Rich concludes his penetrative analysis with the following:

An integral theory which valorizes its own epistemology by denying other traditions, theories, practices their own voice, or by simply mis-characterizing them segregates rather than integrates. Any theory which asserts itself ideologically by cannibalizing other traditions and appropriating the voice of alterity as a function of its integral model while discarding the ten thousand nuances, subtleties, traces of culture which are essential to indigenous identity, fails at the level of integration itself. Such theoretical practices are not integral but imperialist, such discourses do not achieve cultural hybridity but rather cultural hegemony. Such an integral theory is colonialist at its worst and patronizing at its best.

Well said. Yet what is "Integral"? Not a collection of everything, I suppose. There has to be also individual selection, yet keeping the "Integral" intact. How does one do that?

RYD

good question Deshpande and L.O.L that I could construct a suitable answer. In the last Integral review (a peer reviewed journal of "integral theory") I saw an article which I dont remember the exact title, but whose jest was something like an integral theory to integrate all other integral theories, or an integration of integral views. That one made my head spin a bit!

But your very right adding up the sum of parts to get to a whole is certainly not it. My best guess is that "integral"can not be a theory at all, but would have to be something
which transcends all linguistic categories. Because -leaving aside for a moment esoteric theories of poetics - language can only represent the world and all representations will always be partial. This tells me that whatever "integral is" would have to involve an actual practice -a yoga- or a way of being in the world, e.g. something which could not merely be reduced language.

This practice, itself however, would have to be something which could not simply be reduced to a series of rules, regulations, or disciplinary techniques.

rc

The problem of the Individual vis-à-vis the Integral could perhaps be seen in terms of the manifold expression of the spirit, each bringing out its essential character, its swabhāva, which in the deepest sense need not be in conflict with the others swabhāvas. I can be what I am, and my growth and progress and expression can lead me to the essentiality of the growth and progress and expression of the thousand possibilities open to every one of us as a group or a collective or as societal modes of life. I’m one among many centres of the universal manifestation.

Sri Aurobindo writes in a letter: “Essentially one Jiva has the same nature as all—but in manifestation each puts forth its own line of swabhāva.” The “significant totality of these particularities” cannot be discerned by the analytical faculties of ours, the swabhāvaof each, of the thing in itself belongs to another category of knowledge.

In the Synthesis of Yoga we have the following: “These things are the ordinary aspects of the soul while it is working out its force in nature, but when we get nearer to our inner selves, then we get too a glimpse and experience of something which was involved in these forms and can disengage itself and stand behind and drive them, as if a general Presence or Power brought to bear on the particular working of this living and thinking machine. This is the force of the soul itself presiding over and filling the powers of its nature… The Yoga of self-perfection brings out this soul-force and gives it its largest scope, takes up all the fourfold powers and throws them into the free circle of an integral and harmonious spiritual dynamis. The godhead, the soul-power of knowledge rises to the highest degree of which the individual nature can be the supporting basis. A free mind of light develops which is open to every kind of revelation, inspiration, intuition, idea, discrimination, thinking synthesis; an enlightened life of the mind grasps at all knowledge with a delight of finding and reception and holding, a spiritual enthusiasm, passion, or ecstasy; a power of light full of spiritual force, illumination and purity of working manifests its empire; a bottomless steadiness and illimitable calm upholds all the illumination, movement, action as on some rock of ages, equal, unperturbed, unmoved…”

We have the Upanishadic-Biblical One is All, One is in All, All is One. That integrality is not an analytical but an integral integrality. That holds for the individual, for the group, for the social units, for nations, foe sets of activities, and so on so forth, each in its foundational truth embracing all the others. That Integral is not a white Blank, the Non-Manifest Indeterminate, but from which ensue all determinates, the spectral range of expressive truths. Our realization of that principle is the realisation of the true meaning of this multifold creation. He wanted to be many, bahusyām prajāyéyéti says the Upanishad on the ādhāra or support of the underlying unity, the Substratum knowing which we get the true Integral.

