Talk:Integral (Ken Wilber)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Notability problems with this entire family of articles

The family of pages at Category:Integral theory, Category:Integral thought, Category:Ken Wilber, and Category:Sri Aurobindo go into great technical detail about the beliefs and biographies surrounding theories with little or no coverage in mainstream, independent sources. I ran a LexisNexis search for this material in major newspapers, and found only trivial coverage -- mostly in editorials or incidental mentions in book reviews. Google searches turn up few independent, mainstream reliable sources. So, as the situation stands, this family of ideas seems to be, at best, barely notable, and certainly not notable enough to sustain the large number of lengthy articles that have built up over the past three years. I've prodded a lot of articles, but if those are removed, and unless there is an influx of sources establishing notability per WP:N, I'll begin merging and trimming these articles, and putting them in their proper context. Fireplace 19:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I fully support this. i think the usual rules apply: one article for the line of thought. Individual articles only for those people with several significant publications reviewed in mainstream publications or published in mainstream presses or journals or held in multiple libraries. There may be one or two of them. The ones that are faculty in ordinary academic institutions may be worth thetrouble of investigating further. DGG (talk) 00:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

What is policy on categories? the Ken Wilber one for instance? Thanks.--Doug Weller (talk) 16:09, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Not a movement

In the time I have been in dialogue with the Integral community, inspired originally by my interest in both Sri Aurobindo and Ken Wilber, and some intriguing parallels (as well as strong differences!) between Wilber's work and my own, my understanding of the Integral culture / approach / paradigm / whatever has deepened greatly. And one of the things I have more and more realized is that there is no such thing as an "integral movement". I certainly jumped the gun when I started using the phrase in 2006 or so. And even as late as 2007 I was still happy with it, as indicated by my comment in the immediately preceeding section (so close in terms of web page, yet so long ago it seems!). But from where I am now, I can no longer hold that position. There is a broad Wilber-inspired movement, sure, an Aurobindo Integral yoga community, yep, and instituitions like the California Institutre of Integarl Studies. But there is no "movement" along the lines of, say, the environmental movement, or the feminist movement. That level of consistency simply doesn't exist. Maybe it will in the future, although I hope not, because I would hate to see the Integral paradigm reduced to a single-issue approach. Instead, "integral" is one of those terms, like "postmodernism" or "New Age" that is differently and variously used by different people, albeit with common points of reference, such as trans-disciplinary methodology, universalism and psycho-spiritual evolution. So I feel this page should be renamed (again). To reflect Integral's universalist perspective and methodology, I would suggest something neutral like Integral (concept). What does everyone else think ? M Alan Kazlev (talk) 23:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

If you want to rename the article then i think you need to make the case here (and before changing the lede). The above discussion seems happy with Movement. I think its also important to point out that this is not an essay about the approach, or a place for advocates of the approach to exhibit advocacy, but an encyclopaedia entry.--Snowded ^TALK 04:26, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Integral (concept) would have the problem that standing by itself it has too many other meanings. I do not see that it is anywhere used by itself--the current title seems clear enough.

POV

Even the criticism part of the article is devoted to disputes between different threads of the movement. all the sources and references given are from within the movement. Has nobody outside the movement ever commented on it? I have tagged it accordingly. DGG ( talk ) 14:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Wouter Hanegraaff, who is not part of the integral movement, has commented on it. His comments should be added to the article. — goethean ॐ 19:01, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Support. Just doing some basic fixes to help everyone sort it out. All is One (talk) 01:34, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

from Talk:Integral_(Ken_Wilber)/Archive_1#Complete_Bullshit.3F:

incidentally, conference papers are not considered a reliable source at wikipedia. Nor is this a place to advertise them. DGG (talk) 03:35, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

In the 2006 book The Oxford Handbook of Religion and Science (hardcover paperback) in section IV. Methodological Approaches to the Study of Religion and Science is chapter 32 Toward a Comprehensive Integration of Science and Religion: A Post-Metaphysical Approach by Ken Wilber and Sean Esbjorn-Hargens. The Oxford Handbook of Religion and Science is part of the (so far) 17 book series Oxford Handbooks in Religion and Theology.

Is this considered a reliable source at Wikipedia, or am I merely advertising for Oxford University Press now? Slark (talk) 23:06, 15 October 2009 (UTC) contribs) 03:36, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

That's an uber-reliable source. — goethean ॐ 15:01, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

As a student of integral theories, I have a problem with the flagship article being called Integral Movement. Integral Theory is more appropriate, and under that heading, it should trace the development of integral theory from Jean Gebser and Aurobindo, through Clare Graves and then Ken Wilber, Don Beck, and perhaps a few of the newer theorists (maybe some of the authors coming out in the SUNY series of books edited by Sean Esbjorn-Hargens (http://www.sunypress.edu/Searchadv.aspx?IsSubmit=true&CategoryID=7259), or editors at Integral Review). WilliamHarryman (talk) 21:29, 15 December 2009 (UTC)WilliamHarryman

Bill I totally agree with you re "Integral movement". Unfortunately "Integral theory" works only for Wilber and those influenced/inspired by him, whereas Integral is broader than that. Theory implies either scientific hypothesis (so Ervin László is an Integral theorist in this context, Wilber is not) or intellectual philosophical speculation (Wilber). Sri Aurobindo is not and never was a "theorist", Wilber's repeated misunderstanding on this matter notwithstanding. See biographies by Peter Heehs and Georges van Vrekhem for a better understanding on Sri Aurobindo. I would not call Gebser a "theorist" either, or Steiner, or Teilhard.

I would however certainly recommend restoring the page Integral theory (currently a redirect), and using it in the definition of Wilber, Beck, Esbjorn-Hargens, etc. The non-redirect edit is a good starting point which can be updated with newer content from the "integral movement" page. In other words, re Wikipedia as encyclopaedia, although Integral Theory is based on Wilber's writings it is still notable in its own right and should have its own page, just as Integral yoga is based on Sri Aurobindo's teachings but also notable in its own right. M Alan Kazlev (talk) 23:00, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

External links

As a casual observation, it is interesting that the article did not link to Integral Life, the main website of Wilber's Integral Institute or the blog of Joe Perez, who is friendly to Wilber's version of Integral theory. I have added these links, but also invite discussion on whether this blog might be biased against Wilber in some way.TimZBrooks (talk) 20:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC) Tim B

I've got no problem with Integral Institute link. However the page has too many links already, some should probably be pruned. re Joe Perez Blog, you know how many wilberian "integral" blogs there are out there?  ;-) M Alan Kazlev (talk) 23:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure why that question is relevant. I know of Integral Options Cafe. I would add that one too, not sure if its wilberian or not. How many wilberian blogs are there on this page? TimZBrooks (talk) 22:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC) Tim B

To answer my own question, there were none until I added Perez, even though wilber is called the father of the American integral movement. Any prob with me adding Integral Options Cafe? TimZBrooks (talk) 22:52, 9 December 2009 (UTC) Tim B

Joe Perez here. This discussion has come to my attention and would like to say a few words on the range of topics under discussion. I have nothing to say about whether my own blog is listed in the Blogs section because of an obvious conflict of interest. I will say that it is my opinion that Bill Harryman's blog is worthy of inclusion if any blogs are, but I would have no problem with removing all the blogs.

