|
26 jun 06 "Is Ken Wilber's Integral Theory bullshit?" before i started researching it, i'd assumed this was another math question. integral thinking (not integral theory, which tends to refer to ken wilbur's interpretation of things) is an developing and uncohesive set of ideas concerning "integrating" disparate ideas and processes regarding the exploration of reality (most often cited are scientific exploration and spiritual revelation) to form one whole, "integrated" understanding of the One True Nature of Reality. integral thinking is supposed to be like a road map to enlightenment, or at least a piece of paper that says "there might be a road map to enlightenment lying around here somewhere!" it's therefore hard to say that it's bullshit, per se, because it doesn't really state any facts; it only says, basically, that the way to understanding the nature of reality lies in being open-minded. you can't argue too much with that, even though it doesn't really serve an immediate purpose beyond getting a lot of hippy-types all fired up and inclined to open their mouths, which is a situation that is generally not desirable. ken wilbur, in his "integral theory", starts down the "immediate purpose" road, and he's probably full of sh*t. integral thinking hints at "everything is one," which is a sentiment that's expressed both in science and spirituality, which are integral thinking's principal areas of focus and...well...integration. science conveys "everything is one" in its exploration of the interconnectedness of physical phenomena, the fact that everything is all made out of the same stuff, and that there aren't any meaningful distinctions between one "object" and another, if you look at them closely enough. spiritual practices and practitioners (including taoists, buddhists, and some new-agers) are basically on the same page, but they don't go into a whole lot of meaningful detail as to how, exactly, eveything is one. ken wilbur's integral theory involves taking a lot of practical metaphors out of this intentional and necessary vagueness and applying them to business, management, politics, etc. i suppose one could take the sentiment "realize there are many possible paths to an outcome" and run with it, but this hardly constitutes a revolution in thought, nor should it become the basis for a thriving e-business, which is what wilbur appears to be running. "motivational quack" rather than "erudite philosopher", i think. integral thought on the whole (not just integral theory) has a few problems, though, depending of course on who's talking about it. much of it seems to consist of incomplete or innacurate ideas of what science is, and excitability that people interpret as spirituality. i think the general idea is often something very much like "five second enlightenment", which is wishful thinking. you can't just say "ok, our goal is to be supremely evolved beings who take in all information and energy to become evolved spiritual cosmological beings, and form a great gnostic circle of the everything and shine with spiritual and technological light of the god/man/beast!", and then say "ok, now figure out how to do it before we get kicked out of the seminar room!" it's a great idea to unify the cosmos under one big umbrella, but it's a bit premature. i'm sure cavemen sat around under the stars and thought "you know, i bet there's some fundamental underlying truth to all of this", which is i suppose what integral thought describes. but presenting it as a system, as wilbur does, and especially as a self-help system with all sorts of practical applications, doesn't seem useful or realistic. yes, religion and science are opposed, because religion asserts dogma, and the whole purpose of science is to challenge record with new observations. "this is the way things are!" vs. "let's find out the way things are!" but spirituality and science are not opposed. in fact, they get along well. neither incorporate dogma or crede or necessary authority. while science explores possible truths through observation, record, comparison, measurement, and most importantly reason, spiriuality explores it through feeling. reason and feeling can easily compliment each other; for instance, consider the statement: "discovery is exciting". any place one gets a profound sense of "aha! so this is the way things really are!" can be considered spiritual, or a "spiritual experience" -- feeling is the key to spirituality. this is why science can be spiritual: if it excites someone, and they feel the truth as well as know the truth, then a discovery can be a revelation, and a revelation a discovery. for instance, the gnostics and the cult of pythagoras both combined scientific observation with spiritual revelation (knowledge and spirit) to achieve what they hoped was a better understanding of the universe and/or god. integral thought is bullshit only inasmuch as it really doesn't say much, and is open to interpretation. wilbur's integral theory is bullshit inasmuch as it takes this relative nonsense and tries to apply it to things like business meetings, when integral thought is really just an ideal of how knowledge and experience should be. trying to make a practical application out of it doesn't work too well, in my humble opinion. integral thought, outside of wilbur's interpretation of it, is useful in that it can serve as a beginning for other ideas. if it inspires people to ask questions like "what do i know?" and "how do i know?", "who am i?" and "what is the universe?", then the presentation of this sort of fruitiness, as long as it doesn't spawn too many weird cults or websites, is, i think, a positive thing. but someone should call the IRS on ken wilbur. |
ask a question