Is integral an open source project?

[shaman sun]

[Re-post from my blog, thought it was appropriate. Just to be clear though, I'm talking about Integral Institute/Integral Life community specifically...]

Terry Patten just posted this newsletter, “Exploring Big Questions in the Integral World.” I’m sort of glad that these are being brought up in the first place. Patten says integral themes are emerging naturally around the world, a “loosely-defined Integral movement seems to have appeared, and within it, the related field of Integral spirituality.” Cool! Yeah, that’s us. Popping up everywhere. Although let’s think of this carefully. The essential point he’s making is that the idea behind integral, or rather, just seeing underlying truths is becoming more recognizable for more people. Makes sense. We’re living in a digital age, we surf through information daily, and many of us are now more capable of discerning underlying patterns, not to mention developing new ways to synthesize information. We’re truly becoming planetary citizens.

Integral is inherently an “open source” movement: On the one hand, Integral intellectual property falls into two categories: (1) There are copyrighted recordings and publications, and testing instruments, which are all necessary and completely non-problematic. (2) There are attempts to trademark or copyright important insights or good ideas in and of themselves. Such ideas may even be essential truths. Where would we all be if Ken Wilber had copyrighted the idea of the four quadrants? Or the notion of altitudes? This latter category is more analogous to patenting pieces of genetic code. By its nature, this tends to constrain the free flow of ideas, and inhibit the co-creative process at the heart of a thriving Integral community.

Integral IP is healthy and necessary: On the other hand, serious intellectual creativity requires full-time dedication, which implies a successful business model. The Integral movement has come to life in the midst of the world economy at a time when innovative business models are primarily based on developing valuable IP. To make this distinction between two kinds of IP and to take one of them off the table is entirely impractical. It can’t and won’t happen. Moreover, any attempt to do so would be foolish. It would disincentivize innovation and constrain the ability of Integral leaders to monetize their creative contributions. If the IP has enough value, people will, and should, pay for it. And the public Integral conversation will go on; it is hardly in need of protection.

A lingering question I had was, okay, it’s inherent, but what about manifest? If integral is inherently “open source,” in that the ideas are there, but the services are what we pay for (Integral Life, for example), is this truly a manifestation of Open Source? Aren’t there more wide-reaching models that rely on micro-transactions, blogging, twittering, live-feeds, and most importantly, open access?

To me, it seems like Integral Institute and its associates are going down the well-trodded path. They want to be formally recognized, so they are taking on the traits of any traditional university, business or institution. Maintain control of intellectual property, to some degree, allow access for a fee, etc. But what if those models are dated? Wouldn’t the integral theorists do much better to embrace more collaborative, and technologically enhanced ways to share their work? Open access would, at least I believe, do the Integral folks wonders. I’m sure their intentions are benign by embracing traditional business and intellectual models, but it might end up serving as a road block to becoming true cultural catalysts.

[Also, utilizing new legislation, like the creative commons, can protect intellectual property and at the same time make it more open source.]

We live in an internet age, why embrace the old paradigm when new means of organization are capable of so much more potential? Just think, it’s the difference between “an institution and collaboration.”

“New technologies are enabling new kinds of cooperative structures to flourish as a way of getting things done in business, science, the arts and elsewhere, as an alternative to centralized and institutional structures, which he sees as self-limiting.” Clay Shirky

If there is to be an integral movement, if they really want it to be a catalyst for the greater culture, it’s time they smart up and utilize new ways of thinking and organizing.