After some reflection, I think the editors expressing some doubt as to the notability of the entire cluster of articles on the integral philosophy have a valid point: there is a certain gap in coverage of Integral matters in many academic journals and newspapers. Wilber, the most prominent thinker in this field today, is not on a university faculty and so there is some bias against him on that score. Overall, however, these editors would do well to acquaint themselves with the considerable attention Wilber's theories *have* received in academic publications; there are literally hundreds of individual articles in many academic publications that cite Wilber. I know this not from a Lexis search (which I have not done recently), but by reviewing the bibliographies of many articles published in AQAL Journal, Integral Leadership Review, and other academic journals. Also, so far as I know, Wilber's books are published by mainstream publishers and reviewed in mainstream publications. His work is hardly a fringe, and if there is a bias against his work by certain academics whose books he routinely and aggressively criticizes this is not really an objection. In my opinion, the faculty of California Institue of Integral Studies, the Integral Studies program at JFK University, Integral Institute, Naropa Univ., and elsewhere would do the Internet-reading community a service by contributing their attention to this wikipedia entry discussion.

That said, I believe there may be some major problems with the entry that could be overcome if given enough attention. The biggest issue is partially identified by Alan Kazlev: so far as I know, there is no "Integral movement" in America outside of the organizations surrounding Ken Wilber and a single religious organization, Integrative Spirituality, that is California-based that can be documented. What there *is* is a body of identifiable thought that is called "Integral" or "integral" by writers both within and independent from the movement, particularly in fields such as business consulting, leadership development, ecology, and complementary medicine. Not only has Wilber been *cited* hundreds of times, he has also seen publication over 20 forewords to books by a wide variety of notable authors published by mainstream publishers (i.e., not self-published authors). If there is a "movement", and I think there is (though it is small) it is a "spiritual movement" and really belongs listed alongside other New Religious Movements, from the encyclopedia's standpoint. Because the movement is small, I think such an article would be brief. Am I wrong about this? I would recommend a threefold course of action (1) revamping and retitling the entry "Integral thought" to focus on the current of thought; (2) adding a separate and smaller entry as "Integral (spiritual movement)" or similar to the describe the specifically religious elements of integral; and (3) moving the section on Integral as a stage of psychological development to an appropriate article in psychological development theory. At the same time, the whole notion that this is not a notable phenomenon either from a thought or movement standpoint needs to be put to bed, and the editors' notes removed. Perhaps it will require some academic faculty input to this discussion and additional research into independent sources in order to achieve this goal.

An additional point is that I agree with Tim B's point that there is a bias issue. The remedy is to remove any questionable item that cannot be substantiated from independent, published resources and *not* from a pesonal weblog. I have not read the article recently or thoroughly enough to produce a comprehensive list of bias issues. However, two that come to mind as immediately problematic are the use of "Wilberian" and "post-Wilberian" to describe various thinkers. I am not aware of any credible, independent source that is *not* a weblog that has ever used either of these terms. So far as I know, the only source to use either of these terms is a personal weblog by Alan Kazlev or others who have disagreements with Wilber. Both terms should be stripped out immediately, barring any evidence that they are identifiable as terms commonly used by notable sources independent of the movement. I vaguely recall doing so some years back, but they were obviously added back in by someone who is interjecting a particular point of view. If there is such a thing as "post-Wilber" then it should be its own encyclopedia article and it should pass its own notability test. The same is true of "Wilberian" (which is to Wilber what "Hegelian" is to "Hegel", I imagine). If there is such a thing as Wilberian, then it should be documented by independent sources. - Joe Perez —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.143.72.160 (talk) 01:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Joe Perez again. I have identified 15 different areas for deletion or re-writing or reorganization on my user page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Joeperez69. I don't know the wiki markup language, but some of these changes could be made without too much work. I hope it isn't too difficult or time consuming to learn. Others will require some extensive research to identify citations. I think it's a long-term project, so probably the best approach is to get some semblance of agreement on this talk page on the way to go and then we can start tackling the low-hanging fruit first. Joeperez69 (talk) 07:31, 10 December 2009 (UTC) Joe Perez

Bill Harryman here, owner of Integral Options Cafe - I am a non-sectarian integralist. I like Wilber's theories, but I have issues with Wilber being the dominant figure, especially in light of his questionable associations (Gafni, Cohen, et al). There are many theorists, and I prefer to acknowledge the diversity in views. As a blogger, I am more interested in how we assemble an integral perspective. Just wanted to let you all know where my blog sits in the integral world. WilliamHarryman (talk) 03:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)WilliamHarryman

Bill, thanks. Do you have thoughts on the wider issues in the rewriting that will address the wiki editors' objections? I don't think the editors are concerned with whether Wilber *should* be a dominant figure, but with the notability of the entire field and the lack of sources outside of integral publications. Joeperez69 (talk) 07:31, 10 December 2009 (UTC) Joe Perez

Joe, I think that the way to go in re-writing the article is to make small, incremental changes. It is time-consuming, but gaining consensus for your edits is necessary in order to avoid disruption. I just created a sandbox where editors can refactor the article without affecting the main page. I created it in your userspace at User:Joeperez69/Integral_Movement. (This is a more usual process, rather than doing a re-write at User:Joeperez69, although you are perfectly free to do it there) I hope you don't mind. I have no problem with your ideas for a re-write, but we need to work together to get everyone on board before making sweeping changes to the article. — goethean ॐ 15:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey, thanks. I wanted to do that, but couldn't figure out how. I agree completely on both need for incremental change as well as building consensus as much as possible (and, of course, working within all the wikipedia guidelines). I think I'll take a stab this weekend at re-writing one section of the article and inviting feedback here. Everyone is able to edit the page at User:Joeperez69/Integral_Movement, right, I hope? Joeperez69 (talk) 21:55, 10 December 2009 (UTC) Joe Perez

I don't have a problem with adding external links to Joe Perez's or Integral Options blogs. The problem is that the list of external links quickly grows into a spammy mess if not carefully tended on a regular basis. That's why there is now only one official link at the Wilber article. — goethean ॐ 15:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't follow your comment about "now only one official link at the Wilber article". Neither my own blog or BillH's blogs are "official" Wilber blogs, though there is a Ken Wilber official blog and it is appropriately listed at the Ken Wilber article. There were a few blogs listed already when I started editing, an Aurobindo blog and one self-proclaimed "post-Wilber" blog. Just a moment ago, I added the link to Integral Options since there were no objections, in the interest of diluting a perceived bias. However, since then I've come to the opinion that there should be no blog links on this page. We are aiming to reduce clutter, right? The wiki pages for Existentialism and Objectivism list no external links to blogs, so my vote is to eliminate the blogs. Joeperez69 (talk) 21:55, 10 December 2009 (UTC) Joe Perez

On the Ken Wilber article, there used to be a large and growing collection of external links to sometimes only vaguely-related websites. So at some point, a editor deleted all the clutter and now the only one listed is kenwilber.com, and new links are deleted immediately. It just gets unmanageable. I appreciate your willingness to forgo adding your website to the article. — goethean ॐ 22:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

In the draft at my user page, I have removed all the blogs and several of the links. Since this is a Philosophy article, it seems appropriate to list only external links to serious, theoretical resources. If there were a separate Integral (spiritual movement) article, then links to community-based websites would possibly be relevant. Joeperez69 (talk) 23:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC) Joe Perez

Joe I like all your comments (even the ones i have a different opinion on  :-)) and suggestions for change/improvement. I am not happy with the present page and would like to see more discussion and improvement here. Just a few points

• I seem to be the one responsible for the term "Integral movement" in the first place (i first started using the term on my site in 2004/5, first in association with Wilber, and then in a broader context). Since then it has started to appear (i guess because of this page) in the mainstream Wilberian movement. I would rather replace it with another name. Integral thought is however imho unacceptable (as well as non-notable). Integral is not "thinking", it refers to the entire being (thinking, feeling, willing, doing, transforming), not just with the overly head-centered approach of Wilber's books. Of course, there is also this book, so maybe we are stuck with the name!

