Mapping out the "Integral" Tool Kit

[Bill]

I thought it might be useful to list and describe the characteristic Integral tool ideas.

As I let the 'back' parts of my mind chew on the idea of the integral tools, the thought atose that one that should have been included (altho I think of it as "wilberian", pre-integral, which may have been why I didn't include it in my earlier listing) was the 'pre/trans fallacy'.

Because I associate it with ealry wilber, and am in many ways more impressed with early wilber than late 'integral' wilber, I hadn't included it, which i arguably should have.

So I was wondering if it wouldn't be interesting to gather ideas for a complete list of integral tools?

And look for different perspectives on the Integral Tool Kit.

My list so far, not necessarily in the best possible order.:

1. The Meta-Tool - the Ideal of Integration.

2. AQAL

3. SD and the colors language

4. Boomeritis

5. 2nd-etc Tier(s) ('espousal'?)

6. Early Wilberian Pre/Trans Fallacy

Each of those tools contain subtools. I wonder what the most complete possibile elaboration of the toolkit would look like?

[William Harryman]

Hey Bill,

I would certainly add shadow work as a part of this.

Maybe also some form of meditation practice, whichever version works for any given individual.

But you have sound list to start with.

Peace,
Bill

[Bill]

Hi Bill, I get what you are suggesting, but I don't see stuff like shadow work as having become "integral". As I experience it, I see integralists who also happen to be using shadow exploration techniques that pre-existed or were developed under other contexts. The same for meditations from the various schools.

Now, all toolkits are like this - that is, they are all assemblages of methods, often from other earlier systems.

But, integralism would need to refine a specifically integral shadow methodology before I would say it could be included as a characteristly integral tool.

In fact, this is one of the things that I'm suggesting - that Integralism as a formal school needs to put a lot of effort into expanding it's tool kit by testing and perfecting the common types of tools within an integral world-model.

This means more than just 'branding', or calling it integral, it would involve perfecting the practices so that the results are 'integral' with integral theory.

This is already happening - which I think you are suggesting - but I think it begs to be made more conscious and intentional.

[marmalade]

What makes something 'integral'? Does it have to be part of a clearly delineated all-encompassing conceptual model?

Shadow work is part of Jung's work, and Jung could be considered one of the earliest people to attempt an integral perspective. He had a general over-arching theory that connected many fields: psychology, culture, religion, and science. His interests were broad and so were his methods. He lived a fairly integral life. He travelled, studied, taught, and helped patients; he spent time building, creating art, and playing in nature. He forumulated a developmental model and perceived all of these activities as part of his own development. He spent much time in introspection and this seems to have been balanced by social involvement and physical activity. All of this was guided by a conscious intention that became more clear as he aged.

Whether or not Jung is deemed to have been integral depends on how you define 'integral'. I'd think that he was about as integral as a person could have been at that time. And certainly his work has developed tremendously since then. Jungian shadow work has been used and integrated by many contemporary integral practitioners and therapists. So, why not consider shadow work as an integral tool?

Clare Graves work wasn't developed with a conscious intention of creating an integral framework. So, why is Spiral dynamics integral? Is it because Wilber has included it? By this measure, because Wilber has criticized Jung we shouldn't consider Jungian practices as integral? Wilber is integral because he includes and integrates many fields of knowledge such as Graves' work, and at the same time Graves' work is considered integral because its been included and integrated by Wilber. But why should we limit ourselves to Wilber?

Anyways, consider Jung's 'Self' as the archetype of archetypes, the integrating function of the individual. This fits closely with your first tool: The Meta-Tool - the Ideal of Integration. And others have included and integrated Jung into non-Wilberian integral theories. For instance, James Whitlark who is closely involved with Graves work has correlated it with the archetypes of Jung's individuation. But even Wilber has categorized practices such as shadow work within his model... even if he only considers it useful at a certain stage of a particular line of development.

The same arguments I'm making here for shadow work in terms of Jung are probably the same as could be made for meditaion in terms of Aurobindo. And, if I remember correctly, Aurobindo was the first to use the term integral. But I don't want to argue Kazlev's theories for him. Besides, meditation has been a part of integral ever since Wilber popularized it. Meditation has to be the most integral of practices only next to model-making with diagrams.

Hey, ya know... I'd include mandalic model-making as being an integral tool. Wilber's aesthetic diagrams are practically icons for the whole integral movement. (And, of course, some have theorized that this tendency of Wilber's was inspired by his early studies of Jung.)

I do agree with your general idea that these various tools need to be refined, but refining is an endless process even with the tools you mentioned. What I gleaned from your criticism is that if we define 'integral' too broadly, then almost anything could be considered integral. Afterall, anything when used with an integral intention can be used towards an integral goal.

