Re: Frank Visser's Integral World: ideological genealogies
Reply by Rich on Fri 08 Aug 2008 01:12 PM PDT Profile Permanent Link Hi Ned
While certainly there are many spiritual or occult nuances at play here, that is exactly what is problematic. How does one translate spiritual necessities into the world of social practice? What may not be a contradiction on one level becomes a glaring one on another.
My critique, deconstruction, genealogy, interpretation whatever it is, of continuing the forms of religion, while officially renouncing them, and/or apparently condescending to a particular ethnic or national group, does not diminish my respect for SA/M whatsoever.
Here is a passage I have quoted before: 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.”
While no doubt some truths are eternal, there are others whose forms morph over time. If one does not remain pliable enough to adapt to these new forms a reactionary sensibility can emerge. (As I think it has in some IY institutions)
Therefore, I not only think it is merely a right of one involved in the practice of a spiritual discipline but also a obligation to critique those elements of its practice which seems to have ill adapted to the new realities of the future. rc Science, Culture and Integral Yoga
btw. Michel Buawens is also hosting a discussion of the paper, on his p2p foundation site. There have already been some pot shots taken at the paper from those with apparent Wilberian sensibilities. Its can be a bit difficult to dialog with the Wilber/Beck folks as my experience has been that when one critiques their "integral theory" one is immediately stereotyped according to their color coded typology. You are labeled green for sure if you quote any post-modernist. Your then accused of being a relativist and since you are suppose to believe that all things are relative, well there is no need to take you seriously. Its also generally a response of theorist and folks whose arguments rest on the presupposition of possessing a more evolved, purer, transcendent epistemology that those contesting their theory are trying to posit their own purer, more highly evolved epistemological system. It can escape them that one can simply be taking a moral or ethical position. FYI: Here is the link to that discussion: http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/rich-carlsons-critique-of-integral-theory-2-neo-conservative-thoughtforms/2008/08/05#comment-287613