I would like to read the book you mention (titled "Integral Movement"), but it's a 2009 book with no reviews that I could find. It may not qualify as a credible source. I think the existence of "Integral thought" is easy to independently cite, as well as the existence of an "Integral spirituality movement", but the term "Integral movement" is probably too vague to be of much use. My suggestion is to focus Integral thought on scholarly and philosophical treatments of Integral theory, and to use the spirituality article for the religious side. Joeperez69 (talk) 02:44, 15 December 2009 (UTC) Joe Perez

hmm, looking though Google Book Search, i notice there is a book called Integral thought of Sri Aurobindo, and a few sporadic references re Wilber, but is there an "Integral thought" as such? Given my misgivings re "Integral Movement", I'm happy to change the name, but in view of the no original research rule we would need some decent references.

• As far as i know, there is no "integral spirituality" per se. Despite certain common intellectual themes (spiritual evolution, progressive stages, a new emerging consciousness, synthesis, the collective as well as the individual dimension), Anthroposophical (Steiner), Aurobindonian, Teilhardian, and Wilberian-inspired spirituality are all each totally unrelated. Moreover, even those common intellectual themes also can be used to define the New Age or "New Paradigm" in general.

Google Books lists 551 books discussing "integral spirituality", so I think it's pretty well established. What independent source would you cite for your claim that the various traditions you call out are "all each totally unrelated", or that if that claim can be substantiated it is sufficient evidence to dispute the existence of an "integral spirituality" movement? Joeperez69 (talk) 02:29, 15 December 2009 (UTC) Joe Perez

Well, "Integral Spirituality" on google books is largely referencing Wilber (and his book of the same title) so is not non-sectarian. I agree with you there are no independent sources to say that Aurobindonian, Wilberian etc spirituality is unrelated, but similarly there are no independent sources to say they are related. My experience with both has shown me that Wilber and Aurobindo are talking about totally different things, Wilber is secular (post-metaphysiocs) developmental psych & Buddhistic, Sri Aurobindo's gnostic metaphysics and Integral Yoga goes beyond the Buddhistic ideal of nirvana and of nonduality as the totality of Reality. Aurobindo's Higher Mind is not the same as Wilber's Postformal, because it follows after nonduality/Liberation (this is evident from a close reading of the relevant passage of The Life Divine). Teilhard is probably more compatible with Wilber because he talks about transcendence as well (as well as within/without), ironically Wilber rejects Teilhard (in Sex, Ecology, Spirituality) but not SA. Teilhard & Aurobindo are often intellectually compared, so i have no problem with the idea of philosophical similarities. However, that's just my take on this. Others may have totally different understandings. M Alan Kazlev (talk) 03:59, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

• What, if anything, other than the above mentioned common New Age themes, do the California Institute of Integral Studies and Integral Institute have in common?

They are interfaith or interspiritual movements (uniting Eastern and Western traditions) based on spiritual evolutionary principles. Agreed that these themes overlap with the New Age, but there are differences between New Age and Integral thought, and those differences could be independently cited. For example, New Age spirituality does not accept Wilber's pre/trans fallacy. A comprehensive list of the shared themes of various integral thinkers could in itself constitue the wikipedia article "Integral spirituality (movement)", and I do have some independent sources in mind along with a couple of critiques. From a critical view (Christian fundamentalist), consider James Herrick's work on "New Spirituality". What else is necessary to establish their common basis? Joeperez69 (talk) 02:29, 15 December 2009 (UTC) Joe Perez

I completely agree with what you say re Wilber & New Age. But Pre-Trans is not relevant to Sri Aurobindo, he sees things as a progression to conscious Divinity, not in terms of pre-personal, personal, and trans-personal states of consciousness (i agree he has a cosmological involution and evolution, but that's common to Theosophy and Neo-Vedanta in general). Moreover, Aurobindonian world-affirming integral Yoga is very different to the advaito-buddhistic nonduality approach Wilber prefers (although nonduality can be included as one subset of Integral Yoga). Interestingly though, Steiner does support pre-trans, with his atavistic clairvoyance vs anthroposophical supersensory perception. Steiner & Wilber have many intriguing parallels, they are much closer than either is to Sri Aurobindo. But these are all cosmological/developmental themes (theory, philosophy), rather than spiritual (practical).

One approach (thinking here of ways to go about this page) would be the theme of transforming all faculties of the being. Integral Yoga inspired Murphy & Leonard's Integral Transformative Practice, which in turn inspired Wilber's Integral Life Practice, Integral Operating System, etc. Also Ferrer, David Spangler, etc could probably also be included here (Embodied Spirituality, Incarnational Spirituality) Form this perspective, nonduality or transcendent Spirit alone is not integral. The challenge is then to find references to "Integral Spirituality" not just in Wilber's works and those of his supporters and students (although these can and should be cited), but elsewhere as well M Alan Kazlev (talk) 03:59, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

• "Integral Theory" sensu Wilber can probably best be moved to Ken Wilber under "influence" or some such heading. "Integral Theory" sensu Laszlo is not notable enough to justify its own section. So we can scrap the whole "integral theory" section

Seems reasonable to me, or incorporate the ideas into the general discussion of what it is on this article. The point needs to be made, however, that without these sections the article consists in little except a geneology of alleged influences to some largely undefined abstraction. There needs to be some meat on the bones apart from a laundry list of thinkers.Joeperez69 (talk) 02:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC) Joe Perez

Brings us back to the problem of finding enough common themes in teh first place M Alan Kazlev (talk) 03:59, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

• "Integral" as an emerging phenomenon, if it really is something distinct from "global systemic change" in general, is probably not formed enough to even write about objectively at this early satge. We would need another 10 or 20 years

Aren't there already a wide variety of independent discussions of integral thought and integral spirituality, plus many academics currently using the aspects of integral thought to contribute directly to their fields? These are easily substantiated and cited, if they aren't already in the article then obviously that is the article's flaw and needs to be addressed in the re-write. Are you citing your own opinions or some independent & published source that can be cited in the article? Joeperez69 (talk) 02:29, 15 December 2009 (UTC) Joe Perez

There are, but mostly within the Wilberian/Inegral Institute sphere. I am trying to figure out how to define Integral in a way that includes but is not limited to the Wilberian approach M Alan Kazlev (talk) 03:59, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

• Is there "integral" beyond individual visionaries? I am an Aurobindonian so I approach Integral from an Aurobindonian perspective; i.e. for me Integral means what is compatible with Aurobindonian philosophy and spirituality, Integral Yoga and Supramentral Transformation. Joe and Bill however would have totally different takes on this, and different starting perspectives.

