Much Aurobindian and post-Aurobindian work (inclusive of much of Wilber) is not critical

To be an internal critic of integral, you've gotta do more than just think skeptical thoughts. You've gotta have tried on the theory, worked with it, played with it, slept with it, made love to it, and then had a really nasty bitter falling out, great make-up sex, and then filed for divorce. Your pen's gotta be no more than an inch away from signing the divorce papers. You've really gotta KNOW that integral has its shortcomings, you've gotta feel these limitations at every level of your being and say "Nah, thought it was for me, but it isn't. Time to move on. Maybe it's time for a worldview that's MORE inclusive, MORE holistic, MORE expansive, MORE original, MORE demanding, MORE liberating, MORE useful, MORE fiercely loving!" That's what I call good internal criticism of integral.

Heck, at that point, whether it's "internal" criticism or "trans-integral" doesn't matter. It's just plain good criticism. If you're not doing THAT sort of criticism of integral, then please keep writing and adding value but do everyone the favor of making clear that you are INTERESTED in integral but NOT yourself integral. If in your highest Self that you know, you're not sure what you believe that's okay too, of course. Say it out loud. Write it on your blog or Integral Naked. Embody your believer; embody your skeptic. Listen to them, see what they have to tell you, what they want from you. Call yourself whatever you want, just so you're honest with yourself and the world. Wanna be integral but not sure you make the cut? Fake it 'til you make it. Act the role and LIVE the experience. posted by Joe Perez at 11/16/2006 2 Comments

DGA said...I'm working toward an integral theory that is also critical, which is to say, is capable of holding up to a rigorous ideological analysis. Much Aurobindian and post-Aurobindian work (inclusive of much of Wilber) is not critical, but this does not mean integral praxis is not capable of doing it.