I was just noticing that all of the tools you mention are conceptual and not practice-oriented. And the two tools that were proposed by another were practice-oriented, and you doubted their being truly or fully integral. I'd take your emphasis on the conceptual as meaning that any tool should be required to prove its integral worthiness by being integrated into a well-established integral framework of ideas and research.

By the way, I had some thoughts about pre/trans. I think its useful. However, I've been reading Goddard's comparing of Wilber and Grof, and I so far like his view on pre/trans.

[Bill]

I was just noticing that all of the tools you mention are conceptual and not practice-oriented. And the two tools that were proposed by another were practice-oriented, and you doubted their being truly or fully integral.

Which is pretty much my point - that the capital "I" Integral toolkit is too small and too flat. And it lacks a bunch of things it needs, including a set of practice tools.

You ask an important question at the beginning, which I'll paraphrase as, "Is Integralism a cohesive model, or is it a cultural movement?".

If it's a cultural movement, it can contain anything simply by that thing being declared to be in it.

If it's a cohesive model, if it's supposed to be a model of, say, how individual development works, or how societies work, or how philosophies work, then it has to have an internal consistency that reflects the real things it's trying to work with and describe.

I'm certainly not making the argument that what wilber says should be considered integral. I've never been a big adherent of argument by authority, I think it's a weak argument, and that arguments from principles or from observations are much more trustworthy.

---

Since I come from the kinds of training regimens that are done with the older schools, I can't help but compare capital "I" Integralism with those schools. Integralism looks flat and incomplete by comparison.

Let's pick a specific - what would you say is the characteristic Integral meditation, and what is it about that meditation that makes it integral?

Maybe you can convince me that I'm not seeing things correctly.

[marmalade]

Let's pick a specific - what would you say is the characteristic Integral meditation, and what is it about that meditation that makes it integral?

Maybe you can convince me that I'm not seeing things correctly.

I doubt I'll convince you of much. I'm not even clear on my own opinions.

The reason I thought that meditation seems so central is because its always been associated with integral in my mind. Everyone I've personally known who is interested in integral theory has had a meditation practice at one time or another. Meditation is a favorite topic of Wilber, and he idealizes non-dualism. Integral has always been heavily influenced by the Eastern contemplative tradition, and Aurobindo who came up with the term was advocating this tradition.

Witness meditation seems popular especially amongst the intellectual types that are drawn to theories such as integralism. But I don't know why any particular meditation should be considered more integral than another. I'm not an expert on meditation and so my opinion isn't worth much on this subject.

I have an idea about why to focus on meditation. I've meditated off and on over the years, and fairly intensely for a few years. Its been helpful for developing the ability to be fully conscious and specifically to be conscious in my intentions. Conscious intention is the most fundamental tool of integralism whether in terms of understanding the theory or in applying it. I'd guess that for most people that if they didn't have a practice like meditation, then their understanding of integralism would probably be superficial. Of course, there are a variety of practices that can serve this purpose.

What do you think?

[M Alan Kazlev]

The problem here rests on the definitioon of "Integral" Where do we draw the line? What qualifies as Integral philosophy or practice?

Four progressively more inclusive "rings" can be mentioned:

- sectarian Wilberism (Gospel according to Ken)
- Integral Movement sensu stricto (includes AQAL, SDi, etc but not limited to Wilber)
- Broader Integral Movement (inspired by Wilber's use of the term, but does not necessarily use Wilberian concepts)
- Integral including Integral Yoga etc (broad themes of synthesis, transformation, evolution of consciousness etc)

Equating the word "integral" with Wilberian is rather limiting (unless you're a Wilberite!). Even in the narrow sense of Integral sensu stricto, Integral doesnt equate with Wilberian. Consider there are different interpretations - Don Beck, Steve McIntosh, etc

With the Integral movement in the broad sense, you have Laszlo, Goerner, and others

Outside the Integral Movement are other locii such as the Integral Yoga community and practice, and Gebser's hermeneutics. It could even be argued that Rudolf Steiner is an integralist..

Whatever definition one chooses will determine what is seen as the "tool kit".

[William Harryman]

Hi Alan,

I like this: "- Integral including Integral Yoga etc (broad themes of synthesis, transformation, evolution of consciousness etc)" If it were up to me, this would be the inclusive definition of integral.

There are a great many integral theories; Aurobindo, Gebser, Wilber, Graves, Beck & Cowan, Cook-Greuter, Jenny Wade, and so on, even including some others such as Jung and Assagioli. All of these, and others, have something valuable to contribute, even if, in the case of Jung for example, it needs some rephrasing in terms of definitions.