To be consistent, is your argument rather that the Integral thought/movement category should be disbanded, and all its contents moved to the articles of individual thinkers such as Aurobindo and Wilber? I am willing to give that opinion a fair hearing (though I disagree), if that's what you're saying. Joeperez69 (talk) 02:29, 15 December 2009 (UTC) Joe Perez

i'm just playing devil's advocate  :-) Like you i want to see this page kept; but it has to be presented in a way that is rigorous enough to defeat the objections of even the harshest of critics M Alan Kazlev (talk) 03:59, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

• non-aligned workers like Jennifer Gidley and Steve McIntosh probably can provide a good overall perspective
• I use Wilberian in the same way i would use Aristotlean, Thomist, Hegelian, Aurobindonian, Jungian.... to us it to refer both to the man himself, to his writings or philosophy, to the movement that developed around him, and to the worldview of his followers. The word is certainly notable & i didn't invent it - Google Books gives 31 hits and should be retained

You may be right. Perhaps all that's needed from the encyclopedia's standpoint is to add a sentence to define the term, and at least one independent source with the definition. Since there appear to be 31 hits, it should not be difficult for someone to research and find one. Are you in agreement that "post-Wilber" has no basis in any independent credible source and can be immediately eliminated? Joeperez69 (talk) 02:29, 15 December 2009 (UTC) Joe Perez

Yes i'm happy to scrap post-Wilberian M Alan Kazlev (talk) 03:59, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

• I'd love to see more input in this article by Joe, Bill, and others. M Alan Kazlev (talk) 23:35, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. At the same time, since the biggest need cited by the wikipedia editors at the top of this talk page is that the article does not conform to wikipedia's standards for independent citations and contains no contrasting views, the greater need is for individuals with some knowledge of the subject and some familiarity with wikipedia's standards to roll up their sleeves and get to work fixing the obvious problems and errors, even while more contentious changes be postponed pending further talk. Joeperez69 (talk) 02:29, 15 December 2009 (UTC) Joe Perez

I guess the basic standards are pretty simple - no original research, good third-party references, etc. To begin with, obviously, we can move some of the intro section to the history section, streamline the rest of the intro, and scrap contentious terms like post-wilberian. We can also either move the Integral Theory to the Ken Wilber page, or else - and thinking about it this sounds like a much better option - re-establish Integral Theory as a distinct Wikipedia page, which can be linked both to Ken Wilber and to Integral Thought/Movement/whatever this page is called. M Alan Kazlev (talk) 03:59, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Borys

Peter Borys divides the movement into the Wilberian involution/evolution model and the Jungian "lost potential" model. Wilber, Aurobindo, Gebser, Combs, Jenny Wade fall into the involution/evolution model. Jung, Grof, Tarnas, Michael Washburn fall into the "lost potential" model. Jorge Ferrer and John Heron's relational models are "not easily classified". [1] — goethean ॐ 15:02, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with that particular construct and would need to read his article. From an encyclopedia's standpoint, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the basic idea needs to be to acknowledge that there is some ambiguity in how terms such as "Integral", "Integral thought," "Integral theory," "Integral philosophy", "Integral spirituality", etc. are used, and a variety of interpretations of what that space is all about. Consider the beginning of the wikipedia article on post-postmodernism as an example. After presenting the controversy, then why not list a few different visions of what constitutes "Integral"? If Borys is a credible source, then let's include his model as one way of defining it. I think MacIntosh's book "Integral Consciousness" provides another compelling take. Wilber's books can be seen as defining a particular vision what is Integral and what is not Integral (perhaps looking at the appendices of 2007's Integral Spirituality as a way of defining which thinkers are integral in the sense of post-metaphysical and those that perpetuate the "myth of the given" and are therefore pre-integral in a sense). 75.151.102.50 (talk) 18:06, 15 December 2009 (UTC) Joe Perez

I really like that approach, the idea of presenting different versions, emphasising the ambiguity of and controversy surrounding the definition of integral. It seems to be the only way that something as complex as the Integral worldview(s) can be reasonably presented. However, in view of this, I would not give Integral Post-Metaphysics too great an emphasis in Integralism per se. Integral Post-Metaphysics is a Wilberian theme and while it should be mentioned, it is not binding on Integralism as a whole. I'm sure Wilber would acknowledge that Myth of the Given has to balanced by Myth of the Framework (as Jorge Ferrer points out - Revisioning Transpersonal Psychology). Thanks for the book reference Goethean, this stuff is very intriguing! M Alan Kazlev (talk) 23:20, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Integral Post-Metaphysics, remember that in response to the editors' concerns about the notability of the article per se, the Oxford Handbook of Religion and Science is one of the most reputable independent sources, and their interest is strictly in Integral Post-Metaphysics. I am most familiar with sources establishing "Wilberian" (i.e., Post-Metaphysical) Integral. How would you propose to establish the independent notability of non-Wilberian (i.e., metaphysical) strains of Integral thought as relevant to philosophy and religious studies today? Can you cite only sources within the Integral field or are there independent sources as well? Joeperez69 (talk) 00:13, 16 December 2009 (UTC) Joe Perez

Aurobindonian/Integral Yoga tradition for one is certainly metaphysical (in that they acknowledge ontological realities actually existing apart from the individual consciousness and social constructs). Ditto Steiner/anthroposophy (if you accept Jennifer Gidley's thesis of Steiner as integralist), Teilhard, even Michael Murphy & others at Esalen talk of Evolutionary metaphysics or Evolutionary Panentheism M Alan Kazlev (talk) 00:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Right, but what Joeperez seems to be getting at is that independent 2ndary sources are needed which show that Integral Yoga (eg) is relevant to philosophy and/or religion. I don't think that that should be too difficult for Aurobindo, but it may be more difficult in regard to Gebser, Murphy or Thompson or Ferrer. (Although Kripal has reviewed Ferrer in Tikkun. — goethean ॐ 16:17, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes Kripal is a good reference to use. M Alan Kazlev (talk) 01:04, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes he is. On this page, anyways. — goethean ॐ 02:03, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposal for Opening Sentence Revision

Thoughts on this proposal for the article's opening sentence?

Replace:

The integral movement (also referred to as the integral: approach,[1][2] consciousness,[3] culture,[4] paradigm,[5][6] philosophy,[7][8] society,[9] and theory[10]) is a worldview[3] that seeks a comprehensive understanding of humans and the universe by combining psychological, social, and/or spiritual insights in a single framework.

with

Integral is a term applied to a wide-ranging set of developments in philosophy, psychology, religious thought, and other areas that seek interdisciplinary and comprehensive frameworks. The term is often combined with others such as approach, consciousness, culture, paradigm, philosophy, society, theory, and worldview. [with appropriate references]Joeperez69 (talk) 23:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC) Joe Perez

sounds good! M Alan Kazlev (talk) 00:07, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Excellent. Is there a reason that Integral (philosophy) was rejected for the article title? Since this is a topic in the Philosophy and Religious Studies sections of Wikipedia, it seems that "Integral (philosophy)" is a pretty generic term. It has the advantage over "Integral (thought)" that there are independent sources that use the former term, whereas the latter does not seem to be independently used much.Joeperez69 (talk) 00:19, 16 December 2009 (UTC) Joe Perez

I agree; it's a much better term. Not sure why it wasn't originally used. I guess Integral is more than just philosophy, but sure, it seems to be the best choice. So unless anyone has any objections we can rename the page M Alan Kazlev (talk) 00:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposal for new Definitions section

I would propose that aside from the new opening sentence that all other content from the opening be removed or relocated to other appropriate sections including this new section: Definitions. This would focus on various definitions of "integral" in common use today, beginning with definitions from the dictionary and other sources independent from self-identified integral thinkers, websites, and other media (such as the Oxford Handbook of Religion and Science), followed by definitions by institutions of higher education that offer Integral Studies programs, followed by self-identified integral thinkers (Wilber, Lazlo, contemporary Aurobindians, etc.), followed lastly by the two paragraphs currently under "Integral as an emerging cultural or developmental stage" modified only slightly so they were focused on how Paul Ray, Don Beck, and Chris Cowan define "integral".Joeperez69 (talk) 00:37, 16 December 2009 (UTC) Joe Perez

Go for it  :-) Feel free to edit the page M Alan Kazlev (talk) 00:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I've started a bit on my user page, and welcome any re-writes there. I plan to wait a few days to allow for additional input. Then, the holidays next week, but I'll have this topic in mind. Joeperez69 (talk) 00:21, 17 December 2009 (UTC) Joe Perez