RYD

Deshpande,

yes, that integral being would be contingent on ones individual circumstance, on ones own swabhava, is appealing, and would seem to be a way to imagine it which would be mutable enough to avoid the reification process which is implicit in theorizing integrality universally.

rc

Great article, Rich. I agree that "integral" can only ultimately be a yoga or yogas, and not a theory or theoretical framework. At the same time, theoretical frameworks are useful at a relative level and at the current stage at which humanity is. From Sri Aurobindo's aphorisms:

74. Practical knowledge is a different thing; that is real and serviceable, but it is never complete. Therefore to systematise and codify it is necessary but fatal.

75. Systematise we must, but even in making and holding the system, we should always keep firm hold on this truth that all systems are in their nature transitory and incomplete.

(Someone ought to e-mail these to Wilber and Co. ;-) )

Some snippets of a conversation I was having with some friends on the dangers of ideological thinking and the necessity of relative metaphysical systems:

Ned: The problem, I think, is that nobody understands what spiritual metaphysical systems are. Spiritual metaphysical systems are not the same as rational metaphysical systems. They never claim to be eternal or absolute – it is the “finger pointing to the moon” sort of situation.

Zak: No true metaphysician has ever claimed that there are universally valid, perspective-free, interpretation-free foundational elements of reality [so-called "pure" metaphysics as defined by Wilber's camp]. Metaphysics is based on getting along with established relative facts, in order for the individual to have a perspective of change, growth and union with the higher conditions of the mind. The goal of metaphysics has nothing to do with this peripheral information [i.e. intellectually expressing things in a perspective-free way], but rather is dealing with something totally different -- the qualitative quest to improve the human condition.

Matt: Rationalist metaphysics (the kind that assert themselves as eternally true) are what I think need to be shown the door. Spiritual metaphysics, on the other hand, seem almost to be a necessity, as indeed we are trying to enact realms of being which haven't fully manifested yet, and so our ongoing experiences and descriptions play a vital role in their development. Building temporary frameworks and guiding metaphors which describe these new territories is definitely an aid to our own and others' spiritual development. We just have to be sure to keep our eyes trained to the moon!

Ned,

right..... while these metaphysical systems can provide powerful heuristics for navigating the turbulent seas we sail though in our dark nights of soul making but at some point our fascination with them becomes a fetishing of map making.

What I understand you are saying here about “rational metaphysical systems” concerns their slippage into “transcendental signifieds” or closed systems, which only allow reference to themselves (or to their own intent) to establish universal validity. The construction of transcendental signifieds is an attempt to establish a metaphysical entity which stands outside the web of language, which constitutes our being in the world. All to often such metaphysical systems -due to their system of self-validation- become authoritarian enterprises which suppress interpretations other than those established by their own priestly hierarchy.

Although some of these systems may even pay lip service to the linguistic turn of philosophy they still mange to slide on the slippages of marks, signs, words into the binary traps of language, and implode under their own systems of signification. (see 4/16 SCIY article on Wilber's misunderstanding of Derrida and Postmodernism)

This of course plays off Saussure's idea that meaning only can be discerned by referring to still other meanings or more specifically, that the meaning of any sign can only be understood by its differences from all other signs; to which Derrida would add the temporal dimension of deferral.

Because systems of meaning are rooted in systems of differences, signifiers have meaning only in relationship to signifieds, which themselves are signifiers for yet other signifieds. The single signifier or word (das einzige wort) in itself will never come to presence because it must always differ and defer to still other signifiers/signfieds along the infinite curvature of space/time to locate its meaning.

For the word difference itself, a dictionary will supply a list of synonyms, such as dissimilar, distinct, unusual, disagreement etc, or by contrasting to its antonyms such as wholeness, totality, completeness. The organization of conventional cognition emerges in relationships of co-dependent signifiers/signifieds. Of course the resemblance to styles of Buddhist cognition are evident,in which phenomena are understood to codependently arise. (pratitya samutpada) In contrast, closed metaphysical systems are usually intent on reducing phenomena to the singular (or even quadratic) themes contained within their own self-referential structures.

In my deconstructive reading what I think you are referring to as spiritual metaphysical systems -which always point beyond themselves- is that they are “sous rature” or always under erasure. What Derrida can be credited for by employing this subtle tai chi move is avoiding the problem of totalizing systems, by skillfully directing their presencing centers to their unseen margins.

