On Being Integrally Correct... Or Not: The Double-Edged Sword Of Integral-Speak

It is odd to consider that within such a short span of time a whole new lexicon could emerge for us to use when discussing "What Is and Is Not Integral." AQAL, LR, LL, UL, UR are acronyms that may be utter nonsense to most people, but those in the know understand exactly what they are referring to. These are signs pointing in the direction of integrally-correct speech.

Integral Glossary

Pre/trans fallacies aside, it is absurd to me that a whole range of human experiences would be reduced to a catalogue of acronyms and colours and levels and lines. If this is not evidence for the utterly geeky nature of the whole realm of Integral dialogue surrounding Ken Wilber and springing forth from his work then I am not sure what would qualify as such. While there is mention of Ken's prose being occasionally poetic, the standard-bearer of the majourity of his work is a very keen and perceptive analyticism that is anything but poetic and elegant. It is, dare I say it, hyper-rational.

The most inclusive and comprehensive theory of human existence is still, alas, a theory. Is it one of the more all-encompassing "unpackings" of Existence that there is? In my experience it indeed is. But what does it do for us? Does it just lock us into new ways of perceiveing and conceiving of the world around us? Do we become new prisoners of a whole new language warden that qualifies and counts how we speak to make sure we are "integral" enough? Are our common vernaculars suddenly insufficient to convey the breadth and depth of our experience as beings shot through with nothing more or less than the Cosmos itself? Do we suddenly need to be relegated to speaking in "integrally correct" terms lest we be ostracized from the community of integral thinkers... or worse... not even taken seriously?

One distinction that I feel would prove helpful in better navigating such a situation as the one we are now in, where certain people speak in popular acronyms, as if it were the only "proper" way to communicate, is to draw a distinction between being inherently and implicitly Integral and being explicitly Integral.

The emphasis in the emerging world seems to be on being explicitly Integral: which includes employing the integrally-approved terminology of the day, as if that were a sign or indication that one has truly grasped what it means to be "integral." While a certain usage of the approved terms can show that one has a deep or deepening familiarity with the emerging lexicon of all things Integral, it does not mean that only those who explicitly employ integrally-correct terminology are integral. In fact, it can be just the opposite in some instances. For example, integrally-correct speech can become a limitation that bars and prevents the imagination and the spirit from employing forms and methods of speech that may not be overtly integral. It is as if the new opportunity, when clung to so tightly, becomes a form of bondage. Integrally-correct terms do not open us to language as much as the limit us to a specific grouping of terms, along with their appropriate usage. Integrally-correct speech, therefore, impoverishes our forms of communication. In order to appear "integral" we are forced to speak in certain ways. All the emphasis, it seems, has been on being overtly and explicitly integral rather than being inherently and implicitly integral.

The irony is that "being integral" in so explicit a manner does less to open speech as it does to close speech--which I am sure is just another unintended consequence of a movement full of such promise, still looking to find itself.

It is probably impossible to mention the word "integral" these days without invoking the image and presence of a certain bald philosopher. Arguably, no one has done more to spread the meme of all things integral than Ken Wilber has. While he is certainly not the first to employ the word he is without question the one philosopher in recent memory who has used it more than any other. In fact, it is the key term in his methodology; the one around which all others are forced to dance.

As one who has been profoundly influenced by the work of Ken Wilber--albeit with significant reservations regarding his tack over the past decade (see here for examples)--it would be just plain ludicrous to not mention him here. In fact, it is ludicrous for anyone enamoured with a philosophy of life that endeavours to take into account as much of life as possible, and do so in order to prevent such a philosophy from becoming one-sided or extreme, and not mention Ken Wilber. It is as if the words "integral" and "Ken Wilber" have been fused together in our discourse such that one necessarily implies the other.

The benefit of this is that we can borrow and pay homage to the work of Ken Wilber as it pertains to developing a philosophy that is NOT extreme or one-sided, imbalanced or off-kilter in some way. Ken has laid much of the ground-work necessary for a conversation on what is integral---i.e., essential, vital, necessary, significant, meaningful, included, implied, inherent--to our lives lived jointly with others, and lived singlely as our "self." To him we are indebted for this.

Unfortunately there are challenges and obstacles as well. Due to the fact that Ken Wilber and integral have become (con)fused in our contemporary discourse there is a very good possibility that integral... can... uhm.... be less integral than it could be otherwise. If all we have is the Ken Wilber sanctioned and approved version of integral then we are all missing out---Ken Wilber and his acolytes included. It is just such a challenge that has been addressed by myself over the past decade in numerous essays, as well as others who are intent on two things:

1) Ensuring that Ken Wilber is applauded and honoured for his amazing contributions.

2) Endeavouring to ensure that the notion of "integral" is not totally collapsed into the folds of the Ken Wilber camp.

It would be a travesty if either of those things did not happen. Ken Wilber deserves to be applauded and honoured and appreciated; just as the notion of what is and is not "integral" deserves to be spared from being defined by one person or one group identified with proving the sanctity of that person's or group's definition of that word. For instance, while Ken Wilber's version of 'integral" appears to focus heavily on schematics and graphs and charts--all deduced from the analytical properties of the mind--there can be other versions of integral that owe more of a debt to imagination and poetry--i.e., that are unfolded and communicated without an exclusively analytical emphasis.

While understanding that there is a degree of proprietary emphasis on Ken Wilber's work and the notion of integral itself, we should all be careful not to conflate the two to such a degree that we end up determining that Ken Wilber (nor his many administrative, organizational, educational, and informative branches and offshoots of the same) is the arbiter of all things integral. After all, it was Ken Wilber who borrowed significantly from the work of Sri Aurobindo, Jean Gebser, Clare Graves, and E.F. Schumacher, among many others, and was inspired by them and their examples. Similarly, there are those of us ready to take the next step, inspired by the example of Ken Wilber, while not exclusively seeking to reduce our work and acts to him and his life or testimony.