Thanks for your help, Joe. It gets lonely with just Alan and I here. :D — goethean ॐ 20:37, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Joe, feel free to edit the main "integral movement" (to be renamed Integral (philosophy)) page now. As they say in Wikipedia Be bold], edits don't have to be perfect, and as all previous versions are saved in the history archive anyway, any changes can be reverted if everyone else disagrees. For myself I really like your suggestions, all I would ask is to keep all the current references/footnotes, because they are important to emphasise notability M Alan Kazlev (talk) 22:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Transpersonal psychology

In my mind, another issue is how contemporary Integral theory grew out of transpersonal psychology. In the early 80s, Wilber was considered a transpersonal psychologist, and probably accepted the term, I think. By the time of SES, he began calling his approach "Integral theory" and actually attacked transpersonal psychology as having already met its demise. Readers of Wilber who have not read about the debate outside of the works of Wilber and his associates may have a distinctly different view of the origins of Wilber's theory — as I did at one time. — goethean ॐ 16:12, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Good point. Out of the 400ish footnotes in Wilber's first book, The Spectrum of Consciousness, I do not see a single reference to Aurobindo. And yet the article here emphasizes Aurobindo as the root out of which all integral flows and even Wilber's ideas specifically. Joeperez69 (talk) 00:19, 17 December 2009 (UTC) Joe Perez

This is irrelevant, as Sri Aurobindo was the first to consistently use "Integral" in the context we are discussing (or maybe he was preceeded by others: Pitirim Sorokin was contemporary, and Steiner precedes Sri Aurobindo). Then later Gebser insdependently adopted the term. Wilber only came very much later. And yes I agree, it was only in The Atman Project ("Wilber-II") that Wilber switched to an Aurobindonian (and developmental Psychology) model, and began praising Sri Aurobindo. This period also marks his introduction to Da Free John; from whose "Seven Stages of Life" his entire developmental model can be derived (although Wilber prefers to praise Sri Aurobindo, Hegel, etc - perhaps wanting to publically distance himself from Da's antics). Atman Project's follow-up Up From Eden is remarkably like Gebser as well as Steiner (as Jennifer Gidley shows). Interestingly, Wilber rejects his work from his "Jungian" "Wilber-I" period. Thus we can mark the beginning of Wilber's Integral (if Integral means inclusive evolution of consciousness, or evolutionary spirituality) period with The Atman Project, although he did not start using the term until later. M Alan Kazlev (talk) 00:59, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

And there's this. — goethean ॐ 01:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

although Wilber prefers to praise Sri Aurobindo, Hegel, etc - perhaps wanting to publically distance himself from Da's antics

Yes, this. If Da were not so radioactive, I think that we would hear much less from Wilber about Aurobindo, Gebser, Baldwin, Schelling, Maslow, Spiral Dynamics, etc. — goethean ॐ 02:01, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Suggested changes for this page

Ok here are the suggested changes:

• move/rename page from Integral movement to Integral (philosophy)
• restore Integral theory and merge current "integral theory" section with it (apart from lead in paragraph on this page with "see main page Integral theory")
• streamline introduction section and move some content there to 1. History

The page of course needs more work but the above three things are pretty straightforward M Alan Kazlev (talk) 22:35, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I trust that that's right (I don't know the technical lingo on how different pages are redirected). For the "streamlined" intro, see the top paragraph of my user page. I approve that, or something like it. 75.151.102.50 (talk) 04:30, 18 December 2009 (UTC) Joe Perez

It looks like it was me who originally suggested that this page be moved from Integral theory (philosophy) to its current location. The motivation was to counter skeptics, then active on the Wilber page, who argued that integral theory had not had an effect on academic philosophy. — goethean ॐ 18:27, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I would have likely supported your suggestion on the grounds that "having an effect on academic philosophy" is too narrow a consideration, given what is passing for academic philosophy these days. Nevertheless, the decision is made and I haven't studied all the reasons for it. So what are you suggesting? Giving it back the name "Integral thought"? That's okay with me. 75.151.102.50 (talk) 18:48, 18 December 2009 (UTC) Joe Perez

No, I just wanted to point out what was said at an earlier conversation before we move it back to philosophy. — goethean ॐ 20:02, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

hi Goethean. Well, I would distinguish between Integral (philosophy), which could be the new name for the current page, and Integral theory, which would be the restored page of that name. I don't see the two as the same. e.g. Sri Aurobindo's The Life Divine is Integral philosophy (and can be referenced with third party citations as such), but not Integral theory. Apart from Laszlo's use of the term, which does not seem to have caught on (although it should still be mentioned), Integral Theory is associated primarily with Wilber, Integral Institute, etc. Also, imho we should have philosophy in the title in brackets to emphasise that the topic here is not a branch of academic philosophy, and thus avoid a repeat of the previous argument you referred to. (Although obviously there are some like Esbjorn-Hargens who are working to establish Integral theory within mainstream academia, but this is integral theory). As I see it, Integralism can best be included under the general cluster of philosophy/ spirituality/ social transformation/ transmodernism/ etc (or even under "New Age" in the broadest sense, as Wouter Hanegraaff does re Wilber - common themes include spiritual evolution, holistic cosmology etc). So although I'm not happy with the word philosophy because of its academic associations, it seems the least bad out of a poor choice, and if placed in brackets hopefully should not draw too much fire from critics. Esbjorn-Hargens has suggested the term Integral studies, but this hasn't caught as yet, although perhaps it may in the future. But even if it does, it's still too narrow and academic-sounding. M Alan Kazlev (talk) 03:44, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

And while we're on the topic of non-controversial, minor changes? Would you take a look at the "Contemporary thinkers" section on my talk page? I don't believe I intentionally changed or removed any wording on descriptions of any thinkers or changed any citations. However, I grouped the thinkers differently into different buckets so the section reads more easily and I wrote a quick sentence introducing the buckets. I think it's an improvement until we get around to actually writing the section. If it's okay with others, can we move this section out to the main page as non-controversial? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.151.102.50 (talk) 18:52, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I just cleaned it up a bit & added an introductory sentence. Here's the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Joeperez69/Integral_Movement#Contemporary_figures Again, I have changed nothing except the organization of the information: dividing sentences into buckets, adding intro sentences to those buckets, and arranging names chronologically within each bucket. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.151.102.50 (talk) 19:02, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I am specifically proposing that (1) the "Contemporary figures" section of my talk page be moved to the main article, (2) the "Integral theory" section under Themes of the main article now be deleted as redundant, (3) the links to the article changed to match those on my talk page (pruned), and (4) the blogs deleted. Controversies? Agreements? Joeperez69 (talk) 19:07, 18 December 2009 (UTC) Joe Perez

Yes, looks good. — goethean ॐ 20:06, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I have moved over some noncontroversial edits from my talk page. These are: (1) reformatted Contemporary thinkers section along with removal of Wilber/Lazlo subheadings under Integral theory under themes, (2) trimmed external links, and (3) removed blogs. It seems there is enough agreement to change the top section and title of the piece as well, but I have hesitated because (a) I don't know how to change the title, and (b) whoever removes the content currently in the top section may want to incorporate it into the historical section, so I thought Alan K might want to do this himself. Joeperez69 (talk) 02:28, 24 December 2009 (UTC) Joe Perez

I wasn't able to move/rename the page because there is already an Integral (philosophy) page, so someone with admin privileges needs to fix it. But I merged the intro and history sections. If it seems a bit long-winded, feel free to abbreviate it where required M Alan Kazlev (talk) 05:17, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I moved the page. — goethean ॐ 17:20, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry guys but I think that was premature. Firstly the Integral movement makes claims across a range of disciplines not just philosophy and Secondly, per the above conversation its nownot acknowledged in academic life as Philosophy, and its form and various manifestations are better described as a movement. --Snowded ^TALK 21:40, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

You reverted my move with the edit summary "needs discussion". We've been discussing this move for two weeks and you chose not to participate. Please get some manners. — goethean ॐ 22:12, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I see a very brief discussion between a very small number of editors all of whom appear to have a similar perspective. Then a move on the 25th which is the day I checked out on the article so your statement about choice is not correct in fact, not would it be a restriction even it it was. Telling other editors to "get some manners" is not addressing the subject so please try and get your comments back on track.--Snowded ^TALK 06:50, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually I was very suprised to see this move reverted, because there has been discussion for a while on this page, all of us having specialised knowledge of this topic, and that was the agreed decision.