Since all systems of signification are always subject to the play of language, the codependent arising of phenomena or meaning does not presences itself through its totalization in any single “it” or in single “system” but, the presencing of any “it” or “system” is always related to a lurking absence; a previous, or an as of yet to be articulated signifier which must be referred to in order for meaning to constellate. All concepts, essences and/or traces of signified reality upon articulation are necessarily erased to allow their self-renewal in yet other concepts, essences, realities, to which they refer. To place the trace of the signifier under erasure is to resist the totalizing singularity of meanings which are the language of ideology.

From my perspective what you refer to as “spiritual metaphysical systems” - which I might call open systems - through an implicit realization of their own signifying limits, of the non-separability of the one and the many, allow us to exit before meanings are totalized and we fall victim to the entropy of closed systems. In providing us with a tacit recognition that they are always under erasure, they also free up a horizon for an existential encounter with the world which avoids reducing phenomena to the mere self-referential signs of any particular metaphysical system.

At times on SCIY we have riffed of this notion of “sous rature” and Rod Hemsell has done some creative musings implying that in our own system of integral yoga, with its demonstrated tendencies toward religiosity, the notion of the Avatar must be placed under erasure. I agree.

The erasure of the trace is an act of deconstruction but as Gayatri Spivak -one of the most erudite of all Derrida's translators- reminds us deconstruction is not only a “textual event” or a destructive act, but a creative one. “Deconstruction is not simply the practice of breaking things down. As she puts it, “[It] is not the exposure of error. It is constantly and persistently looking into how truths are produced.”

Gayatri's “fascination is with human relations: encounters with otherness, intimacies created in the midst of differences, the responsibility implicit in every act of communication. She works to articulate a relation to others that is always singular, never preceded by socially produced categories. The ideal relation to the Other, Spivak says, is "an embrace, an act of love."
see link: www.artandculture.com/cgi-bin/WebObjects/ACLive.woa/wa/artist?id=1068

From my own perspective, in the act of erasing the trace one also honors it by allowing it to lead one towards the increasing complexity (infinity) of meanings that it signifies. If one has a fascination with divine/human relations, the metaphysical systems which will emerge will have their own series of signification; forms, symbols, signs, images, photos, objects of veneration, when these lose their complex associations with an inner life they are often reduced to idols.

The erasure of the trace in divine/human system, strikes me as the erasure of that which is projected, objectified, reified, or transcendentally signified. Deconstruction in this instance, "as an embrace", "as an act of love", may leads us back towards the complexity (infinity) of psychic associations in the human heart. The heart is after all the location where Sri Aurobindo tells us our true guru is to be found.

rc

or maybe that should be spelled: guru"s"... because these also can be seen to constellate in pairs....

Nicely said Rich...

~ ronjon

Wow, Rich -- well-said! That's a lot to take in -- some great connections observed here.

I've always observed the similarities between deconstruction and negative theology. It is indeed a vital tool available to those who seek a constant ascent from the finite toward the Infinite.

The connection between deconstruction and negative theology is also a good one. Additionally its been said Derrida's practice also conforms to some Kabalistic practices in which the utterance of God's name is avoided. Closer to IY I'd say is the association with neti, neti. aka not this, not this.

here is something from Wiki;

Brhadaranyaka Upanishad, Yajnavalkya is questioned by his students to describe God. He states "The Divine is not this and it is not that" (neti, neti).

Thus, the Divine is not real as we are real, nor is it unreal. The divine is not living in the sense humans live, nor is it dead. The Divine is not compassionate as we use the term, nor is it uncompassionate. And so on. We can never truly define God in words. All we can say, in effect, is that "It isn't this, but also, it isn't that either". In the end, the student must transcend words to understand the nature of the Divine."...

In this sense, neti-neti is not a denial. Rather, it is an assertion that whatever the Divine may be, when we attempt to capture it in human words, we must inevitably fall short, because we are limited in understanding, and words are limited in ability to express the transcendent.".....

but what is equally fascinating -in a reconstructive sense- is the reciprocal of "neti" "neti" a.k.a
"iti" "iti" which I think Deshpande has creatively suggested
a good starting point: swabhāva


r

Dear Rich,

Thanks for your article, which raises many interesting points that are being discussed also in the Futures community in response to a recent issue of "Futures" journal.

