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.