Anyway Snowded, I should reply to your concerns:

I see a very brief discussion between a very small number of editors=

The long discussions on this talk page show we have different definitions of "very brief" :-)

The number of editors here don't seem to me to be smaller than on similar pages, but maybe you're better qualified to judge. But it is safe to say those of us contributing to this particular page know what we are talking about (quality not quantity). Joe Perez has written a book and maintains a blog on the subject. I have a website, and many essays, including an article submitted to the Journal of Integral Theory and Practice. Bill Harryman is the author of Integral Options Cafe blog, which would probably qualify as the most popular and influential of the nonsectarian Integralist blogs. And Goethean is a major contributer to this page, the Ken Wilber page, and other related pages.

-all of whom appear to have a similar perspective.

Actually Joe and I have very different perspectives, which should be evident from my comments on the draft essay appended to his user page, as well as discussion/essays on the Integral World website. Also see my comment of disagreement with Goethean re Integral as philosophy (i don't consider it is, although it includes philosophy). So rather than a closed cliche what we have is a diversity of viewpoints, agreements and disagreements. The relevant point is that we are still able to agree on a certain common denominator of what the Integral worldview constitutes.

the Integral movement makes claims across a range of disciplines not just philosophy'

This is absolutely true. Which is why it was decided to rename the page Integral (philosophy) (with philosophy in brackets) rather than Integral philosophy. Philosophy is here used in brackets in the generic or colloquial sense, not as an academic discipline.

its now acknowledged in academic life as Philosophy, and its form and various manifestations are better described as a movement.

That is incorrect. It is true that Sean Esbjorn-Hargens is making good inroads in getting Wilberian Integral theory acceptable to the academic mainstream, but that is hardly the same as saying "it's now acknowledged in academic life as Philosophy". In any case, there is also Integral psychology, Integral yoga, Integral education, Integral art, and Integral ecology. Moreover, it is not the case, although I originally also made this mistake, that the Integral worldview or paradigm constitutes a social or cultural movement. There is a small moved based around Ken Wilber and his Integral Institute, that is true, but this has absolutely nothing to do with the Integral Yoga community that follows the teachings of Sri Aurobindo and the Mother, or the Anthroposophical movement based on Rudolf Steiner's teachings, or the evolutionary theology of Teilhard de Chardin (who is considered an Integral visionary by some like Steve McIntosh and myself, but not by others like Wilber). I should also mention that (much to my chagrin considering my current views on this subject) I am the one who coined the term Integral Movement in first place (although others may have also independently done so), back in 2004/5, on my website, and later on Frank Visser's Integral World website. It was then taken up by Wikipedia, and hence became established dogma (due to Wikipedia's not always deserved reputation as a source of authority on everything), even being adopted by the mainstream Wilber/Integral Institute organisation. As Bill Harryman points out, and I totally agree, the heading Integral movement is not appropriate as the lead page for this whole topic. In order to find an alternative title we decided on Integral (philosophy). But perhaps it may be better to put it to the vote M Alan Kazlev (talk) 02:02, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. Some comments in reply. Firstly I'm happy to agree that within the context of the Integral movement the three of you have differences, but you all appear to be within it and to varying degrees committed to it. That requires more caution in renaming etc. than is evidenced above. Secondly the use of Philosophy (something in which I am qualified) in brackets is too nuanced a distinction for the average reader. I am open to other language than Movement, but not to variations of Philosophy. Thirdly, you are correct, it is NOT acknowledged, a typo on my part which I have corrected (thanks). I think you make two good points, that there is much more to this that "philosophy" and that there are issues around Wilber. I've studied Teilhard de Chardin and to a less extent Steiner and would not want either to be associated with him. The problem is that Wilber tends to consume and define things that he becomes associated with. You can see similar things with the Spiral Dynamics Links and some of the old Arlington Institute funded events. I wish you joy of keeping the ideas separate or at least distinct, but in popular terms it will be a difficult task. Whateveryour description shows clearly that philosophy is the wrong approach. If people don't like movement then alternatives such as underlying principles or something similar might be better.--Snowded ^TALK 07:35, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Snowded - glad we got the typo sorted out  :-) I also share your concerns re Wilber, Spiral Dynamics etc appropriation of prior ideas. Anyway I am most happy to use an alternative to philosophy, if one can be found, but what do you suggest? Integral (underlying principles) is both obscure sounding and totally ugly as a page name, as well as not having any 3rd party references to back it up. Integral (philosphy) at least can be backed up by 3rd party references M Alan Kazlev (talk) 13:58, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

To be honest I don't see what the objection is to movement, its not negative and it summarises where the whole think is. I think you also need reliable sources, outside of teh Integral (whatever) so you can't use Kazlev. Principles of the Integral movement is another possibility. Ideas would also work. --Snowded ^TALK 23:56, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Move/Rename page

Everyone please vote on whether you think the current page should be kept as Integral movement or moved/renamed Integral (philosophy) (Or if you prefer another title you can give that). Also the reasons for your vote M Alan Kazlev (talk) 02:11, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Vote is premature and cannot bind anyway without discussion. I'm not taking part as there is a requirement to seen consensus rather than vote within a day of an objection raised. I suggest you withdraw this for the moment--Snowded ^TALK 07:22, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Rename - Integral (philosophy) - reasons given above M Alan Kazlev (talk) 02:11, 27 December 2009 (UTC) (as per Snowded's comment and in view of the on-going discussion I'm withdrawing my vote while we consider alternative names) M Alan Kazlev (talk) 05:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it's a good thing that the conversation is paused around the article's title. I believe there is a choice that may be better than those previously raised: "Integral (philosophical movement)". Any reading of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_movement and a look at the integral phenomenon will show that integral is clearly a philosophical movement in that sense. Its status as a sociological movement or spiritual movement is a separate issue entirely. When I previously objected to "movement" as baldly inaccurate, it was "movement" in the sociological sense that I had in mind. Integral's status as a philosophical movement is indubitable.

Dictionary.com defines "movement" as such: "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." Although it's clear to me that integral refers to an intellectual movement, I do not know that there is one common sociological or political or aesthetic or religious goal at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joeperez69 (talk • contribs) 18:57, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I am sympathetic to Snowder's point concerning there being more to Integral than philosophy, but don't follow Snowded's logic that philosophy is a poor term. Isn't there more to postmodernism than philosophy? Isn't there existentialist art, literature, and philosophy? Rarely is a philosophy divorced from other disciplines of knowledge, yet that does not invalidate the use of the term philosophy to describe its underlying principles and the field of study devoted to them. Since integral is a philosophical movement, it should be characterized as such.

I also disagree with Kazlev's point that Integral is not recognized in academia as a philosophy. Are there *any* independent sources that say it is NOT recognized? The plain evidence from the article itself is that Integral Studies have been performed at a variety of academic institutions, including California Institute of Integral Studies, for decades, and the field is expanding in places such as JFK University which offers an accredited Master's degree program in the field. The first-ever Integral Theory academic conference has been held in the last few years. It's true that integral studies are not widely practiced in academia, but that is always the case with new philosophical movements.