There's a lot that could be addressed --- below are some comments & clarifications on your views about Spiral Dynamics:

1. The term "Spiral Dynamics" was coined by Don Beck & Chris Cowan to describe their interpretation of Clare W. Graves' "emergent cyclical model of adult biopsychosocial systems intelligences" (www.clarewgraves.com).

To be precise, your article is really a critique of Beck's "Spiral Dynamics Integral" circa 2000-2005. Cowan & other SD practitioners do not share the positions cited on the "meme green meme" or "affinities to a neoconservative worldview".

Your critique does not apply to the SD community or SD practitioners in totality.

2. Richard Dawkins' concept of the "meme" was not central to Graves' work which predated it. According to Cowan, it was not chosen "uncritically" but rather at the time of writing the "Spiral Dynamics" book looked potentially promising as a contingent theory that might extend Graves' work into contemporary research. Beck & Cowan were more influenced by Mihaly Csikzentmihalyi's interpretation, notably in "The Evolving Self: A Psychology for the Third Millennium" (HarperPerennial, New York, 1993). Cowan later looked at Robert Aunger's "The Electric Meme" (The Free Press, New York, 2002). Dawkins' memetics is not a necessary criterion for Graves' work.

3. Public presentations of Graves' work have led to "reducing complex individual and social phenomena to a color coded map of reality" which is not in Graves' original work which instead offered a biopsychosocial model of dynamic interaction between internal mind capacities and external life conditions.

Graves used combinations of letter and number codes at different phases of his theory development over a 20-year period. Cowan claims the color system was later developed as a mnemonic aid. Furthermore, Graves' original work, and Beck & Cowan's extension of it, featured a number of other dynamic elements on types and dynamics of change, taken from Milton Rokeach and others theorists, or which Beck & Cowan developed.

Graves' original research question was to uncover why different psychological theories --- e.g. Freud, Skinner, Kohlberg, Maslow --- appealed to different student cohorts.

SD practitioners who undertake certification training, generally, do not use the color codes, pursue a 'naive integral' mode of hermeneutic analysis and coding; are aware of biases, framing and hermeneutic lifeworlds; and do not express faith in "spiral wizards" or "second tier" thinkers (metaphors in Beck & Cowan's 1996 book which has grown out of proportion). "Second tier" originally referred to macro-systems level awareness and intervention capability, and also differs from Wilber's "third tier".

Finally, Graves' work --- and Beck & Cowan's work when I encountered it in 1997 --- was in a different context to the subsequent popularization of "SD" in its various forms. A look at the extensive bibliography in "Spiral Dynamics" --- along with its online extensions --- will

4. There has been substantial "critique" in the SD community about Beck & Cowan's divergent interpretation which has led to legal cases, about Ken Wilber's interpretation, and about the ideological concerns that you critique such as neoconservatism and "second tier" leaders --- which are not necessarily shared in the SD community and are issues of interpretation rather than implicit in the Gravesian or SD models.

This split is comparable to the heterodox schools in many religious traditions, and the "diffusion of innovations" of NLP and the Enneagram.

5. Beck's expertise includes sports psychology hence his consulting role to the Dallas Cowboys and many other US football teams. Beck --- and later Wilber's Integral Institute --- cultivated high-level connections with policymakers in the Bush administration and Blair government. There's a cautionary tale here about "diffusion of innovations" from a practitioner community to political power.

Your final paragraph makes some valid points --- which in fact apply also to how Graves' legacy is "cannibalised" and "appropriated" in a "hegemonic" sense, and where the "nuances" are likewise "discarded" by those who use it for their own ends.

Regards,

Alex Burns

Hi Alex

Thank you for your thoughtful clarifications on the history of Spiral Dynamics. You are correct in that my critique is aimed at Spiral Dynamics Integral as it is presented by Wilber and Beck as well as to certain aspects of the Spiral Dynamics book by Beck and Cowan (esp. in which Generals Powell and Schwartzkopf are valorized as "spiral masters" )

I do realize that there are those, like yourself, involved in spiral dynamics who are critically aware of the ideological commitments which would follow a literalist reduction of the Gravesian model or in its grafting on to Wilber's "integral scheme".

I personally believe that Graves's original model has the potential to be used in many circumstances as a powerful heuristic tool.

rich

actually it is precisely because it can be used as such a powerful heuristic tool that its diffusion of innovations is so problematic and its deployment as an object of ideology is so odious.... r