I want an inclusive model, but one that doesn't descend into New Age crap-style thinking.This seems like the challenge. As someone else mentioned, maybe in another thread, "integral" has become a catchword. While that may bring integral theory into people's awareness, it can also water-down the theory, and that is not a good thing.

I don't have any answers, but I like your most inclusive definition. Integral is not merely Wilberian theory, even though it attempts to be all-inclusive.

Peace,
Bill

[Bill]

Well, I think I can be pretty certain that you and I have fairly different-looking world-models in our heads, let me try to explain my mental model a bit more, so you can see why I'm calling the Integral toolkit flat. It is pretty complicated tho, there are several aspects to be looked at.

You and I are using the word "meditation" differently, as an example.

I said: what would you say is the characteristic Integral meditation, and what is it about that meditation that makes it integral? (note the italics)

and you said: The reason I thought that meditation seems so central is because its always been associated with integral in my mind.

I'm saying "THE meditation" and "THAT meditation" because in my mind the word meditation is a modern catchall word, a generalism that doesn't mean anything specific. There are hundreds of different kinds of "meditation", with thousands of different subflavors and variations on those basic kinds. "Meditation" also includes a whole bunch of things that don't at first glance look like the modern western concept of meditation.

So, I asked you, name the 'type' of meditation that you think is integral, and tell me why.

(The word "that" is a complex word http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/That - I was using it as a demonstrative, you used it as a complementizer)

And I experienced you as answering with a unitary model of "meditation", as tho it were one basic thing about which everyone agreed, distinct and entire, with fairly little variation.

So, you and I have a very different model of what the word "meditation" refers to, to begin with.

And MAK points out the differences we'll find with the word "Integral". I'm not an "Integralism as a cultural movement" person, I'm an "Integralism as cohesive model of human development" person.

More to come...

[Bill]

So, to add a little more elaboration to this, let me try to give you a little example of how I look at tools.

One of the things I think of myslef as, is an uwaysi sufi. (extra points if you can figure out the refernce, ha ha).

And I've done a lot of work with characteristic sufi tools,. such as the teaching story, and especially meditations like the zikhr, the 'remembrance'. Now, remembrance produces some very specific and striking states of mind and realization.

But, I've also done an extensive series of practices, meditations, based on the tibetan chod. Modernizations, of course, human thighbone trumpets are not cool anymore, we don't live in a time when human bones are common enough as to be easily procureable.

So, I've done both practices, chod and remembrance (leaving out for the moment all the others), and think of myself as a sufi (among other things). Does this mean that the chod is a sufi tool?

The sufis would be really pissed off if I claimed that. And vice-versa for the vajrayana crowd.

The point I'm making is, just because a practice is done by an integralist, that doesn't make it Integral. Each system has it's own internal logic and coherence, and each produces it's own characteristic tools that reflect that basic internal logic, and the world-view of the system.

So, from my point of view, Integralism has just begun it's toolkit, because it hasn't reshaped the tools it has borrowed from earlier schools to reflect the internal logic of Integralism.

[marmalade]

I realized you were asking about a specific type of meditation. I just didn't have much of an answer to offer you for that question.

I don't think there are any specifically integral practices because integral can include all practices using them for integral purposes. In this sense, the integral toolkit would include no specific practices. This goes back to my earlier point. I'm thinking that the integral toolkit can only include concepts and theories because its the intellectual framework that distinguishes integral and not the practices used to attain an integral goal.

Integral does include practice as a general conceptual category. But when speaking of a specific practice you it will always be limited to specific lines, states, stages, etc. There is no single practice that integrates it all. Yet, certain practices may integrate more than others.

That is the best answer that comes to my mind at the moment.

Can you think of a single practice that integrates all aspects and to which most integral practitioners would agree?

[Jaguar]

I consider Jung more integrated cognitively than Wilber...Jung was incorporating the Big Picture of consciousness...left/right hemisphere, archetype, dream, nonlinear.

"Aurobindo was the first to use the term integral." Aurobindo was influenced by the Kabbalahist Max Theon through The Mother (Mirra Alfassa)...so I think Aurobindos "levels" and hence the idea of integration itself came from Max www.kheper.net/topics/Theon/Theon.htm


What use are integral ideas and tools if they cannot help one to re-educate and deal with the minds and behaviors of workmates or people in daily life who believe in disincarnate beings, past lives, spells, hexes and the tooth fairy.
All integral can tell you in situations like these is to get the hell out.

[BrightAbyss~]

Hey Jana, longtime.

Thinking more 'integrally' might compel a person in that situation to 'meet people where they are at' (magic-to-mythic thinking) and use skillful means to help them bring a more empirical awareness into being and objectify their own semantic contradictions, such that would help open future dialogues to more learning and growing...

non?