Furthermore, you can look at the wider context in Wikipedia and come to the conclusion that it is acceptable to use the term philosophy. (Skip this paragraph if you like as it's not crucial to my argument.) First, Objectivism. It has parallels to Integral in that it is an intellectual current regarded as philosophy by its adherents but is not taught (much) in academic philosophy departments and is strongly associated with a notable figure, Ayn Rand. The Wiki lists Objectivism as "Objectivism (Ayn Rand)" with a redirect from "Objectivist philosophy". The parallels break down at this point in several ways. E.g., because Integral preceded Wilber by decades, the term was first used notably by Aurobindo, and there is no "Integralism" as an ideology/movement (just a redirect from a term used with a sociological theory. I see no valid reason why "Objectivist philosophy" would be an acceptable redirect on Wikipedia, but somehow "Integral (philosophy)" would not be suitable, if it's the best fit. Second, the articles surrounding Postmodernism and Post-postmodernism. According to the entry on the last article, "Post-postmodernism is a term applied to a wide-ranging set of developments in critical theory, philosophy, architecture, art, literature, and culture which are emerging from and reacting to postmodernism." Similarly, integral is a term applied to developments in all of those disciplines and more (and some would content it is a synonym). With the PPM article, the issue of its status as a philosophy is avoided altogether. Perhaps something similar would be possible to solve the problem with this article, except that there is no equivalent term "Integralism" (which is taken anyways by a sociological theory) and the term "integral" is already used. The term "Postmodernism" is treated quite similarly, except that it is accompanied by a second article, "Postmodernity," which says, "This article is about the philosophy. For the condition or state of being, see Postmodernity."

Can we reach consensus that Integral is a philosophical movement and should be described as such? Unfortunately, there is no "-ism" to help us with the naming, as with Objectivism and Postmodernism, perhaps because Integralism is already taken by a sociological theory. The trend in academia is towards Integral Studies as opposed to Integralism, and that seems to be a wise choice. If there is consensus on this point, then we may be able to agree that there is another problem with the titles "Integral theory" and "Integral philosophy" and "Integral (philosophy)", which is that they could be taken to mean that there is one specific doctrine or idea that is integral, which is not the case.

With agreement that Integral is a philosophical movement, then this tends to point towards "Integral (philosophical movement)" as the most accurate choice, with perhaps "Integral (thought)" or "Integral Studies" as shorter terms that can be clarified in the body of the article to mean the same thing. "Integral movement" would also be acceptable to me (having changed my mind), but only if it is clearly stated that the title refers to a philosophical movement, not some other kind of movement. My preference is for the longer but more accurate title "Integral (philosophical movement)", but I'm open to hearing other ideas. Joeperez69 (talk) 18:32, 27 December 2009 (UTC) Joe Perez

Joe said:

I also disagree with Kazlev's point that Integral is not recognized in academia as a philosophy.

I should specify that by academia I mean mainstream academia, which happily accepts Marxist, existential, feminist, postmodernist, environmental, and other forms of philosophy, but for which any talk of post- or supra-rational consciousness is hopelessly "new age". I have already pointed out that Sean Esbjorn-Hargensis, and I should also add here Michael Zimmerman, are working to establish Wilberian Integral theory in mainstream academia, and have certainly already made positive inroads. And while I find a narrow or literalist Wilberian worldview quite off-putting, Wilber's emphasis on multiple perspectives, panspychism (or as he calls it "interiors"), and higher states of consciousness, certainly addresses some areas currently lacking or poorly acknowledged in mainstream Western philosophy.

Robert Kegan is a member of board of the Integral Institute, keynote speaker for next year's Integral Theory conference, and a tenured professor at the Harvard School of Education. I'm not sure how much more mainstream you can get than that.Joeperez69 (talk) 00:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC) Joe Perez

Can we reach consensus that Integral is a philosophical movement and should be described as such?

Hmm, well the Philosophical movement page has the opening definition as "either the appearance or increased popularity of a specific school of philosophy, or a fairly broad but identifiable sea-change in philosophical thought on a particular subject." imho the first isn't applicable, because while it could certainly be argued that Integral Theory a la Wilber, Zimmerman, & Esbjorn-Hargens constitutes a valid specific school of philosophy, the Integral worldview in itself is far broader than any one school of philosophy, including Integral theory. The second definition refers to "philosophical thought on a particular subject", but Integral consciousness involves all subjects, not just one particular subject (although there are a few common broad themes). So while this is still an improvement in that it avoids the ambiguity of the word "movement" alone, I am not completely happy with it. So I'll abstain here and see what others say. If everyone else decides on this name, I would go along with the decision.

However Integral (thought) is unsuitable because there is no third-party reference for it. Integral Studies is fine as it is used in Wilberian, Aurobindonian, and other contexts, as a quick google search shows, although not surprisingly given the ambiguity of this subject there seems to be little commonality between these varying definitions. M Alan Kazlev (talk) 03:40, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

A philosophical movement is either the appearance or increased popularity of a specific school of philosophy, or a fairly broad but identifiable sea-change in philosophical thought on a particular subject.

If integral qualifies as a philosophical movement since it is the appearance or the increased popularity of a specific school of philosophy, then it also, by definition, qualifies as a school of philosophy, and can simply be listed as such. So if Integral (philosophical movement) is okay, then integral (philosophy) is also okay.

That said, Jorge Ferrer's book, which discusses Wilber's theory extensively, was titled Revisioning Transpersonal Theory. It seems that he views integral and transpersonal theory as continuous, if not identical. However, Wilber distinguishes between the transpersonal movement (whose demise he has announced repeatedly) and his integral theory. — goethean ॐ 04:34, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that integral is a school of philosophy, but that doesn't make it *a* philosophy per se, does it? Still, the issue is probably outside the scope of the discussion given Snowded's reminder that we are focusing here on the main page for the entire enchilada. As for the possible name "Integral Studies", I think that's a good discussion to have, possibly as an alternative to Integral thought/philosophy, but if we're focusing on a maini page, then the academic side is really only one dimension of the whole. In this connection, consider http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT which is about the term "LGBT" but includes subpages for the academic discourse, social movement, and so forth. Joeperez69 (talk) 00:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC) Joe Perez

We have to remember that this is the primary page. Even if "philosophy" was valid which is questionable, then it would be appropriate for a title as a subsidiary page. Marxism for example is Marxism, and there is another page for Marxist Philosophy. The name of this article needs to reflect that primary nature. It has a history section for example and describes some of the links such as that to spiral dynamics via Beck. "Integralism" would be clumsy and I still like "Integral movement" as it is frequently used as is "Integral community", possibly "Integral paradigm". "Integral (movement)" is an intriguing alternative. Whatever the article needs a name that does not make it appear as a sub-article. The is a legitimate place for one called "Integral philosophy" once the main article is sorted out as it has multiple issues. --Snowded ^TALK 07:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

That's a good point. I can see how eventually a main page could branch into separate pages for such facets as the philosophy/theory/philosophical movement and also a page for the emergence of integral as a new religious/spiritual movement. IMO, the best name for a main page is "Integral". Since that is taken in this case, then "Integral" followed by a parenthetical modifier is the only sound choice. So I find myself warming up to Snowded's suggestion of renaming the article to "Integral (movement)". Paradigm is an "example serving as a model; pattern", which seems to be another way of referring to the intellectual side of the phenomenon, and could be a possible topic in an article on the theory/philosophy. "Integral community" is a better name for a possible future sub-page rather than a main page. Joeperez69 (talk) 00:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC) Joe Perez

'Paradigm' also is a concept in Kuhn's philosophy, which could lead to confusion if you are not using it in that sense. Plus it has turned into a kind of groan-inducing cliche in transpersonal circles. — goethean ॐ 02:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

