europe, Integral may well equal Gebser. An (integral movement has to be global, it cannot be merely Americocentric.
So were we to go to India, say, it would most likely be the case that Wilberians and their disagreement/misunderstanding of (e.g. let’s get rid of the quote occultism unquote) Sri Aurobindo would very much be the “fringe” when it comes to “Integral” in a spiritual context. So everything is relative. But the Integral movement is, or should be, global. Look I have already mentioned three major seminal figures, each from a different continent, each with a different perspective. You can’t get more integral than that, surely. It is elitist and arrogant to claim that those teachings other than your preferred school are a “fringe”
If Wilber’s theories had nothing at all to do with anything written by Sri Aurobindo or Gebser, was not influenced by either of them in any way, then sure, we have tow completely unrelated movements. Just like Integral theory in Calculus has absolutely nothing to do with Integral theory in Wilber’s writings. But the fact is that Wilber was influenced by both Sri Aurobindo and Gebser, and must certainly have derived the term Integral from one or perhaps even both of them, because in Integral Psychology he includes both of them in his list of integral thinkers. Moreover, both Aurobindonian and Gebserian themes are evident as far back as Wilber-II (in The Atman Project and Up From Eden respectively)
So to say Integral = Wilberian is a bit like saying Christianity = Protestant, or Buddhism = Cha’n/Zen. Why define a movement only by its most recent (to date) proponent?
Alan: “Why define a movement only by its most recent (to date) proponent?” I proposed no such thing, not have I attempted to cliam non-Wilberian thinkers are non-integral (though it seems risky these days to raise the question: are integral critics really reflective of any actual embodied movement in the real world or do such theorists compromise a relatively tiny voice in the whole scheme?).
I asked if you have evidence related to the uptake or level of adherence to various schools of integral thought in the real world. You responded instead with a list of thinkers who were influenced more by Aurobindo than Wilber. Let me be more precise with my qeustions: How many Aurobindian practioners are there? How many Wilberian practioners? How many integralist practioners are there that fit in neither camp?
Joe said:
Let me be more precise with my questions: How many Aurobindian practioners are there? How many Wilberian practioners? How many integralist practioners are there that fit in neither camp?
I’m not sure what this emphasise on quantification is about. Honestly, I have no idea how many people in India and worldwide are practitioners of Integral Yoga and devotees of Sri Aurobindo and the Mother. I expect there would be a lot.
The Auroconf mail list had a membership of around 125, in February 2000. I have no idea what it is now, but if you want I can ask. However the list membership is pretty small, in no way representative of the size of the Aurobindo community.
Near Pondicherry there is Auroville, I’m not sure what the present population is, but everyone there is interested in the practical side of Aurobindonian tradition. There is also a “breakaway” (not really the right word) community in Northern Italy called Mirapuri, which incorporates music festivals and performance art.
Of more importance are the many Aurobindo education schools established in Orissa, you can ask Tusar for the figures, I’m sure he’d be pleased to oblige you. In any case the numbers of people involved (staff etc) would most certainly be much higher than Practicing Wilberians like yourself worldwide, and higher then the total numbers involved in I-I and in any other Wilberian organisations.
There is also a Sri Aurobindo Educational Center (providing education from Kindergarten to collage level) http://www.sriaurobindoashram.org/ashram/saice/index.php which has been established since 1952 Note that Wilber hasn’t even got his Integral University happening; he has to have some affiliate thing with two other colleges.
I have noticed that Education and especially children’s education is one field really lacking in Wilberian movement. This may be due to the narcissistic boomerities geek factor. In contrast, both Rudolf Steiner (an Integral thinker in my book, although he never used the term) and Sri Aurobindo and the Mother placed great emphasis on Education.
They also all placed emphasis on poetry, the arts, etc; the Humanities is another area where Wilber falls down, as William Irwin Thompson and Matthew Dallman have each independently pointed out. Again, this refers to the over-emphasis on theory, business management, etc in the Wilberian movement, in contrast to Anthroposophy and Integral Yoga which are practical through and through.