And in many other circles as well (groan-inducing cliche)! --Snowded ^TALK 07:50, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. So is the leading contender for the rename now "Integral (movement)" with future topics at "Integral (philosophy)" or "Integral Studies" or similar and "Integral (spiritual movement)" or similar considered if warranted? Any other ideas or concerns? Joeperez69 (talk) 21:50, 29 December 2009 (UTC) Joe Perez

Agree with you guys re groan inducing cliche nature of "paradigm" in anything but the original grammatical or kuhnian definitions, even if i am guilt of sometimes employing the very same cliche for want of a better word :-) The problem with "Integral (movement)" is that it is not a movement in this sense. Wilberians and Aurobindonians have almost nothing in common (beyond certain common themes e.g. evolutionary spirituality, striving for higher consciousness etc); spiritually and intellectually Wilber is much closer to Mahayana Buddhism. And Paul Ray's definition re Cultural Creatives (inspired by Sorokin, Sri Aurobindo, and Gebser, but not Wilber) is different again. What about Integral (worldview)? On Wikipedia, a Worldview "is the fundamental cognitive orientation of an individual or society encompassing natural philosophy, fundamental existential and normative postulates or themes, values, emotions, and ethics...Additionally, it refers to the framework of ideas and beliefs through which an individual interprets the world and interacts with it." This may be better than movement (Integral is not that coherent), philosophy, etc. The problem (as with other suggestions) still remains of finding 3rd party references M Alan Kazlev (talk) 01:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Playing devil's advocate here. If we grant that Aurobindians and Wilberians have "almost nothing in common", and there is substantial evidence that there is a definite philosophical school surrounding Wilber's integral theory and its applications both in academia (e.g., Integral Theory conference) and spirituality (e.g., the Integral Spiritual Center), then haven't you just argued that no unifying main article is possible and the only course is to create two main articles, one for the "Integral (movement)" surrounding the so-called Wilberian school and another for "Integral Yoga" or such, and to add links to both in the disambiguation article? I think that's what you've done, and that's why if there is truly "almost nothing in common" between these two camps, then there is also no Integral worldview, but two Integral worldviews each of which should be described by separate articles. (As for Ray's use of the term, I'm not sure it's significant enough to warrant a separate article as the main theme of Ray's is Cultural Creatives and that concept already has a separate article.) As it stands, there is already an Integral Yoga page in addition to the Aurobindo page, so am I wrong in thinking that you've just made a case for deleting references to Aurobindians in the "Integral (movement)" page, and allowing that page to focus on the so-called Wilberians perhaps with one reference to Aurobindo as an historical influence and a reference to Integral Yoga as a separate movement with which the other school should not be confused? I don't mean to be cute. Since Aurobindo's school is already represented by the Integral Yoga article, let's disambiguate between that use of the term Integral and the use by Wilber, Beck, Kegan, Esbjorn-Hargens, etc. Joeperez69 (talk) 06:33, 30 December 2009 (UTC) Joe Perez

I think that's a very good point. The Wilber stuff is very definitely a movement and we could have a hat note that directed Aurobindians (not comfortable with that term) elsewhere. It would also help improve an understanding for the average reader that Wilber cannot claim to be the inheritor of a more ancient tradition. --Snowded ^TALK 07:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Yet in my opinion there is an undeniable affinity and cross-fertilization between Integral Institute, CIIS, Esalen, Lindisfarne Association, transpersonal theory, and the Sri Aurobindo Ashram. Doctrinally, some elements may have little in common, but when discussing the the history of these organizations, the same names pop up again and again. From a sectarian viewpoint they are very different, but from the view of the wider world, those differences are often negligable and the commonalities are quite visible. If you exclude CIIS people and other figures, Wilber's organization by itself has not created much momentum. But the generalized transpersonal movement is difficult to ignore. — goethean ॐ 15:24, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your point that there is probably cross-fertilization among those groups mentioned, so far as I know, but that's as far as I would go. Integral Institute, CIIS, the Integral Theory conference, the Spiral Dynamics folks, the various Integral journals that have appeared in the last few years, the Integrative Spirituality church in San Francisco, and other groups I could mention, are all part of a definable movement that goes by the name of "integral" with much cross-fertilization, even if as you say they disagree about doctrine. Esalen, however, is an organization for "holistic alternative education" which only somewhat overlaps with the integral movement. Lindisfarne is an organization with a defunct website, the Internet archive page for which has not been updated since 1996, and it claims to be devoted to "study and realization of a new planetary culture", which is too general for me to say whether it is part of "integral" or not. Transpersonal theory is closely related to the integral psychology aspect of the integral movement, however it is strictly a subclass of psychology, and already very well represented in wikipedia with multiple articles. The so-called Aurobindians (we are talking about the Aurobindo Ashram and its disciples, right?) is the outlier, it seems to me. It is a subset of Hinduism, and not an interspiritual/interreligious movement per se. Since it is already well represented in Hinduism and transpersonal is already well represented in psychology, the chief role of the main page for Integral (movement), it seems to me, is to emcompass the so-called Wilberians, CIIS, JFK Univ., the integral journals, the Spiral Dyanmics folks, and certain other integral organizations that explicitly identify themselves as "integral". There's a movement enough there without getting distracted by trying to include a few outliers who don't even call themselves integral in the same sense. Link to them, but consider them as separate phenomenon for the sake of the wikipedia. Joeperez69 (talk) 16:42, 30 December 2009 (UTC) Joe Perez

Hence my proposed template: User:Goethean/Template:Integral_thought — goethean ॐ 15:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

So split the article and create a template to provide wider integration? Makes sense to me. --Snowded ^TALK 15:35, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

If there are significant secondary sources which trace the history of the wider movement, we are free to report on that. Like this, which mentions Wilber 33 times. Also Kripal's Esalen, and Hanegraaff. — goethean ॐ 15:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

There are some innovations in your template that seem useful, but I think it's going significantly off course, beginning with its name "Integral and transpersonal theorists" which I take it you intend to replace the "Integral Thought" template currently in use at the "Integral movement" page? I'm inexperienced enough with wikipedia that I don't know how to create my own template page, but the big picture is that a template is needed that (a) isn't strictly a list of theorists but encompasses various aspects of the movement, and (b) isn't about transpersonal psychology but about the integral movement. I'll try to come up with an alternative suggestion.Joeperez69 (talk) 16:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC) Joe Perez

I put a copy of my version of the template in your userspace so you can play with it. User:Joeperez69/Template — goethean ॐ 17:35, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Not everyone sees transpersonal theory and integral theory as two different animals. Wilber does, but Wilber is not the last word on the subject. In fact, most reliable sources which trace the movement describe Wilber's integral theory as coming directly out of transpersonal psychology. — goethean ॐ 17:06, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

What's the most useful way to handle this from wikipedia's POV? Are you proposing to eliminate integral and subsume it under transpersonal psychology then? Since the integral movement includes many other fields other than psychology, I don't think that's an option. And I don't think it's helpful to "Wilber does, but not everyone does" approach. What are the arguments by those who see the integral movement and transpersonal psychology as the same animal? Are their points valid or not? I can't see how the two could possibly be confused. One of Wilber's 20 books (and I haven't read them all) is on Psychology, and a few others are highly regarded by transpersonal psychologists, but he has written on epistemology, sociology of religion, spirituality, and even novels; the Integral Theory institutes in academia include psychology as only one of numerous branches. Joeperez69 (talk) 17:16, 30 December 2009 (UTC) Joe Perez

I'll have to review the sources and get back to you. — goethean ॐ 17:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)