Wilber’s main influence has been through the success of his books. But popularity in books doesn’t mean anything. The Celestine Prophecy is a best seller, but hardly profound. Eckhart Tolle outsells Ramana Maharshi, but who is the greater? (I don’t want to denigrate Tolle, he seems like a very nice guy, very sincere and authentic, from the little i have seen and read)
It does seem however, through the admirable efforts of people like yourself Joe and ~C4Chaos, that a practical side is finally emerging from the Wilberian corpus. I for one see this as a very positive development, and I really support you guys in this. But bear in mind that the practical side was present in the Aurobindonian tradition,.and in many other Integral movements, from the very beginning.
As for other traditions within the Integral movement, I don’t know. I never looked into the figures. Some of these movements are still nascent, e.g. Michel Bauwen’s P2P movement which I expect will progressively grow in importance, because what he is talking about is really the way the Internet society works. The CIIS of course has been established for some years. Again, my comments on how the Wilberian movement lags behind in practical education are applicable here. It all depends how you define integral. If you include Steiner then there are many more people practising biodynamics etc than Wilberian networking etc. There’s Irwin Laszlo’s Club of Budapest, William Irwin Thompson’s Lindsfarne Association, David Spangler’s Lorian association (practical spirituality), and so on. It doesn’t work in terms of numbers. But if you do want numbers, then Aurobindo and Steiner would dwarf Wilber as far as the practical side of the teachings go.
Personally I think it’s much more important to try to work out what the Integral movement represents, then to quibble over numbers.
Alan: Thanks for that background info. I am beginning see the practical issue of how to organize an encyclopedia article get resolved, at least in my own mind. The first step is to break out major groups of organizations in categories similar to what you showed in your first piece — Aurobindian, Wilberian/mainstream, etc.–and a second step would be to break those down by organizations, ranked by side. Obviously Integral Institute and Integral Spiritual Center would rank highly under mainstream; salons would rank more highly than blogs because they include a physical presence; groups of blogs or blog communities could be next; individual bloggers, if listed at all, near the bottom. The idea is that by definition a movement is necessarily communal and social, similar but heterogeneous folks working for a common end. If someone looks for this in the mainstream integral world, it is easy to find. The fact that there are small numbers of disorganized critics at the margins has no impact on whether the mainstream integral side of things has a movement or not. But to the extent that the critics get themselves organized, then they should be included. ARINA in academia perhaps; Polysemy in art perhaps. These groups have different visions about what integral is all about and those visions should be spelled out; but ARINA and Polysemy need not agree with each other. It seems to be the best way to work out “what the Integral movement represents” is to begin by grouping and listing major organizations and giving the most attention to those that seem to be succeeding in spreading their message (while paying no or little attention to one-person man-with-a-blowhorn type of folks who may be listed under “individual thinkers” but are irrelevant to the topic of movement). Numbers are important in that they are an indication of, uh, (one of your favorite words, I’m sure) notability.
The first step is to break out major groups of organizations in categories similar to what you showed in your first piece — Aurobindian, Wilberian/mainstream, etc.–and a second step would be to break those down by organizations, ranked by side. Obviously Integral Institute and Integral Spiritual Center would rank highly under mainstream; salons would rank more highly than blogs because they include a physical presence; groups of blogs or blog communities could be next; individual bloggers, if listed at all, near the bottom. The idea is that by definition a movement is necessarily communal and social, similar but heterogeneous folks working for a common end. If someone looks for this in the mainstream integral world, it is easy to find
But as you point out, that applies to the Wilberian mainstream, which is internet-savvy, forum-rich, and blog-rich (atm there are only, what, half a dozen Aurobindonian bloggers including myself on the entire internet).
The problem is that this sort of organisation analysis (which is very common-sense and well thought out, so i’m not criticisng it) would not apply to the Aurobindonian tradition. In Auroville for example there is central authority that sets rules and guidelines. e.g. Once I asked on the auroconf mail list could a book be banned in Auroville. Several people promptly replied: the consensus being – first, who would ban it (i.e. there is no-one who lays down rules), and secondly if a book ever was banned then aurovillians would most likely buy copies just to protest.
In the aurobindonian movement as a whole, there is no leader, and no hierarchy. Sure you’ve got centers and instituters and organisations and schools and websites, and even the occasional blogger. But there is no one pattern or standard or hierarchy.
One could list the Ashram, Auoville, the various educational and publishing organisations, sure. But really, in the Aurobindonian tradition, the only thing that matters are the books by Sri Aurobindo and the Mother. So were I to propose a hierarchy along your lines, I would put the books first, then the ashram, Auroville, Mirapuri, etc (as the main centers because they have a physical presence), and then the entire Integral Yoga community, not distinguishing between the various institutes and individuals. In other words, only three levels. The problem is unfortunately, I’m neither representative nor knowledgeable on the Integral Yoga community or the Aurobindonian in movement as whole. And those who are seem to be little or not at all interested in the sort of discussion we’re having.
It seems to be the best way to work out “what the Integral movement represents†is to begin by grouping and listing major organizations and giving the most attention to those that seem to be succeeding in spreading their message (while paying no or little attention to one-person man-with-a-blowhorn type of folks who may be listed under “individual thinkers†but are irrelevant to the topic of movement). Numbers are important in that they are an indication of, uh, (one of your favorite words, I’m sure) notability.
Ah, so you’ve noticed my battles with the mainstream wikipedians then 😉
But (to play devil’s advocate here) this all depends how you define notablity. I mentioned that Echardt Tolle sells more books then Sri Ramana. But is he more notable? Is this sort of popularist demographic-based methodology the best way to appreciate and arrive at an understanding of Integral movement? Sure it reflects a trend in western secular society at present, reflected for example in the way that viewers vote for their favourite person of Big Brother or Idol (usually someone who fits their stereotypes and is non-threatening to them), or Wikipedia follows the biases of its majority demographic. But is this the best way to determine relevance?
The Integral movement sensu lato (as opposed to the mainstream Wilberian tradition) differs from traditional religions and ideologies in that it is something developing right now. The very fact that we having this discussion is actually contributing to the development and evolution of the Integral movement. It’s like in quantum physics, where the act of measurement alters the outcome of the experiment. We’re not historians or sociologists or observers, we’re participators and co-creators.
As for one person man on a soapbox types who can be considered “individual thinkersâ€, well, that’s exactly how I define myself 😉 Because I come from an Aurobindonian perspective doesn’t make me an orthodox Aurobindonian, any more than I’m an orthodox esotericist, or an orthodox evolutionist, or – more recently, an orthodox devotee of Ramana, although I adopt all of those perspectives as well. I can only claim to represent my own understanding of things, nothing more. Does that make me one person on a soap box? How do we define the importance of contributions by individuals?
Having said all this, I’m not disagreeing with your suggestion as such, jsut in my usual way playing devil’s advocate! And also pointing out my own lack of expertise in this sort of area. But sure, we have to start somewhere, and this seems as good a place as any!
http://plasim.blogspot.com/
Thanks for the thread Alan. Been busy, but important to comment.
Practically, there are normally organizing principles – like you, I tend to think that most “integrals” come from a lineage that is Aurobindian. There are exceptions, but that is the general rule.
Once integral gets beyond theory, there are normally some organizing principles/grounds/credos. I-I has this, beginning with the education pieces of AQAL, and the altitude distinction of different human drives. As well, organizing around the ILP, for practical self-help.
Interestingly though, the ILP exercises, aren’t too different than some of the Aurobindian exercises, in that the whole is included – mind/body/thought. The problem with Aurobindian, as movement, is there was no progress after Aurobindo, in terms of theory or practice. (That and the “actual” immortality envisioned by Aurobindo).
This means that people are doing the exercises they did 50 years ago, that Aurobindo described, even though there have been radical advances in mind-body understanding. (correct me if I’m wrong now, but that was one of my issues when I stayed at Auroville 10 years ago.)
Anyway, more later, when I have time.
hi Ebuddha
You said
“Interestingly though, the ILP exercises, aren’t too different than some of the Aurobindian exercises, in that the whole is included – mind/body/thought.”
Yes and ditto Integral Transformative Practice. This seems to be a new emerging development, certainly an advance over the one-sided yogas of the past. I did read a criticism by a lady reviewer on Amazon who’s a fan of Ken, but dissappointed by the failings of ILP i think it was . Anyway I mention this on my current essay (this scetion will be published on Frank’s website in a few weeks i suppose)
David Spangler’s Lorian Assocuiation is little known, but he seems to be teaching a similar theme, that spirituality also has to be in the world.
“The problem with Aurobindian, as movement, is there was no progress after Aurobindo, in terms of theory or practice.”
Well S.A. didn’t actually teach a practice. He said that everyone had to find their own practice. He and especially his co-worker Mirra, The Mother, did suggest guidelines and give advice, but it was never a rigid system.
I guess in my own small way I’m trying to extend the Aurobindonian tradition just as I am the mainstream Integral movement. For example I’m one of the very few (but by no means the only!) Aurobindonians (not even sure if that term applies to me; someone suggested Neo-Aurobindonian and that feels more appropriate) interested in including other aspects of the Integral movement, and the Revelation of other authentic teachers, such as (in my case) Sri Ramana, but all in a harmonious way. So there’s still an orthodox Aurobindonism, and an orthodox Wilberism, but there’s also people who adopt a more syncretising approach, which for me is what the Integral Movement is all about.
“ (That and the “actual†immortality envisioned by Aurobindo). ”
lol lol! Yeah a lot of people seem to have problems with that! To put it in a wilberian context, imagine where we are at now is 2nd tier or whatever. Supramentalisation might be something like the 20th or 30th tier! So it all depends how high you want to go. But that’s why I love Sri Aurobindo, he (and The Mother) really went so much further than anyone else!
And it should be emphasised that it isn’t “immortality” in the narrow sense – that’s where Rajneesh and so many others have gone wrong http://www.kheper.net/topics/Aurobindo/Osho_on_Aurobindo.html
btw here is an essay I wrote more than 10 years ago on the implications of what Supramentalisation might mean
http://www.kheper.net/essays/Divinisation_of_Matter.htm
Here I bring in Lurianic Kabbalah, Christianity, and modern physics, in addition to the Aurobindonian teaching.
In the intervening 10 years, my spiritual understanding and insights and have grown greatly, but, strangely, the essay still feels “right”. Maybe if I had to wrote it now I would change some things, add a few more comments etc, but basically I’d keep the same thesis. This essay could perhaps be best read in association with the refutation of Osho’s misunderstanding on this matter.
Perhaps another perspective on this may help: Is this discussion representative of an integral movement? I’m unconvinced for several reasons, prime amongst them that the term “movement” is usually applied as a consequence of judgement removed psychologically and/or temporally from the activities, people and groups allegedly involved. Second, though obviously (and obsessively) concerned with the question of integrality, this discussion does not, to my view, comprise many if any characteristics which would distinguish it from subject specific conversations on art, politics, programming techniques or puppy raising.
You guys are reasonably polite and respectful of each other which one doesn’t often encounter in blogs devoted to puppy raising, for example, but to what extent are you actually working toward an integration of your respective viewpoints rather than indulging yourselves (enjoyably of course) in their exercise?
Further, it’s obvious that the language around all of this material is ambiguous, if not multiguous; the thread in which KW’s usage of consciousness is discussed being a prime example with little useful resolution that I could perceive. Can we constitute a movement when our terminology is so ill suited to saying what we think we mean? Does our terminology actually reflect the confusion with what the flaming Hades we are actually on about?
Where, in the world, can we point, as yet, to socially and/or culturally significant effects of integralisation?
IMNHO, there’s a lot of integral milling about but we have not yet developed sufficient voice, sufficient institutional structure to constitute a movement.
It is nice to know that ebuddha ‘stayed at Auroville 10 years ago.’ It would be interesting to listen to his experiences and impressions there a little bit in detail. And the next quiz is, has he read The Life Divine?